url,title,date,year,month,party,chamber,state,member_name,bioguide_id,domain,scraper,source,date_source,text,has_text,collected_at,updated_at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/leahy-grassley-press-administration-use-cell-phone-tracking-program,Leahy & Grassley Press Administration on Use of Cell Phone Tracking Program,2014-12-31,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) pressed top Obama administration officials on the use of cell-site simulators, which can unknowingly sweep up the cell phone signals of innocent Americans. Recent news reports have chronicled the use of such simulators by law enforcement, explaining that the simulators have the potential to capture data about the location of thousands of cell phones in their vicinity. Leahy and Grassley previously pressed the FBI about the use of this technology. In a joint letter sent last week to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, the Senators raised questions about exceptions to a new FBI policy to obtain a search warrant before using a cell-site simulator. The Senators also asked about other agencies' use of the technology. It remains unclear how other agencies within the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security make use of cell-site simulators and what policies are in place to govern their use of that technology, Leahy and Grassley wrote. Outlining privacy concerns for innocent individuals, the letter continues: The Judiciary Committee needs a broader understanding of the full range of law enforcement agencies that use this technology, the policies in place to protect the privacy interests of those whose information might be collected using these devices, and the legal process that DOJ and DHS entities seek prior to using them. A signed copy of the December 23 letter to Attorney General Holder and Secretary Johnson is available Here. Text of the letter can be found below. December 23, 2014 The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. The Honorable Jeh Johnson Attorney General Secretary of Homeland Security Department of Justice Department of Homeland Security 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20528 Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Attorney General Holder and Secretary Johnson: In recent months, media reports have detailed the use of cell-site simulators (often referred to as IMSI Catchers or Stingrays) by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Most recently a November 14, 2014, Wall Street Journal article (Americans' Cellphones Targeted in Secret U.S. Spy Program) reported that the United States Marshals Service regularly deploys airborne cell-site simulators (referred to as DRT boxes or dirtboxes) from five metropolitan-area airports across the United States. Like the more common Stingray devices, these dirtboxes mimic standard cell towers, forcing affected cell phones to reveal their approximate location and registration information. The Wall Street Journal article reports that dirtboxes are capable of gathering data from tens of thousands of cellphones in a single flight. We wrote to FBI Director Comey in June seeking information about law enforcement use of cell-site simulators. Since then, our staff members have participated in two briefings with FBI officials, and at the most recent session they learned that the FBI recently changed its policy with respect to the type of legal process that it typically seeks before employing this type of technology. According to this new policy, the FBI now obtains a search warrant before deploying a cell-site simulator, although the policy contains a number of potentially broad exceptions and we continue to have questions about how it is being implemented in practice. Furthermore, it remains unclear how other agencies within the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security make use of cell-site simulators and what policies are in place to govern their use of that technology. The Judiciary Committee needs a broader understanding of the full range of law enforcement agencies that use this technology, the policies in place to protect the privacy interests of those whose information might be collected using these devices, and the legal process that DOJ and DHS entities seek prior to using them. For example, we understand that the FBI's new policy requires FBI agents to obtain a search warrant whenever a cell-site simulator is used as part of a FBI investigation or operation, unless one of several exceptions apply, including (among others): (1) cases that pose an imminent danger to public safety, (2) cases that involve a fugitive, or (3) cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. We have concerns about the scope of the exceptions. Specifically, we are concerned about whether the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have adequately considered the privacy interests of other individuals who are not the targets of the interception, but whose information is nevertheless being collected when these devices are being used. We understand that the FBI believes that it can address these interests by maintaining that information for a short period of time and purging the information after it has been collected. But there is a question as to whether this sufficiently safeguards privacy interests. Accordingly, please provide written responses to these questions by January 30, 2015: 1. Since the effective date of the FBI's new policy: a. How many times has the FBI used a cell-site simulator? b. In how many of these instances was the use of the cell-site simulator authorized by a search warrant? c. In how many of these instances was the use of the cell-site simulator authorized by some other form of legal process? Please identify the legal process used. d. In how many of these instances was the cell-site simulator used without any legal process? e. How many times has each of the exceptions to the search warrant policy, including those listed above, been used by the FBI? 2. From January 1, 2010, to the effective date of the FBI's new policy: a. How many times did the FBI use a cell-site simulator? b. In how many of these instances was the use of a cell-site simulator authorized by a search warrant? c. In how many of these instances was the use of the cell-site simulator authorized by some other form of legal process? Please identify the legal process used. d. In how many of these instances was the cell-site simulator used without any legal process? e. In how many of the instances referenced in Question 2(d) did the FBI use a cell-site simulator in a public place or other location in which the FBI deemed there is no reasonable expectation of privacy? 3. What is the FBI's current policy on the retention and destruction of the information collected by cell-site simulators in all cases? How is that policy enforced? 4. What other DOJ and DHS agencies use cell-site simulators? 5. What is the policy of these agencies regarding the legal process needed for use of cell-site simulators? a. Are these agencies seeking search warrants specific to the use of cell-site simulators? b. If not, what legal authorities are they using? c. Do these agencies make use of public place or other exceptions? If so, in what proportion of all instances in which the technology is used are exceptions relied upon? d. What are these agencies' policies on the retention and destruction of the information that is collected by cell-site simulators? How are those policies enforced? 6. What is the Department of Justice's guidance to United States Attorneys' Offices regarding the legal process required for the use of cell-site simulators? 7. Across all DOJ and DHS entities, what protections exist to safeguard the privacy interests of individuals who are not the targets of interception, but whose information is nevertheless being collected by cell-site simulators? Please number your written responses according to their corresponding questions. In addition, please arrange for knowledgeable DOJ and DHS officials to provide a briefing to Judiciary Committee staff about these issues following the provision of these written responses, but no later than February 6, 2015.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-nominates-iowa-students-us-service-academies-0,Grassley Nominates Iowa Students to the U.S. Service Academies,2014-12-23,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senator Chuck Grassley has nominated 37 outstanding Iowa students for consideration for appointments to the U.S. service academies. Young Iowans who want to enter the academies and serve our country are remarkable for their accomplishments and leadership. These candidates are an impressive reflection on our state and signal continued excellence in the U.S. armed forces, Grassley said. Each year Grassley has the opportunity as a U.S. senator to nominate either current or future Iowa high school graduates for a select few service academy placements. The Air Force, Military, and Naval academies all select at least one qualified student from Grassley's nominations. The Merchant Marine Academy makes selections in proportion to states' representation in Congress. Grassley said he encourages Iowa students to consider applying to more than one service academy due to the highly competitive nature of admissions. The academies offer some of the best options for higher education, and they offer an outstanding way to serve our country, Grassley said. It's a tremendous opportunity for young Iowans. Students interested in academy appointments should begin the application process in the spring of their junior year of high school. The academies select students based on the number of vacancies available for the next school year. Iowa Representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives also make nominations in addition to both of Iowa's U.S. Senators. Traditionally, the high quality of Iowa nominees results in several Iowa students being selected to attend each of the service academies. More information about service academy nominations can be foundhere. Grassley said he will make announcements as appointments to the academies are offered to Iowans. The lists below include the names and hometowns of Grassley's nominees for the 2015-2016 school year. U.S. Air Force Academy Yair Abramoff, Iowa City Jessica Brown, Sioux City Jean Etnyre, Pella* Mark Farlinger, Cresco* Jeffrey Giannettino, West Burlington Adrianna Hines, Missouri Valley Jacob Orr, Johnston Spencer Silver, Ankeny Haley Steele, Muscatine Graham Zomermaand, Sioux Center U.S. Military Academy at West Point Payton Boylston, Ames Harrison Gudorf, West Des Moines Zachary Hoffman, Ankeny Jaryd Huffman, Letts Alexander Jones, Council Bluffs Jonas Mason, Cedar Rapids Ethan Pieper, Norwalk* Buchanan Waller, Maquoketa John Worthington, Hudson Tobey Yates, Underwood U.S. Naval Academy Caroline Ascherl, Granville Robert Beardsley, Bettendorf Diana Carney, Coggon Luke Donnelly, West Des Moines Madeline Gehrke, Clive Dane Livengood, Treynor Griffin Lorenz, Marion* Luis Martinez, Des Moines Molly Sanders, Ames Gabrielle Taht, St. Donatus U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Joseph Budde, La Motte Jean Etnyre, Pella Mark Farlinger, Cresco Nicholas Fox, Clive Trever Huss, Orange City Griffin Lorenz, Marion Ethan Pieper, Norwalk Students denoted with an asterisks(*) were also nominated for appointments to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in addition to the Air Force, Military or Naval Academies. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-designated-%E2%80%9Cfriend-farm-bureau%E2%80%9D,Grassley Designated a Friend of Farm Bureau,2014-12-22,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON- Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been designated as a Friend of Farm Bureau for the 113th session of Congress that just concluded by the America Farm Bureau Federation. Grassley received the award for his work to advance agricultural interests across Iowa and the United States. I'm honored to receive this award, Grassley said. The work that family farmers do is valuable not just to the nation, but to the world, and I want to be sure their views are represented in Washington. I've made a strong commitment to support agriculture in the U.S. Senate. The Friend of Farm Bureau award is given out during each session of Congress to members who have supported Farm Bureau policy. Recipients are nominated by their respective state Farm Bureaus and approved by the American Farm Bureau Federation. As one of only two working family farmers in the U.S. Senate, Grassley works to be a voice for agriculture and rural America in Washington through his work in the U.S. Senate and his roles on the Finance, Judiciary, Budget, and Agriculture committees. More about Grassley's work to support agriculture can be foundhere. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-additions-doctor-payment-database-says-sunshine-act-fulfills-public,Grassley on Additions to Doctor Payment Database; Says Sunshine Act Fulfills Public Interest,2014-12-19,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on CMS' addition of records to the database made possible under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which Grassley co-authored and saw through to enactment into law. CMS continues to make the database more complete and more helpful for the public. The dollar amount over a short period of time might be higher than many people might have anticipated. There's a strong public interest in knowing where this money goes and why. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-announces-deadline-submit-federal-judgeship-applications,Grassley Announces Deadline to Submit Federal Judgeship Applications,2014-12-19,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON -- With U.S. District Judges for both Northern and Southern Iowa retiring in 2015, Sen. Chuck Grassley is inviting members of the Iowa legal community to contact his office between now and January 9 in order to be considered for a recommendation by him to President Barack Obama. It's important to me that this opportunity be made available to the entire legal community in Iowa. Anyone may apply for a recommendation, Grassley said. Following a comprehensive review of applicants, I will make recommendations to the President and he will make the decision about who is nominated. Grassley, who is expected to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, said that Iowa lawyers with stellar legal credentials should contact Aaron McKay of his staff in Des Moines with a cover letter, CV, and references. McKay can be reached ataaron_mckay@grassley.senate.govand 515-288-1145 in Grassley's Des Moines office, which is located at 210 Walnut Street in Room 721 of the Federal building. Applicants may begin submitting applications immediately, but must do so later than Friday, January 9. Interviews will be scheduled starting January 14. The openings are available because U.S. District Judge James Gritzner, the chief judge for Iowa's Southern District, will take senior status, and U.S. District Judge Mark W. Bennett, the chief judge for Iowa's Northern District, is retiring. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-asks-attorney-general-study-ellingson-case,Grassley Asks Attorney General to Study Ellingson Case,2014-12-19,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has contacted U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder about investigating the death of Iowan Brandon Ellingson at the Lake of the Ozarks while in police custody. Grassley has spoken with Ellingson's family and their attorney about the case and told them that he would forward to the Attorney General any information they provided. Just this week, Grassley received the information and immediately made a call to Holder. The Attorney General told Grassley that he would review the information personally before providing it to staff attorneys at the Justice Department. Grassley sent the information, along with the letter below to Holder, today. December 19, 2014 Via Hand Delivery The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Attorney General Holder, As we discussed yesterday, I am writing to you regarding the tragic death of my constituent Brandon Ellingson, who drowned while hand-cuffed and in the custody of Missouri state troopers after they arrested him on the Lake of the Ozarks on May 31, 2014. According to some reports in the media, there continue to be important unanswered questions about, among other things, whether the officer involved in his arrest was properly trained for water safety, whether he gave Brandon a floatation device that was appropriate for an individual in handcuffs, whether the speed of the police boat and Brandon's positioning on the boat caused him to fall into the water, and whether all efforts were made to save Brandon's life afterward. In addition, questions persist in the media about whether Missouri officials conducted a thorough and impartial investigation into Brandon's death. I'm sure you agree that whenever an individual's death is alleged to have been caused by federal or state law enforcement officers, the matter deserves a thorough, independent investigation, including by federal authorities if necessary and appropriate. Obviously, the Department of Justice has aggressively fulfilled its mission in this regard in other cases recently. With this letter, I am passing on to you a letter and materials provided to me by an attorney for Brandon's family regarding Brandon's death and the investigations that were subsequently conducted in Missouri. I respectfully request that you give this information all due consideration and expect that you will call forth the full authority and resources of the Department to investigate whether any federal civil or criminal laws were violated. I very much appreciate your assurances to me yesterday that you will personally review these materials. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Should you have further questions about these materials, please do not hesitate to contact the attorney representing Brandon's family, whose contact information is included. Sincerely, Chuck Grassley -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-dea-ban-new-types-synthetic-drugs,Grassley on DEA Ban of New Types of Synthetic Drugs,2014-12-19,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"The federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) today announced it will use its administrative powers to ban three more synthetic drugs under the strictest level of federal law. The agency said the three drugs have appeared in Iowa, among other states, but it does not provide any specific incidents involving the drugs. Sen. Chuck Grassley sponsored legislation, signed into law, that banned a broad category of synthetic drugs. Grassley is ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and co-chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control. He made the following comment on today's announcement from the DEA. Congress and the Drug Enforcement Administration have to work hard to stay on top of synthetic drugs. The cynical makers of these drugs change one chemical to evade existing federal bans. The DEA's action today is welcome to protect Iowans and others who might run across the latest versions of this dangerous product. The DEA's documents are availablehereandhere. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-us-changes-toward-cuba,Grassley on U.S. Changes Toward Cuba,2014-12-17,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on President Obama's announcement of eased economic and diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba. This policy change is a gift for the Cuban government that has done nothing to provide basic, fundamental human rights to the Cuban people. According to our own Department of State, the authoritarian regime led by the Castros for decades has severely restricted fundamental freedoms, repressed political opponents, and violated human rights.' Today's announcement of eased economic and diplomatic relations is not a result of democratic or economic reforms or a newfound respect for human rights or religious freedom. This decision rewards a brutal regime without any significant commitment toward change for the oppressed Cuban people. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-kick-annual-99-county-tour,Grassley to Kick Off Annual 99-County Tour,2014-12-16,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senator Chuck Grassley will hold four town meetings in Iowa on Jan. 3 and Jan. 5 as part of his annual 99-county tour. With these meetings, Grassley will begin his 35th year holding meetings in every one of Iowa's 99 counties. Grassley has held a meeting in every county, every year since he was first elected to serve in the U.S. Senate. On Jan. 3 and Jan. 5 Grassley will be inAllison, Waverly, Grundy Center, and Marshalltown. Representative government is a two-way street. I'm one half of the process and the people of Iowa are the other half. You can't have representative government without dialogue between elected officials and the people we represent, Grassley said. I appreciate the opportunity to hold town meetings, answer questions and take comments. Grassley will be available for 15 minutes after each meeting to answer questions from local reporters. These town meetings are open to the public and media. Grassley's town meeting schedule for Jan. 3 and Jan. 5 is as follows: Saturday, Jan. 3 9:15-10:15 a.m. Butler County Town Meeting Allison Public Library 412 3rd St. Allison *Grassley will be available for 15 minutesafterthe meeting to answer questions from local reporters. 11 a.m.-Noon Bremer County Town Meeting Waverly Public Library Bremer Room 1500 West Bremer Ave. Waverly *Grassley will be available for 15 minutesafterthe meeting to answer questions from local reporters. Monday, Jan. 5 8-9 a.m. Grundy County Town Meeting Kling Memorial Library 708 7th St. Grundy Center *Grassley will be available for 15 minutesafterthe meeting to answer questions from local reporters. 10-11 a.m. Marshall County Town Meeting Marshalltown Public Library Room B 105 West Boone St. Marshalltown *Grassley will be available for 15 minutesafterthe meeting to answer questions from local reporters. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-teen-drug-use-survey-marijuana-results-are-worrying,Grassley on Teen Drug Use Survey; Marijuana Results are Worrying,2014-12-16,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and co-chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, today made the following comment on the National Institutes of Health's 2014 Monitoring the Future Survey. The survey measures drug use and attitudes among the nation's 8th, 10th, and 12th graders. The survey finds that in 2014, in states with medical marijuana laws, 40 percent of 12th graders who reported using marijuana in the past year said they had consumed marijuana in food products (edibles) versus 26 percent in non-medical marijuana states. The majority of high school seniors do not think occasional marijuana smoking is harmful, with only 16.4 percent saying occasional use puts the user at great risk, compared to 27.4 percent five years ago. Earlier this year, President Obama said he thought recreational use of marijuana was just a bad habit' no more dangerous than consuming alcohol. He also indicated he thought it was important' for the legalization of recreational marijuana under state law in Colorado and Washington to go forward.' Attorney General Holder has also recently stated that he's cautiously optimistic' about the legalization of recreational marijuana in those states. Finally, the President recently installed an advocate for the legalization of recreational marijuana as well as the decriminalization of possession of all controlled substances, including cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamine, as acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. When kids receive the message that marijuana use is acceptable and even welcome, it's no wonder that the perception of harm from marijuana goes down. It shouldn't surprise anyone that marijuana edibles are popular among teen-agers in states where those products are available. Those of us in the public eye have an obligation to make sure kids understand the dangers of all drug use, including marijuana. Even in today's survey press release, a government expert warns of the effects of drugs on the developing brain. We can't let up on education and prevention. By offering pro-marijuana messages, the President and his top appointees are working at cross purposes with the federal government experts who are trying to reduce drug use among teen-agers. The good news in the survey reflects education and prevention work at all levels of government and among parents and grandparents. The emphasis on raising public awareness about prescription opioid abuse and efforts to clean out medicine cabinets are positively impacting the youth trends. Public awareness and the laws banning synthetic drugs also seem to be have a positive effect on the trends. The survey is availablehere. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/tax-extenders-bill-passes-last,Tax Extenders Bill Passes at Last,2014-12-16,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on Senate passage of legislation to extend expired tax provisions. The provisions include a series of provisions for individuals, such as the college tuition deduction and deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies out of their own pocket, which Grassley advanced as Finance Committee chairman, and provisions of interest to employers such as equipment expensing provisions for farmers and business owners and a tax credit for the production of electricity from wind energy. Grassley is the author of the original wind energy tax credit and has advanced it several times. Grassley voted for the bill, which now heads to the President for his consideration. Among the last votes of the Senate's lame duck session was on tax extenders. Under the current leadership, the Senate has assigned this piece of business one of the lowest priorities. The message from the Democratic leadership is that certainty for individuals who look forward to these provisions or people who create and maintain jobs is a low priority. This is a bad message in any economy and especially in one that could be much better. House and Senate negotiators were closing in on an agreement that would have provided a two-year extension for most provisions and would have been good for wind energy production, with a multi-year extension. But the President threatened a veto before the ink on the agreement was even written, much less dry. The President was set to get a lot of what he wanted in that deal, but he wanted more. Now we're left with a weak tax package. I hope for better next year, when the Senate is under new leadership. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-civil-asset-forfeiture-reform-legislative-plans,Grassley on Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Legislative Plans,2014-12-15,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, today made the following comment on news reports that prosecutors are abandoning their seizure of assets belonging to an Iowa restaurant owner over whether she structured bank deposits to avoid federal bank reporting requirements. Grassley is expected to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the next Congress. He is a senior member and former chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over the IRS. I'm working on civil asset forfeiture reform legislation to introduce in the new Congress. News reports including those in The Washington Post have detailed aggressive seizures of cash and property from drivers. In the case of the Iowa restaurant owner and others like it, the IRS has now adopted an enforcement policy under which it won't seize assets under the structuring law without evidence of underlying criminal activity unless there are extenuating circumstances. I'm looking at ways to make sure the IRS and other federal agencies' use of these statutes are reformed permanently going forward. Since the IRS changed its approach in these cases, it could change its approach again, and the same is true for other agencies. It's important to look at getting the right policies set in statute going forward. The government's power to seize assets should be used fairly and with common sense. The reforms I'm developing are meant to curb instances in which government power unfairly infringes on the rights of motorists, small business owners and other Americans. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-voting-against-omnibus-spending-bill,Grassley on Voting Against the Omnibus Spending Bill,2014-12-15,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa made the following comment on his vote against the omnibus spending bill approved by the Senate over the weekend. This bill continued a bad pattern the Senate has fallen into in recent years under the current leadership. Instead of hastily considering a 1,600-page, $1.1 trillion spending bill, we need to return to considering annual appropriations bills. So much spending deserves debate, consideration and an open, transparent amendment process. Senate committees should be able to vet the government programs and spending within their jurisdiction. Senators should be allowed to offer amendments, both in committee and on the Senate floor. A poor process leads to bad policy, like scaling back banking derivatives laws without debate or accountability. It also leads to the distrust the American people have in their government. The people feel Congress writes back-room deals, and we ought to earn back their trust with an open process. And, we're allowing the President to bypass Congress, ignore the rule of law and make major immigration policy by acting unilaterally. My hope for the new year under new leadership is a return to a better process that will lead to better policy than what we're enacting now. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/too-many-red-flags-support-district-judge-nominee-bough,Too Many Red Flags to Support District Judge Nominee Bough,2014-12-15,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee The Nomination of Stephen Bough to be District Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Mon., Dec. 15, 2014 I'd like to speak today in opposition to the nomination of Stephen Bough to a seat on the district court for the Western District of Missouri. As I do with every nominee, I thoroughly examined Mr. Bough's record with an eye to giving him the benefit of the doubt if problematic issues arose. After full consideration of that record, I am, regrettably, unable to support this nominee. There are just too many data points red flags, if you will which tell me that Mr. Bough doesn't have what it takes to serve in a lifetime appointment on the Missouri district court. These red flags all relate to one troubling question that the nominee's record raises: whether Mr. Bough has the temperament to be a federal judge. He doesn't. Let me explain how I came to that conclusion. First, there's the issue of this nominee's professional conduct. A specific incident from last year demonstrates how Mr. Bough has engaged in what I believe to be unethical behavior that precludes him from service on the federal bench. Last October, a member of the Missouri bar drew to my attention the nominee's participation in a civil case in federal district court. The presiding judge on the case was the nominee's former employer, Senior District Judge Scott O. Wright. About a week before the nominee signed onto the case, the plaintiff's attorney asked the court to transfer the case to another judge. Judge Wright denied that motion the next day. Then, just one week later, the nominee entered his appearance in the case. Mere hours after that, Judge Wright recused himself without any motion from the parties. Now, why did Judge Wright do that? Well, when Mr. Bough joined the case, he created a conflict with Judge Wright. You see, Mr. Bough was Judge Wright's law clerk and remains his close personal friend today. In fact, Judge Wright had added the nominee to his personal conflicts list in January 2006 and Mr. Bough was well aware he was on that conflicts list. So, Mr. Bough knew that by joining the case, Judge Wright was guaranteed to recuse himself. And that's exactly what the plaintiffs tried unsuccessfully to do just one week before Mr. Bough signed on and forced that recusal by creating the conflict with the judge. Why is this significant? Well, what the nominee did here is known as judge shopping. It's an unethical litigation practice that has been strongly criticized by courts throughout the country. Essentially, it's when a lawyer knowingly creates a conflict with a judge in order to get the judge kicked off a case and replaced with a new and perhaps more favorable judge. That's the shopping part. The Michigan Supreme Court has explained that judge shopping exposes the legal profession and the courts to contempt and ridicule. The Fifth Circuit calls judge shopping sheer manipulation of the justice system. Another federal court has noted that the practice is universally condemned. This isn't the kind of professional conduct that we can accept in a nominee to the federal bench. Now, I gave Mr. Bough several opportunities to explain his conduct in questions for the record I submitted to him. What I learned from his responses was this: the nominee knew that by joining the case he'd create a conflict requiring Judge Wright's recusal. I also asked the nominee to provide to our Judiciary Committee with the work he says he did while he was an attorney on the case. You see, I wanted to know whether the nominee joined the case in good faith to work for a client or joined just to create a conflict with the judge. Mr. Bough responded that he provided advice and edits on only three documents. I requested those documents twice and told the nominee to redact any content protected by the attorney-client privilege. The nominee has refused to provide those documents to me. The nominee has not provided to me memorandums, billing records, or any other materials to support his claim that he actually was working the case. Nor did the nominee attend any depositions or other pre-trial hearings in the case. He made no filings with the court. In short, Mr. Bough has provided me with almost nothing to support his claim that he actually did substantial work on the case during the seven months he represented the plaintiffs. It's for this reason, and for the circumstances I've already described, that I'm led to believe that the nominee's entry of appearance was not in good faith. It looks to me like a textbook case of judge shopping. But the judge shopping is only one of many red flags. Let me discuss another that gives me serious pause. The nominee has been active in Democratic Party politics in the Kansas City area for a number of years. Now, I don't hold that against him. I've said frequently over the years that I never disqualify judicial nominees just because they've been politically active. Instead, the issue for me is whether our nominees have shown they can shift gears and put aside their previous political advocacy once they put on the robe. This nominee's record makes it abundantly clear that he wouldn't be able to make the switch from political advocate to impartial arbiter of law. For example, in recent years the nominee has written a number of blog posts about local and national politics. I've read his posts. I'll say that some are of a stridently political nature. Others? Well, they're simply too crude and sexist for me to quote from here, but at the conclusion of this statement I'll submit them to be included in the public record. I challenge any Democrat who is voting for this nominee to read them aloud to the public. I'm confident none of you will. So, I'll just say that the sheer coarseness of those posts led me and other members of our Judiciary Committee to question whether Mr. Bough has the temperament suited to lifetime judicial service. Unfortunately, it's not just the blog posts that make me ask that question. The nominee has shown in other contexts that he is, first and foremost, a political operative rather than a zealous advocate for a client or an officer of the court. For example, Mr. Bough has lodged two obviously frivolous and abusive complaints with the Federal Election Commission against a congressional candidate whom he opposed ideologically. In 2008, the Commission dismissed the first of those complaints in a brief opinion. But in 2012, Mr. Bough redoubled his efforts and filed a second, 93-page complaint against the same candidate. This time, the Commission responded with a lengthy and meticulous opinion that is striking for its strong language dismissing each of Mr. Bough's allegations. The Commission criticized Mr. Bough's allegations as vague and speculative and said that any violations which may have occurred were so minor as to not merit consideration. The opinion concluded that Mr. Bough's complaint had no basis for its allegations and was without merit. So, the bottom line here is that the nominee was using a government agency as a tool to harass a political opponent. As I said earlier, that's behavior indicative of a political operative someone who's just not going to be able to put it all aside and consider cases objectively once he becomes a judge. From time to time, some of my colleagues on our Judiciary Committee have commented that the best evidence for the type of judge a nominee will be is the type of lawyer they have been. I think there's a lot of wisdom in that view. So, with this nominee, we know what kind of lawyer he's been. Defending an unsavory client or representing an unpopular cause is one thing. We expect lawyers to do that our system demands it. But acting as a political operative is an entirely different matter. And that's the kind of lawyer this nominee's record shows him to have been: a lawyer steeped in bare-knuckled political combat. I said at the beginning of this statement that I'm inclined to give nominees the benefit of the doubt when I come across something in their record that raises my eyebrows. And I probably would've done that with this nominee, too, if there had been just an isolated issue or an uncharacteristic lapse in judgment. But that's not what we've got here. Not only do we have unethical judge shopping. To that we have to add a number of crass, sexist, and insulting blog posts. And to that we also add a pair of frivolous complaints that abused the jurisdiction of a government agency in order to harass a political opponent. There are just too many red flags for me to support this nominee. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-supports-bill-iowan-mind-legislation-requires-reporting-deaths-police,Grassley Supports Bill with Iowan in Mind; Legislation Requires Reporting of Deaths in Police Custody Heads to President,2014-12-11,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Legislation requiring law enforcement to report to the federal government any deaths of people in its custody cleared the Senate late last night and will now be sent to the President to be signed into law. The bill passed the House of Representatives on Dec. 12, 2013. Grassley is Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which passed the bill on Nov. 20, 2014. Grassley said that reducing deaths in custody requires knowing when and how they occur and adopting policies to reduce them. I've supported this bill in the past, but my support is strengthened by a tragic incident involving Iowan Brandon Ellingson, who died earlier this year in police custody in Missouri. There are allegations that his death was due to police negligence, Grassley said. Whenever a citizen dies while in the custody of law enforcement, it deserves to be closely reviewed by the appropriate authorities. That would include the Department of Justice, if it appears that any federal laws were broken. The Death in Custody Reporting Act requires states that receive federal Byrne-JAG funding to report to the U.S. Attorney General about the death of any person in its custody. Failure to report would result in loss of funding of such federal funding. In addition, the bill requires federal law enforcement agencies to report the death of any person detained or arrested by any federal agency of officer or if the person is en route to be incarcerated or detained. The Attorney General is then required to study the information and report to Congress on ways in which the number of deaths in law enforcement custody can be reduced. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-whitehouse-introduce-reauthorization-juvenile-justice-delinquency,"Grassley, Whitehouse Introduce Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act",2014-12-11,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. Today U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2014 (JJDPA), which updates and strengthens protections for young people in our criminal justice system and reauthorizes funding for key juvenile justice programs. The JJDPA has not been reauthorized since 2002 despite several attempts in recent Congresses. The Senators' bill maintains protections and programs established in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), and authorizes funding for the law for five years. It also takes steps to improve the treatment of youth under the JJDPA by bolstering its core protections, improving conditions for detained juveniles, incorporating new science on adolescent development, and increasing accountability and oversight in administering the law. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention program helps in preventing at-risk youth from entering the system and helps those in the system become valuable members of communities across the country. This bipartisan bill will be a good starting point for reauthorizing this important program as we begin a new Congress. It contains significant accountability measures that I've been championing to ensure that funds go to those most in need, and just as importantly it reflects the current fiscal situation of the country, Grassley said. Children are our most precious cares, and as lawmakers we should focus on giving them every opportunity to reach their potential, said Whitehouse, who chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism in June on the need for a reauthorization. This legislation will strengthen the main protections of the JJDPA, and improve the conditions and practices that can determine whether offenders leave our justice system as productive members of society. I'm glad we have arrived at this strong bipartisan bill and look forward to working with Senator Grassley during the next Congress. The new legislation strengthens several central protections established in the JJDPA, including the exception for so-called status offenders such as children who are truant, runaway, or violate curfew, alcohol, and tobacco laws. Despite limits imposed by the JJDPA on holding status offenders in juvenile lock-up and clear evidence that holding status offenders can have harmful effects for young people, current law allows authorities to detain status offenders if a judge issues a Valid Court Order (VCO). The reauthorization phases out the VCO exception over three years and provides additional safeguards for status offenders in the interim. The bill also includes: Provisions to ensure the continuity of young people's education while incarcerated; Clear direction to states and localities on how to reduce racial and ethnic disparities among incarcerated youth; Improved standards for detaining youth to ensure they are not held with or near adults; Better reporting of important juvenile justice metrics to OJJDP; and Provisions to ensure accountability in the use of federal resources devoted to juvenile justice initiatives. Passed originally in 1974, the JJDPA took a number of steps to improve the treatment of juveniles in our criminal justice system: it established a system of regional advisory groups to advise states on juvenile justice issues; it provided federal funds for delinquency prevention efforts and improvements to state and local juvenile justice programs; and it formed a federal agency, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), to aid in training, research, evaluation, and program development for states and localities dealing with juvenile justice issues. The reauthorization bill has the support of a broad coalition of juvenile justice and youth development organizations. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://loebsack.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394723,"Loebsack, McKinley Propose Bill to Help Emergency First Responders",2014-12-10,2014,2014-12,Democrat,House,IA,Dave Loebsack,L000565,loebsack.house.gov,,,legacy,"Yesterday, Congressmen Dave Loebsack (D-IA) and David B. McKinley (R-WV) introduced bipartisan legislation to help volunteer firefighters and other first responders who keep our communities safe. The bill creates a tax deduction for volunteer first responders and will help Volunteer Fire Departments and other public safety organizations recruit and retain volunteers.“I’d like to thank Representatives McKinley and Loebsack for introducing this important legislation,” said Chief Philip C. Stittleburg, Chairman of the National Volunteer Fire Council. “The services donated by volunteer emergency response personnel are valued at more than $140 billion annually and the average responder donates services worth more than $18,000 each year. At the same time, local agencies are increasingly struggling to recruit and retain volunteer firefighters and EMTs. This common sense bill would help bolster staffing in volunteer public safety agencies by allowing responders to claim a portion of the value of the services they donate each year as a charitable donation.”“Our volunteer firefighters stand ready to serve us the moment disaster strikes. They donate their time and energy to keep us safe, and we can do more to support their critical role in our communities,” said Loebsack. “Over 90% of Iowa’s firefighters are volunteers, and this tax credit would provide an important recruitment tool for Fire Departments to maintain the level of staffing that they need to do their jobs. I am pleased to work on a bipartisan basis with Rep. McKinley to advance this important legislation.”  “Small towns across West Virginia and the country rely on volunteers to respond to fires, accidents, and other emergencies,” said McKinley. “Yet these same men and women are often forced to raise money to simply have adequate equipment and training. We can do more to help them.”“We’ve had a number of meetings with Volunteer Fire Departments across West Virginia, and the number one issue they have is recruiting volunteers and keeping them,” said McKinley. “This solution will help fix that problem and demonstrates the respect earned by volunteer emergency personnel.”The bill provides a tax deduction for hours of service each year volunteered for fire-fighting and prevention services, emergency medical services, ambulance services, civil air patrol, and emergency rescue services.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://loebsack.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394724,Loebsack Named to Powerful Energy and Commerce Committee,2014-12-10,2014,2014-12,Democrat,House,IA,Dave Loebsack,L000565,loebsack.house.gov,,,legacy,"Congressman Dave Loebsack announced today that he has been named to serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee for the 114th Congress. The committee has jurisdiction over a wide range of issues, including energy policy; healthcare policy; trade policy; telecommunications and the internet; environment and air quality; and consumer affairs and protection.“Having a seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee will allow me to make a greater impact on job creation, growing the economy, making sound investments in renewable energy such as wind, solar and biofuels and growing the Middle Class in Iowa and across the country,” said Loebsack. “I look forward to this new opportunity that will benefit the state and will continue to work with anyone who is willing to come together and to find a way to move Iowa and our nation forward.” The Energy and Commerce Committee is the oldest standing committee in the House and is an exclusive committee, meaning members of the committee may only serve on other House committees with a waiver from leadership.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://steveking.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/king-amendment-to-house-cromnibus,King Amendment to House CRomnibus,2014-12-10,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Steve King,K000362,steveking.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Congressman Steve King released the following video statement on the amendment he is offering to the House Rules Committee to the “CRomnibus” funding bill in the United States House. King’s amendment will fund all of the government until January 30 of next year but will prohibit any and all funds from being used to carry out the president’s lawless, unconstitutional executive amnesty in all its forms. To watch Congressman Steve King’s full remarks, click here. To view the full text of the King Amendment, click here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-nominations-hearing-intellectual-property-positions,Grassley Statement at Nominations Hearing for Intellectual Property Positions,2014-12-10,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing Regarding the Nominations of: Michelle K. Lee, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Daniel Henry Marti, to be Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Executive Office of the President Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I turn to the nominees who are appearing before us today, I'd like to say just a few words about the process we're following with today's hearing. Everyone in the room today, including the nominees themselves, understands that there isn't enough time for these nominations to be confirmed before we adjourn for the year. We also know, of course, that when the new Congress is sworn in next year, this Committee will have new Members. And those Members should have an opportunity to participate in a hearing. And I expect that next year, those new Members will have that opportunity. So, I wanted to make sure the nominees are on notice and don't have any false expectations. With that said, let me turn to the nominees. Thank you, Ms. Lee and Mr. Marti, for being here today. Congratulations on your nominations to serve as the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and as the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, respectively. You both have strong qualifications and years of experience. You have a proven track record in the field of intellectual property law and are well respected by the intellectual property community. Both the Patent and Trademark Office and the Office of the IPEC need strong and accountable leadership, so I'm pleased that the President has submitted your nominations for the Senate's consideration. The United States is at the forefront for innovating, creating and developing new technologies and products. Intellectual property supports technological advances and spurs innovation. Intellectual property also plays a critical role in job creation, economic growth and the balance of trade. In fact, the entire U.S. economy relies on some form or another of intellectual property because virtually every industry either produces or uses it. We need to ensure that intellectual property rights are protected here in the United States and abroad. Improved coordination between U.S. government agencies will strengthen enforcement of our intellectual property laws. Enhanced cooperation by the various different industry stakeholders will also help protect our intellectual property rights. In addition, we need to be doing our best to utilize limited resources in the most efficient way possible and to reduce duplication and waste. The bottom line is that if we want the United State to remain a world leader in innovation and creativity, we must have a system in place that respects and enforces intellectual property laws, including a strong and vibrant patent system. Consequently, now more than ever, both the USPTO and the IPEC need strong, capable leadership. These offices play a crucial role in promoting American innovation and economic prosperity, so there's simply too much at stake for us to settle for anything less. Ms. Lee, you've been nominated to a tough position. The continued implementation of the America Invents Act, clearing out the backlog of patent and trademark applications, and putting a stop to abusive patent litigation are just a few of the many challenges facing the agency. Further, we've learned about time and attendance fraud, preferential hiring practices and other mismanagement issues at the PTO. These are very concerning findings, and they must be corrected. Mr. Marti, you also are nominated to a position that will require a lot of smarts to bring together differing agendas and priorities. Your predecessor did a good job at working with the private sector to reach voluntarily agreements on how to protect intellectual property against bad actors. But there's still much to be done, and you have your work cut out for you. So I look forward to hearing more about how you both intend to lead these two important offices and enhance their missions, as well as how your plans will strengthen our intellectual property system and keep America on the cutting edge. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-tax-extenders-proposal-missed-opportunity,Grassley: Tax Extenders Proposal is Missed Opportunity,2014-12-10,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Floor Speech of Senator Chuck Grassley on Tax Extenders Delivered Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2014 This week, the Senate is finally poised to take up and pass a tax extenders bill. Congress' procrastination on tax extenders has been causing a lot of headaches and indigestion for many of my constituents back home. Small business owners and farmers want to know whether the enhanced expensing rules under Section 179 will be extended so they can invest in new machinery. Retirees want to know whether they can make a charitable donation from their IRA to meet their required minimum distribution. The renewable energy sector wants to know what investments they should make to increase production. The Senate could have made strides toward answering these questions this past spring. The Finance Committee acted in bipartisan fashion to report an extenders package to the floor that would have extended all expiring provisions for two years. By all accounts this package could have passed the Senate with broad support on both sides of aisles. Unfortunately, movement of this package in the Senate stalled in May due to procedural maneuvering on the Senate floor to prevent votes on all amendments, even those with bipartisan support. With the Senate failing to take action, the hopes of getting extenders done in a timely fashion faded. However, there were high hopes that a bipartisan deal could be worked out with the House that could provide individuals and businesses much-needed tax certainty. Before Thanksgiving, House and Senate negotiators were making headway toward a bipartisan agreement that would have extended most provisions for two years and made several other provisions permanent. The President then thwarted negotiations by threatening to veto that package before it was even finalized. Why the President would threaten to veto a package that by all accounts recognized bipartisan priorities, as well as priorities of the Administration, is beyond me. The President's stated complaint is that the deal was geared too heavily toward business. From an Administration that has regularly been advocating businesses-only tax reform, this complaint rings hollow. Moreover, all of the business provisions that would have been made permanent under the proposed deal have long had strong support from both sides of the aisle, including this Administration. For instance, the President's fiscal year 2015 budget calls for both the research and development tax credit and the enhanced expensing rules under Section 179 to be made permanent. The bipartisan deal would have accomplished this. The proposed deal also included priorities specific to the President and many of my Democratic colleagues. For instance, the American Opportunity Tax Credit enacted as part of the President's 2009 stimulus bill would have been made permanent. The President's other named priorities were the enhanced refundable child tax credit and earned income credit, but it was the President's own actions on immigration that made their inclusion a tough sell. Many on my side of the aisle have long had concerns about fraud and abuse in both of these credits. The President's executive action only served to enhance these concerns and added fuel to the fire by eroding established policy that prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving the earned income credit. The President may have a phone and a pen, but the last time I checked Congress is still a co-equal branch of government under the Constitution. When the President acts unilaterally, it should not surprise him when Congress responds. So it is true the deal did not include everything the President would have wanted. But, it didn't include everything Republicans would have wanted either. Nobody ever gets everything they want in bipartisan negotiations. The point of negotiating is to get something the majority of us can support. By cutting off negotiations, the White House has left us with voting on something that's barely better than nothing for some industries. This includes industries the President claims to be a priority of his, such as the renewable energy sector. Forward policy guidance is critically important to the renewable energy sector. The proposed deal would have provided certainty to wind energy through a multiyear phase-out that would have provided a glide path to self-sustainability. Other renewable provisions would have been extended for two years. Instead, Congress is now faced with settling for a one-year retroactive extension that fails to provide any meaningful incentive for the further development of renewable energy. It also fails to provide certainty to other businesses and individuals as the provisions will once again expire almost as soon as they go into law. I think we all agree that making tax law one year at a time in retroactive fashion is bad policy. Yet, that is the reality we currently face because of this Administration's refusal to compromise. While I would prefer longer extensions of these provisions, that is no longer a viable option. As a result, I intend to support the House package. My only hope is that in the new Congress we can make strides toward putting some certainty back in the tax code. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/hearing-president%E2%80%99s-executive-action-immigration,Hearing on the Presidents Executive Action on Immigration,2014-12-10,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Prepared Statement for the Record of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the President's Executive Action on Immigration Wednesday, December 10, 2014 I appreciate the Chairman holding this hearing on this important matter. As a nation founded by newcomers, the United States, for more than two centuries, has served as a haven for those seeking refuge and the chance to make a better life. It's inspiring to consider the sacrifices made by those who've come here to pursue liberty, prosperity and happiness. The promise of freedom and opportunity continues to guide those who dare to dream big and work hard. One of the reasons why so many seek out a new life in America is because our nation is founded upon the rule of law. We are, indeed, a nation of laws not men. And this tradition isn't held in as high regard in some other areas of the world. But I fear that the rule of law here in the United States is being slowly eroded, as the branch of government charged with faithfully executing the laws is increasingly abandoning its duty. Today, it's estimated that more than 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the country, with many deliberately bypassing the proper channels and breaking our laws to gain entry. By all accounts, the U.S. immigration system is broken, and we must return to a system where the rule of law applies to our immigration policies just as it applies to other sectors of society. And the question of how to properly handle people already in the United States illegally is a challenging one. But instead of trusting in Congress's role and in the democratic process, President Obama has chosen to further erode the rule of law by doing what he's said for so long he lacked authority to do he's unilaterally altering our nation's immigration policy in one fell swoop. I recently spoke on the Senate floor about this administration's pattern of unconstitutional executive action, including how it has been rebuked by the courts for overstepping its bounds. I've asked and been denied repeatedly, for the legal basis for which this President has made decisions to act unilaterally. President Obama's latest action on immigration is the culmination of a pattern of abuse of power. The President swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, his action on immigration is contrary to that oath. It's a serious blow to our system of checks and balances established by the Framers. Most importantly, it's a total disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law. Article I, section 8 confers the power to make immigration laws to Congress. And in Article II, Section 3, the President is charged with taking care that these laws are faithfully executed. But the President's action runs counter to these principles. Instead of faithfully executing the laws, he's told agents and officers within the Department of Homeland Security to suspend enforcement and ignore the laws on the books in blanket fashion. When he addressed the nation on November 20, President Obama said that Congress has failed. Just because Congress hasn't passed a comprehensive immigration bill to his liking, doesn't make it right for the President to bypass Congress and the legislative process. Regardless of where one is on how to address the immigration problem, there has to be respect for the laws that we have in place. No one is above the law, including this President. When the executive branch usurps the legislative branch's responsibilities to write the laws, it undermines the principle of separation of powers that is the very foundation of our democracy. And frankly, President Obama had every intention of usurping Congress. Some of those in the President's own party pleaded with him not to act. But he chose to ignore many, including the American people. In doing so, he's damaged relations with Congress and has lost the trust of the people. Allow me to cite Jonathan Turley, one noted liberal law professor. When a president claims the inherent power of both legislation and enforcement, he becomes a virtual government unto himself. He is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he becomes the very danger that the Constitution was designed to avoid. The bottom line is this: the President's action goes far beyond anything that's been done in the past. Its unprecedented. And it's a threat to the Constitution. I don't buy the argument that this administration and its allies are trying to sell that is, that their actions are similar to those of previous Presidents. It's a lame excuse, and one even The Washington Post found fault with. The Post said that President Obama's unilateral action on immigration has no precedent. The Post said that comparisons to actions taken by President George H. W. Bush in 1990 are widely exaggerated, the White House's numbers are indefensible, and the scale of Mr. Obama's move goes far beyond anything his predecessors attempted. The Post concluded that [u]nlike Mr. Bush in 1990, whose much more modest order was in step with legislation recently and subsequently enacted by Congress, Mr. Obama's move flies in the face of congressional intent no matter how indefensible that intent looks. The President also wants to make it appear that there's a firm legal basis for his actions, despite the fact that not long ago, he's made numerous statements that he doesn't have the authority to take such bold action. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel whipped up a memo backing his action. It's ironic given the President's recent claim that this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. ... We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. Why has the President flip flopped? Why has he intentionally damaged relations with Congress rather than work with us to pass real reforms? The President and his allies take the position that this action is permissible because of the executive's ability to exercise prosecutorial discretion. While the executive branch does have the ability to decide when to prosecute and how to prioritize enforcement, that ability isn't unlimited. The administration has taken a broad, sweeping approach to prosecutorial discretion that amounts to an illegitimate exercise of enforcement discretion. Lawful prosecutorial discretion is exercised on an individualized, case by case basis. Lawful prosecutorial discretion isn't selecting entire categories of individuals and telling them that, going forward, the law won't be applied to them. I've always said, if you reward illegality, you get more of it. The President is rewarding illegal behavior and conferring substantive benefits to those who qualify. Individuals who've entered without inspection or overstayed their visas unlawfully now will get work permits, social security numbers, drivers licenses, employment and education opportunities, and many other benefits only afforded to those who abide by the law. Ultimately, when you have non-enforcement of our immigration laws on such a broad scale, in effect you're not enforcing existing law, you're suspending enforcement of the law. That's unconstitutional. The executive branch can't suspend and dispense of the laws by non-enforcement, and it can't nullify the laws by unilaterally imposing contradictory directives. Instead, it's the duty of the executive branch to take care that the laws are carefully executed. And if what the President has done is ok, what will come next? What other laws will this President ignore? What other discretionary authority will he abuse? The American people are outraged by the President's executive action on immigration. And, rightly so. This is a paramount concern that will affect this country for years to come. In Federalist 51, James Madison wrote that the separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government is essential to the preservation of liberty. Well, liberty is now at stake. The fact is the legislative process takes time. As Ranking Member of this committee, I was pleased that the Chairman engaged in a fulsome process on immigration reform in 2013. We had hearings and committee meetings that allowed us to articulate our positions, and we had the chance to offer amendments at markup. It was unfortunate when we got to the floor that the Majority Leader refused to have an open amendment process. While I didn't like the end product and ultimately voted against the bill, I was glad that the Chairman recognized the need to have debate and thoughtful consideration of the issues. In my opinion, the bill that the Senate passed wouldn't have solved our immigration problems. Real reform should begin with securing our borders. This administration has failed to recognize that fact. This administration has also failed to enforce the laws in the interior. In fact, it has been releasing people in the country who pose a threat to public safety. The Department of Homeland Security has released hundreds of alleged murderers, kidnappers, rapists and domestic abusers from its custody and without remorse. Where's the accountability we were promised? Instead of being held accountable, the Administration has doubled down. With the President's actions, individuals here illegally will know that even if they've committed crimes, they'll be exempt from immigration enforcement and released. They'll be granted benefits and a stay of removal. Ultimately, the President's actions will encourage more illegal immigration. This is unfair to the millions of people who've complied with the law and tried to enter legally. It's unfair to the millions of U.S. workers who now must compete with this population for jobs in the country. It's unfair to those who've played by the rules to live, study, work and visit this country. Most importantly, it's unfair to the American people and to our system of government. I'm glad that the Chairman is holding this hearing today, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://steveking.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/king-no-provision-for-funding-now-and-fighting-later,King: No Provision for Funding Now and Fighting Later,2014-12-09,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Steve King,K000362,steveking.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. - Congressman Steve King released the following statement regarding the upcoming vote on continued funding of the federal government. House Leaders are preparing to move an omnibus spending bill that would provide funding for all departments of government except the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) which would be funded in a short term continuing resolution(CR). The President of the United States has violated the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution by lawlessly issuing executive amnesty directives for an estimated 5 million people. A short term CR for DHS coupled with full funding of the balance of government until September 30th gives away almost all of the leverage of Congress to restrain a president by using the “power of the purse.” ""The promise to fight later is not new but an actual all out effort by Congress to defund Obama's violations thereby defending the Constitution would be new,” said King. “This battle must be enjoined and the time is now. Anything less and House Republicans will have funded unconstitutional acts. All of us took an oath to defend the Constitution. Our oath means do so come what may. There is no provision for funding now and fighting later. There is no exception for political expediency and we will be called upon in early January to take the oath for the next Congress. “If we fund DHS for a short time without spending limitations stripping Obama Amnesty, we will have lost our Constitutional virtue. It will be nearly impossible to get it back in Congress or in the courts. That's why I'll offer an amendment to restore immigration policy back to current law. Keep in mind, the Obama Administration issued DACA cards and work permits during the shutdown. They would not hesitate to shut down DHS because USCIS employees were paid on time while Border Patrol agents had to wait until after the shutdown. “To preserve leverage, my amendment will fund all of the government until January 30 of next year but will prohibit any and all funds from being used to carry out the president’s unconstitutional, executive amnesty in all its forms.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://loebsack.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394722,VIDEO: Loebsack Says Farewell to Rep. Latham,2014-12-08,2014,2014-12,Democrat,House,IA,Dave Loebsack,L000565,loebsack.house.gov,,,legacy,"Congressman Dave Loebsack today gave remarks on the House floor saying farewell to Congressman Tom Latham, who is retiring at the end of this year. Loebsack recalled their work on various issues affecting the state, including the Iowa National Guard, recovery after the Floods of 2008 and addressing the recent VA scandal. The two have worked together since 2007. A video of Loebsack’s remarks can be seen here.“It’s really an honor for me to be up here tonight to speak for and about Tom Latham. When I got elected, one of the first things I did was try to find out as much as I could about Tom Latham and meet with Tom Latham and work with him on a number of issues because I knew he had a reputation for working across the aisle,” Loebsack said on the House floor. “Even at a time and in this Body we’ve seen a lot of ugliness over the years. It seems as though our politics in America has just gotten uglier by the day sometimes. And even in the middle of all that, Tom Latham has stood tall, he’s stood proud as an Iowan, he’s got a lot of commonsense like most Iowans do and he works with the other side because he knows that the job is to get things done. And that’s what Tom Latham does. He has gotten things done.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-weekly-schedule-10,Grassley Weekly Schedule,2014-12-08,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Here is information about Senator Grassley's schedule this week. The Senate is in session. Senator Grassley will meet with Iowans in Washington, D.C., from the National Conference of State Legislatures, Iowa Community Development, and the Outreach Program. Senator Grassley will be a guest on public affairs programs hosted by Greg Haubrich and Rich Cain on WGEM in Quincy. On Tuesday, December 9, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in a Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime hearing on Campus Sexual Assault: The Roles and Responsibilities of Law Enforcement. Senator Grassley is a cosponsor of the Campus Accountability and Safety Act which seeks to address sexual assaults on campuses by protecting and empowering students and strengthening accountability and transparency for institutions. More information about the bill can be found here. On Tuesday, December 9, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in a Finance Committee hearing on Social Security: Is a Key Foundation of Economic Security Working for Women? On Wednesday, December 10, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in an Agriculture Committee hearing on The Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Effective Enforcement and the Future of Derivatives Regulation. In August, Senator Grassley launched an inquiry into the CFTC's excessive amount of unused office space, potentially costing taxpayers more than $70 million nationwide. More information can be found here. On Wednesday, December 10, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in a Judiciary Committee hearing considering the nominations of Michelle K. Lee to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and Daniel Henry Marti to be Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in the Executive Office of the President. On Wednesday, December 10, at 2:30 p.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in a Judiciary Committee hearing on the President's executive action on immigration. On Thursday, December 11, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in the weekly executive business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee may consider the nominations of Joan Marie Azrack to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, Loretta Copeland Biggs to be a United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, Elizabeth K. Dillon to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, and Michael P. Botticelli to be Director of National Drug Control Policy. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/no-social-security-nazis-act-heads-president,No Social Security for Nazis Act Heads to President,2014-12-05,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on Senate passage last night of a bipartisan, bicameral bill to terminate Social Security benefits for suspected Nazi persecutors. Grassley is a sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, the No Social Security for Nazis Act. The Senate passage clears the bill for the President's consideration. Earlier this week, Grassley and Sen. Orrin Hatch wrote to the Social Security Administration and the Justice Department on Social Security benefits given to suspected ex-Nazis. It's unclear why the federal government allowed millions of dollars to flow to these individuals, including those who have left the country. Record-keeping discrepancies have exacerbated uncertainty and confusion over U.S. government practice and policy on allowing ex-Nazis to retain their Social Security benefits. Once signed into law, this bill will enshrine what should have been the policy of the Justice Department in the first place. Suspected Nazi war criminals should in no event be permitted to retain Social Security benefits. However, the agencies that permitted the benefits still need to explain their actions and commit to enforcing the law as written going forward. I look forward to responses from the Social Security Administration and the Justice Department to the letters Senator Hatch and I sent. The Grassley-Hatch letter to Social Security Administration Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin is available here. The Grassley-Hatch letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is available here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://loebsack.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394720,Loebsack Provisions Included in 2015 Defense Policy Bill Pass House,2014-12-04,2014,2014-12,Democrat,House,IA,Dave Loebsack,L000565,loebsack.house.gov,,,legacy,"Congressman Dave Loebsack released the following statement after provisions he authored were passed by the House. Loebsack, the only member of the Iowa delegation who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, offered these provisions to be included in the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The legislation also includes new language, which Loebsack supported and worked to include, addressing the ongoing sexual assault crisis in the military. Additionally, it prohibits any new BRAC rounds, which Loebsack also fought to include in the bill. “Our men and women in uniform, along with their families, proudly and honorably serve our country. As a military parent, I am proud to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to deliver the level of support and access to resources our troops need and deserve. While it does not include everything I would have hoped, it takes important steps to drive more workload to the Rock Island Arsenal and help both the Arsenal and Quad Cities’ economy remain strong.   “This legislation also takes multiple important steps to continue to address the horrific sexual assault crisis that has engulfed the military, though a lot of work remains to be done to address the issue. We must ensure victims have the support they need and prosecute perpetrators to the fullest extent. I will continue to work to address this issue with the urgency it deserves.” Provisions Congressman Loebsack fought to include in the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act specifically for the Rock Island Arsenal are: Greater utilization of the organic industrial base – The NDAA will broaden existing efforts from the Army to the entire DOD directing greater utilization of the organic industrial base, which includes the Arsenal. This provision will ensure contracting officers have to give justification for skipping over the organic industrial base for the commercial base. Eliminates authority of the secretary of the Army to abolish arsenals – Since the creation of the Arsenal Act, the secretary has had unilateral authority to keep open or close an Arsenal under the purview of the Department. This provision eliminates that authority with the goal of the Arsenal falling under the same BRAC-like process that all other installations adhere to. In addition, Loebsack pushed to include many provisions important to our troops and their families, including: A pay raise for our troops; Rejects Department of Defense proposals to fundamentally change the TRICARE military healthcare system; Included efficiencies to military commissaries, making them more efficient without increasing prices to military personnel and their families; Includes $45.3 million for behavioral and psychological health programs to help combat suicide; A number of important sexual assault prevention and prosecution provisions, which Loebsack has championed, including: Elimination of the “good soldier defense” – a consideration of general military character toward the probability of innocence in sexual assault prosecutions; A review of the terms of discharge for those who are victims of sexual offenses, to ensure that they have not been persecuted for reporting crimes.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://steveking.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/king-statement-on-present-vote-for-yoho-bill,King Statement on Present Vote for Yoho Bill,2014-12-04,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Steve King,K000362,steveking.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. - Congressman Steve King spoke on the House Floor today on H.R. 5759, “The Executive Amnesty Prevention Act,” also known as the Yoho Bill. King voted present on H.R. 5759. King supports Representative Ted Yoho but is determined to defund the lawless acts of this President. To watch Congressman Steve King’s remarks, click here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/fans-act-are-sports-blackouts-and-antitrust-exemptions-harming-fans-consumers-and,"The FANS Act: Are Sports Blackouts and Antitrust Exemptions Harming Fans, Consumers, and the Games Themselves?",2014-12-04,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee ""The FANS Act: Are Sports Blackouts and Antitrust Exemptions Harming Fans, Consumers, and the Games Themselves?"" Thursday, December 4, 2014 Mr. Chairman, First, let me welcome the witnesses who've taken the time out of their schedules to be with us today and share their views. The subject of today's hearing is the legislation sponsored by Senators Blumenthal and McCain, the FANS Act. But more broadly speaking, we're here to talk about sports blackouts, and sports blackout policies. Let me start by saying that I think we can all agree on one fundamental notion: No one likes sports blackouts. The sports leagues and their member teams don't like them. Television providers don't like them. And of course, sports fans definitely don't like them. In Iowa, even though we don't have a Major League Baseball team, the entire state falls within a blackout territory of six different teams: the Cardinals, Royals, Twins, Brewers, Cubs, and White Sox. I can tell you, the periodic blackouts are a very frustrating experience for a lot of Iowans. So there is no question that blackouts are an exasperating experience and disfavored. The question is how best to minimize blackouts and thereby maximize the benefits to consumers, while also respecting the rights of private parties to negotiate with each other at arms-length. On that note, I'll add one other comment. As we all know, the Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously in September to eliminate its sports blackout rules. I think as a general matter, the federal government shouldn't be in the business of mandating policies that parties are otherwise free to negotiate privately. At the same time, however, I think we need to be mindful of the flip side of that same coin. More specifically, as a general rule, the federal government shouldn't be in the business of mandating which provisions should and should not be included in private contracts. Anytime such a step is proposed, we should tread carefully. I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to hearing from them regarding these important topics. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-paul-welcome-house-oversight-national-science-foundation-neon,"Grassley, Paul Welcome House Oversight of National Science Foundation, NEON",2014-12-04,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"In September, Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. Rand Paul wrote to the National Science Foundation and the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) to express concern over NEON's spending of federal funds on parties, alcohol and lobbying and the National Science Foundation's apparent sanction of that spending. The spending on highly questionable management fees was a subject of a House of Representatives hearing today. Grassley and Paul made the following comment on today's hearing and their plans going forward. The hearing was welcome and appropriate. The National Science Foundation management seemed to jump at the chance to approve NEON's highly questionable expenses. Nobody on the outside would have known if not for a whistleblower who tried to flag the problem. The onus is on National Science Foundation to make sure the organizations it funds take care with federal funds, not to whitewash spending on parties, alcohol and lobbying. We intend to make sure the National Science Foundation is held accountable for such wasteful spending in the past and that it prevents this kind of spending going forward. The taxpayers can't and shouldn't have to sustain inappropriate spending. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-receives-first-ever-award-policy-work-uniting-children-grandparents,Grassley Receives First-ever Award for Policy Work on Uniting Children With Grandparents,2014-12-04,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has received the first-ever Grandfamilies Champion Award from the advocacy group Generations United for his work to support grandparents raising their grandchildren. Helping to present the award was a West Des Moines woman who has informed congressional policy work through her own example. It's an honor to receive recognition for something that makes sense to many families, Grassley said. Sometimes grandparents are more than willing to step in and raise their grandchildren but policies might discourage that. Congress enacted changes to encourage grandchild-grandparent households and build more stability for the children than they would have in the foster care system. We should continue with work to build on the family success stories here. Andreah Moyer of West Des Moines presented Grassley with the Grandfamilies Champion Award. Moyer spent years in the foster care system but would have preferred placement with her grandparents. However, at the time, there was no flexibility with foster care policy to help grandparents who are on a fixed income and need financial assistance to be able to raise their grandchildren. In 2008, after hearing the stories of Moyer and others, Congress enacted the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. Grassley was key in enacting the legislation, which includes a provision for states to adopt and provide subsidized guardianships for children in the care of relatives in the foster care system. That means the children can exit the foster care system but still have the financial support that enables them to live with their grandparents. In Moyer's case, had this been law when she and her brothers were growing up, her grandparents could have received the subsidy and been able financially to raise them. Instead, her brothers were adopted, and she was moved from foster home to foster home. A new report from Generations United describes progress in placing children in foster care with grandparents and other relatives, but also cites remaining challenges. The report is available here. A photo of Moyer and Grassley is available here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-releases-report-inspector-generals-bungling-zero-dark-thirty,Grassley Releases Report on Inspector General's Bungling of Zero Dark Thirty Investigation,2014-12-04,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"***A copy of the report can be found here. Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa United States Senate Zero Dark Thirty Report Thursday, December 4, 2014 Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about Zero Dark Thirty not the movie but a report on the movie. The report was supposed to tell us how the movie's producers obtained top secret information. But the report never took us there. The Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) stumbled and fell and lost sight of the goal and the need for independence. People were exposed to harm. The Taxpayers' money got wasted. Alleged misconduct by top officials was shielded by a policy that may have been abused. Bureaucratic bungling caused confusion, turmoil, and dissent. It was a fiasco. The Zero Dark Thirty report was driven by the hemorrhage of leaks of highly classified information by senior administration officials after the Osama bin Laden raid. It was requested by the Chairman of a House oversight Committee, Congressman Peter King. He read a column in the New York Times, which indicated that Hollywood filmmakers received top-level access to the most classified mission in history. He was concerned that those disclosures could undermine our ability to successfully conduct covert operations in the future. So in August 2011, King asked the Inspectors Generals (IG) at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) to answer five simple questions. My focus is the DOD IG investigation. I became involved after whistleblowers contacted my office in December 2012, alleging that Acting and Deputy Inspector General Lynne Halbrooks was sitting on the King report. They alleged that she was suppressing the report to (1) protect her boss, Secretary of Defense Panetta and other senior officials, from disciplinary action or prosecution and (2) to further her candidacy to be the next defense IG. Her nomination was vetted while the investigation was in progress. The convergence of these potential conflicts-of-interest grabbed my attention. They needed scrutiny. The independence of the Inspector General's Office could have been jeopardized. So my staff just started digging. They interviewed key witnesses and examined documents provided by whistleblowers and official sources. Here is what my staff found: On December 16, 2011, the DOD OIG announced that its investigation would begin immediately and that it was to be coordinated with the CIA IG. It would be conducted by the office of Intelligence and Special Program Assessments headed by Mr. James Ives. The investigation took a year. A draft report was submitted for classification review on October 24, 2012. The allegations were substantiated. Senior officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, his chief of staff Jeremy Bash, and Under Secretary for Intelligence Michael Vickers, allegedly made unauthorized disclosures of highly classified information on the raid. And these alleged disclosures may have placed Special Operations personnel and their families in harm's way. One month later, the draft report, containing those allegations, was declared unclassified. A coordination package was then developed. It included a publicly-releasable version, talking points for reporters, and transmittal memos to the Defense Secretary and Chairman King. This package was circulated internally for final review and clearance. The next and final step was submission to Deputy IG Halbrooks as a request for release. By normal standards, the report was ready for issue. However, there was a major foul-up a show-stopper. The review process was bungled from start to finish. All references to unauthorized disclosures of highly classified information by the senior officials had to be stripped from the report before it could be published. This Draconian measure, which gutted the report and made it unfit for publication, was mandated by a long-standing Department policy. This guidance was known only to the two leaders of the investigation, Deputies Halbrooks and Ives. It was their responsibility to execute it at the front-end of the review. I want to make one point crystal clear. I don't support the policy of censoring reports. It's a bad policy that needs to be changed. Here's my beef. If that's the policy, then it should be followed, but it wasn't followed until the last possible moment. To make matters far worse, both Ives and Halbrooks failed to communicate the policy mandate to those who needed the information to ready the report for publication. Halbrooks and Ives kept the investigative team in the dark like a bunch of mushrooms. So they had the mistaken notion the uncensored report was final and ready to go. This caused turmoil. Two factors set the stage for the bungled review process. First, the official assigned to lead the project, Mr. Ives, lacked relevant professional experience and top management failed to actively supervise his day-to-day progress on the report to ensure that he followed established protocols. He needed guidance navigating his way through an unfamiliar process but got none. Plus his appointment was limited to four months on a project that took two years. This was a recipe for disaster. Second, the problem was compounded by a failure to coordinate with the CIA IG before the investigation got rolling. Effective coordination was essential. King's request crossed jurisdictional lines between two powerful agencies. The CIA IG was ultimately responsible for examining the alleged misconduct because it occurred while Panetta and his chief of staff, Jeremy Bash, were CIA employees. That they had moved to the Pentagon after the investigation started was irrelevant. This was a no-brainer, but for inexplicable reasons, the DOD IG tackled the Panetta/Bash allegations. This was an irresponsible and wasteful decision. It took over a year of groping down this blind alley for the reality to sink in. By then it was too late. The failure of the two agencies to coordinate effectively right up-front had disastrous consequences. Just as the report was reaching critical mass in late 2012, the Panetta case had to be referred back to the CIA IG for investigation. Panetta's alleged misconduct was the heart and soul of the report. It was suddenly gone, leaving the report hollow and empty. How could all this senseless blundering happen unless it was part of a plan to slow-roll or torpedo the report? The blundering was coupled with unexplained delays. Between mid-December and early January, Deputy Ives finally completed the mandated substantive review, which gutted the report. However, it did not regain forward motion until after Secretary Panetta retired on February 27, 2013. Halbrooks' claims she did not receive or see the draft until March 25, 2013. Aside from a few minor edits, there is no record of significant edits between Mr. Ives' review and publication in June. The three-month delay in reaching her desk and subsequent delays until June, remain unexplained and unaccounted for. These facts create the perception that the review process was slowed by Halbrooks and others at her direction to shield DOD officials from scrutiny. She claims her nomination was dead at this point -- and no longer a potential conflict -- but offers no evidence to back it up. Moreover, this timeline fits with other relevant information. According to a whistleblower, she stated repeatedly that the report would not be issued until Panetta stepped down, and that's exactly what happened. Finally, the bungled review process may have triggered whistleblowing. Whistleblowers thought the report was about to be issued in late 2012 when media talking points were circulated. When it didn't happen, they perceived a cover-up, contacted my office, and then leaked it to the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). The un-censored version of the report appeared on the POGO web site on June 4, 2013. Ten days later, the IG's office reacted by finally issuing the censored version of the report. If POGO had not acted, the report might never have seen the light of day. It might have been pigeon-holed for good. Immediately after the official report was issued, Halbrooks launched a hunt for the mole. She wanted to know who leaked the report to POGO. Extensive interviews were conducted and 33,269 emails were examined, but the leaker was not found. However, during questioning, Mr. Dan Meyer, the DOD OIG Director of Whistleblowing and Transparency, admitted to giving a copy of the report to Congress. He was one of many OIG employees who mistakenly believed that the un-censored version of the report circulated in late 2012 for final review and clearance was, indeed, final. He thought it was ready to go out the door. As the Director of Whistleblowing and Transparency, maybe he just thought he was doing his job and being transparent. His admission triggered swift and decisive action. He was accused of making false statements, placing his security clearance in jeopardy. This action had the potential of destroying his career. Fortunately, the new IG, Jon Rymer, intervened on Mr. Meyer's behalf and blocked those efforts. The case against Mr. Myer was flimsy, though his clearance is still hanging-fire. In the end, Mr. Meyer bore the brunt of blame for the POGO leak. The principal targets of the investigation, Panetta, Vickers and Bash, skated. Mr. Meyer exposed their alleged misconduct and got hammered. Justice got turned upside down. What happened during the 22 months between Chairman King's request and June 2013, when the report was finally issued, is a tangled bureaucratic mess. Despite exhaustive questioning, a satisfactory explanation hasn't been given. What I have presented today is just a brief summary of the facts and analysis laid out in greater detail in the staff report I released today. In that report, my staff identified potential red flags pertaining to the way the Inspector General's Office handled the Zero Dark Thirty report. These were boiled down to nine conclusions that fell into four broad categories: 1) Impairment of IG independence and lack of commitment to the spirit and intent of the IG Act; 2) Weak leadership; 3) Mismanagement; and 4) Waste of time and taxpayers' money. The staff findings suggest that some corrective action may be justified, including an appropriate measure of accountability. If misconduct and/or mismanagement occurred, then Deputies Lynne Halbrooks and James Ives, both of whom led the Zero Dark Thirty project, would appear to be chiefly responsible for whatever happened. It is also recommended that the long-standing Department policy of censoring sensitive information from reports not be applied to cases involving alleged misconduct by top officials. Agency heads and their senior deputies should be held to a higher standard. They should be subjected to greater public scrutiny. This policy needs review and possible modification. When all is said and done, Mr. President, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. What good came from this effort? Its true value is reflected in the end-product: the highly-sanitized report that was finally issued on June 14, 2013 six months after it was finished. I believe that it is a second-class piece of work that is not worth the paper it is written on. Even Halbrooks seems to agree that the report's face-value is close to zero. Here is what she said during an interview with my staff: She said that once Ives removed all the derogatory information on Panetta and Vickers, the report was no longer interesting or important to me, and it just dropped off my radar screen, or words to that effect. She was talking about the report issued on June 14, 2013. Halbrooks is correct about the value of the report. But she is dead wrong about her responsibilities as IG for the unfinished report. At that point, she appears to have lost sight of her core mission as IG. The report was about alleged misconduct by her boss, the Secretary of Defense. It was requested by the chairman of a House oversight committee. She had a solemn duty to put it back up on her radar screen and keep it there -- front and center -- until it was fixed. Once it was ready and up to standards, she should have presented it proudly and enthusiastically to the Congress and Secretary of Defense and done it promptly and in a restricted format if necessary. This project was an unmitigated disaster spawned by a series of top-level missteps and blunders. All the wasted energy and blundering produced nothing better than internal confusion, turmoil, dissent, and more alleged misconduct. Two year's worth of hard work and money was poured down a rat hole. To make matters far worse, a valued employee was threatened with termination. This person has unique and unparalleled knowledge of whistle-blowing and a rock-solid commitment to fair treatment of whistleblowers. Were it not for IG Rymer, he would be out on the street today. Halbrooks' search for the mole was misguided. The Inspector General's office needs strong leadership that has the courage to tell it like it is and to report wrongdoing promptly to the agency head and Congress with recommendations for corrective action. When the Secretary and Under Secretary stand accused of misconduct, as in this case, the IG should double-down and ensure public accountability. Thus far, in this matter, there has been none because truth was hidden behind a questionable policy that may have been abused. There is an excellent case in point. Deputy Secretary of Defense and CIA Director John Deutch allegedly mishandled highly classified information and got hammered for doing it. He lost his clearance for six years and came close to prosecution. Unlike the Zero Dark Thirty leaks, that matter was dealt with effectively and aired in public. The Zero Dark Thirty model was wasteful of the taxpayers' money. It was harmful to morale, and harmful to the perceived independence of the IG's office. It should be used as an educational tool to teach OIG employees how NOT to conduct investigations of alleged misconduct by senior officials. I yield the floor. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/statement-ice-nominee-judiciary-executive-business-meeting,Statement on ICE Nominee at Judiciary Executive Business Meeting,2014-12-03,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Executive Business Meeting I. Nominations Sarah Saldaa, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Joan Marie Azrack, to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York Loretta Copeland Biggs, to be a United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina Elizabeth K. Dillon, of Virginia, to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia Michael P. Botticelli, to be Director of National Drug Control Policy II. Bills Saving Kids from Dangerous Drugs Act (S. 1686) Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act (S. 1323) Wednesday, December 3, 2014 Mr. Chairman, There is a request on our side that we hold over the three district court nominees and the nominee to be Director of National Drug Control Policy, Mr. Botticelli. I understand we will also be holding over the two bills on the agenda. I'd like to say a few words on Ms. Saldaa's nomination before we vote. At our last markup, two weeks ago, I mentioned that because Ms. Saldaa didn't appear before the full committee to answer questions, the Republican Senators on the committee invited her to meet with us to have a dialogue on some of the challenges facing ICE. I was disappointed not only in the fact that she didn't come and meet with us, but that we didn't even receive the courtesy of a reply to this invitation. Moreover, we received Ms. Saldaa's answers to the questions for the record only yesterday. I am still reviewing them, but as an initial response, I'm disappointed in many of her answers, not only on immigration but on other issues as well. With respect to the recent executive order on immigration, I recognize that it was the President's decision and not hers, but I was disappointed that she seemed to embrace rather than disavow the President's recent actions. Beyond that, I'd note that there are other areas as well where her answers were unsatisfactory. Many times she answered a question by telling me that she wasn't familiar with a certain specific topic area and that, if confirmed, she'd look into it. For example, I asked her a question on an immigration case and the Immigration and Nationality Act. She told me that before she was able to respond to my question, she'd have to review the case. Well, I would've expected her to have taken the time review the case in order to answer my question. Instead, she gave me the kind of answer that nominees sometimes give when they are trying to dodge the question. That concerns me and I think we need to expect more from nominees. Ms. Saldaa also often responded to my questions with vague answers when I asked her to be specific. For example, I asked her what specific factors she would consider against the deportation of aliens convicted of certain crimes and she responded that she would make her decision based on applicable law and specific relevant facts. It seems to me that she could have spent a little more time answering my questions. Because of these concerns, I'll be sending Ms. Saldaa some follow-up questions based on many of her responses. I hope that she'll answer my questions in a more responsive way this time. Although I won't be supporting Ms. Saldaa today in committee for the reasons discussed, I'll reserve judgment to make a final decision on the floor. Finally, I'd note that the invitation for Ms. Saldaa to come meet with the Republican Senators still stands. We'd value the opportunity to have a discourse with her on the job responsibilities of ICE director and whether she'll be prepared to fulfill the duties and enforce the law. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-comments-meeting-attorney-general-nominee-loretta-lynch,Grassley Comments on Meeting with Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch,2014-12-02,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and likely incoming Chairman, made the following statement after meeting with Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch. This was the first time I'd had the opportunity to meet Ms. Lynch. We had a very nice conversation that focused on my priorities as well as priorities she would have as Attorney General. I look forward to continuing to learn more about Ms. Lynch's background as we gather and review all of the relevant materials in advance of her appearance before the committee. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-hatch-press-social-security-administration-justice-department-benefits,"Grassley, Hatch Press Social Security Administration, Justice Department on Benefits for Suspected Nazis",2014-12-02,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley and Sen. Orrin Hatch are seeking details from the Social Security Administration and the Justice Department on Social Security benefits given to suspected ex-Nazis. It's unclear why the federal government allowed millions of dollars to flow to these individuals, including those who have left the country. Record-keeping discrepancies have exacerbated uncertainty and confusion over U.S. government practice and policy on allowing ex-Nazis to retain their Social Security benefits. We have introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation to close the Social Security loophole in order to prevent this practice in the future and hope that it will become law soon, Grassley and Hatch wrote in letters to each agency. However, there remain questions about DOJ's actions and what will be done in current cases if the law is not passed before they are resolved. Grassley and Hatch asked for statistics in areas including the total number of Nazi suspects who received Social Security benefits after leaving the United States, how many suspected Nazis currently receive Social Security benefits and live outside the country, information on the potential outcome of certain identified cases, and details of interaction between the Social Security Administration and the Justice Department on the issue. Hatch is the sponsor and Grassley is an original cosponsor of bipartisan, bicameral legislation to terminate Social Security benefits for Nazi persecutors who receive them because of a loophole in current law. The practice appeared to be little-known in recent years until an Associated Press report exposed the practice, leading to scrutiny from Congress and public outcry. The Grassley-Hatch letter to Social Security Administration Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin is available here. The Grassley-Hatch letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. is available here. Hatch is ranking member of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over Social Security. Grassley is a senior member and former chairman and ranking member of the committee. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-pushes-independent-military-justice-system,Grassley Pushes for Independent Military Justice System,2014-12-02,2014,2014-12,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today reiterated the need for an independent military justice system, citing the mounting evidence that the existing system continues to fail members of the military who are victims of sexual assault and other crimes. The longer we wait, the more we will fail the men and women who choose to serve in our country's military, Grassley said. The Military Justice Improvement Act will bring the change that public pressure will not and cannot. There's an old Washington expression that trying to turn around a bureaucracy is like trying to turn around an aircraft carrier. It takes time and effort. When it comes to military justice, we don't have the luxury of waiting for the aircraft carrier to turn around. We need action, now. Grassley joined a bipartisan group of colleagues at a press conference to renew the push for passage of their bipartisan Military Justice Improvement Act. The legislation would remove the decision of whether to prosecute serious crimes such as sexual assault from military commanders, who have a lack of independence from both perpetrators and victims. Led by the bill's main sponsor, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, the news conference featured former Air Force Chief Prosecutor Colonel Don Christensen (Ret.), who served as chief prosecutor for four years. Christensen was featured in a New York Times Magazine cover story this past Sunday. He said he has left the military after 23 years because it was impossible to fix the system from the inside. The full text of Grassley's statement at the news conference follows below. Video from the news conference is available here. A photo from the news conference is available here. Grassley Statement at News Conference on the Military Justice Improvement Act In Washington, promises of reform are often just promises until an institution is forced into action. The action often comes after public embarrassment and pressure through outside scrutiny from Congress, watchdog groups, and the national media. But the military's approach to sexual assault seems to be a brick wall that won't crumble under the usual pressures. Even as Congress hears from military leaders that change is happening, the evidence of change is thin. More accounts of sexual assault and retaliation for reporting sexual assault are becoming public. More victims are willing to tell their stories publicly. More individuals are willing to speak out on how the military justice system has failed them, personally and professionally. More than enough victims have come forward to prompt substantive change. The longer we wait, the more we will fail the men and women who choose to serve in our country's military. The Military Justice Improvement Act will bring the change that public pressure will not and cannot. There's an old Washington expression that trying to turn around a bureaucracy is like trying to turn around an aircraft carrier. It takes time and effort. When it comes to military justice, we don't have the luxury of waiting for the aircraft carrier to turn around. We need action, now. In closing, I am attempting to determine what, if anything, the Defense Department inspector general is doing to address and resolve the situation with Colonel Christensen. The concerns about retaliation are troubling. We need people who speak out instead of going along to get along if we're going to turn around an entire culture and system. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://loebsack.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394718,Loebsack Leads Bipartisan Fight Against Cuts to Critical Access Hospitals,2014-11-25,2014,2014-11,Democrat,House,IA,Dave Loebsack,L000565,loebsack.house.gov,,,legacy,"Congressman Dave Loebsack recently continued his fight against misguided cuts to Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) that provide care to many Iowans living in rural areas. Loebsack helped lead a bipartisan effort with 45 Members of Congress in calling on the President to refrain from including arbitrary cuts to CAH in his upcoming budget proposal. “(Critical Access Hospitals) play an important role in communities by providing access to primary, emergency, and acute care services,” the lawmakers wrote. “As you consider the FY 2016 budget, we believe that indiscriminate cuts to CAHs, similar to those included in previous budgets, are not the answer."" A copy of the letter can be seen here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-law-helps-justice-department-recover-3-billion-taxpayer-money,Grassley Law Helps Justice Department Recover $3 Billion Taxpayer Money,2014-11-21,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"More than $44 billion has been recovered through the federal False Claims Act WASHINGTON Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said today that the federal False Claims Law has recovered $5.69 billion in the fiscal year 2014, nearly $3 billion of which was related to lawsuits filed under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act. Grassley is the author of the 1986 qui tam amendments to the False Claims Act as well as an update to the law in 2009. In total, $44.67 billion has been recovered through the False Claims Act since Grassley's 1986 provisions were signed into law. The Justice Department announced that this is the first year that the annual recovery has exceeded $5 billion. Time and time again the False Claims Act has proven to be the key tool in battling fraud and recovering more taxpayer dollars. Nearly $45 billion have been recovered because of the law, and an untold amount deterred, Grassley said. The False Claims Act provides a crucial check during a time of growing government and out of control federal spending. No matter what we do to deter fraud, whistleblowers are the key to finding it. Our 1986 qui tam amendments have empowered these people to come forward and risk their livelihoods to do what is right. The amendments Grassley championed 25 years ago along with Rep. Howard Berman of California strengthened the Civil War-era False Claims Act which was originally signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln. The 1986 Grassley-Berman qui tam amendments empowered whistleblowers to file suit on behalf of the United States against those who fraudulently claim federal funds, including Medicare, Medicaid, contract payments, disaster assistance and other benefits, subsidies, grants and loans. The number of suits filed under the qui tam provisions exceeded 700 in the fiscal year 2014 for the second year in a row, according to the Justice Department. 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. The legislation threatened to limit the scope and applicability intended by Congress in the 1986 update. Grassley said the update helps ensure that no fraud will go unpunished because of legal loopholes. A press release from the Justice Department on the fiscal year 2014 False Claims Act recoveries can be found here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/hud-oversight-moving-work-dollars-lacking,HUD Oversight of Moving to Work Dollars is Lacking,2014-11-21,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley today released a response from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to his letter, with Sen. Mark Kirk, on the department's oversight of billions of dollars of federal Moving to Work program funds given to local housing authorities in Chicago and elsewhere across the country. Grassley is concerned that HUD appears to be rushing to extend new Moving to Work contracts well before the existing contracts expire and that HUD is performing inadequate oversight of how housing authorities spend these program funds. The Chicago Housing Authority, for example, has stockpiled Moving to Work funds while people in need of affordable housing remain on long waiting lists. Grassley has placed a hold on the nominee for HUD Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, the office with jurisdiction over the Moving to Work program, out of his concerns. Grassley wants to ensure that the Moving to Work program works as intended before extending it another ten years. Grassley made the following comment on HUD's response: HUD has a pattern of conducting too little oversight of federal funds until it's too late, and the damage has been done. The latest response doesn't give me confidence that HUD is performing enough oversight of Moving to Work dollars. It's true that this program was meant to provide housing authorities with more flexibility than under other federal housing programs, but flexibility doesn't mean a free pass from checks and balances. The buck still starts and stops with the agency writing the checks. HUD is ultimately responsible for making sure people in need receive the safe, affordable housing intended with federal funding, in Chicago and elsewhere around the country. The Grassley-Kirk letter to HUD is available here. HUD's response is available here. Grassley's statement on the nomination hold is available here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/renewable-fuel-standard-reprieve-mixed-news-farmers-biofuel-producers,"Renewable Fuel Standard reprieve is mixed news for farmers, biofuel producers",2014-11-21,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on the announcement from the Environmental Protection Agency that it will delay finalization of the 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) until 2015. The reprieve is mixed news for the farmers and biofuel producers who have responded to the call for more homegrown, renewable energy. The Administration's ill-conceived proposal would have caused real harm to farmers, producers, and consumers. It would have increased dependence on oil and protected the stranglehold Big Oil has on our country's fuel supply. Still, the Administration doesn't deserve praise. Creating uncertainty for everybody who works in this industry isn't a good way to do business. No one knows what kind of proposal the Administration might offer next year. Uncertainty is the enemy of job creation and investment. Unfortunately, as we also saw with the Keystone XL pipeline, uncertainty, delay and indecision are hallmarks of this Administration on energy policy. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/soon-expire-satellite-tv-law-reauthorized,Soon-to-Expire Satellite TV Law Reauthorized,2014-11-21,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said today that a bill reauthorizing for five years the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act, more broadly known as STELA, cleared the Senate last night. The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act provides consumers access to distant television content by satellite. It was set to expire on Dec. 15. Passage of this bill makes sure the statute won't expire and the 1.5 million customers who likely don't have other options for receiving television service won't lose their satellite service, Grassley said. I appreciate the bipartisan work that went into getting this law reauthorized. Grassley's bill reauthorizing the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act was included in a larger package of telecom related legislation. It will now go to the President for signature. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act in March. STELA touches on both copyright and communications law. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/veterans-foreign-wars-bill-passes-charter-updated-include-women,Veterans of Foreign Wars bill passes; charter updated to include women,2014-11-21,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, today made the following comment on Senate passage last night of a House of Representatives-passed bill to amend the federal charter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States to reflect the service of women in the U.S. Armed Forces. The bill was called up for expedited consideration in the Senate. Since the bill was in the Senate Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction but had not been through the committee, Grassley's consent was necessary for expedited consideration. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent. The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States has a long history of serving combat veterans. Women serve in a variety of roles in the military, with an increasing role in combat. Women have given their lives and received recognition for their heroism, the same as men, and so the charter of a prominent veterans organization should reflect the modern reality of the armed forces. More information on the House-passed bill, H.R. 5441, is available here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/ebola-visa-ban-introduced,Ebola Visa Ban Introduced,2014-11-20,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley today joined Senators Marco Rubio, Pat Roberts, John Thune and Mark Kirk to introduce legislation that would create a temporary visa ban for people who have resided in a country that the Centers for Disease Control has designated as a country with widespread transmission of Ebola. Aid workers and foreign military who must travel to the United States would be exempted. The Ebola virus outbreak has wreaked havoc on several West African countries and has threatened the United States. To protect our security, we must stop Ebola at its source. The best way to make this happen is to cease issuing visas or restricting entry to people from countries that are most impacted. The fact of the matter is that these countries simply don't have the standards in place to properly screen travelers entering the United States, Grassley said. According to U.S. State Department officials, between March 1, 2014, and September 27, 2014, a total of 6, 398 U.S. visas were issued to nationals of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. There were 3,135 visas issued to Liberians, 1,472 visas issued to Sierra Leoneans, and 1,791 visas issued to Guineans. Meanwhile, according to International SOS, a company that provides organizations help in managing the health and security risks facing travelers, dozens of countries including many in Africa have instituted travel and entry restrictions. Grassley said that most of the calls and emails coming into his office have advocated for a travel ban. On October 17, Grassley wrote to the President and encouraged him to consider travel restrictions. To date, the administration has not committed to doing so. Keeping America Safe from Ebola Act of 2014: Restricts entry, suspends new visas and revokes current visas of an individual: o Who is a permanent resident or national of a country that the Centers for Disease Control has certified is a country for widespread transmission of Ebola, and o Whose last habitual residence was a country that the Centers for Disease Control has certified is a country for widespread transmission of Ebola o Aid workers who need to travel the U.S. and are approved by USAID o Foreign military who need to travel to the U.S. and are approved by Department of Defense Requires the President to report to Congress every 30 days on the Ebola outbreak: o Status of Ebola outbreak in each designated country and the progress made since last reporting period o A description of the U.S. assistance to each designated country o Reasons that a complete travel ban is not in the interest of U.S. national security Terminates Act 60 days after the date the Director of the Centers for Disease Control certify that there is no longer an Ebola outbreak. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-expired-tax-provisions-require-action,Grassley: Expired Tax Provisions Require Action,2014-11-20,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Floor Statement by Senator Charles E. Grassley The Need to Act on Tax Extenders Delivered Thursday, November 20, 2014 Here we are in another lame duck session of Congress working to finish the business that we've failed to complete during the previous year or two. One of those critical pieces of legislation that must be enacted is a tax extender bill. It seems as though nearly every year in recent memory we've put off the extension of expired tax provisions until the very last minute. In 2012, provisions remained expired for an entire year before finally being extended in January of 2013. Similarly, the previous extension of expired provisions did not occur until the middle of December. Now, once again we find ourselves heading into the month of December with tax extenders having been expired for nearly eleven months. This is no way to do business. Such late action by Congress results in complications come filing season for taxpayers. Tax season is unpleasant enough without us adding to it by failing to do our job in a timely fashion. But, once again, we have created a lot of headaches and uncertainty for individuals and businesses. This uncertainty harms investment and business growth. This is bad for economic growth and bad for jobs. The lapse of renewable energy incentives has also created a lot uncertainty and slowed growth in the renewable industry. This serves only to hamper the strides made toward a viable self-sustainable renewable energy and fuel sector. It didn't have to be this way. The Senate Finance Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Hatch, did its job. We marked up an extenders package in early April. The Senate never took up that package because the Majority Leader refused to allow Republicans to offer amendments. Rather than consider and advance the Finance Committee bill, the Majority Leader shelved the extenders bill because of fear that members of his party might have to take tough votes before the election. With the elections behind us, it's now time to get to work and get the extenders bill done. I understand that negotiations are ongoing between the House and Senate on this issue. I'm encouraged by the reports that progress is being made. However, I am concerned about rumors that some are working to leave out or shorten the extension for the wind production tax credit. It seems as though opponents of wind energy have tried at every turn to undermine this industry, and so I'm not surprised that they're at it again. I agree that the tax code has gotten too cluttered with too many special interest provisions. That's the reason many of us have been clamoring for tax reform for years now. But, just because we haven't cleaned up the tax code in a comprehensive way doesn't mean that we should pull the rug out from under domestic renewable energy producers. Doing so would cost jobs, harm our economy, the environment and our national security. I'm glad to defend the wind production tax credit and wind energy. Wind energy supports tens of thousands of American jobs, it has spurred billions in private investment in the United States, and it displaces more expensive and more polluting sources of energy. More than 70% of a U.S. wind turbines value is now produced in the U.S., compared to just 25% prior to 2005. Once again, opponents of the renewable energy provisions want to have this debate in a vacuum. They disregard the many incentives and subsidies that exist for other sources of energy, and are permanent law. For example, the 100 year-old oil and gas industry continues to benefit from tax preferences that benefit only their industry. These are not general business tax provisions they are specific to the oil and gas business. Here are a few examples: Expensing for intangible drilling costs Deduction for tertiary injectants Percentage depletion for oil wells Special amortization for geological costs These four tax preferences for this single industry result in the loss of more than $4 billion annually in tax revenue. Nuclear energy is another great example. The first nuclear power plant came online in the United States in 1958 56 years ago. Nuclear receives special tax treatment for interest from decommissioning trust funds. Congress created a production tax credit for this mature industry in 2005, which is available until 2020. Nuclear also benefits from Price-Anderson, federal liability insurance, that Congress provided as a temporary measure in 1958. This temporary measure has been renewed through 2025. Nuclear energy has also received $74 billion in federal research and development dollars since 1950. Are these crony capitalist handouts? Is it time to end market distortions for nuclear power? A Cato study found that In truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense and exists purely as a creature of government. I don't understand the argument that repealing a subsidy for oil or gas or nuclear energy production is a tax increase on energy producers and consumers, while repealing an incentive for alternative or renewable energy is not. It's not intellectually honest. I authored the wind incentive in 1992. I know it won't go on forever. It was never meant to, and it shouldn't. I'm happy to discuss a responsible, multi-year phase out of the wind tax credit. In 2012, the wind industry was the only industry to put forward a phase out plan. But, any phase out must be done in the context of comprehensive tax reform, where all energy tax provisions are on the table. And, it should be done responsibly over a few years, to provide certainty and ensure a viable industry. It's time to put an end to the annual kabuki dance that is tax extenders. Good tax policy requires certainty that can only come from long-term predictable tax laws. Businesses need certainty in the tax code so they can plan and invest accordingly. Moreover, taxpayers deserve to know that the tax code is not just being used as another way to dole out funds to politically favored groups. However, the only sound way to reach this goal is through comprehensive tax reform. I agree that there are provisions in extenders that ultimately should be left on the cutting room floor. But, it is in tax reform where we should consider the relative merits of individual provisions. Targeting certain provisions for elimination now makes little sense for those of us who want to reduce tax rates as much as possible. Tax reform provides an opportunity to use a realistic baseline that will allow the revenue generated from cutting back provisions to be used to pay for reductions in individual and corporate tax rates. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to enact tax reform and put an end to the headaches and uncertainty created by the regular expiration of tax provisions. Right now our focus must be on extending current expired or expiring provisions to give us room to work toward that goal. It is my hope that we can move quickly to reach a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that can quickly be enacted. Taxpayers have already waited long enough. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-importance-rural-health-care-maintaining-providers,"Grassley on the Importance of Rural Health Care, Maintaining Providers",2014-11-20,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Chuck Grassley Floor Statement on Rural Health Delivered Thursday, November 20, 2014 Today I rise to recognize National Rural Health Day. I would like to take a moment to recognize our rural healthcare providers and all that they do for this country. Approximately 62 million Americans live in rural areas, and they depend on an ever shrinking number of healthcare providers. Rural providers play an important role in improving the health of their communities and supporting local economies. I want to thank our rural providersindividuals, hospitals and clinics for all that they do. Rural providers support a population that makes invaluable contributions to this country through food production, manufacturing and other vital industries. Yet, more people in rural areas are living below the poverty line than their urban counterparts. Rural hospitals are struggling to continue providing care due to declining payments, many exacerbated by the Affordable Care Act. The past few years have been marked by increasing rural hospital closures, with 27 hospitals shutting their doors in the last two years. The trend is concerning and deserves attention as many more facilities and communities are at risk right now. Once a hospital is gone, the devastating impact on the community cannot be undone. The economic impact is unmistakable. The typical critical access hospital creates over 140 jobs in primary employment and $6.8 million in local wages while serving a population of over 14,000. When facilities close, the consequences of traveling great distances for medical care are much more than inconveniencethe delays in obtaining care can mean the difference between life and death. According to U.S. News & World Report, that was the case for an infant in Texas who choked on a grape and died after the only hospital in the county had closed just a few months before. There are a number of similarly tragic stories, and they will continue to mount if we fail to take action. In 1946, Congress recognized the importance of rural healthcare providers and worked to build the rural health infrastructure that exists today. The country has changed dramatically since then, and thoughtful action to improve the distribution and capabilities of our rural health system is overdue. We need to act now to support our rural providers and facilitate a responsible transition to a modernized health system. Rural America is facing what I would call an arbitrary attrition of providers. The hospital closures are a function of no specific design. It's all about balance sheets strained to the breaking point by continual payment cuts. It's not about where providers need to be to serve populations. We need to take a thoughtful look at what the future of rural health care needs to be. We need to be willing to consider bold steps to ensure that rural America has access to high quality care. Health care coverage whether through private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid without access to providers of care is meaningless. We need to put a stop to the arbitrary process now and work forward in designing a better, sustainable future for rural health care. I would like to close by once again thanking all of America's rural providers. I am committed to working with all stakeholders to transition to a better future and protect access to health care in rural America. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-reacts-president-obamas-executive-actions-immigration,Grassley Reacts to President Obama's Executive Actions on Immigration,2014-11-20,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley of Iowa made the following statement after President Barack Obama's announcement tonight that he will make a series of executive actions thwarting the Immigration and Nationality Act. Grassley has sent letters questioning the President's planned executive action, and his actions to enforce current immigration law. Grassley also has asked about policies prioritizing deportation of criminal aliens. In addition, Grassley gave a speech on the Senate floor last night about the President's abuse of executive authority and mass amnesty. Here is Grassley's statement. The President's executive actions on immigration are the wrong way forward and disrespectful of the law. Such broad, massive legalization is an affront to the Constitution. The President himself has said that he doesn't have authority, or that he doesn't prefer this course of action, but yet continues to take this route. The President is missing a big opportunity to enact real reform, and instead he's poisoning the well for future action. Nobody thinks the status quo is okay. But, the President's actions are only a Band-aid for a real problem; in fact, he's making it worse. How does Congress move forward when the President has made it clear with tonight's announcement that he doesn't want to work with the elected officials in the legislative branch where reform has to happen? Unfortunately, if the American people have learned anything about this President, it's that he has never worked well with Congress-even those in his own party. His disdain for a co-equal branch of government is very evident. It shows in executive actions like this, in regulations that the American people are solidly against, and in his and his Cabinet's responses to Congress' constitutional responsibility of oversight. I think the president would have been wise to start where we can agree. Let's work on Trade Promotion Authority or Corporate Tax Reform. If we start with items we can agree on, maybe, just maybe, it would lead to some understanding of what needs to be done on immigration. Once you realize you can work together, you might find out you can solve a much bigger problem like immigration. But, at this point, it looks like he doesn't even want to try. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://loebsack.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394715,Loebsack Backed Legislation to Reform Child Care Program is Signed into Law,2014-11-19,2014,2014-11,Democrat,House,IA,Dave Loebsack,L000565,loebsack.house.gov,,,legacy,"Congressman Dave Loebsack today joined a bipartisan group of leaders from the House and Senate at the White House for the bill signing ceremony for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG). As Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, Loebsack helped negotiate the final agreement, which will enhance transparency, strengthen health and safety protections, and improve the quality of child care for low-income families. “Ensuring your child is safe and well cared for when you are not around is a concern for every parent. For low-income working families who are struggling to make ends meet, having someone to care for their children can mean the difference between finding a job or not,” said Loebsack. “The Child Care Development Block Grant provides a critical lifeline to families and allows them to work or attend school with the peace of mind knowing their children are safe and well cared for. This bipartisan legislation makes long needed updates and improvements to CCDBG that will promote healthy child development and enhance quality and safety. I am pleased that both Republicans and Democrats came together to help improve the lives of working families.”The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act provides funds to states to help low-income families pay for child care while a parent works or is in an educational or job training program. The law has not been reauthorized since 1996.The bipartisan, bicameral legislation includes reforms to: Enhance parental choice by providing information about available care options from all providers, including faith-based and community-based providers, and allowing parents to choose the child care provider that best suits their family’s needs. Strengthen safety in child care settings by requiring all providers to comply with state health, safety, and fire standards and undergo annual inspections. Promote high quality child care by reserving funds at the state level to improve the quality of care provided to children, enhancing states’ ability to train providers and develop safer and more effective child care services.The text of the bill is available here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/criminal-aliens-may-be-allowed-remain-country-under-executive-action-despite,Criminal Aliens may be Allowed to Remain in Country Under Executive Action Despite Policy Prioritizing their Deportation,2014-11-19,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said today that executive action taken by President Barack Obama may continue to allow thousands of undocumented criminals to remain in the country even though they have been identified as a priority for deportation by his own administration. Grassley sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson expressing his concerns that despite a 2011 enforcement memorandum prioritizing the deportation of convicted criminals, the department released more than 36,000 of them back into U.S. communities during fiscal 2013, including 169 homicide convicts. During this same time frame, the Obama administration reportedly released an unknown number of people who had been convicted of 426 sexual assaults, 1,075 aggravated assaults, 228 kidnappings, 647 hit-and-runs, 1,317 domestic violence offenses, and thousands of other dangerous crimes, including treason. The egregious use of executive action and rule by fiat is bad enough, but knowing that undocumented criminals continue to be released into communities, even this past year, and could still remain in the country is outrageous, Grassley said. The Obama administration allowed tens of thousands of undocumented criminals to stay in communities across the country despite a policy specifically stating that these people be deported. The Department released murderers and domestic abusers from its custody. So, why would anyone trust this administration going forward? Grassley wrote in the letter to Johnson, Given ICE's admitted failure in FY 2013 to pursue the removal priorities identified in the June 2011 enforcement memorandum, there is a genuine concern as to whether deportations of convicted criminals and those who pose a national security risk will be any different under a new enforcement memorandum. In June, Grassley began asking questions about the release of individuals convicted of homicide and were awaiting deportation proceedings. Grassley said that ICE's response showed that the administration failed to put procedures in place to ensure public safety and national security. Grassley then reiterated unanswered questions and asked additional questions in August. The department has not responded to that letter. Here's a copy of the text of today's letter to Johnson. The signed copy can be found here. November 19, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION The Honorable Jeh Johnson Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20528 Dear Secretary Johnson: The President has made clear that he plans to unilaterally grant amnesty by executive fiat to untold millions of individuals who broke the law to enter and remain in the country. Despite the warnings of Congress, it appears the President is intent on condoning contempt for the rule of law and ignoring his Constitutional duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed[.]1 That is unsettling. However, the threats of executive action become even more disturbing in light of the Department's admitted failure to deport 36,007 convicted criminalsincluding 169 homicide convictswho were all released back onto the streets, in Fiscal Year 2013 alone.2 According to the New York Times, the Administration's response to this concern is as follows: A new enforcement memorandum . . . will make clear that deportations should still proceed for convicted criminals, foreigners who pose national security risks and recent border crossers . . . .3 Yet, the release of 36,007 criminal aliens in FY 2013 occurred despite the issuance of a similar enforcement memorandum in June 2011, which instructed officers, agents, and attorneys of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to prioritize the deportation of: individuals who pose a clear risk to national security; serious felons, repeat offenders, or individuals with a lengthy criminal record of any kind; known gang members or other individuals who pose a clear danger to public safety; and individuals with an egregious record of immigration violations, including those with a record of illegal re-entry and those who have engaged in immigration fraud.4 Reportedly, the 36,007 criminal aliens whom ICE failed to deport and instead released in FY 2013 were convicted of a total of 87,818 crimes, including: violent crimes (1,075 aggravated assaults, 228 kidnappings, and 790 robberies); sex crimes (426 sexual assaults, 606 commercialized sexual offenses, and 727 other sex offenses); and traffic crimes (15,635 DUI-Liquor offenses, 435 DUI-Drug offenses, and 647 hit-and-runs).5 In addition, the 36,007 criminal aliens whom ICE apparently allowed back onto the streets rather than deport in FY 2013 had convictions for arson (47), extortion (53), embezzlement (51), smuggling (26), bribery (15), forgery (1,216), immigration (3,958), treason/sabotage (4), larceny (5,055), burglary (2,510), obstruction (5,349),6 and dangerous drugs (9,187).7 The June 2011 memorandum also lists positive factors that weigh against deportation, such as whether the detainees in question are victims of domestic violence, trafficking, or other serious crimes[.]8 Yet, in FY 2013 alone, ICE apparently extended that same deportation relief to perpetrators of domestic violence who were convicted of 1,317 such offenses.9 Further, in a recent report, ICE explained that it reserves the highest priority of deportation for Level 1 offenders . . . convicted of aggravated felonies,' as defined in 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.10 That definition includes: murder; rape; crimes of violence; drug trafficking; sex trafficking; sex offenses involving a minor; theft; burglary; crimes relating to the demand for or receipt of a ransom; treason; alien smuggling; obstruction of justice; commercial bribery; and forgery.11 Yet, as noted above, it is precisely those who were convicted of these aggravated feloniesLevel 1 offenders whose deportation should have been the highest prioritywhom ICE reportedly released by the hundreds, if not thousands, in FY 2013. On June 9, 2014, I wrote to ICE's Acting Director, Thomas Winkowski, and requested a case summary of each homicide convict released in FY 2013. ICE's August 15, 2014 response confirmed that ICE released 169 homicide convicts in FY 2013, but the response left several questions unanswered and raised new ones. So, on August 26, 2014, I wrote the Acting Director again and reiterated the unanswered questions. In addition, I requested new information, including the number of detainees who were released in FY 2013 despite convictions of sexual assault and whether they registered as sex offenders upon release. I also asked for the number of aliens who were rearrested or convicted of another offense after being released in FY 2013, whether ICE provides notice of releases to victims and the public, and other basic information pertaining to public safety. To date, I have not received a response to any of these questions, even though a response was requested by September 23, 2014. Given ICE's admitted failure in FY 2013 to pursue the removal priorities identified in the June 2011 enforcement memorandum, there is a genuine concern as to whether deportations of convicted criminals and those who pose a national security risk will be any different under a new enforcement memorandum. According to the President: [T[he main concern I have is to make sure we get it right. And that's what we're focused on at this point. Because any executive action I take is going to require some adjustments to how DHSthe Department of Homeland Securityoperates . . . I want to make sure that we've crossed all our T's and dotted all our I's. 12 The Department appears to have overlooked the many T's and I's in its own June 2011 memorandum and those in my August 26, 2014 letter to ICE's Acting Director. Whatever the President's threshold for readiness is, releasing convicted murderers and sex offenders back into our neighborhoodsinstead of deporting themwithout even providing basic information about post-release rearrests, reconvictions, and sex offender registration, is surely not it. Accordingly, please respond to the questions set forth in my August 26, 2014 letter. In addition, please provide responses to the following new questions by December 8, 2014: 1. In FY 2014: a. How many aliens did ICE release from its custody? b. How many of these individuals had a criminal conviction? c. How many total criminal offenses were these aliens convicted of? d. What crimes were these aliens convicted of? Please specify by NCIC Offense Code each type of crime. In addition, for each type of crime, please provide the total number of convictions aliens released in FY 2014 accounted for. e. How many of these aliens have been granted an employment authorization document? 2. Of the 36,007 criminal aliens whom ICE released in FY 2013: a. How many total criminal offenses were these aliens convicted of? b. What crimes were these aliens convicted of? Please specify by NCIC Offense Code each type of crime. In addition, for each type of crime, please provide the total number of convictions aliens released in FY 2013 accounted for. 3. Of the detainees whom ICE released in FY 2014, how many were Level 1 offenders? For each Level 1 offender whom ICE released in FY 2014, please specify: a. The crime(s) he or she was convicted of; b. The positive factors that sufficiently outweighed the risk he or she posed to public safety or national security so as to justify release; and c. The country of citizenship. 4. Of the detainees whom ICE released in FY 2013, how many were Level 1 offenders? For each Level 1 offender whom ICE released in FY 2013, please specify: a. The crime(s) he or she was convicted of; b. The positive factors that sufficiently outweighed the risk he or she posed to public safety or national security so as to justify release; and c. The country of citizenship. 5. How many aliens with treason or sabotage convictions did ICE release in FY 2013? In FY 2014? For each alien so released, please specify: a. The crime(s) he or she was convicted of; b. The positive factors that sufficiently outweighed the risk he or she posed to public safety or national security so as to justify release; and c. The country of citizenship. 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, Charles E. Grassley Ranking Member U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary 1 U.S. CONST. art. II, 3.2 Letter from Thomas S. Winkowski, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of DHS and Acting Director of ICE, to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member, S. Comm. on the Judiciary (August 15, 2014), http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/Immi... [hereinafter ICE Letter].3 MIchael D. Shear, Julia Preston, and Ashley Parker, Obama Said to Plan Moves to Shield 5 Million Immigrants, The New York Times, Nov. 13, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/us/obama-immigration.html?smid=tw-bna&..., last accessed Nov. 13, 2014. 4 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, Director, Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens, June 17, 2011, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/prosecutorial-discretio..., last accessed November 12, 2014, at 5 [hereinafter June 2011 Memo]. 5 Jessica Vaughan, ICE Document Details 36,000 Criminal Alien Releases in 2013, Center for Immigration Studies, May 2014, http://cis.org/ICE-Document-Details-36000-Criminal-Aliens-Release-in-2013, last accessed Nov. 7, 2014 [hereinafter CIS Report]. 6 Id. (listing 2,104 Obstructing the Police and 3,245 Obstructing Judiciary, Congress, Legislature, etc. offenses).7 Id.8 See June 2011 Memo, supra note 4, at 5. 9 See CIS Report, supra note 5.10 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations, ERO Annual Report: FY 2013 ICE Immigration Removals, http://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/2013-ice-immigration-rem..., last accessed November 12, 2014, at 5.11 See 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(43).12 Jim Avila, Mary Bruce, and Chris Good, President Obama Defends Executive Authority on Immigration, ABC News, Nov. 16, 2014, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-defends-executive-author..., last accessed Nov. 16, 2014. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-statement-national-adoption-day,Grassley Floor Statement on National Adoption Day,2014-11-19,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley National Adoption Day on Saturday, Nov. 22, 2014 Delivered Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2014 On Saturday, many children and families around the country will celebrate National Adoption Day. It's a day that many adoptions are finalized and youth find their forever families. It's very comforting and fitting that this day helps kick off the holiday season. Families will be formed and strengthened. This Thanksgiving, many children will celebrate with their new families and not have to worry about their next placement or their next meal. And this month, we give thanks to the men and women who make their dreams come true. Since the first National Adoption Day in 2000, nearly 50,000 children have joined forever families during National Adoption Day. In 2013 alone, adoptions for 4,500 children were finalized through 400 National Adoption Day events across the county. These are impressive numbers -- numbers that make us proud of the work being done to help children in foster care find loving families. But there is always more work to be done. Today, there are over 102,000 children in the foster care system. Iowa alone has over 6,200 children in foster care, many of whom are waiting for a loving family to adopt them. There are so many issues facing foster youth in addition to being torn apart from their families. They face serious trauma. They are likely to be treated differently, and don't get to do the same activities as other kids. They transition from home to home, and school to school. They don't know normalcy. And they may never know permanency. And, after years of challenges, some are forced to transition to adulthood on their own. Unfortunately, each year over 23,000 youth age out of care in the U.S. Too many older children in foster care, especially those with special needs, are often the ones who wait the longest to leave foster care. Foster youth simply desire to have what so many of us were blessed to have that is, a home with caring, loving parents and siblings. These kids are less likely than younger children to find forever homes. That is why I helped form the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth. I wanted to draw attention to the challenges that older foster youth face. The caucus has allowed Congressional leaders to become more aware of the issues faced by young people and families who are involved in the foster care system. The caucus cannot function without the input and insight from foster youth. These children are the experts on the foster care system. They tell us what works or what needs to change. They share their experiences and provide us with real world stories about how our policies truly affect them. The caucus and the youth who share their experiences remind us that no child is unadoptable. No child should be without a mom and dad. And we must remember that foster care should be a layover, not a destination. November is National Adoption Month, a time to raise national awareness of adoption, and celebrate families, advocates and volunteers involved in adoption. It's also a time to devote more attention to policies and practices that protect the safety and well-being for all children. I am hopeful that Congress will continue to look for ways to improve the foster care system and promote adoptions. I am glad Congress worked to enact a bill this year to renew the adoption incentives program and to do more to screen and help foster youth who may be trafficked. We must continually examine how the system is treating youth, and whether policies in place are strengthening families. There are many youth who will celebrate this holiday season without a permanent family. Hopefully, our celebration of National Adoption Month will raise awareness of the issues they face and the need to find them a mom and a dad. We need to keep working together to break down the barriers to adoption. So today, I thank all those who have adopted or who have fostered children who needed it. And, I thank the many individuals and organization that work to make permanency possible for children. I know many dreams will come true this Saturday, and I wish the very best to the youth as they begin their journey with their new families. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-floor-statement-tribute-us-senator-tom-harkin,Grassley Floor Statement: Tribute to U.S. Senator Tom Harkin,2014-11-19,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Video of the floor statement can be viewed here. Floor Statement Tribute to U.S. Senator Tom Harkin by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley November 19, 2014 Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the 75th birthday of my friend and long-time colleague from our home state of Iowa, Tom Harkin. As you know, Mr. President, Senator Harkin will be retiring from public office in just a few weeks. At the end of the 113th Congress, Senator Harkin will close a chapter on public service that spans more than a half-century, including four decades in Congress. He served 27 years in the United States Navy and U.S. Naval Reserves. Ten years in the U.S. House of Representatives. And 30 years here in the United States Senate. That's a remarkable and distinguished record of public service. After 40 years of representing Iowans in Congress, Tom soon will leave behind the halls of the U.S. Capitol. He also will leave behind a legacy of fiery floor speeches, passionately delivered on behalf of individuals with disabilities. For Iowa farmers. For the elderly. For child laborers. And for the many causes he championed, such as early childhood education, nutrition and wellness, conservation, renewable energy and the environment. Through the years, Tom and I have served side-by-side in Washington for the good of our home state. For three terms, we worked together in the U.S. House of Representatives. It was here our shared commitment to give Rural America a voice at the policymaking tables was sown. And for the many years we have worked together on the Senate Agriculture Committee, we looked out for the millions of Americans who choose to work and earn a living in Rural America. We worked together to advocate for rural infrastructure and investment and access to health care, housing, technology and transportation. For the last three decades we have served alongside one another in the United States Senate, an institution we hold near and dear to our hearts. Although some of our silver-tongued critics over the years may have ascribed Tom's views as those of a bleeding heart liberal or mischaracterized mine as that of a cold-hearted conservative, we both know that our hearts have always been in the right place. Neither of us was born with a silver spoon in our mouths. And we learned early on to appreciate the work ethic of our parents and grandparents. Each of us raised our families with the hopes that our children and grandchildren would achieve the promise of America's prosperity and grow up to enjoy the pursuit of happiness. As Iowa's U.S. Senators, we have worked to keep alive that dream for hardworking Iowa families. Now, it's true we have vastly different views on the government's influence on America's ladder of opportunity. However, we whole-heartedly agree that it is an honor and a privilege to serve the people of Iowa. For some reason, our respective re-elections every six years have confounded political observers. Many couldn't seem to square the notion that Iowans would continue to elect two U.S. Senators from opposite sides of the political spectrum for the last three decades. Mr. President, it is widely understood that Iowans aren't casual political observers. Our electorate takes pride in retail politicking and its first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses. We certainly have given Iowa voters a night-and-day choice. So while we may not see eye to eye on politics and ideology, we do see eye to eye when it came to working for Iowa's best interests. Although our voting records may reflect night and day positions on public policy, you wouldn't see the light of day between us when we worked together on matters that matter most to Iowa, including natural disasters, such as the 2008 floods. Iowa farmers and agriculture, notably recovering from the farm crisis. Renewable energy and rural infrastructure. We also enjoy welcoming economic development leaders and constituents to the nation's capital. Between the Siouxland Steak Dinner here in Washington and the Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, there's no doubt Tom will miss staking out Iowans to discuss politics and policy. However, I have no doubt my home state colleague will continue to champion the causes for which he has devoted a lifetime of service. To his credit, Tom's legacy reflects the priorities he set out to achieve decades ago: to make a difference for those on the down side of advantage. Mr. President, Barbara and I extend our warmest wishes to Tom and Ruth, and the entire Harkin family. As you start life's next chapter, may you enjoy the blessings of hearth and home, health and happiness. Although Tom is retiring from public office, I'm confident he is not retiring from serving the public interest. From one constituent to another, I thank you for a lifetime of public service. And I wish you good luck and Godspeed. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/president-obama%E2%80%99s-abuse-executive-action-and-mass-amnesty,President Obamas Abuse of Executive Action and Mass Amnesty,2014-11-19,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee President Obama's Abuse of Executive Action and Mass Amnesty Wednesday, November 19, 2014 In his State of the Union address last January, President Obama announced what he called a year of action. Armed with a pen and a phone, he promised to take action where Congress wouldn't. At the time, I warned that these threats were a gathering danger to the separation of powers established in the Constitution. The President is now threatening to implement a mass amnesty from our immigration laws by executive fiat. He plans to act without the support of Congress or the American people. In fact, he has conveniently waited until after the recent elections to do so, to avoid being punished at the ballot box. This executive order will be the culmination of his self-proclaimed year of action. The President may think of this executive action as a political victory in a year filled with so many failures and defeats for him and his party. But history will surely view it as a serious blow to the system of checks and balances established by the Framers. In reality, this was a year in which the President's abuse of executive power came into clear focus. Today I'd like to review President Obama's pattern of unconstitutional executive action this year. I'd like to explain why the mass amnesty he is threatening is merely the latest in a long list of abuses of his executive authority. And I'd like offer a few thoughts about what the Senate can do about these kinds of abuses. After the President's State of the Union address, I wrote to the Attorney General on January 31st. I wrote that I was gravely concerned that the system of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution [was] threatened by the President's determination to take unilateral action. In short, I made clear, that while the President has a pen and a phone, we have a Constitution that places limits on his use of them to issue Executive Orders. Indeed, my concern about the President's threat to take action on his own was heightened by the administration's record of failing to discharge its constitutional duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' By then, President Obama had already failed to execute the law in many areas. For example, the administration was re-writing Obamacare deadlines at will, and was making little effort to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in some states. These abuses rang like alarm bells in the night even before the so-called year of action began. Indeed, in December 2013, a liberal law professor testified before the House Judiciary Committee that despite the fact that I once voted for President Obama, personal admiration is no substitute for the constitutional principles at stake in this controversy. He continued: When a president claims the inherent power of both legislation and enforcement, he becomes a virtual government unto himself. He is not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system; he becomes the very danger that the Constitution was designed to avoid. Against this backdrop, I asked the President to defend the legal basis for the actions he was threatening. In my letter, I asked the Attorney General to direct the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to publicly disclose its opinions concerning the lawfulness of the executive orders proposed by the President. That's what the Office of Legal Counsel does it reviews all executive orders to determine whether they are constitutional and lawful. Many of its opinions have been made public in the past. I hoped that this transparency would allow Congress and the American people to better understand the alleged legal basis for these orders, and challenge them if necessary. Providing Congress and the American people with the legal opinions supporting his unilateral actions seemed like a reasonable request of a President who had claimed to support an unprecedented level of openness and transparency in government. February passed. March as well. April came and went. Winter turned to spring, and summer was around the corner. And on May 20th, I finally received a response from the Justice Department. In summary, the department told me no, they wouldn't disclose these opinions to the public. However, the Department assured me, if I had questions about a particular Office of Legal Counsel advice document, it would assist me in understanding it to the fullest extent possible. In short, the administration stonewalled legitimate questions from Congress, as it so often does. As it turned out, within a few weeks, I and many others in Congress had very serious questions about a specific executive action and its effect on our national security. And we had questions about the advice provided by the Office of Legal Counsel. The American people did as well. In early June, the President decided to release five Taliban detainees held at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, a U.S. soldier who had been captured in 2009. The detainees were reportedly senior-level Taliban commanders. Some had direct links to al-Qaeda. And all were reportedly determined to be of high risk to the United States and were recommended for continued detention. Nonetheless, President Obama decided to free them from Guantanamo. There was one problem, however. The National Defense Authorization Act required that the administration notify Congress 30 days before any detainee was transferred from there. Under this statute, the notification was required to include lots of detailed information about the basis for the transfers, why they were in our national security interest, and any actions taken to prevent detainees from returning to the battlefield. In fact, none of this information was provided to Congress before these detainees were released, as the law requires. And perhaps not coincidentally, this was information that members of Congress and the American people were very interested in learning. There were and still are serious questions about whether releasing these detainees from Guantanamo was a good idea. So the President decided to act alone, without regard for Congress' role in our system of checks and balances, and directly contrary to a law he had recently signed. Then, the administration began changing its story about why it broke the law. First, they said it was Sergeant Bergdahl's health that required his release without notifying Congress. Then they said it was operational security surrounding the release itself. Then they said it was the nature of the negotiations with the Taliban. But there was one point administration officials were clear about: the Department of Justice had provided legal advice that justified transferring these detainees from Guantanamo without informing Congress, as the law required. This was difficult to square with the limited powers of the executive established in the Constitution. In Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company versus Sawyer, otherwise known as the Steel Seizure case, the Supreme Court set a clear precedent establishing these limits. In that case, the Supreme Court held that President Truman's executive order seizing steel mills to avoid a strike during the Korean War was unconstitutional. In doing so, the Court emphasized that the Executive isn't above the laws written by Congress. The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand. Moreover, Justice Jackson emphasized that when, as here, the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or the implied will of Congress, his power is at his lowest ebb. Just as the Supreme Court held that President Truman had unlawfully seized the steel mills, President Obama's release of the Taliban detainees without the required notification effectively re-wrote the law contrary to the will of Congress. In short, there didn't seem to be a lawful basis for what the President had done. In fact, it seemed plainly illegal. So I took the department up on its offer. In a letter to the Attorney General dated June 5th, I requested that he direct the Office of Legal Counsel to make public its opinions, analyses and conclusions concerning the lawfulness of the transfer . . . without compliance with the statute that requires congressional notification. I added that it was obviously too late for Congress to express its concerns about these transfers in time to prevent them. However, this measure of transparency will at least allow the American people to better understand the Administration's purported basis for ignoring the legal requirement that Congress be notified in advance, and shed additional light on this controversial decision. It's now six months later, and the Attorney General hasn't given me the courtesy of a response to my letter. We still don't know how the department justified the release of these detainees. We don't know the legal basis or the underlying facts that were relied upon. That just isn't acceptable. But sadly, it's become commonplace with the Obama Administration. It turns out that to this Justice Department, assisting me to the fullest extent possible is actually indistinguishable from ignoring my request completely. Shortly thereafter, in August, the Government Accountability Office concluded that the administration acted illegally when it released these senior-level Taliban commanders from Guantanamo without notifying Congress. Now let's be clear. That wasn't a member of Congress reaching that conclusion. It wasn't a political operative or a talking head on television. It was an independent, non-partisan government agency. And so the GAO effectively said: President Obama, you broke the law. So perhaps it makes sense that the Department of Justice couldn't respond to my letter. Maybe even the very smart lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel couldn't come up with a justification for what happened that passed the laugh test. But that wasn't the only rebuke the President suffered this year after trampling on Congress' role under the Constitution. The Supreme Court was forced to rein in President Obama as well, in a dispute over his power to make recess appointments. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for only two ways in which Presidents may appoint certain officers. First, it provides that the President nominates, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints various officers. Second, it permits the President to make temporary appointments when a vacancy in one of those offices happens when the Senate is in recess. Back in 2012, President Obama made four appointments to various Executive Branch positions. They were purportedly based on the Recess Appointments Clause. But he took this action even though they weren't made, in the words of the Constitution, during the recess of the Senate. No President in history had ever tried to make recess appointments when the Senate said it was in session. But this President once again decided to go around Congress. In June of this year, the Supreme Court struck down these appointments as unconstitutional. It wasn't a split decision. It wasn't five to four along party lines. It was unanimous. Every justice agreed those appointed by both Republicans and Democrats. That included two justices appointed by President Obama himself. It was the Supreme Court's biggest rebuke to any President since 1974, when it ordered President Nixon to produce the Watergate tapes. This was a case where the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion didn't pass the laugh test. And so the Supreme Court unanimously said: President Obama, you broke the law. So this purported year of action has brought into focus a President with little respect for the roles of the co-equal branches of government, unwilling to explain the legal basis for his actions, and rebuked by the courts and independent agencies for overstepping his bounds. Now President Obama is threatening to act unilaterally on immigration. If you thought that this year's events so far would have given the President pause about his go it alone approach, apparently, you would be wrong. Of course, one of the reasons I oppose mass amnesty is because it's bad policy. Immigration reform should begin with securing our borders. Border security is among the most basic responsibilities of any country. But this administration hasn't done that. To the contrary, according to recent news reports, it has freed alleged kidnappers, rapists and murderers into communities in the United States rather than deport them. It has sacrificed public safety in order to provide relief for people who are here illegally. But the President's unilateral action on immigration isn't just bad policy. It's contrary to the rule of law. It's unconstitutional for the executive branch to nullify, or even unilaterally re-write, the immigration laws that the people of the United States, through their elected representatives, have chosen to enact. We have been hearing about the possibility of an executive action on immigration for many months. It will apparently involve steps to allow millions of people illegally present in the United States to live, work, and collect benefits here. The Democratic leadership wants to compare what's being threatened here to the executive actions of past presidents on immigration. But the actions of Presidents Reagan and Bush were merely tying up loose ends, carrying out a law Congress had just passed. They established policies that were later put into statute in 1990. President Obama is threatening to act directly against the wishes of Congress, and on a far greater scope and scale. That is why I and twenty-one other Senators wrote to the President on April 24th to express our grave concerns about the lawfulness of what was reportedly under consideration. Apparently, our warnings aren't being heeded. And now, if the President acts after repeated calls by congressional leaders not to do so, it will severely damage his relationship with the new Congress elected by the American people. But the core issue is this: under our Constitution, the Congress makes the law. And under Article II, Section 3, the President is charged with taking care that these laws are faithfully executed. But if President Obama effectively legalizes people who are here unlawfully, no one will be able to reasonably argue that he is faithfully executing our immigration laws. Once again, that doesn't pass the laugh test. And so like the GAO and the Supreme Court earlier this year, I say: President Obama, if you take this executive action on immigration, you'll be breaking the law. Even more than that you'll be violating the Constitution. And the President knows this. Just a few years ago, he conceded: This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting comprehensive immigration [legislation] passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true. We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. The President was right then, even if he doesn't want to live by his own words now. There are no short-cuts to following the Constitution. Now, what we're likely to hear from the administration is that this executive action is simply a lawful exercise of enforcement discretion. It's not. Lawful enforcement discretion is exercised on an individualized, case-by-case basis. So whether enforcement action takes place is informed by a careful evaluation of the facts of a particular case, as each case presents itself. Lawful enforcement discretion isn't selecting entire categories of individuals, and telling them that, going forward, the law won't be applied to them. That's what President Obama is threatening to do. This shouldn't only concern constitutional scholars and lawyers. It is no exaggeration to say that the freedom of the American people is at stake. That's what the Framers believed. In Federalist 51, James Madison wrote that the separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government is essential to the preservation of liberty. Moreover, in the Steel Seizure case, Justice Frankfurter warned that the accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority. President Obama's actions this year reek of unchecked disregard of the restrictions of his authority. In his remarks after the recent elections, President Obama repeatedly emphasized that his executive action would be lawful. But as this year has shown, he has repeatedly acted illegally even though the Department of Justice had assured him otherwise. The Office of Legal Counsel doesn't appear to be providing independent legal advice to the President it's simply rubber-stamping whatever he wants to do. So it's cold comfort for the President to assure us that anything he would do is legal. Let's go back to the bedrock principles of our country's founding. The Framers of our Constitution knew an abusive executive when they saw one. They sent the Declaration of Independence to a King who had ignored and abused their legislatures and laws. And the Framers would also have recognized the specific kinds of executive abuses reflected in President Obama's mass amnesty. They would have referred to them as the royal suspending and dispensing powers. But George III didn't even try to abuse the colonists with these powers. Why? Because Parliament had denied them to the King a hundred years before the American Revolution. You see, Kings of England had traditionally asserted the power to suspend the operation of certain laws or to grant dispensations prospectively excusing particular individuals from compliance. But as deference to the King's authorities eroded, these powers became more controversial. As part of the Glorious Revolution in the late 17th century, these royal powers were terminated. The first two articles in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 made it illegal for the King to exercise the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws. This happened a century before our own Constitutional Convention. So when the Framers met in Philadelphia, these were abuses long since remedied in England. Instead, the Framers charged the President with the constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. With his talk of mass amnesty, President Obama is threatening to abandon this constitutional duty. He is threatening to re-assert royal powers that even the Framers thought were long abolished. He is threatening to take our country backward, a century before the American Revolution. When talking about immigration policy, the President has acknowledged that he isn't a King. He shouldn't act like one. During the President's remaining two years in office, how should the Senate respond to the President's illegal executive action on immigration or any other of these kinds of executive abuses? In some cases, we can use the power of the purse to defund them. In other cases, we may use our congressional oversight tools to expose them. And in still other cases, we may be able to pass legislation to do away with them completely. These tools have been available to the Senate since President Obama was elected. But it should come as no surprise that the Democrats in the Majority didn't use them to confront his abuses of power. In the 114th Congress, we Republicans intend to use them. I yield the floor. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://steveking.house.gov//media-center/columns/steve-king-op-ed-in-breitbart-protecting-the-constitutional-balance-of-power,Steve King op-ed in Breitbart: Protecting the Constitutional Balance of Power from Executive Amnesty,2014-11-18,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Steve King,K000362,steveking.house.gov,,,legacy,"President Barack Obama was right when he said on May 10, 2011, ""sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works."" And when he said, on March 28, 2011, ""with respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed."" Those quotes are from before his re-election. Apparently his belief about ""how democracy works"" was a ploy. Now, he wants to unilaterally rewrite immigration law, and illegally grant amnesty to millions. Since he was reelected, and (apparently) once his Democrat colleagues get through the midterms, he now believes he can suspend deportations for anyone and ignore immigration law altogether. And for the benefit of the Constitutional professors among us, there is no magical section of the Constitution that says a president can use executive power if Congress fails to enact his will.  Our Republic will not long survive if we continue to allow a president to defy the Constitution, let alone the will of the people. Congress will have a chance to act in December. We can write a provision that specifically defunds any action the President may take to weaken enforcement of immigration law. One such as the amendment I offered in September.  However, if we take another road, and enact an Omnibus appropriations bill that runs the course of the Fiscal Year with no mention of immigration enforcement, Congress will have no leverage. We will not have the ability to exercise the power of the purse, the only power this president appears to respect.  Some say we should wait until after the President has acted. He's already started.  ""When the cat's away, the mice will play,"" as the adage goes, and the Obama Administration is making the moves that Democrats in tight races claim to oppose, while the nation is focused on those tight races.  Now, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is already soliciting bids that contemplate a ""surge"" scenario where a bidder would need to handle 9 million new immigration I.D. cards ""to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements"" and a total of 34 million over five years. Of course, this Request for Proposal contemplates an action the President is already planning. He has laid the groundwork to make sure he can print an extra 9 million documents for those he plans to amnesty. Additionally, they have already announced extensions of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Honduras and Nicaragua nationals that will grant them work permits, along with a program to push 100,000 Haitians to the front of the line so they can enter the United States and “legally” work. Recently, President Obama proudly declared, “make no mistake; my policies are on the ballot, every one of them.” That means everyone has a chance to vote for or against his vision for America. This is absolutely correct. The President has promised to violate his oath to the Constitution, the oath he took on Jan 20, 2013, and his word as late as March 28, 2011. We are now seeing the outline for his future lawlessness. I have been one of the vanguard moving to defund unconstitutional executive action and urge everyone interested in defending the Constitution to step up and guard a post. This winter will be a pivotal moment in the President's attempt to obfuscate the meaning of the Constitution and steal power for himself. Congress must act. Use the power of the purse. Restore the Constitution. Refurbish the pillars of American Exceptionalism.  Now. To view the original article, click here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://steveking.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/king-on-ebola-this-threat-must-be-contained-and-controlled,King on Ebola: This Threat Must be Contained and Controlled,2014-11-18,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Steve King,K000362,steveking.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C.  - Congressman Steve King released the following statement after the Iowa National Guard announced that by the order of the Secretary of Defense, the 294th Area Support Medical Company, Iowa Army National Guard based in Washington, Iowa has a pending mobilization in support of the Operation United Assistance. This will affect approximately 80 soldiers from that unit. “God Bless everyone who is willing to go to the Ebola stricken regions in Africa,” said King. “I have many times said they should be volunteers for a mission to fight an unseen, lethal enemy. As part of the Iowa family, our prayers go with you all. Except for U.S. citizens quarantined upon their arrival, the President should immediately halt travel between the U.S. and any country that is a source of the Ebola outbreak.  According to the State Department 13,500 foreign nationals from Sierra Leon, Guinea, and Liberia have been granted travel visas for the U.S.  These individuals could pose a serious threat to the public health and security of the U.S.  This threat must be contained and controlled.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-vote-favor-keystone-xl-pipeline,Grassley on Vote in Favor of Keystone XL Pipeline,2014-11-18,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on his vote in favor of the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. We need an all-of-the-above approach to meet the country's energy needs and give consumers choice. That means oil, ethanol, electricity from wind, and nuclear power. The State Department this year released its fifth environmental review of the pipeline, concluding that the project would not bear significant environmental impact and would provide the safest way to transport oil. A pipeline would be safer than transporting oil by rail. Congress needs to act because the Obama Administration has stalled for years. Canada will produce this oil with or without U.S. involvement in the shipment. I'd rather work with one of our strongest allies than continue to get oil from the volatile Middle East or Venezuela. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/intellectual-honesty-needed-income-data,Intellectual Honesty Needed on Income Data,2014-11-18,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Grassley points out that a tax code that's uncompetitive and federal regulation that's heavy handed and overly aggressive has been a wet blanket on America's economic recovery in recent years, hurting American workers. Washington needs to focus on an environment for job creation and economic opportunity. In that debate, distortions of data about income inequality need to be exposed. Former Sen. Phil Gramm and Michael Solon reveal how data has been twisted in a way that's intellectually dishonest in order to promote the redistribution of income. That goal in fact limits economic opportunity rather than expands the economic opportunity that's been the tradition and great opportunity of living in America. How to Distort Income Inequality The Piketty-Saez data ignore changes in tax law and fail to count noncash compensation and Social Security benefits. By Phil Gramm And Michael Solon Nov. 11, 2014 6:50 p.m. ET What the hockey-stick portrayal of global temperatures did in bringing a sense of crisis to the issue of global warming is now being replicated in the controversy over income inequality, thanks to a now-famous study by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, professors of economics at the Paris School of Economics and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively. Whether the issue is climate change or income inequality, however, problems with the underlying data significantly distort the debate. The chosen starting point for the most-quoted part of the Piketty-Saez study is 1979. In that year the inflation rate was 13.3%, interest rates were 15.5% and the poverty rate was rising, but economic misery was distributed more equally than in any year since. That misery led to the election of Ronald Reagan, whose economic policies helped usher in 25 years of lower interest rates, lower inflation and high economic growth. But Messrs. Piketty and Saez tell us it was also a period where the rich got richer, the poor got poorer and only a relatively small number of Americans benefited from the economic booms of the Reagan and Clinton years. If that dark picture doesn't sound like the country you lived in, that's because it isn't. The Piketty-Saez study looked only at pretax cash market income. It did not take into account taxes. It left out noncash compensation such as employer-provided health insurance and pension contributions. It left out Social Security payments, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and more than 100 other means-tested government programs. Realized capital gains were included, but not the first $500,000 from the sale of one's home, which is tax-exempt. IRAs and 401(k)s were counted only when the money is taken out in retirement. Finally, the Piketty-Saez data are based on individual tax returns, which ignore, for any given household, the presence of multiple earners. And now, thanks to a new study in the Southern Economic Journal, we know what the picture looks like when the missing data are filled in. Economists Philip Armour and Richard V. Burkhauser of Cornell University and Jeff Larrimore of Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation expanded the Piketty-Saez income measure using census data to account for all public and private in-kind benefits, taxes, Social Security payments and household size. The result is dramatic. The bottom quintile of Americans experienced a 31% increase in income from 1979 to 2007 instead of a 33% decline that is found using a Piketty-Saez market-income measure alone. The income of the second quintile, often referred to as the working class, rose by 32%, not 0.7%. The income of the middle quintile, America's middle class, increased by 37%, not 2.2%. By omitting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Piketty-Saez study renders most older Americans poor when in reality most have above-average incomes. The exclusion of benefits like employer-provided health insurance, retirement benefits (except when actually paid out in retirement) and capital gains on homes misses much of the income and wealth of middle- and upper-middle income families. Messrs. Piketty and Saez also did not take into consideration the effect that tax policies have on how people report their incomes. This leads to major distortions. The bipartisan tax reform of 1986 lowered the highest personal tax rate to 28% from 50%, but the top corporate-tax rate was reduced only to 34%. There was, therefore, an incentive to restructure businesses from C-Corps to subchapter S corporations, limited-liability corporations, partnerships and proprietorships, where the same income would now be taxed only once at a lower, personal rate. As businesses restructured, what had been corporate income poured into personal income-tax receipts. So Messrs. Piketty and Saez report a 44% increase in the income earned by the top 1% in 1987 and 1988though this change reflected how income was taxed, not how income had grown. This change in the structure of American businesses alone accounts for roughly one-third of what they portray as the growth in the income share earned by the top 1% of earners over the entire 1979-2012 period. An equally extraordinary distortion in the data used to measure inequality (the Gini Coefficient) has been discovered by Cornell's Mr. Burkhauser. In 1992 the Census Bureau changed the Current Population Survey to collect more in-depth data on high-income individuals. This change in survey technique alone, causing a one-time upward shift in the measured income of high-income individuals, is the source of almost 30% of the total growth of inequality in the U.S. since 1979. Simple statistical errors in the data account for roughly one third of what is now claimed to be a frightening increase in income inequality. But the weakness of the case for redistribution does not end there. America is the freest and most dynamic society in history, and freedom and equality of outcome have never coexisted anywhere at any time. Here the innovator, the first mover, the talented and the persistent win outproducing large income inequality. The prizes are unequal because in our system consumers reward people for the value they add. Some can and do add extraordinary value, others can't or don't. How exactly are we poorer because Bill Gates , Warren Buffett and the Walton family are so rich? Mr. Gates became rich by mainstreaming computer power into our lives and in the process made us better off. Mr. Buffett's genius improves the efficiency of capital allocation and the whole economy benefits. Wal-Mart stretches our buying power and raises the living standards of millions of Americans, especially low-income earners. Rich people don't take a large share of national income, they bring it. The beauty of our system is that everybody benefits from the value they bring. Yes, income is 24% less equally distributed here than in the average of the other 34 member countries of the OECD. But OECD figures show that U.S. per capita GDP is 42% higher, household wealth is 210% higher and median disposable income is 42% higher. How many Americans would give up 42% of their income to see the rich get less? Vast new fortunes were earned in the 25-year boom that began under Reagan and continued under Clinton. But the income of middle-class Americans rose significantly. These incomes have fallen during the Obama presidency, and not because the rich have gotten richer. They've fallen because bad federal policies have yielded the weakest recovery in the postwar history of America. Yet even as the recovery continues to disappoint, the president increasingly turns to the politics of envy by demanding that the rich pay their fair share. The politics of envy may work here as it has worked so often in Latin America and Europe, but the economics of envy is failing in America as it has failed everywhere else. Mr. Gramm, a former Republican senator from Texas, is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon was a budget adviser to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and is a partner of US Policy Metrics. http://online.wsj.com/articles/phil-gramm-and-michael-solon-how-to-distort-income-inequality-1415749856 -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://loebsack.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394714,Loebsack Leads Call for Action on Wind Energy Prior to Adjournment,2014-11-17,2014,2014-11,Democrat,House,IA,Dave Loebsack,L000565,loebsack.house.gov,,,legacy,"Congressman Dave Loebsack today led a call to Congressional leaders to take action and extend the job-creating Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) before the 113th Congress adjourns. Loebsack joined with Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Bruce Braley in writing to the leaders of both the House and Senate calling for Congress to provide the wind energy industry the stability it needs to operate. The three have been longtime proponents of the wind energy industry.“Like all businesses, the wind industry seeks certainty and predictability so that long term project decisions and investments can be made. Without that stability, we once again risk losing many of the jobs, infrastructure and investment that the wind industry has created,” the Members wrote. “Time is running out for us to pass an extension of the PTC and ITC to help to avoid further layoffs and divestment. It is imperative that a vote to extend these important provisions occurs before the 113th Congress adjourns sine die.”A copy of the letter can be found here.",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://steveking.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/king-we-are-headed-for-a-constitutional-crisis-if-president-grants,King: We are Headed for a Constitutional Crisis if President Grants Amnesty,2014-11-13,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Steve King,K000362,steveking.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Congressman Steve King released the following statement in reaction to the leaked amnesty details this morning:  “This President has been floating the trial balloon on executive amnesty for a long time,” said King. “Today, new details surfaced that the President plans to attempt amnesty as early as next Friday, sending us into a Constitutional crisis.   The President was right when he said on March 28, 2011, ‘with respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.’ And when he said, on May 10, 2011, ‘sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself.  But that’s not how a democracy works.’ Well, now we know that his belief about ‘how democracy works’ was a ploy. Now he wants to unilaterally rewrite immigration law granting illegal amnesty to millions. The audacity of this President to think he can completely destroy the Rule of Law with the stroke of a pen is unfathomable to me. It is unconstitutional, it is cynical, and it violates the will of the American people. Our Republic will not stand if we tolerate a President who is set upon the complete destruction of the Rule of Law. I am calling on all of my colleagues in the House to use the power of the purse to protect our Article I authority. This is about defending our oath to the Constitution too. We cannot allow Barack Obama’s anticipated, unconstitutional act to be implemented, for if it is it will destroy the pillars of American Exceptionalism.  Come what may – we must always protect the Constitution.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-adoption-advocates-honor-bettendorf-family-adopting-foster-care,"Grassley, Adoption Advocates Honor Bettendorf Family for Adopting from Foster Care",2014-11-13,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley and the group Voice for Adoption are highlighting an Iowa family that expanded through adopting four children from foster care. The Grise family of Bettendorf has a portrait on display in Grassley's office for this month, National Adoption Month. Children in foster care deserve a permanent family, Grassley said. We should commend the volunteers and parents who make adoption possible. Ali and Chris Grise grew their family from two to six by adopting four children in three years. It's an honor to showcase their story to inform and inspire others on the joy of adoption. Voice for Adoption arranged the portrait and biography of the Grise family on display in Grassley's office. The group also gave Grassley one of ten Legislative Champion awards to Congress on behalf of children in foster care and adoptive families. More than 400,000 children are in the foster care system nationwide. Each year, more than 23,000 youth age out of care. Grassley is co-chairman and founder of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, with a special focus on preventing youth from aging out of the system and helping those who do. The Grise family's story is available here. The portrait of the Grise family on display in Grassley's office is available here. A photo of Grassley with Nicole Dobbins, executive director of Voice for Adoption, is available here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-nominations-hearing-lame-duck-hearings-no-saldana,"Grassley Statement at Nominations Hearing, Lame Duck Hearings, No Saldana",2014-11-13,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing regarding the nominations of: Joan Marie Azrack, to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Loretta Copeland Biggs, to be a United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina; Elizabeth K. Dillon, of Virginia, to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia; and Michael P. Botticelli, to be Director of National Drug Control Policy Thursday, November 13, 2014 Mr. Chairman, Congratulations to all the nominees and their families here today. This is a big moment for all of you in your professional careers, and I offer my congratulations on your nomination. Along with three nominees to district courts, we will be hearing today from the nominee to be Director of National Drug Control Policy. I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say about many of the challenges we as a nation are facing in this area, including the ongoing epidemic of prescription drug abuse, as well as the increasing availability of marijuana to young people. I must say, I'm a bit disappointed we won't be hearing from the nominee to run the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, Ms. Saldana. Although the Chairman is working with me and Senator Cornyn to refer her nomination to the Judiciary Committee and while I appreciate that accommodation from the Chairman I am disappointed she won't be providing live testimony before our committee. In my view, written questions for the record are no substitute for live testimony. Finally, I just wanted to point out, as we all know, we are now in a lame duck session of Congress. I would note that although the committee has held hearings for judicial nominees during lame duck sessions in the past, in modern history none have ever been confirmed that same year. As the 113th Congress draws to a close, I would like to remind my colleagues that we have confirmed 106 district and circuit court judges in the past two years. In comparison, during the fifth and sixth years of President Bush's presidency, the Senate only confirmed 52 district and circuit court judges. So, it's clear the Senate has been extremely busy and accommodating in getting this President's nominees through. I look forward to continuing to work with the President and my friends on the Judiciary committee in the next two years on confirming consensus nominees who are well qualified and possess the proper judicial temperament to be a federal judge. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-announces-intent-object-hud-nominee-consideration-over-agency-rush,"Grassley Announces Intent to Object to HUD Nominee Consideration Over Agency Rush on Moving to Work Contracts, Lack of Program Oversight",2014-11-12,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today said he intends to object to Senate consideration of a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) nominee over the agency's apparent rush to negotiate new contracts with local housing authorities participating in the Moving to Work demonstration program. Grassley announced his hold on the nomination of Lourdes Castro Ramirez to be the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Office of Public and Indian Housing. A group of housing advocacy organizations is concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding the contract negotiations. I recently learned that HUD is negotiating new, ten year contracts with the thirty-nine housing authorities participating in the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program. The Office of Public and Indian Housing is also responsible for administering this program but has failed to conduct proper oversight for years, Grassley said in a statement. The current contracts don't expire until 2018 so there's no need to rush into signing new contracts. Instead, I recommend HUD takes serious steps to address the program deficiencies and determine if this demonstration should continue. Grassley's objection would take place if and when the nomination reaches the full Senate. His statement is available here. A letter from the housing advocacy organizations to HUD is available here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-reacts-white-house-nomination-loretta-lynch-be-attorney-general,Grassley Reacts to White House Nomination of Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General,2014-11-07,2014,2014-11,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley made the following statement on the White House's intent to nominate U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch to be the next Attorney General. I congratulate Ms. Lynch on her nomination. Being selected to serve as our nation's top law enforcement officer is both a tremendous honor and responsibility. As we move forward with the confirmation process, I have every confidence that Ms. Lynch will receive a very fair, but thorough, vetting by the Judiciary Committee. U.S. Attorneys are rarely elevated directly to this position, so I look forward to learning more about her, how she will interact with Congress, and how she proposes to lead the department. I'm hopeful that her tenure, if confirmed, will restore confidence in the Attorney General as a politically independent voice for the American people. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-and-harkin-call-postal-service-ensure-all-absentee-ballots-are-counted,Grassley and Harkin Call on Postal Service to Ensure All Absentee Ballots are Counted,2014-10-30,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) today called on the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to make all possible effort to ensure that Iowa absentee ballots are counted. Specifically, the senators issued a letter to the district managers of the Hawkeye District USPS and the Central Plains District USPS urging them to ensure that ballots receive legible postmarks between now and Election Day. Under Iowa state law, ballots received on Election Day or after may only be counted if they are postmarked one day prior to the election. The USPS does not routinely postmark business reply mail envelopes, including ballots, leaving many Iowans at risk of being disenfranchised. We must make all possible effort to ensure that every ballot receives a legible postmark between now and Election Day, next Tuesday, November 4, said Grassley and Harkin. We respectfully request that the Postal Service instruct its staff across the state to take the actions necessary to ensure that every ballot is postmarked, ensuring that each Iowa vote that is properly cast can also be properly counted. The full text of the senators' letter is below. October 30, 2014 Jim Herrman District Manager Hawkeye District United States Postal Service 7900 Hickman Road Des Moines, IA 50324-4400 Rick Pivovar District Manager Central Plains District United States Postal Service 6005 Lockheed Court P.O. Box 199500 Omaha, NE 68119 Dear Mr. Herrman and Mr. Pivovar: As you may be aware, Iowa state law currently requires that ballots received on Election Day or after may only be counted if they are postmarked one day prior to the election. Because the United States Postal Service does not routinely postmark business reply mail envelopes, including ballots, many Iowans are at risk of being disenfranchised by not having a legitimately cast ballot counted. This is particularly problematic given that Iowans have chosen to vote early in 2014 at a rate unprecedented in a non-Presidential election year. Already nearly 400,000 Iowans have requested to vote by mail. While the majority of those voters have returned their ballots already, thousands of voters will mail their ballots in the final days before November 4. We recognize that business reply mail is not required to be postmarked. Indeed a survey by county auditors in local elections last year found that most ballots were not postmarked, and that whether or how many ballots were postmarked was not consistent from one county to the next. However, we are calling on you to recognize the critical Constitutional right at stake and make every effort to ensure that every ballot receives a legible postmark between now and the election next Tuesday, November 4. We respectfully request that you instruct your staff across the states to take the actions necessary to ensure that every ballot is postmarked and thus ensure that every Iowa vote that is properly cast can also be properly counted this year. Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical matter. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-spring-internships-available-applications-due-november-15,"Grassley Spring Internships Available, Applications Due November 15",2014-10-30,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said today that spring internships for college-age Iowans are available, and applications are due November 15. Internships are available in Grassley's Washington, D.C., office as well as his offices in Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Sioux City and Waterloo. The semester-long internship will run from January 19 through May 15. Interns in the Washington, D.C., office will be placed in one of three departments: administrative, legislative or communications. An internship allows for a wide range of learning experience and exposure for students on Capitol Hill. A firsthand account of a Grassley internship can be read here. Grassley said he encourages young Iowans who are interested in learning more about the government to apply. Interning in a congressional office is a good way for college students and new graduates to learn more about the legislative branch of the federal government while gaining valuable experience. Internships in my offices are available to students in all areas of study, Grassley said. Application forms are available on Grassley's website and in Grassley's offices in Iowa. Due to security-related delays in postal mail delivery to U.S. Senate office buildings, internship applications should be emailed to intern_applications@grassley.senate.gov or faxed to 202-224-5136. For additional information, email intern_applications@grassley.senate.gov or call 202-224-3744. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/issa-and-grassley-us-attorney-put-public-danger-failing-bring-charges-border,Issa and Grassley: US Attorney Put Public in Danger by Failing to Bring Charges in Border Grenade Case,2014-10-30,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-IA, today made the following statement after the Department of Justice's Inspector General released a report on the conduct of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding a case on Jean Baptiste Kingery, an American who was suspected of smuggling thousands of grenade parts from the U.S. to Mexico to build live grenades for Mexican drug cartels: The Inspector General's detailed review found that federal prosecutors should have approved the arrest and prosecution of Kingery long before they did, said Issa. The failure of the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office, and specifically Assistant United States Attorney Emory Hurley, to take action allowed a dangerous individual to remain free and continue his criminal activities, placing public safety at risk on both sides of the border by allowing the trafficking of grenades to narco-terrorists. The IG's report shows that Hurley again failed to bring charges against suspected criminals when he had more than enough evidence, as he did in Operation Fast and Furious. The IG report makes clear that an assistant U.S. attorney refused to prosecute a known arms trafficker for unpersuasive' reasons. Not only is this the same problem that occurred in Operation Fast and Furious, it was the same assistant U.S. attorneywho is still working for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona today, Grassley said. The Kingery case is a microcosm of problems at the Justice Department. It's another example of agents being hung out to dry by the Justice Department and a dysfunctional U.S. attorney's office. It's long past time for accountability at the Department of Justice. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/stewardship-taxpayer-dollars-question-during-unaccompanied-minors-influx,Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars in Question during Unaccompanied Minors Influx,2014-10-30,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley said today that a contract signed by the federal government during the influx of unaccompanied minors crossing the United States' southern border raises more questions about the Obama administration's stewardship of taxpayer dollars. In a letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Grassley wrote, In your testimony, just months after this grant was approved, you claimed that a large infusion of taxpayer dollars was necessary because, we don't have enough beds and we don't have sufficient resources to continue to add beds.' It's disturbing that HHS is funding such expensive facilities despite claiming to be unable to meet basic needs for UACs (Unaccompanied Alien Children). The contract between the federal government and Southwest Key Programs provided for a facility with an organic garden, a small petting farm and guitar lessons for the minors. Grassley also said he was concerned that documents provided to his office showed no attempt to negotiate the contract. Grassley began asking the Obama administration to explain and justify apparent outrageous spending on housing for the high numbers of undocumented migrants crossing the southern border. In a July 17, 2014, letter to Burwell, Grassley expressed concerns about news reports of a $50 million contract now apparently withdrawn to house some 600 undocumented border crossers and her statement at a member-level briefing that it is costing the taxpayers between $250 and $1000 a day to house one individual. Grassley reiterated his questions in an August 22, 2014, letter before the department responded on August 26, 2014. In addition, on October 10, 2014, Grassley, along with Senators Orrin Hatch and Tom Coburn, asked the Government Accountability Office to review HHS policies in caring for unaccompanied minors, including the ability of the department to accommodate this year's influx and how the office has prepared to deal with another surge which the administration suggests could include up to 145,000 more unaccompanied minors. Here's the text of today's letter to Burwell. A signed copy can be found here. October 29, 2014 The Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell Secretary Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201 Dear Secretary Burwell: On July 14, 2014, you testified in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee in support of a supplemental appropriations request to fund the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) efforts to house unaccompanied alien children (UAC) and families.[1] You claimed that because of an influx of UACs our resources have been stretched thin and that as a result, more taxpayer dollars were needed to finance the care and custody of individuals who surged across the border in recent months.[2] On August 22, 2014, I wrote to your Department regarding concerns related to a Texas-based non-profit; Southwest Key Programs.[3] Southwest Key has been the recipient of $368 million in government grants in the past six years and over $122 million alone from the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement in 2014.[4] The documents provided in response to my letter raise serious concerns regarding the Department and Southwest Key's stewardship of taxpayer dollars. For example, on April 23, 2014, Southwest Key proposed to charge the government a daily rate of $316 to house unaccompanied alien children in a facility in El Cajon, California. There is no further detail as to whether this request was accepted. However, according to documents, HHS did approve a grant for Southwest Key to fund the El Cajon facility. According to the grant documents, Southwest Key also told your department that the facility contained the following amenities: We have an organic orchard of orange, lemon, and grapefruit trees. As well as an Organic (sic) garden that supplements our kitchen with a wide variety of organic vegetables throughout the year. We have a small petting farm with ducks, chickens, and miniature ponies. We have also established an Acuaponics system where we are cultivating over 1000 Tilapia. Further, Southwest Key described the facility as, an architectural compliment to San Diego's early Spanish Colonial' history. Southwest Key also claimed that its location would allow UACs to enjoy the fruits of living in a large city, yet far enough where there is a suburban serenity to the facility. Finally, Southwest Key informed HHS that the facility's windows provid(e) a splendid view of the beautiful California sunset. In your testimony just months after this grant was approved, you claimed that a large infusion of taxpayer dollars was necessary because, we don't have enough beds and we don't have sufficient resources to continue to add beds.[5] It is disturbing that HHS is funding such expensive facilities despite claiming to be unable to meet basic needs for UACs. To examine HHS' response to the influx of UACs and how taxpayer dollars were used, please answer the following questions: 1. What was the final daily rate paid to Southwest Key for the El Cajon facility? 2. What is the average daily rate paid by HHS for all Southwest Key facilities? 3. How many UACs are currently housed by Southwest Key? 4. The documents provided do not indicate any attempt by your department to reduce costs or negotiate with Southwest Key. Did the department attempt to reduce costs or negotiate? If so, please provide evidence. 5. Documents from your Department appear to show that HHS approved a grant to Southwest Key which provides UACs with guitar lessons that have been classified as vocational training. Has HHS approved grants which provide funding for guitar lessons as vocational education? If so, why are guitar lessons for UACs considered vocational training? 6. In your testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee you claimed, Temporary shelters cost more thanpermanent shelters.[6] Why are temporary shelters more expensive than facilities such as Southwest Key's El Cajon facility? Thank you for your cooperation and attention in this matter. I would appreciate a response by November 12, 2014. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Lucas or Kathy Nuebel at (202) 224-5225. Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/klobuchar-grassley-urge-federal-trade-commission-release-data-pay-delay,"Klobuchar, Grassley Urge Federal Trade Commission to Release Data on Pay-For-Delay Settlements",2014-10-29,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"In a letter to FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, the senators requested the prompt release of the agency's annual report summarizing agreements where brand-name drug companies pay generic drug companies to delay marketing lower cost generic drugs WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) today urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to release data on pay-for-delay settlements. In a letter to FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, the senators requested the prompt release of the agency's annual report summarizing agreements where brand-name drug companies pay generic drug companies to delay marketing lower cost generic drugs. Pay-for-delay agreements deny consumer access to more affordable alternatives to brand medications, the senators wrote. The 2013 and 2014 numbers will help Congress understand whether the Court's decision [in Actavis v. FTC] has altered the behavior of drug manufacturers, and what legislative reforms are currently needed. Klobuchar and Grassley have long supported efforts to combat anti-consumer pay-for-delay settlements. The senators are the lead sponsors of the Preserve Access to Affordable Generics Act which would crack down on anti-competitive pay-offs and make sure consumers have access to cost-saving generic drugs they need. The legislation would make it illegal for brand-name drug manufacturers to use anti-competitive pay-off agreements to keep more affordable generic equivalents off the market. Klobuchar and Grassley introduced similar legislation in 2010 following a resurgence of patent settlement agreements. In July 2013, the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights held a hearing to scrutinize on pay-for-delay deals. Pay-for-delay agreements delay generic entry into the market nearly 17 months longer on average than agreements without payments. These pay-off settlements (also known as reverse payments) delay consumer access to cost-saving generic drugs, which can be as much as 90 percent cheaper than brand-name drugs. The full text of the senators' letter is available below: Dear Chairwoman Ramirez: We are writing to request the prompt release of the 2013 fiscal year staff report on agreements filed with the Federal Trade Commission under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, as well as a timely 2014 fiscal year staff report. Since 2004, the Federal Trade Commission has released annual reports summarizing agreements between brand and generic medical manufacturers, providing important information on the use of pay-for-delay provisions in patent dispute resolutions. Pay-for-delay agreements, monetary settlements made by brand name drug companies to generic drug companies in exchange for delaying the marketing of generic competitors, deny consumer access to more affordable alternatives to brand medications. The FTC estimated that these anticompetitive deals result in consumers and taxpayers paying an additional $3.5 billion in higher drug costs every year. It is critical to have access to these numbers in order to better understand the impact of pay-for-delay agreements. In July 2013, the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights held a hearing on pay-for-delay deals where Chairwoman Ramirez stated that this issue is a top priority for the agency. We applaud the efforts of the Federal Trade Commission to make this agreement information available, and seek your continued input on the matter. Having up-to-date numbers is an important part of developing legislation that would curb this anticompetitive behavior. It is also important to understand how the 2013 Supreme Court case FTC v. Actavis has impacted patent dispute resolution, as well as the steps the FTC has taken since the decision to challenge pay-for-delay settlements. While the decision made clear that these agreements are subject to antitrust scrutiny, you have stated that the litigation is both time and resource intensive, and lacks a bright line standard. Your numbers from the 2012 staff report showed a dramatic increase in the number of these pay-for-delay agreements; release of the 2013 and 2014 numbers will help Congress understand whether the Court's decision has altered the behavior of drug manufacturers, and what legislative reforms are currently needed. We look forward to working with you to protect consumers and encourage competitive behavior in the medication marketplace. Sincerely, -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/irs-use-civil-asset-forfeiture-laws-and-small-business-owners,IRS' Use of Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws and Small Business Owners,2014-10-27,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, today made the following comment on a New York Times story describing the IRS' use of civil asset forfeiture laws to seize the assets of small business owners without suspicion of a crime. A senior member and former chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over the IRS, Grassley is a long-time proponent of IRS improvements, having served on the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS and co-authoring the first-ever Taxpayer Bill of Rights and its sequel. When I hear about legitimate business owners' having their money seized without judicial review, it reminds me of the taxpayer abuses that led Congress to create taxpayer bill of rights laws and the IRS restructuring commission. The IRS plays a role in fighting money laundering and other criminal activity, but it has to treat business owners fairly. If the pendulum has swung too far in favor of the government and against fairness for innocent people, then it's time to reform civil asset forfeiture laws and procedures. I plan to look into the government's use of civil forfeiture laws, including the IRS' use, and develop potential reforms where necessary. The New York Times story is available here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-highlights-congressional-foster-youth-internship-qualified-applicants,Grassley Highlights Congressional Foster Youth Internship for Qualified Applicants,2014-10-24,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today noted qualified applicants are eligible to apply for a special internship in the nation's capital for young people who spent time in foster care. The non-profit Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute sponsors its Foster Youth Internship to place interns in congressional offices for the summer to work on child welfare policy. The purpose of this internship is to inform congressional policy debates about foster care and adoption policy and come up with specific solutions, Grassley said. I can say from experience that the internship works as intended since my office has had interns through this program, including one this year. Having interns with recent foster care expertise is valuable to the policy discussion and helpful to the cause going forward, as the interns learn about policy-making firsthand. I hope qualified Iowans will be among the applicants in the coming year. Grassley has hosted an intern from the program on several occasions. Most recently, his office benefited from the internship of Amnoni Myers, a former foster youth who developed a proposal to promote resilience in foster youth through trauma-informed training for caregivers. Her proposal, along with other proposals from her fellow interns, is available here. The dates for the 2015 Foster Youth Internship Program are May 26 to July 30. All application materials must be received by Friday, Jan. 9, 2015. Details are available here. Grassley is co-chairman and founder of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth. The caucus provides a voice for foster youth in shaping the policies that affect their quality of life. The caucus has a special focus on older youth who need continued support as they age out of the system. Among other activities, it sponsors a speakers' series to bring the best ideas from the field to policymakers in Washington, D.C. Grassley formed the caucus after working on major adoption and foster care policy, including the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act of 2008. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-comments-terrorist-being-tried-us-and-alleged-criminals-being-released,Grassley Comments on Terrorist Being Tried in the U.S. and Alleged Criminals Being Released into Local Communities,2014-10-23,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today made the following statement after the media reported that the Obama administration had released perpetrators of serious crimes from immigration facilities prior to removal proceedings. Media reports also claim that the administration is bringing to the United States a terrorist caught on the battlefields of Afghanistan and will have him tried in the federal court system. Press reports today have indicated two serious breaches of trust with the Obama administration. Earlier today, it was reported that the Obama administration at best misled Congress, and at worst lied, when it told Congress that immigration detainees it had freed from jail last year were low risk offenders with no serious criminal records. According to media reports, documents show that alleged kidnappers and perpetrators of such heinous crimes such as sexual assault and even homicide were released into communities in the United States. If the report is accurate, the administration has a lot of explaining to do, including why they haven't answered my letter from last summer asking for the same information. In addition, we're just learning that the Obama administration plans to bring a foreign terrorist, who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, to the United States to face criminal charges in federal court. Terrorists taken from the battlefield should be tried in the military commission system that was created for that very purpose, not a civilian court. There's a reason that even Russia won't take this terrorist back. Now, to give him the full set of rights that an American citizen is afforded when accused of a crime is a slap in the face to the men and women fighting abroad to keep us safe. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-wyden-optimistic-future-whistleblowers-fbi,"Grassley, Wyden Optimistic for Future Whistleblowers at FBI",2014-10-22,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Wyden today expressed optimism that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) whistleblowers may receive better protection under new guidelines outlined in a proposal to President Barack Obama. In August, Grassley and Wyden asked the President to release a 14-month overdue report on Protecting Whistleblowers with Access to Classified Information. The President had requested on Oct. 10, 2012, that the Attorney General deliver a report to him within 180 days assessing the effectiveness of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regulations for protecting whistleblowers as well as ensuring enforcement of those regulations and describing any needed improvements. Nobody's got on rose-colored glasses that the culture for whistleblowers at the FBI will change anytime soon, but many of the items outlined in the FBI's analysis are promising. I'm not a fan of all of the recommendations, but it would at least be a step forward if some of them are actually implemented and carried out. That said, in an agency with so much focus on the chain of command, it makes no sense for the FBI to be the only agency in the federal government not to protect disclosures of waste, fraud, and abuse to immediate supervisors, Grassley said. They have been a long time in coming, but many of the Justice Department proposals to improve protections and due process for whistleblowers at the FBI would be significant improvements, Wyden said What's important now is to make sure the Department follows through and really makes those changes. The report makes several proposals that would bring FBI whistleblowers more in-line with the rest of the government, such as equalizing a whistleblower's access to witnesses with the agency's access, awarding compensatory damages for retaliation, and publishing decisions on internal whistleblower appeals as well as the annual Justice Department reports on FBI whistleblowing. The report proposes expanding the categories of officials to whom a protected disclosure can be made, but only to the top two levels of management in each office instead of to a whistleblower's immediate supervisor. Limiting protected disclosures to only a handful of officials per office would still be more restrictive than any other agency in the federal government, including other law enforcement and intelligence community agencies. A copy of the letter and the report from the Justice Department can be found here. A copy of the letter from Grassley and Wyden requesting the report can be found here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-issa-seek-agency-explanation-federal-workers-long-term-paid-leave,"Grassley, Issa Seek Agency Explanation of Federal Workers on Long-term Paid Leave",2014-10-21,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa today asked the federal agencies featured in a critical government audit to account for the hundreds of federal employees on paid leave for a year or more. Each agency handles administrative leave on its own terms in the absence of clear guidance that should apply to everyone, Grassley said. The result is employees' getting paid to stay home, sometimes for more than a year, while management looks the other way. This is detrimental to taxpayers and good government. The agencies should account for each case of paid leave, especially those lasting more than a year. The explanations will help Congress arrive at solutions to stop abusively long leave. Given the GAO's report showing the incredible amount of money being spent on leave, Congress must know how it is possible that agencies' current processes result in gross overuse of paid administrative leave, wasting taxpayer funds, Issa said. The GAO reported that the VA continued to pay nearly 6,000 workers for one to six months, with no obligation on these employees to work. The taxpayers have the right to know why their money was spent on paid administrative leave instead of caring for our nation's veterans. Grassley and Issa wrote to 17 agencies and the inspector general for one agency featured in a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), issued this week at their request, along with Sen. Tom Coburn. The report documented paid leave for what appears to be the first time, finding that over a three-year period, data covering about 60 percent of all civilian federal employees found that more than 57,000 employees were on paid administrative leave for more than a month, costing $700 million in salary alone, excluding benefits. About 4,000 of the employees were off the job for three months to a year and 263 employees for one to three years. The most common reason cited for periods of extended administrative leave to GAO was personnel matters such as investigations into misconduct and pending administrative actions. The Grassley-Issa letter to each agency is the same except for the State Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Department of Veterans Affairs received a special question since it had more employees on extended leave than any other agency on a per employee basis. And rather than write to the State Department directly, Grassley and Issa wrote to the agency inspector general and asked for an inquiry into why the State Department doesn't provide the data to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) like the other agencies in the report and asked the inspector general to gather the data directly from the State Department since GAO couldn't get the information through OPM. The agency answers, along with the GAO report, will help inform what kind of legislation might be needed to limit administrative leave and hold agencies accountable for the decisions agencies have made to keep employees on leave for more than a year. Grassley is working with Sen. Jon Tester on potential legislation that would force agencies to make a decision on whether an employee is a danger to fellow employees and must be removed from the workplace or whether that person can be reassigned while his case is resolved. The goal is to make sure federal employees are working for taxpayers and not lingering on paid leave at taxpayer expense, Grassley said. Grassley is ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. Issa is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Grassley and Issa wrote to the Department of Health and Human Services; the Social Security Administration; the Treasury Department; the Department of Veterans Affairs; the Small Business Administration; the Agency for International Development; the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of the Interior; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of Energy; the Department of Defense; the Department of Commerce; the Department of Agriculture; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Office of Personnel Management; the Department of Transportation; and the Department of Homeland Security. The Grassley-Issa letter to the State Department inspector general is available here. The Grassley-Issa letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs is available here. The remaining letters to each agency are the same with the exception of the number of employees on paid administrative leave for one year or more, as reported by the GAO. One of the letters is available here. The GAO report is available here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-joins-bipartisan-group-calling-irs-address-tax-refund-fraud,Grassley Joins Bipartisan Group Calling on IRS to Address Tax Refund Fraud,2014-10-21,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is among a bipartisan group of 15 senators calling on the IRS to do a better job of preventing tax refund fraud using stolen identities. This is a chronic problem, Grassley said. The IRS should make fixing it a high priority. Identity theft is devastating for victims and when it comes through the IRS, it undermines the integrity of the tax system. Grassley is former chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, with exclusive Senate jurisdiction over the IRS. The full text of the senators' letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen follows here. October 20, 2014 The Honorable John A. Koskinen Commissioner Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20224 Dear Commissioner Koskinen: We are writing to request information regarding the IRS's efforts to prevent identity theft-related refund fraud. There has been a substantial increase in this kind of fraud in recent years with $5.2 billion being lost to fraudulent tax returns in 2013, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO characterized this growing problem as a persistent, evolving threat to honest taxpayers and tax administration in its latest report on the subject. We understand that the IRS may not be able to stop all refund fraud, but a lot more can be done within the IRS's current authority to reduce the risk of fraud and improve taxpayer services. We would like an update from you on what you have done to date with respect to the following: Accelerating the verification of tax return information. By law, the IRS has 45 days after a return is due to issue a refund without interest, yet refunds are typically issued just 9.6 days after a return is filed, according to the GAO. Providing victims of tax-related identity theft with a single point of contact, as recommended by the National Taxpayer Advocate for several years. According to the Taxpayer Advocate, without a single person responsible for transferring cases from one function to another, cases can become stuck or lost in the process. Allowing taxpayers to turn off electronic filing, as the Taxpayer Advocate recommended to the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth as long ago as 2011. More than 80 percent of tax-related identity theft occurs through electronically filed tax returns. Shouldn't taxpayers have the option to disable any electronic filing of their tax return? Allowing any taxpayer to request an identity theft PIN, regardless of whether or not they have been a confirmed victim of identity theft. We understand that the IRS has launched a pilot program to allow anyone in states with high fraud rates to request an identity theft PIN. We would appreciate an update on your efforts, if any, to convert this pilot program into a nationwide program. In addition to the need for improving IRS's existing safeguards and services, we are concerned that the IRS has yet to devise a comprehensive plan to address the problem, if given additional resources. With billions of dollars at stake, we believe that finding a solution to the problem of identity theft-related refund fraud should be a top priority for the IRS. Therefore, we respectfully request responses to the following questions: 1. With respect to detecting, deterring, and criminalizing taxpayer identity theft, please explain how you currently prioritize resources and describe how you intend to allocate resources to this problem in the future. Please also explain what additional statutory authority, if any, the IRS needs to seriously address the problem. 2. For each of the 2012, 2013, and 2014 calendar years, how many taxpayers filed an affidavit alleging identity theft or refund fraud? If possible, please also identify, in dollar terms, how much of the fraud identified through the affidavits still resulted in money being sent to fraudsters. 3. What are the total costs associated with undertaking each investigation into tax-related identity theft? To date, what percentage of the cases resulted in funds being recovered? 4. Does the IRS plan to fully assess the costs and benefits of accelerating information matching, whether it be moving up Form W-2 deadlines or delaying the filing season, as recommended by GAO? If so, when? If not, why not? 5. Do you disagree with any of the GAO's recommendations, as cited in their September report titled Additional Actions Could Help IRS Combat the Large, Evolving Threat of Refund Fraud? If so, please explain. 6. What further action, if any, does the IRS intend to take to combat this problem prior to the next tax filing season? Please provide a timely response to these questions. It is essential to stem the tide of this crime before another tax season passes by and billions more taxpayer dollars are stolen. Sincerely, Roger Wicker Bill Nelson Chuck Grassley Amy Klobuchar Kelly Ayotte Richard Blumenthal Pat Roberts Jack Reed Mark Kirk Kirsten Gillibrand Thad Cochran Ben Cardin Mike Enzi Chuck Schumer Johnny Isakson -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-comments-world-trade-organization-latest-ruling-country-origin-labeling,Grassley Comments on World Trade Organization Latest Ruling on Country of Origin Labeling,2014-10-20,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa made the following comment after a World Trade Organization (WTO) compliance panel determined that the revised rule released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) violates rules under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). COOL was included in the 2002 farm bill, but was delayed for several years before finally being implemented in March 2009. In 2011, a WTO compliance panel found that some aspects of COOL discriminated against foreign livestock, specifically from Mexico and Canada. In May 2013, USDA released an updated COOL rule reflecting the initial WTO ruling, which was again challenged be Mexico and Canada, and is what was most recently found to violate WTO rules. I'm a supporter of Country of Origin Labeling. People, now more than ever, want to know where their food comes from. We know where our T-shirts come from. We should know where our meat comes from. After two negative findings from the WTO, with the second WTO ruling saying that the revised rule from the U.S. Department of Agriculture was actually worse than the original rule, it's likely time for Congress to go back to the drawing board. Country of Origin Labeling needs to be written and implemented clear of any trade distorting principles. As a member of the world trading community, we have an obligation to be trade compliant, even if we disagree with the rulings. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-expresses-alarm-thousands-federal-workers-paid-leave-months,Grassley Expresses Alarm at Thousands of Federal Workers on Paid Leave for Months,2014-10-20,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today expressed alarm at the findings of a new report, issued at his request, documenting that tens of thousands of federal employees were on paid leave for at least one month and several hundred employees for nine months to three years, over a recent three-year period. These employees should be working for the taxpayers, not getting paid to stay home, Grassley said. Paid leave is an excuse for managers not to manage and put off a decision on what to do with employees accused of misconduct or who blow the whistle or dispute a personnel action. The mentality seems to be out of sight, out of mind, and that's not the way to run the government or act responsibly with tax dollars. Grassley commented on a report he sought from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), which found that over a three-year period, data covering about 60 percent of all civilian federal employees found that more than 57,000 employees were on paid administrative leave for more than a month, costing $700 million in salary alone, excluding benefits. About 4,000 of the employees were off the job for three months to a year and 263 employees for one to three years. The most common reason cited for periods of extended administrative leave to GAO was personnel matters such as investigations into misconduct and pending administrative actions. Grassley said the practice of paid leave has been little-documented until now. He sought the study because of numerous instances of paid leave that came to light through his oversight and investigative work. Sometimes the leave is used to retaliate against a whistleblowing employee, and other times it's used to distance an agency from an employee accused of misconduct while an investigation drags on, Grassley said. Separate from the GAO report, examples of paid leave that came across Grassley's radar include: --Multiple employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were on paid leave for extended periods during the Fast and Furious inquiry, including one senior manager who went to work for JPMorgan Chase in the Philippines while still drawing a federal paycheck from the taxpayers. --Inspector General Paul Brachfeld at the National Archives and Records Administration was put on paid leave against his will for nearly two years before the agency finally proposed to remove him and he chose to retire. --The former Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Charles Edwards, who resigned from the inspector general job after a Senate report accused him of yielding to political pressure on the Secret Service prostitution probe, is currently on paid administrative leave and has been for about five months. --Lois Lerner was allowed to take paid administrative leave for about four months before retiring from the IRS after pleading the Fifth Amendment in the IRS targeting scandal. Paid administrative leave is actually not authorized by any law, Grassley said. It's been allowed over the years as part of agency discretion,' and this report shows it's out of control. Agencies need to be held accountable and explain why this much salary is being wasted when this kind of extended leave is not authorized by law. The Office of Personnel Management should be enforcing limits on this kind of unauthorized leave. Abusively long paid leave is corrosive to good government. Grassley is planning follow-up actions, such as letters of inquiry to the agencies included in the report, and considering bipartisan legislation to limit paid leave. The GAO report is available here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/senators-press-president-stop-issuing-visas-west-african-countries,Senators Press President to Stop Issuing Visas in West African Countries,2014-10-17,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans are asking President Barack Obama to immediately cease issuing visas to persons of Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, and to consider expanding this ban to other countries that may not have standards in place to properly screen travelers entering the United States. In a letter to President Obama, Judiciary Committee members, led by Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, along with senators Orrin Hatch, Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn, wrote, the Ebola epidemic is a national security issue, and a threat to global security. And, we couldn't agree more with the American people that a travel ban must be put in place to protect our homeland and reduce any spread of the virus. More than 6,000 visas were issued between March 1, 2014, and September 27, 2014 to people in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea. In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, two-thirds of those polled backed restrictions on individuals traveling to the United States from countries with an Ebola virus outbreak. Here is a copy of the text of the letter to the President. A copy of the signed letter can be found here. October 17, 2014 President Barack H. Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear President Obama: As members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has oversight over immigration and visa policies, we write to express our grave concerns about the seemingly inflexible position you have taken in issuing a travel ban or heightened entry requirements on individuals who may been infected with the Ebola virus. On September 16 of this year, you spoke at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, saying, Now, here's the hard truth: In West Africa, Ebola is now an epidemic of the likes that we have not seen before. It's spiraling out of control. It is getting worse. It's spreading faster and exponentially. Today, thousands of people in West Africa are infected. That number could rapidly grow to tens of thousands. And if the outbreak is not stopped now, we could be looking at hundreds of thousands of people infected, with profound political and economic and security implications for all of us. So this is an epidemic that is not just a threat to regional security -- it's a potential threat to global security if these countries break down, if their economies break down, if people panic. That has profound effects on all of us, even if we are not directly contracting the disease. We couldn't agree more that an Ebola epidemic is a national security issue, and a threat to global security. And, we couldn't agree more with the American people that a travel ban must be put in place to protect our homeland and reduce any spread of the virus. According to officials at the State Department, between March 1, 2014, and September 27, 2014, a total of 6, 398 visas were issued to nationals of the following countries; 3,135 for Liberians, 1,472 for Sierra Leoneans, and 1,791 for Guineans. Meanwhile, according to International SOS, dozens of countries including many in Africa have instituted travel and entry restrictions. We urge you to immediately cease issuing visas to persons of Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, and to consider expanding this ban to other countries that may not have standards in place to properly screen travelers entering the United States. We also urge you to more strongly use tools at your disposal to receive flight manifests ahead of time to screen and turn away passengers if they have traveled to or are coming from countries with an Ebola outbreak. At this point, you and your administration must consider all options to prevent the spread of the Ebola virus. Dismissing a travel ban or a moratorium on visa issuances sends a signal that you're not serious about containing the outbreak and preventing infections of individuals on U.S. soil. We implore you to immediately use your statutory authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants who are detrimental to the interests of the United States. Sincerely, -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-issa-press-answers-about-another-crime-gun-connected-fast-and-furious,"Grassley, Issa Press for Answers about Another Crime Gun Connected to Fast and Furious",2014-10-16,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senator Chuck Grassley and Congressman Darrell Issa are again pushing the U.S. Department of Justice to be forthcoming about yet another gun found at the scene of a shooting in Arizona and connected to the ill-advised gunwalking strategy known as Operation Fast and Furious. The shooting occurred at a Phoenix apartment complex and left two individuals wounded. Grassley and Issa learned of the gun from documents obtained through a request under Arizona's open records law by Judicial Watch. According to the non-profit's website, the organization promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government. Grassley and Issa were able to confirm through documents obtained during their investigation that the weapon found at the scene was purchased by Sean Christopher Steward, who has since been convicted for his role in Operation Fast and Furious and is serving 9 years in prison. Steward purchased the firearm while under surveillance by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The ATF agents watched Steward purchase the firearms, place them in another person's vehicle, and transfer them to a suspected stash house. Despite the continued surveillance, the ATF did nothing to stop the guns from being moved. The gun was one of approximately 200 firearms that Steward purchased in December 2009 with full knowledge of the ATF. In a letter to Deputy Attorney General James Cole, Grassley and Issa ask for additional information about this particular gun and other firearms associated with crimes that were allowed to be trafficked by the ATF during Operation Fast and Furious. Grassley and Issa have previously asked for similar information, and make clear that the continued lack of transparency by the Obama administration regarding Operation Fast and Furious creates mistrust from Congress and the American people. The refusal to respond to our standing requests for this information effectively hides the connection between crimes like this and Operation Fast and Furious. Unless the information becomes available some other way, the public would never know. This lack of transparency about the consequences of Fast and Furious undermines public confidence in law enforcement and gives the impression that the Department is still seeking to suppress information and limit its exposure to public scrutiny, Grassley and Issa wrote. Grassley and Issa led a congressional investigation into the actions of the Justice Department and the ATF that allowed gunwalking, guns purchased by known straw buyers who then often transferred the firearms to Mexican drug cartels. Operation Fast and Furious contributed to the death of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who died in December 2010 when a firearm from the operation was found at the murder scene. The House of Representatives has subpoenaed documents withheld by the Justice Department which were subsequently claimed by the White House to be under executive privilege. Most recently, a federal judge has ordered the Obama administration to produce a privilege log to explain why the documents are being withheld from Congress. A copy of the text of the letter is below. A copy of the signed letter is here. October 16, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION The Honorable James M. Cole Deputy Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Dear Deputy Attorney General Cole: On more than one occasion, we have written the Department to ask for information about firearms that have been recovered in connection with violent crimes and are associated with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF's) Operation Fast and Furious. The Department has failed to respond to our last three letters on this topic, sent on October 2, 2012, December 17, 2012, and July 12, 2013. Once again, we have learned of another crime gun connected to Fast and Furious. The Department did not provide any notice to the Congress or the public about this gun. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch under Arizona's public records law show that law enforcement officials recovered a Fast and Furious gun last summer in connection with a shooting that left two individuals wounded.[1] At 12:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 30, 2013, the Phoenix Police Department received reports of shots fired at an apartment complex. Responding officers arrived to find two wounded men, one inside an apartment and one outside.[2] The men had suffered multiple gunshot wounds, and the front windows and door of the apartment had several bullet holes.[3] Witnesses of the shooting reported that just after the shots were fired, a vehicle sped in reverse through a nearby parking lot and crashed backward into a fence at the apartment complex. Several individuals were then seen running in various directions from the complex.[4] Police discovered an assault rifle in the front passenger area of the vehicle.[5] Approximately three weeks later, Phoenix Police Department detectives and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations agents arrested four individuals on counts of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, shooting into an occupied structure, and burglary. The arrests were reportedly connected with a large-scale drug trafficking investigation.[6] Based on the serial number from the police report obtained by Judicial Watch[7] and documents obtained during our Fast and Furious investigation, we can confirm that the assault rifle recovered in the vehicle on July 30, 2013 was purchased by Sean Christopher Steward.[8] Steward pled guilty to firearms trafficking charges resulting from his involvement with Operation Fast and Furious.[9] A Department press release summarizes Steward's activity: During a six-month period from December 2009 through June 2010, Steward, using funds provided by the leader of the firearms trafficking organization, paid over $176,000 in cash to purchase approximately 289 firearms, including 260 AK-47 style firearms, 20 nine millimeter pistols, a .50 caliber rifle and other weapons of choice of the Mexican drug cartels.[10] Steward purchased this particular firearm on December 8, 2009, one of 40 that he purchased that day while under ATF surveillance.[11] According to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report of Operation Fast and Furious: On the morning of December 8, MacAllister went to FFL1 and was informed that a caller inquired about the store's inventory of AK-47 style rifles. The incoming telephone number was from Celis-Acosta's residence, which had already been identified by agents as a possible stash house. Shortly thereafter, Steward arrived to purchase the 20 AK-47 style rifles. A United Parcel Services truck delivered an additional 20 AK-47 style rifles while Steward was at the store and, according to the ATF report of this incident, Steward told FFL1 that he would return later in the day and purchase those firearms as well. Agents maintained surveillance of Steward after he left FFL1 and eventually observed him transfer boxes containing the firearms from his vehicle to another. Agents also conducted surveillance of Steward when he returned to FFL1 accompanied by two other individuals to purchase the additional 20 AK-47 style rifles. The firearms were placed in the bed of a truck not Steward's vehicle and the three individuals left FFL1. At ATF's request, Phoenix police officers conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle in order to identify its occupants, one of whom was Celis-Acosta. The officers asked the occupants about the firearms that were visible in the back of the vehicle. Steward told the officers that he purchased the firearms and that they belonged to him. The officers did not seize the firearms or issue a traffic citation. Surveillance was continued after this stop, and agents eventually observed the firearms being transferred into Celis-Acosta's residence. Under circumstances that we describe later, 8 of the 40 firearms purchased by Steward on December 8 were seized by police officers in Douglas, Arizona (adjacent to the Mexican border) later that same day. ATF reviewed records on December 9 from the Arizona Department of Economic security that showed Steward had a reported income totaling $4479 for the first quarter of 2009.[12] ATF officials entered the 40 firearms Steward purchased on December 8, 2009 into ATF's Suspect Gun Database on December 9, 2009.[13] As our July 31, 2012 joint staff report recounted, a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) wiretap in early December 2009 also intercepted telephone communications in which Steward made arrangements to obtain firearms for DEA's target.[14] DEA passed this information off to ATF, but ATF utterly failed to act on it.[15] The OIG report concludes of Steward in this time period: Steward went on to purchase approximately 200 firearms in December, all but one from FFL1, for over $110,000. This total included 43 firearms purchased on a single day, December 14 (four of these firearms were recovered in Mexico just four days later). Steward purchased another 42 firearms in January 2010 for over $25,000. ATF did not take any measures to disrupt Steward's purchasing activity following the events on December 8 or at any other time until agents interviewed him at his residence in November 2010. Steward was not arrested until the Fast and Furious case was indicted on January 19, 2011.[16] Patrick Cunningham, then Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona,[17] apparently prepared talking points for then-U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke's[18] indictment press conference. These talking points highlighted Steward's December 8, 2009 purchase as typical of the firearms trafficking ring whose takedown ATF and the U.S. Attorney's office touted that day.[19] On July 18, 2012 Steward pled guilty for his role in Operation Fast and Furious, and was sentenced on November 26, 2012 to serve nine years in prison.[20] Steward's attorney at the time said he planned to appeal his client's sentence.[21] According to the Phoenix Police Department report, ATF traced the firearm on July 31, 2013, the day Phoenix police officers recovered it. Yet, over a full year has passed, and the Department has failed to notify the Committees. The refusal to respond to our standing requests for this information effectively hides the connection between crimes like this and Operation Fast and Furious. Unless the information becomes available some other way, the public would never know. This lack of transparency about the consequences of Fast and Furious undermines public confidence in law enforcement and gives the impression that the Department is still seeking to suppress information and limit its exposure to public scrutiny. Therefore, please respond to the following questions as soon as possible, but not later than October 30, 2014: 1) Was the firearm recovered on July 30, 2013 connected with any other crimes in Mexico or the U.S.? 2) As of the date of this letter, what is the total number of weapons associated with Fast and Furious that have been recovered in the U.S. and successfully traced? 3) As of the date of this letter, what is the total number of weapons associated with Fast and Furious that have been recovered in Mexico and successfully traced? 4) Of the U.S recoveries, how many were recovered in relation to an incident of a violent nature? Please describe in detail the date and circumstances of each recovery that has not previously been described in the Department's responses to our letters. 5) Of the Mexican recoveries, how many were recovered in relation to an incident of a violent nature? Please describe in detail the date and circumstances of each recovery that has not previously been described in the Department's responses to our letters. Should you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Tristan Leavitt of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff at (202) 224-5225 or Ashok Pinto of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform staff at (202) 225-5074. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. Sincerely, ___________________________ ___________________________ Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member Darrell Issa, Chairman Committee on the Judiciary Committee on Oversight and U.S. Senate Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives Attachments cc: The Honorable B. Todd Jones, Director Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice 1. See Fast and Furious Update: Judicial Watch Sues City of Phoenix for Police Department's ATF, DHS, DEA and FBI Records about 2013 Gang-Style Assault, JudicialWatch.org (Oct. 9, 2014), http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/fast-furious-upda.... 2. Breann Bierman, PD: 2 shot at east Phoenix apartment complex, KPHO.com (Jul. 30, 2013), available at http://www.kpho.com/story/22964928/2-shot-at-east-phoenix-apartment-complex. 3. Phil Benson, Suspects in AZ narcotics probe tied to multiple shooting, KPHO.com (Aug. 22, 2013), available at http://www.kpho.com/story/23232855/suspects-in-az-narcotics-probe-tied-t.... 4. Id. 5. Jennifer Thomas, 4 detained in Phoenix drug operation implicated in double shooting, AZfamily.com (Aug. 22, 2013), available at http://www.azfamily.com/news/4-detained-in-Phoenix-narcotics-operation-i.... 6. Id. 7. Phoenix Police Department Report #2013-01344558 7 (Aug. 3, 2013), at 1 [Attachment 1]. 8. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Suspect Gun Summary (Dec. 9, 2009) [Attachment 2]. 9. Press release, Summary of Major U.S. Export Enforcement, Economic Espionage, Trade Secret and Embargo-Related Criminal Cases, Department of Justice (Feb. 2013), available at http://test.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/documents/OngoingExportCaseFactS.... 10. Id. (emphasis added). 11. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Suspect Gun Summary (Dec. 9, 2009) [Attachment 2]. 12. A Review of ATF's Operation Fast and Furious and Related Matters, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of the Inspector Gen., Sept. 2012, at 116-117. 13. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Suspect Gun Summary (Dec. 9, 2009) [Attachment 2]. 14. H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform and S. Comm. on the Judiciary Joint Staff Report, Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation (Part I of III), 112th Congress (July 31, 2012), Appendix I, at 113. 15. For a recounting of this, see also H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform and S. Comm. on the Judiciary Joint Staff Report, Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation (Part I of III), 112th Congress (July 31, 2012), at 34-36. 16. A Review of ATF's Operation Fast and Furious and Related Matters, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of the Inspector Gen., Sept. 2012, at 117-118. 17. Cunningham resigned on January 30, 2012. He asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege before the House Oversight Committee on January 19, 2012. 18. Burke resigned on August 31, 2011. 19. E-mail from Patrick Cunningham to Dennis Burke, Jan. 24, 2011 [HOGR USAO 003098]. 20. Id. 21. Brian Skoloff, 2 men sentenced in Fast and Furious gun case, Associated Press (Nov. 26, 2012), available at http://www.azfamily.com/news/2-men-sentenced-in-Fast-and-Furious-gun-cas.... -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/cedar-falls-named-2014-%E2%80%9Cdigital-capital%E2%80%9D-iowa,Cedar Falls Named the 2014 Digital Capital of Iowa,2014-10-15,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTONSenator Grassley today applauded Cedar Falls for being named the 2014 Iowa eCity in recognition of the strength of the Cedar Falls online business community. The award was presented by Google today at Scratch Cupcakery, a small business in Cedar Falls. The award was determined by a review of local small businesses in cities in all 50 states by Google and the independent research firm Ipsos MORI. A variety of factors were analyzed including the likelihood of small businesses in each city to have a website, sell goods directly from their website, promote their business on a social network, use a blog, and whether they have a mobile-friendly site. The top scoring city in each state was designated as a Google eCity. I always take great pride in visiting small businesses throughout Iowa, which serve as an engine of economic prosperity. Small businesses create jobs, boost local economies, and provide a route for entrepreneurs to turn dreams into reality. Iowa is clearly embracing technology and the power of the Internet to grow its business community, and I congratulate Cedar Falls on helping to lead the charge, said Grassley. Grassley is an advocate for small businesses and has worked to advance federal policies that encourage growth and innovation in this important sector, including increasing the accessibility of a research and development tax credit for small business owners. He supports pro-growth tax reform such as simplifying and reducing tax rates for individuals and small businesses. Grassley has also been named a Guardian of Small Business by the National Federation of Independent Business. Two out of every three new jobs in America are created by small businesses. According to the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, small businesses make up 99.7 percent of all U.S. employer firms, and over half of the American workforce either owns or works for a small business. More information about the Google eCity Awards can be found here. Grassley's remarks today in Cedar Falls are below. Prepared Remarks of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Cedar Falls eCity Award Ceremony Scratch Cupcakery Wednesday, October 15, 2014 It's a pleasure to be with you all here at Scratch Cupcakery. I always take great pride in visiting small businesses throughout Iowa, which without a doubt serve as an engine of economic prosperity here in the Hawkeye State. But I'm especially honored to be here today as Google presents the 2014 e-City Award, recognizing Cedar Falls as the 2014 digital capital of Iowa. We're here to celebrate innovation entrepreneurship job creation and economic vitality. These things, unfortunately, aren't always encouraged by folks back in our Nation's capital, but are clearly the focus here in Iowa's digital capital. As we all know, the Internet has changed and will continue to change the way business is done. And not just for big business. The diversity of online applications and tools that have become available to businesses of all sizes allow entrepreneurs to reach far beyond Main Street and into the homes of customers from coast to coast and all over the world. But companies must make the decision to go beyond the brick-and-mortar to tap into the vibrant, competitive Internet marketplace in order to expand their business. Today's presentation of Google's e-City Award is a clear testament to how successful the business community in Cedar Falls has been in doing just that. It should come as no surprise that small businesses like Scratch Cupcakery are powerful and dynamic players in our Nation's economy. They create jobs, boost local economies, and provide a route for entrepreneurs to turn dreams into reality. Over half of the American workforce, in fact, either owns or works for a small business. Two out of every three new jobs in America are created by small businesses. And small businesses make up an incredible 99.7 % of all U.S. employer firms. The Internet, however, has truly unleashed the power and potential of small business. Last year, web-savvy small businesses created twice as many jobs as their offline competitors. And these businesses are truly bringing the storefront to the customer wherever that customer might be as 97% of all consumers are now shopping online to find local goods and services. Indeed, businesses are doing incredible things with technology here in Cedar Falls. But this should also come as no surprise. Iowans have embraced the digital frontier from the outset, and leading tech companies have responded by embracing and investing in what Iowa has to offer. Since 2007, Google has created jobs and invested over $1.5 billion in Iowa through the construction and continuing operation of its Council Bluffs data center. And in 2012, Google announced plans for the construction of a second data center in Iowa. Across the state, Internet startups to large tech firms are contributing nearly $11 billion to Iowa's GDP. Iowa is clearly embracing technology and the power of the Internet to grow its business community, and I'm proud to say that Cedar Falls is helping lead the charge. I'm thrilled to be here today as we recognize these accomplishments in the great state of Iowa. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-conyers-question-new-practice-denying-records-doj-inspector-general,"Grassley, Conyers Question New Practice Denying Records to DoJ Inspector General",2014-10-15,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senate and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Members Chuck Grassley and John Conyers are raising questions about a new practice by the Justice Department denying certain records to the department's Inspector General. During testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz, raised concerns about the FBI's refusal to provide certain documents, such as grand jury records and material witness warrants information. The Inspector General sought these records to determine whether the Department had violated the civil liberties and civil rights of individuals detained in national security investigations following September 11. In addition, the Inspector General also sought records as part of the review of Operation Fast and Furious. The Department's refusal to provide records immediately 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. Grassley and Conyers, who both voted for the original Inspector General Act, wrote in a letter to Acting Assistant Attorney General Karl Thompson, In order to carry out audits and investigations with the independence mandated by the (Inspector General) Act, Inspectors General must have unfettered access to records of the Departments they oversee. Grassley and Conyers acknowledged that an Inspector General inquiry can be prevented under the law in certain limited circumstances, but they emphasized in their letter that 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. The current practice is the opposite of the procedure dictated by the statute and unnecessarily delays the work of the Inspector General. More importantly, it circumvents the oversight authority with regard to such disputes, which Congress explicitly reserved for itself through the reporting requirement, Grassley and Conyers wrote. The text of the letter to Thompson is below. A signed copy of the letter can be found here. October 10, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Karl R. Thompson Acting Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Acting Assistant Attorney General Thompson: Thirty-six years ago, as members of the United States House of Representatives, the two of us voted for a bill that became the Inspector General Act of 1978. [1] We write to you today as the respective Ranking Members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to remind you of the purpose of this Act. The Inspector General Act established Offices of the Inspector General as: independent and objective units (1) to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of [government] establishments . . . (2) to provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies for activities designed (A) to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of, and (B) to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in, such programs and operations; and (3) to provide a means for keeping the head of the establishment and the Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action . . . . [2] In order to carry out audits and investigations with the independence mandated by the Act, Inspectors General must have unfettered access to records of the Departments they oversee. Accordingly, Section 6(a)(1) of the Act authorizes Inspectors General to access: all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, recommendations or other material available to the applicable establishment which relates to programs and operations with respect to which that Inspector General has responsibilities under this Act.[3] Section 6(a)(1) recognizes that Inspectors General simply cannot fulfill their statutorily-mandated duty to conduct oversight without such access. In certain limited circumstances, the law does allow the Attorney General to prohibit the Inspector General from carrying out or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena.[4] However, the Attorney General is required to provide written notice to the Inspector General of the reasons for doing so and to forward a copy of that written notice to Congress.[5] On November 19, 2013, and again on September 9, 2014, Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified that the Department is improperly impeding his access to records to which he is entitled under the Inspector General Act.[6] For example, in August 2010, when the Inspector General requested from the FBI files relating to grand jury records and material witness warrants, the FBI apparently denied the request on grounds that the grand jury secrecy rules override the Inspector General Actcontrary to the longstanding practice of the FBI and the contemporaneous practice of all other Department components to which this request had been made.[7] Similarly, the FBI reportedly denied the Inspector General's request for Title III wiretap information and for consumer credit information.[8] These records were withheld, yet the statutory procedure for written notice by the Attorney General and a report to Congress were not followed.[9] Eventually, the Inspector General obtained these records after the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General granted written permission.[10] Under the Act, however, the Attorney General is required to write to the Inspector General not when permitting access to records, butprecisely the oppositewhen preventing an OIG review.[11] In other words, the burden is placed on the Attorney General to explain in writing why the Inspector General's work should be impeded, not vice versa. Under the statute, the Attorney General's blessing on the IG's work is not required. That is the essence of independence. The current practice is the opposite of the procedure dictated by the statute and unnecessarily delays the work of the Inspector General.[12] More importantly, it circumvents the oversight authority with regard to such disputes, which Congress explicitly reserved for itself through the reporting requirement.[13] This is because inaction in response to a document request allows the Department's leadership to indefinitely deny or delay a review sought by the Inspector General under his statutory right of access without having to report to Congress. To clarify the Department's position on this issue, we understand that the Inspector General has requested that the Office of Legal Counsel issue an opinion on this matter. Accordingly, please issue this opinion promptly and provide a copy to both Judiciary Committees. Whatever opinion is issued, it should explain the following issues: 1. How is the Department's current practice of withholding records from the Inspector General without reporting that fact to Congress as required by Section 8E(a)(3) of the Inspector General Act justified? 2. If grand jury secrecy rules prohibit the disclosure of grand jury and material witness warrant information to the Inspector General, as the FBI's post-2010 interpretation asserts, then how can the Department reconcile that position with: a. The legality of the FBI's pre-2010 practice of routinely providing that information to the Inspector General; and b. The legality of providing those records to the Inspector General by the Justice Department's National Security Division, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Virginia. 3. If those previous instances of providing such material to the Inspector General were allegedly inappropriate, then how will the Department hold those responsible for the disclosures to the IG accountable? How could anyone be held accountable given that the IG Act explicitly authorizes the IG to access all records of the Department? If you have any questions, please contact Jay Lim of Ranking Member Grassley's staff at (202) 224-5225 or Aaron Hiller of Ranking Member Conyers' staff at (202) 225-6906. Thank you. Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley John Conyers Ranking Member Ranking Member U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary cc: Michael E. Horowitz Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Patrick J. Leahy Chairman Senate Committee on the Judiciary Washington, D.C. 20510 Bob Goodlatte Chairman House Committee on the Judiciary Washington, D.C. 20515 [1] Pub. L. 95452, Oct. 12, 1978, 92 Stat. 1101, as amended. 2 5 U.S.C. App. 2. 3 5 U.S.C. App. 6(a)(1). 4 5 U.S.C. App. 8E(a)(1), (2). 5 5 U.S.C. App. 8E(a)(3). 6 U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the Federal Workforce; Strengthening Government Oversight: Examining the Roles and Effectiveness of Oversight Positions Within the Federal Workforce, (November 19, 2013); http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/fpfw/hearings/strengthening-government-oversight-examining-the-roles-and-effectiveness-of-oversight-positions-within-the-federal-workforce; accessed March 5, 2014 [hereinafter Senate Homeland Security Hearing]; see also U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary: Access to Justice?: Does DOJ's Office of Inspector General Have Access to Information Needed to Conduct Proper Oversight? (September 9,2014); http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2014/9/hearing-access-to-justice-does-doj-s-office-of-inspector-general-have-access-to-information-needed-to-conduct-proper-oversight; accessed September 23, 2014 [hereinafter House Judiciary Hearing]. 7 See Attachment 1, Summary of the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General's Position Regarding Access to Documents and Materials Gathered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at 1-2, (explaining that the FBI reportedly provided routine access to these records from 2001 through 2009, before reversing its policy abruptly in 2010 and that All of the Department's components provided [the Inspector General] with full access to the material . . . with the notable exception of the FBI). 8See House Judiciary Hearing, supra note 7. 9See Senate Homeland Security Hearing, supra note 7. 10 Id. 11 5 U.S.C. App. 8E(a)(3). 12See Attachment 2, Statement of Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary concerning Access to Justice?: Does DOJ's Office of Inspector General Have Access to Information Needed to Conduct Proper Oversight?'(September 9, 2014) at 3. 13 5 U.S.C. App. 8E(a)(3). -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-reacts-white-house-delay-announcing-attorney-general-nominee,Grassley Reacts to White House Delay on Announcing Attorney General Nominee,2014-10-14,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement after a White House official acknowledged that the President would delay announcing a replacement for Attorney General Eric Holder until after the mid-term elections. According to the AP, Senate Democrats asked the President to delay the announcement to avoid controversy about whether they will support the nominee. The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has policy and oversight jurisdiction over the Justice Department, will consider the nominee. This timing shows, once again, that the President and Democrat Senate leaders are willing to play politics with important policy decisions. First it was immigration, and now Senate Democrats have asked the President to delay his announcement for Attorney General so they can avoid making clear to the voters of their states where they stand on what could be a controversial choice for Attorney General. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-hatch-coburn-press-gao-study-office-refugee-resettlement-efforts,"Grassley, Hatch, Coburn Press for GAO Study on the Office of Refugee Resettlement Efforts with Unaccompanied Minors",2014-10-10,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senators Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch and Tom Coburn are asking the Government Accountability Office to review policies of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the agency charged with caring for unaccompanied minors crossing the southern U.S. border. The senators questioned the ability of the Office of Refugee and Resettlement (ORR) to accommodate the recent influx and how the office has prepared to deal with another surge which the administration suggests could include up to 145,000 more unaccompanied minors. The increase in the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border has strained the capacity of ORR and its grantees to provide them with appropriate accommodations and has raised questions about ORR's management and oversight of the program, Grassley, Hatch and Coburn wrote. The senators also raised concerns about the sponsors to whom these unaccompanied minors are being released. In addition, concerns have been raised about children who are subsequently released to relatives or other sponsors throughout the country, including how sponsors are screened and monitored while they have custody of the children. The agency is responsible for the well-being of these children, yet there's question about whether custodians and grantees are adequately being overseen once a child leaves federal custody, the senators wrote. Grassley, Hatch and Coburn are Ranking Members of the Judiciary, Finance and Homeland Security and Government Affairs committees respectively. Below is a copy of the senators' request to the Government Accountability Office. A signed copy of the letter can be found here. October 9, 2014 The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro Comptroller General of the United States U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW Washington, DC 20548 Dear Comptroller General Dodaro: According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, more than 57,000 children under the age of 18 traveling without an adult were apprehended at the United States' southwest border between October 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014. This was nearly twice the number apprehended during the same 9-month period a year earlier, and since that time, thousands more have entered through the southern border. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 gave the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied minors without legal immigration status as they await immigration proceedings, and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 expanded HHS's role in this area. Within HHS, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is responsible for providing shelter and care to these children through cooperative agreements with non-profit organizations that ORR refers to as grantees. Grantees house children in a safe and appropriate environment pending either placement with sponsors in the U.S. or return to their home country. The increase in the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border has strained the capacity of ORR and its grantees to provide them with appropriate accommodations and has raised questions about ORR's management and oversight of the program. Taxpayer funding has been reprogrammed for the increase in unaccompanied alien minors, and additional funding for fiscal year 2015 has been requested by the administration. Yet, it's unclear if a strategy has been formulated to deal with the impending surge in the next fiscal year, which the administration suggests could include up to 145,000 more unaccompanied alien minors. In addition, concerns have been raised about children who are subsequently released to relatives or other sponsors throughout the country, including how sponsors are screened and monitored while they have custody of the children. The agency is responsible for the well-being of these children, yet there's question about whether custodians and grantees are adequately being overseen once a child leaves federal custody. In light of these issues, we would like to request that GAO examine the following questions: (1) What steps has ORR taken to increase its capacity to accommodate unaccompanied alien children, including developing systems to efficiently place children in approved facilities, identifying additional appropriate facilities, and expanding the use of foster care placements? (2) How is ORR screening potential sponsors for unaccompanied alien children and ensuring that the agreements sponsors enter into with ORR are complied with? (3) How is ORR overseeing and monitoring the placement and care of unaccompanied alien children? Does ORR collaborate with state childcare licensing entities to determine the safety and well-being of children served from their perspective? (4) To what extent is ORR collaborating and sharing information with other government entities, such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about the whereabouts and well being of children? (5) What practices and planning mechanisms does ORR have in place to deal with seasonal migration issues, including predicting spikes and patterns, and planning for emergency situations? Does ORR have written plans in place? What bed capacity does ORR feel is adequate to meet the needs of unaccompanied alien minors protected to migrate to the United States in 2015 and 2016? (6) How does ORR vet and then oversee grantees? What role does cost play in the analysis of applications by grantees? Would there be any advantages or cost savings if ORR used government contracts rather than grants to fund facilities for unaccompanied alien children? How much is ORR paying per unaccompanied alien children in both temporary and permanent shelter and has this amount changed in the past five years? Are grantees abiding by all government requirements? We believe these questions, along with a detailed breakdown of how ORR grantees are spending this money, would be beneficial. (7) What policies both written and unwritten does ORR or its grantees have in place that govern access to facilities that house or care for unaccompanied minors? Are there policies or practices in place that restrict access by the public or by members of Congress, and to what extent are they followed? (8) To what extent is ORR or its grantees collaborating with communities where children are being placed to ensure that communities can prepare for placements and children have access to appropriate supports? Thank you for your attention to this request. If you have any additional questions, please contact our staff: Kathy Nuebel (Senator Grassley), Becky Shipp (Senator Hatch) or Dan Lips (Senator Coburn). Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley Ranking Member Senate Judiciary Committee Orrin Hatch Ranking Member Senate Finance Committee Tom Coburn Ranking Member Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-presses-obama-planned-executive-action-immigration,Grassley Presses Obama on Planned Executive Action on Immigration,2014-10-10,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said today that President Barack Obama should consider the harmful effects on American workers before moving forward on executive action on immigration policy. In a letter to the President, Grassley reiterated that circumventing Congress on immigration policy would be an abuse of authority and would diminish the programs put in place to protect American workers and visa holders. Grassley added that the country needs A President who is a champion for policies that protect(s) American workers. Acting unilaterally for some businesses without providing protections for U.S. workers would be detrimental to the future of our workforce, Grassley wrote. I agree that changes are needed so that American businesses and U.S. workers are truly benefitting, and I am committed to legislation to ensure that we strike the appropriate balance. I would like to see your commitment to changing the law and working with Congress to make it happen. Grassley has been an outspoken opponent of the President's use of executive action on immigration. He previously said, Just because the legislative branch may not act on immigration reform this year doesn't mean the President can do an end run around Congress and act unilaterally by signing executive orders that do nothing to fix the underlying problem. Below is a copy of the text of Grassley's letter. A copy of the signed letter can be found here. October 9, 2014 President Barack Obama The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: You have made it clear that you plan to act unilaterally on immigration if Congress does not pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Recent reports indicate that you plan to act beyond expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. I do not support efforts to circumvent Congress on immigration policy, and urge you to consider the harmful effects of some proposals on American workers should you act. According to Politico, you and officials in your administration have met with leaders from various industries. In fact, your administration has met with leaders of business industries that rely on cheaper foreign labor in the United States. Many high tech companies have long argued that they need more skilled workers from abroad, when in reality many of these companies have laid off mass numbers of individuals. The tech sector layoffs alone have soared 68% for the first half of 2014. I realize that some advocates are urging your administration to increase the allocation of visas or green cards available to foreign nationals, potentially through a recapture mechanism of supposedly-unused visas that busts the congressionally mandated caps. Some have also proposed that the administration reward applicants who do not receive a visa to be issued an employment authorization document nonetheless. Some suggest that your administration is looking to provide work permits and lawful status to workers in the agricultural industry if they have been in the country or working in the agricultural industry for a certain period of time. Our employment-based immigration programs have served and could again serve a valuable purpose if used properly. However, they're being misused and abused. They're failing the American worker and not fulfilling the original purpose that Congress intended when it created them. Reforms are needed to put integrity back into the programs and to ensure that American workers and students are given every chance to fill vacant jobs in this country. We need a President who is a champion for policies that protects American workers, no matter what industry. All employers who bring in visa holders should be held accountable and prove that foreign workers are needed. All employers, not just some, should be required to make a good faith effort to recruit U.S. workers. All employers, not just some, should be required to attest that they did not or will not displace a U.S. worker when applying for a foreign worker. All employers, not just some, should be required to offer the job to a U.S. worker who is equally or better qualified. Anything short of this is failing the American people and those struggling to find jobs in today's economy. Acting unilaterally for some businesses without providing protections for U.S. workers would be detrimental to the future of our workforce. Circumventing congressionally mandated caps would be an abuse of authority, and would diminish the programs we have put in place to protect American workers and visa holders. I agree that changes are needed so that American businesses and U.S. workers are truly benefitting, and I am committed to legislation to ensure that we strike the appropriate balance. I would like to see your commitment to changing the law and working with Congress to make it happen. I would appreciate a response to my concerns, including any information on the policies you may take on these matters. If you plan to act without a vote of Congress and without the consent of the American people, I ask that you provide me with details on how you will make sure that Americans are protected, not left behind and ignored. Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley Ranking Member -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-receives-award-support-us-manufacturing,Grassley Receives Award for Support of U.S. Manufacturing,2014-10-09,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa was honored by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) for his support of issues that are critical to U.S. manufacturing jobs and investment. Grassley received NAM's Award for Manufacturing Legislative Excellence based on his votes in the 113th Congress on policies that enhance U.S. manufacturers' ability to succeed in the global economy. Manufacturing supports jobs and investments across Iowa and the rest of the United States, Grassley said. Congress needs to continue to implement policies that increase America's competitiveness in the global economy. NAM is the largest manufacturing association in the United States, representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. More information on the National Association of Manufacturers and the Manufacturing Legislative Excellence Award can be found here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/obama-administration-knew-white-house-involvement-secret-service-prostitution,Obama Administration Knew of White House Involvement in Secret Service Prostitution Scandal,2014-10-09,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Chuck Grassley released the following statement after the Washington Post reported that the White House was aware of evidence that its own personnel was entangled in the prostitution scandal involving several Secret Service agents in Colombia. Two years ago, Grassley questioned the White House extensively about the possibility of its own people being involved, but the Obama administration stonewalled his inquiries and refused to respond. Here is an April 20, 2012 letter to former Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan and Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Charles Edwards regarding other involvement, including White House staff, in the prostitution scandal in Colombia. Here is an April 23, 2012 letter from Grassley to White House Chief Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler about comments made by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney following questions Grassley had presented to Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan. Here is a follow-up letter from Sept. 20, 2012 to Ruemmler regarding the review conducted by the White House Counsel into allegations of the involvement of White House staff in the prostitution scandal. Here is a comment from Grassley about the news from the Washington Post. The assurances by the President's press secretary to the American people, Congress and the White House press corps about the prostitution scandal in Colombia are just part of a pattern of deception by this administration in an effort to save the White House from embarrassment. As I said at the time, a weekend investigation with a predetermined outcome doesn't meet the smell test. I had asked White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler to explain how she came to a definite conclusion so fast. It's now clear why the White House wouldn't be transparent and it took the press to uncover the truth. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/university-changes-position-moves-toward-securities-market-fairness,"University Changes Position, Moves Toward Securities Market Fairness",2014-10-08,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"In July 2013, Sen. Chuck Grassley asked the University of Michigan to account for an arrangement that allowed certain investors early access to a university-produced consumer confidence survey. The University of Michigan now will make the information more widely available upon release. Grassley made the following comment on this development. It was surprising that a public university was helping to give an edge to private clients over the average investor. It's good news that the university is changing that practice. For the securities markets to be fair, all levels of investors should receive market-moving information at the same time. The University of Michigan's announcement is available here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-seeks-details-bank%E2%80%99s-exclusive-agreement-federal-bureau-prisons,Grassley Seeks Details of Banks Exclusive Agreement With Federal Bureau of Prisons,2014-10-06,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is asking the federal government to account for an exclusive, long-time contract between Bank of America and the government to operate an expanding array of services for federal prison inmates. The government has competitive bidding for good reason. It's meant to get taxpayers the most bang for the buck, Grassley said. Anytime the government avoids competitive bidding, the practice needs exploration. Transparency will shed light on whether this arrangement is the best deal the government can get. Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, responded to an investigative journalism report from the Center for Public Integrity detailing the long-term agreement between Bank of America and the federal Treasury Department and the Bureau of Prisons to provide services for federal inmates. The services include electronic money transfers, phone technology and e-messaging. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the bank has received at least $76.3 million to manage the accounts since 2000, and its contract has been amended 22 times. It's unclear how much money the bank receives directly from the inmates in service fees. The Treasury Department has the authority to make such arrangements but it's unclear why the department uses an exclusive agreement instead of adopting the competitive bidding and transparency that apply to most federal contracts. It is concerning that these requirements do not apply to financial agency agreements such as the one with Bank of America, Grassley wrote to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew. The Treasury Department's decision to repeatedly amend rather than competitively bid this arrangement raises significant questions. Grassley's letter notes that prisons account for a significant portion of the Justice Department's discretionary budget, an amount that could grow. Grassley asked the Treasury Department for details of all payments by Treasury and the Justice Department to Bank of America or its subcontractors and for disclosure of all 22 amendments to the bank's initial contract over the years. Grassley's letter is available here. The Center for Public Integrity's reports are available here and here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z http://steveking.house.gov//media-center/press-releases/king-we-must-maintain-free-trade-between-the-states,King: We Must Maintain Free Trade Between the States,2014-10-03,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Steve King,K000362,steveking.house.gov,,,legacy,"Washington, D.C. – Congressman Steve King released the following statement in response to the California Egg Law lawsuit being rejected. This lawsuit was filed by the state of Missouri, along with five others, to eliminate a California law that prohibits the sale of eggs laid by hens held in cages they deem “too small.” Mr. King’s Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA), which the California lawsuit originates from, was attached to the House Farm Bill during markup in the House Agriculture Committee last year but was ultimately not accepted with the final Farm Bill Act of 2014. This act would prohibit any state from enacting laws that place restrictions on the means of production for agricultural goods that are sold within the state but are produced in other states. ""It is not surprising that the egg lawsuit was rejected by the 9th Circuit on a technicality. California's law regulating egg producers in other states is unconstitutional and anti-consumer,” said King. “It is trade protectionism for California egg producers who are handicapped by a foolish California policy that would regulate them out of business without protection from competition from Iowa and other states. Now we renew our efforts at additional litigation and legislation. If we fall short of fixing this problem, the result will be trade retaliation from other state legislatures. It's hard to push for free trade with foreign countries when we have to admit that we can't, at least for now, maintain free trade between the states. I think I can do without California wine longer than they can without our eggs.”",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-receives-recognition-respected-children%E2%80%99s-group,Grassley Receives Recognition from Respected Childrens Group,2014-10-01,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been named a Defender of Children by the First Focus Campaign for Children, a well-respected, national bipartisan advocacy group, for leadership on children's issues during the current congressional session. I appreciate the work of the First Focus Campaign for Children, Grassley said. This organization advocates for children in a high-profile way and behind the scenes, too. I'm grateful for the recognition. Bruce Lesley, president of the Campaign for Children, said, Lots of politicians talk about kids' issues, but few back it up. Champions and Defenders delivered for kids. Grassley is a long-time legislative sponsor and advocate for policies that promote adoption, better foster care services, and policies such as better child support enforcement. This week, the President signed into law legislation Grassley helped to write to strengthen sibling relationships in foster care and improve child support enforcement, among other pro-children policies. Grassley is the co-founder and co-chairman of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, with a special focus on helping the 26,000 youth who age out of the system every year with few resources at their disposal. More information on the Defender of Children Award is available here. More information on the Grassley co-authored provisions signed into law this week is available here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-secret-service-director-resignation,Grassley Statement on Secret Service Director Resignation,2014-10-01,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement regarding the resignation of United States Secret Service Director Julia Pierson. Over the last several years, we've seen the sterling reputation of the Secret Service shattered by missteps around the world and here at home. When Director Pierson stepped into this leadership role, we all knew things had to change. Unfortunately, the recent failures have undermined public confidence in the safety of the President and his family. This is unacceptable. Director Pierson's willingness to step aside should help restore focus on ensuring that the agency can fulfill its core mission again and regain the trust of the American people. No internal Department of Homeland Security review should prevent a full and independent investigation. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/more-fbi-whistleblowers-allege-retaliation-through-loss-effectiveness-orders,More FBI Whistleblowers Allege Retaliation through Loss of Effectiveness Orders,2014-10-01,2014,2014-10,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senator Chuck Grassley today said that 11 whistleblowers have now come forward telling their stories of FBI managers using Loss of Effectiveness orders to retaliate for speaking up about wrongdoing in the agency. The whistleblowers allege that the FBI uses Loss of Effectiveness orders to further abuses of discrimination and retaliation. Every time we bring this to the administration's attention, more whistleblowers come forward, Grassley said. These whistleblowers never have the opportunity to make their case. It's stereotypical treatment of whistleblowers for the executive branch. An FBI internal office reportedly agrees that this is a problem. According to whistleblowers, the FBI Office of Integrity and Compliance has drafted a report calling for reform and more transparency in the use of Loss of Effectiveness orders. The whistleblowers claim that Loss of Effectiveness orders allow managers to bypass the Office of Professional Responsibility and avoid basic due process. Unlike reviews through the Office of Professional Responsibility, a Loss of Effectiveness order does not provide the employee in question a right of appeal. In addition, employees who receive such an order do not necessarily even receive notice of the underlying allegations, and never have the opportunity to defend against those allegations. Grassley's latest letter to FBI Director James Comey outlines specific allegations by one whistleblower about how the FBI used a Loss of Effectiveness order to retaliate against him. The whistleblower, Richard Kiper, worked as Unit Chief of the Investigative Training Unit in the Training Division. Kiper claims that, at the behest of his supervisor, the FBI Inspection Division issued a Loss of Effectiveness Electronic Communication on fabricated grounds against Kiper in retaliation for Kiper's identification of inefficiencies in curriculum management and business process. Grassley first brought this matter to the attention of Comey in May during a regular oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley followed up on May 22, 2014, with the Justice Department Inspector General asking the office to investigate allegations of gender discrimination and retaliation within the FBI. In a July 18, 2014, letter Grassley pressed Comey for information about the Loss of Effectiveness orders. On September 26, 2014, the FBI finally answered with a letter dated Sept. 25, 2014. This response, which fails to answer many of Grassley's questions, was sent only after Grassley reminded the FBI of its outstanding response in his most recent letter. The text of Grassley's Sept. 25, 2014, letter to Comey can be found below. A signed copy can be found here. The July 18, 2014, letter to Comey can be found here. The May 22, 2014, letter to the Inspector General can be found here. September 26, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION The Honorable James B. Comey, Jr. Director Federal Bureau of Investigation 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20535 Dear Director Comey: At a hearing on May 21, 2014, I brought your attention to three female whistleblowers at the FBI who claimed that they suffered retaliation for reporting gender discrimination.1 In response, you pledged that there would be no further retaliation and that the FBI would fully cooperate with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in any review of these allegations.2 Following this hearing, five additional FBI whistleblowers contacted my office reporting gender discrimination and retaliation at the Bureau. All eight whistleblowers alleged that the FBI Inspection Division (INSD) uses Loss of Effectiveness orders (LOEs) to punish whistleblowers because LOEs allow retaliatory managers to circumvent the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and its due process protections. So, on July 17, 2014, I wrote you and requested written responses to four questions concerning the FBI's use of LOEs by August 15, 2014. To date, I have not received a response. Since that letter, three more FBI whistleblowers have reported to my staff that the FBI uses LOEs to punish whistleblowers and anyone whom managers dislike. One whistleblower, Richard Kiper, worked as Unit Chief of the Investigative Training Unit (ITU) in the Training Division (TD). Kiper claims that, at the behest of his supervisor, INSD issued an LOE Electronic Communication (EC) on fabricated grounds against Kiper in retaliation for Kiper's identification of inefficiencies in curriculum management and business process. Based on this EC, the Human Resources Division (HRD) demoted Kiper from a GS-15 to a GS-13 position. If these allegations are true, the FBI's treatment of whistleblowers stands in stark contrast with how it treats agents who have been found by OIG to have committed actual, disciplinable offenses. For example, on February 26, 2014, OIG provided the FBI with a Report of Investigation (ROI) on an FBI Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC) who: engaged in a protracted sexual relationship with a foreign national that he deliberately concealed from the FBI; disclosed sensitive FBI information to the foreign national; and misused FBI-issued iPads and an FBI-issued Blackberry device by allowing the foreign national to use them on numerous occasions, and by using the Blackberry device to exchange sexually explicit communications with the foreign national.3 According to the Inspector General, the SAC in question admitted to inappropriately disclosing sensitive information to the foreign national, as well as his deliberate failure to report his relationship with foreign national to the FBI.4 In addition, the Inspector General found that the SAC lied about permitting the foreign national to use the FBI-issued iPads and Blackberry; the SAC apparently did not admit the truth until a compelled polygraph examination.5 In sum: in addition to lacking candor and using poor judgment, the investigation found that the SAC's actions violated several FBI policies relating to personal conduct, ethics, security self-reporting requirements, and the provision of false or misleading information on employment and security documents.6 Despite this finding by OIG and a disciplinary action proposed by OPR, the FBI had not issued a final determination on this disciplinary action as of June 24, 2014 four months after receiving the ROI from the Inspector General.7 In fact, the only discipline that had been imposed on the SAC was the FBI's approval of the SAC's own request for a demotion to a GS-13 position the same discipline that the abovementioned Kiper received.8 Curiously, the FBI apparently did not issue a Loss of Effectiveness order against the SAC despite all indications of a loss of effectiveness: lack of candor; poor judgment; and violation of FBI policies regarding personal conduct, ethics, and security. Rather, via the OPR adjudicative process, the FBI apparently provided the SAC with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Meanwhile, in Kiper's case, the FBI denied these procedural safeguards by issuing an LOE. According to the attached LOE EC,9 INSD found Kiper ineffective on three grounds, each of which is contradicted by the FBI's own documents.10 First, INSD found Kiper ineffective because Kiper allegedly did not support TD's mission and reorganization [plan] set forth in an EC dated 8/25/2011, and documented in 319X-HQ-A1487713 Serial 26 . . . .11 According to INSD, this Reorganization EC purportedly designated the Curriculum Management Section (CMS) as the sole developer of curriculum.12 In the LOE EC, INSD claimed that the mission statement that Kiper drafted for ITU contravened that of CMS, because Kiper used phrases like develop an integrated curriculum, develop and plan lesson plans, and validate and improve ITU curriculum in defining ITU's goals.13 However, the Reorganization EC14 does not designate CMS as the sole developer of the curriculum. Instead, the Reorganization EC describes CMS as follows: The Curriculum Management Section (0220), with four units, will introduce a new service to the FBI, curriculum management. Educationally sound curricula are developed, evaluated, catalogued, archived, reviewed on a defined life cycle management schedule, and updated when appropriate. It will be headed by a newly selected Section Chief. The units in this Section support all phases of instructional systems design.15 Far from being the soleor even a primarylead in instructional systems design, CMS' mission is actually defined in a support capacity by the plain language of the Reorganization EC itself. Not surprisingly, the Reorganization EC goes on to direct at least six other, non-CMS units within TD to develop or design curriculum and training.16 Second, INSD found Kiper ineffective because Kiper allegedly failed to attach an addendum to the FY 2012 performance plans of each of his fourteen employees in ITU.17 The addendum was supposed to describe ITU's goals and objectives and was supposed to be attached to the Achieving Results Critical Element (CE) of each employee's performance plan.18 However, on February 26, 2013, two months before INSD's inspection of Kiper, Kiper sent the attached email19 to fourteen employees. Attached to this email was a Word-document entitled, Critical_Element_7_Addendum.20 In that email, Kiper explains to the fourteen employees that [t]his two page document contains the recently approved goals and objectives for ITU. Everyone needs to print, sign, and date the first page . . . so that it can added to your Performance Plan.21 Kiper also instructs a specific employee to coordinate the collection of the signed CE #7 Addenda for the Performance Plans.22 Third, INSD found Kiper ineffective because of his alleged attempt to mislead INSD into believing that Kiper had removed from his unit Special Agent (SA) Alan Vanderploeg whose performance as instructor was purportedly deficient.23 Specifically, according to INSD: UC Kiper stated he removed Instructor Alan Vanderploeg from teaching based on performance issues noted through peer reviews, evaluation results, and personal observations. UC Kiper verbally counseled Instructor Vanderploeg and provided suggestions for improvement. UC Kiper claimed Instructor Vanderploeg was rated ""Minimally Successful"" in instructing with an overall rating of ""Successful"" because ""he was a good collaborator. INSD review of SSA Vanderploeg's PAR revealed he did not receive a ""Minimally Successful"" rating in any element and had an overall rating of ""Excellent."" UC Kiper failed to document the instruction deficiency in the PAR. At the time of inspection, Instructor Vanderploeg was still assigned to ITU.24 However, on December 23, 2013, five months after Kiper's LOE EC was issued, INSD sent the attached email25 to SA Vanderploeg in which INSD admitted that they inaccurately identified [SA Vanderploeg] as the . . . instructor who was relieved of his instruction duties.26 Significantly, the INSD Inspector who wrote this exculpatory email, and the two INSD Inspectors who are carbon copied to the email, are the three INSD Inspectors who are listed on the first page of Kiper's May 10, 2013 LOE EC as having approved the contents of that EC.27 In light of this evidence clearly contradicting the assertions in the LOE in this case, there is serious cause for concern that the FBI's use of LOEs may be similarly arbitrary and capricious in other cases as well as a tool of whistleblower retaliation. Apparently, the FBI's Office of Integrity and Compliance (OIC) shares these concerns. According to whistleblowers, OIC will soon be issuing a report to Deputy Director Mark Giuliano that calls for transparency in the LOE process and recommends enterprise-level changes at INSD and HRD. In addition, the OIC report allegedly corroborates the assertions of eight whistleblowers who approached my staff after suffering retaliation through LOEs. In order to understand the role of LOEs and what safeguards, if any, exist to ensure their accuracy, please respond in writing to the following: 1. Will you review this OIC report and implement corrective actions as necessary? If not, why not? If so, please describe the corrective actions you will implement. In either case, please provide a copy of the OIC report to the Committee. 2. Will you meet with Kiper? As detailed above, the management deficiencies cited in his LOE EC appear to be contradicted by the FBI's own documents. 3. Has the FBI issued a final disciplinary action against the former-SAC referenced above? If yes, please describe the disciplinary action. If not, why not? Was an LOE ever considered? If not, why not? 4. What is the FBI's policy concerning the use of LOEs and LOE ECs? Does the FBI consider an LOE or an LOE EC to be an adverse action? If not, why not? Please provide documentation of the FBI's written policy on these matters. 5. Before an LOE EC is issued, does the FBI provide the subject employee basic due process, including notice and an opportunity to defend against the underlying allegations? If not, why not? After an LOE EC is issued, does the FBI provide that employee notice and an opportunity to appeal? If not, why not? 6. How many LOE ECs have been issued by INSD since January 1, 2009? a. How many of those ECs did not result in removal, suspension for more than 14 days, reductions in grade or pay, or a furlough of 30 days or less? b. How many of those ECs were issued against an employee following that employee's providing notice of a potential EEO claim? c. How many of those ECs were issued against an employee following that employee's alleging waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement? d. Were those ECs issued against females in higher proportions than their representation among all agents? Please provide documentation and data. 7. Will you meet with the whistleblowers referenced at the May 2014 hearing who allege continuing retaliation? Please provide your reply in writing no later than October 17, 2014. If you have any questions, please contact Jay Lim of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225. Thank you. Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley Ranking Member cc: Michael E. Horowitz Inspector General U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Patrick J. Leahy Chairman Senate Committee on the Judiciary Washington, D.C. 20510 [1] U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (May 21, 2014); http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/oversight-of-the-federal-bureau..., at 50:00-52:00; last accessed July 14, 2014. [2] Id. [3] See U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Summaries of Investigations Provided Pursuant to Request by Senators Grassley and Coburn, July 14, 2014, at 1-2 [Exhibit 1]. [4] Id. at 2. [5] Id. [6] Id. [7] Id. [8] Id. [9] See Training Division Inspection; Managerial Deficiencies for Unit Chief J. Richard Kiper, May 10, 2013 [Exhibit 2]. [10] See 319X-HQ-A1487713 Serial 26, August 25, 2011 [Exhibit 3] [Reorganization EC]; Critical element #7 Achieving Results ITU Goals and Objectives, February 26, 2013 [Exhibit 4]; and Correction regarding information in the Inspection EC, December 23, 2013 [Exhibit 5]. [11] Ex. 2 at 2. [12] Id. at 3. [13] Id. [14] See Exhibit 3. [15] Id. at 4. (emphasis added). [16] (1) Career Skills Development Unit; (2) International Training and Assistance Unit; (3) Physical Training Unit; (4) HUMINT Operations Training Unit; (5) Behavioral Science Unit; and (6) Targeting and Data Exploitation Training Unit [Ex. 3 at 7-13]. [17] Ex. 2 at 6. [18] Id. [19] Ex. 4. [20] Id. [21] Id. [22] Id. [23] Ex. 2 at 6-7. [24] Id. [25] Ex. 5. [26] Id. [27] Compare Ex. 2 at 1 with Ex. 5. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-comments-first-amendment-case-between-washington-times-and-department,Grassley Comments on First Amendment Case between Washington Times and Department of Homeland Security,2014-09-30,2014,2014-09,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement after the Department of Homeland Security settled a case with the Washington Times regarding documents of a Washington Times reporter that it had seized during execution of a search warrant to allegedly seize weapons and firearms belonging to the reporter's husband. Grassley wrote to the United States Coast Guard on March 27, 2014, and July 17, 2014, questioning the seizure of the reporter's documents. Those letters can be found here (March 27, 2014) and here (July 17, 2014), while the Coast Guard's responses can be found here (April 9, 2014) and here (August 1, 2014). This case seems to have had a positive outcome for the First Amendment, but the Department of Homeland Security's claims that it did not record the names of individual whistleblowers before returning the documents cannot be checked. Homeland Security should continue to ensure that there is no reprisal against any whistleblower. Further, it's outrageous that the Department of Homeland Security seized non-classified documents from any individual's custody without the authorization of a search warrant. Government agencies must be reminded in the future that unless documents are classified or prohibited from distribution by Congress, internal protections of information do not give an agency the authority to seize documents once they are outside of its control -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/whistleblower-protection-act-intended-shield-whistleblowers-agency-rules,Whistleblower Protection Act Intended to Shield Whistleblowers from Agency Rules Undermining the Law,2014-09-30,2014,2014-09,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON In an Amicus brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court, a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen argued that Congress intended for whistleblowers who are federal government employees to be protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act for making disclosures, unless explicitly prohibited by statute. Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Wyden and Representatives Darrell Issa, Elijah Cummings, Blake Farenthold and Stephen F. Lynch signed an amicus brief in MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security, which is expected to come before the Supreme Court in its upcoming term. The members of Congress explained in their amicus brief that the Whistleblower Protection Act supersedes any rules or regulations created by federal agencies. Only Congress does, and should, have the authority to determine the law when it comes to whistleblowing. Agencies have a clear conflict of interest. Giving them the power to define on their own what information is exempt from whistleblower protections would be like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. It would sacrifice one of the most important means of uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse, Grassley said. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether Federal agencies can unilaterally decide whether or not information disclosed by a whistleblower is protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act. My congressional colleagues and I strongly believe that unless Congress has specifically passed a law prohibiting the release of information, such as the statutory prohibition on the release of taxpayer information, the Whistleblower Protection Act truly means what it says: whistleblowers must be protected from retaliation if they disclose agency information for the benefit of the public. Agencies can't simply decide themselves what a whistleblower can legally disclose, Wyden said. Shining the spotlight on waste and mismanagement within government often depends on information brought to light by whistleblowers. Both houses of Congress have stood squarely behind whistleblower protections and oppose any effort to water down or interfere with laws intended to protect federal employees, Issa said. Congress' intent is clear. An agency cannot unilaterally take away a whistleblower's right to expose waste, fraud, and abuse. This bipartisan and bicameral brief shows how strongly Congress feels about this case and about protecting the integrity of the Whistleblower Protection Act, Cummings said. Whistleblowers are vital to Congress' constitutional oversight responsibility. Whistleblower laws were enacted to protect workers who do the right thing and report wrong-doing. The intent was that these statutes be broadly interpreted to protect workers and exceptions should only be enacted in law by Congress who does the investigating not agencies trying to cover their tracks, Farenthold said. Federal whistleblowers serve a critical oversight role by shining light on government waste, fraud, and abuse, said Lynch. It is therefore imperative that we make every effort to safeguard federal whistleblower protections that enable these dedicated public servants to help Congress address government wrongdoing, enhance public safety, and mitigate waste of American taxpayer dollars. The Supreme Court should affirm the Federal Circuit's ruling in MacLean by rightfully recognizing that it would contravene longstanding congressional intent and impede congressional oversight to allow agencies to unilaterally exempt certain disclosures from whistleblower protections. The amicus brief can be found here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-physician-payments-sunshine-act-data-set-launch,Grassley on the Physician Payments Sunshine Act Data Set to Launch,2014-09-29,2014,2014-09,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is the co-author of the bipartisan Physician Payments Sunshine Act. Enacted in 2010, the law requires drug and medical device companies to disclose the payments they make to doctors for speaking fees, research grants, trips, and other items of value. The information will be included in a publicly available database maintained by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The first public release of the data is set to occur on Tuesday, Sept. 30. Grassley made the following comment on the scheduled release. After years of data reporting, database mechanical work, and review of accuracy from doctors, the payment data will become public for the first time. My staff sought and received regular briefings from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on the launch. The roll-out won't be perfect. Some information will be withheld because CMS wanted to protect doctors from a small amount of reports that might be imprecise. But as the information is refined, the database will improve. It will become more complete as doctors, drug and device companies and CMS work to update and refine the information. From day one, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act database will be helpful in shining light on a part of medicine most people haven't had the time or opportunity to consider. Eventually, the database will become a valuable resource for all of us with a stake in our country's health care system. That includes individual consumers, insurance companies, and taxpayers who pay for Medicare and Medicaid. Transparency shouldn't stop doctors from receiving a payment if they want to. It should empower consumers to learn whether their doctors take payments and if so, why, and whether that matters to them. The patient who is prescribed a drug that might be beneficial yet risky will be able to learn whether the prescribing doctor accepted drug company money to study the risks. The information might not change the outcome, but it's something a patient might like to know. That's the idea behind the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/japan-resists-trade-liberalization-trans-pacific-partnership,Japan Resists Trade Liberalization in Trans-Pacific Partnership,2014-09-26,2014,2014-09,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa made the following comment on Japan's continued resistance to trade liberalization through the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Trans-Pacific Partnership has great potential to help create jobs in the United States and abroad. The purpose of the agreement is to promote trade liberalization in the Asia-Pacific region. Unfortunately, Japan seems to continue to believe it's fair to keep several agricultural products off the table. If Japan is allowed to keep high tariffs for these products untouched through these negotiations, it's going to send a strong message to the other countries involved that they also can protect products. Japan is an economically developed nation, not a developing country. The third-largest economy in the world can't make these protectionist moves without causing a ripple effect. If a final Trans-Pacific Partnership ever makes it to the Senate floor, I'd have a hard time voting for an agreement that lets the third-largest economy in the world keep high tariffs on agricultural products, specifically beef and pork. I urge Japanese leaders to consider the commitments they made when they joined the negotiations. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-resignation-attorney-general-eric-holder,Grassley Statement on Resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder,2014-09-25,2014,2014-09,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement after press reports indicated that Attorney General Eric Holder will resign when a successor is confirmed. I voted to confirm Mr. Holder to be Attorney General, and I had high hopes for his leadership. But, Attorney General Holder's tenure has been strained by his lack of respect for Congress, the American taxpayer, and the laws on the books. The Attorney General has committed to staying until a successor has been confirmed, so the Senate can exercise its constitutional responsibility to vet a nominee thoroughly. The country faces difficult challenges that the chief law enforcement officer must meet head on. It will take someone who has the right qualifications and experience to fill the job. Rather than rush a nominee through the Senate in a lame duck session, I hope the President will now take his time to nominate a qualified individual who can start fresh relationships with Congress so that we can solve the problems facing our country. I wish Attorney General Holder well in the future. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/treasurys-tax-inversions-move-might-take-pressure-tax-reform-grassley-says,"Treasury's tax inversions move might take the pressure off for tax reform, Grassley says",2014-09-23,2014,2014-09,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, as chairman of the Finance Committee in 2004, was successful in enacting reforms that prevented companies from simply setting up a filing cabinet and a mailbox overseas to escape millions of dollars of federal taxes. He made the following comment today on the Treasury Department's new attempt to curb the latest iteration of tax inversions. The Treasury secretary first said he didn't have the authority to do something on inversions. Now he's found the authority. That's consistent with the President's approach to use his pen and phone instead of working with Congress. Unfortunately, that approach might give the President a short-term gain but it's bad for the country in the long term. The Obama Administration's limited action on inversions might take the pressure off for tax reform. Just about everybody agrees comprehensive tax reform is necessary to make U.S. companies more internationally competitive. It's important for the President to use his bully pulpit to work with Congress on tax reform and help build a consensus on the right approach, yet this President hasn't done it. That's too bad because tax reform is something Congress and the executive branch could accomplish instead of jumping from inversion crisis to crisis. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/efforts-help-end-human-trafficking-sexual-assault-move-forward,"Efforts to Help End Human Trafficking, Sexual Assault Move Forward",2014-09-19,2014,2014-09,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Legislation to help boost efforts for sexual assault victims and end human trafficking moved forward in the United States Senate this week, Senator Chuck Grassley said. Grassley, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over the legislation, supported both bills. These bills give a real lift to our efforts to help sexual assault victims and end human trafficking, Grassley said. These are horrible crimes that deserve attention. The Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act passed the Senate late last night after being passed by the House of Representatives in April. The bill will now be sent to the President to be signed into law. The legislation works to end the backlog of rape kits, provide DNA training for law enforcement and other officials who work on sexual assault cases, and distribute sexual assault forensic exam program grants. The House passed the Debbie Smith bill nearly six months ago, so to have it finally cleared by the Senate Majority, who had blocked it earlier, is helpful to victims of sexual assault everywhere, Grassley said. Grassley had also voted to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act in the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. In addition, legislation cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee that would create a new block grant program for victim-centered anti-human trafficking programs (paid for by a new $5,000 special assessment on those convicted of certain trafficking and sex crimes), increase restitution for human trafficking victims, make it easier to obtain wiretaps in human trafficking investigations, and enhance human trafficking reporting. This bill would give law enforcement a real helping hand in going after human traffickers right here in our country. It would also create a new avenue to assist victims and those who work to help end these heinous crimes, Grassley said. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-child-welfare-provisions-pass-congress-advance-president,"Grassley Child Welfare Provisions Pass Congress, Advance to President",2014-09-19,2014,2014-09,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has received final congressional approval for his bipartisan child welfare policy improvements including promoting sibling connections in foster care and strengthening child support enforcement. The provisions are part of legislation that is on its way to the President for his expected signature into law. Child welfare experts tell you, and common sense tells you, that children benefit when they're kept together and have strong relationships, Grassley said. This legislation removes barriers to federal law that prevent families of siblings from knowing when a child is placed in foster care or siblings from losing ties when parental rights are terminated. This will help maintain sibling relationships and in turn help the kids. The child support provisions help states recover money that family courts have determined is owed to custodial parents. We ought to do more to make sure money owed gets to the parents and children who need and deserve it. Child support enforcement helps make sure families are strong and independent. Last night, the U.S. Senate approved the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (H.R. 4980). The House of Representatives approved the legislation in July. The sibling provisions are based on the Sibling Connections Act introduced by Grassley earlier this year with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. The Sibling Connections Act provides for the parents of a child's siblings to be notified when the child enters foster care, allowing the adult guardians to try to maintain the sibling relationships. It follows the example of at least five states, including Iowa, that have passed legislation or regulation that recognizes the parents of siblings as relatives for foster care placement. Also, the provisions correct the current situation in which siblings lose their status as siblings when their parents' rights are terminated. The loss of sibling status undermines the requirement of the landmark Fostering Connections law that siblings be placed together whenever possible. The child support enforcement measures are drawn from legislation from Grassley and Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey. Provisions from their bill that received final congressional approval would: --Require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to use federal and, if necessary, state child support enforcement methods to ensure compliance with any U.S. treaty obligations associated with any multilateral child support convention to which the United States is a party. --Require states, in order to receive federal funding, to implement amendments made by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. --Expand access to the Federal Parent Locator Service to assist states in locating noncustodial parents, putative fathers, and custodial parties to ensure compliance with their child support obligations. In addition to the Grassley-authored provisions, the broad children's welfare bill includes several priorities of strong interest to Grassley, including reauthorizing adoption incentives and significant improvements to protect youth from sex trafficking. Grassley is a cosponsor of the Senate version of the bill. Grassley is a long-time advocate for adoption and improving foster care, especially the challenges facing those who age out of the system. He is the co-founder and co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Caucus on Foster Youth. He has secured several key legislative improvements to promote adoption. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-cornyn-request-judiciary-committee-consideration-immigration-nominee,"Grassley, Cornyn Request Judiciary Committee Consideration of Immigration Nominee",2014-09-19,2014,2014-09,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley and Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member John Cornyn are asking for sequential referral of the nominee to lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Grassley and Cornyn made the request to Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy stressing the need for the committee of jurisdiction over immigration matters, the Judiciary Committee, to process the nomination as is consistent with past practice. The letter can be found here. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-questions-oversight-us-attorneys%E2%80%99-offices,Grassley Questions Oversight of U.S. Attorneys Offices,2014-09-19,2014,2014-09,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"WASHINGTON Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today is raising questions about the management and oversight of U.S. attorneys' offices across the country. Grassley said that disclosure of non-public investigations by the Justice Department Inspector General revealed concerns about the management of the Executive Office of United States Attorneys and the discipline administered to assistant United States attorneys who appear to have broken the law. Whether they work at Justice Department headquarters or one of the 94 U.S. attorneys' offices across the country, accountability for prosecutors is important because it fulfills a basic expectation from the general public that the government will be held to the same standards as everyone else. If anything, employees paid by the taxpayers should be held to a higher standard, Grassley said. In separate letters to Monty Wilkinson, Director of the Executive Office of United States Attorneys (EOUSA), and Gene Dodaro, the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office, Grassley outlined several examples of assistant U.S. attorneys who may have benefited from a double standard when it comes to accountability. In addition, Grassley wrote that it appeared that officials at Justice Department headquarters failed to adequately supervise U.S. attorneys' offices. In his letters, Grassley cites a case where one assistant U.S. attorney whose spouse was engaged in embezzlement made misleading and contradictory statement to the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the Inspector General. The assistant U.S. attorney's only punishment was apparently verbal admonishment. Grassley is asking Wilkinson about the resolution of specific cases outlined in his letter. Grassley is asking the Government Accountability Office to evaluate and report on general practices of the EOUSA, the Office of Professional Responsibility and the U.S. attorneys' offices and how misconduct is addressed. Here is a copy of the text of Grassley's letters. The signed copy to Wilkinson can be found here and the signed copy to Dodaro can be found here. September 17, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Monty Wilkinson Director Executive Office for United States Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 2242 Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Dear Mr. Wilkinson: A recent report of closed non-public investigations by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) raises serious concerns about the management of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) and the discipline meted out to Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSA) who appear to have broken the law. According to the OIG report, one AUSA whose spouse was engaged in embezzlement made misleading and contradictory statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the OIG. The statements pertained to how and when she learned of her spouse's criminal activities, the circumstances surrounding an alleged fraudulent transfer of property, and her husband's ownership in the property.1 According to the United States Code, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully make any materially false or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States.2 Yet the AUSA's only punishment was apparently a verbal admonishment.3 In a second case, an AUSA used his government computer to send official documents from matters occurring before a grand jury to his spouse, who was employed as a paralegal with a private law firm.4 As stated in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an attorney for the government must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury and a knowing violation of this rule is punishable as contempt of court.5 The OIG concluded that the AUSA violated these rules. However, since the AUSA retired from government service, the EOUSA was unable to impose any discipline.6 In a third case, an AUSA was recused from a federal investigation due to an existing personal relationship with the investigation's target. Nevertheless, she revealed information about the investigation and an associated Title III wiretap to her spouse, who subsequently disclosed that knowledge to the target of the Title III wiretap.7 Further, the AUSA initially lied to investigators before finally admitting that she might have said something to her spouse about the investigation.8 A Title III intercept is both costly and in many cases a last resort, used because no other options are viable. According to 18 USC 2511, a Title III intercept is used because normal investigative procedures have been attempted and have failed, or reasonably appear to be too dangerous or unlikely to succeed if attempted.9 According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the average cost of a Title III intercept in 2013 was $43,361.10 It is unclear how many federal statutes were violated by the AUSA in the course of this case, which potentially tainted an investigation at a significant cost to the taxpayer. Yet once again the AUSA retired from government service, apparently before the EOUSA even proposed any discipline.11 The OIG provided the Reports of Investigation on these three cases to your office on November 25, 2013, January 7, 2014, and March 26, 2014, respectively. The OIG noted that as of June 20, 2014, prosecution had been declined in all three cases.12 That is very disturbing. In the Fast and Furious Joint Congressional Staff Report prepared by staff for Chairman Issa and me, you were criticized for failing to believe it was [your] role to manage and supervise components of the Department, including . . . the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office.13 It is important that all components of the federal government be subject to meaningful oversight, including U.S. Attorney's offices. Should U.S. Attorneys or AUSAs violate federal statutes, they too should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. To do anything else creates the appearance of a double standard. The general public expects that AUSAs will at least be held to the same standard as everyone else, as U.S. Attorney's offices routinely prosecute other individuals for failure to abide by the law. If anything, employees of the United States government, especially employees of U.S. Attorneys' offices, should be held to a higher standard because of their positions of public trust. To further examine this issue, I have requested that the Government Accountability Office investigate the broader disciplinary issues in and oversight of U.S. Attorneys' offices. To this end, please answer the following questions: 1. What role does EOUSA play in the discipline of AUSAs for misconduct, as opposed to the U.S. Attorney in the relevant district? Case One Lack of Candor in Embezzlement Investigation 2. Which U.S. Attorney's office did this case involve? 3. Who authorized the declination of prosecution? 4. Who decided that the only course of action in this case be verbal admonishment and why? 5. How do the OIG's findings that the AUSA made misleading and contradictory statements to the FBI, U.S. Attorney's Office, and the OIG affect the AUSA's ability to prosecute future cases? 6. Was the state bar association notified of the AUSA's actions? If not, why not? Case Two Disclosure of Grand Jury Materials to Private Law Firm 7. Which U.S. Attorney's office did this case involve? 8. Who authorized the declination of prosecution? 9. Did the relevant U.S. Attorney's Office notify the magistrate and defense attorney of the disclosure of 6(e) grand jury information? If not, why not? Case Three Disclosure of Title III Investigation of Personal Relationship 10. Which U.S. Attorney's office did this case involve? 11. Who authorized the declination of prosecution? 12. Had the relevant U.S. Attorney's office or the EOUSA proposed any disciplinary measures before the AUSA retired? If so, what was the proposed discipline? 13. Were the relevant magistrate and law enforcement agency notified of this misconduct? If not, why not? 14. What was the ultimate disposition of the subject of this Title III? 15. What is the status of the federal investigation cited? 16. Was the state bar association notified of the AUSA's actions? If not, why not? Please provide your response by October 8, 2014. Should you have any questions, please contact Tristan Leavitt or Chris Lucas of my Committee staff at (202) 224-5225. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary 1 Letter from Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz to Ranking Member Charles E. Grassley and Ranking Member Tom Coburn, Jul. 14, 2014, at 6-7 [hereinafter OIG summaries].2 18 USC 1001(a)(2).3 OIG summaries at 7.4 Id. at 7.5 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(e)(2)(B) and Rule 6(e)(7).6 OIG summaries at 7.7 Id. at 9.8 Id. 9 18 USC 2511.10 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Wiretap Report 2013, available at ttp://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/WiretapReports/wiretap-report-2013.aspx (accessed September 5, 2014).11 OIG summaries at 9.12 Id.13 H. Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform and S. Comm. on the Judiciary Joint Staff Report,Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation (Part I of III), 112th Congress (July 31, 2012), at 10. September 17, 2014 Via Electronic Transmission The Honorable Gene Dodaro Comptroller General U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548 Dear Mr. Dodaro: As a result of attorney misconduct in the Department of Justice's (DOJ) failed prosecution of the late Senator Ted Stevens, in Fiscal Year 2013 Congress directed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review of, among other things: the policies and practices of DOJ in paying or reimbursing the attorneys['] fees and costs of departmental employees in actions relating to this case, and allegations of contempt of court or prosecutorial misconduct, including an accounting of funds paid from calendar years 1997 to 2012. The report shall also evaluate the Department's performance in disciplining prosecutors who are found to have engaged in prosecutorial misconduct or contempt of court.1 Whether they work at Justice Department headquarters or one of the 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAOs) around the country, accountability for prosecutors is important because it fulfills a basic expectation from the general public that the government will be held to the same standards as everyone else. If anything, employees of the United States government, especially prosecutors, should be held to a higher standard because of their positions of public trust. Attorneys for the government routinely prosecute other individuals for failure to abide by the law. If prosecutors violate federal statutes, they too should be similarly held accountable. Investigations of a DOJ employee's misconduct in the employee's role as an attorney are handled by the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), while misconduct that is not specific to an attorney's role is investigated by the DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG). Recently, the OIG sent me a report of its non-public investigations. Several of the cases in the report raised questions for me about whether federal prosecutors are subjected to a double standard when it comes to accountability. For example, one Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) whose spouse was engaged in embezzlement made misleading and contradictory statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the USAO, and the OIG. The statements pertained to how and when she learned of her spouse's criminal activities, the circumstances surrounding an alleged fraudulent transfer of property, and her husband's ownership in the property.2 According to the United States Code, it is illegal to knowingly and willfully make any materially false or fraudulent statement or representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States.3 Yet the AUSA's only punishment was apparently a verbal admonishment.4 In a second case, an AUSA used his government computer to send official documents from matters occurring before a grand jury to his spouse, who was employed as a paralegal with a private law firm.5 As stated in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an attorney for the government must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury and a knowing violation of this rule is punishable as contempt of court.6 The OIG concluded that the AUSA violated these rules. However, since the AUSA retired from government service, the OIG summary said that the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) was unable to impose any discipline. The OIG provided its report to both EOUSA as well as OPR to determine whether referral to the relevant state bar association would be appropriate, and EOUSA ultimately informed the OIG that the state bar association was notified.7 In a third case, an AUSA was recused from a federal investigation due to an existing personal relationship with the investigation's target. Nevertheless, she revealed information about the investigation and an associated Title III wiretap to her spouse, who subsequently disclosed that knowledge to the target of the Title III wiretap.8 Further, the AUSA initially lied to investigators before finally admitting that she might have said something to her spouse about the investigation.9 A Title III intercept is both costly and in many cases a last resort, used because no other options are viable. According to 18 USC 2511, a Title III intercept is used because normal investigative procedures have been attempted and have failed, or reasonably appear to be too dangerous or unlikely to succeed if attempted.10 According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the average cost of a Title III intercept in 2013 was $43,361.11 It is unclear how many federal statutes were violated by the AUSA in the course of this case, which potentially tainted an investigation at a significant cost to the taxpayer. Yet once again the AUSA retired from government service, apparently before the EOUSA even proposed any discipline.12 It is unclear whether OPR or the relevant state bar association was ever notified. These cases raise a larger issue. Not only did the case of Senator Stevens raise questions about prosecutorial misconduct at DOJ headquarters, each of the 94 USAOs around the country operate with a great deal of independence, and very little oversight. During my investigation into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives' Operation Fast and Furious, it was disturbing to learn that many DOJ officials believed that it was not the role of DOJ headquarters to supervise USAOs. On the contrary, all components of the federal government should be subject to meaningful oversight and accountability. That includes USAOs. Therefore, in an effort to gain a better understanding of how DOJ ensures accountability for prosecutors, I request that in the course of its ongoing work, GAO also evaluate and report on the following: 1) What role do OPR, EOUSA, and the relevant USAO play in the discipline of AUSAs for misconduct in an employee's role as an attorney? 2) What role do EOUSA and the relevant USAO play in the discipline of AUSAs for misconduct that is unrelated to an employee's role as an attorney? 3) How does a finding by the OIG of misconduct that is unrelated to an employee's role as an attorney affect an AUSA's ability to prosecute future cases, both as a matter of policy and as a practical matter? 4) If an AUSA is found by the OIG or OPR to have been engaged in misconduct, does EOUSA have policies regarding who authorizes prosecution or the declination of prosecution? What happens in actual practice? 5) Does EOUSA have policies on whether other relevant magistrate and law enforcement agencies should be notified of an AUSA's misconduct as determined by the OIG or OPR? If not, why not? If so, do USAOs actually follow this guidance in practice? 6) Does EOUSA have policies on whether state bar associations should be notified of an AUSA's misconduct as determined by the OIG or OPR? If not, why not? If so, do USAOs actually follow this guidance in practice? 7) What tools does DOJ use to evaluate the collective and individual performance of USAOs? 8) What oversight structures, if any, does DOJ have in place to oversee USAOs? To what extent are those oversight structures effective? If you have any questions about this request, please contact Tristan Leavitt of my staff at 202-224-5225. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Charles E. Grassley Ranking Member 1 Senate Committee on Appropriations, Report on the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations, United Stated Senate, 112th Congress, S. REP. NO. 112-158 (2012). 2Letter from Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz to Ranking Member Charles E. Grassley and Ranking Member Tom Coburn, Jul. 14, 2014, at 6-7 [hereinafter OIG summaries].3 18 USC 1001(a)(2).4 OIG summaries at 7.5 Id. at 7.6 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(e)(2)(B) and Rule 6(e)(7).7 OIG summaries at 7.8 Id. at 9.9 Id.10 18 USC 2511.11 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Wiretap Report 2013, available at ttp://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/WiretapReports/wiretap-report-2013.aspx (accessed September 5, 2014).12 OIG summaries at 9. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/judiciary-executive-business-meeting-bolden-bough-2nd-chance-act-runaway-and,"Judiciary Executive Business Meeting: Bolden, Bough, 2nd Chance Act, Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention",2014-09-18,2014,2014-09,Republican,House,IA,Charles Grassley,G000386,www.grassley.senate.gov,,,legacy,"Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Business Meeting I. Nominations Madeline Cox Arleo, to be a United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey Wendy Beetlestone, to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Victor Allen Bolden, to be a United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut Armando Omar Bonilla, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims Stephen R. Bough, to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri David J. Hale, to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky Mark A. Kearney, to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Gerald J. Pappert, to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Gregory N. Stivers, to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Kentucky II. Bills S.1690, The Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2013 S.2646, The Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act S.2520, The FOIA Improvement Act of 2014 H.R.1447, The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 Thursday, September 18, 2014 Mr. Chairman, We would like to hold over two bills that appear on the Committee agenda for the first time today. Those are S. 2520, the FOIA Improvement Act and H.R. 1447, the Death in Custody Reporting Act. On today's agenda we have a number of judicial nominations that are ripe for consideration. Before we vote, I'd like to speak on a couple of them. First, I'd like to make a few comments on Mr. Bolden's nomination to the Connecticut District Court. I'll vote no on Victor Bolden, and I'd like to explain why. At Mr. Bolden's hearing, I raised the issue of a law-review article the nominee wrote a number of years ago. The article described the nominee's judicial philosophy and the principles he argued define good judicial decision making. Among those principles, the nominee wrote that judges should tip the scales in favor of particular demographic groups and should focus on the social consequences of their decisions instead of strictly following the law. Now, I appreciate that the nominee wrote that article back in the 1990s and that he's done a lot of lawyering since then. Nonetheless, I remain troubled by some general tendencies I've seen in the nominee's legal work over the years that echo the themes he developed early in his career. Let me cite a few examples. In cases involving race-based school assignments, the nominee has advocated an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts. Mr. Bolden's amicus brief in the Supreme Court's Seattle School District case from 2007 is representative of his work in this area. Now, we all understand that Mr. Bolden was representing a client in each of those cases. But he has spoken passionately about racial classifications and preferences outside the courtroom too. So after reviewing his entire record I think I've got a good idea for where he stands on equal protection issues. Here's another recent example that concerns me. Mr. Bolden took a narrow and legally incorrect view of individual rights under the Second Amendment in an amicus brief he wrote in the Heller case. I'll cite a final aspect of the nominee's record that I find troubling. Last year, the nominee commented publicly about the Shelby County case. In his comments, the nominee said that the Supreme Court got the case wrong, and that Justice Ginsberg's dissent offered the right legal analysis. The nominee also expressed an overly expansive view of federal power in this regard and disagreed with what he characterized as an undue emphasis on state sovereignty by the Supreme Court. After reviewing the nominee's entire record, I've discerned a pattern of advocacy that leads me to believe that the nominee sees the federal judiciary as an instrument of social change, and not as what it should be: a neutral arbiter of justice. Undoubtedly, Mr. Bolden is a man of integrity and has served the people of New Haven honorably as their Corporation Counsel. Reluctantly, I'll vote no on Mr. Bolden. Another nominee we will be voting on today is Stephen Bough, who has been nominated to the Western District of Missouri. Now, anyone who takes even a brief look at Mr. Bough's record understands that he has chosen to define himself, first and foremost, as a political activist. I've always said, I don't believe we should disqualify someone simply because they've been engaged in politics. I've voted for countless nominees whose political beliefs are clearly quite different from my own. So, it's not a question of whether or not a nominee has been engaged politically. It's a question of how that individual has conducted himself. Does he have the temperament that we look for in a federal judge? Suppose a nominee has been extremely politically active. That's not a disqualifier. But has his political dialogue been so coarse so strident that we, as Senators, lack confidence that he can render judgment without regard to political considerations? At our nominations hearing last week, Senator Durbin observed and I'm paraphrasing here that often nominees come before the committee and urge Senators to ignore their records. But, in my colleague's view, and again I'm paraphrasing, the best evidence of the type of judge a nominee will be, is the lawyer they have been. I don't agree with Senator Durbin on a lot of issues, but I will say this: I agree that we need to examine the type of lawyer a nominee has been, and then make a judgment call about the type of judge that nominee will be. So, let me return to Mr. Bough's record. For several years, Mr. Bough blogged routinely about local and national politics. I've read his entries. I must tell my colleagues, there can be no debate that some of the things he's written are crude and inappropriate. And for that reason, I'm not comfortable reading them out loud. I know at least some of you have reviewed those comments. For those of you who have read his entries, like me, I'm sure you found them to be intemperate, crude, and disrespectful. Again, I don't take issue with a nominee who's been engaged politically. We've confirmed and I've supported a lot of very fine lawyers, who happen to have been politically engaged. But Mr. Bough is not simply a lawyer who happens to be engaged politically. His record is defined by his political activity, not his legal work. Stated differently, reviewing his record, I don't see a lawyer who happens to be involved in politics. I see a political operative, who happens to be a lawyer. In fact, in a moment of candor on his blog, Mr. Bough himself recognized that serving in the judiciary wasn't a role he was well-suited for. In response to a critical commenter, Mr. Bough wrote: You and the 3 other folks who read this blog will agree I shouldn't be a judge. Truer words have never been spoken. Putting aside the most embarrassing entries on Mr. Bough's blog, I'm also concerned by the complaints he lodged with the Federal Election Commission. Mr. Bough filed two complaints with the Federal Election Commission, against the same candidate. He filed his first complaint in 2008. The FEC dismissed this complaint with a summary opinion. But in 2012, Mr. Bough redoubled his efforts. He filed a 93-page complaint against the same candidate. This time, the FEC responded with a lengthy and meticulous opinion. The FEC's response is striking for its strong language dismissing each of Mr. Bough's allegations. The opinion concluded Mr. Bough's complaint had no basis for its allegations. The FEC also criticized Mr. Bough's allegations as vague and speculative and unsupported. When you read the FEC's opinion, it's clear these allegations were frivolous. So, at the end of the day, Mr. Bough was utilizing this government entity for the purpose of harassing a political opponent. That's the type of behavior we'd expect from a political operative. Not a lifetime appointee to our federal judiciary. So, to sum up, let me say this. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was fond of referring to the federal judiciary as the crown jewel of our system of government because of its independence from political considerations. Not only must Senators have confidence in a nominee's impartiality, but future litigants as well must have confidence in a judge's objectivity. With respect to Mr. Bough, I believe his record indicates that he won't be able to set aside his strongly held political beliefs. He also has proven he lacks the temperament required of a federal judge. And, I fear that future litigants won't have confidence that Mr. Bough can decide cases impartially. I'll be opposing Mr. Bough's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We ask for a roll call vote on Bough and Bolden. I believe we can do the remaining nominees by voice vote. Turning to the Second Chance Reauthorization Act, I want to start by saying that I do appreciate some of the changes that have been made in this bill over time, such as eliminating provisions concerning earned time credits and good time credits. And I know that some of the numbers have come down a bit. But I will oppose reporting this bill. The first reason is that the authorization levels remain too high. This program is currently being funded at $65 million. But the bill would authorize spending at levels more than 50 percent higher than that: $100 million. When Second Chance was originally created, the authorization was for two years only. Repeat offending is a problem and it was worth a two-year experiment to see whether progress could be made. The reality is that we just don't know whether the Second Chance Act is accomplishing its goals. The National Institutes of Justice is conducting research into the program's effectiveness. The final reports from NIJ are years away. I hope they are conducted with sound methods. But this bill would authorize $500 million over five years on a program we don't know works. That doesn't make sense. It brings to mind President Reagan's famous comment, The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program. We need to get past the all too common view in Washington that if the federal government spends money on a goal that it necessarily means that the goal is being accomplished. It is outcomes that matter, not inputs. And we do not know outcomes of this program. We also need to be sure that taxpayer money is used wisely and honestly, as well as productively. One of the amendments I will offer goes to this issue. I know that supporters genuinely believe that the program is working, and they even say that it has reduced recidivism. Maybe some research does show that some reentry programs work. But nothing shows that these particular programs work. We are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. Believing that the program works is the biggest faith-based part of it. Let me give you an example. Supporters are citing various states who have reduced recidivism rates, and they contend this is due to Second Chance. Let's leave aside the states that they have chosen to highlight and chosen to omit. Some of the states that have been highlighted are said to have reduced recidivism by 19 percent, some 6 percent and some 10 percent. How can there be such variation if these programs are so effective? These figures are suspect on their face. Some of the states define recidivism to mean only reincarceration while others include reconvictions that do not result in jail sentences. Obviously, a new conviction reflects the commission of a new crime, regardless of the offender's sentence. Inflated recidivism reduction rates may simply reflect that judges are not sending as many repeat criminals to jail. Tell the victim that Second Chance was effective where the state categorizes the crime that led to her victimization as a Second Chance recidivism success story. That is how government breeds cynicism. My second amendment addresses this issue. We should not spend hundreds of millions of additional taxpayer dollars on a program that we have no reason to know works. We also have the reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act on the agenda as well. Obviously, young people who are homeless are among the most vulnerable in our society. In many cases they are victims of trafficking or have fled other tragic circumstances. They are worthy of our support and assistance. But it is important that we make sure that the taxpayer funds authorized for these programs are used efficiently and effectively, and are not subject to waste, fraud and abuse. In 2008, this committee reauthorized these programs at the same funding level in this bill, on a voice vote. When we did so, we required that the Department of Health and Human Services issue a rule within a year that would govern the performance standards of grant recipients. That rule wasn't issued in 2009, when the law required it to be in place. It wasn't issued in 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013. A proposed rule wasn't published until earlier this year, and a final rule isn't expected to be in place until 2015. This is simply unacceptable. Since the passage of Obamacare in 2010, the Department of Health of Human Services has made the time to issue 81 proposed rules and 112 final rules related to that law. But it hasn't had the time for one rule that would set performance standards for organizations who receive hard-earned tax payer dollars. So I plan to offer an amendment that would put in place annual audits and other accountability measures at the Department of Health and Human Services relating to these grants. If it's agreed to, I plan to vote the bill out of committee today reluctantly. But I ask the Chairman to join with me to discover why the rule required by our 2008 reauthorization is five years overdue. And I have other concerns about some of the changes that this bill makes to these programs. Unless I'm confident that the Department will faithfully implement the new accountability provisions, and my other concerns are addressed, I won't support moving forward on the floor with the bill. -30-",1,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z,2026-03-30T12:14:52Z