WASHINGTON - Senators Chuck Grassley and Chris Coons today won unanimous support from the Judiciary Committee for their legislation to clarify when a federal law enforcement agent is acting under the color of his office.

The Officer Safety Act, S.2276, would allow a federal law enforcement agent who stops a violent crime while off-duty and is indicted in a state court for those actions to petition for the state criminal prosecution against him to be removed to federal court.

The senators said the bill is narrowly drawn in order to benefit only those officers who have acted appropriately.

"The existing federal removal statute was created so that the agents would not fear prosecutions for performing their jobs, and their duties include assisting victims even when are technically off duty," Grassley said.  "As it stands, however, when the officer, say on a weekend, steps in to protect a victim from a crime of violence that is occurring in his presence, he risks state prosecution and damage to his career.  That might lead him to hesitate.  This is contrary to good public policy."

"Police officers look out for our communities and our families every day, risking their own safety to do so," Coons said. " When I was a county executive, I worked closely with our local law enforcement professionals and witnessed firsthand how our brave officers are trained to detect and prevent dangerous situations, whether they are on-the-clock or not. The Officer Safety Act of 2012 will ensure that 'off duty' federal officers who intercede to protect the lives of others will be held to the same standards as when they are performing their official duties. I applaud my colleagues' work today and for coming together during National Police Week to support our nation's first responders. I hope the bill will be considered by the full Senate soon."

Grassley serves as ranking member and Coons is a member of the Judiciary Committee.  The proposal adopted during the committee meeting this morning was co-sponsored by Senators Tom Coburn, Jeff Sessions, Dianne Feinstein, Amy Klobuchar, Chuck Schumer, Richard Blumenthal, and Richard Durbin.

It is supported by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association, and the National Border Patrol Council.

 

-30-

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Budget Votes

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Mr. President,

Setting a budget for the country is one of the most basic responsibilities and fundamental functions of the Congress.  The Budget Act requires Congress to adopt a budget by April 15^th.

It's a requirement that this Senate Majority has ignored time and again.

In fact, the Senate hasn't adopted a budget since April 29, 2009.  More than three years have passed since the Senate last adopted a budget.

During that time, more than $4 trillion has been added to our nation's debt.  In President Obama's presidency, we've added $5 trillion to the national debt.

We're in the midst of the fourth consecutive year of trillion-dollar deficits.

All the while, the Senate Democratic Majority has failed to propose a budget blueprint that would lay out priorities for deficit reduction, economic growth or a path to balance.

It's no wonder our nation is driving toward a fiscal cliff of deficits and debt.  There is no one in the Democratic leadership willing to take hold of the wheel.

In February, President Obama released his budget.

The President's 2013 budget would expand the scope of government by spending more money, increase taxes on job creators, and continue on the path of enormous deficits and record debt.

While President Obama claims that his budget will create an America built to last, the only thing his budget builds are higher deficits and debt, a bigger, more intrusive government, and economic decline for future generations.

During the past 60 years, spending has averaged about 21 percent of GDP.  Over the ten-year window of President Obama's budget, spending never gets below 22 percent.

In dollar terms, spending goes up from $3.8 trillion this year to $5.8 trillion in 2022.

It's clear:  President Obama is built to spend.

 

President Obama's budget is also harmful to our fragile economy because it would impose a $1.9 trillion tax increase.

Maybe the President's purpose in imposing this huge tax increase is an effort to reduce the nation's debt.

Unfortunately, that's not what he has planned.  He wants to spend every dollar.

His budget runs deficits totaling $6.4 trillion over the next ten years.

Debt held by the public increases from 74.2 percent of our economy today to 76.3 percent in 2022.

Remember, the historical average since World War II is just 43 percent.

If people believe that President Obama is putting us on a path to fiscal sustainability, I'd suggest they look at the annual deficits over the next ten years.

They never drop below $575 billion, and actually go up toward the end of his budget, rising to $704 billion in 2022.

President Obama's budget puts America on a course of deficits and debt as far as the eye can see.

The President also took a pass on proposing any real changes to our entitlement programs, which are the real driver of future deficits and debt.

Again, he's absent from the discussion.  He has offered no solution.  He has chosen not to lead.

But, where is the leadership from the Senate Democrats?  Where is their budget?

Why have they not proposed a budget in more than three years?

The Budget Chairman has said repeatedly that we already have a budget in place for this year and next.

The Chairman and the Majority Leader feel that the Budget Control Act was a budget resolution.

The Budget Control Act is not a budget.  President Obama clearly agreed when he proposed his budget.

House Republicans and Democrats alike agreed when they voted on seven budget resolutions authored by both Republicans and Democrats.

The Democratic Leadership in the Senate stands alone in their belief that the Budget Control Act was a budget resolution.

Is it because they have no ideas on how to balance the budget, contain out of control spending, grow the economy or create jobs?

If the Democratic Majority can't muster the will to present their own budget, why don't they offer President Obama's budget?

I'm sure we'll hear the argument that the resolution our side is offering is not a fair depiction of President Obama's budget.  That's the rhetoric we're likely to hear so that they can vote against it.

The fact is they're going to vote against it for one reason - because it's President Obama's budget.

They don't want to be on record voting for any budget.

That will be the most remarkable outcome of today's exercise.

We're going to vote on five different budget proposals.  Three are being offered by Senate Republicans, one is House Budget Chairman Ryan's budget, and the final resolution is President Obama's budget.

Not only have Senate Democrats failed to even propose a budget, they'll likely vote in lockstep against each of the five budget proposals.

We're likely to see Senate Democrats come to the floor and vote one-by-one and cast roughly 265 votes against the consideration of a budget.

Is that leadership?  Is that conviction?

They're in the majority.  But when it comes to proposing and supporting a budget, they're the party of "no" and obstruction.

Democrats are the party filibustering consideration of a budget blueprint.

The Budget Chairman was quoted recently as saying,

"This is the wrong time to vote in committee; this is the wrong time to vote on the floor.  I don't think we will be prepared to vote before the election."

How many more trillions do we need to add to the national debt before it's time to vote on a budget resolution?

If now is not the time to lead, propose bold solutions and take action, when is?

The American people are going to pay a heavy price for the unwillingness and inability of the Senate Democratic leadership to lead and offer solutions.

Once again, the Senate Democratic leadership and President Obama are content with being absent from the discussion.

There are no solutions.  There is no leadership.  There is only failure and punting until after the next election.

We have a moral obligation to offer serious solutions for today and for future generations.

WASHINGTON - After learning that an Iraqi court would release Ali Musa Daqduq, a known Hezbollah figure and orchestrator of a plot that led to the deaths of five American soldiers, all Republican members of the Judiciary Committee asked Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta for information about the Obama administration's plans for dealing with the terrorist.

 

The members wrote, "Now an Iraqi court has cleared Daqduq of any criminal charges under Iraqi law and, as we and many other observers had feared, may be set free without being held to account for his crimes against the United States and its soldiers."

 

Daqduq was captured on the battlefield in Iraq and was in U.S. custody until December 2011 when the Obama administration turned him over to Iraqi authorities.  Before handing the terrorist over to Iraq, a number of senators sent several letters to the administration urging them to try Daqduq before a military tribunal, instead of releasing him to Iraq, because of concerns that the Iraqi government would free the terrorist and he would be able to rejoin the battlefield and innocent people could be killed.  Those letters can be found here.

 

Following the turnover of Daqduq to Iraqi custody, the administration charged Daqduq with war crimes, but knowledge of those charges were only made public when the New York Times obtained a copy of the document.  It appears the administration made the charges only after the handover when Daqduq wouldn't be accessible to the U.S. government.

 

Here's a copy of the letter to Holder and Panetta.  A signed copy of the letter can be found here.

 

May 10, 2012

 

Via Electronic Transmission

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.                            The Honorable Leon Panetta

Attorney General                        Secretary of Defense

U.S. Department of Justice                        Department of Defense

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.                           Pentagon

Washington, D.C. 20530                          Washington, D.C. 20301

 

Dear Attorney General Holder and Secretary Panetta:

 

According to a report in the New York Times on May 7, 2012, an Iraqi court has ordered the release of Ali Musa Daqduq.  Daqduq is a senior Hezbollah field commander who allegedly orchestrated a kidnapping that resulted in the deaths of five U. S. soldiers in Karbala, Iraq in 2007.  He also has close ties with Iran's Qods Force, including training its fighters in the use of improvised explosive devices (IED) and other insurgent tactics employed against U.S. troops.  Daqduq had been in U.S. military custody until the United States turned him over to Iraqi authorities upon exiting Iraq in December 2011.

 

According to another report in the New York Times earlier this year, Daqduq has been charged with war crimes, including murder, terrorism, and espionage, before a U.S. military commission.  However, those charges were not made public until the New York Times obtained a copy of the charging document.   In fact, it appears that the Administration knew it was going to pursue charges against Daqduq, waited until he was released to Iraq, and then filed the charges, but failed to keep Congress apprised of its plans.

 

We have expressed a keen interest in Daqduq and in the Administration's plans for him.  In May 2011, Attorney General Holder appeared before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) and was specifically asked about prosecution plans for Daqduq.  We followed up with a letter to Attorney General Holder on May 16, 2011, again expressing concerns about, and interest in, how the Administration was going to prosecute Daqduq.  On July 29, 2011, another letter was sent to Secretary Panetta, seeking information about issues relating to Daqduq held by the Department of Defense.  Finally, on August 8, 2011, the Department of Justice responded through a letter from Ronald Weich that indicated the "ultimate disposition of this matter is under consideration by an interagency process that includes . . . the Department of Justice."

 

Subsequently, Administration officials briefed Congress about Daqduq's imminent release into Iraqi custody.  Yet, they never mentioned that the Administration was considering charges, which were filed approximately two weeks later.  Eight pages of charges, surely involving classified materials or evidence, would require more than two weeks to review, organize, and approve.  This appears to indicate that either the Administration was purposefully withholding information from Congress or it had not done the due diligence required to file charges in a serious case against a dangerous terrorist.  Furthermore, in the future, when the Administration claims that it is aggressively pursuing Daqduq, it will sound disingenuous since we know that he was only charged after he was released to another country.  If the Administration was serious in pursuing Daqduq, officials had many years when they could have brought charges against him, yet the Administration waited until he was not available to prosecute.

 

Now an Iraqi court has cleared Daqduq of any criminal charges under Iraqi law and, as we and many other observers had feared, may be set free without being held to account for his crimes against the United States and its soldiers.  As it appears Daqduq is on the verge of escaping justice, we again ask for information about the Administration's plans for dealing with this situation.

 

Accordingly, provide the following information:

 

·         A copy of the military commission charging document filed against Daqduq;

·         A list of who was involved in this decision and who was the final decision-maker;

·         An explanation of when, if at all, the families of his U.S. victims were consulted about his prosecution;

·         An explanation of whether Daqduq has been notified of the U.S. charges against him;

·         A description of which components in the Administration have been, currently are, or expect to be involved in the Daqduq matter;

·         A description of efforts to have Daqduq transferred into U.S. custody after he was charged, including whether any formal extradition request was made to the Iraqi government;

·         A description of any conditions (such as transfer to a civilian court) required by the Iraqi government for extraditing Daqduq and the U.S. response to those conditions;

·         An explanation of where Daqduq is expected to be held, if he were transferred into U.S. custody;

·         A description of charges against Daqduq from any other country of which the Administration is aware;

·         A description of whether and how the Administration assisted in Daqduq's prosecution by the Iraqi government;

·         An explanation of why briefers from the Administration failed to indicate that criminal charges were prepared but not presented to a military commission prior to turning Daqduq over to the Iraqi government.

·         An assessment of why the Iraqi prosecution of Daqduq failed, including any problems with the Iraqi court's willingness or capability to consider valid evidence provided by the United States, such as forensic evidence and statements made while in U.S. custody;

·         A description of options the Administration is considering for next steps in the handling of Daqduq's case; and,

·         A description of Administration discussions with the Iraqi government about next steps in the handling of Daqduq's case.

 

Given the serious consequences that could result from Daqduq's release from Iraqi custody and the important issues raised regarding future decisions to turn over detainees to foreign governments, we appreciate your response no later than May 25, 2012.

 

Sincerely,

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley today said that late last night legislation to strengthen and update the Whistleblower Protection Act passed the Senate and is now headed to the House for consideration.

Grassley is one of the primary authors of the bill, known as the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.  The bill was introduced on April 6, 2011.  The legislation is sponsored by Senator Daniel K. Akaka of Hawaii and is cosponsored by Grassley along with Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Carl Levin of Michigan, Tom Carper of Delaware, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Ben Cardin of Maryland, and Chris Coons of Delaware.

"This update to the Whistleblower Protection Act makes big steps forward for all federal government employees.  It restores the congressional intent behind the law, but it is especially important in establishing whistleblower protection for employees in the intelligence community for the first time, without endangering national security," Grassley said.  "We'll continue to fight for additional improvements, like adding timelines for the Attorney General to address FBI whistleblower retaliation cases, that give whistleblowers the security they need to help us uncover the skeletons hidden deep in the closets of the federal bureaucracy."

The legislation would:

·         clarify that "any" disclosure of gross waste or mismanagement, fraud, abuse, or illegal activity may be protected, but not disagreements over legitimate policy decisions;

·         suspend the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals sole jurisdiction over federal employee whistleblower cases for five years;

·         extend Whistleblower Protection Act coverage and other non-discrimination and anti-retaliatory laws to all employees of the Transportation Security Administration;

·         clarify that whistleblowers may disclose evidence of censorship of scientific or technical information under the same standards that apply to disclosures of other kinds of waste, fraud, and abuse;

·         codify the anti-gag provision that has been part of every Transportation-Treasury Appropriations bill since 1988;

·         allow jury trials under certain circumstances for a period of five years;

·         provide the Merit System Protection Board with authority to consider and grant summary judgment motions in Whistleblower Protection Act cases for a period of 5 years;

·         clarify that employees protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act may make protected classified disclosures to Congress using the same process as Intelligence Community employees;

·         establish protections for the Intelligence Community modeled on existing whistleblower protections for FBI employees;

·         establish a process within the executive branch for review if a security clearance is allegedly denied or revoked because of a protected whistleblower disclosure;

·         establish Whistleblower Protection Ombudsmen to educate agency personnel about whistleblower rights; and

·         provide the Office of Special Counsel with the independent right to file "friend of the court" briefs, or amicus briefs, with federal courts.

A long-time advocate for whistleblowers, in addition to co-authoring the 1989 whistleblower law, Grassley sponsored changes made in 1986 to the President Lincoln-era federal False Claims Act to empower private sector whistleblowers.  Since the 1986 amendments were signed into law, the False Claims Act has brought back more than $30 billion to the federal treasury, and has deterred even more fraudulent activity. In 2009, in coordination with Senator Patrick Leahy, Grassley worked to pass legislation to shore up whistleblower protections in the False Claims Act that had been eroded by the courts after years of litigation by defense and healthcare contractors.

Grassley is also the author of legislation that would give whistleblower protections to employees in the legislative branch similar to protections already provided to employees of the executive branch of the federal government.

-30-