[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 31, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6095-S6097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           NASA Authorization

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, we passed the NASA 
authorization bill out of the Commerce Committee yesterday. Sadly, I 
must report that it is the first time the NASA bill has been a partisan 
vote that I can ever remember. NASA--this little program that is such a 
can-do agency--has always been not only bipartisan, but it has been 
nonpartisan.
  There was actually no real disagreement with the content, the 
policies set in the NASA authorization bill. It is very similar to what 
the Appropriations Committee indeed has already passed out of the full 
Appropriations Committee. But, sadly, there is an insistence that this 
artificial budget limitation, which is like a meat cleaver cutting 
across the board--some would describe it as a guillotine coming down 
across programs willy-nilly--cutting programs such as the National 
Institutes of Health and all of the medical research that is going on 
and, indeed, a broadly embraced bipartisan program such as our space 
program.
  So the vote was 13 to 12--specifically along partisan lines--not 
because of the content, not because of the policy, but because of the 
funding level. In the bill that passed, we had the NASA authorization 
for appropriations at the level provided in the budget resolution that 
passed the Senate--$18.1 billion. That is about level funding for NASA, 
this little agency that is trying to do so much. However, our 
Republican friends wanted it cut to $16.8 billion, and some spoke 
favorably toward the House bill that has it cut back to $16.6 billion.
  If we cut $1.5 billion out of this little agency, it can't do what it 
is attempting to do to get us ready to go to Mars in the decade of the 
2030s and in the meantime to get our human-rated rockets in the 
commercial sector so we can send our astronauts to and from the 
international space station where six human beings are doing research 
right now. The multiplicity of science projects, the planetary 
exploration that is going on, and the aeronautics research that is 
going on--all of that is within this little agency.
  My hope is that as we get further along in the fiscal year, we are 
going to hit some grand design, some grand bargain, some great 
bipartisan agreement on funding that maybe will include tax reform but 
that will then allow us to operate with common sense instead of some 
artificial budgetary mechanism called sequester.
  Yesterday it was stated that indeed the NASA authorization bill 
violated the Budget Control Act of 2011. I tried to explain in the 
committee that it did not. As a matter of fact, the Budget Control Act 
is an overall level on compressing appropriations. It has no effect on 
the authorization for appropriations. That is where we set policy, and 
then we leave it up to the Appropriations Committee to set the actual 
funding.

  So I am happy to say that we made the step that we needed to make. We 
have the bill proceeding now out of the committee. I am sad to say that 
for the first time ever this broadly based, wildly popular, not only 
bipartisan but nonpartisan program, called America's space program, has 
come out of the committee with a partisan vote.
  Let's turn this around, and let's not have this excessive 
partisanship and this ideological rigidity that is gripping this 
country's politics. Let's not have that infect our Nation's space 
program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 15 minutes on the Todd nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to ask my 
colleagues to vote against cloture on the nomination, and here are my 
reasons for asking that of my colleagues.
  Earlier this week I outlined my general objection to the Senate 
proceeding to a final vote on the confirmation of Mr. B. Todd Jones, 
the nominee to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms. As I explained, the Senate should not be voting on a 
nomination when there is an open investigation.
  In this case the Office of Special Counsel is investigating Mr. Jones 
in a complaint that he retaliated against a whistleblower in the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota.
  Because of the way this nomination was handled in committee, I was 
able to conduct only a limited investigation. But what I found should 
give all of us pause--real pause--on this nomination because it gives 
me concern about Mr. Jones's leadership ability and raises doubts about 
whether he should be promoted to head this office.
  According to both the whistleblowing assistant U.S. attorney and the 
former head of the FBI in Minnesota, relationships with Federal, State, 
and local authorities deteriorated significantly under Jones's 
leadership. The problems primarily involved agencies that worked drug 
cases and violent crime.
  Mr. Jones addressed the issue in a meeting with criminal prosecutors 
in his office. According to the whistleblower, following that meeting, 
Mr. Jones came to the whistleblower's office and asked for his candid 
opinion of what could be done about the problem.
  The whistleblower gave Jones his candid opinion, and a few weeks 
later he put it in writing what he had told Jones during this meeting. 
His e-mail to Jones included allegations of mismanagement by one of his 
supervisors, the head of the Narcotics and Violent Crime Unit.
  The very next day, that supervisor called that whistleblower on the 
carpet and, according to the whistleblower, interrogated him about his 
work in search of a pretext to discipline him.
  Failing to find a substantive reason to discipline him, his 
supervisors then suspended him for 5 days for his demeanor during the 
meeting. Now, based on what we know at this point, it certainly looks 
like retaliation, and it helps explain why the Office of Special 
Counsel believed these allegations merited further investigation. 
Remember, only about 10 percent, 1 in 10 of these types of allegations 
is selected for investigation by the Special Counsel.
  To be fair, we do not know the full story. The Office of Special 
Counsel has not finished its investigation into the matter. But this 
fact remains: There is an open investigation of serious allegations of 
whistleblower retaliation, and because that investigation remains open, 
this body--the Senate of the United States--should have the full 
information about the nominee, and it

[[Page S6096]]

does not have it, and it should have it before voting on that 
nomination.
  These are serious charges. The public interest demands resolution of 
these issues. Members of the Senate are entitled to know if these 
charges have merit. Members of the Senate are entitled to the complete 
record.
  So everyone should ask, Why then are we voting on a nomination on 
which there is an open investigation and on a nominee where we do not 
have the complete information? To me, the answer is obvious: We should 
not be conducting this vote until this matter is resolved.
  I would like to highlight a few comments contained in a recent letter 
from the National Whistleblowers Center. That organization, since 1988, 
has been supporting whistleblowers.
  The center opposes a vote on this nomination ``until there is a 
complete and thorough investigation into his treatment of employee-
whistleblowers.'' This is exactly what I am requesting today: a ``no'' 
vote to give the time to complete this investigation.
  The National Whistleblowers Center notes that the Office of Special 
Counsel's investigation remains open. Again, I agree with their 
contention; namely, ``that office should be able to complete its 
inquiry in due course, without any pressure triggered by the nomination 
process.''
  I am surprised to hear rumblings about my opposition to this nominee 
based on this particular matter. It seems some are asking the question, 
What does this whistleblower retaliation have to do with the ATF? Why 
is this investigation even relevant?
  I sincerely hope my colleagues have not forgotten about the disaster 
of Operation Fast and Furious--an absolute failure by the former 
leadership of the ATF. In that case, the former ATF leadership and the 
ex-U.S. attorney retaliated against the brave whistleblowers who 
alerted authorities about this botched operation of Fast and Furious. A 
U.S. attorney in Arizona had to resign because of his retaliatory 
conduct against whistleblowers.

  Based in part on that history, I am extremely hesitant to place at 
the head of that agency this individual who has been accused of 
retaliation against a whistleblower and, as Acting Director of ATF, Mr. 
Jones sends a very chilling message to all the employees of that 
organization.
  Mr. Jones was caught on video, so we know exactly what he said. He 
was caught on video making very disturbing statements specifically 
targeted at discouraging ATF agents from blowing the whistle.
  Let me remind you, whistleblowers are patriotic Americans who think 
the law ought to be followed and the government do what the law says.
  He told these whistleblowers:

       [I]f you don't respect the chain of command, if you don't 
     find the appropriate way to raise your concerns to your 
     leadership, there will be consequences.

  Wouldn't that scare anybody who worked in that organization?
  Of course, blowing the whistle requires going outside the chain of 
command to report wrongdoing. If you do not get the benefit of people 
listening to you within, then it is your constitutional responsibility 
to go outside and report violation of law. So telling employees there 
will be consequences for going outside the chain of command is the same 
thing as telling them there will be consequences for whistleblowing.
  This video was seen by several employees in the U.S. Attorney's 
Office of Minnesota, also headed by Mr. Jones in his other capacity. 
These employees wrote to the Office of Special Counsel referencing the 
video, stating that they had ``felt for the employees of ATF as we too 
have had the same types of statements made to us.''
  They then said Mr. Jones ``ha[d] instituted a climate of fear, ha[d] 
pushed employees out of the office, dismissed employees wrongly, 
violated the hiring practices of the EEOC, and put in place an 
Orwellian style of management that continues to polarize the office.''
  As I mentioned, the former head of the FBI in Minnesota also wrote to 
the committee about Mr. Jones. In that letter, he wrote:

       As a retired FBI senior executive, I am one of the few 
     voices able to publicly express our complete discontent with 
     Mr. Jones' ineffective leadership and poor service provided 
     to the federal law enforcement community without fear of 
     retaliation or retribution from him.

  Meaning from Mr. Jones.
  Those are chilling words, as I have said twice. They corroborate what 
members of his staff have said and are consistent with the 
whistleblower retaliation complaint.
  The former FBI Special Agent in Charge continued with this report:

       [Mr. Jones] was, and still remains, a significant 
     impediment for federal law enforcement to effectively protect 
     the citizens of Minnesota. . . .

  As the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on December 31, 2012:

       Criminal prosecutions have dropped dramatically at the U.S. 
     Attorney's office in Minneapolis under the leadership of B. 
     Todd Jones, rankling some in law enforcement.

  But then the article continued:

       Several federal and state law enforcement sources said that 
     the U.S. Attorney's office refused to prosecute drug and 
     violent crime cases that would have been snapped up by Jones' 
     predecessors. None agreed to be quoted, saying they must 
     maintain a relationship with the U.S. Attorney's Office.

  My investigation revealed that during Mr. Jones's tenure as U.S. 
attorney, several people allege that relationships with other Federal 
law enforcement agencies deteriorated also. Now, why would we want to 
confirm as Director of the ATF someone who has a poor track record 
working with Federal law enforcement?
  Since the majority insisted on moving forward without waiting for the 
Office of Special Counsel to complete its work, on July 2 I wrote to 
the FBI, the DEA, and ICE seeking information about the deteriorating 
relationship between Federal law enforcement and the U.S. Attorney's 
Office under Mr. Jones's leadership. I have received no replies to that 
request.
  In addition to his record as U.S. attorney for the District of 
Minnesota, what about Mr. Jones's record as Acting Director of the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? It is no secret that there 
have been a number of controversial events that Mr. Jones has been 
involved in to one degree or another. I have sent numerous letters to 
the department requesting information from and about Mr. Jones. In many 
cases, I have received no response or an incomplete response. Here is a 
sampling:
  On Fast and Furious--on October 12, 2011, the House Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee subpoenaed records of the Attorney 
General's advisory committee relating to Operation Fast and Furious 
during a period Jones was committee chair. I reiterated that request on 
April 10, 2013.
  No. 2, ATF's accountability for Fast and Furious. On October 19, 
2012, and January 15, 2013, I requested information on which ATF 
employees would be disciplined for their role in Fast and Furious.
  No. 3, Fast and Furious interview request. From October 7, 2011, 
through January 2012, I requested a staff interview with Jones 
regarding Fast and Furious. I reiterated that request to Mr. Jones on 
April 10, 2013.
  No. 4, interview request on Reno, NV, ATF office. My April 10, 2013, 
letter also indicated that Mr. Jones's failure to act on Reno 
management issues was another area of questions to be covered in a 
staff interview.
  No. 5, interview request on Operation Fearless. My April 10, 2013, 
letter indicated that the botched Operation Fearless in Milwaukee was 
another area of questions to be covered in a staff interview.
  No. 6, document request on Operation Fearless. On May 10 of this 
year, I sent Mr. Jones a letter requesting a copy of the Office of 
Professional Responsibility and Security Operations report on the 
botched Milwaukee storefront operation.
  No. 7, on the St. Paul and quid pro quo matter, I was able to have a 
staff interview with Mr. Jones. Just to remind my colleagues about the 
issue I will tell you, briefly, on February 3, 2012, the Department of 
Justice and the City of St. Paul struck a deal. The terms of the quid 
pro quo were as follows: The Department declined to intervene in two 
False Claims Act cases that were pending against St. Paul, and St. Paul 
withdrew its petition before the U.S. Supreme Court on the Magner case, 
a case that observers believed would invalidate the use of disparate 
impact theory under the Fair Housing Act.

[[Page S6097]]

  But this was no ordinary settlement. Instead of furthering the ends 
of justice, this settlement prevented the courts from reviewing 
potentially meritorious claims and the recovery of hundreds of millions 
of dollars for the U.S. Treasury.
  The U.S. attorney in Minnesota at the time of the quid pro quo, Mr. 
Jones, was serving both as U.S. attorney and Acting Director of the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Mr. Jones was 
interviewed by the committee staff as part of the investigation on 
March 8, 2013. However, before agreeing to the interview, the 
department demanded that staff not be permitted to ask Mr. Jones any 
further questions other than those involving quid pro quo.
  Questions remain about whether he was effectively managing both jobs 
as the U.S. attorney and Acting Director. For example, when asked by 
committee staff about his failure to attend a seminal meeting between 
the department's civil division and representatives from the City of 
St. Paul, which occurred in December 2011, he stated that he did not 
attend because he had an event at ATF that precluded his attendance. 
When pressed further, Mr. Jones indicated the important event at ATF 
was a holiday party called ``sweet treats.''
  He felt it was more important that he attend that event than it was 
to attend his crucial meeting----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. It was more important that he go to sweet treats than 
worry about collecting $200 million under False Claims Act cases 
pending. I raised many of these issues with Mr. Jones at his hearing 
and in written questions for the record. But in too many instances Mr. 
Jones was unable or unwilling to provide an adequate response. 
Unfortunately, I have a lingering concern about his candor during his 
testimony. With this record before us, it should be apparent to all of 
my colleagues that the Senate should not move forward with Mr. Jones' 
nomination.
  First, the Senate has yet to learn the results from the 
investigations of Office of Special Counsel; two, the Senate has not 
had an opportunity to hear Mr. Jones address those allegations himself. 
Point blank he told the committee he could not speak about them because 
of the open investigation; third, the Senate should recognize a 
troubling pattern indicating the nominee's inability to work with 
Federal law enforcement and whistleblowers; four, his involvement in a 
number of botched operations showing unacceptable management style or 
capability.
  Elevating an individual with such a record is not how you 
rehabilitate the reputation, image, and culture of Federal law 
enforcement agencies still recovering from the disastrous scandal of 
Fast and Furious. I do not believe we should simply rubberstamp this 
nomination and sweep the alarming allegations under the rug.
  I would hope that further action on the nomination pause until these 
matters are resolved. Before I close, I wish to address one additional 
matter. I have heard it argued from the majority that there is an 
urgency to get this nomination confirmed because ATF has not had a 
confirmed Director for 7 years. President Bush made a nomination in 
March 2007. That nomination was held up in the Senate based on concerns 
regarding ATF's hostility to small gun dealers and the nominee's 
apparent indifference to their concerns.
  President Obama did not nominate a Director until November 17, 2010. 
That is 2 years into his first term. That individual's nomination 
stalled because neither the White House nor the nominee responded to 
our requests for additional information. Rather than respond to our 
requests so that nomination might move forward or withdraw that 
nomination and send up another, the White House did nothing for 2 
years.
  The nomination of Mr. Jones was not sent up to the Senate until the 
beginning of this year. So for the past 4\1/2\ years, the vacancy is 
the responsibility of the White House. I do not think that supports 
their contention that there is a crisis because of a lack of a Senate-
confirmed nominee.
  In any event, the prudent course for the Senate, and what I support, 
is to wait a short while, until the open complaint is resolved. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.