Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, made the comment below about the announcement made today by the Department of Justice regarding the indictment and reward for information regarding the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

The congressional investigation of Operation Fast and Furious, a gun-walking program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), began with Senator Grassley's inquiry into whistleblower allegations that the government had allowed the transfer of illegally purchased weapons found at the scene of the murder of Agent Terry.  The Department of Justice denied the allegations to Senator Grassley for 10 months before being forced to withdraw its denial in face of evidence to the contrary.  Senator Grassley's effort for transparency and accountability from the federal agency continues.

Grassley comment:

"Unsealing the indictment and offering a reward in this case is an important step in the right direction.  I hope the additional press attention will prompt someone with information to come forward and help the FBI find those who are guilty of Agent Terry's murder and bring them to justice.  In May, following a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, I asked FBI Director Mueller in a written question why the names of these people were not on a most-wanted list, so it's good to finally see action today."

Department of Justice announcement:

______________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                        AG

MONDAY, JULY 9, 2012                           CONTACT: DEBRA HARTMAN

WWW.JUSTICE.GOV (619) 557-5610

FIVE INDIVIDUALS CHARGED IN CONNECTION WITH DEATH OF A

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION BORDER PATROL AGENT,

$1 MILLION FBI REWARD ANNOUNCED

Individuals Charged Are Allegedly Responsible for Death of Agent Brian Terry

TUCSON, Ariz. - An indictment charging five individuals involved in the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was unsealed today in Tucson, and a reward of up to $1 million from the FBI for information leading to the arrest of four fugitives, was announced by Department of Justice officials.

According to the indictment, Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, Jesus Rosario Favela-Astorga, Ivan Soto-Barraza, Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes and Lionel Portillo-Meza are charged with crimes including first degree murder, second degree murder, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, attempted interference with commerce by robbery, use and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, assault on a federal officer and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.  A sixth defendant, Rito Osorio-Arellanes, is charged only with conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery.

The 11-count third superseding indictment, which was handed up by a federal grand jury in the District of Arizona on Nov. 7, 2011, alleges that on Dec. 14, 2010, five of the defendants (Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, Jesus Rosario Favela-Astorga, Ivan Soto-Barraza, Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes and Lionel Portillo-Meza)  engaged in a firefight with Border Patrol agents.  During the exchange of gunfire, Agent Terry was shot and killed.  The indictment alleges that the defendants had illegally entered the United States from Mexico for the purpose of robbing drug traffickers of their contraband.  In addition to the murder of Agent Terry, the indictment also alleges that the five defendants assaulted Border Patrol Agents William Castano, Gabriel Fragoza and Timothy Keller, who were with Agent Terry during the firefight.

"Agent Terry served his country honorably and made the ultimate sacrifice in trying to protect it from harm, and we will stop at nothing to bring those responsible for his murder to justice," said Attorney General Eric Holder.  "This investigation has previously resulted in one defendant being charged with Agent Terry's murder and taken into custody, and today's announcement reflects the department's unrelenting commitment to finding and arresting the other individuals responsible for this horrific tragedy so that Agent Terry's family, friends and fellow law enforcement agents receive the justice they deserve."

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California Laura E. Duffy said, "Agent Terry died in the line of duty while protecting his country.  But he was more than a federal agent - he was a son, a brother, a co-worker and a friend to many.  The indictment unsealed today reflects the progress our dedicated law enforcement team has made piecing together this complex murder case.  But there is more work to be done and we will not rest until we bring justice to the family of Brian Terry."

"U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry made the ultimate sacrifice in December of 2010, while protecting our border," stated James L. Turgal Jr., FBI Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Division.  "Today's announcement is an important step forward in the pursuit of justice for Border Patrol Agent Terry and his family.  It is our hope that the publicity surrounding this case will lead to information concerning the whereabouts of the remaining four fugitives.  The FBI and our law enforcement partners will continue to pursue those individuals responsible for the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry."

Manuel Osorio-Arellanes has been in custody since his arrest the night of the shooting.  Rito Osorio-Arellanes has been in custody since Dec. 12, 2010, when he was arrested by Border Patrol agents on immigration charges.  The indictment is being unsealed today in order to seek the public's assistance in locating the fugitive defendants.

This case is being prosecuted in federal court in Tucson by attorneys from the Southern District of California, Special Attorneys Todd W. Robinson, David D. Leshner, and Fred A. Sheppard.  The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona is recused.  This case is being investigated by the FBI.

An indictment is a formal charging document and defendants are presumed innocent until the government meets its burden in court of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anyone with information concerning the whereabouts of the fugitives should contact the FBI's Phoenix field office at (623) 466-1999. You may also contact your local FBI office or the nearest American Embassy or Consulate.

Senator Chuck Grassley made the comment below about the approach to commodity program payment limits in the draft farm bill of the House Agriculture Committee.  The committee is expected to mark up a proposal next week.

The Senate-passed farm bill included provisions authored by Grassley's to limit payments, including a $50,000 cap on the Agricultural Risk Coverage program, the closing of loopholes exploited by non-farmers, and a $75,000 cap on marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments.

Senator Grassley's comment:

"I'm encouraged the House Agriculture Committee appears to be moving closer to a mark-up of its version of the farm bill.  But it's disappointing to see the approach the committee's draft bill takes on payment limitations.  We've heard it from the grassroots - commodity programs need sensible caps to prevent the subsidization of big farms getting even bigger.  There's nothing wrong with having a big farming operation, but those operations shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers just so they can get even bigger.  In addition, we need to make sure farm payments go to actual farmers.  Not only did the Senate Agriculture Committee listen to those voices from the grassroots, but so did the full Senate when it passed a bill that included defensible and effective reforms on the farm program payment limitations.

"The House Agriculture Committee's draft doesn't even stick with the status quo for payment limits.  It would actually increase the payment limits from the current law.  Currently, direct payments have a limit of $40,000 per farmer, and the counter-cyclical program has a limit of $65,000.  The House draft bill would have a farmer choose between a counter-cyclical program and a revenue program and would increase the farmer's cap to $125,000 no matter what program is chosen.  Furthermore, this draft bill would not place any cap on the amount of benefits any one farmer could receive from the marketing loan program, leaving it completely uncapped.  This is simply an indefensible approach for farm programs and will lead to a continuation of the largest 10 percent of farms receiving 70 percent of the farm program payments.

"The other glaring omission in the House's draft bill is it doesn't address any of the loopholes currently being used by non-farmers to exploit the farm program.  With tight budgets and a growing federal deficit, taxpayers aren't going to stand by and accept non-farmers profiting from a program designed to be a safety-net for farmers.

"The House Agriculture Committee should take a serious look at the common sense and meaningful payment limit reforms the Senate adopted in its farm bill and adopt the same approach."

Friday, June 29, 2012

Grassley, Issa work to protect whistleblowers from retaliation at the ATF

Lawmakers ask Inspector General to take immediate action in response to job placement

WASHINGTON -Senator Chuck Grassley and Chairman Darrell Issa today asked the Inspector General for the Department of Justice to immediately investigate whether steps have been taken to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers in the Fast and Furious case by senior management of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in light of inflammatory comments by ATF personnel reported to the lawmakers' offices.

In a letter sent this afternoon to Michael E. Horowitz, Grassley and Issa detailed hostile and extremely negative comments that were made last year about two of the main whistleblowers who testified before Congress, according to a direct eyewitness account.  Grassley and Issa said they have just learned that the two whistleblowers have been placed under the supervision of the ATF official who reportedly made the comments, Scot Thomasson.

Grassley and Issa said the fact that these alleged comments have been in public documents since May, and since the Inspector General should be "a firm, independent voice within the Department to protect whistleblowers from retaliation," they're asking the Inspector General to investigate how the ATF official has been admonished, how the ATF official was elevated and given such supervisory duties, and what steps are being taken to protect the whistleblowers from the campaign of retaliation the ATF official expressed a desire to conduct in his comments.

Click here to read the letter of request from Grassley and Issa.

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Response to Supreme Court Decision on Medicaid

Friday, June 29, 2012

Mr. President, the Supreme Court yesterday overturned the mandatory Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act.

As of yesterday, the states now have a choice to expand or not expand coverage to the poorest people in society without being subjected to harsh federal penalties.

Mr. President, I'd like to draw attention to a speech I gave on the Senate floor on December 2011 on the subject of the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion.  I expressed my concerns then about the potential impact of a Supreme Court decision on Medicaid expansion.

I said on the floor that day, "... A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the States in this case could not only jeopardize the mandated Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act but could challenge the fundamental structure of Medicaid and have broader implications outside health care."

The concerns I expressed then have, to a degree, come true.

Reading from a Washington Post editorial this morning about the Court ruling on Medicaid, " ... this restriction of federal authority may have greater ramifications than the court's limiting of the Commerce Clause. One can imagine challenges to federal conditions across a wide spectrum of programs, including but not limited to the environment, education and transportation."

This decision overturns the mandatory expansion of the Medicaid program.  And while I realize most of the focus is on the decision related to the tax mandate, we should spend a moment talking about the consequence of the Medicaid decision.

Mr. President, one of the goals of health care reform was to provide coverage for people in need.

I would argue the people most in need of coverage are people without a job, people without an income, the poorest of the poor.

The Affordable Care Act required states to cover people below poverty through Medicaid.

States were mandated to expand to cover people below poverty.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory expansion unconstitutional.  Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts said, " ... Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that States accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."

With this decision, states now have the option to expand Medicaid to cover people below poverty.

Mr. President, the states had that option before the Affordable Care Act was passed.  So what does this decision mean in real terms?

It will be up to the states to determine if they will cover the poorest of the poor.  The federal government cannot guarantee coverage.

So now people with jobs will have to purchase insurance under the tax mandate.  People without an income, people who are below poverty are dependent upon the state in which they reside.

Now I know some people will believe that the choice is perfunctory, that Medicaid expansion will move forward because the federal government has offered to pay for more than 90 percent of the expansion.

But if you were a state, would you really trust a promise from a federal government that is $15 trillion in debt?

If you were a state, would you really trust an Obama Administration that proposed eliminating that special federal payment rate through a proposal known as the blended rate?

States will very reasonably be risk adverse.

States can now expand if they choose or not at all.

No one should assume for a second all states will expand to cover as much as was mandated under the Affordable Care Act.

Of course, you might think people below poverty could still get health care through tax credits, but the people who wrote this bill made people below poverty ineligible for tax credits.

That's right ... ineligible.

It's all or nothing for the poor with Medicaid.

With today's ruling, the answer is nothing.

On December 15, 2011, I said on the Senate floor that the expansion of Medicaid and the coverage of poor people was in jeopardy because, "... the White House and the Democratic majority put their partisan goals ahead of collaboration with Republicans and States to build legitimate public policy."

Today, that is the outcome.

When people with income, people with jobs are mandated to purchase health insurance and face a tax penalty if they don't, while the poorest people in society, those without job or income have a guarantee of nothing, I think victory laps are premature.

After this decision, a person in a family with an income of more than $80,000 a year would be guaranteed access to a subsidy to buy private insurance, while a person in a family with no income would be guaranteed nothing.

When people below poverty, the people who least can afford coverage or the consequence of not having coverage are left with nothing, that sounds like a failure to me.