Grassley Outlines Debacle Behind Marine Corps Audit Failure, Defense Department Office of Inspector General's Pivotal Role

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today outlined in detail the failures of the Defense Department Office of Inspector General in issuing a clean bill of health on a Marine Corps financial audit.  The clean opinion had to be withdrawn.  The debacle is the subject of a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).  Grassley looked at the situation in detail as a long-time watchdog of the Defense Department's inability to account for the more than $500 billion it spends every year.

"Broken bookkeeping has plagued the Pentagon for years," Grassley said.  "Under deadline pressure, the Marine Corps claimed to be ready for a clean audit.  The Defense Department Office of Inspector General rushed to help and issued an opinion supporting a clean audit.  Then work papers began to creep out, showing the clean opinion wasn't worth the paper it was written on. The inspector general was forced to withdraw the opinion.

"Now, the Government Accountability Office report exposes the flimsy basis for the clean bill of health. The report is an instruction manual for how not to jump to bogus conclusions.  As hard as the inspector general's office tried, it couldn't produce any paper to support its conclusions. The Defense Department needs to follow every GAO recommendation to the letter.  We need to get things back on track and prevent an embarrassing setback like this from ever happening again. The taxpayers deserve to know where their money goes, for defense and for everything else out of the federal government."

Grassley outlined his review of the audit failures in a speech on the Senate floor today.  Video of his speech is available here.  The text follows.

Floor Speech of Senator Chuck Grassley on the Marine Corps Audit

Delivered Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2015

Broken bookkeeping has plagued the Pentagon for years.   Under deadline pressure, the Marine Corps claimed to be ready for a clean audit.   An outside auditing firm produced work papers in support of an opinion on a clean audit that employees in the Defense Department inspector general's office found lacking.  However, a manager in the inspector general's office overruled his lower level colleagues.  That resulted in the inspector general's release of a clean opinion on the audit of the Marine Corps.

Meanwhile, work papers began to creep out, showing the unsupported basis for a clean opinion.  The inspector general was forced to withdraw the opinion.  Now, the Government Accountability Office is releasing a report that exposes the whole house of cards.  One senior employee with an apparent bias toward the outside auditing firm led his agency on the wrong path.  We need to get things back on track and prevent an embarrassing setback like this from ever happening again.  Now I'll go into the details.

I come to the floor today to speak about the latest twist in the 25-year struggle to fix the Defense Department's (DoD) broken bookkeeping system. Billions have been spent to fix it and achieve audit readiness, but those goals remain elusive. Defense dishes out over 500 billion dollars a year yet still can't tell the people where all the money is going. And now the drive to be audit ready by 2017 has taken a bad turn and become a fight over the truth.

As overseers of the taxpayers' money, we need to get the audit readiness initiative back on track, moving forward in the right direction.

I last spoke on this subject on December 8, 2011.

On that occasion, I commended the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta for trying to get the ball rolling. He wanted to halt endless slippage in audit deadlines. He wanted to provide an accurate and regular accounting of money spent to comply with Constitutional requirements. He turned up the pressure and drew a line in the sand.

He directed the department to "achieve partial audit readiness" with limited statements by 2014, and "full audit readiness" with all-up statements by the statutory deadline of 2017.

Not one of the major DoD components, including the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, reached the 2014 milestone. None was or is audit ready.

That said, one component -- the Marine Corps -- stepped up to the plate and claimed to be ready for audit.

To test that claim, the accounting firm, Grant Thornton, was awarded a contract to audit five Marine Corps financial statements for 2010 to 2014. The first two - 2010 and 2011 -- were unsuccessful. The Marine Corps was not ready. The third one was the 2012 audit, which is finally finished.

The 2012 audit was put under a microscope and subjected to intense review by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) along with two other independent watch-dogs. It was a disaster. First, it took an ugly turn. It got twisted out of shape and turned upside-down. And now, it is getting turned right side up.

Grant Thornton was required to produce a conclusion memorandum. This is a quasi-opinion. Work was to be finished by December 2012. But it took an extra year. Right off the bat it ran into trouble. The scaled down financial statement did not meet contract specifications. This was a show stopper that got glossed over. The contract was modified to accept a make-shift compilation that was cobbled together. It's called a schedule of budgetary activity. It covers only current-year appropriations and not vast sums of prior-year appropriations that are still lost in the money pipe. That is a far cry from a standard financial statement.

Reducing the scope of the audit wasn't enough to overcome all the other problems.

The OIG audit team was responsible for issuing the final opinion. After completing a review of Grant Thornton's work papers in early 2013, the team determined that the evidence presented did not meet audit standards. It concluded that an adverse opinion or disclaimer was warranted.

The team's rejection of Grant Thornton's conclusions embroiled the opinion in controversy and foul play. The trouble began when the Deputy IG for Audit, Mr. Dan Blair, intervened and reportedly overruled his team's conclusions. He issued an unqualified or clean opinion that was not supported by evidence in the work papers.

Despite mounting controversy about the validity of the opinion, Secretary of Defense Hagel rolled it out on December 20, 2013 - with trumpet blasts. At a ceremony in the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes, he gave the Marine Corps an award for being the first military service to earn a clean opinion. The Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, General John Paxton, accepted the award. According to a press report, he did so with "reluctance ... He mumbled something, then bolted from the stage at flank speed." Why would General Paxton take off like a scalded dog? Was it because he sniffed a bad odor?

At that point, the word was already seeping out. The opinion was allegedly rigged. I heard rumblings about it and began asking IG Rymer questions. Because of all the controversy, he asked his independent audit quality watch-dog, Deputy Assistant IG Ashton Coleman, to review the audit.

Mr. Coleman sent IG Rymer reports in October 2014 and May 2015. They ripped the fig leaf clean off Mr. Blair's charade. They reinforced the audit team's disclaimer. After recommending "the OIG rescind and reissue the audit report with a disclaimer of opinion," Mr. Coleman zeroed right in on the root cause problem -- impaired independence.

He concluded that Mr. Blair "had a potential impairment to independence." He and a Grant Thornton partner, Ms. Tracy Porter Greene, had a long-standing but undisclosed professional relationship going back to their service together at the Government Accountability Office in the early 1990's. According to Coleman, that relationship by itself did not pose a problem. However, once it began to interfere with the team's ability to make critical decisions, he said, it created an appearance of undue influence.

Coleman identified several actions that led him in this direction.

The appearance problem was framed by a 4-page email on August 2, 2013 from Ms. Greene to Mr. Blair but seen by the team and others, including me. It was a stern warning. If a disclaimer was coming -- and she knew it was -- she wanted "some advanced notice."

She needed time to prepare the firm's leadership for the bad news. A disclaimer, she said, would pose "a risk to our reputation." At message's end, she opened the door to private discussions to resolve the matter.

The record clearly indicates that both Blair and Greene began holding private meetings -- without inviting Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) Ball and the OIG team to participate. Both believed that the COR and the team were "biased toward a disclaimer rather than considering all the facts." Those are Mr. Blair's words.

To put these actions in perspective, I remind my colleagues that the IG was exercising oversight of the company's work. The IG needed to keep top company officials like Ms. Greene at arm's length. And holding private meetings with Greene wasn't the way to do it. These meetings may have violated the contract.

So why would the top IG audit official prefer to hold private meetings with Ms. Greene? Why would he seem so willing and eager to favor the firm over his team - even when the evidence appeared to support the team's position? Why would he favor the firm over evidence and truth? Why would he admit on the record that "OIG auditors were not independent of Grant Thornton"?

Why would he order the team to give the work papers to the firm so they could be "updated to reflect the truth?" The firm was not even supposed to have those documents.

Mr. Coleman cited other indicators of impaired independence.

COR Ball had rejected the firm's 2012 deliverables, because they were "deficient." They did not meet quality and timeliness standards. The deliverables in question were the company's final work product, including the all-important quasi opinion called a conclusion memorandum.

This posed a real dilemma. Until she accepted the 2012 deliverables, the follow-on 2013 contract could not be awarded, and Blair wanted it done yesterday.

The impasse was broken with a crooked bureaucratic maneuver. A senior official, Assistant IG Loren Venable, provided a certification that there were no major performance problems and GT had met all contract requirements. With the stroke of a pen, that deceptive document cleared the way for accepting the disputed materials, paying the firm, and awarding the follow-on contract. Yet the record shows that Mr. Blair admitted that "we accepted deficient deliverables."

Why would senior OIG officials attempt to cover-up a major audit failure by Grant Thornton in order to reward the poorly performing company with more money and work? For a series of audit failures, the firm got paid $32 million.

These actions appear to show how undue influence and bias trumped objectivity and independence.

Alleged tampering with the opinion may be the most flagrant example of impaired independence.

While the team identified major shortcomings with Grant Thornton's work and disagreed with its conclusions, the team was blocked from exercising its authority to issue a disclaimer. Instead, it was forced to do additional work in a futile attempt to find evidence to match the firm's conclusion. But there was none!

Two weeks after Ms. Greene's email warning that a disclaimer could destroy the company' reputation, the front office resorted to direct action. With the team's disclaimer staring him in the face and with complete disregard for evidence and standards, Mr. Blair gave the OIG team a truly stunning set of instructions. They were:

·         The Marine Corps earned a clean opinion;

·         Grant Thornton has supported a clean opinion;

·         Do what it takes to reach the same conclusions as Grant Thornton;

In the simplest of terms, this August 14^th edict says: There will be a clean opinion. Disregard the evidence.  Figure out how to do it and make it happen.

These instructions provoked an internal brawl.

The team manager, Ms. Cecelia Ball, balked. She stated flat-out: "I cannot do that . Our audit evidence does not support an unqualified [clean] opinion. We are at a disclaimer." She wanted justification for Mr. Blair's decision to overturn the team's opinion. She asked: "show me where my work is substandard and where my conclusions are incorrect." And I want to know what standards Mr. Blair used to reach "his conclusions." She never got a straight answer.

From that point on, it was all downhill. When the team ignored coaxing, they got steamrolled.

Mr. Blair attacked their competence, professionalism, and independence. He repeatedly accused them of being "biased." The team's top manager, Ms. Cecilia Ball, reacted to the abusive treatment. "I don't appreciate the accusations to my professionalism and my team's," she said. "I don't think we are the right fit as our integrity is being questioned." She later quit the team in disgust.

In early December, just as the clean opinion was about to be wheeled out, Ms. Ball made one final request for explanation. Why was "the team's disclaimer of opinion not the correct opinion," she asked. We repeatedly documented and explained why Grant Thornton's conclusion was unsupportable. "The vast knowledge of the Front Office could have provided us insight as to where the team's logic was flawed." The Front Office, she said, was unwilling to consider anything other than a clean opinion.

Those words are from the horse's mouth. The clean opinion was handed down from on high. The front office was Mr. Blair's domain.

All these actions, when taken together, appear to show a lack of independence and flagrant disregard for audit ethics, standards, evidence, and accepted practices.

In his oversight role, Blair had a responsibility to be independent, objective, and professionally skeptical. If the firm's work failed to meet standards - as it did, then he had a responsibility to face the truth and tell it like it is. He needed to be a junk-yard dog and issue the disclaimer. Maybe he lost sight of his core mission and turned into a Grant Thornton lapdog. It sure looks that way.

Mr. Blair's words, deeds, and prior association with the Grant Thornton partner, Ms. Greene - when coupled with their many emails that were widely distributed -- gave the appearance of undue influence by the Grant Thornton partner. The tone and substance of the Blair-Greene emails suggest a professional relationship that was far too cozy - a relationship that might have been wise to disclose according to audit standards.

IG Rymer disagrees with Mr. Coleman's findings of impaired independence. However, his evidence does not square with evidence presented by Mr. Coleman. For these reasons, Senator Johnson and I will be asking the Comptroller General - the guardian of government auditing standards - to review all relevant evidence. Since independence is the cornerstone of audit integrity, we must be certain it has not been compromised.

Now, another blockbuster report has been rolled out.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has just issued a highly critical report. It was prepared at the request of Senators Johnson, McCaskill, and Carper. The GAO report is thorough and competent and tells the story as it happened.

Over the last two years, the GAO team held endless meetings with the office of the IG, including Jon Rymer and Dan Blair. So the IG has known for some time what was coming down the pike. They knew early-on the GAO concluded that the evidence in the work papers did not support the clean opinion.

Echoing Ms. Ball's unanswered pleas, GAO states: The OIG management's decision to "overturn" the disclaimer is "undocumented, unexplained, and unjustified by evidence in the work papers as required by professional standards." This is the evidentiary gap identified by the GAO. There is no legitimate explanation for how the auditors got from point A - the disclaimer -- to point B - the clean opinion. There is no cross-walk between the two poles. It was a bridge too far.

Despite mounting questions about the opinion, the IG turned a blind eye to Blair's charade. He allowed it to go on ... and on ... and on. Countless man-hours and millions of dollars were wasted on cooking the books and vicious in-fighting instead of productive problem solving to right the ship.

Mr. Coleman and the GAO got that job done.

On March 23^rd, the day before the IG's final exit briefing with the GAO, came a bolt from the blue. The IG stepped forward with a brave, bold announcement. The clean opinion was formally withdrawn. It was like a rush of fresh air in a stuffy room. The inescapable truth finally dawned on IG Rymer. I thank you, Jon Rymer, for having the courage to do the right thing.

An audit failure of this magnitude should have consequences. This one is especially egregious. It leaves at least one former Secretary of Defense with egg all over his face. Mr. Blair was removed as head of the Audit Office on June 10^th but is still serving in OIG as Deputy Chief of Staff. He is the chief architect of the now discredited clean opinion. He is the one who planted the seeds of destruction when he allegedly quashed the audit team's disclaimer. Those responsible for what happened must be held accountable.

Mr. Blair wants us to believe that the muffed opinion was the result of a routine dispute between opposing auditor judgments over evidence -- a mere difference of opinion among auditors. True, it reflects an unresolved dispute between the audit team and management. And yes, that happens. However, there is a right way and wrong way to resolve such conflicts.

According to audit standards cited in the GAO report, the dispute should have been addressed, resolved, and documented in the work papers before the report was issued. It was not, because the two opinions were irreconcilable.

The team's disclaimer was based on evidence measured against standards documented in the work papers. Blair's so-called "professional preference," by comparison, is none of these things. As the GAO's evidence gap suggests, his opinion was hooked up to nothing. It was unsupported and improper.

Common sense should have caused senior managers to realize that issuing the report with the opinion hanging fire was a senseless blunder. Doing it had one inevitable result: The opinion had no credibility and had to go.

True, the integrity of the OIG audit process may be damaged. But the final outcome of this tangled mess may help to clear the way for recovery.

The Marine Corps audit was the first big one out of the box. If IG Rymer had not embraced the truth, we might be staring at a bunch of worthless opinions awarded to the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The Department of Defense could have declared victory and buried the broken bookkeeping system for another 100 years.

Hopefully, the Defense Department will begin anew with fresh respect for the truth, audit standards, and the need for reliable transaction data -- the life-blood of credible financial statements. Unreliable transaction data doomed the Marine Corps audit to failure from the get-go. Without reliable transaction data, the probability of conducting a successful audit of a major component is near zero.

With the right leadership and guidance, a plan with achievable deadlines can and should be developed. In the meantime, us watchdogs must remain vigilant. My gut tells me we are not yet out of the woods.

Grassley Pursues Inquiry into Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Transfers

WASHINGTON - Since media reports of videos describing in detail Planned Parenthood's role in the harvesting of fetal tissue, Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, has opened an inquiry into the organization's facilitation of activities described in the videos. 

Grassley previously made an inquiry to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and more recently has requested information from each of the Planned Parenthood affiliates regarding each affiliate's fetal tissue policies as well as copies of documents such as policies, presentations, guidance, and communications related to its facilitation of the procurement and distribution of fetal tissue.

He has also made inquiries to the three companies noted in the videos as acquiring fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood.  StemExpress, Advanced Bioscience Resources, and Novogenix were asked to provide the committee with information about items such as communications, contracts, revenue and costs associated with their involvement with Planned Parenthood and its affiliates.

Additionally, on Friday, Grassley requested from the Center for Medical Progress all videos and documents related to its fetal tissue investigation that may lawfully be provided to the committee.

In his initial inquiry on July 15, to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, Grassley asked questions about the organization's facilitation of the activities described in the video.  In a separate letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch sent the same day, Grassley noted that the video shows Planned Parenthood's Senior Director for Medical Services, Deborah Nucatola, discussing the statutory interpretation and intent of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.  He asked Lynch to provide the Judiciary Committee with a description of the actions taken by the Department of Justice to ensure compliance with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Planned Parenthood has hired an attorney to answer Grassley's questions.  The Justice Department has not responded to Grassley's questions.

Copies of Grassley's letters to the Planned Parenthood affiliates can be found here (the same letter was sent to all affiliates).  A copy of the letters to StemExpress, Advanced Bioscience Resources, and Novogenix can be found here.  A copy of the letter to the Center for Medical Progress can be found here.  Grassley's July 15 letter to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards can be found here.  A copy of the letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch can be found here.

Camp Counselor Kept Job, Immigration Benefit Despite Being 'Potentially Egregious' Risk

WASHINGTON - A California camp counselor now charged with child molestation was considered to be a "potentially egregious public safety" risk months before his arrest, but was still allowed to keep his job and immigration benefits, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The information responds to questions raised by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley regarding federal immigration authorities' investigation of the counselor who was in the country based on executive actions taken by President Obama prior to his arrest.

USCIS confirmed that Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was granted work authorization through the President's deferred deportation program, commonly known as DACA, which allowed him to work as a camp counselor at Walden West Science Camp.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was aware that Covarrubias-Padilla was under investigation for child exploitation as early as November 17, 2014, according to records provided by USCIS. While USCIS acknowledged that ICE officials "typically apprise USCIS when a recipient of DACA or an immigration benefit is an investigative target," USCIS failed to learn of the ongoing investigation until March 31, 2015.

According to the response from USCIS, Department of Homeland Security officials notified the Santa Clara Sheriff's Office of Covarrubias-Padilla's suspicious activities on April 29, 2015, the same day that ICE officials confirmed he was employed by the Santa Clara Office of Education.  It wasn't until May 13, 2015, six days after Covarrubias-Padilla was arrested for child molestation and distribution of child pornography, that immigration officials took action to revoke his DACA status and work authorization.

It remains unclear why no action was taken to revoke Covarrubias-Padilla's work authorization and immigration benefits, given that multiple agencies were aware of the ongoing investigation, that he was employed by the Office of Education and that he was considered a "potentially egregious public safety" risk.  Grassley raised this and other questions in a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

Grassley Continues State Department Document Request Amid New Information

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley is continuing his inquiry into State Department personnel practices amid new information and allegations over a leave payment dispute involving a top aide and significant communications between the aide and an outside firm, potentially creating conflict of interest concerns.  The employee, Huma Abedin, worked for the State Department as a Special Government Employee, an outside firm, Teneo, and the Clinton Foundation at the same time.

"This started as an inquiry about whether a federal personnel designation works as intended," Grassley said.  "As information came in, it evolved to focus on an agency that used the designation in a different way than others in at least one high profile case.   Revelations of private email use and multiple jobs held at the same time by one individual raised more questions.   Now, more details are coming in, and they warrant more questions.  The bottom line is still whether the taxpayers are well-served by agency practices and spending.  No one will know for sure until the State Department is more transparent about how it operates."

Since June 2013, Grassley has sought information about the Special Government Employee designation at the State Department.   He sought all communications between the State Department and Teneo after learning of Abedin's dual employment.  Revelations that Abedin reportedly had a private address on an email server in then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's personal residence and allegedly forwarded some official emails to that private address have raised more questions about the transparency of communications.  In addition, these allegations shed light on possible interference of Freedom of Information Act requests by State Department officials.

Grassley recently received new allegations that Abedin received an undeserved payment for unused leave, to the concern of the Office of Inspector General; concerns over Abedin's potential conflicts of interest, including reportedly being on thousands of emails with a Teneo aide connected to the Clintons, with an alleged request to help with an executive branch appointment for a Clinton Foundation donor; and suggestions that Abedin continued her Special Government Status to have her travel paid to and from New York.

Grassley asked for extensive records and communications on these allegations and information in letters to Secretary of State John Kerry; State Department Inspector General Steve Linick; and Abedin.  His letters are available here, here and here.

Here is information about Senator Grassley's schedule this week, as of Monday, August 3, 2015.  The Senate is in session.

Senator Grassley will meet with Iowans in Washington, D.C., from the University of Iowa College of Dentistry, the National Society of Accountants and the University of Iowa Student Government.

Senator Grassley will meet with Iowa families from Fredericksburg, Bettendorf, Lisbon, West Des Moines, Iowa City, Council Bluffs, LaPorte City, Carlisle, Le Mars, Toledo, Waterloo, Ames, Reinbeck, North Liberty, Clarksville, Marion, Waverly, Stockton, Urbandale, Williamsburg, Montezuma, Cedar Rapids and Mason City.

Senator Grassley was a guest on a public affairs program hosted by Cindy Kohlmann on KDTH in Dubuque and Bob Leonard on KNIA/KRLS in Knoxville/Pella and will be a guest on public affairs programs hosted by Doug Wagner on WMT in Cedar Rapids and Greg Haubrich on WGEM in Quincy.

On Tuesday, August 4, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in a Finance Committee hearing on "A Way Back Home: Preserving Families and Reducing the Need for Foster Care."  Senator Grassley is the founder and co-chair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth.

On Wednesday, August 5, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will preside over a Judiciary Committee hearing, "'All' Means 'All': The Justice Department's Failure to Comply with its Legal Obligation to Ensure Inspector General Access to all Records Needed for Independent Oversight."  Inspector General Michael Horowitz will testify.  Grassley has led a bipartisan, bicameral effort expressing concern with a recent opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that allows the Justice Department to deny access to records sought by the Inspector General.

On Wednesday, August 5, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in an executive session of the Finance Committee to consider the nominations of Marisa Lago of New York to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative and W. Thomas Reeder, Jr. of Virginia to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

On Thursday, August 6, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will preside over the weekly executive business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The committee may consider S. 1814, the Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, sponsored by Senators David Vitter and Jeff Flake and S. 32, the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015, sponsored by Senators Grassley, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, John Cornyn, Amy Klobuchar and Richard Blumenthal.

-30-

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing entitled, "'All' Means 'All': The Justice Department's Failure to Comply With Its Legal Obligation to Ensure Inspector General Access to All Records Needed For Independent Oversight," scheduled for Wednesday, August 5 at 10:00 a.m., will be held in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

By order of the Chairman.

Witness List

Hearing before the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

On

"'All' Means 'All': The Justice Department's Failure to Comply With Its Legal Obligation to Ensure Inspector General Access to All Records Needed For Independent Oversight"

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 106

10:00 a.m.

Panel I

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz

Inspector General

United States Department of Justice

Mr. Kevin L. Perkins

Associate Deputy Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Mr. Carlos Uriarte

Associate Deputy Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

Mr. David Smith

Acting Inspector General

United States Department of Commerce

Panel II

Ms. Danielle Brian

Executive Director

Project on Government Oversight

Washington, D.C.

Professor Paul Light

Professor

Robert G. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service

New York University

New York, NY

Mr. Brian Miller

Former Inspector General

United States General Services Administration

Managing Director

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

Washington, D.C.

-30-

Issues Disaster Proclamation for 23 Counties

SPRINGFIELD - Governor Bruce Rauner today asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assist with damage assessments in 23 counties devastated by a series of severe storms In June and July that caused heavy rainfall, flash and river flooding, tornadoes and straight-line winds. Governor Rauner also issued a state disaster proclamation for those counties.

"These counties were battered by a series of severe storms for most of June and July," Governor Rauner said. "We're working to do everything within our power to help people and communities affected by the tornadoes, flooding and damaging winds these storms generated. These damage assessments will provide us with greater detail as to the impact of these storms and could be used to support a request for federal assistance."

Personnel from FEMA, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) and local emergency management agencies are expected to begin assessing damage to homes and businesses in Adams, Grundy, Iroquois, Jersey, Mason, Tazewell and Warren counties later this week.

The state also requested FEMA assistance with assessments of storm-related costs incurred by local governments in Adams, Alexander, Brown, Calhoun, Cass, Coles, Fulton, Greene, Grundy, Iroquois, Jersey, Mason, Monroe, Morgan, Peoria, Pike, Randolph, Richland, Schuyler, Scott, Tazewell, Vermilion and Warren counties.  Those assessments are expected to begin the week of August 10.

The state has provided assistance to many of the affected communities, including sandbags filled and placed by offenders from the Illinois Department of Corrections, debris removal and delivery of flood-fighting supplies by the Illinois Department of Transportation, emergency management support from the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, and security support from the Illinois State Police and Illinois Department of Corrections. In addition, the State Emergency Operations Center in Springfield was activated several times in June and July to coordinate state assistance.

August 1-7 is National WIC Breastfeeding Week

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3, 2015 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is recognizing state and local agencies of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (more commonly known as WIC) that excel in offering education and support for breastfeeding mothers. As part of World Breastfeeding Week activities, Vilsack has also proclaimed this week, Aug. 1-7, as National WIC Breastfeeding Week, "in appreciation of breastfeeding mothers and of all the dedicated volunteers, professionals, communities, and organizations who support their efforts."

"The work being done by WIC programs to empower mothers to breastfeed?addressing societal barriers, enhancing peer counselor programs, building key coalitions, and more-is absolutely vital and deserves recognition," said Vilsack. "There is no better food than breast milk for a baby's first year of life. Increasing breastfeeding rates can help reduce the prevalence of various illnesses and health conditions, which in turn results in lower health care costs."

According to a 2010 study, if 90 percent of U.S. families could comply with medical recommendations to breastfeed exclusively for six months, the United States would prevent more than 900 deaths save $13 billion per year and from reduced direct and indirect medical costs and the cost of premature death.

Throughout the week the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is recognizing outstanding breastfeeding programs with WIC Breastfeeding Performance Bonuses and the WIC Loving Support Awards of Excellence. The recognition supports the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which calls for increased emphasis on breastfeeding promotion and support in the WIC program.

This year, WIC Breastfeeding Performance Bonuses are presented to large (>1,000 infants) and small (<1,000 infants) high-performing WIC agencies with the greatest improvement in the percentage of exclusively breastfed infants over the past year. A total of $500,000 will be awarded to eight state WIC agencies and Indian tribal organizations that have demonstrated successful breastfeeding promotion and support efforts. The performance bonuses highlight WIC agencies' successful breastfeeding initiatives, while encouraging and motivating other state agencies to strengthen their breastfeeding promotion and support services.

For the first time, USDA is also recognizing exemplary WIC local agencies with the WIC Loving Support Awards of Excellence. WIC agencies utilizing the USDA Loving Support Model for a successful peer counseling program were eligible to apply for the honor, which considers their breastfeeding performance measures, effective peer counseling programs and community partnerships. A total of 55 local WIC agencies across the country qualified for an award. By recognizing their success and sharing best practices, the WIC Loving Support Awards of Excellence will provide successful models and motivation to other WIC local agencies with the goal of ultimately increase breastfeeding rates among WIC participants.

The WIC program provides nutritious foods to supplement diets, nutrition education (including breastfeeding promotion and support), and referrals to health and other social services to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women, infants, and children up to age five. Services are made available through approximately 1,900 local agencies and 10,000 clinic sites. Visit www.fns.usda.gov/WIC to learn more about the WIC program.

In addition to WIC, USDA's Food and Nutrition Services administers several other programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, National School Lunch Program, and the Summer Food Service Program which together comprise America's nutrition safety net. For more information, visit www.fns.usda.gov.