The text of Grassley's letter to Ashcroft follows.
August 29, 2002
Honorable John D. Ashcroft
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
I am writing to you because I have not received adequate cooperation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in a law enforcement oversight issue involving the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) in Vermont. I am hopeful that you will help me look into some very serious issues because I fear that the INS is circling the wagons to protect itself.
On July 9, 2002, as the ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I sent a letter to INS Commissioner Ziglar seeking detailed information related to the possible underutilization of criminal investigators at the LESC, and relating to several management issues. I requested a response by July 26, 2002, but did not receive a response until August 21, 2002. When the response came ? not from the Commissioner but from his public affairs aide ? it was vague and incomplete, refused information on the basis of an invalid interpretation of the Privacy Act (See Note 1) and investigative privileges, and raised more questions than answers. For this reason, I seek your involvement.
Although my July 9 inquiry involved several issues, I seek your involvement in just two areas: the INS' response to disciplining the LESC director who was found by the Inspector General (IG) to have misled Congress, and the underutilization of criminal investigators at the LESC. I will attempt to work with Commissioner Ziglar regarding the balance of my concerns.
I.Questions About Management Issues At The LESC
Carol Chasse is the director of the LESC. As you may know, the Justice Department Inspector General found that Ms. Chasse, as an INS regional director, was one of the persons most responsible for a scheme to mislead the Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform during its fact-finding visit to the Miami District of INS, including the Krome Service Processing Center, in June of 1995. The scheme involved releasing or transporting aliens in INS custody so that the INS facilities would not appear overcrowded or understaffed. See Miami INS Report, Conclusions on Administrative Responsibility, www.usdoj.gov/oig/insmi956/miafile7.htm.
Note 1: The Privacy Act does not apply to Members of Congress conducting investigations. Even if it did, it would not, in my view, cover the type of general crime statistics that I am seeking.
My July 9, 2002 letter sought the following information about Ms. Chasse:
Who made the decision to give Ms. Chasse a one-day suspension, what was the rationale for that decision, and what other punishment ? if any ? was given to Ms. Chasse for her role in the above-referenced scheme? In addition, please explain who made the decision to place Ms. Chasse in her current position, why that decision was made, and what other positions Ms. Chasse has held at the INS. Please provide all documents related to these decisions, including information on her salary and compensation in each of the positions.
The INS response reads like an exercise in self-preservation: "The INS decision regarding Ms. Chasse must be viewed in the overall DOJ response to this matter. This situation was a complex and multifaceted one, involving an in-depth investigation by the DOJ, disciplinary action requiring a suspension and, a change of position with very different responsibilities in a new location." Public Affairs' letter then explains that Ms. Chasse was offered a position as a Supervisory Criminal Investigator at the LESC involving a lower pay grade.
I am troubled because, at the outset, INS never provided me with the rationale for the decision, the duration of the suspension or any other disciplinary actions, or the DOJ investigative file or relevant information. Moreover, a review of the documents provided by the INS reveals that 1) Ms. Chasse is the LESC Director, not just a supervisory criminal investigator ? in fact, information provided reveals that she has supervisory criminal investigators several levels beneath her ? and 2) the so-called reduction in grade amounted, initially, to a $21,000 pay INCREASE, and she currently makes almost $40,000 more than she made before her punishment. I am hard-pressed to explain to Iowans how a $21,000 pay increase constitutes disciplinary action.
Because I fear that the INS ? and, consequently, Ms. Chasse (See Note 2) ? has not taken seriously the Inspector General's findings that Ms. Chasse "was responsible for . . . creat[ing] a false picture of conditions at the facility for the [Congressional] Task Force . . . [and Ms.] Chasse bears responsibility for fostering and approving an overall approach to the Delegation's visit that was not forthright," please provide to me copies of any and all DOJ investigations into misconduct by Ms. Chasse. Please also provide a position description for Ms. Chasse, including her actual title, and an explanation as to how Ms. Chasse's salary is calculated, including the reasons for application of the 25% premium pay she receives over and above her GS15 Step 10.
Note 2: In a letter to Commissioner Ziglar following my inquiry, Ms. Chasse disavows responsibility, claiming that, "I did not deceive Congress . . . [and] I cannot explain or understand what motivated . . . the Inspector General of the Department to so publicly persecute the individuals who were the subjects of the Miami investigation."
I know that as our nation's chief law enforcement officer, you share my believe that people need to be held accountable for their misdeeds. I want to be sure that the INS, and the Executive Branch as a whole, is sending the right message to employees who mislead the Congress and, in turn, the American people. I hope that the information that you provide will satisfy my concerns.
II.Questions About The Use Of Resources At The LESC
My July 9, 2002, letter also sought information regarding the use of criminal investigators at the LESC. It has been my concern that the approximately 15 criminal investigators and 7 supervisory criminal investigators at the LESC are unnecessary given the mission of the LESC, which basically serves as an information clearinghouse for law enforcement agents throughout the country.
As you know, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has created an audit system that attempts to compensate employees based on the work they do. Consequently, criminal investigative agents (1811 series law enforcement) are paid to do criminal investigative work. At the LESC, the agents' position description lists criminal investigations as encompassing up to 90-95% of their work, including "conduct[ing] criminal investigations and participat[ing in] field enforcement operations." It claims that agents develop cases "through the use of various sophisticated investigative techniques such as electronic information gathering, consensual monitoring, surveillance, interrogation, undercover operations, and cultivation and use of informants, and by use of criminal and civil processes such as search and arrest warrants and subpoenas."
The INS response to my letter explains that agents serve as "case builders" to determine whether a foreign national in the custody of local law enforcement should be detained by the INS. INS explains that LESC agents have the "authority" to lodge detainers and have "effected" several thousand detainers. Several of the special agents have advised me, however, that they only lodge detainers if authorized by INS field agents ? in other words, LESC agents lack independent authority to lodge detainers.
Most troubling, however, is the blatantly misleading implication in the INS'letter that, because "[o]nly certain INS employees possess this statutory authority" to lodge detainers, and "the LESC Special Agent has [such] authority," the INS needs investigative agents at the LESC. According to internal memoranda and e-mail, LESC investigative agents are prohibited from lodging detainers unless 1) a duty agent in the field approves it, or 2) after consultation with a supervisory special agent, permission to lodge a detainer is granted. Thus, contrary to the INS's letter, investigative agents totally lack independent authority to lodge detainers.
The response that agents have "authority to effect" arrests sounds like legal speak attempting to avoid the fact that the agents merely fax information to the field agents who do the criminal work. Thus, it appears that agents do little more than compare information received from law enforcement officers around the country with information on file at the LESC, and then advise the local INS agents of a positive or negative match. Such administrative work could easily be handled by the dozens of Law Enforcement Technicians on staff.
It is clear to me that the agents do none of the criminal investigative work that supposedly entails 90-95% of their work. In the INS's response to my letter, it describes the agents' role as "providing active assistance in the form of immediate identification, alien status, after-hours enhanced field office contact, detainer issuance, and other telephonic or electronic support . . . [but that] LESC Special Agents work only at the LESC [and] . . . the limited number of Agents assigned to a particular shift renders any immediate street response impractical or impossible." Information I have received from several agents confirms this, as does the Step 2 grievance filed by the agents. Thus, the position description for the agents describing up to 90-95% of their work as criminal investigative work appears wholly inaccurate.
Nevertheless, this position description supports the expenditure of millions of investigative dollars. Indeed, the salaries of the criminal investigators cost the Government $734,925.00, not including benefits, and the salaries of their supervisors cost us $495,345.00, not including benefits. Moreover, Ms. Chasse and her deputies receive a 25% pay increase for having investigators on staff, costing the Government thousands of additional dollars. (See Note 3)
The question of whether these expenditures for criminal investigators at the LESC are necessary is not a new one. According to the response from Public Affairs, when a special agent in 2001 sought a desk audit (the mechanism for reviewing for accuracy the classification of a position description and pay grade), the OPM made a preliminary finding that the agent was not conducting criminal investigative work. The audit was withdrawn because the agent took a field job in another part of the country, but the preliminary finding suggests that something's amiss.
It is also my understanding that in 1998, Assistant General Stephen Colgate decided that agents were not necessary at the LESC, and ordered that they be relocated. However, he reversed his decision after Ms. Chasse, relying upon the above-referenced position description, convinced him that agents were needed at the LESC because they would be doing investigations. Given that the INS is at the forefront of our war against terrorism, I would think that these criminal investigative dollars could be put to better use. I ask that you look into this issue to determine whether these agents and supervisory agents should be doing criminal investigative work elsewhere for the INS.
If your review concludes what the OPM preliminarily concluded ? and what appears to be the case based on my investigations ? that the LESC does not need criminal investigators to serve its clearinghouse functions, I expect that you will direct the Commissioner to make better use of INS resources in this area. It is my understanding that many of the agents are willing ? and have expressed such an interest ? to relocate within their geographical preferences that they gave to Mr. Colgate in 1998, so that they can put their criminal investigative skills and training to work for the country.
Note 3: A GS15 Step 10 in Vermont should make $116,633. Ms. Chasse makes $139,390, because she gets "administratively uncontrollable overtime at 25% rate or law enforcement availability pay."
I know that you share my interest in making sure that our country receives the best protection possible against the terrorist threat it now faces, especially by using limited resources most efficiently, and I know that you are concentrating your efforts to make this happen. In this critical time for our nation's security, we should make sure that we're getting the most from our first line of defense ? the INS. I thank you in advance for your cooperation with this request.
Please provide this information by September 27, 2002.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
cc: Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Joseph Biden, Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
Ted Kennedy, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration
Sam Brownback, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration
James W. Ziglar, Commissioner of the INS
The text of Grassley's July 9 inquiry to the INS follows.
July 9, 2002
The Honorable James Ziglar
Commissioner
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 Eye Street, NW, Suite 7100
Washington, DC 20536
Dear Commissioner,
As the ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I am concerned about reports of problems at the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Law Enforcement Support Center ("LESC") in Williston, Vermont. I ask that you provide me information relating to these reports.
As you know, the LESC was created to respond to requests by federal, state and local law enforcement agents nationwide in order to advise them whether an arrestee in their custody is also wanted by the INS. If so, the arrestee can be detained until the INS takes him into federal custody. For the most part, the LESC is staffed by about 200 technicians who take information from callers and run a system check to determine whether the arrestee is wanted by the INS. If a positive identification is made, local INS agents are contacted so that an INS arrest warrant can be lodged. While the LESC is a tremendously important tool for our national security, I am concerned that it is being mismanaged, wasted and underutilized.
I. Questions About Management Issues At The LESC
Carol Chasse is the director of the LESC. As you may know, the Justice Department Inspector General (IG) found that Ms. Chasse, as an INS regional director, was one of the persons most responsible for a scheme to mislead the Congressional Task Force on Immigration Reform during its fact-finding visit to the Miami District of INS, including the Krome Service Processing Center, in June of 1995. The scheme involved releasing or transporting aliens in INS custody so that the INS facilities would not appear overcrowded or understaffed. See the Miami INS Report, Conclusions on Administrative Responsibility, www.usdoj.gov/oig/insmi956/miafile7.htm.
The Inspector General's report states: "We conclude, therefore, that despite her denials or professed failures of recall, Chasse was responsible for making the decision to reduce the Krome population in order to create a false picture of conditions at the facility for the Task Force." The report also states: "Chasse bears responsibility for fostering and approving an overall approach to the Delegation's visit that was not forthright."
Moreover, the report notes that Ms. Chasse continued to deny she committed wrongdoing, despite the sum of evidence against her. To wit: "We are again seriously troubled by Chasse's failure, after the allegations were made public, to come forth with the truth." The report further states: "In other words, she contended that her instruction was issued to address a problem, and not because of the proximity of the Delegation's upcoming visit. In light of the lack of activity towards that goal until the day before the Delegation's arrival, the speed with which it was ultimately accomplished, and the accompanying violation of routine practices and newly issued policies, we do not find that claim to be credible."
The IG recommended that she receive a punishment ranging from a 30 day suspension to termination. As I understand it, Ms. Chasse received a one day suspension, and then was put in charge of the more than 200 employees at LESC.
I have received several troubling reports about Ms. Chasse's management of the LESC, and ask that you provide further information.
1) Who made the decision to give Ms. Chasse a one-day suspension, what was the rationale for that decision, and what other punishment ? if any ? was given to Ms. Chasse for her role in the above-referenced scheme? In addition, please explain who made the decision to place Ms. Chasse in her current position, why that decision was made, and what other positions Ms. Chasse has held at the INS. Please provide all documents related to these decisions, including information on her salary and compensation in each of the positions.
2) Please provide to me all information, including any and all documents, regarding an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation into the termination of Zancy Von Hooks. Your response should include all documents created by LESC employees in response to the EEOC investigation.
3) Please provide to me any and all information relating the LESC's response to LESC agent Tom May's request for a desk audit of his position from the Office of Personnel Management, because he believed that he was doing work well beneath the level of criminal investigator for which he was hired. Please also provide information regarding the decision by the LESC to detail Mr. May's wife from the LESC to Boston, Massachusetts, shortly after Mr. May requested the desk audit.
4) Please provide to me any and all information relating to the formal reprimand received by agent Steve Letares when he complained about the LESC's response to a military request for an INS investigation of certain military pilots after September 11, 2001.
II. Questions About The Use Of Resources At The LESC
I also have several questions about the use of criminal investigative agents at the LESC. I am told that the LESC staffs approximately 15 law enforcement investigative agents (1811-series law enforcement agents). Although these agents are trained to investigate crimes, I have been told that they are forbidden from carrying weapons inside the LESC, are forbidden to leave the premises to investigate cases, and that they lack Internet access. Instead, they are relegated to the task of running the information obtained by the technicians against the INS database, and then faxing identification information to local authorities so that they can make an affirmative identification. Indeed, the LESC describes its primary functions as purely administrative:
? Receive queries via law enforcement agencies (LEAs)
? Query INS indices for corresponding information
? Respond to LEAs informing them of a match or no-match
? Notify appropriate INS field offices if an arrest is appropriate
? Maintain a database of all inquiries.
In addition, I understand that the LESC employs seven supervisory special agents to supervise the 15 investigative agents. I am concerned that, given the purpose of the LESC, the INS is wasting valuable investigative dollars at the LESC. I ask that you provide answers to the following questions.
1) Please provide me a list of all employees at the LESC, their titles, pay grades, and duties. Include in your response a flow-chart denoting the lines of authority at the LESC. In addition, please provide the LESC's turnover ratio for the past 5 years.
2) Please provide to me statistics detailing the number of investigations opened and closed by LESC 1811 agents, and the number of arrests that have been made by LESC 1811 agents.
3) Please provide to me any and all information relating to the LESC's response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, including decisions relating to the use of LESC 1811 agents.
4) Please provide a full explanation of the LESC's role in the investigations pertaining to three men wanted by the INS: Cristian Gutierrez, John Osi, and Manfred Otto Adolf Boettcher.
5) Please provide any and all information related to the INS's response to the May 9, 2002 Step 2 Class Action Union Grievance filed by LESC special agents in which they challenge their classifications as special agents. If the INS has not responded, please explain why, and whether the INS intends to respond to the grievance.
In each of your responses, please provide any and all documents that support or relate to your response.
Please provide this information by July 26, 2002.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
cc: The Honorable John Ashcroft
Attorney General
Department of Justice