Renewable Fuel Standard proposal; Iowans encouraged to comment

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today encouraged Iowans and others knowledgeable about biofuels to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed Renewable Fuel Standard volume requirements for 2014, 2015 and 2016.  Grassley made the following statement urging Iowans to comment.

"The EPA doesn't have a good idea of what's happening in biofuels.  Instead, the agency has been listening to Big Oil's hand-wringing and obstruction.  The EPA needs to hear from the people who produce ethanol and biodiesel every day and have the will and the capacity to produce even more.  Iowans ought to tell their story and not let Big Oil tell it for them."

The public comment field is available here.    Grassley's comment on the proposed rule is available here.

Grassley and a bipartisan group of fellow senators have urged the EPA to follow its commitments on biofuels.  Their letters from earlier this year are available here and here.    

Sending WOTUS Rule Back to the Drawing Board

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa made the following comment today after the Environment and Public Works Committee passed bipartisan legislation that would require the Environmental Protection Agency to completely revise with stakeholder input, including from the states, the Waters of the United States rule.  Grassley is a cosponsor of the bill.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which Grassley chairs, today held a hearing on the federal regulatory system.  The Waters of the United States rule was used as an example of a rulemaking process where the public's role appeared to be minimalized.

"Instead of attempting to address the legitimate concerns raised during the open comment period, the EPA and its allies pushed their own agenda, attempting to drive support for the rule, while belittling the concerns of the public.  The EPA had its own end goal in mind, regardless of public opinion or the economic impact.  As written, the rule could result in significant red tape and expense for Iowa farmers as they make routine decisions about how best to use their land, even ironically hampering projects to improve water quality.

"The legislation that passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee puts the EPA back on the job and requires them to start over with the rulemaking process.  It's a necessary step to protect America's waterways and protect farmers and other land owners."

Q&A with U.S Senator Chuck Grassley:  WOTUS

Q:  What is the federal rule known as "Waters of the United States (WOTUS)?"

A:  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers released in May a final rule that broadly redefines the scope of a 1972 federal law enacted to protect America's waterways from pollution. The ruling significantly widens the federal regulatory umbrella that implements the Clean Water Act, sweeping aside the congressional intent of the law, which says in plain language: "It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use...of land and water resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of (his) authority under this chapter." Instead, the federal rule steps into areas previously covered by state and local regulations, and in the process sweeps small property owners into its jurisdictional dragnet. Farmers may now need to consider whether even dry areas on their property such as streambeds, ditches and culverts fall under federal jurisdiction and enforcement. A farmer who knows his property like the back of his hand might have the EPA dictating permitting requirements to allow him to manage his own farm.  From a constitutional standpoint, the federal edict reflects yet another authoritarian erosion of our separate, but co-equal branches of government. This administration has launched unprecedented overreach that centralizes government authority and shrinks individual rights. WOTUS is among the most recent executive intrusions that underscore why our system of checks and balances is more important than ever.

Q:  Why do you oppose the final rule that was issued in May?

A: Let's be clear about my concerns with the WOTUS rule. Water is an essential natural resource. People's lives and livelihoods depend on healthy eco-systems and clean water for survival. But, expanding a bureaucratic federal permitting process beyond the scope that was intended would strain the capacity of federal officials and divert resources away from combating actual polluters. So, protecting and conserving water quality is not the issue. The question is the extent to which the executive branch is unilaterally exceeding its authority at the expense of good government. The public good (water quality) and good government (of, by and for the people) are not mutually exclusive. The final rule arguably muddies the constitutional waters that protect individual rights and ownership of private property. It invites an unending stream of uncertainty to hard-working Americans whose livelihoods depend on the management decisions they make for their farms and businesses.  Sound stewardship of natural resources, such as the soil that grows our food, the water we drink and the air we breathe, is a lifelong investment and point of pride for America's farm families that goes back generations.

Q: What are you doing to address the flawed rule?

A: Reining in executive overreach requires action by the other two branches of government. It wouldn't be surprising if affected individuals pursue due process in the courts. From the legislative branch, much of the problem stems from Congress writing laws that are too broad and delegating too much legislative power to the executive branch. In this case, when Congress wrote the Clean Water Act, it specified that the act was limited to "navigable waters." And the law defined that term as "the waters of the United States" without further explanation. The entire rule in question is essentially a long definition of the term "waters of the United States" that fills in the details that Congress failed to specify. The best solution would be for Congress to go back and finish the job by more clearly defining what it meant by "navigable waters" in the Clean Water Act rather than leaving it to the EPA to decide the scope of its own authority. In fact, I am cosponsoring a bill to do just that. If that proves politically impossible in the short run, Congress should at least require the EPA to go back to the drawing board and work with the states and all of the relevant stakeholders to set clearer jurisdictional boundaries that more closely align with the intent of Congress and the relevant Supreme Court rulings.  Another bill I'm co-sponsoring that would make the EPA do just that passed out of committee and is moving to the full Senate for consideration. Congress needs to apply the brakes when an unelected bureaucracy rams through regulations that do not reflect the consent of the governed or uphold longstanding constitutional principles that guarantee the states' role in our federal system and individual rights regarding private property. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I convened a hearing in June to examine our federal regulatory system that too often marginalizes public interest to advance narrow special interests. Using legislative and oversight tools, I'll continue working to rein in a sweeping regulatory process that ignores the fundamental rule of thumb of self-government. Government conducts the people's business and must answer to the people. Openness and transparency strengthen accountability and good government.

Whistleblowers: Senior Marshals Service Employees Used Government Resources for Personal Gain

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is investigating new allegations of inappropriate spending within the U.S. Marshals Service, including the use of government resources for personal gain, unnecessary travel and inappropriate payment of salaries out of a fund established from forfeited assets.

According to agency whistleblowers, at least three high-ranking employees directed subordinates and federal contractors to draft their applications for Senior Executive Service positions using public office resources. Asset Forfeiture Division Assistant Director Kimberly Beal and Judicial Security Division Assistant Director Noelle Douglas were promoted to their current posts after they allegedly influenced subordinates to write Executive Core Qualification (ECQ) statements for their applications while on the clock.  Former Asset Forfeiture Division Assistant Director Eben Morales allegedly ordered government contractors to write his ECQs and bill their time to the government when seeking his promotion, which he received.

Whistleblowers also claim that high-ranking officials use the Assets Forfeiture Fund to pay for extensive travel to events that produce little or no benefit to the agency, or have nothing to do with work. For example, certain members of the Asset Forfeiture Division from across the country allegedly convene twice a year at Marshals Service headquarters for an "Asset Forfeiture Leadership Council," but it's unclear what the purpose of these meetings are, and multiple sources told the Committee that the meetings are "a waste of time" and "never accomplish anything."

Further, the Committee has received allegations the Asset Forfeiture Division is using the Assets Forfeiture Fund to pay for non-forfeiture related expenses, in violation of federal law.  Specifically, some Marshals Service employees' salaries are being fully funded through the Assets Forfeiture Fund even though they spend a substantial portion of their time on matters unrelated to forfeiture operations. The Assets Forfeiture Fund was established to support law enforcement activities related to asset forfeiture, not to supplant agency appropriations.

Grassley is seeking more details on these allegations from the Justice Department, which has pledged to share information with the Committee as its Office of Inspector General carries out its own separate investigation.

A signed copy of Grassley's letter can be found here.  Full text of the letter is available below. 

Communication Breakdowns may have led to Renewed Deferred Deportation for Convicted Statutory Rapist

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is investigating claims that failures by immigration agencies allowed a convicted statutory rapist to remain in the United States and receive immigration benefits, even while serving a two-year prison sentence.  Whistleblowers allege that Abarca Torres Alvaro, who had received deferred deportation under the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive action, was ordered to be removed from the country following his conviction of statutory rape in 2013.  However, a lack of communication between Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and local law enforcement not only prevented Torres' removal, but also allowed him to receive notices to renew his DACA status after serving two years in prison.

According to information provided to the Committee, Torres was charged with statutory rape in February 2013, and granted DACA in April 2013.  He was convicted in October of that year and sentenced to two years in prison. Immigration and Customs Enforcement allegedly served Torres with a Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Deportation Order, which should have voided his DACA benefits. However, when Torres was released from prison last year, he was not apprehended by law enforcement for removal.  Evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that Immigration and Customs Enforcement never informed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the notice to initiate a removal following his sentence. Torres was allegedly sent a DACA renewal notice in early 2015.

"The growing number of allegations relating to failed collaboration between ICE and USCIS raise several public safety concerns with the DACA program's administration," Grassley said in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. "This recent example once again highlights the inability of the Department of Homeland Security components to properly communicate and coordinate..."

Grassley recently began investigating claims that DACA recipients who either were under investigation by immigration officials or should have been deported are now charged with child abuse or murder. In response following these inquiries, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services admitted that it erred in granting DACA to the man charged with murder, but failed to clearly explain where the breakdown occurred, and did not provide the man's immigration file as was requested by the Committee.

A signed copy of Grassley's letter is available here.  The letter's text is below. 

Senate Agriculture Committee to Hold Hearing on Avian Influenza Following Iowa Senators' Request

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Following Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst's request, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry today announced it will hold a hearing on July 7^th entitled "Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza: The Impact of the U.S. Poultry Sector and Protecting U.S. Poultry Flocks." The announcement follows a letter sent by the two Senators from Iowa to Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) requesting a hearing on the federal government's response to the ongoing outbreak of the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).

"I'm pleased that Chairman Roberts has granted our request to examine the federal government's response to the devastating outbreak of the avian influenza and its impact on Iowa producers, consumers, and our agriculture industry nationwide," said Senator Ernst. "This is an important opportunity to bring leaders and key stakeholders together to review the pandemic spread of this deadly disease, identify areas for improvement within response procedures, and set the stage to ensure we are better prepared in the future."

"I appreciate Chairman Roberts agreeing to our request to hold a hearing in the Senate Agriculture Committee. This is immensely important to Iowa producers and the Iowa economy," said Senator Grassley. "We need to learn from the last six months so, in addition to confronting the current epidemic, we're better prepared to respond at all levels when the disease likely strikes again."

Senators Grassley and Ernst previously urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to deploy all appropriate resources to address the HPAI outbreak. The Iowa Senators also joined the entire Iowa Congressional delegation in a letter to the USDA to provide any assistance under their statuary authority to help contain and prevent further spread of HPAI.

Senators Raise Concerns about Cost and Need of New Immigration Application Processing Center

WASHINGTON -Members of the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committees are questioning the Obama Administration's unilateral decision to continue leasing a Northern Virginia building that was originally intended to process applications for one of President Obama's most controversial executive actions that has now been halted by court order.

In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan and General Services Administration Acting Administrator Denise Turner Roth, the senators expressed concern that the decisions regarding the establishment of a new processing center may not have undergone proper scrutiny or formal contracting requirements to ensure that it's not only a prudent use of agency resources, but also a legal one.

The letter was signed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, and senators Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn, David Vitter and David Perdue.   The Judiciary and Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committees have oversight responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security.

Administration officials notified committee staff that despite the court injunction which prevented them from processing additional deferred action benefits, the agency would use the space to process other immigration benefits.

The members noted that the four centers currently used for processing benefit applications were created as a direct result of Congress passing a legalization program and expanding benefits to a certain defined class.