News from Senator Grassley's Office July 22, 2015

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa joined Senators John Hoeven, Debbie Stabenow and other members of the Senate Agriculture Committee today to introduce the Voluntary Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and Trade Enhancement Act of 2015. The bipartisan measure is designed to prevent retaliatory trade sanctions by Canada and Mexico, yet still allow voluntary labeling of beef, pork and chicken that is produced in the United States.

"A voluntary labeling program is a simple solution that will allow the United States to abide by its WTO obligations while giving producers the option to label their products," said Grassley. "It's an approach that Canada has also taken. In the end, Americans should be able to know where their meat comes from, with a label that has integrity based on a single definition of U.S. pork and beef, just like they know where their t-shirts come from."

The bipartisan bill positions the U.S. to avoid retaliatory tariffs by repealing the mandatory COOL law and replacing it with a voluntary program that will enable processors to voluntarily label meat products. The bill maintains the integrity of the label, ensuring that the product is actually "born, raised and slaughtered in the United States," rather than just processed in the U.S.

In May 2015, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled for the fourth time that the United States' mandatory COOL law violates international trade agreements. The WTO is undergoing an arbitration process to determine the level of retaliation that Canada and Mexico will be authorized to implement. Both countries say they intend to implement retaliatory tariffs should the U.S. fail to address the current COOL law. Canada has said it will seek more than $3 billion and Mexico will seek $650 million in countervailing duties.

In summary, the Hoeven-Stabenow Voluntary COOL bill:

• Addresses the WTO case by removing beef, pork, chicken, and ground product from mandatory labeling requirements under COOL
• Establishes a purely voluntary label for U.S. origin beef, pork, chicken, and ground product
• Protects consumers by maintaining the integrity and usability of "Product of U.S." labels

Joining Grassley in cosponsoring the bill are Senators John Thune, Amy Klobuchar, Heidi Heitkamp, Mike Enzi and Sherrod Brown.

Grassley's remarks from today's press conference are below.  Video of the press conference can be found here.

I thank Senator Hoeven and Senator Stabenow for their work to find a solution to Country of Origin Labeling that works for everyone.

We started working on COOL back in the late 90s.

I have always supported COOL for meat, because I believe consumers have a right to know where their food is coming from.

They know where their t-shirts come from.

However, we must be true to our obligations at the World Trade Organization which has ruled against our current law.

This bill is a WTO compliant path forward for Country of Origin Labeling.

There's no way that Canada can dispute a voluntary labeling program when they have the same basic program.

In the past, Canada has even proposed to the United States that a voluntary option could be a solution.

To me, COOL boils down to one major point- the definition of what constitutes U.S. beef and pork.

The bill introduced today will allow the market to decide in a voluntary way if meat should be labeled with its country of origin.

That will address the required segregation with mandatory labeling that everyone agrees is the core of the WTO case.

If companies choose to label their product with a U.S. origin label, that label needs to have integrity.

The bill today ensures there is a single, clear definition of what constitutes meat labeled as a product of the U.S.

That is very important to me and many of my constituents who produce our meat.

Consumers will also be able to have confidence in the label on their meat.

Grassley Statement at an Executive Business Meeting on the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act

Good morning.  The bipartisan Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2015, S. 1169, is first on today's agenda.  This bill, which I introduced in April with Senator Whitehouse, extends the authorization for some key juvenile justice programs, which expired in 2007.  The bill also will go a long way to ensure accountability in the spending of federal grant funds.

Dozens of organizations, including Fight Crime Invest in Kids, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, Boys Town, and Rights 4 Girls worked with us on this bill's development and at least 100 groups have signed endorsement letters in support of S. 1169.  I want to take this opportunity to also thank the members of this Committee who are cosponsors, including Senators Cornyn, Leahy, Hatch, Coons, and Blumenthal.  The bill is a truly bipartisan effort.

Senator Whitehouse and I have a complete substitute amendment to this measure that we will now offer for this Committee's consideration.

Among other things, our substitute amendment, like the bill it would amend, calls for continued congressional support of programs that serve at-risk youth.  Such youth include, for example, youths who are being exploited by human traffickers and children with trauma, mental health or substance abuse issues.   Our substitute, like S. 1196, also phases out an exception in current law that permits States to lock up children who have committed so-called "status offenses," which would not be an offense if committed by adults.  These include offenses like running away, truancy, or violating a curfew.

And, like the underlying bill, our substitute amendment not only extends the authorization for existing juvenile justice programs, which are designed to keep juveniles away from adult offenders, but it does so in a way that is fiscally responsible.  The substitute, just like S. 1196, limits authorized funding levels for these programs to the amounts provided by appropriators for juvenile justice programs in recent years, with a slight adjustment for inflation.

But the substitute is an improvement over the bill we originally introduced in several ways.  First, the amendment would accord greater priority in federal funding to those programs that are scientifically proven to work with at-risk juveniles.  The addition of this new language will ensure that scarce federal resources must go primarily to the most meritorious programs.

Second, the substitute also incorporates some new provisions to encourage States to phase out the use of unreasonable restraints of juveniles in detention.  Such practices include, for example, the shackling of girls during childbirth.  We worked with human trafficking advocates as well as Senators Schumer and Cornyn on the development of this language.  Senator Durbin also worked with us on the development of language that calls for States to consider alternatives to detention for nonviolent youth who come into contact with the criminal justice system, and that language now is part of this amendment

Finally, the amendment incorporates some grant accountability reforms that are not in the original version of S. 1196.  In recent years, I've actively engaged in oversight of the Justice Department, and during this time, the DOJ Inspector General has identified grant management as one of the top management and performance challenges at the Department.  In this same period--most recently at an oversight hearing I chaired in April--we have witnessed numerous controversies relating to the grant making and oversight practices of the Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, or OJJDP.

The amendment reflects technical input from the Inspector General's Office and is designed to help resolve the accountability problems that have plagued OJJDP for years.  It will require GAO audits of the agency's internal controls every three years as well as audits of certain States receiving grants.  It also will require the Justice Department's Audit, Assessment Office to institute a comprehensive review of OJJDP's internal controls.

It will tighten bill language that holds States accountable for failing to meet the law's core requirements, by ensuring that States must incur a substantial financial penalty if they are out of compliance.  And it will not only encourage the Attorney General to provide States with greater technical guidance on compliance with the law's core requirements, but it also will require each State grantee to designate someone who must certify to that State's compliance with the law's core requirements.

I'm glad to have had the opportunity to work on these key reform provisions.  And I am pleased we have revisited the authorizing statute for some vitally important juvenile justice programs?a statute which is long overdue for an update, to reflect the latest scientific research on what works with at-risk adolescents.

Grassley, Johnson, Goodlatte, Conyers Concerned about New OLC Opinion that Denies Records to Inspectors General, Blocks Oversight, and Circumvents Congressional Intent

WASHINGTON - Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, and Congressmen Bob Goodlatte and John Conyers today expressed great concern with an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that allows the Justice Department to deny access to records sought by the Inspector General.

The Inspector General Act of 1978 authorizes the Inspector General to access "all records" in the Department's possession.  However, today, the Office of Legal Counsel's 58-page opinion argues that other provisions generally restricting the "disclosure" of certain kinds of information override the specific instruction that the Inspector General have access to all records of the Department.  The Office of Legal Counsel reaches this conclusion despite clear and recent legislation enacted in response to the controversy over these very access issues.  Following several instances of the Inspector General testifying to Congress about the Justice Department hindering his oversight by withholding records, Congress enacted, and the President signed, Section 218 of the Department of Justice's fiscal 2015 Appropriations Act.  That provision prohibited the use of any funds to deny the Inspector General timely access to records.  The only exception was for any "express" limitation in the Inspector General Act.

The Justice Department has denied or substantially delayed the Inspector General's access to records in connection with a number of inquiries, including those related to: (1) whether the Department had violated the civil liberties and civil rights of individuals detained in national security investigations following September 11, (2) the review of Operation Fast and Furious, (3) the review of the FBI's use of National Security and Exigent letters, (4) the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sex parties scandal, (5) the DEA's use of confidential sources, and (6) the DEA's use of administrative subpoenas to obtain bulk data collections.

The Department's refusal to provide records on a timely basis as required by law wastes months in bureaucratic roadblocks and frustrates the independent oversight Congress created Inspectors General to provide. Prior to 2010, the FBI and other agencies in the Justice Department routinely provided similar information to the Inspector General's office.

Here are comments from Grassley, Johnson, Goodlatte and Conyers.

Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee:

"The Inspector General Act of 1978 directs that Inspectors General have a right to access all records, documents and other materials.  If the Inspector General deems a document necessary to do his job, then the agency should turn it over immediately.  The clear command of that law is being ignored far too often by agencies across the executive branch.  By this opinion's tortured logic, 'all records' does not mean 'all records,' and Congress's recent attempt to underscore our original intent with an appropriations restriction is nothing but a nullity. The prospect of the Obama administration using this opinion to stonewall oversight, avoid accountability, and undermine the independence of inspectors general is alarming."

Senator Ron Johnson, Chairman, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee:

"I am deeply concerned that this opinion undermines the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General's independence, and ultimately the independence of all inspectors general, as other agencies will likely use its misguided arguments to justify stonewalling their own watchdogs.  The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently reported out S. 579, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015, which makes clear Congress's view that inspectors general must be given prompt, unfettered access to agency documents for purposes of carrying out their responsibilities under the act.  Unfortunately, the Department of Justice today has dug further into its position ? against the clear will of Congress ? that the agency is not always obligated to provide documents to its inspector general, and that the agency itself gets to choose when to grant permission to access certain documents. I am committed to working with my colleagues to ensure all inspectors general have the statutorily mandated independence from their agency that is so crucial to performing their responsibilities."

Congressman Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee:

"Today's Office of Legal Counsel opinion contains the same kind of outcome-oriented lawyering that produced the Department of Justice's infamous recess appointments memorandum, which was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court in 2014. The law is clear that the Office of the Inspector General should have unfettered access to materials for its investigations, but political lawyers at the Department of Justice have engaged in legal gymnastics to shield key information from government watchdogs.

"The Office of Legal Counsel's efforts to reduce transparency will leave the Department of Justice vulnerable to mismanagement and misconduct. This is not the type of government the American people deserve. The House Judiciary Committee will work with other committees of jurisdiction to explore a legislative fix to reiterate Congress' intent that the Office of the Inspector General is entitled access to all documents and records within DOJ's possession."

Congressman John Conyers, Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee:

"This opinion is a departure from the plain text of the statute and the intent of Congress when we drafted it?but this one memorandum hardly ends the conversation.  The Inspector General must have complete and direct access to the information that his office deems necessary to conduct complete and impartial investigations.  He should not have to ask permission from the very agency he oversees.  I suspect that we will work quickly, and likely with overwhelming and bipartisan majorities, to make certain that the Inspector General Act is explicit on this point."

An Inspector General investigation can be prevented under the law in certain limited circumstances, but the Attorney General is required to explain in writing to both the Inspector General and Congress why the Inspector General's work should be impeded despite the Inspector General Act's guarantee of access to all agency records - something that the Attorney General has failed to do in each of the many instances records were withheld from the Inspector General since 2010.

The members said they would be working to determine a path forward to fix the issue that remains unresolved by the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion.

Judiciary Committee Clears Grassley, Whitehouse Bill to Reauthorize Juvenile Justice Programs with Improved Accountability

WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee today passed legislation from Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse that would ensure that at-risk youth are fairly and effectively served by juvenile justice grant programs. Their legislation updates existing law by promoting improved transparency and accountability at the state and federal level.  It also adds additional support for youth with mental illnesses and guards against fraud and mismanagement of grant funds through enhanced oversight.

"Juvenile justice programs are important tools to help local communities serve and protect at-risk youth, however the law authorizing these programs hasn't been revisited in more than a dozen years.  Our bill provides a long-overdue policy refresh to improve opportunities for our nation's must vulnerable children and strengthen safeguards for youth who encounter the juvenile justice system.  Just as importantly, we created an oversight structure that will help ensure that both federal grant making agencies and grantees are held accountable for their actions with young people and for the taxpayer money for which they are responsible. Our goal is to make sure that youth can benefit from the programs' full potential," Grassley said.  "I hope the Senate will act quickly to move this bill forward."

"This long-awaited reauthorization could put a real dent in the school-to-prison pipeline and assure that law enforcement intervention with kids does the least possible unnecessary harm to them and to their futures." said Whitehouse.  "It's a commonsense bill that will help kids maintain their education while detained, keep kids out of jail for status offenses that would never land an adult in prison, divert them to substance abuse and mental health services if that's the real problem, better protect them from adult criminals and from solitary confinement, and address racial disparities in the current system.  I thank Chairman Grassley for his leadership on this issue and I hope to see the bill passed by the full Senate soon."

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was created in 1974 to ensure the safety of at-risk youth who enter the criminal justice system, and assist states with their juvenile justice programs and activities.  The program has not been updated since the last reauthorization passed Congress in 2002.

The bill is cosponsored by Senators Richard Blumenthal, Roy Blunt, Chris Coons, John Cornyn, Richard Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Orrin Hatch, Amy Klobuchar, Patrick Leahy and Marco Rubio.

Grassley and Whitehouse said they appreciate the endorsement of more than 150 organizations that have voiced support for the bill.

The Grassley-Whitehouse bill:

·         Revises and extends authorization for the key juvenile justice programs that were originally authorized under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.  The law has four core requirements, or protections, for youth in contact with the criminal justice system, with which states must comply in order to be eligible for juvenile justice funding.

·         Limits spending levels for the reauthorized juvenile justice programs to amounts appropriated by Congress for the same or similar programs in the most recent fiscal year, adjusted by 2 percent annually for inflation.

·         Phases out the "Valid Court Order" exception that permits states to lock up juveniles for status offenses that would never land an adult in prison such as running away, curfew violations or truancy.

·         Provides for enhanced accountability and oversight of Justice Department grant making practices based on input from the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General and the Congressional Research Service.

·         Adds a requirement that the Justice Department offer periodic training and technical assistance to states on best practices and protocols to achieve compliance with the law's core requirements, as well as a requirement that states designate one individual who shall certify the state's compliance with the core requirements.

·         Conditions receipt of grant funds on new state planning requirements.

·         Enables students to continue their education while detained.

·         Strengthens provisions to screen, refer, and provide treatment, to children with mental health challenges and/or substance abuse issues.

·         Eliminates the use of shackles on pregnant girls being detained.

In addition, the bill addresses concerns brought forward by whistleblowers and verified by the Justice Department.  The whistleblowers provided evidence that many states fall short of core requirements that are a condition of the states receiving taxpayer-funded grants.  The Justice Department office responsible for overseeing the program acknowledged, after Senator Grassley chaired an April 2015 hearing on that office's grant making practices, that since 1997 it has followed an unlawful policy, which allowed states to receive these juvenile justice grants despite violations of funding requirements.  This oversight hearing prompted Grassley and Whitehouse to craft the new accountability requirements to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately, and youth are being adequately served.

A detailed list of the bill's key provisions is available here.

A copy of the text of the bill as passed by the committee is available here.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program gets "minimal" IRS oversight, GAO says

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review various aspects of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, including federal oversight of the program.   According to the GAO, this program is the largest source of federal assistance for developing affordable rental housing with an estimated cost of $8 billion in forgone revenue in 2014.   The GAO found that the IRS conducted "minimal" oversight of the state housing finance agencies (HFAs) that award the tax credits to developers.  The GAO said, "Monitoring, one of the internal control standards, should occur in the course of normal operations, be performed continually, and be ingrained in the agency's operations," yet the GAO found that the IRS has performed only seven audits of HFAs (of 56 total HFAs) between 1986 and 2015. The GAO further stated, "As a result of minimal monitoring, IRS does not know the extent of compliance monitoring by HFAs, which limits its ability to determine if the HFAs appropriately awarded credits to projects."  The GAO also said the state entities "increasingly" have missed the deadline to submit their annual report to the IRS and "often submit incomplete or inaccurate forms."  Grassley, a watchdog of the IRS and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, released the GAO report and made the following comment on it.

"This report confirms what we've seen again and again.  The federal government is good at giving out money and tax breaks and terrible at checking on results.  No one at the IRS or HUD seems to have any way of knowing whether a multi-billion-dollar program for low-income housing has worked as intended.  This doesn't bring accountability, and it may or may not deliver affordable housing for people in need.  The agencies need to step up their oversight for the sake of low-income people who need housing and the taxpayers who deserve accountability."