Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

FBI Oversight Hearing

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Chairman Leahy, thank you for calling this oversight hearing today.  It has been five months since Congress passed and President Obama signed into law an unprecedented two-year extension of Director Mueller's term as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  Given the historical problems with the FBI amassing too much power, the President's request to extend Director Mueller's term for an additional two years, breaking from over thirty-five years of practice limiting the Director to a ten-year term, was not a decision I took lightly.  Ultimately, given the President's failure to nominate a replacement in a timely and responsible manner, I reluctantly agreed to the request provided we built a historic record that showed modification of the Director's term was a one-time event.

I'm pleased that Chairman Leahy and members of the committee agreed with me and moved the extension through regular order including a hearing on the legislation, an executive mark-up of the legislation, floor consideration of the legislation, a new nomination from the President, along with a final confirmation vote.  This process sets the historical record that extending Director Mueller's term was not a fly-by-night decision.  It also puts the President on notice to begin the process of selecting and nominating a new FBI Director earlier than the last attempt.  Another extension will not occur.  So, it would be irresponsible not to begin planning sooner rather than later for Director Mueller's inevitable exit.

That said, I want to welcome Director Mueller here today.  Director Mueller's tenure as FBI Director has been a good one and his dedication and reputation were significant factors in his 100-0 confirmation vote this past July.  I'm sure when his two-year extension runs out he'll be ready for some much needed downtime and will look forward to transitioning the office to his successor.

With regard to policy matters, there are a number of topics I intend to discuss with the Director.  First, I want to discuss a perpetual problem at the FBI, whistleblower protection.  I have raised this issue with the Director repeatedly during his tenure, but it continues to plague the FBI.  Director Mueller has repeatedly assured me that he will not tolerate retaliation of any whistleblowing at the FBI.  Despite these assurances, two particular whistleblower cases have been dragging on for years.  These cases are largely fueled by the FBI's desire to continually appeal rulings and findings of wrongdoing by FBI supervisors.

For example, FBI Agent Jane Turner filed a whistleblower complaint in 2002 when she discovered that FBI agents were removing items from Ground Zero following 9/11.  The agents were collecting items from the 9/11 crime scene as personal memorabilia.  She faced retaliation for raising concerns about these agents and her case has been stuck in administrative limbo at the Justice Department for over nine years.  This is despite the fact she won a jury trial in Federal District Court where the FBI was ordered to pay nearly half a million dollars in damages, in addition to a Justice Department administrative ruling substantiating her claims of retaliation.  Even though she has won twice, the FBI recently appealed the case to the Deputy Attorney General who remanded it for further proceedings.  Nine years is far too long for any case to be resolved?especially a whistleblower case.

In another case, that of Robert Kobus, a 30-year non-agent employee of the FBI who disclosed time and attendance fraud, the case has languished for over 5 years.  This case is similar in that the Inspector General issued a 70 page investigative report detailing the retaliation that Mr. Kobus faced?including being reassigned to a vacant floor at a New York FBI Field Office.  Again, the FBI has continued to appeal this case despite clear findings of retaliation.

I wrote to Attorney General Holder last month about these cases pointing out statements made by the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General to support whistleblowers.  Those statements are similar to assurances given by Director Mueller.  But, like nearly all my inquiries on these cases, the Attorney General's response from his Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs simply provided me a recitation of the appeals process for FBI whistleblowers.  Actions speak louder than words.  And if the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and FBI Director truly wish to help whistleblowers, they have the power to end the years of appeals and accept the findings issued by the Inspector General and Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management.  I intend to ask the Director why he continues to allow the FBI to file appeal after appeal despite clear findings of retaliation.  He has the power to end this cycle and show whistleblowers that the FBI and Department of Justice take their complaints seriously.

Anthrax Investigation (Amerithrax):

I also want to discuss some issues that have recently arisen as follow-up to the FBI's closing of the Amerithrax investigation.  Specifically, the Justice Department recently settled a wrongful death lawsuit in Florida for $2.5 million.  That suit was filed by the family of an editor who died as a result of the 2001 anthrax attacks.  The lawsuit raised questions in the press given potentially conflicting statements made by the Justice Department that seemed to cast doubt on Dr. Ivins' ability to actually manufacture the Anthrax.  Additionally, in subsequent depositions of Dr. Ivins' coworkers, statements were made calling into question Dr. Ivins' ability to produce the anthrax used in the attacks given his lack of access to necessary equipment.  Ultimately, the department filed a supplemental filing correcting statements that seemed to cast doubt upon the FBI's case, but did not seek to refute the depositions of Dr. Ivins' coworkers.

I wrote to the Attorney General and the FBI Director in August asking how the department's filing and the depositions could be squared against the FBI's contention that Dr. Ivins was the sole assailant.  In the response, the Justice Department argued that the "issue raised by the United States in its motion did not pertain to whether Dr. Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks or whether he could have created the anthrax powder in his laboratory."  The department instead argued, "The issue raised by our motion is whether the Army failed to properly oversee and supervise operations at the United States Army Medical Institute for Infectious Disease (USAMRIID) such that the agency was negligent in failing to anticipate and prevent the theft of liquid anthrax and its conversion into powder for use in the attacks."  With regard to the depositions, the department argued, "doubts of [Dr. Ivins'] colleagues only underscore [DOJ's] view that Dr. Ivins' actions were not foreseeable under Florida tort law."  While these statements attempt to thread the needle about the government's liability, the fact remains that the government ended up paying $2.5 million to settle the case and cast a further cloud on the FBI's case that Dr. Ivins' was the sole perpetrator.

Access to Line Agents and Attorneys:

The Anthrax investigation and the department's response to it have also raised additional questions.  Notably, in responding to press accounts questioning the government's case against Dr. Ivins, the FBI and department both allowed line agents and attorneys to be interviewed on national television.  In allowing these FBI agents and Assistant U.S. Attorney's to conduct detailed interviews with the press, the FBI and department have provided greater access to the press than they have Congress.  Both the department and FBI routinely argue that line agents and attorneys are prohibited from talking to members of Congress.  Yet, you can turn on a television and see in-depth interviews with these same agents and attorneys that members of Congress would like to interview.  This has been a very important part of my investigation of the department's failed handling of the ATF's Operation Fast & Furious.  I want to know from Director Mueller why he allows line agents to provide detailed interviews to the press on national television, but repeatedly refuses to let Congress and their staff interview line agents and attorneys.

Anthrax Investigation Leaks:

The Anthrax investigation also spurned an unfortunate situation where someone in the Justice Department leaked sensitive information regarding the investigation to the press.  Those leaks involved alerting the media that Dr. Steven Hatfill was under investigation and that search warrants were going to be executed on his residence.  Ultimately, Dr. Hatfill was exonerated of any wrongdoing in the case, and the Department of Justice settled a civil lawsuit filed by Dr. Hatfill based upon the Department's violation of the Privacy Act.  This settlement cost the American taxpayers nearly $6 million and occurred based upon the department's leak of information to the press.  I have repeatedly asked for a status update on the investigation into the leak to determine who the source was.

In response to my August 31, 2011, letter, the department stated, "After an extensive investigation, career prosecutors concluded that, based upon the Principles of Federal Prosecution, criminal charges were not appropriate in this matter."  This is a stunning development and only adds to concerns I have that leakers at the Justice Department are held to a different standard than federal employees outside the department.  Now that it appears that the investigation is over, I want to know from Director Mueller who the leakers were and whether they faced any administrative sanctions for the leaks.  The actions of these individuals put federal taxpayers on the hook for a $6 million settlement; they need to be held accountable.

Another area of concern is the FBI's relationship with informants.  The bureau's actions regarding Whitey Bulger were a black eye for the FBI and recent press reports from Boston indicate that a similarly cozy relationship may have developed between alleged mobster Mark Rossetti and the Boston FBI.  I wrote Director Mueller a letter on Mr. Rossetti on October 17th and I look forward to asking him more questions on this matter today.

I would also like to note, that today is the one-year anniversary of the tragic shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  My investigation into the ATF's failed Operation Fast & Furious continues.  I sent Director Mueller a letter dated October 20, 2011, asking some questions about the FBI's investigation of the murder of Agent Terry.  I have not yet received a response to that letter, but I have talked with Director Mueller about the case.  I want a commitment from Director Mueller that my letter will be answered in writing.  The Terry Family deserves answers about Agent Terry's murder and answering my letter is another step toward getting those answers.

Time permitting, I'd also like to ask the director about his involvement in the drafting of a memorandum that was reported in the press regarding the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaqi, the potential transfer of known enemy combatant Ali Mussa Daqduq from U.S. military custody to Iraq, FBI involvement in investigating mortgage fraud at Countrywide Financial, conflicts between the FBI and agents of the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General investigating corruption among DHS officers at the border, and about the recent Government Accountability Office report on the status of the FBI's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

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-

EVANSVILLE, IN (12/13/2011)(readMedia)-- The University of Evansville is proud to announce that Andrea Solomonson of Orion, IL, will graduate with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration.

Solomonson, who majored in Management and Marketing, will graduate during UE's Winter Commencement ceremony, held December 14 in the Student Fitness Center. The University will award 80 degrees to 76 graduates during the ceremony.

"For more than 150 years, the University of Evansville has provided life-transforming educational experiences, preparing students for lives of personal and professional service and leadership," said UE President Thomas A. Kazee. "At Winter Commencement, we're delighted to celebrate the success of students such as Andrea Solomonson, and we look forward to watching this year's graduates accomplish amazing things as they engage the world as informed, ethical, and productive citizens."

On the web: http://readabout.me/achievements/Andrea-Solomonson-Graduates-from-University-of-Evansville/3156635.

Springfield, IL... In an effort to improve Illinois' jobs climate and provide meaningful tax relief, State Representative Rich Morthland (R-Cordova) voted to pass a jobs package on Monday.

Senate Bill 397 passed the Illinois House with a vote of 81-28-7 and passed the Senate Tuesday on a vote of 44-9-0. The bill now goes to Governor Quinn for his signature.

"It became clear that we would not have the opportunity to vote on a perfect bill, but because of House Republicans' persistence, we passed a bill that provides real, broad-based relief for large and small employers all across Illinois - not just preferential treatment for a few," said Rep. Morthland. "While this bill offers necessary reform, our next move must be to repeal the income tax increase."

"Democrats passed a 67 percent income tax increase late in the final hours of the lame-duck session in January," added Morthland. "Their tax increase is killing jobs and driving businesses out of Illinois. To get our economy back on track, we must repeal the tax hike."

Along with increasing the individual and corporate income tax during the lame-duck session, Democrats allowed the Research and Development tax credit to expire. Senate Bill 397 will extend the R & D tax credit for five years, with an additional five year carry forward. The R & D tax credit is an important tool for manufacturers such as John Deere and Caterpillar.

Senate Bill 397 also increases the estate tax exemption from $2 million to $4 million over a two year period, lessening the tax burden on family farmers and small businesses. Another key provision included from the House Republicans' Jobs Package is the reinstatement of the Net Operating Loss Deduction. This gives business the ability to carry their losses forward in a tough economy.

"Increasing the estate tax exemption will help our family farmers keep their farms in the family," said Morthland. "This legislation also extends the sales tax exemptions and credits for renewable ethanol and biodiesel fuels, which will also help Illinois agriculture."

The provisions of the bill are supported by the Illinois Manufacturers' Association, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Midwest Truckers Association, Caterpillar Inc., the National Federation of Independent Business and the Illinois Farm Bureau. For more information about Senate Bill 397, please contact Rep. Morthland's Moline District Office at 309-762-3008 or via email at repmorthland@gmail.com.

###

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Debate on the Balanced Budget Amendment

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is today taking up the Balanced Budget Amendment.  The Senate has passed a balanced budget amendment in the past. More recently, it has come close to passing a balanced budget amendment.  I regret that this amendment has not become law.  I believe that had the Constitution been amended to require a balance budget, we would not today face the dire budgetary situation that is before us.

The balanced budget amendment before us today is straightforward.  It provides that total outlays shall not exceed total receipts unless each House of Congress by a 2/3 vote agrees otherwise.  To provide spending discipline, total outlays cannot exceed 18% of GDP unless 2/3 of both Houses of Congress vote to waive the cap.  The President will be required to submit a balanced budget to the Congress.  To avoid balancing the budget by imposing tax burdens, new taxes or increases in total revenues can be imposed only by a 2/3 vote of both Houses.  And the debt limit will be able to be raised only if 3/5 of both Houses vote to increase it.

To provide a level of flexibility in wartime, the provisions on outlays and receipts, total outlays, and the debt limit can be overcome by a 3/5 vote.  To minimize disruption, the amendment will not take place for five years.  Finally, the courts cannot enforce the balanced budget amendment by ordering a tax increase.

Reverence for the Constitution is a sentiment we all share.  But the Constitution provides for an amendment process.  When it is necessary, each generation has amended the Constitution.  When a guarantee of free speech, or the abolition of slavery, or giving women the right to vote was necessary, the Constitution was amended.  No one said that reverence for the Constitution was the end of the matter.

We have reached that point of necessity with the balanced budget amendment.  The Congressional Research Service reports:

"The budget deficit each year from 2009 to 2011 has been the highest ever in dollar terms, and significantly higher as a share of GDP, than at any time since World War II.  Under current policies, the federal debt is projected to grow more quickly than GDP, leading observers to term it unsustainable."

The very purpose of the Constitution, according to its Preamble, was to extend the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.  It is because the growth in the national debt is unsustainable that our posterity may not receive those blessings.

It is hard to imagine an amendment more in keeping with the goals of the Constitution than this one.  Otherwise, runaway debt will expand exponentially.  A permanent spiral can be created in which the debt feeds on itself.  Take a look at Europe today.  Nations risk default when they overspend.  If we are not careful, the United States at some point will face that same crisis.  It is frightening to contemplate.

We hear from opponents that Congress can balance the budget now, without a balanced budget amendment.  But the fact is that it cannot.

For more than 40 years, Congress has been unable to summon the ability to balance the budget.  Statutes that sought to provide a path to a balanced budget failed.  The only exception was for three years going into this century when a financial bubble provided windfall revenues.  Because Congress has been unable to control spending, the budgets have been in deficit and the national debt has increased.  The only way that Congress will exercise the discipline to balance the budget is if the Constitution forces it to do so.

Forty-six state constitutions require that their budgets be in balance.  They meet that requirement.  As members of Congress, we take an oath to adhere to defend the Constitution.  We take that oath seriously.  If the balanced budget amendment became a part of the Constitution, we will adhere to it or face the consequences from the voters.

Mr. President, this amendment wisely contains effective tax limitations as an integral part.  I have favored a balanced budget with tax limitations for more than 20 years.

For decades, federal spending has far outpaced even the steady and sizeable growth in taxes and revenues.  Raising taxes does not produce surpluses.  The historical fact is that they spur more spending.  For every additional dollar in taxes Congress has raised since World War II, it has spent an additional $1.13.  Raising taxes would make balancing the budget harder, not easier.  Without a supermajority requirement for tax increases, a balanced budget amendment may well encourage tax increases, fueling greater spending, and the continuation of additional debt and costs of servicing the debt.

The failure to balance the budget is a fiscal issue of the greatest importance.  But it is also a moral issue.  Without a balanced budget amendment, our children and grandchildren will pay for this generation's chronic inability to live within its means.  In the absence of an amendment, the standard of living for future generations will likely decline.  The fears of many Americans that the next generation will not live as well as this one are in many respects traceable to decades of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the Congress.  This balanced budget amendment would mean a stronger economy, good government, and more jobs.

I believe the American people are willing to do their part to prevent future generations from being saddled with an unconscionable level of debt.  They are willing to do so even if it means that some federal spending they support would be affected.  This is especially true if our budgeting is done fairly.

Mr. President, I believe that if one listens closely to the arguments of the opponents of this measure, one will hear more arguments against a balanced budget than against a balanced budget amendment.  There will need to be difficult actions taken.  It is those difficulties that have prevented Congress from balancing the budget.  Those difficulties are therefore reasons for a constitutional amendment, not reasons against one.  But balancing the budget is necessary.  And it will take an amendment to do it consistently.

We also hear arguments about the need to run deficits when the economy is in a recession. The amendment before us permits Congress to vote to run a deficit in that situation.  But be skeptical of the argument.  If deficits and debt gave us a strong economy, right now we would be in the midst of the greatest economic boom in our history.  Obviously, we are not.  Deficits of $1 trillion plus and a national debt of $15 trillion are not stabilizing the economy.

In fact, I believe that the size of the deficit and debt is one reason the economy is not performing well.  The size of looming deficits and debt is another.  The markets are not viewing that debt as stabilizing a weak economy.  Rather, they view it correctly as a drag on the economy.

On the issue of enforcement, the opponents attack straw men.  They say either that the amendment cannot be enforced, so it is toothless, or they say that the courts will enforce it, leading to chaos.  Both of these arguments cannot be true.

The amendment will be enforced by the President submitting a balanced budget and Congress complying with the amendment, as do state legislators all over the country.  Members take an oath and voters will punish those who do not obey the constitutional command.  With respect to the courts, the text of the amendment prohibits courts from raising taxes.  And standing requirements, ripeness, and the doctrine of a political question will mean that the courts will continue to lack the power of the purse, as has been the case throughout our history.

Mr. President, in the past dozen years, Congress has been unable to balance the budget even when times are good.  Had we passed a balanced budget amendment when it was before us in the past, we would not have racked up the huge deficits that now confront us.

We have heard in the past that a balanced budget amendment was not necessary because Congress could balance the budget on its own.  Those arguments were wrong.

Today, we face one of the worst debt pictures in our history.  If nothing is done, the future will be even worse.  We owe a responsibility to the American people and to future generations to maintain the fiscal discipline that has allowed us to be the world's biggest economy.  Our pleas for a balanced budget amendment have been denied by a minority in the past.

We warned what road lay ahead if we failed to pass a balanced budget amendment.  Time has unfortunately proved us right.  It is not too late if we act now.  But time is growing shorter each year.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and enact a constitutional requirement that the budget be balanced.