WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is the lead Republican sponsor of legislation introduced today that would give states the tools they need to collect child support from parents who do not pay their support orders.   

"Ineffective enforcement of child support orders is a serious problem that threatens children's well-being," Grassley said.  "Oftentimes a child support payment can help keep a struggling family out of poverty and off of welfare.  The purpose of this legislation is to improve child support collections while also focusing on the fact that noncustodial parents should have regular opportunities to see their children."  

Sen. Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, and Grassley introduced the Strengthen and Vitalize Enforcement of Child Support (SAVE Child Support) Act.   

"It is essential that children's basic needs are met, and our bill helps ensure that all parents fulfill their responsibility in providing for them," Menendez said.  "The bill streamlines child support enforcement by supplying states with new tools for interstate child support orders.  With these improvements in place, dead-beat parents will not be able to hide from their obligations to their children."  

Under the senators' legislation, each state would use a child support lien registry so that liens placed against property because of overdue child support can be easily found.  Additionally, the bill would make it easier for states to intercept payments made to individuals in order to satisfy child support orders by requiring automated data matches with state child support agencies.  The bill strengthens the procedures by which certain licenses, permits, and passports can be revoked by requiring greater coordination between child support agencies and license-issuing agencies, as well as requiring a passport to be restored only after complete repayment of arrears.  The bill also encourages state child support agencies to coordinate with state correction agencies to assist individuals with a support order to manage and fulfill their support obligations.   

According to the Health and Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement FY 2010 Preliminary Report, over 11.3 million cases had child support arrears due in FY 2010. The total amount of child support due for FY 2010 was over $32 billion and 62 percent of that amount was collected and distributed. The total amount of child support due for all previous fiscal years was over $110 billion and only $7 billion of these arrearages were collected and distributed in FY 2010, a decrease of 0.5 percent in comparison with FY 2009.  

The SAVE Child Support Act would give states the tools they need to effectively collect child support.  

The bill would:  

  • make enforcement of child support liens more effective by requiring states to access a centralized database to check for liens placed against real property;   
  • clarify state jurisdictional rules to facilitate the collection of outstanding child support orders, expedites procedures for redirecting child support payments if the child has relocated, and streamlines and improves the ability of the courts to enforce child support orders. 
  •  increase the efficacy of withholding mechanisms by strengthening existing passport denial procedures and expediting the process by which states can suspend driver and professional licenses for non-payment;  
  • encourage increased coordination between child support agencies and corrections facilities to manage child support orders;
  • protect the right of non-custodial parents to visit with their children by requiring states to report on plans to facilitate access to and visitation of children by their parents; and  
  • protect vulnerable families from the deceptive and harassing practices of private child support collection agencies by extending federal debt protection laws to cover these companies.   

###

Chairman Issa and Senator Grassley Press Attorney General Holder with Key Testimony

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley today pressed Attorney General Eric Holder about the Justice Department's unsatisfactory responses and lack of cooperation with an investigation into the highly controversial Operation Fast and Furious.  A letter sent by the two lead investigators highlighted testimony indicating internal disputes within the Justice Department and a statement from the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) that the Justice Department is attempting to protect its political appointees.

"It was very frustrating to all of us, and it appears thoroughly to us that the Department is really trying to figure out a way to push the information away from their political appointees at the Department," ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson said of his frustration with the Justice Department's response to the investigation in a transcribed interview.

"The Department should not be withholding what Mr. Melson described as the 'smoking gun' report of investigation or Mr. Melson's emails regarding the wiretap applications," wrote Issa and Grassley. "Mr. Melson said he reviewed the affidavits in support of the wiretap applications for the first time after the controversy became public and immediately contacted the Deputy Attorney General's office to raise concerns about information in them that was inconsistent with the Department's public denials. The Department should also address the serious questions raised by Mr. Melson's testimony regarding potential informants for other agencies."

Click here for Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley's letter to Attorney General Holder.


###

Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley of Iowa

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing on "The Violence Against Women Act: Building on Seventeen Years of Accomplishments"

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).  This is an important law that has helped countless numbers of victims across the country break the cycle of domestic violence and move on to productive lives.  The law created vital programs that support efforts to help victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.  Further, the law provides resources across the country to victim advocates, attorneys, counselors, law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, health care providers, emergency shelters, and many other services to help victims. 

As an original cosponsor of the Senate version of the reauthorization, I remain deeply committed to ensuring federal resources are provided to programs to prevent and end sexual assault and domestic violence.  There is, however, an unfortunate reality that we must face.  We live in dramatically different times today than we did in 2000 or 2005 when VAWA was previously reauthorized.   

Today, more than 14 million Americans are unemployed.  That's a 9.2 percent unemployment rate.  The unemployment numbers get worse each month and the national deficit keeps growing and growing.  The federal government must drastically reduce its spending and bring the fiscal house in order.  During these difficult economic times, we simply can't continue to allocate resources without verifying that the resources are being used as effectively and efficiently as possible.  Now, that doesn't mean we do away with VAWA as a program.  Instead, it means that as we in this committee look to reauthorize this program, we need to take a hard look at every single taxpayer dollar expended, determine how those dollars are being used, and determine if the stated purpose of the program is being met.  The American taxpayers expect us to do this with every law and this hearing affords us that opportunity.

I have long advocated for reviewing grant management at the Department of Justice and determining if programs are meeting their expectations and complying with the law.  Back in 2001, Senator Sessions and I requested the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review all VAWA grant files at the Justice Department.  That review found that VAWA files often lacked the documentation necessary to ensure that the required monitoring activities occurred.  GAO found that a "substantial number of [VAWA] grant files did not contain progress and financial reports sufficient to cover the entire grant period."  Ultimately, GAO concluded in the 2001 review that "because documentation about monitoring activities was not readily available, [DOJ] was not positioned to systematically determine staff compliance with monitoring requirements and assess overall performance."  These are significant problems and unfortunately, it appears that they continue to persist a decade later.

A review of individual VAWA grantee audits that were conducted from 1998-2010 by the Department of Justice Inspector General indicates that the problem with VAWA grantees' administration and record keeping may actually be getting worse.  During this timeframe, the Inspector General conducted a review of 22 individual grantees that received funding from VAWA programs.  Of those 22 grantees, 21 were found to have some form of violation of grant requirements ranging from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures, to sloppy record keeping and failure to report in a timely manner.  Some of these audits are downright appalling.  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.  Another audit, this one from 2009, found that nearly $500,000 of a $680,000 grant was questioned because of inadequate support for expenditures.  Another audit in 2005 questioned $1.2 million out of a $1.9 million grant.  The list goes on and on for pages.  Simply put, in today's economic environment, we cannot tolerate this level of malfeasance in federal grant programs.  There are too many victims out there that do not have access to necessary services for the Justice Department to continue to provide funding to entities that play fast and loose with taxpayer dollars.

So, how do we fix this problem?  To start, we need a legitimate, rigorous evaluation of the VAWA program to ensure that these sorts of grantees are prohibited from getting funds.  That can be done by building effective anti-fraud measures into the legislation, such as debarring poor and underperforming grantees.  It also means requiring annual audits and evaluations of program grantees.  Unfortunately, as our witness from GAO will point out today, it is difficult to evaluate VAWA grantee performance because the data that is provided to Justice Department by grantees is often difficult to evaluate given varying definitions among different programs. GAO also notes that "information gaps" exist because the various authorizing statutes for different grants for victim's services have different purposes.  Finally, GAO notes that the various grants administered by both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice use varying data collection practices making uniformity of data difficult.  Taken together, GAO notes that while the agencies are making progress to address the gaps in data, these important issues need to be addressed by Congress as we consider reauthorizing VAWA.  Given the difficult financial situation that our nation faces, it is imperative that any reauthorization of VAWA include, at a minimum, new studies to determine how effective VAWA programs are, whether grantees are providing adequate services for the amount of funding they receive, and how we root out and cut down on fraud and abuse by VAWA grantees.  This grant program accountability will help to ensure that services really go to those in need.

Another issue that must be addressed during the reauthorization process is immigration marriage fraud.  Specifically, I'm concerned about the reports that some of the procedures employed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services actually help to facilitate immigration marriage fraud, and some of it is further enhanced by provisions under VAWA. 

I'm glad we have a witness here today to tell her story about how provisions of VAWA were manipulated by her ex-husband to facilitate his access to a green card. As a past cosponsor of VAWA reauthorizations, I'm saddened to hear this example of how a law designed to help victims, may be used to continue to abuse victims of domestic violence.  

These are important issues that should be addressed as part of any reauthorization.  We are well past the time where we can continue to reauthorize programs without giving them the scrutiny needed to ensure that the population we are trying to help, here victims of domestic violence, are getting the services they need.  We also have a duty to ensure that those programs are actually working, are not subject to fraud, waste, or abuse, and that victims are not harmed by the programs themselves.  

We must do everything in our power to help victims of abuse and domestic violence.  At the same time, we face a new challenge of making sure we get it right and simply don't write another check on the taxpayer's dime without ensuring the program is meeting its goals. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony from the witnesses and working with members of the Judiciary Committee on finding the right approach.

Thank you. 

-30-

Q.  What is the debt ceiling and when will the federal government reach it? 

A.  The debt ceiling is the amount of debt the federal government can legally borrow from the public and government trust funds.  The ceiling is set by law and is currently $14.294 trillion.  On May 16, 2011, the Treasury Secretary said that the government will reach the current debt ceiling by August 2, 2011.

Q.  Will Social Security recipients receive their checks if the debt ceiling is not increased by August 2?

A.  After August 2, Social Security benefits are next scheduled to be paid on August 3.  The U.S. Treasury has the authority and assets to pay Social Security benefits if the debt ceiling is not increased before August 2.  The government continued to pay Social Security benefits when the debt limit was reached in 1985 and again in 1996.

Q. How will benefits be paid if the government can't borrow more money?

A.  The U.S. Treasury has two ways to make Social Security payments if the debt ceiling is not raised by August 2.  The first is with general tax revenues.  Regardless of U.S. borrowing authority, tax revenues continue to flow into the U.S. Treasury.  In August, the Treasury is likely to receive revenues around $172 billion and have bills due around $306 billion.  The President has the discretion to determine how the money is spent.  Whether or not Social Security would be one of his top priorities, there are special safeguards for Social Security payments.  The federal government is required to invest the payroll taxes going into the Social Security Trust Fund in special obligation bonds. These special obligation bonds are debts held by the government instead of the public.  By law, these bonds can be exchanged for public debt in order to secure infusions of cash, if needed, to continue paying Social Security benefits.  As a result, Social Security Trust Fund assets of $2.6 trillion ensure that Social Security benefits can be paid until the debt limit is increased or the federal debt is otherwise reduced. 

July 15, 2011

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Darrell Issa are pushing for additional information and documents from the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in relation to the two agencies roles in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reckless strategy known as Operation Fast and Furious.   The strategy employed by the ATF allowed firearms to be purchased by known straw buyers and then transferred to third parties where the guns often crossed the border to Mexican drug cartels.  

   

The letters are a follow-up to a recorded, transcribed interview with Acting ATF Director Ken Melson.  The Acting Director was interviewed by congressional investigators on July 4 where he corroborated several details that included other agencies involved in Operation Fast and Furious.  

  

In the letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Grassley and Issa asked about the "veracity of claims" regarding the possible involvement of paid FBI informants in Operation Fast and Furious and "specifically at least one individual who is allegedly an FBI informant" and "might have been in communication with, and was perhaps even conspiring with, at least one suspect whom ATF was monitoring."  

  

The letter to DEA Administrator Michelle Leonhart requested a briefing by DEA staff as well as "the number of informants or cooperating informants handled by other agencies identified in the course of any investigations related to Operation Fast and Furious."  

  

In addition, both letters (to Mueller and Leonhart) asked for communications of several members of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force who were working in coordination with the ATF to conduct Operation Fast and Furious.  

  

Below is a copy of the text of the letters.  Click here for a copy of the signed letter to the DEA administrator and the signed letter to the FBI director.  

   

July 15, 2011  

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION  

The Honorable Michele M. Leonhart  

Administrator  

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration  

700 Army Navy Drive  

Arlington, VA 22202  

   

Dear Administrator Leonhart:  

   

On March 15, 2011, Senator Grassley sent you a letter requesting a briefing to gain a better understanding of the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) involvement in Operation Fast and Furious.  Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Operation Fast and Furious, was an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) case.  That letter is attached for your ready reference.  Nearly four months later, your agency has yet to respond directly.   

   

On April 12, 2011, the Department of Justice (DOJ) responded on behalf of DEA.  In its letter, DOJ stated:  

   

Generally speaking, . . . when another Department component leads an OCDETF investigation, DEA works cooperatively to support drug-related aspects of the investigation. Such cooperation means that DEA may share investigative expertise, report leads, and provide manpower to assist in an investigative or  

enforcement operation as requested by the lead investigative agency.[1]  

   

This information sharing, or lack thereof, is precisely the reason Senator Grassley made the initial request.  Consequently, we request that you make arrangements by no later than July 19, 2011 for DEA supervisors and personnel with specific knowledge of details related to Operation Fast and Furious and the parallel DEA case to brief members of both of our staffs.  

   

In addition to the aforementioned briefing, please provide the following documents:  

 1)       The number of informants or cooperating defendants handled by other agencies identified in the course of any investigations related to Operation Fast and Furious defendants.  For each informant or cooperating defendant, please identify the other agency, the date that DEA learned of their informant or cooperating defendant's status, and a description of how the DEA learned of their informant or cooperating defendant's status.  

   

 2)      All information related to indicted Fast and Furious suspect Manuel Fabian Celis-Acosta.  

   

3)     A list of all personnel designated as DEA liaisons with other federal law enforcement agencies in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. 

Please also include any communications of the following individuals at DEA relating to Operation Fast and Furious or Manuel Fabian Celis-Acosta:

1)      Elizabeth Kempshall, Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix

2)      Doug Coleman, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix

3)      Chris Feistle, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix

4)      Albert Laurita, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Tucson

5)      David Hathaway, Resident Agent in Charge, Nogales

6)      Joe Muenchow, Resident Agent in Charge, Yuma

These records should include emails, memoranda, briefing papers, and handwritten notes.  You should also produce communications these individuals had with any ATF employee from between October 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011.

Please provide the documents and information requested no later than July 26, 2011.  If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Ranking Member Grassley's office at (202) 224-5225 or Chairman Issa's Committee staff at (202) 225-5074.  Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

____________________________   ______________________________

Darrell Issa, Chairman                                           Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and                            Committee on the Judiciary

Government Reform                         U.S. Senate

U.S. House of Representatives

Enclosure

cc:        The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman

U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary

July 11, 2011

The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III

Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20004

Dear Director Mueller:

For the past six months, we have been conducting an investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).  This program allowed approximately 2,000 heavy-duty assault type firearms to be illegally trafficked, and hundreds of these weapons have already been recovered at crime scenes in Mexico.  Operation Fast and Furious was an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) prosecutor-led strike force case where ATF worked in coordination with other agencies.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was one of these agencies.  To help us better understand the role of the FBI in this multi-agency OCDETF case, we request that you produce communications relating to Operation Fast and Furious by FBI personnel based in Phoenix, Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, and El Paso, Texas, including the below-listed officials:

1)      Nathan Gray, Former Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

2)      Annette Bartlett, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

3)      Stephen Cocco, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

4)      Steven Hooper, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

5)      John Iannarelli, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

6)      John Strong, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

7)      David Cuthbertson, Special Agent in Charge, El Paso Field Division

8)      The Case Agent from the Tucson office in charge of the Brian Terry murder investigation

Such communications should include e-mails, documents, memoranda, briefing papers, and handwritten notes.  You should also produce communications these individuals had with any ATF employee between October 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011. 

Paid FBI Informants

In recent weeks, we have learned of the possible involvement of paid FBI informants in Operation Fast and Furious.  Specifically, at least one individual who is allegedly an FBI informant might have been in communication with, and was perhaps even conspiring with, at least one suspect whom ATF was monitoring.  We are interested in determining the veracity of these claims.  To that end, please provide a response to the following questions:

1)      How many paid FBI informants, prospective informants assigned an informant number, or cooperating defendants ("informants") were in communication with any of the ATF suspects or their associates under Operation Fast and Furious?  What was the nature of, and how frequent were, these contacts? 

2)      Were any of these informants previously deported by the Drug Enforcement Administration or any other law enforcement agency?  If so, when did these deportations take place?

3)      What is the process for repatriation for FBI informants?  What other agencies are notified?  Did that process occur here?

4)      Were FBI personnel in Arizona aware of the involvement of these informants during Operation Fast and Furious?

5)      Did other law enforcement agencies learn of the involvement of FBI informants related to Operation Fast and Furious?  If so, please explain in detail when and how?

Additionally, please provide the following:

6)      Any FBI 302s relating to targets, suspects, defendants or their associates in the Fast and Furious investigation, including the 302s provided to ATF Special Agent Hope MacAllister during the calendar year 2011.

7)      Any other investigative reports prepared by the Bureau relating targets, suspects or defendants in the Fast and Furious case.

Jaime Zapata

Additionally, we understand that the FBI is the lead investigative agency into the death of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Jaime Zapata, who was murdered in Mexico on February 15, 2011.  The family of Jaime Zapata is still seeking answers about the circumstances involving his death.  On June 14, 2011, attorneys for the Zapata family wrote a letter to José Angel Moreno, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, Cory Nelson, the FBI Special Agent in Charge for San Antonio, and several ICE officials in Texas requesting information about the specific circumstances of Jaime Zapata's death.[2] Given the FBI's lead role in this investigation, we respectfully ask the following questions related to the Zapata murder:

1)      Was Jaime Zapata armed?  If not, why not?

2)      Was Jaime Zapata traveling in a bulletproof vehicle?  If so, how was he killed inside of the vehicle?

3)      Please describe, in detail, the actual circumstances leading up to, and including, the shooting of Jaime Zapata.

4)      What investigative steps have been taken by the Bureau since the shooting?

Additionally, please provide the following:

5)      Any FBI 302s relating to this investigation.

6)      Any other investigative reports prepared by the Bureau regarding the Zapata murder.

7)      Any photographs of the crime scene taken by FBI personnel.

Please provide the requested documents and information as soon as possible, but no later than noon on July 25, 2011.  If possible, the preference is to receive all documents in electronic format.

If you have any questions regarding these requests, please contact Ranking Member Grassley's office at (202) 224-5225 or in Chairman Issa's office at (202) 225-5074.  We look forward to receiving your response.

Sincerely,

____________________________   ______________________________

Darrell Issa, Chairman                       Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and                            Committee on the Judiciary

Government Reform                         U.S. Senate

U.S. House of Representatives

cc:        The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman

U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary



[1] Letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to Senator Charles E. Grassley (Apr. 12, 2011).

[2] Letter from Benigno Martinez & Raymond Thomas to José Angel Moreno et al. (Jun. 14, 2011).

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Darrell Issa are pushing for additional information and documents from the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in relation to the two agencies roles in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reckless strategy known as Operation Fast and Furious.   The strategy employed by the ATF allowed firearms to be purchased by known straw buyers and then transferred to third parties where the guns often crossed the border to Mexican drug cartels.  

   

The letters are a follow-up to a recorded, transcribed interview with Acting ATF Director Ken Melson.  The Acting Director was interviewed by congressional investigators on July 4 where he corroborated several details that included other agencies involved in Operation Fast and Furious.  

  

In the letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Grassley and Issa asked about the "veracity of claims" regarding the possible involvement of paid FBI informants in Operation Fast and Furious and "specifically at least one individual who is allegedly an FBI informant" and "might have been in communication with, and was perhaps even conspiring with, at least one suspect whom ATF was monitoring."  

  

The letter to DEA Administrator Michelle Leonhart requested a briefing by DEA staff as well as "the number of informants or cooperating informants handled by other agencies identified in the course of any investigations related to Operation Fast and Furious."  

  

In addition, both letters (to Mueller and Leonhart) asked for communications of several members of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force who were working in coordination with the ATF to conduct Operation Fast and Furious.  

  

Below is a copy of the text of the letters.  Click here for a copy of the signed letter to the DEA administrator and the signed letter to the FBI director.  

   

July 15, 2011  

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION  

The Honorable Michele M. Leonhart  

Administrator  

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration  

700 Army Navy Drive  

Arlington, VA 22202  

   

Dear Administrator Leonhart:  

   

On March 15, 2011, Senator Grassley sent you a letter requesting a briefing to gain a better understanding of the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) involvement in Operation Fast and Furious.  Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Operation Fast and Furious, was an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) case.  That letter is attached for your ready reference.  Nearly four months later, your agency has yet to respond directly.   

   

On April 12, 2011, the Department of Justice (DOJ) responded on behalf of DEA.  In its letter, DOJ stated:  

   

Generally speaking, . . . when another Department component leads an OCDETF investigation, DEA works cooperatively to support drug-related aspects of the investigation. Such cooperation means that DEA may share investigative expertise, report leads, and provide manpower to assist in an investigative or  

enforcement operation as requested by the lead investigative agency.[1]  

   

This information sharing, or lack thereof, is precisely the reason Senator Grassley made the initial request.  Consequently, we request that you make arrangements by no later than July 19, 2011 for DEA supervisors and personnel with specific knowledge of details related to Operation Fast and Furious and the parallel DEA case to brief members of both of our staffs.  

   

In addition to the aforementioned briefing, please provide the following documents:  

 1)       The number of informants or cooperating defendants handled by other agencies identified in the course of any investigations related to Operation Fast and Furious defendants.  For each informant or cooperating defendant, please identify the other agency, the date that DEA learned of their informant or cooperating defendant's status, and a description of how the DEA learned of their informant or cooperating defendant's status.  

   

 2)      All information related to indicted Fast and Furious suspect Manuel Fabian Celis-Acosta.  

   

3)     A list of all personnel designated as DEA liaisons with other federal law enforcement agencies in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. 

Please also include any communications of the following individuals at DEA relating to Operation Fast and Furious or Manuel Fabian Celis-Acosta:

1)      Elizabeth Kempshall, Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix

2)      Doug Coleman, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix

3)      Chris Feistle, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix

4)      Albert Laurita, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Tucson

5)      David Hathaway, Resident Agent in Charge, Nogales

6)      Joe Muenchow, Resident Agent in Charge, Yuma

These records should include emails, memoranda, briefing papers, and handwritten notes.  You should also produce communications these individuals had with any ATF employee from between October 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011.

Please provide the documents and information requested no later than July 26, 2011.  If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Ranking Member Grassley's office at (202) 224-5225 or Chairman Issa's Committee staff at (202) 225-5074.  Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

____________________________   ______________________________

Darrell Issa, Chairman                                           Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and                            Committee on the Judiciary

Government Reform                         U.S. Senate

U.S. House of Representatives

Enclosure

cc:        The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman

U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary

July 11, 2011

The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III

Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20004

Dear Director Mueller:

For the past six months, we have been conducting an investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).  This program allowed approximately 2,000 heavy-duty assault type firearms to be illegally trafficked, and hundreds of these weapons have already been recovered at crime scenes in Mexico.  Operation Fast and Furious was an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) prosecutor-led strike force case where ATF worked in coordination with other agencies.  The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was one of these agencies.  To help us better understand the role of the FBI in this multi-agency OCDETF case, we request that you produce communications relating to Operation Fast and Furious by FBI personnel based in Phoenix, Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, and El Paso, Texas, including the below-listed officials:

1)      Nathan Gray, Former Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

2)      Annette Bartlett, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

3)      Stephen Cocco, Acting Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

4)      Steven Hooper, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

5)      John Iannarelli, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

6)      John Strong, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division

7)      David Cuthbertson, Special Agent in Charge, El Paso Field Division

8)      The Case Agent from the Tucson office in charge of the Brian Terry murder investigation

Such communications should include e-mails, documents, memoranda, briefing papers, and handwritten notes.  You should also produce communications these individuals had with any ATF employee between October 1, 2009, and June 30, 2011. 

Paid FBI Informants

In recent weeks, we have learned of the possible involvement of paid FBI informants in Operation Fast and Furious.  Specifically, at least one individual who is allegedly an FBI informant might have been in communication with, and was perhaps even conspiring with, at least one suspect whom ATF was monitoring.  We are interested in determining the veracity of these claims.  To that end, please provide a response to the following questions:

1)      How many paid FBI informants, prospective informants assigned an informant number, or cooperating defendants ("informants") were in communication with any of the ATF suspects or their associates under Operation Fast and Furious?  What was the nature of, and how frequent were, these contacts? 

2)      Were any of these informants previously deported by the Drug Enforcement Administration or any other law enforcement agency?  If so, when did these deportations take place?

3)      What is the process for repatriation for FBI informants?  What other agencies are notified?  Did that process occur here?

4)      Were FBI personnel in Arizona aware of the involvement of these informants during Operation Fast and Furious?

5)      Did other law enforcement agencies learn of the involvement of FBI informants related to Operation Fast and Furious?  If so, please explain in detail when and how?

Additionally, please provide the following:

6)      Any FBI 302s relating to targets, suspects, defendants or their associates in the Fast and Furious investigation, including the 302s provided to ATF Special Agent Hope MacAllister during the calendar year 2011.

7)      Any other investigative reports prepared by the Bureau relating targets, suspects or defendants in the Fast and Furious case.

Jaime Zapata

Additionally, we understand that the FBI is the lead investigative agency into the death of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Jaime Zapata, who was murdered in Mexico on February 15, 2011.  The family of Jaime Zapata is still seeking answers about the circumstances involving his death.  On June 14, 2011, attorneys for the Zapata family wrote a letter to José Angel Moreno, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, Cory Nelson, the FBI Special Agent in Charge for San Antonio, and several ICE officials in Texas requesting information about the specific circumstances of Jaime Zapata's death.[2] Given the FBI's lead role in this investigation, we respectfully ask the following questions related to the Zapata murder:

1)      Was Jaime Zapata armed?  If not, why not?

2)      Was Jaime Zapata traveling in a bulletproof vehicle?  If so, how was he killed inside of the vehicle?

3)      Please describe, in detail, the actual circumstances leading up to, and including, the shooting of Jaime Zapata.

4)      What investigative steps have been taken by the Bureau since the shooting?

Additionally, please provide the following:

5)      Any FBI 302s relating to this investigation.

6)      Any other investigative reports prepared by the Bureau regarding the Zapata murder.

7)      Any photographs of the crime scene taken by FBI personnel.

Please provide the requested documents and information as soon as possible, but no later than noon on July 25, 2011.  If possible, the preference is to receive all documents in electronic format.

If you have any questions regarding these requests, please contact Ranking Member Grassley's office at (202) 224-5225 or in Chairman Issa's office at (202) 225-5074.  We look forward to receiving your response.

Sincerely,

____________________________   ______________________________

Darrell Issa, Chairman                       Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and                            Committee on the Judiciary

Government Reform                         U.S. Senate

U.S. House of Representatives

cc:        The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman

U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary



[1] Letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich to Senator Charles E. Grassley (Apr. 12, 2011).

[2] Letter from Benigno Martinez & Raymond Thomas to José Angel Moreno et al. (Jun. 14, 2011).

WASHINGTON -- Working to make sure law students who take out taxpayer-backed student loans are in a position to pay back loans and to help prevent an increase in default rates, Senator Chuck Grassley is asking the American Bar Association about the quality of its accreditation of the nation's law schools.

"The ABA has tremendous power with its authority to accredit law schools in the United States," Grassley said.  "Concerns about the ABA's performance have been raised by important watchdogs over this process, such as the Department of Education's accreditation experts, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity.  I'm asking the ABA to account for its work on behalf of both law students and taxpayers."

In a letter of inquiry to the President of the ABA, Stephen N. Zack, Grassley cited a June article in the Chronicle of Higher Education that reported the ABA was "out of compliance with 17 regulations [of the Advisory Committee], including the need to consider student-loan default rates in assessing programs."  Grassley also referred to an April article in The New York Times about ABA-accredited law schools offering "more scholarships than [they] plan to renew[.]"

"The number of students attending law school and the amount they borrow is increasing while their ability to secure jobs and pay back the loans is decreasing as jobs disappear," Grassley wrote in a letter sent today.  "The result is that millions of federally guaranteed taxpayer dollars are being borrowed at the great risk that many students may not be able to pay off their loans."

In addition to looking out for taxpayers, Grassley said his oversight of the law-school accreditation process is related to his position of Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the health of the legal profession.

Grassley is seeking a complete response from the ABA President to a number of detailed questions about the ways in which the ABA assesses eligibility for accreditation.  A copy of his letter is here.  The text of a Chronicle of Higher Education article cited in the letter follows here.  The New York Times articles cited in the letter are available here and here.

June 9, 2011, The Chronicle of Higher Education

American Bar Association Takes Heat From Advisory Panel on Accreditation

By Eric Kelderman

Alexandria, Va.

The American Bar Association drew intense scrutiny on Thursday from a federal panel that reviews accrediting agencies.

The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, which advises the U.S. education secretary on accreditation issues, used a meeting here to review the applications of 10 accrediting agencies to be recognized by the federal government.

An accrediting organization must be recognized by the secretary of education in order to approve colleges and universities to receive federal student aid. The committee does not actually decide the recognition status of accrediting bodies, but makes a recommendation to the secretary based on a review carried out by members of the Education Department staff.

Of the 10 agencies being reviewed on Wednesday and Thursday, all were recommended for continued recognition, though eight of them must submit a report within 12 months to show that they have corrected flaws revealed by the department staff.

But several members of the committee expressed reservations about approving that status for the American Bar Association, which was found to be out of compliance with 17 regulations, including the need to consider student-loan default rates in assessing programs; to solicit and consider public comments; and to set a standard for job placement by its member institutions.

Arthur E. Keiser, chancellor of the Keiser Collegiate System, said that an accrediting agency would not accredit an institution with 17 outstanding issues. "There is a real concern that this agency doesn't get it," he said.

Anne D. Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, was one of three committee members who opposed the motion to continue the bar association's recognition, saying that she had no confidence it would be in compliance within a year.

Representatives of the association assured the committee that the changes recommended by the department were already in the process of being carried out and would be completed in time.

The bar association also got a negative review from a group of legal faculty members, the Clinical Legal Education Association, which accused the ABA of considering changes in its standards that would "strip important protections of academic freedom and faculty-governance rights ... by eliminating tenure and security of position for deans and faculty members," according to written comments submitted by the faculty group.

Faculty members at 65 law schools as well as a half-dozen faculty associations have voiced opposition to the proposed changes, said Jennifer M. Roberts, an associate professor of law at American University and a board member of the legal-education association.

Bar-association representatives at the meeting said the changes opposed by the faculty group were still under consideration and had not been made final.

In the end, a majority on the federal advisory committee voted to continue the bar association's recognition, but expressed frustration that they could not take stronger actions or at least state their concerns with stronger language.

The Sting of Judgment

The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, which assesses more than 850 career-oriented colleges, was another agency that felt the sting of the committee's judgment.

Like most other groups under review, the council must submit a report within a year to show that it has corrected several problems. But the committee also rejected the council's request to accredit doctoral-level programs.

The council, which accredits mostly for-profit and online programs, has been piloting the accreditation of doctoral programs in business administration, computer engineering, and pharmacy for several years. But the Education Department staff's report said that the council also states that it is approved to accredit doctoral programs, though it can actually approve programs only through the master's level.

Both the Education Department staff and committee members concluded that the council was not yet prepared to approve doctoral programs, especially in the health and veterinary fields, as it proposed to do.

"They want to add 13 doctoral programs they have no experience with," said Steve Porcelli, the Education Department staff member who prepared the report on the council.

Committee members voted unanimously to accept the department's recommendation, including allowing the council to reapply for permission to oversee doctoral programs when it has met the department's concerns about standards.

Q.  Why do you support the production of biodiesel?

A.  Too much of America's energy comes from fossil fuels imported from countries that don't like us.  We can reduce dependence on foreign oil, and be better off economically, environmentally, and geopolitically, by encouraging domestic production of renewable, clean-burning biodiesel.  In 2004, Congress passed the biodiesel tax incentive that I sponsored as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee to encourage the production and use of biodiesel.  Biodiesel production in the United States increased from 25 million gallons in 2004, to 700 million gallons in 2008.  When Congress allowed the tax credit to lapse in 2009, nearly 8,900 jobs were wiped out, many in Iowa.  Thankfully, in December 2010, the credit was restored retroactively through December 2011. 

Q.  What can be done to encourage the production of biodiesel? 

A.  I've introduced legislation with Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington that would extend through 2014 the $1 per gallon tax for biodiesel.  And, the bill would help small producers by maintaining the additional 10 cent credit for the first 15 million gallons of biodiesel created by producers with an annual production capacity of less than 60 million gallons.  Fourteen of Iowa's 15 biodiesel plants fall into that category.

Q.  Can abuse of the credit be prevented? 

A.  The bill would eliminate potential abuses by changing the incentive from a blender credit to a production tax credit.  This change would gear the credit toward producers who create clean biodiesel, rather than for the blending of biodiesel with petroleum diesel.  By focusing the credit on production, we'll further reduce potential abuses of foreign fuel passing through the U.S. to claim the blender's credit.  

Q.  What affect will extension of the biodiesel tax credit have on jobs and the economy?

A.  A study by an international consulting firm found that if Congress does not extend the tax credit, consumers would be forced to spend an additional $6.6 billion for diesel fuel between 2012 and 2015.  But, with the right incentives, by 2015, biodiesel production could replace 1.9 billion gallons of imported diesel fuel, support more than 74,000 jobs, and generate $4 billion in income and approximately $7.3 billion in gross domestic product.

July 8, 2011

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley today said that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has awarded a $175,000 grant to the Iowa Department of Public Health.  

   

Distribution of the federal funds is determined by the Department of Health and Human Services.  The award is not an earmark determined by Congress.  According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Iowa will use the funds to conduct an early hearing detection and intervention project.    

   

Each year, local Iowa organizations, colleges and universities, individuals and state agencies apply for competitive grants from the federal government.  The funding is then awarded based on each local organization or individual's ability to meet criteria set by the federal entity administering the funds.  

 

-30-

Advisory for Iowa Reporters and Editors

Friday, July 8, 2011

During his weekly video address, Senator Chuck Grassley discusses three international trade agreements that can help generate jobs for workers in the United States.

Click here for audio.

The text of the address is available below.  

   

Grassley Weekly Video Address:

Exports Help Generate Jobs

This week the Senate Finance Committee turned to three international trade agreements that have been ready for action by Congress for four years.  It was a big mistake to let these agreements get sidelined.  Jobs supported by exports pay 15 percent more than the national average.  Manufacturers, farmers, and the service sector need new markets for their products.  So, it's a matter of retaining and creating jobs.  And final approval of these agreements needs to be part of America's economic recovery effort.

Getting to a congressional vote has been a frustrating process.  A year and a-half ago, President Obama said he wanted to double exports within the next five years.  Still, he let the three trade agreements languish.  This spring, the United States Trade Representative said the trade agreements were ready, but then the administration changed the terms and is insisting that the Trade Adjustment Assistance program be passed with the trade agreements.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance program should be voted on separately, rather than used to bog down job-generating trade agreements.  The focus needs to stay on helping to spur manufacturing, services and agriculture-related jobs in the United States.  The opportunities are significant.  Today, U.S.-Colombia trade is a one-way street.  None of our ag products have duty-free access to the Colombian market, but more than 99 percent of Colombian ag exports enter the U.S. market duty-free.  With a trade agreement, Korea is expected to absorb five percent of total U.S. pork production.  The insurance and financial services industry in the United States, including Iowa, says Korea represents the largest insurance market yet in a free-trade agreement and presents enormous opportunities for domestic job growth.  Panama has tariffs on U.S. beef and corn that would go to zero under a trade agreement.

I talked with an Iowa cattleman who took a trip to Korea less than three weeks ago.  He had a tremendous trip promoting U.S. beef.  But one of his takeaways was that all of Asia is watching how the United States handles these trade deals.  And want to know if the United Sates wants to be in a leadership role for international trade.  They want to know if we are people of action, or just words.  They want to know if we will follow through with these agreements or will we let them languish even longer.  This cattleman came away with the message loud and clear.  Either we get this done, or our trading partners will be looking at other places for the trading terms that they desire.

For the sake of U.S. exports, these trade agreements need to be implemented without delay. 

-30-

Pages