DES MOINES, Iowa - Today, leaders from Dubuque and Council Bluffs gathered at the state capitol to roll out "Iowans for Ending Dog Racing" -- a new organization aimed at mobilizing support across the state to end dog racing in Iowa.

The leaders of "Iowans for Ending Dog Racing" include Dubuque Mayor Roy Buol, Greater Dubuque Development Corporation President & CEO Rick Dickinson, Council Bluffs Chamber President Bob Mundt and former Council Bluffs mayor Tom Hanafan. 

The Iowa dog racing industry requires $13 million in subsidies every year, which costs Council Bluffs and Dubuque millions in local economic development and charitable giving.  "Eliminating the requirement that dog racing remain in Dubuque would be an enormous benefit to our community in terms of millions of additional dollars that could be spent on charitable giving and local economic development," said Dubuque Mayor Roy Buol.

Ending dog racing in Iowa would also open up the land where the current track is located in Council Bluffs for new development.  "The dog track in Council Bluffs sits directly off of I-80 on one of the top potential development sites in the entire state," said former Council Bluffs mayor Tom Hanafan.  "Since attendance and interest in dog racing has dramatically declined in the last two decades, our community would benefit greatly by opening up that area for new development and job opportunities."

Iowans for Ending Dog Racing is encouraging citizens from Dubuque, Council Bluffs and across the entire state to study the facts about the dog racing industry and sign the petition to end dog racing in Iowa at www.EndIowaDogRacing.com.

The organization is also encouraging Iowans to contact their local legislator and urge him or her to support proposed legislation to end dog racing in Iowa.  The proposed bipartisan bill that has passed a committee in the Iowa House would provide the dog racing industry with $70 million over seven years to end dog racing and explore new opportunities.  In addition, each casino currently subsidizing the dog racing industry has publicly committed to keeping their track employees on staff and giving them a new role within the casinos. 

"Ending dog racing in Iowa is common sense and is strongly supported by local business, citizens and city officials in Dubuque and Council Bluffs," said Mayor Buol.  "The time has come to turn the page on dog racing and allow these communities to create new opportunities for the people of Iowa."

Get the Facts on Dog Racing in Iowa:

• Dog racing is bad for Iowa. The more you learn about the industry, the more you will want it out of Iowa. Ready to take action? Sign the Petition to get dog racing out of Iowa.


• Dog Racing is Illegal in Most States.  Iowa is one of only 7 states legally operating greyhound racing tracks.  Commercial dog racing is illegal in 38 states.


• $13 Million in Subsidies Keeping Dog Racing Alive in Iowa.  The only thing keeping dog racing in business in Iowa is a state law requiring subsidies to dog racing that now total more than $13 million annually.


• Betting on Dogs Started to Decline 3 Years After Opening in Iowa.  Live dog racing started in Iowa in 1986.  By 1989 betting on dog racing began to decline.


• Betting is Down 97% since 1986.  Combined betting at the Mystique dog track in Dubuque and Bluffs Run Greyhound Park at Horseshoe Council Bluffs has dropped from $186 million in 1986 to just $5.9 million in 2012 - a 97 percent decline. [Des Moines Register, 1/21/14]


• 38% of Iowa purse money goes to out-of-state dog owners.


• Of the purse money remaining in Iowa, 95% is paid to just 25 Iowans.


• Council Bluffs Chamber and City Support Ending Dog Racing.  The Council Bluffs Chamber of Commerce has joined the Council Bluffs City Council in adopting a resolution "strongly supporting" legislation calling for the elimination of live dog racing at the Harrah's/Horseshoe Bluffs Run greyhound race park and in the state of Iowa.  On January 14th the Council voted 4-0 to end dog racing.


• Dubuque Chamber, City and Racing Association Support Ending Dog Racing.  The Dubuque Chamber of Commerce, the City of Dubuque and the Dubuque Racing Association all support ending dog racing in Dubuque and Council Bluffs.


• Ending Dog Racing in Council Bluffs Means More Retail, Economic Development & Jobs.  Currently racing in Council Bluffs is conducted in a near empty facility that seats more than 2,500. Located just off I-80 near Bass Pro Shops, that property could be transformed into additional retail space, attracting more customers and revenue to the area and creating more jobs for Iowans.


• Ending Dog Racing in Dubuque Means Millions to Local Non-Profits, Economic Development.  The current law causes Dubuque's non-profit Mystique Casino to lose more than $4 million each year to subsidize dog racing. With Mystique's profits split equally between the City of Dubuque and local charities, those millions would be better used to fund volunteer first responders, security in our schools, new capital improvement projects and industrial parks.


• Both Casinos Committed to Keeping Track Employees Employed in Casinos.  Both casinos currently subsidizing dog racing have publicly committed to keeping their track employees on staff and giving them a new role within the casinos.  In addition, quality jobs will be created by ending the subsidy requirement and directing millions of dollars towards local economic development.


• Proposed bipartisan legislation will end dog racing in Iowa and provide Iowa greyhound breeders and kennel owners $70 million over the next seven years to wind down.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (Feb. 26, 2014) ? This week, the nationally-syndicated advice column "Miss Manners" advised readers on speaking with a person who stutters. Judith Martin, the legendary "Miss Manners" advice columnist since 1978, responded to an inquiry about the proper protocol when speaking with a person who stutters.

The reader asked:

"DEAR MISS MANNERS: What is the proper protocol when speaking with someone who has a stutter? Is it considered helpful or rude to assist him in completing a sentence or question?"

Miss Manners responded:

"GENTLE READER: How can you assist someone in completing his or her statement unless you already know what that person was intending to say? And if you already know what is going to be said, why bother holding a conversation?

"So yes, it is considered rude to finish other people's sentences. And Miss Manners wants it to be clear that this applies not only to stutterers, but to spouses as well."

"Miss Manners nailed it," said Jane Fraser, president of the Stuttering Foundation. "We are thrilled that she chose this topic to address in her column. This is one of the most frequently asked questions we receive, and her response is the perfect advice for anyone curious about speaking with a person who stutters.

Here are the 6 tips for speaking with someone who stutters, available at www.StutteringHelp.org.

1. Don't make remarks like: 'Slow down,' 'Take a breath,' or 'Relax.' Such simplistic advice can come across as demeaning rather than helpful.

2. Let the person know by your manner that you are listening to what he or she says ? not how they say it.

3. Maintain natural eye contact and wait patiently and naturally until the person is finished.

4. Refrain from finishing sentences or filling in words.

5. Be aware that those who stutter usually have more trouble controlling their speech on the telephone or in stressful situations, such as a presentation before an audience or job interview. Please be extra patient in these situations and give them some additional time to communicate their thoughts.

6. Speak in an unhurried way ? but not so slowly as to sound unnatural. This promotes good communication with everyone."

###

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack (IA-02), who served as the Senior Democrat on the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Subcommittee of the House Education and Workforce Committee, today delivered the following opening remarks at the hearing entitled "Providing Access to Affordable, Flexible Health Plans Through Self-Insurance."

Loebsack's opening statement, as prepared for delivery, is below.

"Good morning. I want to thank Chairman Roe for calling today's hearing and thank all of the witnesses for testifying.

"The Affordable Care Act paves the way for all Americans to have access to quality, affordable health care coverage for the first time.

"While it is unacceptable that technical problems prevented people from signing up for the marketplaces at the outset, there is more than a month of open enrollment left and millions of Americans are signing up for coverage.

"As of last month, approximately 4 million people have enrolled in a marketplace plan and millions more have secured coverage through Medicaid.

"The ACA is also helping strengthen employer-sponsored coverage for the more than 150 million workers and their families who get their health insurance through employment.

"Of the workers who get coverage through their jobs, about three in five work for an employer who self-funds their coverage, which means that they directly assume responsibility for covering the cost of their employees' medical care.

"While the ACA provides employers who self-fund with greater flexibility, it also ensures that workers with this coverage have access to many of the law's important new consumer protections.

"Because of the Affordable Care Act's ban on annual and lifetime limits, workers no longer face financial ruin if they confront a chronic or catastrophic illness.

"Children can stay on their parent's plan until they are 26, including 5,400 young people in my district alone. This means that rather than worrying about whether they can afford adequate coverage at the very early stages of their careers, we are giving America's young people a chance to focus on building a strong future right from the start.

"Now workers have the right to appeal a benefit denial to an independent third party and they have the right to a summary of their benefits and coverage to help them compare costs and understand their health care plan.

"The Affordable Care Act also provides workers with greater freedom as they are no longer tied to their employer for their health care coverage. This newfound freedom gives workers greater flexibility in the labor market: they are free to make career decisions, such as changing jobs or starting their own business, without worrying about how they will continue to get health insurance.

"Employers are also benefiting from the law and saving money through such provisions as the small business tax credit and medical loss ratio. In fact, last year health care costs grew at the slowest rate in 50 years.

"Spending less on health care allows employers to create more jobs. Since the law's enactment, more than eight million new jobs have been added to the economy?and nine out of 10 of those jobs are full-time positions.

"Recent reports have indicated that more employers may be looking to self-insure.

"As part of today's hearing, I expect we will discuss the issues unique to the self-insurance market. I think this is an important conversation.

"While there are many benefits to employers who self-insure, there also can be significant financial risk.

"The recent story about AOL exemplifies the risks involved with self-insuring and re-enforces why employers must be adequately prepared if they face higher than expected health care costs.

"The CEO of AOL recently blamed the high health care costs incurred by two babies for the company's decision to cut contributions to its retirement plan.

"With 5,000 workers, AOL is not what I would consider a small employer and thus was ultimately able to absorb the costs.  They did not have to shift the costs onto employees, and, after a public outcry, they backpedaled their plan to cut retirement benefits. A smaller employer?regardless of whether they had stop-loss coverage?may not have as much flexibility to absorb unexpected costs in a self-funded plan.

"I hope today's conversation will be a constructive one and look forward to the testimony. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back."

###

WASHINGTON - Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released a joint report on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s highly-invasive surveillance program that monitored employees who contacted Congress and the media with concerns about FDA's medical device approval process.

Grassley's testimony before the Oversight Committee on the report is available here.

In April 2010, the FDA initiated a surveillance program of unprecedented scope to monitor employees in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health.  The program allowed FDA managers to read communications between FDA employees and Congress, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), and their personal attorneys.  The Joint Committee report, entitled "Limitless Surveillance at the FDA: Protecting the Rights of Federal Whistleblowers," found the FDA acted without regard for employees' whistleblower rights, which protect their communications to Congress and OSC.  The joint report also found that FDA conducted the program without adequate guidelines in place and made no effort to limit the scope of the program to exclude protected communications.

The Oversight Committee will hold a hearing on the FDA's surveillance today at 10:00 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

Key Findings:

•   Insufficient authorization and guidelines. The monitoring was implemented with insufficient written authorization, no policy in place and no legal guidance given to the contractors conducting the monitoring. As a result, FDA captured communications that are protected by law, including communications with Congress, the media, and watchdog groups like Project on Government Oversight.

•    Unlawful capturing of protected communications. Because no formal monitoring policy was in place, FDA managers did not understand the legal limits of employee monitoring. The FDA's surveillance was not lawful, to the extent that it monitored communications with Congress and the Office of Special Counsel. Federal law protects disclosures to OSC and Congress.

•    Lack of explanation for capture of future communications. Instead of looking back at previous communications using available tools, the FDA captured real-time communications of current and future communications. When interviewed, FDA managers and IT professionals failed to explain clearly how the rationale offered to justify the monitoring (investigating a past leak) was consistent with the method used (monitoring current activity).

•    New policies do not offer sufficient whistleblower protections. In September 2013, the FDA issued interim policies that require written authorization prior to initiating employee monitoring. However, the policies do not offer sufficient protection for whistleblowers concerned about retaliation from agency officials.

You can read the complete joint report here.

-30-