07 Jun 2011

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

By Grassley Press

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., to be Solicitor General of the United States
Monday, June 6, 2011 

Mr. President:

I will vote to confirm Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., to be Solicitor General of the United States, but I do so with little enthusiasm.  Mr. Verrilli has impressive credentials and noteworthy accomplishments.  In addition to his government service in the White House Counsel's Office and at the Department of Justice, he has been a litigator in private practice for more than 20 years. He has argued twelve cases, and participated in more than 100 cases, before the Supreme Court of the United States.  Mr. Verrilli served for over fifteen years as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center.  He clerked for Associate Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., of the United States Supreme Court, and Judge J. Skelly Wright of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

My concern with this nomination is whether or not the nominee will demonstrate appropriate independence in the office.  His testimony at his hearing raised doubts about his ability and commitment to uphold that principle. Mr. Verrilli seemed to buy into the notion that he was still the President's lawyer.  He gave lip service to the two traditional exceptions to the Solicitor General defending a statute - first, if the statute violates separation of powers by infringing on the President's constitutional authority; and second, if there is no reasonable argument that can be advanced in defense of the statute.  Mr. Verrilli then appeared to create a third exception - one that is not supported by practice or tradition.  He stated he would defend a statute's constitutionality "unless instructed by my superior not to do so."

This position advocated by the nominee - that interference in the rule of law, by the President or by the Attorney General, is an appropriate reason not to defend statutes - was extremely troubling to me and other members of the Committee.  That position is not the standard of the office.  It is not what the nation expects from its Solicitor General. His response gave me great pause about supporting his nomination.

Following his hearing, I gave Mr. Verrilli ample opportunity to address my concerns.  In extensive written questions I asked the nominee to review and comment on testimony given by previous Solicitor General nominees.  In particular, I asked many questions regarding statements by prior Solicitors General regarding the independence of the office.  I asked him to review cases where the Department of Justice had made a determination not to defend a statute.  I asked him to analyze those cases as to the rationale for not defending the statute.  In addition, I asked him to review and comment on a number of Supreme Court cases that address serious constitutional issues.

I reviewed his answers to my written questions for the record.  I commend Mr. Verrilli for his serious approach to the task of providing responses.  In most cases he gave thoughtful answers.  In many instances he declined to provide his views on the topic, but gave general assertions that he would follow the law. In other instances he claimed confidentiality.  I do not agree with his assertion of confidentiality in most of the instances where he raised that as a basis for not responding.  In other circumstances, such a response would be unacceptable.  In the past, such responses, or allegations of similar responses, have resulted in a failed confirmation or withdrawal of the nomination.

Based upon my review of his responses, I am more comfortable with the notion that Mr. Verrilli understands the duty of the Solicitor General. I believe, because of my questions and the time he spent contemplating the issues, he will be a better Solicitor General than he otherwise would have been.  Mr. Verrilli has been exposed to decades of thought and experience by this review.  On the whole, I concluded that Mr. Verrilli now has a greater sensitivity to the necessity of independence in the office.  In numerous answers he provided a much better response than he did at his hearing.  He indicated he would not lend his name or that of the office to carry out any order which he believed to be based on partisan political consideration or other illegitimate reasons.  Rather than do so, he said he would resign from office.  I will hold him to that pledge.

I want to be clear about my tepid support for Mr. Verrilli.  He is nominated to an executive branch position, not a lifetime appointment.  My lukewarm support is based largely on the nature of the office to which he will be appointed, if confirmed.

I will put the administration on notice, as well as Mr. Verrilli, the Senate, the media, and any other interested party.  My less than enthusiastic vote for Mr. Verrilli to be Solicitor General of the United States is limited to that office alone.  No entity or individual should presume my support for Mr. Verrilli for any other future office to which he may aspire or to which he may be nominated - be it in the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of government.

Furthermore, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I will vigorously carry out my oversight responsibilities to ensure the Solicitor General and his subordinates are performing as they should.  I will be watching to make certain Mr. Verrilli complies with his oath of office, with his obligation to the Constitution and statutes of the United States, with his duties of the office, and with the assurances he has given the Senate in his oral and written testimony.  I expect nothing less from all officials of government.  I have every expectation that Mr. Verrilli, if confirmed, will honorably live up to those duties, obligations, and assurances.

-30-

07 Jun 2011

Grassley: Defense Department Audits Earn D- Grade, Improvements Needed

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today released a report giving the Defense Department's inspector general audits a D- grade on a "junkyard dog" index for tracking waste, fraud and abuse of tax dollars.

"Audits are the tip of the inspector general's spear," Grassley said.  "A good spear always needs a finely honed cutting edge. Right now, the point of that spear is dull.  The best audit weapon is disabled. As a watchdog, I get serious heartburn from degraded audit capabilities.  It puts the taxpayers' money in harm's way.  It leaves huge sums of money vulnerable to theft and waste."

Grassley directed his staff to review all 113 unclassified Defense Department inspector general audits for Fiscal Year 2010.  Under the Grassley analysis, 15 reports are "good to very good."  But other reports earn more negative assessments for failing to track the tax dollars, taking too long to complete and losing the money trail, and other shortcomings.  The report assigns a D- grade overall to the 113 audits.

The report names nine audit roadblocks that Grassley said stand between lackluster audits and quality audits.  He encouraged the inspector general to dismantle each roadblock.  "The inspector general must find a way to tear down these walls," Grassley said.  "Otherwise, audit reform and transformation will never happen. My staff will keep reading and evaluating inspector general audits until steady improvement is popping up on the radar screen every day."

Today's report is a follow-up to Grassley's first such oversight review, issued on Sept. 7, 2010.  The initial report evaluated the 113 audit reports issued in FY 2009. It determined that the Defense Department inspector general audit capabilities, which cost the taxpayers about $100 million a year, were gravely impaired.  The inspector general's office pledged to improve audit quality, a promise Grassley is working to hold the office to fulfill.

Grassley began conducting oversight of the Pentagon in the early 1980s when President Reagan was ramping up the defense budget. A group of defense reformers including Grassley examined the pricing of spare parts and uncovered $750 toilet seats and $695 ashtrays for military aircraft.  As a result of the Inspector General Act of 1978, offices of inspectors general were set up at each federal agency.

In 1986, Grassley authored a major update of the federal False Claims Act, with Rep. Howard Berman of California. Since then, the law has recovered more than $28 billion and deterred billions of dollars in additional fraud against the taxpayers.   It has been used to uncover defense fraud and recently in particular, health care fraud.

Click on the following links to view Grassley's report released today, his letter to the Defense Department inspector general accompanying the report, and the video and text of a speech delivered on the Senate floor on the report.

-30-

06 Jun 2011

Protecting Elderly Nursing Home Residents and Taxpayers

By Grassley Press

by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Family members in Iowa are among the legions of caregivers across the country who sacrifice time, careers and money to provide care for loved ones who no longer are able to live independently or care for themselves.

The family safety net for generations has helped loved ones stay longer in their own homes and helped to enhance the quality of life for aging parents and grandparents.

Sometimes, it becomes impossible for these laborers of love to provide the 24-hour care and medical attention that America's most vulnerable population requires.

In communities across Iowa, trusted long-term care facilities provide a valuable service close to home for families who are no longer able to provide the level of care an aging or disabled loved one requires.

To be sure, America's aging population is creating increased demand for long-term care services. Nearly 1.7 million elderly and disabled Americans live in 17,000 nursing home facilities. The percentage of the U.S. population living in a nursing home is on the rise as Americans continue to defy life expectancy estimates from even a generation ago.

The two giant government health programs, Medicare and Medicaid, spend an estimated $70 billion each year for nursing home services. As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Medicare and Medicaid programs, I've conducted extensive oversight of these programs to strengthen patient safety, track accountability within the U.S. health care system, and protect the integrity of tax dollars.

A recent federal report I requested to analyze how anti-psychotic drugs are being prescribed in nursing homes raises important questions in these areas. The audit shows an increase in the use of anti-psychotic drugs, such as Risperdal, Seroquel and Zyprexa, for so-called "off-label" use for patients suffering from dementia. The Food and Drug Administration requires makers of this class of drugs to put a "black box" warning on the product label (the FDA's strongest patient safety warning) about using these drugs for patients with dementia. In this way, the FDA warns that elderly patients with dementia who take these drugs have an increased risk of death.

Most Americans have grown accustomed to the risk of side effects when taking medication. Do nursing home residents, who are receiving powerful drugs not intended for their underlying condition, understand the risks? Are these drugs being prescribed in the best interest of the patient?  Also, to what extent are Medicare and Medicaid paying for drugs that may not be in the best interest of the patient?  Separately, I've examined the link between payments that pharmaceutical companies make to physicians. Some reports suggest some health care practitioners might be unduly influenced by drug companies to prescribe drugs "off label."

As more elderly patients are diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia, policymakers, patient safety advocates and health care professionals have a responsibility to protect this vulnerable population. The rising use of anti-psychotic medicines -  which are FDA-approved to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - may not be the best treatment for a nursing home patient exhibiting symptoms of age-onset dementia.

My list of credentials does not include a medical license. I'm not telling physicians what to prescribe to their patients. However, we all have a moral obligation to try to make sure the most vulnerable among us, the frail elderly, are not victims of medication misuse.  And, as I serve Iowans in the U.S. Senate, I have a legislative license to hold to account those who receive payments from taxpayer-financed public health programs.

Friday, June 3, 2011

06 Jun 2011

Q&A: Debt Ceiling Debate Should Force Fiscal Responsibility

By Grassley Press

Q.  What is the debt ceiling?

A.  The debt ceiling is a cap set by Congress on the amount of debt the federal government can legally borrow from both the public (such as anyone who buys bonds) and government trust funds (including the Social Security Trust Fund).  The Treasury Department cannot issue any debt above the amount approved by Congress.  The first such debt limit was set in 1917.  In 2010, the debt ceiling was raised by $1.9 trillion to make the current limit $14.294 trillion.  The Treasury Secretary has said that Congress must act to raise the debt ceiling this year by August 2, or risk defaulting on U.S. borrowing obligations.  Until very recently, President Obama argued for raising the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion without any accompanying conditions for reducing government spending.  The debate then shifted, and in May, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 318 to 97 against such a no-strings-attached increase in the debt ceiling.  Having to consider the debt limit should help Congress control spending and force Congress and the President to take stock of the country's fiscal situation.

Q.  Why shouldn't the debt ceiling be raised without spending cuts?

A.  Today, the federal debt and deficits are at record levels.  These obligations inhibit the ability of the U.S. economy to grow and create private-sector jobs.  It also is morally wrong to make the next generation pay the bills for the way we live today.  Americans sent a clear message in the last election that they want government spending reined in.  Today, the need to make sure the federal government doesn't default by increasing the debt limit should serve as a positive impetus for Congress and the President to commit to meaningful deficit reduction measures.  In fact, continuing to raise the debt ceiling without concrete plans to reduce spending is itself a recipe for disaster.  The inability of Washington to chart a course to bring down federal deficits already resulted in Standard & Poor's lowering its outlook for America's long-term credit rating from "stable" to "negative," for the first time ever, earlier this year.  Serious spending reforms are needed for the sake of America's fiscal well-being.  Negotiations now are under way between congressional leaders and the White House on an agreement for spending reductions along with an increase in the debt ceiling.  This debate provides a major opportunity to bring fiscal responsibility and accountability to Washington.

06 Jun 2011

Applications for Internships with Grassley Due on June 15

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON – Applications for fall semester internships in the Iowa and Washington, D.C. offices of Senator Chuck Grassley are due June 15.

Grassley said he encourages young Iowans who are interested in learning more about government to apply.  "Spending a semester working in a congressional office is a good way for college students and new graduates to learn more about the legislative branch of the federal government and to gain valuable work experience," he said.  "Exposure to the work of a Senate office can enhance a college education and make students more competitive job applicants when they graduate.  These internships are available to students in all areas of study. 

Full- and part-time internships are available for Iowans in Grassley's offices in Washington, D.C., Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Sioux City and Waterloo.  The fall internships run from late August to mid-December.  Interns assist staff members with administrative, legislative and communications work, including that of Grassley's staff on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where he serves as Ranking Member.

Application forms are available on Grassley's Senate website, in the placement offices of many Iowa colleges and universities, and in Grassley's offices in Iowa. Due to security-related delays in postal mail delivery to U.S. Senate office buildings, internship applications should be faxed to 202-224-5136 or emailed to intern_applications@grassley.senate.gov.  For more information, send messages tointern_applications@grassley.senate.gov or call 202-224-3744.

-30-

31 May 2011

Grassley taking concerns of U.S. agriculture to EU, Russia

By Grassley Press

Also to participate in discussions about NATO missions, anti-corruption efforts and immigration

WASHINGTON - May 29, 2011 - Senator Chuck Grassley is traveling this week to participate in meetings in Brussels and Moscow.  He said the trip provides an opportunity to address market access problems for soybean and pork producers in the United States and the need to protect intellectual property rights.  He also will receive a briefing on NATO-led efforts in Libya and Afghanistan, discuss anti-corruption efforts of Russian law enforcement in cooperation with U.S. authorities, address human rights and press freedoms, and discuss U.S. visa requirements for Russian travelers.

Of the trade issues for American agriculture, Grassley said, "Both the European Union and Russia are imposing non-tariff trade barriers against soybeans and pork produced by U.S. farmers for the export market.  The European Union's position on soybeans has created uncertainty for farmers, traders, co-ops and processors in the United States.  American farmers need the EU to engage in a dialogue to try to resolve an unfair situation.  Likewise, Russia's unjustified position against U.S. pork has delisted plants that account for 60 percent of U.S. pork production capacity.  I look forward to taking on both of these issues in meetings this week."

Grassley said he will deliver a letter on the soybean export dispute addressed to European Union Commissioner Karel De Gucht, the Directorate General for Trade.  The Renewable Energy Directive of the European Union relies on a faulty Brazilian model to establish emission savings and applying directive guidelines all the way down to the farm level.  Grassley said aggregate certification is needed as a fair trade matter for U.S. oilseed producers, along the lines of the sustainability requirement in the U.S. renewable fuel standard.

Separately, Grassley plans to deliver a letter about Russia's unjustified limits on U.S. pork addressed to First Deputy Prime Minster of the Russian Federation Igor Shuvalov and Aide of the President of the Russian Federation Arkady Dvorkovich.  Pork products from the United States face an array of sanitary phytosanitary restrictions by the Russian government.  Grassley said that if Russia is to gain membership in the World Trade Organization, which it is currently seeking, then Russia needs to abandon import restrictions, like this one, which are unscientifically based.  The United States was able to obtain commitments from China and Vietnam to overcome similar obstacles as part of those countries' accession to the World Trade Organization.  Twenty-five percent of all U.S. pork is produced in Iowa.

Grassley said that Russia's desire to join the World Trade Organization also should help to encourage Russian officials to improve enforcement efforts to protect intellectual property rights, which are important to promoting innovation, creating jobs and advancing economic growth.  He said the Senate-passed PROTECT IP Act that he sponsored this year with Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont provides a model for working to stop online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods.

In other meetings, Grassley said he will seek more information about possible outcomes for the NATO-led effort in Libya and how military operations have shaped those possibilities.  He also wants to ask for a NATO assessment of support from the Afghan people for the Karzai government, progress in eliminating government corruption, the capability of Afghan security forces, and the outlook for the strength of the Afghan National Army.

In Russia, Grassley said he is concerned about human rights abuses and efforts by government authorities to restrict media coverage and allow political pressure in the judicial system.

Grassley and others senators on the trip left Washington yesterday and will return on June 4.  Grassley is Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  He is a senior member of the Senate Agriculture Committee.  He is a senior member and former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over international trade.

-30-

31 May 2011

More News from Senator Grassley's Office

By Grassley Press

Feinstein, Grassley Release Senate Caucus on Int'l Narcotics Control Report on Mexico

Senators Urge Congress and Administration to use report as a blueprint for cooperation with Mexico to combat drug trafficking

Washington, DC - May 25, 2011 - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), co-chairs of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, today released a report outlining key steps and initiatives to combat Mexico's brutal drug trafficking organizations and reduce violence in the country.

The report, U.S. and Mexican Responses to Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations, is endorsed by all seven Members of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control and makes several recommendations for the U.S. government.  The report synthesizes information gathered through a country visit, briefings, interviews, and a review of documents from both government and non-government subject matter experts.

"The United States provides counternarcotics assistance throughout the world, but our security partnership with Mexico is unique since we share a 1,969 mile border," said Senator Feinstein.

 

"What happens in Mexico has a deep impact on the United States and the reciprocal is also true. Today, U.S. - Mexico ties are stronger than ever, and we must take advantage of this historic moment by continuing to deepen our security partnership with Mexico," continued Feinstein. "I urge my colleagues in Congress and members of the Obama Administration to read this report and use it as a blueprint for future cooperation with Mexico to combat drug trafficking."

 

"The drug trade has long been associated with violence, but the recent escalation has been unprecedented. Stopping this violence will take cooperation from those of us on both sides of the border," Senator Grassley said. "And, while more work needs to be done in this area, this report can be a guide as we move forward and work to curb the drug trade and the violence associated with it."

Findings and recommendations of the report include :

Money Laundering

  • The report calls on the Obama Administration to do more to starve Mexico's drug trafficking organizations of the money that fuels them.  Specifically, it urges the Obama Administration to immediately make pre-paid gift and credit cards - known as stored value - subject to cross-border reporting requirements.

Stored value is not subject to any cross-border reporting requirements.  This means that an individual crossing from the United States into Mexico with thousands of dollars on pre-paid cards is not required to declare these cards at the border.

Mérida Initiative

  • The report calls on the State Department to expedite the delivery of air assets to Mexico under the Mérida Initiative, a security assistance program that includes air assets, other equipment and training.
  • It also recommends that the State Department quickly develop performance measures for the Mérida Initiative and provide these metrics to Congress.  A multi-year timeline should be developed with targets in several areas, including equipment delivery, judicial and police reform, and state capacity to respond to drug trafficking organizations.

The U.S. government has provided vital security assistance to Mexico, including 11 helicopters - eight Bell 412 helicopters for the Mexican military and three Blackhawk helicopters for the country's federal police.  Six more Blackhawk helicopters are still in the pipeline.

Justice Reform

  • The report concludes that in order to have long-term success in combating organized crime, much-needed judicial reforms must be implemented throughout Mexico.

According to data from the Mexican government, 1.55 percent of suspected crimes in Mexico result in convictions.  By comparison, the U.S. federal courts logged a 90.3 percent conviction rate in FY 2008.

The report recommends that judicial sector training be proactively offered by the United States through the Mérida Initiative to each Mexican state that requests it.  This should include specific training on oral trial topics, such as evidence, opening and closing statements, direct and cross examination and objections.

Southbound Inspections

  • The report asks the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to conduct and submit to Congress an assessment of immediate infrastructure and staffing needs at the Southwest border - including important tools like License Plate Readers - and activities and resources by the Mexican Government to stand-up southbound inspections on the Mexican side of the border.

Border Tunnels

  • The report calls on Congress to pass legislation to enhance the 2007 law that criminalizes the financing, construction and use of border tunnels.  The legislation proposed in the report would increase prosecutorial options by criminalizing conspiracy to use, construct or finance a border tunnel.  The Caucus also recommends that illegal tunneling be included as an offense eligible for Title III wire interception.

Cross-Border Kidnappings

  • The Caucus's report calls on the FBI to develop and sponsor a vetted unit with trusted Mexican counterparts who have the expertise to conduct investigations of the kidnappings of U.S. citizens.

The entire report can be found here:  U.S. and Mexican Responses to Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations

###

SEC approves whistleblower rules

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa helped to enact provisions beefing up the Securities and Exchange Commission's treatment of whistleblowers.  Earlier, Grassley was the Senate author of the 1986 whistleblower amendments to the federal False Claims Act, which has become one of the government's most powerful tools against fraud.  He also was key to improving the IRS' whistleblower office.  He made the following comment on the SEC's approval today of new rules giving whistleblowers incentives to come forward about financial fraud.

"In general, there's a long history of retaliation against whistleblowers.  To come forward, they need protection and independence from the operation that's potentially doing wrong.   The SEC took a step in the right direction today.  A whistleblower might prevent the next Madoff.   Twenty years ago, the Justice Department resisted whistleblowers.  Since then, whistleblowers have helped the department recover $28 billion that otherwise would have been lost to fraud.  More recently, there was a lot of skepticism about beefing up the IRS' whistleblower incentives.  That office recently recovered $20 million for the taxpayers in the first reward under the new set-up.  Both of these programs faced some of the same criticisms facing the SEC program but the concerns were overstated.   Now, the SEC needs to break away from its past of resisting whistleblowers.  It needs to make sure whistleblowers are taken seriously and that their complaints are given the attention needed to prevent fraud."

###

Grassley Elicits Confirmation of Risk to U.S. Market Share Over Korea Trade Agreement Delay

WASHINGTON -- May 25, 2011 - In response to a question from Sen. Chuck Grassley, a top U.S. trade official confirmed today that U.S. agricultural producers are indeed at risk of losing valuable market share in Korea to the European Union because the United States has not implemented its pending Free Trade Agreement with Korea, and the European Union has implemented such an agreement.  The White House and congressional allies continue to move the goal posts on the necessary conditions for implementing pending trade agreements, to the detriment of U.S. producers.

The exchange occurred at a hearing of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over international trade.  Grassley is a senior member and former chairman and ranking member of the committee.

A video clip is available here.

The text of a Senate floor speech Grassley delivered today on the value of trade agreements is available here.

-30-

31 May 2011

Grassley says Senate resolution helps keep spotlight on important issues for children, families in the foster care system

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley said U.S. Senate approval last night of a resolution that designated May as National Foster Care Month for the 23rd consecutive year helps to raise awareness about the challenges facing children and families in the foster care system.  Nationwide, approximately 420,000 children live in foster care, including about 6,000 children in Iowa.  There are more than 2,700 foster parent families in Iowa.

"We need to keep the spotlight on the children and families in the foster-care system," Grassley said.  "States need incentives to make improvements, and the effort needs to continue to move more children from what should be a temporary place in the system to permanent, loving homes.  Disruptions, uncertainty and constant changes in their surroundings make it harder for children in foster care to succeed in school and access opportunities to learn and grow in positive ways."

Grassley is the lead Republican sponsor of the resolution, which was introduced by Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

Last year, Grassley and Landrieu founded a Senate Caucus on Foster Youth to focus on those who have recently aged out of the foster care system and lack the support of a family.  Previously, they worked together to pass a landmark 2008 overhaul of child welfare law, including new incentives for states to move children from foster care to permanent, adoptive homes.  The reform initiative made it easier for children to be adopted by family members, including grandparents, and made all children designated as special needs, which in adoption includes older children, eligible for federal adoption assistance.  The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 also established educational and vocational opportunities for youth when they transition out of the foster care system at age 18.  Much of this legislation fell within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Finance, where Grassley served as Chairman and Ranking Member during the last decade.  He remains a senior member of the committee.  He previously sponsored tax incentives to encourage and increase adoptions, as well.

Grassley said that policymakers also should recognize the "selfless contribution of tens of thousands of Americans who provide safe haven and open their loving homes as foster care parents to children in the foster care system.  One person at a time, so many foster care parents make a tremendous contribution."

Click here to read the Senate resolution adopted last night.

-30-

31 May 2011

News from Senator Grassley's Office

By Grassley Press

Leahy, Grassley, Feinstein, Chambliss Introduce Bill To Extend Mueller's Term

WASHINGTON - May 26, 2011 - The top Democrats and Republicans of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence introduced legislation Thursday to address President Obama's request to extend the term of FBI Director Robert Mueller for two years.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) introduced a bill to provide a one-time extension of Mueller's service.

Earlier this month, President Obama requested that Congress enact a one-time extension of Mueller's term, which is limited to 10 years by statute.  Mueller assumed the post of FBI Director just one week before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; his term is set to expire September 3.

"Bob Mueller has served tirelessly and selflessly for 10 years, and is undoubtedly ready to begin the next phase of his life," said Leahy.  "But he has characteristically answered duty's call and indicated his willingness to continue his service.  We should fulfill our duty, as well, and join together without delay to secure the continuity and stability that is demanded at this time, and that is needed to keep our country safe."

"The ten-year term for an FBI director is good for the agency and our country.  It was designed to insulate the FBI Director from the political process and ensure that no one Director amass too much power.  It has worked for thirty-five years.  But, we live in extraordinary times.  Given the complex and uncertain time we live in, the good work of Director Mueller following September 11, and a heightened alert to terrorist attack following the death of Osama Bin Laden, this one-time statutory exemption that will extend the term of FBI Director Mueller's term by two years is the right decision.  I do this with trepidation, though, because of the constitutional and precedential concerns associated with this action," Grassley said.  "I look forward to a hearing in the Judiciary Committee so we can address those concerns."

"During the last decade, Robert Mueller has provided steady leadership and stability at the FBI.  He has worked to transform the culture of the Bureau into an agency that can better identify and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States," said Feinstein.  "Under his leadership, the FBI has played an essential role in more than 20 significant counterterrorism operations, while infiltrating and arresting individuals charged with planning attacks against our country. Extending Director Mueller's term at the FBI for an additional two years will ensure the transition at the FBI continues and will provide important stability to the President's national security team during this sensitive and challenging time."

"In addition to leading our crime-fighting efforts inside the United States, the FBI plays a critical national security role," said Chambliss.  "Director Mueller has done an outstanding job ensuring the American people remain safe from domestic attacks.  In light of Osama bin Laden's death, the approaching 9/11 anniversary, and the leadership transitions occurring at the Pentagon and the CIA, I believe granting a one-time, two-year extension of Director Mueller's term is the right thing to do."

The legislation will be referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.  The text of the legislation is available here.

###

LLINOIS & IOWA DELEGATIONS CALL FOR MEETING WITH ARMY SECRETARY TO DISCUSS REPORTS OF POSSIBLE JMTC CLOSURE AT ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL


[WASHINGTON, D.C.] - May 26, 2011 - After learning that an internal task force at the Army Materiel Command (AMC) is considering relocating Rock Island Arsenal's Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center (JMTC), a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both the Illinois and Iowa Congressional Delegations called for a meeting with the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, as soon as possible to discuss their concerns about the cost associated with conducting such a move as well as the impact it would have on the Rock Island Arsenal.

Members signing on to today's letters include : U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) along with U.S. Representatives Bobby Schilling (R-IL-17), Dave Loebsack (D-IA-02) and Bruce Braley (D-IA-01) .

"It is our understanding that the Army Materiel Command (AMC) has formed an internal task force charged with cutting $3 billion from the overall AMC budget. These recommendations are due in July as part of an Army-wide effort to find savings in a time of tight budgets.  We understand that closing Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center (JMTC) is a potential approach being considered by this task force," the Members wrote. "Given the urgency of this matter, we request a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters as they may impact Rock Island."

The Rock Island Arsenal Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center (JMTC) is a one-of-a-kind U.S. Army facility which manufactures critical equipment for our troops around the world. The more than 1,700 individuals employed at JMTC specialize in manufacturing artillery, armor, small arms, and mobile maintenance kits for use on the front lines. The JMTC, perhaps best known for howitzer production, operates the Army's only foundry and since 2003 has produced half of all armor for Army tactical wheeled vehicles. Veterans make up more than half of JMTC's highly-skilled workforce.

A similar letter was sent to General Ann Dunwoody, the Commanding General of the Army Material Command which oversees the JMTC's operations and would have firsthand knowledge of the internal task force. Today's letters follow up on a previous request to meet with General Dunwoody who is not available to meet until July, the same month the task force will report its cost-cutting recommendations.

[Text of the letters below]

May 26, 2011

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We hope to meet with you as soon as practicable to discuss the importance of Rock Island's Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center to the Quad Cities region.

It is our understanding that the Army Materiel Command (AMC) has formed an internal task force charged with cutting $3 billion from the overall AMC budget. These recommendations are due in July as part of an Army-wide effort to find savings in a time of tight budgets.  We understand that closing Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center (JMTC) is a potential approach being considered by this task force.

As you know JMTC is a state of the art manufacturing facility that can rapidly respond to warfighter needs.  It has produced armor that protected our troops overseas and has produced almost every howitzer in the Army inventory.  JMTC employs more than 1,700 jobs and is an anchor in the local and regional economy.

Given the urgency of this matter, we request a meeting with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters as they may impact Rock Island.



May 26, 2011

General Ann E. Dunwoody

Commanding General

US Army Material Command

9301 Chapek Road

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060

Dear General Dunwoodie:

Earlier this month, we requested a meeting with you through the Army Liaison's Office but were told you would not be available until July at the earliest.  However, recent events highlight the need for this meeting to take place as soon as possible.  It is our understanding that Army Materiel Command (AMC) has formed an internal task force charged with cutting $3 billion from the overall AMC budget, which will report its recommendation in July.   We understand that closing Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center is a potential approach being considered by this task force.

Given the urgency of this matter, we request a meeting with you as soon as possible and would be happy to host you in Washington as early as this Friday, May 27, 2011.

-30-

PATRIOT EXTENSION CLEARS SENATE

Thursday, May 26, 2011 

Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement after the Senate voted to extend the USA PATRIOT Act.

"The Senate vote was a reaffirmation of the importance of these expiring authorities that help secure our nation.  The three expiring provisions have provided a great deal of information to agents that have helped thwart terrorist attacks while protecting legitimate privacy and constitutional rights. Now, I hope the House will give the agents the certainty and predictability they need to use these tools to collect critical intelligence in the War on Terror."

###

28 May 2011

News from Senator Grassley's Office

By Grassley Press

SEC leasing deal was disastrous?, Grassley says

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on a new inspector general report saying the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission faces a $94 million claim after it backed out of a deal to lease office space in Washington, D.C.  The report is available here.  Grassley has a longstanding interest in conducting oversight of agencies including the SEC to help make sure the agencies function well on behalf of taxpayers and in the SEC's case, investors as well as taxpayers.

"The report portrays the SEC's leasing operation as incompetent in just about every way.   The report says employees grossly over-estimated the amount of needed space, maneuvered around leadership's concerns, and even backdated a key document to justify their decision.  The taxpayers might be on the hook for nearly $100 million as a result of this mismanagement.  Everyone who's responsible needs to be held fully accountable.  The agency needs to get a handle on its leasing operation to make sure this kind of mess doesn't happen again."

"Holding Criminals Accountable: Extending Criminal Jurisdiction to Government Contractors and Employees Abroad"

Wednesday, May 25, 2011
 
      Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing to discuss extending federal criminal law to government contractors and employees serving overseas.  This is an important topic given the increased use of government contractors by federal agencies in overseas operations, including Afghanistan and Iraq.  Holding any individual accountable for crimes is an important part of the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction. 
 
      I think we all would agree that anyone who commits a crime should be held accountable and that bringing criminals to justice is one of the most important roles of government.  However, extending the long arm of American criminal law is an issue that should not be done without significant consideration and caution. 
 
      Chairman Leahy and I have worked together in the past to ensure that government contractors are not given a free pass to commit crimes or to defraud the government from resources that are entrusted to our country by other nations.  We worked together in 2008 on the Wartime Enforcement of Fraud Act that would have tolled the statute of limitation on fraud offenses that occurred in a war zone. 
 
      We also worked together to amend the False Claims Act to ensure that funds that were under the trust or administration of the United States government were protected from fraud and abuse.  That fix was necessary to address a loophole created by the courts in the Custer Battles decision where Iraqi funds administered by the U.S. government were subjected to fraud.  This was a damaging loophole because it essentially said that contractors were free to defraud the government as long as the money was from a foreign country that entrusted the U.S. government to administer it.  Ultimately, we closed that loophole in the Fraud Enforcement Recover Act which was signed into law by President Obama.
 
      Today's hearing is no less important because criminal acts committed by U.S. citizens and contractors abroad could threaten our foreign relations.  As such, it is right for us to examine the ways we can bring these criminals within the reach of the law.  Legislation extending the reach of U.S. criminal law to contractors was introduced in the 110th and 111th Congresses.  Both times, that legislation failed to clear both chambers and was never signed into law. 
     
      Chief among the concerns with the legislation was the lack of a clear exception for contractors that were employed by the intelligence community.  In 2007, President Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy citing concerns with legislation expanding extraterritorial jurisdiction over contractors and citing concerns with the impact on national security activities and operations.  Similar concerns held up legislation in the last Congress as well. 
 
      I think there is a lot of merit to extending our criminal law to civilian contractors and employees abroad.  However, we must make sure that this is done in a manner that is narrowly tailored to the specific problem and is not overly broad.  Further, we must ensure that we do not harm critical national security and intelligence operations abroad.  Those concerns should be addressed in a proper forum and not necessarily aired in public.  However, in the limited scope we can address that topic in a public forum, I intend to ask some questions about what a carve-out for the intelligence community should look like. 
 
      I also want to know about how many new resources the Department of Justice will require to implement investigations and prosecutions under a proposed expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction.  Given the current fiscal situation of the federal government, I am concerned that reallocating resources from one side of the Justice Department to another could limit other investigations and prosecutions. 
 
      I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, asking some of these important questions, and working with the Chairman and members of the committee on this important topic.  Thank you.   
 
Immigratio?n-B-1 Visa Program Used to Avoid Requiremen?ts of Other Programs

Wednesday, May 25, 2011
 
Senator Chuck Grassley released the following comment after receiving a response to his April 14, 2011 inquiry to the departments of State and Homeland Security about the use of the B-1 visa program by employers to recruit foreign workers who are then not subject to the cap and the prevailing wage requirements of the H-1B program.  The response by the State Department said the agency is working with the Department of Homeland Security to eliminate or amend the B-1 in Lieu of H-1B policy in the Foreign Affairs Manual.  Grassley is still waiting for a response from the Department of Homeland Security.
 
"It appears the B-1 visa program has become a subterfuge for companies wanting to avoid the cap and wage requirements of the H-1B visa, so it's good to see the State Department acknowledge the need for greater fraud prevention in the visa approval process as well as changes to policies that incentivize employers to go around the H-1B program in the Foreign Affairs.  The State Department's efforts are a step in the right direction, but more work will be needed in this area to ensure the integrity of our visa programs.  This includes the ability for the department to maintain accurate statistics that will help us understand how we can better close loopholes to make sure that American workers are given first priority for jobs."   
 
The State Department's response to Grassley can be found by clicking here.  Below is a copy of the text of Grassley's April 14th letter to the departments of State and Homeland Security.
 
For Immediate Release
Thursday, April 14, 2011
 
Grassley Concerned That Companies are Using B-1 Visa Program
to Circumvent H-1B Requirements
 
            WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley is asking for a thorough investigation by the Departments of State and Homeland Security of the B-1 visa program and the use of this visa program by employers to recruit foreign workers who are then not subject to the cap and the prevailing wage requirements of the H-1B program.
 
            "When unemployment remains at a staggering 8.8 percent, we should be focusing our oversight efforts on employers who are taking advantage of the system and importing foreign workers to the detriment of Americans," Grassley said. 
 
            In his letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Grassley questioned the "B-1 in lieu of H-1B" policy currently in place.  He wrote, "Under this low threshold (of the B-1 visa), a company could import workers via the B-1 business visitor visa and evade the H-1B visa cap and prevailing wage requirements that would otherwise apply to such workers so long as the workers could show that their paychecks were still coming from the foreign company." 
           
            Grassley also referenced a formal complaint against Infosys that details how Infosys management in India decided to use the B-1 business visitor visa program to get around H-1B program restrictions.  The plaintiff alleges that Infosys was importing foreign workers as B-1 business visitors under the guise of attending meetings rather than working for a wage as an employee of a U.S. company, which is forbidden under the statute and regulations governing the B-1 visa program.
 
Grassley argues that American workers should be given first consideration by companies looking to import foreign workers.  Grassley has led the effort to close loopholes and enact reform in the H-1B visa program.  He has introduced legislation in previous Congresses to reform the H-1B and L visa programs and is planning on introducing a bill again in the 112th Congress.
 
            Here is a copy of the text of Grassley's letter.  A signed copy can be found here.
 
April 14, 2011
 
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
 
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
Secretary
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
245 Murray Lane, Mailstop 0150
Washington, D.C. 20528-0150
Dear Secretary Clinton and Secretary Napolitano:
 
I'm very concerned about fraudulent actions that at least one foreign-based company has allegedly been taking in order to get around the requirements and U.S. worker protections of the H-1B visa program, and more generally, about provisions in current guidance to visa adjudicators that actually authorize such evasion of Congressional intent. 
 
On February 23, 2010, a U.S. employee of Infosys Technologies Limited, Inc. ("Infosys") filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Alabama, alleging that his employer was "sending lower level and unskilled foreigners to the United States to work in full-time positions at Infosys' customer sites in direct violation of immigration laws."  The plaintiff described ways that Infosys, one of the top ten H-1B petitioning companies, had worked to "creatively" get around the H-1B visa program in order to bring in low-skilled and low-wage workers, resulting in visa fraud against the U.S. Government.
 
Infosys, by its own admission, is an "H-1B dependent employer."  Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, H-1B dependent employers must take good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers and to offer them compensation that is at least as great as that required to be offered to H-1B nonimmigrants.
 
The formal complaint against Infosys details how Infosys management in India decided to use the B-1 business visitor visa program to get around H-1B program restrictions.  The plaintiff alleges that Infosys was importing foreign workers as B-1 business visitors under the guise of attending meetings rather than working for a wage as an employee of a U.S. company, which is forbidden under the statute and regulations governing the B-1 visa program. Under section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a B-1 visa holder may not come to the U.S. "for the purpose of...performing skilled or unskilled labor."  Under State Department regulations, a B-1 visa holder may not engage in "local employment or labor for hire."  If the allegations against Infosys are substantiated, American workers will have been hurt by this company's fraudulent actions, and the integrity of both the B-1 and H-1B visa programs will have been compromised.
 
More troubling than the illegal ways a company can get around the H-1B program's restrictions using the B-1 visa program are the legal ways companies can use the B-1 visa program to defy the intent of Congress.  For example, the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) currently authorizes the granting of B-1 visas to foreign workers who should otherwise be seeking H-1B visas in cases where the worker is employed by a foreign company and is coming to the U.S. to work at a U.S. client of that foreign company.  Specifically, the FAM states that to qualify for such B-1 in lieu of H-1B visas, "the employee must customarily be employed by the foreign firm, the employing entity must pay the employee's salary, and the source of the employee's salary must be abroad."  Under this low threshold, a company could import workers via the B-1 business visitor visa and evade the H-1B visa cap and prevailing wage requirements that would otherwise apply to such workers so long as the workers could show that their paychecks were still coming from the foreign company.  I believe a thorough review of the "B-1 in lieu of H-1B" provision in the Foreign Affairs Manual is warranted by both of your Departments, especially at a time when American workers are vying against foreign workers for employment in this country.
 
In light of the allegations against Infosys, and the potential for other employers to abuse the B-1 visa to get around the H-1B visa program, I would appreciate your cooperation to get to the bottom of the situation.  I would also like information about how the B-1 visa is being used by employers and processed by consular officers, including the following:
 
Statistics with regard to the numerical distribution of B-1 visas, including which employers are using them, how many B-1 visas are petitioned for and approved each year, and the lengths of time a visa holder remains in the United States on a B-1 visa.
 
The number of "B-1 in lieu of H-1B" visas issued each year for the past five years, including the posts where such visas were issued, the U.S. companies hosting such workers, and the foreign companies paying the worker's salary.
 
How does the Department of State verify an employer's claim that a B-1 visa holder will attend a meeting, convention, or other business appointment in the United States? 
 
What actions, if any, are being taken against employers who abuse the B-1 visa program?  Will the Departments consider barring such employers from any visa program if found guilty of misusing the visa system?  Will the Departments cease to approve visas for Infosys until the lawsuit in Alabama is settled?  If not, what additional oversight and/or actions will be taken until the Infosys lawsuit is finalized?
 
What is the legal basis for the State Department's policy known as "B-1 in lieu of H-1B"?  The Immigration and Naturalization Service, in 1993, proposed a regulation to eliminate the "B-1 in lieu of H" category citing inconsistency with Congressional intent.  Will the Department consider changes to the Foreign Affairs Manual so that this means of entry is not abused?  Will the Department consider eliminating this provision altogether?  How does the Department of Homeland Security feel about this State Department policy today? 
 
My hope is that your Departments will cooperate to make sure that the B-1 visa program is not being abused by employers who wish to get around the annual caps and prevailing wage requirements imposed by the H-1B visa program.  I look forward to your review of the issues I have raised, and would appreciate a response to my questions no later than April 28, 2011. 
 
                                                            Sincerely, 
 
                                                            Charles E. Grassley
                                                            United States Senator

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.