Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

FBI Oversight Hearing

Wednesday, March 30, 2010

Chairman Leahy, thank you for calling this hearing today.  Before I get started, I wanted to take a moment to say a public thank you to Director Mueller for his service to the country.  This is likely to be the last time he comes before this Committee as the Director of the FBI.  While we have had our share of disagreements on a number of issues, I have always appreciated Director Mueller's candor and his willingness to work with us to get answers?even if we don't always agree with what those answers are.

That said, I look forward to raising a number of issues with the Director today.  First and foremost, I want to talk about the PATRIOT Act and the need to extend the provisions that are set to expire in May.  The three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act are important tools used by federal law enforcement and the intelligence community to investigate national security threats.  They are vital to our ability to investigate, identify, track, and deter terrorist attacks.  For example, it was recently revealed that the FBI successfully utilized a section 215 order as part of the investigation that prevented a terrorist attack planned by a Saudi national in Texas.  In that case it was revealed that the individual in question purchased bomb making materials such as 3 gallons of sulfuric acid, clocks, chemistry sets, and a gas mask from online retailers Amazon.com and eBay.  This case is the latest of many examples of the successes of the PATRIOT Act provisions.  Given the dangerous threats we face and the fact that the three expiring provisions have not been found to have been abused, the Senate should work to reauthorize the expiring authorities without amendment.

Aside from the critical national security authorities we need to reauthorize, I want to ask Director Mueller about a recent report that was issued by our colleagues in the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.  That committee released a report in February entitled, "A Ticking Time Bomb" that examined the tragic shootings at Fort Hood that occurred in November 2009.  That report highlighted a number of problems at both the Department of Defense and the FBI and found "systematic failures in the Government's handling of the Hasan case."  I was troubled to hear some of the allegations contained in the report including that an analyst on a joint terrorism task force was not provided full access to a key FBI database simply because he was from a non-FBI agency.  I want to hear from the Director whether he agreed with some of these key findings, what is being done to correct any deficiencies in the way terrorism cases are reviewed, and whether information sharing has been improved

I also want to ask the Director some questions about FBI employee personnel matters.  I have long been concerned about the plight of whistleblowers at the FBI.  I appreciate that Director Mueller has made it a priority to instruct all employees of the FBI that retaliation against whistleblowers will not be tolerated.  I think this is an important message for employees to hear from the Director.  Unfortunately, that directive has not always been followed by agents in the field.  I find one case particularly troubling.

In 2007, the Department of Justice Inspector General issued a memorandum finding that a 30-year non-agent employee of the FBI, Robert Kobus, was retaliated against for protected whistleblowing.  The Inspector General found that "FBI Management in the New York Field Division improperly moved Kobus from the position of a senior administrative support manager to several non-supervisory positions."  One of those positions included being demoted to OSHA safety officer.  The retaliation was blatant and included moving his office to a cubicle on the vacant 24^th floor of the FBI office building.  The Inspector General ultimately concluded that the decision to move him was in retaliation for disclosing wrongdoing, to the Special Agent in Charge of the Field Office, in this case time and attendance fraud by FBI agents.  This is exactly the type of retaliation against whistleblowers that should never occur

Despite these findings by the Inspector General, the matter was appealed by the FBI to the Department of Justice where the case has now languished for four years.  Four years is entirely too long for an employee to wait for an appeal.  What makes matters worse is that the underlying allegations occurred in 2005.  It is often said that justice delayed is justice denied.  In this case that couldn't be any clearer.  I asked the Attorney General about this case a year ago and just received a reply in December that failed to answer why it has taken so long to review the IG's findings.  I want to hear from Director Mueller what he thinks about this sort of retaliation and why the agents who retaliated against Kobus were promoted.

The Kobus case raises a number of questions about the Department of Justice's process for investigating and adjudicating FBI whistleblower complaints.  So, I am working on a request that I have shared with Chairman Leahy, and I'm hoping we can work together on this, but I want the Government Accountability Office to conduct a top to bottom review of the Department of Justice's process for dealing with FBI Whistleblowers.  Delays like the one in the Kobus case send a clear signal to potential whistleblowers that reporting wrongdoing will only land you in an expensive bureaucratic mess.  Because the DOJ Inspector General is part of the FBI whistleblower process, I feel it is necessary for an impartial arbiter like GAO to look at things and see what is and isn't working.  Given the significant budget deficits we face and the need to cut waste and fraud wherever possible, we can't send signals to whistleblowers that coming forward isn't worth the hassle.  I would hope all my colleagues would join me in this request to make sure the process is working.

Another area of concern I have relates to FBI employee misconduct.  In January of this year, internal FBI Office of Professional Responsibility documents were leaked to the press.  Those documents contained a number of shocking allegations about misconduct committed by FBI employees.  For example, the documents detailed FBI agents who were dismissed because they: were arrested for drunk driving, engaged in improper relationships with FBI informants, leaked classified information to reporters, sought reimbursement for expenditures they never made, and in one instance, bringing foreign nationals back into FBI space after hours.  These are troubling allegations and I am glad that a number of them were accompanied by the summary dismissal of those employees.  However, a couple of the cases raised an old concern I have about whether punishments are handed out uniformly.  For example, two of the cases that were reported in the media involved inappropriate relations between FBI agents and sources.  One agent was dismissed while another was simply given a 40-day suspension.  It appears from the documents that the only difference in the cases was that in one case, the inappropriate relationship also involved improper use of a government vehicle, while the other did not.  I want to know more about how these penalties are determined.  I think this is especially important to know in light of the fact that the Inspector General found in a May 2009 report that there is a perception among FBI employees that there is a double standard for discipline between higher ranking and lower ranking employees.

Director Mueller, over the past eight months I have been investigating systemic problems at the Philadelphia Public Housing Authority.  Outlandish salaries, sexual harassment settlements, and excessive legal billings just to name a few of the problems.  I want to express my appreciation regarding the FBI's ongoing investigation and recent seizure of expensive luggage purchased as gifts by the Philadelphia Public Housing Authority.  I hope the FBI follows through vigorously on any criminal violations that may have occurred at the Philadelphia Public Housing Authority.

Finally, I want to ask the Director about the fiscal 2012 Budget request that was submitted to Congress.  I continue to have concerns with the FBI's agency-wide case management system known as Sentinel.  This project was originally supposed to cost $400 million and be complete no later than 2010.  As it stands today, the prime contractor Lockheed Martin has been removed from the job by the FBI, the project continues, and the projected cost is over $450 million.  I want to know when this is going to end, how much more taxpayer money will be necessary, and how the FBI plans to maintain the older case management database as part of the new system.  After a decade of upgrading the system, not another dime of taxpayer money should be awarded until the FBI can prove the system will work and will be done on time.

There is a lot to cover so I look forward to Director Mueller's testimony and his responses to these important matters.  Thank you.

-30-

Q.  In Washington, how much time do you spend meeting with Iowans, compared to work on the Senate floor, in committee meetings and in other discussions and work?

A.  When I'm in Washington, D.C., for Senate business, I meet with many Iowans who are visiting the nation's capital.  Because mornings are taken up by committee business, policy discussions and oftentimes Senate votes, I have appointments and conference calls with Iowans at least every Monday through Thursday, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., and any other time the schedule will allow.  Some of the Iowans I meet with in Washington are business groups such as chambers of commerce and trade associations; state, county and local officials; policy and issue advocates; student groups; and families on vacation.  The families and students often tour the Capitol and want to see a Senate office to learn more about the workings of the legislative branch of government.  Trade association members and others are usually interested in conveying their views about pieces of legislation or issues currently before Congress that affect their operations, including their ability to create and maintain jobs for Iowans, for example.

Q.  Do you meet with Iowans when you're in Iowa?

A.  If the Senate isn't in session, I'm almost always in Iowa.  I have visited each of Iowa's 99 counties at least once every year since I was first elected to the United States Senate in 1980.  My meetings with constituents include holding my own town meetings, speaking to service clubs and school groups, and touring and meeting with employees at local businesses and factories.  The 99-county tradition ensures that I get to every part of the state every year.  A lot of people know they can catch me then, or if they can't see me in person, they can at least read in the local paper that I spoke with their friends and neighbors who brought up issues of concern in the local community.  For information on upcoming meetings, please visit the events page of my website at http://grassley.senate.gov/events/index.cfm.  Iowans can also find out where I've already been this year by clicking on the interactive map located at http://grassley.senate.gov/iowa/interactive_map.cfm.

Q.  Why is it important for you to meet with Iowans?

A.  The seat I occupy in the United States Senate belongs to the people of Iowa, and I never forget that I work for them.  The honor of representing Iowans in Congress comes with the responsibility to be in touch with as many Iowans as I can, any way I can.  The essence of representative government is communication between those of us elected and our constituents.  There are a lot of ways to communicate.  In addition to face-to-face meetings, I communicate with Iowans using Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Skype, a webcast, email, the telephone and postal mail.  Each of those options helps foster a stronger dialogue between me and the Iowans I represent.  Not everyone can get to a town meeting or visit Washington to tell me what's on their mind, so the more means of communication, the better.  Iowans can schedule a meeting with me in Washington or Iowa by visiting the scheduling page of my website, http://grassley.senate.gov/info/scheduling_requests.cfm.  It helps when requests are made with as much advance notice as possible.  My office also provides tour information and arrangements for popular tourist destinations, such as the Capitol and the White House.  Tour arrangements can be made by visiting http://grassley.senate.gov/info/tour_information.cfm.  Questions about meetings or tours also can be directed to my Washington office at (202) 224-3744.

Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing on Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 

Chairman Leahy, thank you for calling this hearing today.  I share your concerns about the activities of the Department of Homeland Security.  This Department was created eight-and-a-half years ago to consolidate the various functions and agencies intended to defend our nation's borders and infrastructure.  Yet as we look at the Department of Homeland Security today, we see agencies failing to coordinate with one another, breakdowns in judgment, and failures to protect our government's own agents on the frontlines.  In short, what I see is approaching a level that some might call chaos.

With Mexican President Felipe Calderón visiting President Obama at the White House last week, it highlighted some problems that more and more Americans are becoming aware of every day.  Violence on our southern border has escalated as gangs and drug cartels acquire more weapons and more expertise.  Further, our lack of defenses and their ability to evade justice has emboldened these criminals, who are becoming a greater and greater threat.

In just the last three months, the Department of Homeland Security has seen two of its own agents murdered while in the line of duty: Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata.  Both were tragedies, and my heart goes out to the families and loved ones of Agent Terry and Agent Zapata.

Most troubling is the fact that agencies of our own government have contributed to this violence by intentionally allowing thousands of guns to be trafficked from the U.S. to Mexico. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives decided to let thousands of guns "walk" after being purchased by straw buyers intent on reselling them.  Many of those guns ended up in the hands of bandits who operate on the border, trafficking drugs and other illicit goods back into the United States.

This risky strategy of letting guns "walk" did not occur in a vacuum.  There are serious questions to be answered about the role played by the Justice Department and agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.  This ill-conceived policy has clearly affected the lives of countless individuals who may have been victims of crimes perpetrated as a result of letting guns into the hands of criminals.  Agents on the ground were ignored when they questioned the wisdom of this decision, and that just pours salt on the wounds of the families who lost loved-ones.  When the agents came forward with concerns, they were shunned and retaliated against.

If the federal agencies charged with protecting America and its borders were not working together, I have to question why the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.  If they were working together, then that raises the question of whether any other agencies objected.  Who else knew?  How high up was it approved?

The American people deserve answers.  The families of those who may have died as a result deserve answers.  Our government is organized precisely so that Congress can require accountability and provide oversight of the activities of the U.S. government in situations like this.

I continue to be concerned about the federal government's inability to secure our borders.  According to the Government Accountability Office, half of the U.S.-Mexican border is not operationally controlled.  The department just put a halt to the billion dollar virtual fence effort known as SBInet.  The violence continues, and lives are being sacrificed.

In the interior of the United States, the department refuses to acknowledge that undocumented immigrants are lawbreakers.  The Secretary says their approach to interior enforcement is guided by common sense, but Americans continue to shake their heads in amazement that the laws on the books are being ignored.

It's no secret that this Administration supports an amnesty program, or putting millions of people on a path to citizenship.  Even the head of the enforcement agency, Assistant Secretary Morton, pressed Congress to pass the DREAM Act.  Insiders say that he refused to endorse the legislation but was strong-armed to go public the morning that the Senate voted on the bill.  His support for such legislation really undermines the department's credibility on enforcement.

Their credibility is also questioned when they tout record-breaking statistics but use "unusual methods" in calculating their numbers.  As the Washington Post noted on December 6, 2010, the department has been cooking the books so they can say deportations are at an all-time high.  While they're inflating their numbers, they institute policies that allow attorneys to dismiss removal proceedings, sometimes for criminal aliens.

I'm looking forward to asking the Secretary about the internal memos written by officials in her department that outline ways that the Administration can circumvent Congress and provide legal status to millions of people who are in this country illegally.  Staff at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote one such memo last spring, stating the purpose of their document is to "reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization."  In July of last year, many members of the Senate sent a letter to the department, asking for information on how the department was using its "deferred action" and "parole" authorities, which were created and reserved for individual cases that present "unusual, emergent, or humanitarian circumstances."  We asked for specific data, only to be ignored and told that such data was not collected "in the way we requested."

Every Republican member on this committee sent the Secretary another letter on September 21 of last year inquiring about the internal amnesty memos and the use of the special discretionary authority granted to the Secretary.  We asked the Secretary to come before Congress, to meet with members and explain the memos.  The letter we received in response was unbelievably frustrating, to say the least.  The Secretary responded to this very serious issue by suggesting that the "record-breaking enforcement statistics speak for themselves."  The response barely touched on the internal memo that outlined administrative options to keep undocumented individuals in the country.  The Secretary said the department would be available for briefings on enforcement-related issues, but when asked, the department refused to allow a briefing for committee members with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or the authors of the memo.  The department assured the public that deferred action and parole would not be granted to the entire illegal immigrant population.  But they were unable to assure us that plans were not being drawn up to benefit certain segments of the undocumented population.

I'm still very disturbed that the department, and specifically U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, refuse to provide answers to Congress and the American people.  I'm frustrated by their lack of straight-talk, and by their dismissal of our concerns that backdoor plans are being devised.  I'm annoyed that this department apparently disregards the spirit of our immigration laws, and will go to great lengths to abuse the special authority Congress provided to the Secretary.

I was also disappointed to hear that the Secretary has again extended the deadline for states to comply with the REAL ID Act.  Congress passed this law in 2005 in an effort to improve driver's licenses and require verification of an individual's identity.  We passed this law because 18 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 acquired some form of fraudulent ID.  They had a total of 17 driver's licenses from various states.  This law was specifically recommended by the 9/11 Commission.

The extension approved last week by the Secretary will now give states until January 2013.  They delayed the deadline at the same time we heard about the Saudi student who was arrested on February 24, 2011 and charged with an attempt to use a weapon of mass destruction.  This foreign student had laid out an elaborate plan that included obtaining false documents and driver's licenses.  On page 10 of the criminal affidavit, it outlines how the student planned to get a forged U.S. birth certificate and then apply for a passport and driver's license.  The suspect wanted to use different driver's licenses for each car he planned to rent, in hopes of detonating his bombs in different places during rush hour.

The Secretary has publicly stated that the terrorist threat facing our country continues to evolve.  She says that we are seeing an effort by terrorists to recruit people who are already in the United States.  Having secure standards for driver's licenses is one way to impede a terrorist's mobility.  So I'd like to know why the Administration refuses to make sure driver's licenses are more secure, and why the Administration refuses to provide funding to help states comply with the law.  I want assurances from the Secretary that she's committed to the law, and will not push to water down the requirements we put in place 6 years ago.

I also want assurances from the Secretary that the department will finalize a process to check outbound passengers who are leaving the United States.  Another initiative that has been mandated by Congress but ignored is the entry/exit system created in 1996.  After 15 long years, the executive branch refuses to keep track of foreign nationals who depart the United States.  The exit system is an integral part of knowing who is in our country and ensuring that foreign nationals depart when they are required.

Secretary Napolitano, I appreciate you coming today, and I look forward to hearing what you are doing to address these issues that I have outlined.

Floor Speech of Sen. Chuck Grassley

Ethanol and Energy Independence

Delivered Monday, March 07, 2011

The American economy remains on unsettled footing.  While there are some small signs of an economic recovery, it is still fragile.

The consumer confidence level seems to be increasing.  U.S. factory activity is up.  But, the housing market remains weak.

The nation's unemployment rate stands at nine percent.  And now, our economy is facing a significant headwind due to rising energy prices.

Since the unrest began in Tunisia, our energy markets have been rocked by the uprisings in Egypt, and now in Libya.

Libya produces only roughly two percent of the world's crude oil, with much of that going to Europe.

The uncertainty and fear about supplies, according to oil speculators, has driven crude prices to more than $100 a barrel.

Prices at the pump were already high before the unrest in the Middle East.  The events just worsened the problem.

According to the Energy Information Administration, gas prices jumped 19 cents during a one week period at the end of February. This is the second largest one-week jump in more than 20 years.

American's are now paying an average of $3.38 a gallon for gasoline.  This is 68 cents higher than this time last year.

The average cost to fill up a tank of gas is likely around $50.  For a family struggling to make ends meet, these are valuable dollars spent at that pump, going overseas.

Our country is at risk.  Our economy is at risk.  Our nation's security is at risk.

Our ever-increasing reliance on foreign sources for energy is undermining our nation's economic and national security.

The activity in the Middle East over the last six weeks should be an alarm bell going off.  It should be a wake-up call.

Let me be clear.  I know that for our economy to grow and for business and individuals to thrive, we need access to reliable, affordable energy.

I support an energy policy of all of the above.

First, we must have access to oil and gas resources here at home.

The idea that we limit access to our own resources, which in turn leads us to go hat-in-hand to foreign dictators and oil sheiks, is ludicrous

We currently import more than 60 percent of our crude oil needs.  It doesn't have to be that way.

I know we can't get to energy independence by drilling alone.

But isn't it a little foolish to have our economy held hostage by events in Libya, where only two percent of the world's oil comes from?

The Obama Administration needs to put an end to the existing policy of a de facto moratorium through permitting.

We need to make sure that we're doing everything we can to protect workers and the environment.

But, permitting delays and obstacles should not prevent our nation from moving forward to developing resources here at home.  I also support efforts to expand the use of clean coal and nuclear energy.

I also support conservation efforts.  I agree that the cheapest form of energy is the energy that doesn't have to be used.

Here in the Senate, I've supported polices aimed at reducing energy use in homes and buildings through conservation and energy efficient technologies.  I see the value in reducing overall energy consumption.

I've also been a leader in the senate in promoting alternative and renewable energy.

The supply of fossil fuels is finite.

We must look to alternative and renewable resources so we can improve our energy and national security.

This includes supporting energy from wind, biomass, hydroelectric, solar, geothermal and biofuels.

I'd like to focus on the effort to develop homegrown biofuels.

For many years, Congress has realized the need to develop an alternative to fossil fuels, particularly as a means of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

One of the first policies was a tax incentive to encourage the use of homegrown ethanol.

For over a hundred years, the fossil fuel industry has had a monopoly on our transportation fuel.

They built the market.  They own the infrastructure.  They weren't about to use a product they didn't manufacture, own, or profit from.

So, Congress created a tax incentive to encourage big oil to use the product and make it available to consumers.  It was paired with an import tariff to make sure that only domestic ethanol receives the benefit of the tax incentive.

The tax incentive and the tariff work together to do two things.

The incentive exists to encourage the use of domestic ethanol.

The tariff exists to ensure we aren't giving a tax incentive to already-subsidized foreign ethanol.

Together, they ensure that we don't replace our dependence on foreign oil with a dependence on foreign ethanol

So, the incentive was created to encourage big oil to use the product.

In 2005, Congress created the Renewable Fuels Standard.  This standard was created to ensure that a minimum amount of renewable fuels was used in the fuel supply.

It was strongly opposed by big oil, but it was enacted over their opposition.

In 2007, it was greatly expanded.  It mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by 2022.

It also limits the amount that can come from corn starch ethanol at 15 billion gallons.

One of the criticisms I hear occasionally is that ethanol receives both an incentive and a mandate.  I'd like to address this point.

First, while the mandate requires that the fuel be used, it does not mandate that the ethanol be produced domestically.  The incentive acts as encouragement to use a homegrown product.

It increases economic activity at home and works to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Secondly, the mandate acts as a floor to ethanol use. Without the incentive, we would consume the bare minimum.  The incentive encourages ethanol use beyond the mandate.

Some in the environmental community are quick to raise objections to the biofuels mandates and incentives.

This is a clear example of the limitless hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty in Washington.

Many of the loudest voices against these policies are same voices who lobby me for tax incentives and mandates for wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable energy.

I'm a strong supporter of electricity generated from wind and other renewable sources.  I first authored the production tax credit for wind in 1992.

Over the years, it has been expanded to include other types of resources.

Since as far back as 2003, environmental advocacy groups have been pushing for a renewable portfolio standard, which is a mandate.

So, they want the production tax credit for wind and other renewable electricity, and a mandate that it be produced.  Yet, they oppose those same policies for biofuels.

It's clearly a double standard and inconsistency that undermines their credibility on these issues.

I've been a champion of ethanol and biofuels for a long time.  I'm well aware of the positive role ethanol is playing to create a cleaner environment.

It's improving our economic and national security.  And, it's creating jobs and economic activity in rural America.

In 2010, nearly 90 percent of all gasoline sold in the United States contained some ethanol.  The 13 billion gallons of ethanol produced in United States reduced our oil imports by 445 million barrels of oil.

After domestic oil production and imports from Canada, U.S. ethanol production is the third largest source of transportation fuel.

U.S. ethanol production is larger than what we import from Saudi Arabia or from Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

Without domestic biofuels, we'd be on bended knee even more than we are today begging others for oil.

Ethanol is the only reliable, legitimate alternative to crude oil.  Domestic ethanol currently accounts for nearly 10 percent of our transportation fuel.

There is no other renewable fuel that comes close to achieving the economic, environmental and national security benefits currently delivered by ethanol.

Mr. President, there are other well-funded misinformation campaigns under way to undermine the only alternative to imported crude oil.

Big oil has been joined in recent years by opportunistic grocery manufacturers who hope to find a scapegoat in their desire to increase profits and raise food prices.

They continue to perpetuate the same tired, baseless arguments to try and undermine our efforts toward energy independence.

They're more interested in protecting market share and profits than national and economic security.

Over the next few weeks, I'm going to do everything I can to educate my colleagues and the public on the benefits of domestic biofuels.

I'm not going to sit quietly while the energy, environmental and national security benefits of ethanol are scoffed at.  I intend to beat back every false attack.

The American public deserves an honest, fact-based discussion about the benefits of reducing our dependence on people like Hugo Chavez and Moammar Kadafi.

They deserve to hear the benefits of reducing our dependence on dirty fossil fuels.

I look forward to continuing this education and dialogue.

-30-