Grassley Seeks Full Accounting of 88 Department of Homeland Security Employees on Paid Administrative Leave for More Than a Year

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is asking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for a full accounting of why each of 88 employees has been on paid administrative leave for more than a year.  Grassley's request comes after an inadequate explanation from the agency on its use of paid administrative leave.

DHS' explanation of the reasons for such extended periods of paid leave was "too broad and vague to assess whether other actions might have been more appropriate," Grassley wrote to Secretary Jeh Johnson.

In his letter, Grassley said DHS failed to explain how it met applicable Office of Personnel Management authority "to use administrative leave 'for those rare circumstances' in which the employee 'may pose a threat to the employee or others, result in loss of or damage to Government property, or otherwise jeopardize legitimate Government interests,' or how its actions were consistent with the numerous" Government Accountability Office decisions "limiting administrative leave to brief duration."  Grassley's letter continued, "DHS also failed to explain why such extended amounts of time were needed to conduct investigations into security issues, misconduct, or fitness for duty."

In a response to Grassley in January, DHS reported 88 employees who had been placed on paid administrative leave for a year or more:

·         Four of these employees were on administrative leave for approximately 3 years or more, 2 of whom continued to be on administrative leave at the time of DHS' response.

·         An additional 17 employees were reportedly on administrative leave for approximately 2 years or more, including 5 who remained in this status at the time of DHS' response.

·         These 88 employees were across the department's components, suggesting systemic misuse of paid administrative leave.

Last October, Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa wrote to 17 agencies and the inspector general for one agency featured in a report from the Government Accountability Office, issued at their request.  The GAO report examined data from fiscal years 2011 to 2013 from more than 100 federal agencies.  GAO found:

·         Three percent of federal employees took between 1 month and 3 years of paid administrative leave.  Of those, 263 employees charged between 1 and 3 years of paid administrative leave.

·         Salary estimates for paid administrative leave for fiscal years 2011-2013 totaled nearly $3.1 billion.  Salary estimates for the 263 employees who took between 1 and 3 years totaled $31 million.

·         Of employees taking relatively higher amounts of leave at selected agencies, GAO found the most common reasons for charging higher-than-average amounts of paid administrative leave included personnel matters (such as investigations into alleged misconduct or criminal actions), physical fitness-related activities, and periods of rest and recuperation for employees working in overseas locations.

"Each agency handles administrative leave on its own terms in the absence of clear guidance that should apply to everyone," Grassley said.  "The result is employees' getting paid to stay home, sometimes for more than a year, while management keeps them in limbo.  This is detrimental to taxpayers and good government.  The agencies should account for each case of paid leave, especially those lasting more than a year.  The explanations will help Congress arrive at solutions to stop abusively long leave."

Grassley is working with Sen. Jon Tester on potential legislation that would force agencies to make a decision on whether an employee is a danger to fellow employees and must be removed from the workplace or whether that person can be reassigned while his case is resolved.  "The goal is to make sure federal employees are working for taxpayers and not lingering on paid leave at taxpayer expense," Grassley said.

Grassley's letter to DHS is available here.  DHS' prior response is available here.

-30-

Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

Hearing on Judicial Nominations

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Good morning and welcome to the 9th nominations hearing this year.

Today we will hear from four nominees to federal district courts:

-           Gary Brown, for the Eastern District of New York

-           Rebecca Ebinger, for the Southern District of  Iowa

-           Len Strand, for the Northern District of Iowa

-           Mark Young, for the Central District of California

Welcome to all of you and your families and congratulations on your nominations.

I'm especially pleased to have two nominees for vacancies in Iowa.

I'm biased of course, but I must say in my humble opinion Judges Strand and Ebinger are two of the best judicial candidates President Obama has nominated during his Presidency.

To fill the two judicial vacancies in Iowa, I set up a Judicial Selection Commission and invited all interested Iowa lawyers to apply. The applicants were vetted by highly qualified members of the Iowa legal community.

After spending hundreds of hours reviewing the applications, the Commission interviewed the 39 Iowans who submitted their applications. 11 candidates were then selected for a lengthy second round of interviews.

At the end of the process, the Commission sent their recommendations to me. In consultation with Senator Ernst, I was proud to recommend Judges Strand and Ebinger to the White House. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Commissioners for the time and effort they devoted to the process.

Just to give you a sense of the time and effort that went into the process, Cindy Moser, who chaired the Commission, logged nearly 2,000 miles driving back and forth from Sioux City to Des Moines.

And I'd like to acknowledge one of the Commissioners who came from Iowa to be here today: Jeff Goodman.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the President and his staff, including the White House counsel, for working with me to move these nominations forward. This is how our constitutional process of advice and consent is designed to work.

And the proof is in the pudding. Judges Strand and Ebinger have the highest credentials and character and will serve the state of Iowa with honor and distinction.

I'll introduce the Iowa nominees and then will turn to the other Senators for their introductions.

Judge Strand received his B.A. from the University of Iowa in 1987 and his J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1990. Upon graduation, he joined one of the most prestigious law firms in Iowa as an associate. During his time at the law firm, he received several awards, including "Super Lawyer" for Iowa and the Great Plains Region for 6 years straight.

In 2012, Judge Strand was appointed as a Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. In this capacity, he has handled hundreds of cases, which has prepared him well to handle cases as a District Court Judge.

Judge Ebinger received her undergraduate degree in 1997 from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and her J.D. from Yale Law School in 2004. She then served as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney's office for the Northern District of Iowa in Cedar Rapids. There, she prosecuted criminal cases involving narcotics, immigration, firearms offenses, and violent crimes. She then clerked for Judge Michael Melloy on the Eighth Circuit for two years, also in Cedar Rapids.

Following her clerkship, she moved to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Iowa as an Assistant United States Attorney. During this time, her practice shifted primarily to white collar crime. She also handled intake for all child support enforcement cases and sex offender registry violations. Judge Ebinger received a number of awards for her work with the United States Attorneys Office.

In 2012, she was appointed to serve as a district judge in Iowa state court and she was retained as a district judge in the 2014 election. As state court judge, she presides over a court of general jurisdiction handling civil law and equity, criminal and family court proceedings. She has presided over 40 cases that have gone to verdict or trial.

-30-

Opioid abuse prevention plan from the White House

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, today made the following comment on the White House's new opioid abuse prevention plan.

"The opioid problem has many contributing factors, and fighting it requires measures on multiple fronts.  There's a lot of good news in what the White House is putting forward today.  I've been among many senators who urged the Administration to re-instate the National Prescription Drug Take-Back Day for unused medicines.  I'm glad to see that program back in place.  It's been very popular in Iowa.  Getting unused medicines out of the medicine cabinet prevents diversion from teen-agers and others prone to abuse.  The Administration is promoting physician education and training and increased access to the overdose drug naloxone for law enforcement and first responders.  These are positive steps.

"The Administration has had a change of heart on doctors' prescribing opioids to increase their patient satisfaction survey scores.  This has been a concern in Medicare.  When I wrote to the Administration about this problem last year, the Administration didn't seem to think this was a problem.  Now there's an acknowledgement that a review of this area is appropriate.  I hope the Administration will continue to take an open-minded approach to fighting opioid abuse."

Details of the White House plan are available here.

Grassley's most recent comment on the National Prescription Drug Take-Back program is available here.

Grassley's letter (with Sen. Dianne Feinstein) to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on patient satisfaction surveys is available here.

CMS' response on patient satisfaction surveys is available here.

-30-

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for S.754, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, and to thank the bill's managers for their leadership and hard work on the bill.

The cybersecurity challenges that threaten us are real.

We receive almost daily reminders of the importance of effective cybersecurity to protect our private data, and the safety and security of the entire nation, from cyber-attacks.  These attacks have compromised the personal information of so many Americans, as well as sensitive national security information.

The legislation before us will encourage the government and private sector to work together to address these cybersecurity challenges.

This bill helps create a strong legal framework for information sharing that will help us respond to these threats.

The bill authorizes private companies to voluntarily share cyber threat information with each other and the government.  In turn, it permits the government to share this type of information with private entities.  The bill reduces the uncertainty and legal barriers that either limit or prohibit the sharing of cyber threat information today.

At the same time, the bill includes significant privacy protections to strike a balance between maintaining security and protecting our civil liberties.  For example, it restricts the government from acquiring or using cyber threat information except for limited cybersecurity purposes.

I salute the leadership of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Intelligence Committee, Senators Burr and Feinstein, for their efforts on this bill.

This isn't easy work.  In the 112th Congress, I co-sponsored cybersecurity legislation, along with several of my colleagues, which involved working across several committees of jurisdiction.

Last Congress, as then-Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, I continued to work with the Intelligence Committee and others on an earlier version of this bill.  Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership never gave the Senate an opportunity to debate and vote on that bill.  But Senators Burr and Feinstein were undaunted.

This Congress, they diligently continued to seek input from relevant committees of jurisdiction, including the Judiciary Committee.  They incorporated the views of a broad range of senators, and worked to address the concerns of stakeholders outside Congress, which has produced their manager's amendment.

This is a bill that enjoys broad, bipartisan support.  It may not be a perfect bill from any individual Senator's point of view, but it's a good bill that addresses a very real problem.

It's time for us to do our job and vote. This is how the Senate is supposed to work.  Now is the time for action, because the question isn't whether there will be another cyber-attack; it's when.