Happy Joe's Celebrates its 40th Anniversary 11/16/12.  We have just established The Happy Joe's Kids Foundation.  This foundation will  be dedicated to helping children with special needs and their families.  Watch for details on a huge event at the iWireless Center in Moline, IL to be held 11/20/12 where Happy Joe's will host a Special needs conference dedicated to our cause.  It will include a breakfast, vendor show, luncheon and special needs dance party!  We have many surprises in the works and are extremely excited.  We plan to make this a legacy event. 

Go to www.happyjoeskids.org to learn more.  The site is still somewhat under construction but will be updated with new details on a regular basis from now until our event.  Joe Whitty, Kristel Whitty Ersan and Larry Whitty will all be available for interviews regarding this foundation and Happy Joe's 40th Anniversary. You may contact Kristel Whitty- Ersan at 563-650-4680 with any questions you may have.

The Lupus Foundation of America, Iowa Chapter Urges the Public to Band Together for Lupus Awareness This May

Educational programs and events taking place in the Iowa areas throughout May as part of Lupus Awareness Month activities

(Des Moines, Iowa) New research has shown that most Americans, 59 percent, know little or nothing about lupus and its devastating impact. This May for Lupus Awareness Month, the Lupus Foundation of America (LFA), Iowa Chapter is urging  residents of Iowa and across the nation to Band Together for Lupus Awareness™ to improve the understanding of lupus, an
unpredictable and sometimes fatal disease that affects an estimated 1.5 million Americans, and support those who suffer from this terrible disease.

"A lack of awareness of the disease contributes to many people dismissing early warning signs of lupus, which can have serious health risks," said Susan B. Kroska/Iowa Chapter Executive Director. "We are asking everyone to get involved and Band Together for Lupus Awareness, so together we can offer hope and improve the quality of lives of Iowa residents living with lupus."

"When I tell people I have lupus, they typically don't know what it is. And if they do know what it is, they tell me that I don't look sick," said Marie McNamara from Windsor Heights, Iowa. "It is hard to explain that while I may look totally fine on the outside, that I can be in so much pain or so sick on the inside. Awareness is very important so our family and friends understand what we're going through and how they can support us."

This year, the LFA is asking the public to Put On Purple for lupus awareness by wearing purple and telling people why they are showing their support for all people affected by this disease. Put On Purple Day will take place on Friday, May 18, 2012.

Lupus Awareness Month activities, which include social media, online, and grassroots components, will empower individuals, organizations, and companies with a wide-ranging number of tools and resources so they can educate their communities about lupus. Tools range from fliers, to Web banner ads, to facts about lupus.

There are many ways the public can Band Together for Lupus Awareness such as:

  • Listen and share new podcasts with lupus experts.
  • Share their lupus story on Lupus Voices Across America at www.lupusvoices.org
  • Include an article about lupus in their company newsletter or on their Web site
  • Post fliers in their community or around their office.
  • Post a Web banner on their Web site linking to the LFA/Lupus Awareness Month activities
  • Distribute purple wristbands to friends (available for sale at www.shoplupus.org).
  • Participate in Put On Purple Day on Friday, May 18 -- encourage friends to wear purple
  • proudly on this day and tell people why.
  • Send their networks lupus facts throughout the month of May via their social media pages
  • Participate in the LFA's mobile giving campaign -- on World Lupus Day on May 10th, tell
  • 10 people about lupus and ask them to give $10 to the LFA by texting LUPUS to 80888;
  • contributions will help the LFA raise awareness, expand education programs, and advance
  • research.

The public can learn more about lupus and ways they can get involved in improving awareness of lupus this May by visiting the LFA's Web site at http://www.lupus.org/webmodules/webarticlesnet/templates/iowa_home.aspx Tools, free of charge, are available at www.lupus.org/awarenesskit.

About Lupus
Lupus is a chronic autoimmune disease in which the immune system is unbalanced, causing inflammation and tissue damage to virtually any organ in the body. Lupus can be unpredictable and potentially fatal, yet no satisfactory treatment or cure exists. An estimated 1.5 million Americans and at least five million people worldwide have a form of lupus. Its health effects include heart attacks, strokes, seizures, miscarriages, and organ failure.

About the Lupus Foundation of America Iowa Chapter
The Lupus Foundation of America (LFA), Iowa Chapter is a proud member of the LFA National Network, which is comprised of chapters, field offices, support groups, and community representatives. The LFA is the oldest and largest national nonprofit health organization dedicated to finding the causes of and a cure for lupus, and providing support, services, and hope to all people affected by lupus. The LFA and its National Network are focused on improving quality of life for people with lupus through programs of research, education, and advocacy.

###

Submits statement to House Ways and Means Committee calling for action to avoid uncertainty

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Dave Loebsack today joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers in calling on the House Ways and Means Committee to include a renewal of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for renewable energy in upcoming tax legislation. As a cosponsor of the American Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit Extension Act of 2011, Loebsack has pushed to end the current uncertainty caused by the approaching expiration of the credit and bring attention to the wind energy industry in Iowa.  He has visited numerous wind industry facilities throughout Iowa that create good jobs in the state and promote economic development.

"The wind industry is creating thousands of jobs across the country, supporting the work of hundreds of wind?related manufacturing facilities, and offering lease payments to thousands of farmers," the Congressmen expressed to the Ways and Means Committee leadership. "The uncertainty caused by the looming expiration of the credit is already hampering future industry growth. Given our expanding but still fragile economy, now is not the time to undermine these substantial public and private investments."

Earlier this year, Loebsack wrote to House Speaker John Boehner calling for action on the renewal of the PTC for wind energy.  A copy of the statement Loebsack and a bipartisan group of his colleagues submitted to the Ways and Means Committee for the hearing today, is below.

 

April 26, 2012

The Honorable Pat Tiberi

Chairman

U.S. House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures

106 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

 

The Honorable Richard Neal

Ranking Member

U.S. House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures

2208 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Tiberi and Ranking Member Neal:

As you evaluate tax provisions that either expired in 2011 or will expire in 2012, we write to highlight our belief that extension of the production tax credit is firmly in the national interest and a vital component of America's future competitiveness and we urge its inclusion the next available piece of tax legislation.

The wind industry is creating thousands of jobs across the country, supporting the work of hundreds of wind?related manufacturing facilities, and offering lease payments to thousands of farmers and ranchers. Thirty?eight states have utility?scale wind projects, powering more than 12 million homes. Wind energy drives the diversification of our energy supply and strengthens our resilience to energy related challenges, while improving our national energy security. Additionally, the more than 40,000 megawatts of wind power installed through 2010 annually avoids 83.5 million tons of carbon pollution.

The production tax credit, which enjoys broad support across regions and across the political spectrum, has underwritten many of these developments. In fact, there is a strong correlation to industry growth and the existence of the credit. In years following expiration of the credit, for instance, installations dropped between 79?93%, resulting in major job losses and lost opportunities. The uncertainty caused by the looming expiration of the credit is already hampering future industry growth. Given our expanding but still fragile economy, now is not the time to undermine these substantial public and private investments.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this incentive.

Sincerely,

 Dave Loebsack

###

New Ad Scrutinizes Wasteful Use of Taxpayer Dollars

IOWA CITY, IOWA - Today Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the nation's largest advocate for economic freedom, held a conference at the National Press Club announcing the release of a $6.1 million ad buy. The new ad is launching along with nationwide grassroots action that holds President Obama accountable for his wasteful use of taxpayer dollars.

Titled "Wasteful Spending," the ad highlights billions of stimulus dollars that were given to foreign companies, mostly to subsidize their own green energy projects.

CLICK HERE to view and download the Wasteful Spending ad:
www.americansforprosperity.org/stoptankingamerica

"The white house continues to let ideology, government cronyism, and bad judgement influence economic policies that are hurting hard working iowans." said AFP-IA State Director Mark Lucas. "Energy prices are rising as the administration pays off their friends in the green energy market. This is evidenced by giving $530 million to the now-bankrupt Solyndra. Iowans deserve a much better return on their hard earned tax dollars."

Over the next two weeks, the ad will air in the following eight states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia. As the ad kicks off, AFP will launch a tour featuring rallies and educational townhalls throughout the country. In Iowa, rallies and educational events will take place in Iowa City and Des Moines.

In the past, AFP has focused on President Obama's willingness to risk taxpayer dollars in other green energy schemes. The group launched two ads focused on the Solyndra failure, dedicating $6.5 million combined.  At $6.1 million, this latest effort is the largest to date.

To interview Mark or learn more about the ad, please call 319-333-9124 or email MLucas@afphq.org.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and intrusiveness of government is the best way to promote individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. Americans for Prosperity does not support or oppose candidates for public office. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org

###

Lykins receives 2012 Distinguished Service Award

WEST DES MOINES, IOWA - April 26, 2012 - The Iowa FFA Foundation honored Barb Lykins, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) director of community resources, with its Distinguished Service Award during the FFA state leadership convention in Ames on April 24.

"Barb is passionate about the development of young leaders in agriculture," said Denny Presnall, IFBF executive director. "Her commitment to improving the quality of life for our young people and rural communities has been demonstrated through her professional and personal accomplishments. We are very proud of her contributions to the Iowa FFA Foundation."

Lykins has been involved with the Iowa FFA Foundation for more than 25 years, serving in leadership roles on the organization's sponsoring committee and capital campaigns.  In her current position at IFBF, she is responsible for development, implementation, management and evaluation of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa Farm Bureau Foundation's philanthropic endowment and charitable giving initiatives. She also provides oversight and management of the organization's meeting and travel department and agricultural education programs.

Prior to this position, Lykins served as director of IFBF's Leadership Division and was responsible for direction of Farm Bureau programs in the areas of leadership development and training, young farmer activities, women's activities, the Iowa Farm Bureau Foundation, agricultural and education efforts and the IFBF scholarship and grant programs.   She is a graduate of Iowa State University and received ISU's Young Alum Award in 1997.

-30-

Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Grassley of Iowa

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing on "Oversight of the Department of Homeland Security"

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

 

Mr. Chairman, oversight is a critical function and a constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch.  Hearings like this one are an avenue for Congress to raise questions, concerns, and suggestions for improving government functions.  This hearing should also be an avenue for us to evaluate how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) carries out its mission.  It should also be an opportunity for the department to take responsibility for its actions and policies.

 

Before I begin to discuss the issues that pertain to this committee, I would like to voice frustration at the non-responsive letters I have received from DHS.  In fact, 99 percent of the time, when I write to the Secretary, I don't get a response directly from her.  The responses come from the Office of Legislative Affairs.  But more frustrating is that my questions are rarely, if ever answered.  Unbelievably, the Secretary just responded to questions we posed at the last Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, which took place in October of last year.  I hope the Secretary will respect the oversight role that some of us in Congress take seriously.  The department needs to be held accountable to Congress and to the American people, and it should be forthcoming so we can take steps to ensure the government is acting appropriately in carrying out our laws.

 

U.S. Secret Service INVESTIGATION

 

We continue to learn more each day about the ongoing investigation into agents of the U.S. Secret Service who were removed from Colombia following allegations that they had foreign national prostitutes in their rooms.  While I commend Director Sullivan for immediately removing these agents from Colombia and for initiating an investigation into this matter, more work remains.  For example, the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security needs to be involved to make this investigation impartial and credible.  The Secret Service has a long and distinguished history.  This entire incident is a black eye for an agency full of hard working and dedicated agents and officers.  This matter needs to be resolved soon given the serious national security issues associated with this alleged conduct.

 

At the beginning of his administration, President Obama released a memorandum entitled "Transparency and Open Government" and stated, "My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government."  We have seen time and again that this administration has contradicted that goal set by President Obama.  However, it's my hope that the White House will provide details to Congress about the internal review that took place last weekend with regard to the Secret Service and White House Office of Advance.

 

According to the White House spokesman, that investigation was conducted by the White House Counsel's Office, despite the fact that on Friday the White House apparently didn't see the need to look into this further.  This raises a lot of questions about how deep an inquiry was conducted, especially given it was completed in just two days.  I want to know if the investigation involved pulling any hotel records in Colombia or whether we are to simply take the White House at their word.  This is not a fishing expedition; it is a logical extension of the Secret Service investigation.  Given the serious national security concerns that any vulnerability in the President's protection could come from having unauthorized guests, we need to get to the bottom of this and the White House should cooperate immediately.  I look forward to hearing from the Secretary about her views on this matter and what steps she has taken to help the Director and Inspector General get to the bottom of this matter.

 

IMMIGRATION

 

Today's hearing is an opportunity to assess this administration's immigration policies, and to raise questions about whether these policies are consistent with the laws on the books.  I have serious concerns not only about policies put forth by the Department, but also the manner in which such policies have been rolled out.

 

The President announced a new campaign slogan called "We Can't Wait" to justify why his administration continues to circumvent Congress and the democratic process.  The administration continues to put out memos and directives that have not gone through the rule- making process.  I got my first glimpse into this campaign when I uncovered the memo titled, "Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform."  For years, the administration has been intent to act unilaterally, and in doing so, they have disregarded the rule of law.

 

Let's consider the President's immigration policies in the last two years alone.

 

In a departmental memo last March, ICE Director John Morton outlined new enforcement priorities and encouraged the use of "prosecutorial discretion" for illegal aliens who did not meet these priorities.  The memo prescribed guidelines for limiting the detention of certain illegal aliens.  Then, in a memo sent out in June of 2011, Director Morton discouraged ICE agents from enforcing immigration laws against certain segments of the illegal alien population, including aliens who essentially qualify for the DREAM Act.

 

Last August, Secretary Napolitano announced a case-by-case review of all aliens currently in or who will be entering deportation proceedings in order to determine who will be granted administrative amnesty.  The Secretary claimed that this process would allow the government to direct resources at higher priority cases.  This so-called "pilot" program has been carried out in Baltimore and Denver, and will expand to seven additional immigration courts.

 

This year, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service unveiled a new policy allowing certain aliens to bypass the statutory 3 and 10 year bars on inadmissibility.  Generally speaking, the 3 and 10-year bars were created to deter illegal immigration and marriage fraud.  Yet, the administration wants to ignore the law that Congress passed in this regard, and provide waivers for an untold number of people who would normally be subject to the bars.

 

In January, the President issued an Executive Order to increase tourism to the United States, which would allow visa applicants to undergo less scrutiny by consular officers.  Prior to September 11, 2001, consular officers were allowed to waive an interview for a visa applicant seeking entry into the United States.  Sadly, only two of the nineteen hijackers had been personally interviewed by the U.S. government to get their visa.  As a result of 9/11, Congress established that all visa applicants be required to go through the interview process, with limited exceptions.  The tourism initiative announced by the President would allow officers to waive in-person interviews for individuals reapplying for temporary admission to the United States. The law was written to specifically limit any exceptions to the in-person interview.  Once again, the administration is blatantly ignoring the safeguards that Congress put in place to prevent another terrorist attack.

 

In addition to implementing several initiatives that disregard the rule of law, the administration has taken an inconsistent position on state and local governments that enact their own immigration laws and ordinances.  The administration has filed suit against Arizona, South Carolina, Utah, and Alabama.  Moreover, in retaliation for Alabama's state law, the department halted the implementation of Secure Communities.

 

I find it frustrating that the Administration has challenged several states for passing laws that aim to protect their citizens while essentially turning a blind eye to jurisdictions that actively promote safe harbor policies.  If the administration truly believes immigration law is only to be enforced by the federal government, as it has argued before several courts, it should adhere to that position and consider taking action against jurisdictions that actively thwart effective federal enforcement of the laws.

 

Then there are policies that leave taxpayers footing the bill for benefits to people who are here unlawfully.

 

In February, ICE Director Morton announced that illegal immigrants residing in the country would have a lobbyist at headquarters to "serve as a point of contact for individuals, including those in immigration proceedings, NGOs, and other community and advocacy groups, who have concerns, questions, recommendations or important issues they would like to raise."  The rationale behind this new position is not very clear, and I'd be interested in learning more from the Secretary about what this person does on a day-to-day basis.

 

Also in February, ICE announced changes to its detention standards, providing more accommodations and benefits to illegal aliens.  For example, aliens will now receive physical education classes and internet access.  And, taxpayers will help pay for costs associated with abortions and transgender hormone therapies.  Also, taxpayers will be footing the bill for luxuries and services that are not afforded to other criminals.

 

I'd also like to hear from the Secretary about the state of the border.  Americans have long been demanding that the federal government control its borders.  Yet, the President announced last week that 900 of the 1,200 National Guard Troops at the border will be sent home.  Taxpayers are left questioning the priorities of this President when illegal aliens get an advocate in Washington, and when resources from the border are diverted to plush detention facilities.

 

I also remain concerned about the "Get to Yes" philosophy that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has espoused.  In January, an Inspector General's report found that line officials at USCIS are pressured to approve applications by supervisors.  The report says that a quarter of the immigration service officers interviewed felt pressure to approve questionable applications, and 90 percent of respondents felt they didn't have sufficient time to complete interviews of those who seek benefits, concluding that the speed at which these applications must be processed leaves ample room for error and leaves the U.S. open to national security dangers.  I plan to ask the Secretary about this pressure, including information that has come to my attention about a particular case highlighted by the mainstream media.  I want to know if adjudication decisions are being reversed after sympathetic news reports.

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA)

 

I also have concerns about how the department is treating citizens who oppose the administration's policies.  U.S. citizens who oppose the administration's policies should not be viewed or treated as "enemies."  And they shouldn't become the subject of government monitoring because they oppose the administration's policies.

 

I am troubled by news reports that the department is monitoring citizens who speak out against the Obama administration's policies and, in particular, its immigration policies.  According to reports, a review of a 2011 reference guide for Homeland Security analysts reveals that DHS is tracking opponents.  It appears that the DHS may be directing its analysts to identify and monitor media reports that reflect adversely on the DHS, and to track reports on the administration's policy changes in immigration, and the term "illegal immigration" in particular.  This monitoring goes beyond reviewing news stories.  It apparently includes monitoring social media, such as Twitter and Facebook.

 

I have to question why the department is gathering this information on U.S. citizens.  And I have to ask how far the information gathering goes and what the department is doing with this information?

 

These reports renew my concerns about how the DHS treats requesters of information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

 

Perhaps the most dramatic and troubling departure from President Obama's vow to usher in "a new era of open government" was revealed in Homeland Security e-mails obtained by the Associated Press (AP) in July of 2010.  According to the AP, in July 2009, in connection with requests under the FOIA, the department introduced a directive requiring a wide range of information to be vetted by political appointees.  Career employees were ordered to provide Secretary Napolitano's political staff with information about the people who asked for records and about the organizations where they worked.  According to the AP, anything related to an Obama policy priority was pegged for this review.  Also included was anything that touched on a controversial or sensitive subject that could attract media attention.  Anything requested by lawmakers, journalists, activist groups or watchdog organizations had to go to the political appointees.

 

Under the FOIA, people can request copies of records without specifying why they want them and are not obligated to provide personal information about themselves other than their name and an address where the records should be sent.  Yet political appointees at the DHS researched the motives or affiliations of the requesters.

 

On March 30, 2011, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released its 153-page report on its investigation of the department's political vetting of FOIA requests.  The committee reviewed thousands of pages of internal DHS e-mails and memoranda and conducted six transcribed witness interviews.  It learned through the course of an eight-month investigation that political staff under Secretary Napolitano had exerted pressure on FOIA compliance officers, and undermined the federal government's accountability to the American people.

 

The department's political screening of FOIA requests is disturbing and I continue to have concerns about it, even though the department maintains that it has stopped.

 

MANagement at DHs

 

A serious, but often overlooked matter that we all should be concerned with is management of the federal government agencies we oversee.  Management problems at the top of an agency can trickle down to problems in the field.  As the buck should stop with the Secretary, I think it is worth noting that last month, for the sixth year in a row, DHS was awarded an abysmal score by the Partnership for Public Service's Best Place to Work.  DHS ranked 31 out of 33 federal organizations.  This included a four point drop from last year.  DHS placed in the bottom three spots in almost every category evaluated, and placed dead last in "effective leadership."  These are poor scores that indicate serious problems with management at DHS.  Effective leadership starts at the top and I want to hear from Secretary Napolitano what she is doing to fix this leadership deficiency at DHS.

 

DHS Role in Addressing Cybersecurity

 

Congress is currently debating legislation to enhance our national capability to protect and defend against cyber-attacks.  There are a number of different proposals pending before the House and Senate that contain varying policy approaches.  There are a number of areas of agreement across party lines on certain provisions, including information sharing, research and development, criminal law reforms, and updating the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).  However, the biggest point of contention remains whether to increase the size of the federal government by adding new regulatory powers for oversight of cybersecurity to the mission of the DHS.  I strongly oppose any expansion of DHS's power.  The documented failures of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) should be a clear warning that the department is simply not up to the task it was created to do.

 

In October 2006, President Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, which provides DHS the authority to regulate the security of high-risk chemical facilities.  To implement this authority, in 2007 DHS issued the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Interim Final Rule (CFATS Final Rule).  These regulations required a number of regulated industries, including chemical manufacturers and distributors, to prepare site security plans (SSPs) to determine whether a facility would fall under DHS's regulatory authority.  These SSPs were expensive and DHS estimated that compliance with the regulations could cost up to $5000 per site, just to complete the SSP.  SSPs were then to be returned to DHS where a determination would be made as to what additional security would be ordered for a specific site.

 

Almost immediately after the regulations were issued, problems arose.  For example, DHS's determination as to who qualified for a SSP under the regulations included any site with over 1,000 gallons of propane.  Effectively, this would have required virtually every family farm or rural homestead with an individual use propane tank to complete a SSP as a chemical facility.  While DHS ultimately corrected this anomaly, it merely highlighted problems to come.

 

More recently, it has been reported that despite this regulation, DHS has spent nearly $500 million in the last four years with nothing to show for it.  In fact, DHS has yet to approve a single site security plan for the 4,200 entities that submitted one.  Further, the CFATS computer program at DHS made significant errors in calculating risk at chemical plants in both 2009 and 2010, but the errors were not reported up the management chain and did not come to light until just last summer.  Further, congressional investigators have started to review DHS's actions under CFATS to determine where nearly $480 million was spent given DHS has yet to approve a single SSP.  Rand Beers, the Undersecretary in charge of the program, nevertheless claims that progress has been made despite the problems.

 

However, a crucial internal document written by DHS officials working for Undersecretary Beers tells a much different story.  In a memorandum dated November 10, 2011, the Director and Deputy Director of the Infrastructure Security Compliance Division of the Office of Infrastructure Protection informed Beers of the total failure of their division in implementing CFATS.  This document is perhaps the most critical internal review a government agency has ever written about itself.

 

For example, the document details how after four years DHS has yet to approve a single site security plan and is not even ready to conduct a compliance inspection.  The memorandum states that the reasons for the failure include inadequate training, overreliance on external experts, poor hiring decisions including hiring those who do not have the necessary skills to perform the job, poor staff morale, management and leadership without experience in the field or knowledge of the subject-matter, lack of regulatory compliance experts, lack of transparency, ineffective communications, union problems, and a "catastrophic failure to ensure personal and professional accountability."

 

Most notably, the memorandum states, "It has become apparent that our inspector cadre lacks sufficient expertise to effectively evaluate chemical facility compliance with Risk Based Performance Standard (RBPS) 8, cyber security."  Simply put, DHS's own internal review of the last major regulatory undertaking Congress authorized the agency to do has found that the agency cannot meet its mission.  It highlights a bureaucracy so incompetent that it cannot make basic hiring and staffing decisions.  This memorandum should be praised for its candor and those who authored it should be commended.  However, it shows a broken agency with failed leadership that needs to be reined in, lest the federal taxpayers provide another half-billion dollars and get nothing for it.

 

As if this internal review wasn't enough to signal how DHS is unable to take on the cybersecurity mission, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in July 2008 titled, "Cyber Analysis and Warning: DHS Faces Challenges in Establishing a Comprehensive National Capability."  This report found numerous challenges that DHS faced including: filling key management positions, identifying and acquiring technological tools to strengthen cyber analytical capabilities, expeditiously hiring sufficiently trained cyber analysts, engaging appropriate stakeholders in federal and nonfederal entities to develop trusted relationships, and ensuring distinct and transparent lines of authority and responsibility.  Further, GAO found deficiencies in response by United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT); deficiencies in warning notifications that are targeted and actionable, deficiencies in analysis and ability to investigate incidents, and deficiencies in monitoring a comprehensive baseline understanding of the nation's critical information infrastructure.  Nearly four years after the issuance of this report, all ten of GAO's recommendations to DHS remain open and unimplemented.

 

Taken together, the many failures of CFATS and the outstanding questions GAO highlighted lead me to question whether DHS could handle a new regulatory mission addressing cybersecurity.  At the very least, DHS has a lot of house cleaning to do before Congress should even consider consolidating cybersecurity matters at DHS, let alone to create an entirely new regulatory bureaucracy covering both the public and private sectors.

 

FAST AND FURIOUS

 

Finally, I'd like to say something about my Fast and Furious investigation.

 

One year ago when we had an oversight hearing with the Secretary, I asked whether she realized that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had an agent assigned to Fast and Furious.  That ICE agent was involved enough in Fast and Furious that he was designated as a co-case agent for the operation.  ICE kept a totally separate case file from ATF's, and the case file that was stored in ICE's system runs to 2,000 pages.

 

An ICE agent was there on May 29, 2010, when the main target of Operation Fast and Furious was stopped at the border trying to enter Mexico with 74 rounds of ammunition and an illegal alien.  He was part of the interview where the target was caught lying to federal agents, then allowed to take his cargo into Mexico after simply agreeing to call a phone number the ATF agent wrote on a ten dollar bill.  As far as we know, he didn't call.  He wasn't arrested until seven months later, after the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

 

Customs officers were also present for this May 29, 2010, incident.  It's unclear what kind of pressure they felt from ATF to let this criminal go.  No doubt they had no idea that guns he had trafficked would be found at the murder scene of their colleague, Agent Terry.

 

However, it's clear that Fast and Furious wasn't just a Justice Department problem.  I have been told that law enforcement from many agencies realized something was fishy with ATF's "big case."  I would like the Homeland Security Department's cooperation in getting to the bottom of this.

 

Thanks to the Secretary for appearing before us today.  I look forward to hearing from Secretary Napolitano.

 

-30-

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

Opening Remarks, The Violence Against Women Act

Thursday, April 26, 2012

 

Mr. President, I have seen the good that the law has done in providing victims services in Iowa.  We all recognize the harms that flow from domestic violence.  It's both on the victims and on victims' families.

 

I have supported reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act each time that it has come up.  VAWA reauthorization on each of these occasions has been bipartisan.  We have passed consensus bills.  We have not played politics with reauthorizing this law.

 

Until now.  This time, it's different.  The majority turned this issue into a partisan bill.

 

In the Judiciary Committee, the Majority gave no notice that it would inject new matters into the Violence Against Women Act.  When the Committee held a hearing on VAWA, these ideas were not discussed.  Their need has not been demonstrated.  We do not know exactly how they will work.  It was clear that Committee Republicans would not be able to agree to this new added material.  The majority refused during negotiations when we asked that they be removed.

 

Republicans will be offering a substitute amendment to the Leahy bill.  Probably 80 to 85 percent of the substitute we're offering is the same.  This includes whole titles of the bill.

 

We could have again reached a near consensus bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.  But the majority intentionally decided not to change the bill.  They didn't want it to pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

 

Now the media has reported that this was the deliberate strategy of the majority.  A recent Politico article quoted a prominent Democrat senator.

 

The article said that he "wants to fast track the bill to the floor, let the GOP block it, then allow Democrats to accuse Republicans of waging a 'war against women.'"

 

This is the cynical, partisan game-playing that Americans are sick of.  This is especially the case here.

 

Republicans aren't even blocking the bill.  We've called for the bill to be brought up. Instead the majority has taken 6 months to reauthorize this program that expired last October. That says something about the majority's priorities.  For instance, last week we wasted time on political votes.  That seems to be the case in the Senate most of the year.

 

The Senate can pass a bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act by an overwhelming margin.  It seems like the other party doesn't want that to happen.  When they say unfavorable things about Republicans and women, they aren't being forthright.

 

A few weeks ago, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising email.

 

The email stated in part, "Now, there are news reports that Republicans in Congress will oppose re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act.  Enough is enough!  The Republican War on Women must be stopped NOW.... Will you chip in $3 by midnight tonight to hold Republicans accountable for their War on Women?"

 

The majority had a decision between raising money for campaigns or trying to get a VAWA reauthorization bill that would help victims.

 

My fellow Senators:  There is no "War on Women," except the political one.  It's a figment of imagination of Democratic strategists who don't want to remember health care reform, unemployment and high gas prices.  All evidence points to the other side being more interested in raising money.  The media has also reported that the bill is coming up now because the Democrats' desire to gin up a Republican so-called war on women were derailed last week.

 

It should be clear at the outset that Republicans are not blocking, have not blocked, and never threatened to block the Senate's consideration of this bill.  The Judiciary Committee only reported the bill to the Senate in January.  It was March before it filed its Committee report in the Senate.  Democrats immediately came to the floor and urged the bill to come up.  It was up to the Majority Leader to decide when the bill should be debated.  He's finally decided that now is the time.

 

As long as there is a fair process for offering amendments, including our alternative bill, and pointing out the flaws in the majority's bill, this should be a relatively short process.

 

Several other important points should be established.

 

First, I hope a consensus version of VAWA will be reauthorized.  If a consensus bill doesn't pass, no rights of women or anyone else will be affected if a bill does not pass.  Contrary to statements made, there would be no cutbacks of services.  VAWA is an authorization bill only.  It does not provide one dime of money.  That result occurs through the appropriations process.  Appropriators can fund VAWA programs regardless of whether VAWA is reauthorized.  This is exactly what they did last year.

 

We think that new issues have arisen since the last VAWA reauthorization. These issues should be addressed in a consensus reauthorization bill.  That can happen.  We should give guidance to the appropriators.  I support the appropriators continuing to fund VAWA while we're trying to put together a consensus bill.  VAWA is being funded despite the expiration of its previous authorization.  No existing rights of anyone are affected if VAWA is not reauthorized.  No existing rights of anyone are affected if we pass a consensus bill rather than the majority's bill.

 

Second, the majority controls how bills move in the Senate.  As I said, the current VAWA reauthorization expired six months ago.  If VAWA reauthorization was so important, the Democrats could have moved to reauthorize this bill months ago.  They didn't move a bill because no one's substantive rights or funding are stake.  This is true even though the prior reauthorization has expired and a new reauthorization bill has not yet passed.

 

Third, nothing like the majority's bill, where it does not reflect consensus, will become law.  It's a political exercise only.  The other body will not pass it.  If we want to pass a consensus VAWA reauthorization bill, we ought to start with the Republican alternative.

 

Fourth, the majority's bill, as reported out of Committee, was fiscally irresponsible. According to the Congressional Budget Office the majority's bill would have added more than $100 million in new direct spending.  That will increase the deficit by that same amount.  The reason is the immigration provisions that we said were non-starters.  These were some of the provisions that the majority refused to take out.  Those provisions are bad immigration policy.  Nonetheless, I am glad that the majority has now found an offset for this spending.

 

The Republican alternative does more to protect the rights of victims of domestic violence and sex crimes than does the majority bill.  There are many ways in which this is so.

 

Under the substitute amendment, more money goes to victims and less to bureaucrats.  It requires that 10 percent of grantees be audited every year.  This is to ensure that taxpayer funds are actually being used to combat domestic violence.

 

This is an important point.  The Justice Department Inspector General conducted a review of 22 VAWA grantees from 1998 to 2010.  Of these 22 audits, 21 were found to have some form of violation of grant requirements.  The violations range from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures, to sloppy recordkeeping and failure to report in a timely manner.

 

In 2010, one grantee was found by the Inspector General to have questionable costs for 93 percent of the nearly $900,000 they received from the Justice Department.  A 2009 audit found that nearly $500,000 of a $680,000 grant was questionable.

 

The fiscal irregularities continue.

 

An Inspector General audit from just this year found that a VAWA grant recipient in the Virgin Islands engaged in almost $850,000 in questionable spending.  Also a grant to an Indian tribe in Idaho found about $250,000 in improperly spent funds.  This includes $171,000 in salary for an unapproved position.  In Michigan this year, a woman at a VAWA grant recipient used grant funds to purchase goods and services for her personal use.

 

We should make sure that VAWA money goes to the victims.  That hasn't been the case under the current situation.

 

The Republican substitute also prevents grantees from using taxpayer funds to lobby for more taxpayer funds.  That will ensure that more money is available for victim services.  Money that goes to grantees and is squandered helps no women or other victims.

 

In addition, the Republican alternative limits the amount of VAWA funds that can go to administrative fees and salaries to 7.5 percent.  The Leahy bill contains no such limit.  If you want the money to go to victims and not bureaucrats, those overhead expenses should be capped.

 

The Republican substitute amendment requires that 30 percent of STOP grants and grants for arrest policies and protection orders are targeted on sexual assault.  The Leahy-Crapo bill sets aside only 20 percent for sexual assault.

 

The Hutchison-Grassley substitute requires that training materials be approved by an outside accredited organization.  This ensures that those who address domestic violence help victims based on knowledge and not ideology.  That will result in more effective assistance to victims.  The Leahy-Crapo bill contains no such requirement.

 

The Hutchison-Grassley substitute protects due process rights that the majority bill threatens.  For instance, the majority bill said that college campuses must provide for "prompt and equitable investigation and resolution" of charges of violence or stalking.  This would have codified a proposed rule of the Department of Education that would have required imposition of a civil standard or preponderance of the evidence for what is essentially a criminal charge, one that if proved, rightfully should harm reputation.  But if established on a barely more probable than not standard, reputations can be ruined unfairly.

 

The substitute eliminates this provision.  Now, the majority has changed their own bill's language.  I take that as an implicit recognition of the injustice of the original language.

 

The substitute also eliminates a provision that allowed the victim who could not prove such a charge to appeal if she lost, creating a kind of double jeopardy.

 

The majority bill also would give Indian tribal courts the ability to issue protection orders and full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians based on actions allegedly taken in Indian Country. Noting that the Due Process Clause requires that courts exercise jurisdiction over only those persons who have "minimum contacts" with the forum, the Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional questions about this provision.

 

The Administration and its supporters in this body pursue their policy agenda headlong without bothering to consider the Constitution.  The substitute contains provisions that would benefit tribal women and would not run afoul of the Constitution.

 

We have heard a lot of talk about how important the rape kit provisions in the Judiciary Committee bill are.  I strongly support funds to reduce the backlog in testing rape kits.  But that bill provides that only 40 percent of the rape kit money actually be used to reduce the backlog.  The substitute ensures that 70 percent of the funding will go to that purpose.  It requires that 1 percent of Debbie Smith Act funds be used to create a national database to track the rape kit backlog.  It also mandates that 7 percent of the existing Debbie Smith Act funds be used to pay for state and local audits of the backlog.  Debbie Smith, herself, has endorsed these provisions.  The majority bill has no such provisions.  Making sure that money that is claimed to reduce the rape kit backlog actually does so is pro-victim.  True reform in VAWA reauthorization should further that goal.

 

Combating violence against women also means tougher penalties for those who commit these terrible crimes.  The Hutchison-Grassley substitute creates a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence for federal convictions for forcible rape.  The majority bill establishes a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence.  That provision is only there because Republicans offered it and won it in Committee.

 

Child pornography is an actual record of a crime scene of violence against women.  Our alternative establishes a 1 year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography where the victim depicted is under 12 years of age.

 

I believe that the mandatory minimum for this crime should be higher.  In light of the lenient sentences that many federal judges hand out, there should be a mandatory minimum sentence for all child pornography possession convictions.  But the substitute is a start.

 

This is especially true because the majority bill takes no action against child pornography.  The alternative also imposes a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of aggravated sexual assault.  This crime involves sexual assault through the use of drugs or by otherwise rendering the victim unconscious.  The Leahy bill does nothing about aggravated sexual assault.

 

The status quo appears to be fine for the other side.

 

The Hutchison-Grassley amendment establishes a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of interstate domestic violence that results in the death of the victim.  It increases from 20 to 25 years the statutory maximum sentence for the crime where it results in life threatening bodily injury to, or the permanent disfigurement of, the victim.  It increases from 10 to 15 years the statutory maximum sentence for this crime when serious bodily injury to the victim results.  The Leahy bill contains none of these important protections for domestic violence victims.

 

The substitute grants administrative subpoena power to the U.S. Marshals Service to help them discharge their duty of tracking and apprehending unregistered sex offenders.  The Leahy bill does nothing to help locate and apprehend unregistered sex offenders.

 

And the substitute cracks down on abuse in the award of U visas for illegal aliens and the fraud in the VAWA self-petitioning process.  The majority bill does not include any reform of these benefits, despite actual evidence of fraud in this program.

 

One of the senators who recently came to the floor complained that there had never been controversy in reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.  But in the past, there were not deliberate efforts to create partisan divisions.  We always proceeded in a consensus fashion.

 

Domestic violence is an important issue and a serious problem.  We all recognize that.

 

In the past, we put victims ahead of politics in addressing it.  When the other side says this should not be about politics or partisanship, we agree.

 

It's the majority that has now decided that they want to score political points above assisting victims.  They want to portray a phony war on women because this is an election year.  They're raising campaign money by trying to exploit this issue.  There could have been a consensus bill before us today as in the past.  There is controversy now because that's what the majority seems to want.

 

We look forward to a fair debate on this bill and the chance to offer and vote on our substitute amendment.  That amendment contains much that is in agreement with the Leahy bill.  The substitute also is much closer to what can actually be enacted into law to protect victims of domestic violence.

 

-30-

Washington, D.C. - Congressmen Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Bobby Schilling (IL-17) today called on the Members in the House and Senate who are negotiating a comprehensive Highway Bill to prioritize funding for large interstate bridge projects, such as the I-74 Bridge.  Projects like the I-74 Bridge have a national significance and need dedicated federal support to move forward.  Loebsack and Schilling have worked in a bipartisan fashion on numerous previous efforts to stress the importance of the project for local economic growth.

"Large Interstate bridge projects may be some of the most effective investments since they not only put a variety of people and skill-sets to work, but have broad public and private use and economic benefit for the long-term when completed," wrote the Congressmen. "The much-needed replacement of the I-74 Bridge would not only create construction jobs, reduce traffic backups and aid commerce in traveling to and from our communities, but would - most importantly - improve safety for Americans traveling between Iowa and Illinois.  These projects are truly an investment in America's and each of our local communities' economies both today and for the future."

In 2005, the I-74 Bridge became the most traveled bridge in the Quad Cities with an average of 77,800 vehicles crossing daily.  This is despite the fact that it was built for 48,000 such crossings.  The Bridge itself is functionally obsolete, however, and has never met Interstate standards.  The I-74 Bridge project would also spur economic growth, create construction jobs, reduce traffic backups, and improve air quality.

A copy of the letter can be seen here.

###

Republican subcommittee chair endorses adoption tax credit after Braley testimony

 

Washington, DC - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) today urged a Congressional panel to include an extension of the adoption tax credit in a tax extension package being considered by the House Ways and Means Committee.  If Congress fails to act, the adoption tax credit will expire at the end of 2012.

"Deciding to adopt a child is one of the most compassionate decisions a couple can make," Braley said.  "Unfortunately, it also carries with it significant financial costs.

 

"Renewing and expanding the adoption tax credit will help remove a barrier to more families deciding to adopt.    It's a small investment that provides a big return: getting more children into loving homes and out of the costly foster care system.

 

Rep. Pat Tieberi (OH-12) endorsed the adoption tax credit after Braley delivered his testimony, speaking of his experience with the Dave Thomas Foundation in Ohio.

 

Two weeks ago, Braley introduced the Making Adoption Affordable Act, legislation that would permanently expand the federal adoption tax credit to $13,360 and make it refundable -- allowing more families to take full advantage of it.  More information on Braley's bill can be found at the following link: http://go.usa.gov/yo0

YouTube video of Braley testifying before the committee can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWSI7_9XKAI

720p high-definition video of Braley testifying before the committee can be downloaded here: http://www.mydigitalmanager.com/index.php?a=ViewItem&i=7117

# # #

Celebrating the proud heritage that all Americans share, the Exchange Club of the Quad Cities will rededicate the Freedom Shrine at the Quad City International Airport in Moline on Monday,
April 30, at 1:30 PM. The program will take place at the Freedom Shrine in the connecting corridor near baggage claim, and will feature remarks by U.S. Representative Bobby Shilling (17th Congressional District of Illinois.)  The public is welcome to attend.

The Freedom Shrine, donated by the Exchange Club of the Quad Cities in 2004, is a set of permanently mounted plaques of original documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Gettysburg Address, that were vital to the founding and development of the United States.  The purpose of the Freedom Shrine is to give everyone the opportunity to see and read for themselves the words and actions that marked momentous turning points in our great nation.  They are evidence of the strength and courage of our forefathers and such a public display allows the public to read the immortal words of inspired Americans who so decisively changed the course of history.

More than 12,000 Freedom Shrines have been dedicated in schools, military installations and government buildings since the program began in 1949.  In the Quad Cities, the Exchange Club has installed a Freedom Shrine in the Silvis Library, East Moline City Hall, and Eagle Ridge School, among many others.  If your school or government building is interested in having a Freedom Shrine or want to know more about the Freedom Shrine, call Ralph Wilshusen at 755-2975. 

The Exchange Club has been in the local community for more than 40 years and strives to make the Quad Cities a better place to live through programs of service in Americanism, Community Service, Youth Activities, and its national project, the prevention of child abuse.  The club meets on the first and third Thursday of each month at The Windmill Restaurant, East Moline, IL.

###

Pages