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.

Patriotic Pooch Parade! Sunday, June 14th 2pm

The German American Heritage Center is happy to announce a fun and free event for Flag Day on Sun. June 14^th! At 2pm we will be holding a Patriotic Pooch Parade! Bring your four legged friends down in their best red, white, and blue attire as we gather for a trot around the neighborhood! Prizes Awarded for Best Costume! Our friends from the Scott Co Humane Society will be bringing a few pals along to talk to us about how you can become a furever home to one of the many animals in need at their shelter.

All pets must be leashed & youth under 14 must have adult supervision.

This event is part of Quad City Museum Week and our exhibition From Wolf to Woof: Dogs of Deutschland on display now through July 26^th!

In case of rain or heat index over 80 degrees- Outdoor parade will be cancelled- A representative from the Humane Society will present on Furever Homes without any animals- indoors.

German American Heritage Center | 563.322.8844 | kelly.lao@gahc.org| gahc.org

Good morning.  The Senate has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch to ensure that the federal regulatory system remains accountable to the People, and transparent in its operations.  Today's hearing gives us a chance to take a broad look at where things stand.

We all remember from civics class that under our constitutional separation of powers, Congress makes the laws, the Executive Branch enforces the laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets those laws.

If only it were that straightforward.

According to professor of law Jonathan Turley at George Washington University, "Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency."

The Federal Register indicates there are over 430 departments, agencies, and sub-agencies in the federal government.  And the pronouncements of this ever-expanding administrative state impact nearly every aspect of Americans' daily lives.

The data support that fact.  The 113th Congress, for example, enacted just under 300 laws.  Over the same two-year period, the federal bureaucracy finalized over 7,000 regulations.  Just looking at these numbers, there's no denying that unelected bureaucrats are the real law-making force in this country.

In 1946, Congress recognized the growing power of the federal bureaucracy and enacted the Administrative Procedure Act (or "APA") to help ensure that regulations are crafted in an open, accountable and transparent manner?and that agency actions are reviewable by the courts to ensure compliance with the law.

Among the protections built into the APA is the public notice-and-comment rulemaking process, whereby Americans can weigh-in on proposed regulations, and agencies must objectively take those concerns into account when crafting a final rule.  This process is supposed to provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to hold regulators accountable, and to help insure that regulations are crafted in the public interest?rather than tailored to special interests.  The Judiciary Committee has primary jurisdiction over the APA, and we need to improve our oversight of it.

Unfortunately, we see repeated efforts today by agencies to undermine the public's role in the rulemaking process?and tactics that render the notice-and-comment process a mere formality.

Some agencies are resorting to litigation tactics, known as sue-and-settle, to speed up the rulemaking process and to keep affected members of the public?and even the States?away from the table when key regulatory decisions are negotiated behind closed doors.

These tactics often result in consent decrees or settlement agreements between an agency and like-minded interest groups, committing the agency to actions that haven't been publicly scrutinized.  In February, I introduced the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, a bill that would shine light on these tactics and provide much-needed transparency before regulatory decisions are finalized.

But that's just one part of the issue.

We also see agencies going through the motions of notice-and-comment rulemaking, yet the public's role in the process appears to be anything but meaningful.  The EPA's recently finalized Waters of the U.S. (or "WOTUS") rule stands out as a sweeping example of this problem.

Instead of attempting to address the legitimate concerns raised during the open comment period, the EPA and its allies in the professional advocacy community pushed a narrative that portrayed critics of the rule as misinformed, nutty, or in favor of water pollution.

Agencies are supposed to remain objective during the notice-and-comment period.  But EPA's efforts to drive support for its own rule?while belittling the concerns of the public?indicate that it had a clear end-goal in mind, regardless of public opinion or the rule's impact.

According to a recent New York Times article, "the EPA's tactics in supporting the rule are clearly designed to move public opinion, at a time when Congress was considering legislation to block the agency from putting the rule into effect."

I share the concerns of folks across Iowa with the WOTUS rule.  Its sweeping scope has left farmers in limbo about what they can and cannot do on their own land.  And the indifferent attitude the EPA took toward agriculture is a real concern for my constituents who understand the impact that agriculture has on the state's economy.

More broadly, it's a real concern for just how unaccountable our regulatory system has become.

Congress recognized early on the threat of agency overreach.  And accordingly, the APA provides for judicial review over the administrative state.

However, as the influence and reach of the administrative state has grown, it seems like the ability and willingness of the federal courts to hold it accountable has diminished.  Over 30 years ago, the Supreme Court articulated the now-famous Chevron doctrine, whereby federal courts largely defer to an agency's legal interpretation of a statute it administers.

And recently, the Supreme Court determined that such heavy deference extends even to an agency's interpretation of the scope of its own jurisdiction.

Placing such questions of law into the hands of those who also write and enforce laws raises serious concerns.  As James Madison correctly observed, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

So it's important that we consider these issues carefully, taking into account both the practical realities of our modern system of government and the separation of powers in our Constitution.

It's equally important that Congress recognize its own responsibility in the expansion of the administrative state.  For too long, Congress has delegated in broad strokes, asking the agencies to sort out the details.  If Congress is going to ask courts to tackle the tough questions, it needs to be willing to do so itself by reasserting its lawmaking power?and by speaking clearly and precisely when it chooses to use that power.

What's clear is that the status quo is not acceptable.  Today, small businesses and entrepreneurs operate in a regulatory environment that provides little relief from excessive red-tape, and one that offers little certainty upon which to base risk and investment.  Agencies are falling far short of their duties to weigh the costs and benefits of new regulations, and there's little the courts can do to hold them to account.  And regulations with hundreds of millions?and even billions?of dollars in impact are being imposed on the U.S. economy, all without a sufficient check by Congress.

In order to promote job growth and the American economy, we all must do better.

Today we're going to take a closer look at these and other concerns that have been raised.  And we're going to ask what Congress can do to restore accountability and transparency in the federal regulatory system.

Now, I'll turn to the Ranking Member for his opening remarks.

In a letter to Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason, Grassley wrote that a 2009 Government Accountability Office report said that families of fallen or injured officers waited an average of a year and a half before receiving an approval or denial of their Public Safety Officers' Benefits application.  This is despite a 2004 Attorney General memorandum that instructed the Public Safety Officer s' Benefits Office to make a determination on all filed claims within 90 days of receiving all necessary information.

Grassley initially wrote to Mason on January 12, 2015, and February 28, 2015, after learning that several cases of fallen Iowa officers had languished for over 3 years. In its response to Grassley, the Justice Department acknowledged "the need to improve the timeliness of the process for reaching PSOB claims determinations."

Grassley said the letter will help evaluate whether the Justice Department is making progress on providing answers to the families of fallen law enforcement officers.

Grassley's letter to Mason can be found below.  A signed copy of the letter can be found here.  The February 28, 2015, letter can be found here.  The Justice Department's March 27, 2015, response can be found here.  The January 12, 2015, letter can be found here.  The Justice Department's February 26, 2015, response can be found here.

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Karol V. Mason
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Justice Programs

U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C., 20531

Dear Assistant Attorney General Mason:

In 1976, Congress passed the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Act to provide benefits to survivors of certain public safety officers who die in the performance of duty.[1] I write today to ensure that that the PSOB Office within the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) is doing its job on behalf of the families of these fallen officers by processing PSOB applications in a fair and timely manner.

In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that families of fallen or injured officers waited an average of a year and a half before receiving an approval or denial of their PSOB application,[2] despite a 2004 Attorney General memorandum that instructed OJP's PSOB Office to make a determination on all filed PSOB claims within 90 days of receiving all necessary information.[3] A 2008 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report noted that legal reviews conducted by OJP's Office of General Counsel caused delays in the claims process.[4] The PSOB program director has acknowledged that calls and e-mails from claimants or agencies are not always returned.[5]

So, on January 12 and February 28, 2015, I wrote letters to you expressing my concerns over these findings and asking for status updates on pending applications.  On February 26, 2015, the Department acknowledged "the need to improve the timeliness of the process for reaching PSOB claims determinations."  The Department also announced that OJP had initiated a business process improvement review that would produce corresponding recommendations.

According to the Department's March 27, 2015 letter, as of February 28, 2015, there were a total of 656 PSOB death benefit applications that were pending at the PSOB Office level and 78 other PSOB death benefit applications that were pending at various appellate levels within the Department.

Please provide written responses to the following questions by June 12, 2015:

1.      As of the date of this letter, how many PSOB death benefit applications are pending at OJP?  Please provide a breakdown by state and date of filing.

2.      As of the date of this letter, how many PSOB disability benefit applications are pending at OJP?  Please provide a breakdown by state and date of filing.

3.      As of the date of this letter, how many PSOB education benefit applications are pending at OJP?  Please provide a breakdown by state and date of filing.

4.      What is the status of OJP's business process improvement review?  What recommendations for improvement have been identified?

Please number your responses according to their corresponding questions.  If you have any questions, please contact Jay Lim of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225.  Thank you.

Sincerely,

Committee on the Judiciary