General Info
Iowa Council of Foundations Announces Board Leadership PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Angela Dethlefs-Trettin   
Tuesday, 28 August 2012 12:43
(Des Moines, Iowa)– The Iowa Council of Foundations (ICoF), a statewide membership association of grantmaking foundations, has announced its 2012-2013 board of directors and officers.

Susan Skora, president and CEO of the Community Foundation of the Great River Bend in Bettendorf was re-elected chair of the Iowa Council of Foundations and Stacy Van Gorp, executive director of the R.J. McElroy Trust in Waterloo, was re-elected vice chair. Suzanne Heckenlaible, executive director of Delta Dental of Iowa Foundation in Johnston, was elected secretary and Leah Rodenberg, program manager of the Alliant Energy Foundation in Cedar Rapids, was re-elected treasurer. The ICoF welcomed Dennis Nissen, Iowa foundations director with the Community Foundations of Southwest Iowa in Omaha, NE and Julie Gosselink, president and ceo of the Claude and Dolly Ahrens Foundation in Grinnell, to the board.

Additional members include: Terry Hernandez, executive director of the Chrysalis Foundation in Des Moines, and Jerry Mathiasen, senior vice president of the Iowa West Foundation in Council Bluffs.

Founded in 1998, the Iowa Council of Foundations promotes philanthropy and effective grantmaking in Iowa and serves as Iowa’s Lead Philanthropic Entity. The ICoF members include private/family foundations, community/public foundations and corporate foundations/giving programs that provide grants to charitable projects and programs in Iowa. To learn more about the ICoF or to inquire about membership opportunities, please visit the website (www.IowaCouncilofFoundations.org) or call 515.989.1188.

 
Tips for Tackling Mom’s To-Do List PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Ginny Grimsley   
Tuesday, 28 August 2012 12:20

“We Can Do It!” was a World War II-era battle cry that empowered women. Today, however, the expression for many women is more like, “We can do it -- if there’s time.”

By their 40s, more than 80 percent of American women are mothers, according to the U.S. census. Meanwhile, they also make up roughly half of the workforce, a percentage that has doubled since Rosie the Riveter’s proclamation.

At least 50 percent of women say they don't have enough free time and 60 percent feel guilty for spending what little time they do have on themselves, according to a survey published in the March issue of Real Simple magazine.

Between motherhood and work, it is crucial that busy women also take time out for themselves, says Saniel Bonder, a wellness coach, Harvard graduate and author of the acclaimed new novel Ultimaya 1.0: The Trouble with the Wishes of Leopold Stokes (www.humansunmedia.com).

“Putting things into a new perspective and realizing that a really good mother and home manager – or a mother who works outside the home -- can’t be chronically tired and cranky is a first step to achieving a healthy balance between a mom and her to-do list,” he says.

Mothering is a marathon, not a sprint, Bonder says. Unhappiness, failure and disappointment are guaranteed when a woman continues to drive competing interests at excessive speeds, he says.

He offers tips for managing a mother’s to-do list:

• Make “me time” a priority every day. Set aside 5 to 10 inviolable minutes for triaging your day’s to-do list — early on, when you’ve got plenty of energy and aren’t already overwhelmed.

• Do it with “Mother Bear” fierceness. Go at it with ferocious intention to protect your “cub”— except in this case, the cub is your own total wellness.

• Serve everyone notice. Let your family, friends, and others who depend on you know that for everyone’s sake, you are going to take better care of yourself and you’re not going to try to be Superwoman any more.

• Ruthless ranking. Rank each item 1, 2 or 3 in order of real importance. Make sure your priority is only the most important, and that you actually can do it.

• Indulge your inner child. Make at least one of your daily No. 1 priorities something to pamper yourself – something you know will really make you feel good but that you think you really don’t have time for and shouldn’t need.

• Talk back to your inner critic. Do this out loud; shout it if you need to! Just say “no,” a lot, to that fault-finding perfectionist in your head. You’re right. It’s wrong!

“Sustainability begins at home, and the true hearth of most homes today is the mother’s well-being,” Bonder says. “Your children need to learn this from how you live, not just what you tell them.”

About Saniel Bonder

Saniel Bonder received his bachelor’s in social relations from Harvard University, partaking in a unique curriculum that focused on the fields of psychology, culture and social behavior. An internationally recognized personal advisor and expert in “down-to-earth” spirituality, Bonder advises busy individuals on managing their daily lives while enhancing their personal fulfillment and also reaching their full potential.

 
Use of FBI Jet Called into Question PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Tuesday, 28 August 2012 12:16
WASHINGTON – Senators Chuck Grassley and Kay Bailey Hutchison and Representatives Lamar Smith and Frank Wolf are pressing for answers about allegations of misuse of FBI aircraft by Justice Department officials.

 

Grassley, Hutchison, Smith and Wolf are asking for additional information following Grassley’s line of questioning for the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 16, 2012.

 

The members wrote, “We are aware that the Attorney General is required to travel by government aircraft for security purposes…we believe it is important to determine whether use of the FBI’s aircraft by Attorney General Holder and other senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials adheres to relevant statutes and policies, is cost effective, and does not hinder the operational readiness of the FBI.”

 

After reading a Wall Street Journal report that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta incurred approximately $870,000 in personal travel to and from his home in California using Department of Defense airplanes, the members were also concerned about allegations of Attorney General Eric Holder’s use of the FBI’s jet.

 

The letter states, “we heard troubling allegations that the Attorney General is among those who have reserved and used FBI planes for his own travel when aircraft were needed for FBI missions, then upgraded to a larger aircraft owned by a different agency and left the FBI plane sitting idle because he failed to notify the FBI in a timely manner.  These allegations were particularly troubling because they suggested the FBI had to lease another plane to ensure the availability of aircraft for FBI operations.”

 

Grassley and Smith lead the congressional committees of jurisdiction, and Wolf and Hutchison lead the relevant appropriating committees for Republicans.

 

Here is a copy of the text of the letter.  A signed copy can be found here.

 

August 22, 2012

 

 

The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III

Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20535

 

Dear Director Mueller,

 

At the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on May 16th, 2012, Senator Grassley asked you questions related to Attorney General Holder’s travel on FBI aircraft.   You postponed your answers in order to respond at a later date.  We are writing to follow up on that exchange.

 

As members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and the Subcommittees for Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, we believe it is important to determine whether use of the FBI’s aircraft by Attorney General Holder and other senior Department of Justice (DOJ) officials adheres to relevant statutes and policies, is cost effective, and does not hinder the operational readiness of the FBI.  You agreed with this sentiment when you stated to Ranking Member Grassley at the hearing that FBI aircraft “are used for counterterrorism and that any travel for principals is secondary to the use of the plane for the investigative work of the FBI.”

 

We are aware that the Attorney General is required to travel by government aircraft for security purposes.  However, based upon information provided to us, it is our understanding that the FBI pays for the Attorney General’s travel despite the fact that he has his own travel budget.   We also understand that travel is an inherent and expected part of the job for any Attorney General.   Despite your assurances that investigative operations receive priority, we are concerned that FBI aircraft are used for extraneous business and personal travel by senior DOJ officials, including the Attorney General.  If true, this travel would place unnecessary budgetary pressure on the FBI and may adversely impact the operational readiness of the FBI’s air operations.  Although senior officials may reimburse the government for non-official travel on government aircraft, the reimbursement rate does not necessarily make the taxpayer whole for the actual costs incurred by using government aircraft.

 

To assist in our evaluation of the appropriateness of the use of FBI aircraft for business and personal travel by the Attorney General and other senior DOJ officials, we request your responses to the questions.

 

1.      It is our understanding that the FBI aviation section has multiple uses for its aircraft.  Provide the percentage of aircraft use for executive transportation, investigative operations, and pilot training/maintenance for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.

 

2.      In order to have aviation support for FBI operations, aircraft and pilots must be readily available.  We have learned that in certain instances one of the FBI aircraft was reserved for use by DOJ, but the DOJ alternatively reserved another agency’s aircraft as well.  It is our understanding that despite the use of the other agency’s aircraft, the FBI still paid for the DOJ executives’ travel while on that aircraft and the reserved FBI aircraft sat idle as a result.

 

a.       How many times has a request for FBI aviation support been unfulfilled because personnel and/or equipment were not available?

b.      How many investigative operations had unfulfilled aviation requests regardless of reason?

c.       For each of the aforementioned instances, what was the reason the aviation mission was not completed?  Provide dates and locations for any such unfulfilled missions.

d.      For the aforementioned dates and locations that the FBI planes were not able to fulfill FBI missions, provide us with the aircraft manifests on those respective days along with a ledger of the executives utilizing the aircraft.

 

3.      Earlier this year, we heard troubling allegations that the Attorney General is among those who have reserved and used FBI planes for his own travel when aircraft were needed for FBI missions, then upgraded to a larger aircraft owned by a different agency and left the FBI plane sitting idle because he failed to notify the FBI in a timely manner.  These allegations were particularly troubling because they suggested the FBI had to lease another plane to ensure the availability of aircraft for FBI operations.  If these allegations are true, describe in detail each such instance where the FBI had to lease an additional plane due to Justice Department executive travel.

 

4.      The FBI maintains a fleet of aircraft and employs aircrews to support its counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal investigative missions.  Where does executive transportation rank on the FBI’s priority list for aviation operations?  Although you testified that executive travel by principals is “secondary” to investigative priorities, how can Congress be assured that actual practice is consistent with that policy absent transparency about executive use of the aircraft?

 

5.      The Wall Street Journal reported that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta incurred approximately $870,000 in personal travel to and from his home in California using Department of Defense airplanes.  The report brought public criticism to the high cost of travel by our executive leadership – criticism to which the Secretary, to his credit, responded.  It is our understanding that the Justice Department does not reimburse the FBI, or other components, for its executive travel expenses even though the Justice Department maintains its own travel budget.  Instead, we have learned that the FBI and other Justice Department components are billed for executive travel expenses, even when non-FBI planes are used.

 

a.       Why does the FBI pay for the attorney general’s travel when he uses non-FBI planes such as Department of Defense and Federal Aviation Administration planes?

b.      Does the FBI document the Attorney General’s official and personal travel? If so, please provide the documentation.  Does the FBI differentiate between the two types of travel?

c.       Does the Attorney General reimburse the taxpayer for personal travel expenses when he uses FBI aircraft, like Secretary Panetta does with the DOD?  If so, at what rate does he reimburse the taxpayer and how does that rate compare with the actual costs of using the aircraft?  How much was reimbursed total in each fiscal year: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012?

d.      In each of the past five years, how much has DOJ billed the FBI for executive travel?

e.       Provide a list of all the flights billed to the FBI by DOJ and distinguish between official business travel for investigative, operational purposes, official business travel for senior executives and non-official personal travel for senior executives.  Include information for each flight regarding: total cost; cost to DOJ (including per diem); cost to FBI (actual travel); mode of travel (FBI, FAA, Drug Enforcement Administration, DOD, commercial); and the destination, purpose, and designation as business or personal.

f.       If a federal government aircraft was used for any particular flight, include all legs from the plane’s base to where it picked up passengers, destination of the flight, and return legs.  Also include a list of all passengers, designated as DOJ employees, other government, or personal travel passengers.  For other than DOJ employees, provide the agency name, amount owed to DOJ and FBI, actual amount reimbursed to DOJ and FBI.

 

6.      In May 2012, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ordered agencies to cut travel costs by thirty percent.  It is our understanding that agencies can get exemption waivers if certain travel is deemed related to national security.  Further, an Executive Order requires that you and other security and defense-related agency heads, such as the Attorney General, travel for work and personal reasons via government planes.

 

a.       Can you explain how the FBI will comply with OMB’s order when it is paying additional travel expenses for the Attorney General?

b.      Who decides whether a particular trip is designated for national security and should be covered by an exemption waiver?

c.       Would the need for designation and review of a trip hinder the FBI’s ability to function if a waiver were needed in a short period of time?

d.      How does the FBI currently differentiate its own travel from the Attorney General’s travel when following Congressional reporting requirements?

Thank you for your immediate attention to this important matter.  Given the current budget climate and the seriousness of our concerns, we ask that you provide full and complete responses to these questions no later than September 7, 2012.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Charles E. Grassley                       Lamar Smith

Ranking Member                         Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary                      Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate                         U.S. House of Representatives

 

 

 

 

 

Frank R. Wolf                           Kay Bailey Hutchison

Chairman                       Ranking Member

Committee on Appropriations                 Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,                       Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,

Science, and Related Agencies                       Science, and Related Agencies

U.S. House of Representatives                United States Senate

 

 

 

 
Iowa Supreme Court Requests for Further Review PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Iowa Judicial Branch   
Tuesday, 28 August 2012 11:51
The supreme court recently issued an order either granting or denying application for further review in the cases listed below.

 

 

FURTHER REVIEW RESULTS

August 8, 2012

 

DENIED:

 

 

NUMBER

COUNTY

CASE NAME

 

 

 

10–0552

Black Hawk

State v. Kirby

10–1462

Johnson

In re Det. of Johnson

10–1819

Crawford

Velazquez-Ramirez v. State

11–0392

Howard

Lalk v. Bernabe

11–0520

Des Moines

State v. Russell

11–0732

Scott

State v. Miller

11–0777

Webster

State v. Konvalinka

11–0796

Polk

In re Marriage of Casten

11–0846

Clarke

Mastio v. State Pub. Defender

11–0847

Mahaska

State v. Pace

11–0876

Floyd

In re Marriage of Robert

11–0883

Johnson

Christian v. State

11–1028

Dubuque

Konzen v. Goedert

11–1039

Scott

Jefferson v. State

11–1146

Buena Vista

Stone v. Stone

11–1162

Pottawattamie

Rolling Hills Bank & Trust v. Vetter

11–1163

Pottawattamie

Rolling Hills Bank & Trust v. Venner

11–1221

Johnson

State v. Whitacre

11–1278

Des Moines

State v. Wixom

11–1309

Story

State v. Bryant

11–1340

Woodbury

State v. Poulson

11–1357

Woodbury

Albert v. Meadows

11–1359

Audubon

State v. Emgarten

11–1426

Polk

State v. Amadeo

11–1442

Dubuque

Nitsos v. EAB

11–1449

Black Hawk

Budreau v. Schmitz

11–1499

Polk

Village Credit Union v. Bryant

11–1523

Scott

State v. Bullock

11–1536

Tama

State v. Steffen

11–1623

Cerro Gordo

State v. Jones

11–1661

Scott

State v. Clay

11–1862

Polk

ABF Freight Sys. v. Veenendaal

12–0516

Polk

In re L.M.

12–0768

Scott

In re N.T.J.

12–0772

Poweshiek

In re M.E.

12–0935

Linn

In re E.W.

 

 

 

 

GRANTED:

 

 

NUMBER

COUNTY

CASE NAME

 

 

 

11–0553

Polk

St. John’s Full Gospel Baptist Church v. Tax 207

11–0603

Adair

In re Estate of Nelson

11–0927

Plymouth

State v. Clay

11–1398

Linn

In re Marriage of Kimbro

11–2031

Warren

State v. Iowa Dist. Ct.

 

 

 
Top ATF Official Involved in F&F Receiving Double Pay by Taxpayers and Private Sector PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Friday, 24 August 2012 11:59

Issa and Grassley: Top ATF Official in Operation Fast and Furious Remains on Extended Paid Leave while Simultaneously Employed by Major Financial Services Company

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa have asked the Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to explain how a top ATF official involved in Operation Fast and Furious, Bill McMahon, can remain on paid leave while simultaneously drawing an additional six figure salary from a major financial services company.  Given McMahon’s extensive involvement in the leadership failures of Operation Fast and Furious, Grassley and Issa sought a detailed explanation of why the Justice Department would approve this special arrangement for McMahon.

“Under any reading of the relevant personnel regulations, it appears that ATF management was under no obligation to approve this sort of arrangement,” wrote Issa and Grassley. “Given McMahon’s outsized role in the Fast and Furious scandal, the decision to approve an extended annual leave arrangement in order to attain pension eligibility and facilitate full-time, outside employment while still collecting a full-time salary at ATF raises a host of questions about both the propriety of the arrangement and the judgment of ATF management.”

The letter continues: “ATF has essentially facilitated McMahon’s early retirement and ability to double dip for nearly half a year by receiving two full-time paychecks—one from the taxpayer and one from the private sector.  Moreover, ATF did not wait for the Office of Inspector General to complete its report on Fast and Furious before approving the arrangement.  This is in sharp contrast to the posture the agency has taken with whistleblowers like Special Agent John Dodson, who is told he must wait until the Inspector General’s report is complete before the agency will even consider his simple request for a statement retracting the false statements made about him by agency leadership.”

The text of their letter is available here and embedded below.  The first part of the final report on the joint Congressional investigation of conduct in Operation Fast and Furious is available here. The report presents evidence detailing numerous errors and decisions by ATF officials and the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office that led to serious problems – including inter-agency communication failures between ATF, DEA, and FBI.

Here is a copy of the text of the letter.

 

August 21, 2012

 

Mr. B. Todd Jones

Acting Director

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

99 New York Avenue, NE

Washington, DC 20226

 

Dear Acting Director Jones:

It has come to our attention that ATF’s former Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations, William McMahon, has recently obtained full-time employment in the private sector while remaining a full-time employee in ATF’s Office of Professional Responsibility.  In addition to retaining his position at ATF, McMahon is also serving as Executive Director of the Global Security and Investigations Group at J.P. Morgan in the Philippines.  A senior ATF official confirmed McMahon’s status during a phone call last week.  This unusual arrangement is apparently designed to allow Mr. McMahon to reach retirement eligibility while on extended leave for four or five months and simultaneously begin a second career before separating from government employment.

Our most recent joint staff report on Operation Fast and Furious, released on July 31, 2012, scrutinized the role McMahon played in the operation.[1] We detailed his failure to supervise the activities of the Phoenix Field Division during Fast and Furious, his admitted failure to read important documents he was responsible for authorizing, and his false testimony regarding his role in authorizing applications for wiretaps in the case.[2] Despite these failings, ATF not only continues to keep him on its payroll, but also has authorized him to take several months of annual leave while earning a six-figure salary from ATF and an even larger salary at the same time working in the private sector.

While the legality of McMahon’s outside employment and leave arrangement may arguably be unclear, the fact that ATF management chose to authorize it is not.  Under any reading of the relevant personnel regulations, it appears that ATF management was under no obligation to approve this sort of arrangement.  Given McMahon’s outsized role in the Fast and Furious scandal, the decision to approve an extended annual leave arrangement in order to attain pension eligibility and facilitate full-time, outside employment while still collecting a full-time salary at ATF raises a host of questions about both the propriety of the arrangement and the judgment of ATF management.

On July 18, 2012, we wrote to you regarding your message in “ChangeCast #8: Choices and Consequences” and the chilling effect it might have on future whistleblowers.  While we appreciated the clarification you provided after we raised concerns, this decision regarding McMahon appears to send the opposite message of the one you said you intended in that ChangeCast.  Rather than imposing consequences for his admitted failures, the ATF appears to be rewarding McMahon.  Through this unusual arrangement, ATF has essentially facilitated McMahon’s early retirement and ability to double dip for nearly half a year by receiving two full-time paychecks—one from the taxpayer and one from the private sector.  Moreover, ATF did not wait for the Office of Inspector General to complete its report on Fast and Furious before approving the arrangement.  This is in sharp contrast to the posture the agency has taken with whistleblowers like Special Agent John Dodson, who is told he must wait until the Inspector General’s report is complete before the agency will even consider his simple request for a statement retracting the false statements made about him by agency leadership.

This is not the culture of change that you promised to bring to ATF.

In light of McMahon’s outside employment at J.P. Morgan, please answer the following questions to help us better understand how this could have occurred:

1)      5 C.F.R. § 3801.106(b)(1) prohibits “outside employment that involves …  litigation, investigations, grants, or other matters in which the Department of Justice is or represents a party, witness, litigant, investigator or grant-maker.”  Accordingly, what steps, if any, did ATF take prior to approving the arrangement to ascertain whether McMahon’s position at J.P. Morgan would involve any “litigation, investigations, grants, or other matters in which the Department of Justice is or represents a party, witness, litigant, investigator or grant-maker?”

2)      If no such steps were taken, why not?

3)      If such steps were taken, please describe the determination ATF made regarding the prohibition in 5 C.F.R. § 3801.106(b)(1)(iii) and the basis for ATF’s determination in detail.

4)      If ATF determined that McMahon’s work at J.P. Morgan would be prohibited by 5 C.F.R. § 3801.106(b)(1)(iii), was the prohibition waived in accordance with section 3801.106(b)(2)?

5)      If the prohibition was waived, what were the grounds for the waiver?

6)      What is the current employment status of William McMahon at ATF?

7)      When is William McMahon eligible for full retirement benefits from ATF?

8)      When will William McMahon officially leave ATF?

9)      Who at ATF gave final approval of McMahon’s employment with J.P. Morgan?  On what date was this approval given?

10)  On what date did McMahon’s outside employment commence?

11)  How much ATF sick leave has McMahon used while being employed at J.P. Morgan?

12)  How much ATF sick leave does McMahon have remaining?

13)  How much ATF annual leave has McMahon used while being employed at J.P. Morgan?

14)  How much ATF annual leave does McMahon have remaining?

15)  On how many other occasions in the last three years has ATF authorized a similar arrangement involving (a) approving annual leave extending over several months, (b) an employee not yet eligible to retire prior to commencing annual leave, (c) approval of full-time employment while on annual leave, and (d) a career field where the employee’s experience at ATF is directly related to the outside employment and can be reasonably seen as a motivating factor in the hiring decision?  For each prior similar instance, please provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances and the reason for authorizing the arrangement.

16)  When did you first become personally aware of McMahon’s employment at J.P. Morgan?

17)  Do you approve of this particular outside employment arrangement?

In addition, please provide the following documents:

18)  All internal documents and communications relating to McMahon’s scheduled separation from ATF, including memos, e-mails, and hand written notes, including, but not limited to, communications with ATF’s designated agency ethics official.

19)  All internal documents relating to McMahon’s outside employment at J.P. Morgan, including memos, e-mails, and hand written notes, including, but not limited to, communications with ATF’s designated agency ethics official.

20)  A detailed timeline of the involvement of the ATF Office of Chief Counsel regarding McMahon’s employment at J.P. Morgan.

21)  A full copy of ATF’s personnel manual, including, but not limited to, policies regarding sick leave, annual leave, and outside employment.

22)  Detailed information regarding McMahon’s time and attendance at ATF, including records from the WebTA program, from August 1, 2011 until the present.

Please provide the requested documents and your detailed responses to these questions as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 4, 2012.  When producing documents to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, please deliver separate production sets to both the Majority Staff in Room 2157 of the Rayburn House Office Building and the Minority Staff in Room 2471 of the Rayburn House Office Building.  The Committees prefer, to the extent possible, to receive documents in electronic format.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives and may at “any time” investigate “any matter” as set forth in House Rule X.  The Senate Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction includes, inter alia, oversight of the Department of Justice and the agencies under the Department’s jurisdiction.  An attachment to this letter provides additional information about responding to the Committees’ request.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Tristan Leavitt of Senator Grassley’s staff at (202) 224-5225, or Henry Kerner of Chairman Issa’s staff at (202) 225-5074.  We look forward to receiving your response.  Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

 

 

 

____________________________   ______________________________

Darrell Issa, Chairman                       Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and                            Committee on the Judiciary

Government Reform                         U.S. Senate

U.S. House of Representatives

 

 

Enclosure

 

cc:           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

 
<< Start < Prev 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 Next > End >>

Page 273 of 450