Braley will talk with farmers about the drought's effect on agriculture in eastern Iowa 

Washington, DC - On Thursday, July 19, 2012, Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) will host an emergency telephone town hall with Iowa farmers to discuss the Iowa drought, its impact on Iowa agriculture, disaster relief, and this year's Farm Bill. Braley will be joined by Juan Garcia, Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency.

Braley has hosted 12 listening sessions on the Food, Farm and Job Bill across eastern Iowa this summer. The listening sessions have taken Braley to Grinnell, Independence, Manchester, Marengo, Marshalltown, Peosta, St. Ansgar, Strawberry Point, Toledo, and Vinton.  Also, Braley joined USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack at listening session events in Maquoketa and Cedar Rapids last month.

Braley and Garcia will be available to answer Iowans' questions and comments live over the phone. The event is open to the public. Iowans interested in participating should use the following instructions.

Call-In Information: 

When: Thursday, July 19, 2012

Time: 7:00 PM Central Time

Phone Number: 877-229-8493, Code: 110428#

# # #

Floor Speech of Sen. Chuck Grassley

FDA Whistleblower Spying

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

I rise today to speak about a federal agency that has forgotten that it works for the American public.

This is an agency that has gotten too big for its britches.

Some of its officials have forgotten who pays their salaries.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to work to protect the American people.

Except lately, the only thing the FDA bureaucrats seem to have any interest in protecting is themselves.

According to whistleblowers and published reports in the Washington Post and New York Times, the agency in charge of safeguarding American public safety has trampled on the privacy of its employees.

The FDA mounted an aggressive campaign against employees who dared to question its actions and created what the New York Times termed an "enemies list" of people it considered dangerous.

The FDA has been spying on this "enemies list."

The FDA has been spying on the personal emails of these employees and everyone they contacted.

That includes their protected communications with Congress.

We would not have known the extent of the spying if internal FDA documents about it had not been released on the Internet, apparently by accident.

We would not have known how the FDA intentionally targeted and capture confidential, personal emails between the whistleblowers, their lawyers, and Congress.

In these internal documents that FDA never wanted the public to see, it refers to the whistleblowers as "collaborators."

FDA refers to congressional staff as "ancillary actors."

FDA refers to the newspaper reporters as "media outlet actors."

These memos make the FDA sound more like the East German Stasi than a consumer protection agency in a free country.

At the beginning of Commissioner Hamburg's term she said whistleblowers exposed critical issues within FDA.

She vowed to create a culture that values whistleblowers.

In fact, in 2009, she said, and I quote, "I think whistleblowers serve an important role."

I wanted to believe Commissioner Hamburg when she testified before the Senate during her confirmation.

I wanted to believe her when she said she would protect whistleblowers at the FDA.

However, the facts now appear very different.

In this case the FDA invaded the privacy of multiple whistleblowers.

It hacked into their private e-mail accounts and used sophisticated keystroke logging software to monitor their every move online.

When an FDA supervisor was placed under oath in the course of an equal employment opportunity complaint, he testified that the FDA was conducting "routine security monitoring."

That is false.

This monitoring was anything but routine.

It was targeted specifically at five whistleblowers.

It intentionally captured their private emails to attorneys, Congress, and the Office of Special Counsel.

The internal documents show that this was a unique, highly sophisticated, and highly specialized operation.

According to the Office of Inspector General, the FDA had no evidence of any criminal wrong-doing by the whistleblowers.

This massive campaign of spying was not just an invasion of privacy; it was specifically designed to intercept communications that are protected by law.

The Office of Special Counsel is an agency created by Congress to receive whistleblower complaints and protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

The law protects communications with the Special Counsel as a way to encourage whistleblowers to report waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, or threats to public safety without fear of retaliation.

The FDA knew that contacts between whistleblowers and the Office of Special Counsel are privileged and confidential.

But, the James Bond wanna-be's at the FDA just didn't care.

In the end, the self-appointed spies turned out to be more like the bumbling Maxwell Smart.

Along with their own internal memos about the spying, the fruits of their labor were also accidentally posted on the Internet.

It's tens of thousands of pages of emails and pictures of the whistleblowers' computer screens, containing some of the very same information that the FDA bureaucrats were so keen to keep secret.

When I started asking questions about this, FDA officials seemed to suffer from a sudden bout of collective amnesia.

It took them more than six months to answer my letter from last January.

When I pushed for a reply during those six months, FDA told my staff that that the response would take time to make sure it was accurate and complete.

When I finally got the response on Friday, it doesn't even answer the simplest of questions, such as who authorized this targeted spy ring.

Worse than that, it is misleading in its denials about intentionally intercepting communications with Congress.

When I asked them why they couldn't just answer some simple questions, they told my staff that the response was under review by the "appropriate officials in the Administration."

The non-answers and double-speak would have fit right into a George Orwell novel.

Of course, when my staff dug deeper and asked if the response was being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, FDA responded, no.

FDA refused to identify who within the Administration was holding up the FDA's response to my letter.

FDA refused to say how long it had been sitting on that person's desk or why it had to be approved by political officials outside the FDA.

Who is this shadowy figure conducting some secret review of FDA's response to my questions?

Why was there all of the sudden interest in exerting political control over the correspondence of this supposedly independent Federal agency?

We need answers and we need them now.

I have been demanding answers for six months.

For the past six months FDA has been telling me to be patient.

FDA has been telling me that they have "a good story to tell."

Apparently, though, there's someone in the Obama Administration who didn't want them to say anything for as long as possible.

I finally got Commissioner Hamburg on the phone in June.

Commissioner Hamburg personally assured me that the FDA was going to fully cooperate with my investigation.

Yet - the FDA has provided me with nothing but misleading and incomplete responses.

The FDA has failed to measure up to Commissioner Hamburg's pledge of cooperation.

The FDA buried its head in the sand in hopes that I will lose interest and go away.

That's not going to happen.

I don't care who is in charge of the executive branch, Republican or Democrat, I will not stop demanding answers.

When government bureaucrats obstruct and intercept my communications with protected whistleblowers, I will not stop.

When government bureaucrats stonewall for months on end, I will not stop.

When government bureaucrats try and muddy the waters and mislead, I will not stop.

I will get to the bottom of it.

I will continue to press the FDA until we know who authorized spying on whistleblowers.

Someone within the FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with my office and with several other Members of Congress.

Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with Congressman Van Hollen's office.

Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with staff at the Senate Special Committee on Aging.

Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with the Office of Special Counsel.

These whistleblowers thought the FDA was approving drugs and treatments that it shouldn't.

These whistleblowers thought the FDA was caving to pressure from the companies that were applying for FDA approval.

They have a right to express those concerns without fear of retaliation.

But after doing so, two of them were fired.

Two more were forced to leave FDA.

And five of them were subjected to an intense spying campaign.

Senior FDA officials may have broken the law.

They authorized the capturing of personal email passwords through keystroke logging software.

That potentially allowed them to log in to the whistleblowers' personal email accounts and access emails that were never even accessed from a work computer.

Without a subpoena or warrant, that would be a criminal violation.

After six months, FDA finally denied that occurred.

However, that denial was based on the word of one unnamed information technology employee involved in the monitoring.

We need a more thorough investigation than that.

I have asked the FDA to make that person and several other witnesses available for interviews with my staff.

We will see how cooperative FDA plans to be now.

I will continue to press the FDA to open every window and every door.

Eventually enough sunlight on this agency will cleanse it.

FDA gets paid to protect the public, not keep us in the dark.

Secret monitoring programs, spying on Congress, and retaliating against whistleblowers?this is a sad commentary on the state of affairs at the FDA.

I know there are hard-working and principled rank and file employees at FDA who care very much about their mission to protect the American public from harm.

Unfortunately, all too often those rank and file employees are unfairly tarnished by others such as those involved in this spy ring.

This is a sad commentary on President Obama's promise to the American people that this would be the most transparent Administration in history.

The American people can't lose faith in the FDA.

Unfortunately, after this debacle, I think that I have.

FDA has a lot of work to do to restore the public's trust.

-30-

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley has asked for a complete accounting of how the Department of Justice is responding to an incident last month in Louisiana where a senior civil rights lawyer for the department reportedly threatened a journalist about getting "on the Department of Justice's bad side" if the reporter quoted the lawyer.  The alleged incident occurred at a meeting advertised as a public event to address concerns about employment practices of the local fire department.

 

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Grassley asked if the Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and if not, why not.  Grassley also asked for details about the Justice Department's "special rules" for statements reportedly cited by the department lawyer at the meeting.  And, he asked for the justification and an explanation of the threat reportedly leveled by the department official if the reporter didn't comply with orders about not quoting her.

 

Grassley said reports of the incident in New Iberia, Louisiana, including a complaint by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, are troubling and, if accurate, "confirm that there is a complete disconnect between the President's words about transparency and the actual conduct of his Administration."  Grassley referred to two memoranda issued by President Obama purportedly designed to usher in a "new era of open government" and to comments from White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew as recently as July 1, that the Obama Administration "has been the most transparent administration ever."

 

Click here for Grassley's July 17 letter to Holder.  Below is the text of the letter of inquiry.

 

July 17, 2012

 

Via Electronic Transmission

 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.                           

Attorney General                       

U.S. Department of Justice                       

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.                          

Washington, DC 20530                         

 

Dear Attorney General Holder:

 

I write to express my concern about reports of an incident at a June 12, 2012 public meeting in New Iberia, Louisiana involving Rachel Hranitzky, a Senior Trial Attorney in the Civil Rights Division.[1] It is my understanding that a formal complaint about the incident has been sent to the Department of Justice.  I also understand that letters requesting information have been sent to Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez by Senator David Vitter, Congressman Jeff Landry and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

 

The June 22, 2012 letter from the Reporters Committee summarized the reports on the incident as follows:

 

It is our understanding that on [June 12, 2012], Ms. Hranitzky arrived at the meeting and immediately asked if any journalists were present. When a Daily Iberian reporter attending the meeting responded in the affirmative, she informed him that he could neither record the meeting nor quote her statements. According to other attendees, the meeting had been advertised as a public meeting intended to address concerns with the city fire department's hiring and promotion process.  However, citing 'special rules' of the Department of Justice for agency attorneys, Ms. Hranitzky instructed that her statements be neither recorded nor quoted. When the reporter questioned this instruction on the basis that Ms. Hranitzky was speaking at a public meeting, she apparently threatened him with the possibility that the DOJ could call his editors and publisher, and warned that he would not 'want to get on the Department of Justice's bad side.' Furthermore, it is our understanding that Ms. Hranitzky demanded the reporter leave the meeting, although?after making his objection known but agreeing not to quote her?he was ultimately allowed to remain.

 

According to one report on the incident, Ms. Hranitzky "'grew belligerent and threatening'" while speaking with the reporter.[2] After the meeting, she apparently told the reporter that she had been quoted in the past and gotten in trouble with the DOJ.[3] More specifically, Ms. Hranitzky told the reporter that the DOJ "'keeps a short leash on how their attorneys are quoted and she could get in big trouble if she were quoted in a newspaper.'"[4]

 

As you are well aware, on his first full day in office, President Obama declared openness and transparency to be touchstones of his administration, and ordered agencies to make it easier for the public to get information about the government.  Specifically, he issued two memoranda written in grand language and purportedly designed to usher in a "new era of open government."[5] As recently as July 1, the White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, told a television audience that the Obama Administration "has been the most transparent administration ever."[6]

 

The reports about the incident in New Iberia and the existence of a DOJ policy or "special rules" which were the cause of the incident, are troubling.  If accurate, the reports further confirm that there is a complete disconnect between the President's words about transparency and the actual conduct of his Administration.

Transparency and open government must be more than just pleasant sounding words found in memos and sound bites in television interviews.  They are essential to the functioning of a democratic government.  Moreover, if the reports about the incident and the existence of a DOJ policy or DOJ "special rules" are accurate, it would amount to a raw abuse of power and a complete disregard for the First Amendment and state open meetings laws.

I am seriously concerned about the reports regarding the incident in New Iberia.  Accordingly, please respond to the following questions and requests for information:

1.            Is the DOJ, or the DOJ Inspector General, conducting an investigation of the incident in New Iberia?

 

2.            If the DOJ is conducting an investigation, identify who is conducting it and describe in detail the scope of the investigation.  If the investigation is being conducted by members of the Civil Rights Division, explain how they do not have a conflict of interest.  If the DOJ is not conducting an investigation, explain why no investigation has been commenced.

 

3.            If the DOJ is conducting an investigation, provide a copy of the final report from that investigation when it is completed.

 

4.            Set forth in detail the DOJ's version of the events that took place at the public meeting in New Iberia.

 

5.            If the reports are accurate and Ms. Hranitzky told the reporter that he could not quote anything she said at the public meeting, provide a citation to the legal authority justifying that statement.  If there is no legal authority supporting the statement, expressly acknowledge that fact.

 

6.            Does the DOJ have a policy or "special rules," written or unwritten, regarding the recording or quotation of statements made by its employees at public meetings?  If there is a written policy or written rules, provide a copy.  If there is an unwritten policy or unwritten rules, describe the policy or rules in detail.

 

7.            If the DOJ has a policy or "special rules," written or unwritten, regarding the recording or quotation of statements made by its employees at public meetings, identify: (a) when that policy or those rules were initiated, (b) who is the author of the policy or rules and (c) the rationale or justification for the adoption of the policy or rules.  Also, identify the legal authority supporting the existence of such a policy or such rules given the protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press under the First Amendment.  If such analysis was previously conducted and is set forth in a document, provide a copy of that document.

 

8.            According to the reports, Ms. Hranitzky told the reporter that unless he complied with her orders about not quoting her, the DOJ might contact his editors or publisher and he would not want to get on the DOJ's "bad side."  Have DOJ employees been instructed to use or had it suggested to them that they could use the DOJ "bad side" statement or any other similar threat tactic when dealing with members of the media?  If so, set forth in detail (a) the circumstances under which the instructions or suggestions were made and (b) the justification for such an instruction or suggestion being given.

 

9.            Has the DOJ previously disciplined or reprimanded its employees, in any manner, whether officially or unofficially, if the statements they make at public meetings are quoted by the media?  If so, please explain in detail the circumstances under which such discipline has occurred and/or could occur.

 

10.        The reports on the incident in New Iberia referenced a DOJ policy or "special rules" related to employees' interactions with members of the media and their speaking at public meetings.  Even if no official policy or rules exist, is the DOJ investigating whether any practices exist or whether orders have been given to DOJ employees by their supervisors about the employees' interactions with members of the media and their speaking at public meetings.  If the DOJ is conducting an investigation, identify who is conducting it and describe in detail the scope of the investigation.  Also, if the DOJ is conducting an investigation, provide a copy of the final report from that investigation.  If the DOJ is not conducting an investigation, explain why no investigation has been commenced.

 

11.        If a DOJ employee speaks at a public meeting in his or her official capacity, is the reporting on or recording of the employee's statements subject to state open meetings laws, such as the one that exists in Louisiana?  If not, explain why you maintain that the statements are not subject to open meetings laws.  Also, if not, identify what laws or rules, the DOJ is subject to or follows in connection with the recording of a public meeting at which a DOJ employee speaks in his or her official capacity.  If your answer includes a reference to internal DOJ rules, provide a copy.

 

12.        Was the meeting in New Iberia subject to Louisiana's open meetings law?  If you maintain that it was not, explain your response in detail.

 

13.        Since the publication of the reports on the incident in New Iberia, have DOJ employees been given any instructions or training on how they are to interact with individuals, including members of the media, attending public meetings?  If so, and if those instructions or that training was in written format, provide a copy.  If so, and if the instructions or training was not in written format, describe it in detail.  If there have not been any instructions or training given, explain why that is so.

 

14.        Since 2007, has the DOJ received any complaints, whether informal or formal, regarding statements or conduct by its employees at a public meeting, proceeding or event similar to Ms. Hranitzky's reported statements and conduct in  New Iberia?  If so, identify each such incident in detail.  For each such incident, provide a copy of the written complaint or report that the DOJ received and a copy of any written response by the DOJ.

 

15.        Provide copies of all written responses by the DOJ to any inquiries, letters or complaints about the incident at the meeting in New Iberia.

 

16.        Provide copies of the notices or advertisements for the meeting in New Iberia.

 

17.        Provide copies of any public statements or comments made by the DOJ on the incident at the meeting in New Iberia.

 

18.        Identify the case or cases which were the subject of the meeting in New Iberia, including the case name(s) and docket number(s).

 

19.        Provide a copy of the ruling or consent decree issued in the case or cases which were the subject of the meeting in New Iberia.

 

20.        Provide copies of any written statements or comments issued by the DOJ regarding the case or cases which were the subject of the meeting in New Iberia.

 

21.        Provide copies of any written DOJ policy, directive or guidance regarding DOJ employees speaking with members of the media.

 

I ask that you provide written answers and documents by August 17, 2012.

 

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

 

Cc: Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

 

 



[1] Matthew Beaton, "'DOJ practice' slammed by politicos, group," The Daily Iberian  (July 8, 2012) (available at http://www.iberianet.com/news/doj-practice-slammed-by-politicos-group/article_32a8d028-c8b7-11e1-aa3d-0019bb2963f4.html).

[2] Matthew Volkov, "Civil Rights Division Lawyer Under Fire for Threatening Reporter at Public Hearing,"  Mainjustice.Com (July 9, 2012) (available at http://www.mainjustice.com/2012/07/09/civil-rights-division-lawyer-under-fire-for-threatening-reporter-at-public-hearing/print/).

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Memorandum from President Barak Obama Re: Freedom of Information Act (Jan. 21, 2009) (available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/freedom-information-act); Memorandum from President Barak Obama Re: Transparency and Open Government (Jan. 21, 2009) (available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/transparency-and-open-government).

[6] Josh Feldman, "Candy Crowley Calls Out President Obama For Executive Privilege Hypocrisy On Fast & Furious," Mediaite.com (July 1, 2012) (available at http://www.mediaite.com/tv/candy-crowley-calls-out-president-obama-for-executive-privilege-hypocrisy-on-fast-furious/).

Des Moines, July 17, 2012 ?Judge John Miller, senior judge serving the Iowa Court of Appeals, recently received the Iowa Judges Association Award of Merit at the Judges Association meeting. The award is given annually to recognize a judge who has made extraordinary contributions to the Iowa Judges Association and who has been a role model to new judges.

"Our Iowa judiciary is staffed with skilled, hardworking judges of high integrity who are dedicated to fulfilling their constitutional and statutory duties, and constantly strive to improve the judiciary," Judge Miller said. "I am honored and humbled to receive this award of merit from my peers for my contribution to our efforts."

The Award of Merit is given, as stated on the plaque itself, in recognition of the judge's dedication, skill, distinguished service, and extraordinary efforts for the betterment of the Iowa judiciary.

"The attributes stated on the award are exemplified by Judge Miller through his many years of outstanding service to the public as a trial judge, appellate judge, and senior judge," Fifth District Court Judge Robert Hutchison, Des Moines, said.

Judge Miller, Burlington, retired from the Iowa Court of Appeals in 2009 after more than 30 years in the judiciary. Prior to his judgeship, he was a part-time judicial hospitalization referee while in private practice from 1975-1980. Judge Miller served more than 18 years as a district court judge, 14 months of which he spent as Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District.   He served on the Iowa Court of Appeals from 1999-2009. He received both his undergraduate and bachelor degree from the University of Iowa, completing his undergraduate study in 1969 and graduating from law school, with distinction, in 1975.

During his career, Judge Miller was a member of the Judicial Administration Committee of The Iowa State Bar Association for nearly 22 years, and co-chaired its ad hoc judicial plebiscite committee. He was an active member of the Iowa Judges Association, as he served on a majority of its committees and spent three separate terms on its board of directors, holding each one of its offices, including its presidency in 1998-99.

# # #

Expert Offers Tips for Creating Championship Teams

Great coaches take into consideration an athlete's talent and heart when they're building a team, but they consider group dynamics, too, says entrepreneur J. Allan McCarthy.

"It's not just a matter of getting the fastest, strongest and smartest players on your side," says McCarthy, an international scaling expert and author of Beyond Genius, Innovation & Luck: The 'Rocket Science' of Building High-Performance Corporations (www.mccarthyandaffiliates.com).

"If you're building a championship team, you're gauging how the individual athletes fit together; how their personalities, talents, drive and abilities will mesh to meet the team's goals. It's exactly what you need to do to build a winning corporate team. As Michael Jordan, put it, 'Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence win championships.' "

In the 2011 film Moneyball, Coach Billy Beane picks his players based on analysis and evidence, says McCarthy, who has worked with hundreds of companies. He doesn't ever just "go with his gut."

McCarthy provides key points for building a successful, effective team:

· Lead with a team, not a group: A team of leaders behaves very differently than a group of leaders. Many companies don't know the difference. "It comes down to clear goals, interdependencies and rules of engagement," McCarthy says, Every corporation claims to hire only the best and the brightest but it is evident that getting the best and brightest to function as a team can be a challenge.

· Know your goals: McCarthy cites Bill Gates - "Teams should be able to act with the same unity of purpose and focus as a well-motivated individual." Many big-name CEOs like to say their talent runs free with innovative ideas. "It makes for compelling literature," McCarthy says. But would that work on the football field? Corporations need their personnel to think out-of-the-box but also act in a prescriptive culture - to work within a system in order to achieve common objectives.

· Not everyone can be the coach - or the quarterback: The problem with executives is that they all want to lead and none want to follow, McCarthy says. A team made up of executives is like a group of thoroughbred stallions confined to a small space called an organization -- plenty of kicking, biting and discord. Thoroughbreds don't naturally work well as a team. Better to define responsibilities that build a "foxhole mentality," wherein one person has the gun, the other the bullets, McCarthy says. It's in the best interests of both for each to succeed.

· The strongest teams are adept at resolving conflict: Hiring the best and the brightest should create a diverse, competent group ? but inevitably these stallions generate friction that can sabotage company progress. So, sensitize team members to the early warning signs: know-it-all attitudes, multi-tasking during team meetings, exhibiting dominant behavior, not responding in a timely fashion or engaging in avoidance. Agree, as a team, on how to mutually manage and minimize counterproductive behaviors as they surface.

· Create individual and team agreements: Here is where the "rubber meets the road" - it's the final stage of planning who will do what for team objectives, as well as a collective agreement on team rules and interdependencies. Ask individuals to openly commit to what they will do, and how the team is to function. The public declaration stresses employee obligation and collaborative management.

"We live in a 21st-century economy where speed and efficiency is a top priority, and that often means a 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality," McCarthy says. "But you get the team that you plan for, not necessarily what you pay for. If time is money, then I'd invest it in creating and building a championship team."

About J. Allan McCarthy

J. Allan McCarthy, principal of J.A. McCarthy & Affiliates, has more than 20 years of experience across 15 industries and more than 200 companies. He is a scaling expert who helps organizations determine how to best align strategy, structure and workforce capabilities. He earned his master's of management from Golden Gate University, a Stanford University AEA MBA refresher, and has worked with many international companies, including Cisco Systems, Raychem Corporation, SAP Inc., Redback Networks, BEA Systems and Ericsson.

By Steve Gunn
EAGnews.org
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Not long ago, we received a message from a very upset public school teacher who said she wants everyone to "keep education out of politics."
That would be a lot easier if the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, would get out of the political game.
But the NEA long ago established itself as a cornerstone of the Democratic Party. It spends millions of dollars every election cycle on Democratic candidates at the federal, state and local levels. It stakes out liberal policy positions on issues ranging from immigration and foreign policy to gay marriage.
And its leaders have never been shy about taking potshots at Republicans and their loyalty to the free market system that has served our nation for centuries.
If the union is so eager to play soldier on the political battle field, how can its leaders whine when the opposition shoots back? They can attack Republicans, but when GOP forces return fire, they accuse them of "attacking teachers."
They shouldn't be able to have it both ways, but somehow they pull it off.
It's obvious that the union's first priority is partisan politics. The few Republican union members who attended the recent NEA Representative Assembly in Washington, D.C. said it felt like an Obama campaign rally. They were booed and harassed when a few of them dared speak in favor of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
And if the pro-Obama atmosphere was not enough, the list of resolutions adopted at the meeting made it clear that this union is run by liberals with a very one-sided agenda.
Two Wisconsin teachers, Kristi Lacroix and Tracie Happel, tracked a number of resolutions that were introduced at the NEA Representative Assembly and addressed them in their weekly online newsletter, "Freedom from Teachers' Unions."
Below is a quick sketch of some of the issues the NEA considers worthy of its time and attention. Note that most of the items lack any connection to the improvement of K-12 public education. Who cares about that, when there's an election to be won?
The educators address everything but education
New Business Item 3: NEA shall compile a list of individuals and corporations who contribute $250,000 or more to "Super PACs" and additional activities. The list shall include companies and the products they control. The information shall be published in the NEA Today prior to March 1, 2013.
We're pretty sure they were referring to conservative Super PACs. Nothing like boycotting the companies that support your political opponents. This reminds us of the union thugs in Wisconsin who last year threatened to boycott local businesses that refused to display a pro-labor sign in their windows.
Sickening.
New Business Item 53: NEA will assist affiliates with planning for policy changes under the Affordable Care Act, augmented by cooperation with the Labor Campaign for Single Payer Healthcare Organization, all in support of the longstanding NEA goal of establishing a universal single payer healthcare system.
The union is clearly celebrating the recent Supreme Court victory for Obamacare, and is making it clear that it's ready and willing to help push for an even more socialized health care system. A lot of kids may never learn to read, but the union is determined to get them "free" health insurance.

New Business Item 14: NEA will publicly oppose any policy of U.S. military action against Iran and will restate our belief that diplomatic and nonviolent means are preferable in resolving international political differences. Further, we will make this position known in an open letter to the President and Congress.
Amazingly, this radical motion was not adopted by the delegates. Apparently a few of them have the good sense to realize that Iran may very well employ nuclear weapons against Israel if we allow the Iranians to build them. Perhaps Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got on the phone to her union friends and told them to get real about a very serious foreign policy challenge.
The delegates did approve an item officially recognizing the International Day of Peace each September 21.
A few "education" items
Lo and behold, Lacroix and Happel came across a few "new business items" that were somewhat related to education. But as you might have guessed, they were completely self-serving.
New Business Item 62: The NEA, in conjunction with state affiliates, encourages organizing efforts in non-union public charter schools and will broadly share with state and local affiliates key information ... that is relevant to any efforts by local and state affiliates attempting to organize non-union public school charter staffs.
If you can't beat the competition, convince them to join you. At least you can add more names to your dwindling membership list and gain a lot more revenue through dues deductions.

New Business Item 35: The NEA ... shall publish an article on the U.S. Conference of Mayors' endorsement of parent trigger laws, and report on the concern that parent trigger laws conflict with NEA criteria for creating charter schools.
Parent trigger laws allow citizens whose children attend failing schools to pursue a number of remedies, including the replacement of teachers or a transition to charter school status. The union defends its members, even if they're failing in the classroom. It certainly doesn't want any of them replaced with non-union charter school teachers. The status quo must be maintained and angry parents must be kept at a safe distance.
New Business Item 41: NEA will encourage its state and local affiliates to help gather any written communications received from teacher recruitment organizations and/or their operatives that discourage member empowerment and activity in the work of the Association. NEA will then support its local and state affiliates in communicating the inappropriateness of this behavior.
We think this item refers to the growing popularity of the Association of American Educators, a professional association that represents the interests of teachers without engaging in collective bargaining or other typical union activities. More and more teachers are quitting the union and joining AAE or similar groups, and the NEA wants to stop the bleeding.
Contact Steve Gunn at sgunn@edactiongroup.org or (231) 733-4202

Brucemore will celebrate the tenth anniversary of Cabaret in the Courtyard, the sophisticated and saucy nightclub event at Brucemore, August 9 - 11 and 16 - 18 at 7:30 p.m. The ambience of the Brucemore Visitor Center courtyard will be transformed into a cabaret club with tables, chairs, twinkling lights, and stars on the stage and in the sky for two back-to-back weekends you don't want to miss. Cabaret in the Courtyard is sponsored by Bankers Trust and Novak Design Group.

The first weekend, August 9 - 11, features local Eastern Iowa native and singer-songwriter Susan Werner.  Last seen in Cedar Rapids at the grand opening of CSPS in 2011, she will charm audiences with her effortless blend of folk, country, agnostic gospel, jazz, and pop. Visit www.susanwerner.com for more information about Susan Werner or to sample her music.

The second weekend, August 16 - 18, brings four local comedians and well-known performers - Jason Alberty, Tim Boyle, Leslie Charipar, and Meg Merckens - to one stage to entertain audiences with stand-up comedy, improv, and humorous song. Courtyard Jesters follows the success of Brucemore's original production, Tenors Tonight, in 2011. Richard Barker is the stage director and Gerard Estella, one of the stars from the 2006 series, will return as musical director.

Advance tickets are $20 per person and $18 per Brucemore member. All tickets are $25 at the gate (if available). Limited space available; please call (319) 362-7375 or visit www.brucemore.org to purchase tickets. Individuals reserving five or more advance tickets will have tables reserved under their name. All performances begin at 7:30 p.m. with gates opening at 7:00 p.m. On-site parking is available. Patrons are encouraged to bring their favorite beverages and glasses, but no food is allowed.

Experience Brucemore, an unparalleled blend of tradition and culture, located at 2160 Linden Drive SE, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. At the heart of the historic 26-acre estate stands a nineteenth-century mansion filled with the stories of three Cedar Rapids families.  Concerts, theater, programs, and tours enliven the site and celebrate the heritage of a community.  For more information, call (319) 362-7375 or visit www.brucemore.org.

###

Grassley shines spotlight on FDA spying on whistleblowers

Senator demands accountability for effort to muzzle public safety concerns

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley is keeping the pressure on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to fully account for its aggressive campaign to spy on protected, personal email messages of agency employees and then retaliate against them after they raised concerns to Congress about the safety of drugs and devices approved by the FDA.

"What the FDA has done has serious implications for the right of federal employees to make valuable protected disclosures about waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, or public safety to Congress or anyone else.  This kind of communication is protected for good reason," Grassley said.  "The FDA's crusade contradicts the pledge the current commissioner made to create a culture that values whistleblowers, and the scope and tone of the surveillance effort reveals an agency more concerned about protecting itself than protecting the public, which ironically is the agency's mission."

Grassley said the internal documents that the FDA never wanted the public to see make the FDA "sound more like the East German Stasi than a consumer protection agency in a free country."  The documents refer to whistleblowers as "collaborators," congressional staff as "ancillary actors," and newspaper reporters as "media outlet actors."

In a lengthy letter to the FDA Commissioner yesterday, Grassley revealed that the spying was "explicitly authorized, in writing" by the FDA counsel's office and called on Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to stop stonewalling requests for information about the surveillance effort.  Grassley began his investigation of this effort in January in response to whistleblower allegations.  He received no response, despite promises to the contrary, until last Friday night (plus attachment), on the eve of a New York Times story about 80,000 pages of internal FDA documents that the FDA's contractor had posted on the Internet, apparently by accident.

Grassley said the FDA's contention that employees were free to communicate is "ludricrous" because documents indicate the agency was specifically targeting whistleblowers who were subsequently fired or had their contract lapse.  In addition, repeated investigations by the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services did not substantiate FDA accusations that confidential information was leaked to the press, which the FDA has tried to say in order to justify its actions.

Also yesterday, Grassley asked the FDA contractor, Quality Associates, for an accounting of how the information ended up on the Internet and about how many other federal government agencies it has contracts with and the size and scope of those contracts.

-30-


Art Talk To Offer Perspective of our Place in the Universe

Davenport, IOWA (July 2012) The cosmic ocean which surrounds us is no longer a mythical place; it is governed by natural laws and can be observed and understood by science. The Figge Art Museum presents the art talk "Discovering a Universe beyond the Cosmic Shore" at 7 pm Thursday, July 19. Dr. John D. Johnson will lead the talk and focus on how astronomy takes us on a journey from the Big Bang through the formation of galaxies, stars and planets to the present day. The talk is offered in conjunction with the special exhibition NASA | ART: 50 Years of Exploration and is free with Figge membership or paid admission.

During his talk, Dr. Johnson will offer perspective of our place in the Universe and emphasize the importance of space exploration through the use of various examples from the exhibition. "This talk will compare space to a vast ocean that we are beginning to explore, and I will compare this to how our ancestors took a chance and explored our own planet, setting out on adventures across the sea with no guarantee of success. It is in our nature to be explorers," Dr. Johnson said.

John D. Johnson has served as global security program manager for John Deere since 1999. Dr. Johnson is also an adjunct astronomy instructor at St. Ambrose University and Scott Community College. He received his Ph.D. in Physics from The University of Texas at Austin.

About NASA | ART: 50 Years of Exploration 

In celebration of its 50th anniversary in 2008, NASA collaborated with the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service and the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum on the exhibition NASA | ART: 50 Years of Exploration. Drawn from the collections of NASA and the National Air and Space Museum, the exhibition features 72 works of art commissioned by the NASA Art Program. Established soon after the inception of the U.S. space program in 1958, NASA's Art Program provides a unique way to communicate the accomplishments, setbacks and sheer excitement of space exploration to the public. The selected works span the entire history of NASA and include paintings, drawings, photographs, sculptures and other media by such artists as Annie Leibovitz, Nam June Paik, Robert Rauschenberg, Norman Rockwell, Andy Warhol, William Wegman and Jamie Wyeth.

NASA | ART at the Figge Art Museum is generously sponsored by the ALCOA Foundation, John Deere, Genesis Health Systems and Cobham, plc.

NASA | ART was organized by the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in cooperation with the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum. The Smithsonian Community Grant program, funded by MetLife Foundation, is a proud sponsor of "NASA | ART" public programs.

-end-

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary

President Obama's Immigration Directive

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Mr. President,

Last September, President Obama responded to amnesty proponents, denying that he had authority to unilaterally grant special status to individuals who may be eligible under the Dream Act.  The Dream Act has been around for a decade, and in varying forms.  It has been voted down several times by this body - and mostly because the Leader won't allow for an amendment process to improve the bill.  When asked by amnesty advocates to push the bill through executive order, President Obama said this:  "This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.  The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.  And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true.  We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

But, one month ago, President Obama continued his "we can't wait" campaign and circumvented Congress, again, to significantly change the law on his own.  On June 15, he announced that the Department of Homeland Security would lay out a process by which immigrants here illegally could apply for relief and remain in the United States without the fear of deportation.  So, what has changed in the last nine months?

Before I dive into the details of how poorly planned and implemented this directive will be, I have to question the legal authority of the President to institute a plan of this magnitude.

I, along with 19 other senators, sent the President a letter and asked if he consulted with attorneys prior to the June 15 announcement about his legal authority to grant deferred action and work authorizations to a specific class of illegal immigrants. We asked the President if he obtained a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel or anyone else in the administration.   To date, we have not received any documentation that discusses any authority he has to undertake this massive immigration directive.

I know that the Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion to determine who is put in removal proceedings.  Prosecutorial discretion has been around for a long time.  But, it hasn't been abused to this extent.  The President is claiming that the Secretary will implement this directive using prosecutorial discretion.  However, millions of immigrants here illegally will be instructed to report to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service and proactively apply.  This is not being done on a case-by-case basis as they want to make it appear.

The President's directive is an affront to our system of representative government and the legislative process, and it's an inappropriate use of Executive power.  The President bypassed Congress because he couldn't lead on immigration reform, and he couldn't work in a bipartisan manner on an issue that involves undocumented young people.

The President's directive runs contrary to the principle that American workers must come before foreign nationals.  His policies only increase competition for American students and workers who struggle to find employment in today's economy.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for young adults aged 16-24 has been nearly 17 percent for the last year.  According to a Gallup poll conducted in April of this year, 32 percent of 18- to 29-year olds in the U.S. workforce were underemployed.

The President's plan to get people back to work is to grant immigrants here illegally a work authorization.  He must be seriously out of touch if he doesn't think there's competition for American workers.

Now, I want to talk about how poorly this directive has been thought out.  It's my understanding that the White House informed Homeland Security officials of this plan days before they announced it on June 15.  They were unprepared, and have since been scrambling to figure out how it will be carried out.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service - the agency in charge of all immigration benefits, including work authorizations, visa applications, asylum petitions, and employment verifications for employers - will be tasked with handling millions of new applications for deferred status and work permits.

Agents in the field are confused as to how to do their jobs, and fear retaliation if they don't do the right thing.  In essence, this White House is telling agents in the field to begin a practice called "catch and release."

Just last Friday, Homeland Security officials briefed the Judiciary Committee on the directive.   Staff was told that agents would be required to release immigrants here illegally if they fell into the criteria laid out.  But what are the ramifications if an agent does not release them, but instead, uses their discretion to say the person was not eligible and put them in removal proceedings?

DHS explained that such an agent would be subject to disciplinary action.  The agent's actions would be considered during their annual personnel review.  So, there will be no discretion for agents and they will be forced to give deferred action to anyone that comes close to the criteria laid out, even despite their hesitation to do so or face retaliation from bureaucratic higher ups.

It's as if Homeland Security forgot their mission --- which is "to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards where American interests, aspirations, and way of life can thrive."

Once we overcome the question of legal authority and the reality that there was little thinking put into this plan, we are left to oversee the details of the implementation plan.  Homeland Security officials say they will have a process laid out by August 15.  We have very little details, but Homeland Security officials did give some insight on Friday to members of the Judiciary Committee.  Here's what we learned:

We know that people under the age of 30, who entered before their 16th birthday, have been here for five years, and are currently in school may qualify for deferred action.  We know that there are caveats to the criteria - some criminal offenses will be okay, and young people can finish their education after they are granted deferred action.  We know that individuals with final orders of removal will be eligible for deferred action.  We know that these people will not have to appear for an in-person interview to benefit from the directive.   We know they'll be granted this special status for two years, and those that are denied will not be put into removal proceedings.  We know this isn't aimed at helping just youth since the age limit is 30.

We know that people under the age of 30 are not the only people going to be considered for relief.  Secretary Napolitano said so herself.  She told CNN's Wolf Blitzer the following:  "We have internally set it up so that the parents are not referred for immigration enforcement if the young person comes in for deferred action."  I wasn't born yesterday --- this administration isn't going to give a benefit to an immigrant here illegally and then force his or her parents to leave the country.  Which begs the question, what will they do if the young person is eligible and receives deferred action but the parent is a criminal, a gang member, or a sex offender?

Because this program hasn't been well thought out, and because it's being rushed to benefit people by the end of the year, there's no doubt that fraud will be a problem.  How will federal officials who process the applications ensure that information provided by the individual is accurate?  How will they verify that one truly entered the country before the age of 16 or are currently under the age of 30?    Homeland Security officials act as though they're prepared to handle the influx of counterfeit documents that will be presented.  They are going to rely on their small fraud detection unit --- who is busy working everyday on other types of immigration benefits - to determine if people are truly eligible.  What will be the consequences for individuals who intentionally defraud the government?   They need a fraud and abuse prevention plan.  Without one, they'll likely legalize every single immigrant on U.S. soil that is here illegally.

The administration will announce more details about this plan in the next few weeks.  I'm anxious to see if they plan to only provide deferred action to this population.  Department officials refused to elaborate on whether some of these individuals will be able to get advanced parole - a special status that allows an immigrant here illegally to adjust to permanent resident, and then gain citizenship.  This administration wants people to believe that this isn't amnesty, and that these people will not have lawful status.  But, I'll be watching to see if they try to pull the wool over our eyes and provide a status that allows these people to adjust and remain here permanently.

Finally, a major flaw in the President's plan is how to pay for this massive amnesty program without requiring taxpayers to cough up their own hard earned dollars.  Department of Homeland Security officials said on Friday that illegal immigrants may not be charged for this special status.  The individual would be charged $380 if they choose to apply for a work authorization.  They could not assure us that funding would not be redirected from other programs to this initiative.  To reprogram funds within the Department, the Secretary must notify and gain the consent of the majority and minority leaders on the appropriations committee.  However, when pressed, Department officials could not assure us that they would not bypass that long-standing process and reprogram dollars on their own.  The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service will be forced to concentrate on this plan, leaving employers, foreign workers and legal immigrants without the service they need to work, visit, or remain in the U.S.   If agency adjudications staff will be diverted from their normal duties to handle the millions of potential deferred action applications, this can only have a devastating impact on other programs in the Department. I fear that this plan will bankrupt the agency that oversees immigration benefits, and it will affect all legal immigration for years to come.

Mr. President, I fear that the President has overstepped his authority again.  The President - time and again - has shown no leadership and refused to work with Congress on issues that directly impact the American people.  He insisted that he was going to change Washington.  But, he's changed them for the worse.  He insisted that he was going to make this the most transparent administration ever.  But, Congress and the American people are left in the dark.

No matter where one stands on immigration, we should all be appalled at how this plan has been carried out.  We should all be concerned that our votes are rendered meaningless.   Until we can end this plan, I encourage my colleagues to watch over its implementation, for the future of our country.  The integrity of our immigration system is hanging in the balance.

***

 

For Immediate Release

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Senators Question President's Authority to Issue Immigration Directive

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley is leading a group of ## senators  in questioning the directive announced last week by President Obama to grant deferred action to illegal immigrants and asking for a full accounting from the President of his legal authority to issue such a directive, how the executive action will be implemented and administered, and the cost to taxpayers.

In a letter sent to the President this afternoon, the senators asked for written responses to a list of detailed questions and a briefing from the administration officials who will be responsible for the program:  Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Director Alejandro Mayorkas.

Grassley's letter was signed by Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Mike Crapo of Idaho, James Risch of Idaho, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, John Boozman of Arkansas, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, David Vitter of Louisiana, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mike Lee of Utah, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Click here for a signed copy of the letter.  The text of the letter is below.

 

June 19, 2012

 

President Barack H. Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C.  20500

 

Dear President Obama:

We are extremely concerned by your announcement last week that the Department of Homeland Security plans to implement a program that grants deferred action to an untold number of illegal immigrants in the United States, and to allow them to receive work authorization during this time of record unemployment.  Not only do we question your legal authority to act unilaterally in this regard, we are frustrated that you have intentionally bypassed Congress and the American people.

As President, you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and enforce the laws.  Your recently announced directive runs contrary to that responsibility.  Not only is your directive an affront to our system of representative government and the legislative process, but it is an inappropriate use of Executive power.

Your position on whether you have the legal authority to act unilaterally has changed dramatically.  Just last year, you personally disputed the notion that the Executive Branch could act on its own and grant benefits to a certain class of illegal immigrants.  Specifically, you stated,

"This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.  The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.  And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true.  We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

  • Why has your position on the legal authority of the Executive Branch changed?
  • Did you consult with attorneys prior to the announcement about your legal authority to grant deferred action and work authorizations to a specific class of illegal immigrants?
  • Did you obtain a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel or anyone else in the administration about your legal authority to implement such a program?
  • Please provide copies of any documentation, including any and all legal opinions, memoranda, and emails, that discusses any authority you have or do not have to undertake this immigration directive.

We are also concerned that the directive being implemented allows individuals under the age of 30 to obtain a work authorization.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for young adults aged 16-24 has been nearly 17% for the last year.  According to a Gallup poll conducted in April of this year, 32% of 18 to 29 year-olds in the U.S. workforce were underemployed.  Your directive runs contrary to the premise that American workers must come before foreign nationals.  It is astonishing that your administration would grant work authorizations to illegal immigrants during this time of record unemployment.  Your directive will only increase competition for American students and workers who struggle to find employment in today's economy.  Moreover, under current law, some foreign students and other legal visa holders are prohibited from obtaining work authorizations, giving illegal immigrants an advantage over those who play by the rules.

The implementation of your directive raises several serious questions.

  • What will happen if your directive is challenged in court?
  • Will individuals who have applied for deferred action be required to leave the U.S. if such a challenge is upheld?
  • How will the administration handle family members, specifically the parents who violated federal immigration law?
  • Will individuals who entered the U.S. on their own volition - either by crossing the border illegally or overstaying a visa - be eligible for deferred action?
  • Why does the directive allow individuals up to age 30 to benefit from deferred action if the directive is aimed at helping young people and students?
  • How will federal officials who process the applications ensure that information provided by the individual is accurate and how will they verify that one truly entered the country before the age of 16 or are currently under the age of 30?
  • Will evidence submitted in support of deferred action applications be limited to independently verifiable government-issued documents (e.g., school records, W-2s, tax returns)?  If not, why not?  If affidavits will be accepted, will they be required to be made under penalty of perjury?  If not, why not?
  • Will illegal immigrants be required to appear in person for an interview by the federal government before deferred action is granted?
  • How will the agency implementing the program ensure that fraud and abuse is prevented?
  • What will the consequences be for individuals who intentionally defraud the government?
  • Which databases will be used and how will background checks be conducted to ensure that individuals do not have a criminal history or pose a threat to public safety?
  • What would constitute a "significant" misdemeanor offense, which is one of the criteria for eligibility for deferred status?
  • Will individuals with final orders of removal be eligible for deferred action?
  • What action will the administration take if an individual is denied deferred action?
  • What action will be taken if an individual is granted deferred action, but subsequently abuses that grant, is arrested, is found to be a member of a criminal gang, or does not actually attend school?
  • Absent congressional action, what will happen in two years to the individuals who are granted deferred action?
  • Will recipients of deferred action be eligible for receipt of advance parole?
  • What criteria will be used to decide who gets work authorizations and who does not?
  • Which other departments and agencies will be consulted and will work with the Department of Homeland Security on the implementation of this directive?

We also believe that taxpayers deserve to know how this program will be funded.

  • Can you assure us that the total implementation cost of the program will be paid for by the individuals seeking to benefit, or will U.S. taxpayers subsidize any part of the program?
  • How much, if anything, will an illegal immigrant be required to pay in order to obtain deferred action?
  • What legal authority does the Executive Branch have to mandate a fee for this service? We understand that the Department has never previously charged a fee for the processing of a request for deferred action.
  • Do you plan to reprogram funds at the Department of Homeland Security or any other Executive Branch agency to help fund the implementation of the directive?
  • If you plan to use funds that already have been appropriated or other funds from the Department, please explain which programs will be reduced in order to cover the costs associated with the directive.
  • If USCIS adjudications staff will be diverted from their normal duties to handle the millions of potential deferred action applications, what will be the impact on other USCIS programs?

Given that this directive is effective immediately and that many questions remain unanswered, we ask that you immediately make available Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Director Alejandro Mayorkas to respond to our concerns.  We would appreciate responses to our questions, including any relevant documentation related to this directive, no later than July 3, 2012.

Sincerely,

Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky

Orrin Hatch of Utah

Mike Crapo of Idaho

James Risch of Idaho

Saxby Chambliss of Georgia

Johnny Isakson of Georgia

John Boozman of Arkansas

Jim DeMint of South Carolina

Thad Cochran of Mississippi

Roger Wicker of Mississippi

David Vitter of Louisiana

Mike Johanns of Nebraska

Pat Roberts of Kansas

Mike Lee of Utah

Mike Enzi of Wyoming

Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Pages