EPA's federal overreach imposes barriers on advancement of innovative, water quality improvements within the State of Iowa and harms Iowa farmers and small businesses

(DES MOINES) - Today, Gov. Terry Branstad intervened in a case pending in the U.S. District Court of North Dakota Southwestern Division against the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and their overreaching Waters of the U.S. rule.  Gov. Branstad joins in support of 13 other states: North Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico.  Nationwide, governors or attorney generals from over 31 states have taken action to ensure innovative state-based water quality initiatives, like the Nutrient Reduction Strategy, are not bogged down in Federal bureaucratic red tape.

"The WOTUS rule is a federal overreach that imposes significant barriers and impairs Iowa's ability to advance innovative, water quality practices that would actually advance our common goal of water quality," Branstad said.  "I ran for Governor in 2010 to return predictability and stability to Iowa and this federal rule increases, rather than decreases uncertainty for Iowa farmers and small businesses."

In October 2014, Gov. Branstad, Lt. Gov. Reynolds, Sec. Bill Northey and various state leaders commented on the proposed WOTUS rule and stated that the Federal government's rule seems to be more concerned with Federal control over local water bodies than actually improving water quality.

"The rule is an overreach by the federal government that hurts Iowa farmers and small businesses."  Reynolds said.  "I applaud the work Senators Grassley and Ernst, and other member of the Iowa congressional delegation and hope this rule is withdrawn so Iowa can continue to improve water quality through the collaborative and innovative Nutrient Reduction Strategy," said Reynolds.

Iowa's Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey said, "The misguided WOTUS rulemaking process has created uncertainty and has threatened to impede our efforts to get conservation and water quality practices on the ground.   Joining this lawsuit is the right thing to do and I hope that ultimately the courts will overturn the rule."

Urbandale resident claim helped reach milestone

DES MOINES, IA (11/17/2015)(readMedia)-- DES MOINES, Iowa - State Treasurer Michael L. Fitzgerald announced today the Great Iowa Treasure Hunt has reached a milestone of $200 million in unclaimed property returned. "Since the program's inception in 1983, we have returned $200 million through the Great Iowa Treasure Hunt," Fitzgerald said. "Vona Burbank of Urbandale helped us reach our milestone. Her claim of $6,723 put our returns at just over $200 million! This milestone reinforces our dedication to reuniting unclaimed property with its rightful owners."

Unclaimed property refers to money and other assets held by financial institutions or companies that have lost contact with the property's owner for a specific period of time. State law requires these institutions and companies to annually report unclaimed property to the state treasurer's office.

"There is no time limit or fee to claim your money," Fitzgerald added. "The assets are held until the owner or heir of the property is found." Common forms of unclaimed property include savings or checking accounts, stocks, uncashed checks, life insurance policies, utility security deposits and safe deposit box contents.

Visit the Great Iowa Treasure Hunt at GreatIowaTreasureHunt.gov to begin your search. Like Great Iowa Treasure Hunt on Facebook and follow the program on Twitter (@GreatIATreasure).

###

Q:  Why is adoption a public policy concern?

A: The family is the foundation of American society. For millions of Americans, the season of Thanksgiving gives us an opportunity to count our blessings and give thanks for hearth and home. The safety, stability and security of a permanent, loving home reinforces for the next generation a strong foundation of support to last a lifetime. Growing up in a caring family imparts a sense of belonging and acceptance. Surviving sibling rivalry, pitching in to help with household chores and meeting parental expectations arguably shape impressionable kids to learn self-discipline, take personal responsibility and step up to lead productive lives as contributing members of one's family and society. Children who grow up in a forever family have the immeasurable benefit of a nurturing environment that teaches kids to dream big, step out of their comfort zone to take risks and work hard to reach their potential. Consider what happens for millions of families across Iowa every day. Moms and dads get their kids off to school, go to work, scramble with evening activities and finally get to bed to wake up and do it all over again. Some days are more overwhelming than others. But close-knit, loving families wouldn't trade their lives together for anything in the world. That sense of belonging is what foster and orphaned kids dream to find. Loving parents provide so much more than food, clothing and shelter. They set boundaries, help with homework, celebrate joys and soothe setbacks. Strong families make America strong. That's why public policies that promote strong families rest squarely in the national interest.  Permanent, loving homes equip the next generation with the tools for self-sufficiency, to go out and succeed in the workforce, volunteer in service to others, join the ranks of the military or pursue public service. Although it can't guarantee happiness and prosperity, the prospects of raising the next generation to embrace the rights and responsibilities of citizenship are much brighter for children who are able to count a forever family among their year-round blessings at the Thanksgiving table.

Q: How many kids in America go to bed each night without a permanent place to call home?

A: On any given day, more than 400,000 children are living in foster care. About one-quarter of these kids wait with uncertainty for an adoptive family. So many of these children are victims of trauma, abuse or neglect. The temporary, transitional arrangement of foster care just doesn't replace the stability and security of a forever family. In fact, last year 23,000 foster kids aged out of the system without permanent adoption. Just like that, tens of thousands of young people start adulthood without a permanent family support system. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation that builds on my earlier work to help foster youth up to age 21 qualify for federal resources distributed through the states. For the more than 20 states that have taken up this option, my bipartisan bill would bump eligibility up to age 23 to extend services that give these young adults a stronger foothold to succeed. These programs offer transitional assistance that promotes self-sufficiency. As co-chair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I work year-round to bring people together at the policymaking tables to help make a difference for foster youth, such as identifying barriers to financial independence, higher education, job training and housing. Listening to the ideas directly from foster families, court and welfare advocates and those who have lived and are living in the foster care system is the best way to identify and solve problems. In May, we convened a panel on kinship care to learn more about the financial strain and challenges that grandparents or other relatives face who take kids in and keep them out of the foster care system. Kinship care saves taxpayers billions of dollars each year and keeps kids out of group homes. In October, I also co-hosted a discussion on Capitol Hill to learn more about Court Appointed Special Advocates for children in the foster care system.

Q: What is Congress doing to promote adoption?

A: Every parent in America knows that raising children is expensive. Easing the burden for adoptive parents to afford costly adoption expenses builds on the nation's interest to support strong families. I championed the expansion of the federal adoption tax credit from $5,000 to $10,000 in 2001 that is now permanent law and indexed to inflation. November is National Adoption Month. This month I will conduct a Judiciary Committee hearing to celebrate the positive impact that adoption brings to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The committee also will examine specific policies that pertain to international adoptions. A father from Spencer, Iowa, will testify about his family's experiences in Haiti.  The family has nine children; the youngest four are adopted, two from foster care and two from overseas.  The father will speak about his family's work to promote adoptions of orphaned children. Adoption shines hope where poverty, family dysfunction or tragedy have brought darkness, despair and desolation to innocent children, whether in our hometown communities or half-way around the world. As a society, we owe a debt of gratitude to those who are in a position to open their hearts and homes to a child in need.

Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control

"Drug Trafficking Across the Southwest Border and Oversight of U.S Counterdrug Assistance to Mexico"

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Prepared Statement of Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Just over eight years ago, the United States and Mexico announced the creation of the Merida Initiative, a bilateral partnership between our governments intended to reduce the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, combat corruption, and strengthen the rule of law in Mexico.  Yet the border isn't secure, and in some ways the problem seems worse than ever.

The purpose of our hearing today is to examine the assistance that the United States has provided to Mexico under this program, help evaluate its effectiveness, and to discuss ways to help bring about better results. American taxpayers deserve to know if their money is being spent wisely.  And if it isn't, changes need to be made.

In addition, the recent attacks in Paris remind us that our interest in a secure border isn't just about stemming the flow of illegal drugs.  Secure borders are essential to guarding against a range of threats to our economic and national security, including terrorism.

The Merida strategy has four pillars: (1) disrupting the operational capacity of organized crime; (2) institutionalizing the capacity to sustain the rule of law; (3) creating a 21^st century border structure; and (4) building strong and resilient communities.  Congress has appropriated about $2.5 billion worth of training, equipment and technical assistance to Mexico through it, and over $1.3 billion of that has been delivered.

However, despite all that money spent, our border security hasn't improved by many measures.  Mexico remains a major transit and source country for illicit narcotics destined for the United States, and a hub for money laundering.

For example, Mexico remains the primary supplier of heroin to the United States.  And according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Mexican drug trafficking organizations are making a concerted effort to increase heroin availability here.  They appear to be succeeding.  Heroin seizures at the southwest border have more than doubled over the last five years, from 2010 to 2014.

Heroin trafficked from Mexico has fueled an epidemic of opioid abuse in many parts of the country.  One of the states that's been hit hard by this crisis is New Hampshire, and Senator Ayotte has been a leader in the Senate in finding ways to address it.  I'm glad she is able to participate here today.

In addition, Mexican drug trafficking organizations are filling the void created by declining domestic production of methamphetamine.  About ten years ago, Congress passed a series of laws that made it much more difficult to produce meth here.  For example, these laws required pharmacies to sell medicines containing common meth ingredients from behind the counter.  Domestic production of meth decreased significantly.

Yet meth continues to plague my home state of Iowa. Meth-related treatment admissions are at an all-time high there.  And last year, nearly half of all drug-related prison admissions in my state resulted from the trafficking or abuse of meth.

I held a Judiciary Committee field hearing in Des Moines last month to learn more about the problem.  Law enforcement there identified Mexican drug trafficking organizations as the source of the increasingly pure meth that's starting to show up across Iowa.  Sure enough, meth seizures along the southwest border were up dramatically over the past five years, and up 20 percent from 2013 to 2014 alone.

So it's important for me to hear what is being done to address the trafficking of both heroin and meth across the border, both of which seem to be getting worse, not better.

These can't be the result the United States had hoped for on this side of the border when the Merida Initiative began.  In addition, there are troubling signs about the situation on the Mexican side as well.

While the Mexican government estimates that violence is down in some respects, kidnappings and extortions are up.  And in one instance in May, a drug trafficking organization may have effectively adopted paramilitary tactics when it used a rocket-propelled grenade to shoot down a Mexican military helicopter.

In addition, the number of extraditions to the United States authorized by Mexico fell sharply in recent years, from 115 in 2012 to only 54 in 2013 and 66 in 2014.  And Mexico reportedly refused to extradite "El Chapo" Guzman, the notorious leader of the Sinaloa cartel who was captured in 2014, before his escape from a Mexican prison in July.

Finally, public corruption and human rights violations in Mexico remain significant problems.  Prison officials, for example, appear to have played a role in "El Chapo's" escape.  Mexico's National Human Rights Commission has alleged that soldiers have engaged in execution-style killings.  And local police and public officials were reportedly involved with the kidnapping and disappearance of 43 student protesters in September 2014.  As a result, just last month, the State Department declined to certify that Mexico was making adequate progress on human rights, triggering a cutoff of about $5 million in aid for Mexican security forces.

Now, there are some signs of hope, including Mexico's adoption of a new code of criminal procedure, and its ongoing transition to a transparent, adversarial criminal justice system with public trials.  These changes won't happen overnight, but they may help Mexico address organized crime more effectively going forward.  This is an area where training and other assistance from the United States may be beneficial.  But as in all areas, metrics need to be developed that will allow us to measure whether this assistance has been effective, as this Caucus recommended in 2011.