Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight Hearing with Attorney General Eric Holder, Nov. 8, 2011

U.S. Guns in Mexico

Attorney General Holder: "[O]f the nearly 94,000 [weapons] that have been recovered that have been traced in Mexico in recent years, over 64,000 of those guns were sourced to the United States of America; 64,000 of 94,000 guns sourced to this country."

FACT

The definition of a "U.S. source gun" used in these often cited statistics was not created by the ATF and is overly broad.  It includes guns manufactured in the United States even if never sold by a federally licensed gun dealer in the United States.  Such weapons may have been legally exported to foreign governments or stolen before falling into the wrong hands.  That cannot be properly blamed on Americans exercising their Second Amendment freedoms.

According to ATF statistics, of the 21,313 guns submitted for tracing by the government of Mexico in 2009, only 5,444 of them (25 percent) traced back to federally licensed gun dealers in the United States.  Similarly, in 2010, of 7,971 guns submitted for tracing by the government of Mexico, only 2,945 (37 percent) traced back to federally licensed gun dealers in the U.S.

The reason for the large disparity between the overall numbers of guns submitted in those two years is that in late 2009, the government of Mexico provided the United States with a large list of guns it had been stockpiling for years.  Accordingly, 2009's numbers do not reflect guns that were seized exclusively in 2009, but rather for a number of the preceding years.

Additionally, any statistics on the percentage of such guns tracing back to the United States are further skewed because of selection bias.  As it has been widely noted, the government of Mexico only provides guns to the United States for tracing that they already have reason to believe originated here.  There is no reason to submit for tracing guns that are known to originate in Mexico.

In a November 8, 2011, court filing, the Chief of ATF's Firearms Operations Division made a declaration that "in 2008, of the approximately 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney General's Office informed ATF that it had seized, only 7,200, or one quarter of those firearms, were submitted to ATF for tracing."  Based on these statistics, it's clear that the total sample of guns submitted for tracing is not representative of all the guns found in Mexico, and there isn't evidence that the other 75 percent of those guns were sold in a U.S. gun store.

Documents related to the FACTS.

"Whistleblowers are key to unlocking many of the secrets hidden deep in the closets of the federal government.  Allowing a case to sit in limbo for more than nine years shows a lack of commitment to resolving issues for these courageous people," Grassley said.  "The excessive time to make a judgment on these cases indicates that the process for adjudicating FBI whistleblower claims is broken, and needs to be fixed.  The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General have significant say over the speed at which these matters are addressed, and the recent decision by Deputy Attorney General Cole to remand a nine year old case for further proceedings is mind boggling and calls into question his commitment to help support whistleblowers."

In a letter today to the Attorney General, Grassley cited Agent Jane Turner who in 2002 filed a whistleblower complaint with the Justice Department Inspector General after discovering that FBI agents removed items from Ground Zero following the attacks of 9/11.  Due to the Inspector General's delayed decision, Agent Turner was forced to file an appeal with the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management, which ordered the FBI to issue back pay, attorney's fees and other relief.  After an FBI appeal, the Deputy Attorney General remanded the case for further proceedings and it now continues to languish nine years after Agent Turner's original complaint.

Grassley also cited the case of Robert Kobus, a 30-year non-agent employee of the FBI who more than four years ago disclosed time and attendance fraud by FBI agents.  The Inspector General substantiated his claims of retaliation for protected whistleblowing, yet his case has been sitting with the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management for four years.

Grassley noted that both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General have testified before Congress that whistleblower retaliation will not be tolerated and that they would work to ensure that safeguards are in place so that whistleblowers are provided all the protections afforded by the law.

A long-time advocate for whistleblowers, in addition to co-authoring the 1989 whistleblower protection law and subsequent updates, Grassley sponsored changes made in 1986 to the President Lincoln-era federal False Claims Act to empower private sector whistleblowers.  Since the 1986 amendments were signed into law, the False Claims Act has brought back more than $27 billion to the federal treasury, and has deterred even more fraudulent activity. In 2009, in coordination with Senator Patrick Leahy, Grassley worked to pass legislation to shore up whistleblower protections in the False Claims Act that had been eroded by the courts after years of litigation by defense and healthcare contractors.

Grassley is also the author of legislation that would give the same whistleblower protections to employees in the legislative branch as provided already to employees of the executive branch of government.  In addition, in October, a Grassley-sponsored amendment to give whistleblower protection to employees in the Judicial Branch was added to a federal judgeships bill that was being debated in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A copy of the text of the letter can be found here.  A signed copy can be found by clicking here.

November 14, 2011

Via Electronic Transmission

The Honorable Eric H. Holder

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

I write to express my concerns regarding the perpetual delays for resolving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) whistleblower cases at the Department of Justice (DOJ).  As you are well aware, I am a long-standing advocate for whistleblower rights.  Whistleblowers point out fraud, waste, and abuse when no one else will, and they do so while risking their professional careers.  Whistleblowers have played a critical role in exposing failed government operations such as Operation Fast and Furious, and retaliation against whistleblowers should never be tolerated.  Thus, I am concerned about the treatment of whistleblowers at the FBI, specifically in the cases of Jane Turner and Robert Kobus.  The process of resolving whistleblower claims appears to be broken.

Jane Turner was a career FBI agent with an outstanding record for conducting investigations involving missing and exploited children.  Agent Turner filed a whistleblower complaint with the Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), in 2002 when she discovered that FBI agents removed items from Ground Zero following the terrorist attacks of 9/11.  Unfortunately, Agent Turner was forced to file an appeal to the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM) due to the OIG's delayed decision in their investigation.  Ultimately, the OARM substantiated her allegations in May, 2010, and the FBI was ordered to provide Agent Turner back pay, attorney's fees, and other relief.  It is my understanding that the FBI filed an appeal to the Deputy Attorney General concerning the issue of back pay, despite the FBI's failure to raise the issue of back pay during previous OARM proceedings, and the case was remanded, in part, back to OARM for further review of the back pay issue.  Consequently, a final resolution to Jane Turner's reprisal case against the FBI is now further delayed by the Deputy Attorney General's curious decision.  Given the already excessive delays in this case, the ruling by the Deputy Attorney General postpones a judgment that should have come much sooner.  I remind you that Agent Turner initially filed her complaint approximately 9 years ago, and she has yet to receive a final decision.  Any reasonable person would agree that 9 years is extreme and unacceptable.

Robert Kobus is a 30 year non-agent employee of the FBI who disclosed time and attendance fraud by FBI agents.  The OIG also conducted an investigation into these allegations and substantiated that he was retaliated against for protected whistleblowing.  The FBI management not only demoted Mr. Kobus to a non-supervisory position, but they even went so far as to move him from his office to a cubicle on the vacant 24^th floor of the FBI's office building.  Nevertheless, the OIG's findings were referred to OARM for adjudication and Mr. Kobus' case has now languished in bureaucratic red tape for approximately 4 years.

I'm confident you would agree that a cumulative 13 years is an excessive amount of time to complete two whistleblower investigations.  You previously stated during your testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that you will "ensure that people are given the opportunity to blow the whistle and they will not be retaliated against, and then to hold accountable anybody who would attempt to do that."[1]  You also stated that, "I have seen their [whistleblowers'] utility, their worth, and, frankly, the amount of money that they return to the Federal Government.  And they serve a very, very useful purpose."[2] The Deputy Attorney General, in his responses to congressional "Questions for the Record", asserted he would "work with the Judiciary Committee and the independent Office of Special Counsel, which investigates and prosecutes violation of law, including reprisals against whistleblowers, to provide timely and accurate information to the Congress."[3] He further pledged he would "not tolerate unlawful retaliation against any Department of Justice employee, including FBI employees" and he would "work to ensure that there are adequate safeguards so that whistleblowers receive all of the protections to which they are entitled by law."[4] I would ask that you honor these statements and ensure these cases, and others like them, are investigated and decided in a reasonable timeframe.

Given your previously stated support for whistleblowers, I presume that you would agree that DOJ is sending the wrong message to whistleblowers by taking an inordinate amount of time to issue final declarations for Agent Turner and Mr. Kobus.  The excessive time the OARM has taken to issue a final judgment, which is further exacerbated by the Deputy Attorney General's recent decision in Agent Turner's case, has cast your department in a dubious light regarding your stated support for whistleblowers.  These excessive delays indicate that the process of adjudicating a FBI whistleblower claim is broken.  Consequently, I ask that you review these matters and ensure that the OARM and the Deputy Attorney General conduct their respective reviews in a transparent and expeditious manner.  While I appreciate that allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse must be properly investigated, Agent Turner and Mr. Kobus deserve transparency in the process and finality to their cases.

Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this important matter.  I request you provide a written response to this letter no later than November 18, 2011.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

MILWAUKEE, WI (11/10/2011)(readMedia)-- Students from Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE) traveled to Downers Grove, Ill., in October to compete in the Associated Schools of Construction Region III Student Competition. For the tenth consecutive year, at least one of MSOE's teams took first place. This year, the Preconstruction Team and the VDC (Virtual Design and Construction) Team took first place in their respective competitions, and the Design Build Team took third place. They competed against large universities, including Texas A&M University, Brigham Young University, Purdue University, Ball State University and Michigan State, in the various events.

Jared Gothard, a construction management major from Long Grove, Iowa, was part of MSOE's Preconstruction Team, which was asked to submit a proposal for preconstruction and construction services for a $20-$25 million hospital expansion project. They had 30 hours to create their proposal and deliver a presentation to competition judges from Pepper Construction. The Preconstruction Team was coached by Dr. Jeong Woo, assistant professor in the Civil and Architectural Engineering and Construction Management Department. Team members are:

• Matt Bakke, construction management major, Elkhart Lake, Wis.
• Chris Dublinski, construction management major, Naperville, Ill.
• Jared Gothard, construction management major, Long Grove, Ill.
• Josh Halvorsen, architectural engineering and construction management double major, West Dundee, Ill.
• Cate Scholfield, construction management major, Wausau, Wis.
• Nick Zamorski, architectural engineering and construction management double major, Waukesha, Wis.
• Theodore Bulinski (alternate), construction management major, Minneapolis
• Bryan Makatura (alternate), construction management major, Pen Argyle, Penn.

MSOE's VDC Team had to submit a proposal for the virtual design and construction services for a Laboratory/Data Center building located in Milwaukee. They had 30 hours to create their proposal and deliver a presentation to competition judges from Mortenson Construction. The VDC Team was coached by Dr. Jeong Woo, assistant professor in the Civil and Architectural Engineering and Construction Management Department.

MSOE's Design Build Team submitted a proposal for design build services for a $30 million student dorm at a private university in St. Louis. They were responsible for creating a proposal that included the complete architectural design, a detailed construction estimate, a construction schedule and a site logistics plan. They had 30 hours to create their proposal and deliver a presentation to McCarthy Building Company executives, the Design Build competition sponsor. The Design Build Team was coached by Robert Lemke, associate professor in the Civil and Architectural Engineering and Construction Management Department.

MSOE offers bachelor's degrees in architectural engineering, construction management and a five year freshman-to-master's degree in civil engineering. The architectural engineering program prepares graduates for careers in the design and construction of buildings and building systems. Lecture and laboratory courses-led by industry-experienced faculty-integrate theory and the practical application of design principles, practices, methods and materials.

The construction management program educates students to direct building construction project activities from the owner's conception of the project until completion. Learning focuses on the technical process and resource management skills essential to construct commercial, institutional and industrial buildings on time, within budget, of high quality and safely.

Students in MSOE's civil engineering program will receive both a bachelor's and master's degree in civil engineering after five years. MSOE is the first and only university in the state of Wisconsin to offer a five-year, freshman-to-master's degree in civil engineering.

MSOE is an independent university with about 2,500 students. MSOE offers 18 bachelor's degrees and 10 master's degrees in the engineering, engineering technology, building and infrastructure engineering, health-related engineering, computer, business and nursing fields. The university has a national academic reputation; longstanding ties to business and industry; dedicated professors with real-world experience; and extremely high placement rates and the highest starting salaries of any Wisconsin university according to PayScale Inc. MSOE graduates are well-rounded, technologically experienced and highly productive professionals and leaders.

Judiciary Committee Leaders Press USTR to Hold Russia Accountable on IP Issues during WTO Accession Discussions

WASHINGTON - Leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are pressing U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to make sure that as Russia attempts to gain membership into the World Trade Organization, adequate focus is paid to its obligations to protect and enforce intellectual property rights.

In a letter to the Trade Representative, House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairmen Lamar Smith and Patrick Leahy and Ranking Members John Conyers and Chuck Grassley expressed concerns that Russia continues to have gaps and lapses in its protection of intellectual property rights.

"There are a number of significant concerns with respect to the denial of adequate and effective IPR protection, or the denial of equitable market access for persons that rely on IPR protection, in Russia," the Judiciary Committee leaders wrote.

The members added, "The Government of Russia must demonstrate via transparent, substantive and prompt actions its commitment to adhere fully to the obligations it will assume as a future member of the WTO.  Not only is the credibility of the rules-based system of international trade at stake, but should Russia fail to conform to its obligations in a thorough and timely manner, the adverse consequences for U.S. innovators and their workers will continue to be significant."

The text of the letter to Kirk is below.  A signed copy of the letter can be found here.

November 9, 2011

Ambassador Ron Kirk

United States Trade Representative

Office of the United States Trade Representative

600 17^th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20508

Dear Ambassador Kirk:

We are writing to express our serious concerns over continuing gaps and lapses in the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) by the Government of Russia, even as the negotiations regarding Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) are moving forward.  A high standard accession package will be essential before both Houses of Congress can consider a vote to remove Russia from Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974, which is necessary for the United States to enjoy the full benefits of Russian membership in the WTO.

According to the most recent annual report on the global state of IPR protection and enforcement prepared by your office pursuant to section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, there are a number of significant concerns with respect to the denial of adequate and effective IPR protection, or the denial of equitable market access for persons that rely on IPR protection, in Russia.

Specific examples cited include : widespread counterfeiting and piracy of hard goods; storage of pirated CDs and DVDs on several government-controlled military-industrial sites; gaps in Russian law and enforcement efforts with respect to piracy over the Internet; varying levels of enforcement among regions; and, indications of selective enforcement.  Even when initial enforcement efforts are conducted in a sustained and vigorous manner, your report notes that prosecutions and convictions do not necessarily follow.

With respect to gaps in Russian law, your report states that it is the position of the United States to urge Russia to enact online infringement legislation that addresses all forms of piracy over the Internet and provides for the swift removal of infringing content.  In addition, your report encourages Russia to enact legislation establishing a specialized IPR court and calls for Russia's enforcement officials to increase the number of IPR-related investigations, as well as for Russian prosecutors to seek deterrent penalties in judicial proceedings.  Because of these and other ongoing concerns, Russia remains on the "Priority Watch List" for 2011, which identifies countries with the most onerous or egregious IPR policies, acts, or practices that have the greatest adverse impact on relevant products of the United States.

Separately, the recent report to Congress of the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive identifies Russian cyber-espionage as a dangerous threat to our economy and national security.  Specifically, the report warns that "[f]oreign economic collection and industrial espionage against the United States represent significant and growing threats to the nation's prosperity and security," and that "[e]conomic espionage inflicts costs on companies that range from loss of unique intellectual property to outlays for remediation  . . . ."

This report further finds that "Moscow's highly capable intelligence services are using [human intelligence], cyber, and other operations to collect economic information and technology to support Russia's economic development and security," and that "the governments of China and Russia will remain aggressive and capable collectors of sensitive U.S. economic information and technologies, particularly in cyberspace."

We acknowledge that important progress has been made since 2006, when the United States and Russia reached a bilateral agreement on IPR protection and enforcement in Russia.  Yet, the findings in these reports raise serious questions about the intention and commitment of the Russian Government to abide by and enforce the obligations it will assume as a member of the WTO, particularly with respect to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

In our view, the questions and concerns raised by these reports must be addressed.  The Government of Russia must demonstrate via transparent, substantive and prompt actions its commitment to adhere fully to the obligations it will assume as a future member of the WTO.  Not only is the credibility of the rules-based system of international trade at stake, but should Russia fail to conform to its obligations in a thorough and timely manner, the adverse consequences for U.S. innovators and their workers will continue to be significant.

In addition, we expect that you will continue to consult the House and Senate Judiciary Committees as future developments warrant; such ongoing consultations will be particularly valuable in the event that Congress considers legislation to authorize termination of the provisions of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Russia.

Sincerely,

_____________________________  ______________________________

Lamar Smith                          Patrick Leahy

Chairman                       Chairman

House Committee on the Judiciary                      Senate Committee on the Judiciary

______________________________ ______________________________

John Conyers, Jr.                            Charles Grassley

Ranking Member                         Ranking Member