Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Grassley Presses President Obama for Answers to Backdoor Amnesty Policies

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley is leading 18 colleagues in questioning the administration's immigration policies that go beyond the scope of the law and allow people who have broken our laws to remain in the country.  The Senate Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over federal immigration policy.

In a letter sent late yesterday, the senators cite a June 17th memo and an August 18th directive which outline and encourage increased use of prosecutorial discretion and administrative closure of cases pending before the courts.

"The administration has repeatedly ignored and dismissed our reservations with its policies that circumvent Congress and provide a safe-haven for illegal immigrants.  Its policies ignore the rule of law and take the powers provided to the administration to an entirely new level," Grassley said.

Cosigners of the letter with Grassley are Senators David Vitter of Louisiana, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, James E. Risch of Idaho, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Boozman of Arkansas, Mike Lee of Utah, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

Here is a copy of the letter.  A signed copy can be found here.

September 26, 2011

President Barack Obama

The White House

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write to express serious concern about your immigration policies and ask that you require the Department of Homeland Security to overturn recent directives regarding the increased use of prosecutorial discretion.  We also request that the Administration halt any initiative, whether through regulation or otherwise, that circumvents Congress or aims to ensure that illegal immigrants are afforded every possibility to remain in this country.

After the release of the June 17th Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memorandum, which called for the increased use of prosecutorial discretion, several members of the Senate wrote to Assistant Secretary John Morton.  While prosecutorial discretion is justifiable in certain cases, this initiative may result in an impermissible intrusion on Congress's plenary authority over immigration law.  Accordingly, we asked Assistant Secretary Morton to rescind the memorandum outlining ICE's prosecutorial discretion policies.  That request has been ignored.

We are also concerned that the initiative announced by Secretary Napolitano on August 18th will result in the administrative closure of an untold number of cases currently pending before our immigration and federal courts.  In combination with the June 17th ICE memo, these new policies send the message that your Administration is turning a blind eye to those who have broken our immigration laws.  We are also concerned that these policies appear to be a direct attempt to categorically legalize those who are unlawfully in the country and to allow undocumented individuals to remain in violation of the law without fear of apprehension or deportation.  The security of our country depends on our ability to prevent unlawful entry and to respond when such criminals have overstayed their visa or avoided inspection.  These policies have the potential to undermine the rule of law and threaten our nation's security.

While we appreciate Secretary Napolitano's assurances that these initiatives will not provide categorical relief for any group, we remain concerned about statements being made by certain advocates and members of Congress.  For example, in a September 20th speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Senator Dick Durbin stated that these initiatives "pave the way" for DREAM Act students.  He further stated that "[the Administration] said recently that those eligible for the DREAM Act, good moral character, graduates of high school and pursuing college degrees are not going to be their targets."  The United States Senate and the American people have rejected the DREAM Act and the Executive Branch is not entitled to bypass that determination by administrative fiat. 

Further, in a recent speech before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Congressman Luis Gutierrez stated:  "[President Obama] said, 'But I can't bypass Congress,' and people in the audience said, 'Yes you can,' and you want to know something? They were right - he could and he did."  Such statements will only create a rush to the border and encourage the undocumented population to come forward in hopes of receiving a benefit.

There is still time to correct this path.  We request that you promptly rescind these initiatives, dismantle the working group designed to identify "low priority" cases before our immigration and federal courts, and direct the agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to abide by our Nation's immigration laws.  We also ask that you make Secretary Napolitano available to members of the Senate for questioning about the Department's immigration enforcement policies, including granting parole, deferred action, and prosecutorial discretion to keep unlawful immigrants in this country.

Finally, we reiterate our strong commitment to ensuring that the Administration has all of the resources it needs to carry out and enforce our immigration laws.  It is unjustifiable for the Administration to sidestep Congress to implement policies that are contrary to the law and the wishes of the American people.  We look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley                                                David Vitter

Jeff Sessions                       Orrin G. Hatch

Jim DeMint                         Tom Coburn

James E. Risch                          Mike Crapo

John Boozman                        Mike Lee

James M. Inhofe                         Saxby Chambliss

Johnny Isakson                        Michael B. Enzi

Rand Paul                           Roy Blunt

Mike Johanns                        John Barrasso

Bipartisan agreement extends disaster recovery funding for Iowa flood victims

Washington, DC - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) today released the following statement after Senate leaders announced a deal on a bill that temporarily funds US government operations, including support for Iowa flood recovery:

"The solutions to our nation's problems won't be found in partisan bickering.  That's why I'm encouraged that, for one of the first times this year, politicians in Washington put aside their differences and put our country first.  When people in Congress do something as simple as talk to one another and are willing to work across the aisle, we can find common ground.  We're facing some big challenges right now, and Congress must rise to the occasion.

"This budget agreement will ensure that disaster recovery work in Iowa will continue uninterrupted, and I support its passage as quickly as possible."

# # #

As Americans stare down a road of economic uncertainty, the White House has issued yet another spending plan that it says will put Americans back to work.  Shoveling more tax dollars out the door can't make up for the President's first stimulus plan that turned out not to be so shovel-ready after all.

Adding insult to injury, the President is pitching to pay for his $447 billion plan by raising taxes.  He says it's a matter of fairness.  Fair to whom?  Raising taxes on small business owners will not help create jobs.  Instead of rewarding risk and ambition, the President's so-called Buffett Rule would siphon away job-creating capital and investment for Main Street and send it to Washington to spend.

Considering Washington's poor track record for prudent fiscal stewardship, it doesn't make sense to believe that raising taxes on the wealthy will solve Washington's deficit disorder.

Just consider a recent audit by the internal watchdog at the U.S. Justice Department.  The analysis revealed extravagant spending on the taxpayer's dime, including conference fees charging $16 per muffin and $8.24 per cup of coffee.  Has the federal bureaucracy even heard of sticker shock?  The taxpaying public deserves better.  The audit exposes yet another example of the type of excessive, wasteful spending that tells taxpayers Washington just doesn't get it.  In fact, spending by the Justice Department on conferences has increased from $48 million in 2008, to $73 million in 2009 and $92 million in 2010.

And yet the President is trying to score political points with what he's calling the Buffett Rule, named after the billionaire investor who likes to say he doesn't pay enough taxes.  First, let's be clear on one point.  No one is stopping Warren Buffett from sharing more of his income with Uncle Sam.  But it's irresponsible and disingenuous for the President to portray the Buffett Rule as the solution to the federal government's enormous budget shortfall.  In fact, the Buffett Rule is just another, more complicated version of the Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT.  The AMT, originally intended to tax a small number of rich individuals who didn't pay any federal tax, now hits millions of middle-class families.  Those wealthy who don't want to pay any tax will always have an army of lawyers and accountants to help them.  An additional AMT isn't going to change that.

What's more, penalizing risk-takers and job creators will not help grow the economy. Strangling small businesses with red tape doesn't help create jobs.  We need public policy to promote wealth creation, not to stifle ambition.

As policymakers, analysts and investors try to find a pulse in the U.S. economy, American households are hesitant to spend and businesses are bracing for slower growth.  With 25 million Americans looking for work, job creation is priority number one. Consumer confidence won't recover without paychecks.

Partisanship and poll-driven ideology such as the Buffett Rule need to take a back seat. Instead, Washington needs to let America's entrepreneurs; innovators and risk takers get America back on the road to economic recovery.

Congress gave the green light to ramp up America's entrepreneurial spirit with passage of the America Invents Act.  As a sponsor of the bipartisan patent reform legislation signed into law in September, I worked to protect inventors' rights and shift innovation and investment in our economy into the fast lane.

The new law gives fast-track approval process to start-ups, cutting an average wait time. When entrepreneurs need critical investment to get their business off the ground and running, patent ownership can mean the make-or-break difference.

Getting ideas, inventions and goods to the market sooner will help foster economic growth and employment on Main Street USA.  The America Invents Act addresses the backlog at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and recognizes the outdated patent review system slows innovation with costly litigation and delays.

The newly updated patent laws will give America's scientists, researchers and engineers an edge in the global marketplace.  Public policies that clear the way for American businesses to compete and give consumers what they want will help put America on the path towards long-term prosperity.  Washington needs to steer clear of regulatory roadblocks and burdensome taxes that would send the U.S. economy in the wrong direction.

Let's be clear.  The Buffett Rule would not help the U.S. avoid a double-dip recession or encourage employers to put Help Wanted signs in their storefronts on Main Street.

Grassley Presses for Additional Information on Conference Expenditures Review

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley today asked Jacob Lew, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to provide further information about his review of conference expenditures throughout the federal government.

The government-wide review comes on the heels of an audit report released by the Department of Justice's Inspector General that revealed the department paid $600,000 for event planners, in addition to paying an average of $32 for snack packs and $16 for muffins at conferences held at venues across the country.  The report also showed a 53 percent increase in conference expenditures at the Justice Department from 2008 to 2009.

The audit included information about conferences held at four-star hotels.  When questioned about the high-priced hotel by the Inspector General, the response from the Justice Department was that a four-star hotel was chosen because, "Only a four or five star hotel was capable of providing the level and quality of services expected by senior executives and other political appointees."

"No economy can rationalize a 53 percent increase in conference expenditures between 2008 and 2009, let alone an economy that is facing 9 percent unemployment and stagnant job growth," Grassley said.  "Whether it's $16 for muffins or $600,000 for event planners, these are expenditures that can and should be looked at for cost savings measures.

The Inspector General's office has stated publicly that it stands by the report.

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley's letter to Lew.  A signed copy can be found here.

September 26, 2011

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Jacob J. Lew

Director

Office of Management and Budget

Eisenhower Executive Office Building

1650 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20503

Dear Mr. Lew:

I am pleased to hear that you are directing a government-wide review of how taxpayer dollars are spent on conferences in response to a report that the Department of Justice (DOJ) paid $16.00 per muffin at a recent conference.  The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is standing by its report despite arguments by some that it may have miscalculated the figure in its investigation of conference expenditures.

If the OIG made errors in its report, I hope that it will step forward and correct the record.  Nevertheless, I would note that even by Hilton's own accounting, DOJ spent $4,200 on 250 muffins, 200 pieces of fruit, 15 gallons of coffee, and 30 gallons of iced tea.  That amounts to $16 for only one muffin, less than one piece of fruit, 8 ounces of coffee, and 15 ounces of iced tea.   By anyone's account, that's excessive spending.  Additionally, while a DOJ spokesperson has suggested that the package included the cost of meeting space, the OIG report itself made clear that DOJ had negotiated with the hotel to provide that particular meeting space without charge as part of a larger agreement on other conference expenses.

The more important story from the OIG's report is that DOJ increased total conference expenditures by 53% from $47.8 million in 2008 to $73.3 million in 2009.  That's a $25.5 million increase in the first year of the Obama administration.   As I have been saying, this kind of spending is unacceptable given the economic realities most Americans are facing right now.

Please explain why the cost of conference expenditures increased so dramatically at DOJ in 2009.  I also have additional questions about your September 21 memorandum to executive department and agency heads.   Is it intended that each agency's OIG be involved?  Will the findings of these inquiries be made public, in addition to being compiled for the Vice President?  I understand that each agency is to respond back to you by November 1, and I look forward to hearing their reports.

Thank you in advance for ensuring that your response arrives no later than October 3.  Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Tristan Leavitt of my staff at (202) 224-5225.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

cc:        The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

Ms. Cynthia A. Schnedar

Acting Inspector General