Good Fit T-shirt Photo Contest continues until Feb. 15

ROCK ISLAND, IL (02/09/2012)(readMedia)-- Online voting continues until Feb. 15 for the People's Choice Award in Augustana College's Good Fit T-shirt Photo Contest, where potential first-year students are eligible to win one of five $1,000 scholarships to Augustana. For their photos, students must wear the Augustana T-shirt they received when visiting campus.

Students who have entered the photo contest from your area include :

Paige Ehrecke, from Long Grove, IA. Ehrecke is a senior at NORTH SCOTT HIGH SCHOOL and submitted a photo in the At Another College category.

Andrew Statz, from Davenport, IA. Statz is a senior at WEST HIGH SCHOOL and submitted a photo in the At Another College category.

Danya Tazyeen, from Bettendorf, IA. Tazyeen is a senior at PLEASANT VALLEY CMTY HS and submitted a photo in the At Another College category.

Go to www.augustana.edu/Goodfit and check out the creative photos and clever captions and cast a vote for your favorite. In addition to the People's Choice Award, other categories in the photo contest include : action shot, in a famous location, at another college and with an alumnus.

The Good Fit T-Shirt competition is a fun way Augustana can get to know the potential members of its incoming class while spreading the word about Augustana College at the same time.

"It's a way to get Augustana's name out in cyber-world as students share their photos and ask others to vote," said Meghan Cooley, director of recruitment communications and a 1999 Augustana graduate. "In some ways, it's like a global billboard as we have photos of students wearing their Augustana T-shirts in England, Greece and Belize, even at the Blarney Stone in Ireland."

About Augustana: Founded in 1860 and situated on a 115-acre campus near the Mississippi River, Augustana College is a private, liberal arts institution affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). The college enrolls 2,500 students from diverse geographic, social, ethnic and religious backgrounds and offers nearly 90 majors and related areas of study. Augustana employs 287 faculty members and has a student-faculty ratio of approximately 11:1. Augustana continues to do what it has always done: challenge and prepare students for lives of leadership and service in our complex, ever-changing world.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

WASHINGTON - Legislation written by Senators Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Dick Durbin, Judiciary Committee member, to require open proceedings of the Supreme Court to be televised passed the Senate Judiciary Committee today by a vote of 11-7.

The Cameras in the Courtroom Act would require television coverage of all open sessions of the Court, unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that doing so would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more of the parties before the Court. A similar bill was approved by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee last Congress.

"Our Constitution requires that the government be accountable to the people.  The best way we can ensure that the federal government is accountable is to create transparency, openness, and access.  That's why the Cameras in the Courtroom bill is necessary.  It would permit all Americans, not just the 200 people who can fit inside the public gallery, the opportunity to observe what is already a public proceeding," Grassley said.  "This is a tremendous opportunity which would help increase understanding of, and appreciation for, the highest court in the land."

Last year, Grassley asked Chief Justice John Roberts to provide audio and video coverage of the landmark Supreme Court proceedings of the federal health care reform law.  Grassley said that broadcasting the health care reform law proceedings would not only contribute to the public's understanding of America's judicial system, but provide an excellent educational opportunity on a case that has the potential to have a far reaching impact on every American.  Grassley has not yet received a response to his letter from the Chief Justice.

"Nine Justices have a tremendous amount of influence on the lives of the people of this country, yet people know very little about the highest court in our country.   In just a month or so the Supreme Court will hear arguments about a law that has the potential to impact every American.  Allowing cameras in the Supreme Court will help bring much needed transparency to a process that is largely unknown to the American public," Grassley said.

The Cameras in the Courtroom Act only applies to open sessions of the Supreme Court - sessions where members of the public are already invited to observe in person. Public scrutiny of Supreme Court proceedings will produce greater accountability, transparency, and understanding of our judicial system.

Grassley is also the author of bipartisan legislation that would allow the chief judge of federal trial and appellate courts to permit cameras in their courtrooms.  The bill directs the Judicial Conference, the principal policy-making entity for the federal courts, to draft nonbinding guidelines that judges can refer to in making a decision pertaining to the coverage of a particular case.  In addition, it instructs the Judicial Conference to issue mandatory guidelines for obscuring vulnerable witnesses such as undercover officers, victims of crime, and their families.  The bill has safeguards in place to protect vulnerable witnesses, to exclude jurors from broadcast, and to allow a judge to use his or her discretion in determining whether to allow cameras in the courtroom.

-30-


WASHINGTON - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced today that it has awarded $428,6222 to Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission (CRCRC), Davenport Civil Rights Commission (DCRC), Des Moines Human Rights Department  (DMHRD), Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC), Mason City Human Rights Commission (MCHRC), Sioux City Human Rights Commission  (SCHRC), and Waterloo Commission on Human Rights (WCHR) to enforce fair housing laws and help communities and housing providers to better understand their fair housing rights and responsibilities. (Read project description for Iowa funding.) The funds, part of more than $7.5 million distributed nationwide today, will also be used to promote the Department's new Equal Access to Housing regulation, which ensures that HUD housing and programs are open to all families, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.

 

"Today's announcement demonstrates the Obama Administration's commitment to ending housing discrimination, no matter what form it takes," said John Trasviña, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.  "With these funds, state and local government agencies on the front line of the fight will be able to continue their efforts to take on today's many fair housing challenges."

 

 

In awarding the funds, which are provided through HUD's Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP), HUD is responding to requests and suggestions from state and local government agencies that are seeking to partner with organizations that will assist in fair housing enforcement and outreach. The funds will help local communities learn more about their fair housing rights and housing providers meet their fair housing obligations, including those related to HUD's new Equal Access to Housing regulation.

 

###

HUD's mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meet the need for quality affordable rental homes: utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination; and  transform the way HUD does business. More information about HUD and its programs is available on the Internet at www.hud.gov and  http://espanol.hud.gov.  You can also follow HUD on twitter @HUDnews, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/HUD, or sign up for news alerts on HUD's News Listserv.

Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) Funding

The following Iowa agencies have received funding:

 

 

State

Name of Agency

City

Amount


Iowa

Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission (CRCRC)

Cedar Rapids

$35,000.00


 

Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission (CRCRC)

Cedar Rapids

$55,000.00

 

 

Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission (CRCRC)

Cedar Rapids

$10,000.00

 

 

Davenport Civil Rights Commission (DCRC)

Davenport

$55,000.00

 

 

Davenport Civil Rights Commission (DCRC)

Davenport

$4,285.00

 

 

Davenport Civil Rights Commission (DCRC)

Davenport

$2,500.00

 

 

Davenport Civil Rights Commission (DCRC)

Davenport

$2,000.00

 

 

Davenport Civil Rights Commission (DCRC)

Davenport

$500.00

 

 

Des Moines Human Rights Department  (DMHRD)

Des Moines

$44,680.00

 

 

Iowa Civil Rights Commission  (ICRC)

Des Moines

$10,000.00

 

 

Iowa Civil Rights Commission  (ICRC)

Des Moines

$2,000.00

 

 

Iowa Civil Rights Commission  (ICRC)

Des Moines

$11,200.00

 

 

Iowa Civil Rights Commission  (ICRC)

Des Moines

$6,500.00

 

 

Iowa Civil Rights Commission  (ICRC)

Des Moines

$7,500.00

 

 

Mason City Human Rights Commission (MCHRC)

Mason City

$86,802.00

 

 

Sioux City Human Rights Commission  (SCHRC)

Sioux City

$5,000.00

 

 

Sioux City Human Rights Commission  (SCHRC)

Sioux City

$1,400.00

 

 

Sioux City Human Rights Commission  (SCHRC)

Sioux City

$1,000.00

 

 

Sioux City Human Rights Commission  (SCHRC)

Sioux City

$1,350.00

 

 

Sioux City Human Rights Commission  (SCHRC)

Sioux City

$1,000.00

 

 

Sioux City Human Rights Commission  (SCHRC)

Sioux City

$5,000.00

 

 

Sioux City Human Rights Commission  (SCHRC)

Sioux City

$2,600.00

 

 

Sioux City Human Rights Commission  (SCHRC)

Sioux City

$650.00

 

 

Sioux City Human Rights Commission  (SCHRC)

Sioux City

$11,655.00

 

 

Waterloo Commission on Human Rights (WCHR)

Waterloo

$66,000.00

 

 

 

Total

$428,622.00

 

 

------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

February 10, 2012

Notice: The opinions posted on this site are slip opinions only. Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure a party has a limited number of days to request a rehearing after the filing of an opinion. Also, all slip opinions are subject to modification or correction by the court. Therefore, opinions on this site are not to be considered the final decisions of the court. The official published opinions of the Iowa Supreme Court are those published in the North Western Reporter published by West Group.

Opinions released before April 2006 and available in the archives are posted in Word format. Opinions released after April 2006 are posted to the website in PDF (Portable Document Format).   Note: To open a PDF you must have the free Acrobat Reader installed. PDF format preserves the original appearance of a document without requiring you to possess the software that created that document. For more information about PDF read: Using the Adobe Reader.

For your convenience, the Judicial Branch offers a free e-mail notification service for Supreme Court opinions, Court of Appeals opinions, press releases and orders. To subscribe, click here.

NOTE: Copies of these opinions may be obtained from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Judicial Branch Building, 1111 East Court Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50319, for a fee of fifty cents per page.

No. 10-0795

DONALD A. WESTLING vs. HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION


The Bi-State Literacy Council is hosting two fundraisers coming up, a trivia night on Saturday, March 3, 2012, and a Taco Tuesday fundraiser on Tuesday, April 10, 2012.  We are busy preparing baskets for the trivia night fundraiser raffle and silent auction, thanks to the generosity of our donors, so it will be a fun evening!  And, we have a special challenge for trivia teams representing a school or public library - $100 donated to the winning team's library to be used for reading program supplies.  The library teams don't have to be all librarians - library supporters playing for their library count, too!  It's not too late to sign up your team!

Hope to see you at one of our events, and thanks for your support of the Council's activities.

Judy Hutchinson
BSLC Secretary

Judy Hutchinson, PrairieCat Manager
judy.hutchinson@railslibraries.info
309-799-3155, x3150
This March, movie theater audiences across the country will celebrate America's story of faith and freedom with MONUMENTAL: In Search of America's National Treasure Live, a one-night event on Tuesday, March 27, at 7:30 p.m. ET/6:30 p.m. CT/5:30 p.m. MT/8:00 p.m. PT (tape delayed).  Actor Kirk Cameron hosts an evening that reveals the story of the unlikely men and women who helped shape education, government and civic life in the United States. This special in-theater event will also include live performances from popular Christian music artists, as well as exclusive interviews with media, faith and political figures who will share simple and practical ways to keep America's ideals alive.
Tickets for MONUMENTAL are available at participating theater box offices and online at www.FathomEvents.com.
MONUMENTAL will be playing at the following theaters in your area:
RVE Davenport 53 18 with IMAX 3601 E 53Rd St Davenport IA 52807 6:30 PM
For a complete list of theater locations and prices, click here (theaters and participants are subject to change).

Floor Speech of Sen. Chuck Grassley

Political Intelligence Amendment to the STOCK Act

Delivered Feb. 9, 2012

I would like to speak as if in morning business on my amendment to the STOCK Act.

In the dark of night Tuesday, the House released its version of the STOCK Act, which wiped out any chance at meaningful transparency for the political intelligence industry.

What we are faced with is a powerful industry that works in the shadows.  They don't want people to know what they do or who they work for.  They are afraid of sunlight.

My amendment was adopted here in the Senate on a bipartisan basis, a rare occurrence recently.  It simply requires registration for lobbyists who seek information from Congress in order to trade on that information.

It's straightforward.  If trades are taking place based on political intelligence obtained from Congress or the executive branch, people should know who is gathering such information.

Not requiring political intelligence professionals to register and disclose their contacts with government officials is a gaping loophole that my amendment fixes.  In fact, political intelligence firms actually brag about this loophole.

For example, on its website, the Open Source Intelligence Group, a political intelligence firm, says the following:

"Our political intelligence operation differs from standard 'lobbying' in that The OSINT Group is not looking to influence legislation on behalf of clients, but rather provide unique 'monitoring' of information through our personal relationships between lawmakers, staffers, and lobbyists.

Providing this service for clients who do not want their interest in an issue publicly known is an activity that does not need to be reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, thus providing an additional layer of confidentiality for our clients.

This service is ideal for companies seeking a competitive advantage by allowing a client's interests to remain confidential..."

If you didn't hear it the first time, let me repeat some of that for you,

"Providing this service for clients who do not want their interest in an issue publicly known is an activity that does not need to be reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, thus providing an additional layer of confidentiality for our clients."

You have it here on paper.  This firm is telling potential clients, if you don't want anyone to know what you are asking of federal officials, hire us.  That's just wrong, but that's why firms like this don't want to register.

If somebody on Wall Street is trying to make money off of conversations they have with senators or staff, we should know who they are representing.  It's just that simple.

Since the passage of my amendment, which would require political intelligence lobbyists to register as lobbyists, I have heard a great deal of "concern" from the lobbying community.

Political intelligence professionals have claimed that they should do their business in secret for several reasons.

First, they've said that if they are required to register, they will no longer be able to sell information to their clients because people will not want to hire them.  That makes me wonder, what do they have to hide?

Second, they have said that many of them have large numbers of clients, and it would take them a lot of time to register these large numbers of secret clients.  Again, that makes me think we need more transparency to find out who all these people buying political intelligence are.

Third, they have claimed that it would not address the so-called "20 percent loophole" that allows people who spend less than 20 percent of their time lobbying from having to register as lobbyists.

Well, on this, I have some good news for them.  We don't make the mistake that caused the 20 percent loophole.

My amendment requires anyone who makes a political intelligence contact to have to register.   No loopholes, no deals, no special treatment - everyone registers.

Finally, I just want to assure people: Journalists won't need to register.  A constituent looking for information in order to make business decisions won't have to register.  Only political intelligence brokers, people who seek information so that others can trade securities, would have to register.

As I said before, if people want to trade stocks from what we do here in Congress, we should know who you are.  The American people deserve a little sunlight into this industry.  Last night the House turned away from transparency.  The House supported the status quo.

What we need is a full and open conference process so that Congress, both the House and Senate, can work together and improve this bill.  If not, I worry that we will miss the best opportunity we have had for openness and transparency in years.

-30-

Companion Legislation Introduced Today in the Senate

Washington, DC - Congressmen Aaron Schock (IL-18) and Bobby Schilling (IL-17) last week introduced the 1099K Overreach Prevention Act, which will prohibit the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from implementing a new tax reporting requirement that would have far reaching implications for small business owners nationwide.  Companion legislation was introduced today in the Senate by Senators John Thune (R-SD) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

"This is an unnecessary IRS requirement that will only lead to more accounting headaches for businesses. My concern is that the IRS is asking for flawed information from small businesses by requiring them to reconcile their internal numbers with that of third party entities," said Congressman Schock. "When you take into consideration all of the types of merchant transactions that occur between a customer and a small business all this adds up to unnecessary administrative costs, a new accounting burden, and more time away from growing their business. At a time when there is still record unemployment, adding another job killing regulation on small businesses is not the right solution."

"As a small businessperson, I've seen the impact of government red-tape and paperwork firsthand.  When I speak to fellow small business owners, I frequently hear that they are burdened with a lot of complicated paperwork that is difficult and time-consuming to navigate," said Congressman Schilling. "For small companies, the cost of tax compliance is already $1,584 a year.  It is wrong to weigh down the very folks we are asking to put Americans back to work and lead us into economic recovery."

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 requires the IRS to collect a new document known as a 1099K from third party payment entities, such as credit card companies. The 1099K will show all credit transactions within a merchants business for a given year. Unfortunately, the IRS is using the 1099K to add additional burdens on small business tax forms by requiring them to reconcile this report with the merchants own internal numbers, which was NOT the original intent of the law.

Customers asking for cash back, returning merchandise bought on credit for cash, or collecting the deposits for rentals can all lead to discrepancies when reconciliation occurs.  As many small businesses don't have the specialized accounting software, bookkeeping technology, time, or personnel to cross reference and reconcile their own internal numbers with third party generated numbers, this reconciliation requirement increases the accounting workload and costs for small businesses.

The 1099K Overreach Prevention Act prevents the IRS from using the 1099K data to require new reconciliatory calculations on the part of the small business, returning this provision to the intent of the law when it was enacted.

# # #

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Senator Chuck Grassley made the following comment after a meeting he hosted today for members of the Iowa congressional delegation with the Secretary of the Air Force regarding Air Force budget reduction recommendations to retire the 21 F-16 fighter aircraft assigned to the 124th Fighter Squadron, Iowa Air National Guard in Des Moines.  The meeting was held in the U.S. Capitol.

"A lot of mixed signals were sent by the Air Force in today's meeting.  The Iowa congressional delegation is on the same wavelength and committed in a bipartisan, bicameral way to getting the data that the Air Force said it used to make a decision that the Air Force claimed was based on a cost-benefit analysis.  We want this data in order to reconcile an additional comment made by Air Force officials in today's meeting that judgment, beyond the data, was also involved in its decision.  This judgment comment detracts from the Air Force statement that everything was measured for cost and benefit.  Overall, it's a question of safeguarding national security dollars because the Guard has shown to be more cost effective for missions such as a fighter squadron than the Active Duty, and Guard pilots tend to be more experienced since they stay in the service over a long period of time.  The discouraging part is that my feeling was that the Air Force has made its decision, but it will be up to Congress to decide whether to approve the Air Force plan and National Guard advocates in Congress are already signaling that they won't go along quietly with the Air Force's plan to take so many cuts out of the Air Guard.

 

 

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Justice Department Accountability Matters

More Fast and Furious Stonewalling

Thursday, February 9, 2012

 

For over a year now I have been investigating Fast and Furious, an operation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

This has been a complicated investigation.  It's been made even more difficult because of the Justice Department's lack of candor and transparency.  The Justice Department is stonewalling, interfering with Congress' constitutional responsibility of oversight.

For example, the Justice Department Office of Inspector General recently disclosed that it has received 80,000 pages of documents from the Department and over 100,000 emails.  That stands in stark contrast to the 6,000 pages of documents we've received from them.

Similarly, the Inspector General has been allowed to conduct 70 witness interviews.  By contrast, the Justice Department has only provided 9 witnesses to us.

Last week Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  The Justice Department did a document dump to Congress the Friday night before the hearing.

That has become a bad habit for the Department.

In fact, without giving us any advance notice that it was coming, they slid a CD of documents under our door after business hours when my office was already closed.  They managed to find time to leak the documents to the press during regular business hours.

Why would they be so mysterious, wanting to put a disk under our door on a Friday night, giving it to the press hours before?  What sort of attitude is that of the Justice Department towards the cooperation that you ought to have with our filling our constitutional role of oversight?

I'd say it's hardly any cooperation whatsoever.

Now, even though we get a dribble here and a dribble there, even though we get a c.d. under the door instead of very open face-to-face receiving documents, what we got last Friday did reveal further facts about a previously unknown proposal to allow these guns to cross the border.

We have long known that in March 2011, Deputy Attorney General James Cole had a conference call with all Southwest Border U.S. Attorneys.

In a follow-up email after the call, Mr. Cole wrote:

"As I said on the call, to avoid any potential confusion, I want to reiterate the Department's policy: We should not design or conduct undercover operations which include guns crossing the border. If we have knowledge that guns are about to cross the border, we must take immediate action to stop the firearms from crossing the border, even if that prematurely terminates or otherwise jeopardizes an investigation."

Attorney General Holder himself told us at a hearing in May that Mr. Cole was simply reiterating an existing Justice Department policy in his email, not communicating a new policy.

So imagine my surprise when I discover in the documents slid under my door late that Friday night that while in Mexico, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer proposed letting guns cross the border.

His proposal came at the same time the Department was preparing to send its letter to me denying that ATF ever does the very thing he was proposing.

In a February 4, 2011 email, the Justice Department attaché in Mexico City wrote to a number of officials at the Justice Department:

"AAG Breuer proposed allowing straw purchasers to cross into Mexico so [the Secretariat of Public Security] can arrest and [the Attorney General of Mexico] can prosecute and convict.  Such coordinated operations between the US and Mexico may send a strong message to arms traffickers."

So, we've got people here in Washington who say the program doesn't exist.  At the same time we've got people talking down in Mexico City of what we're trying to accomplish by the illegal sale of guns.

The recipients of this email included Mr. Breuer's deputy, Jason Weinstein, who was helping to write the Justice Department's letter to me that they would later withdraw for its inaccuracies.

Mr. Weinstein was sending updates about the draft letter to Mr. Breuer in Mexico.  Yet, during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Breuer downplayed his involvement in reviewing the draft letter.

It is outrageous to me that the head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division proposed exactly what his Department was denying to me was happening.

The Justice Department's letter to me clearly said:

"ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico."

Yet as those words were being sent to Congress Mr. Breuer was advocating that a Justice Department operation allow weapons to be transported into Mexico.  Further, it directly contradicted what the Justice Department has said its policy was.

They can't have it both ways.

If they didn't have a policy against such operations, perhaps it is not a surprise that an operation like Fast and Furious sprang up.

After all, as that same Justice Department attaché wrote of a meeting a few days after his first email:

"I raised the issue that there is an inherent risk in allowing weapons to pass from the US to Mexico; the possibility of the [Government of Mexico] not seizing the weapons; and the weapons being used to commit a crime in Mexico."

The light bulb went on.   Of course, if you're selling guns illegally, 2,000 of them, then don't interdict them, they end up murdering people in Mexico and one person in the United States at least.

If the Justice Department did have a policy against such operations, this is a record of Mr. Breuer proposing to violate it.

That's not just my conclusion.  That's the Attorney General's conclusion as well.

At last week's hearing, the Attorney General was asked to explain the contradiction between his deputy's anti-gunwalking policy and the evidence of Mr. Breuer's proposed operation to let guns cross the border.

He couldn't.

The Attorney General answered: "Well, clearly what was proposed in, I guess, February by Lanny Breuer was in contravention of the policy that I had the Deputy Attorney General make clear to everybody at Main Justice and to the field..."

Perhaps this disconnect between Justice Department policy and Lanny Breuer's proposal explains Mr. Breuer's previous inaction to stop gunwalking.

When he found out about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver in April 2010, he failed to do anything to stop it or hold anyone accountable.  He simply had his deputy inform ATF leadership.

Regardless, Mr. Breuer's contravention of Justice Department policy is yet another reason why it is long past time for him to go.  Mr. Breuer has misled Congress about whether he was aware of the Department's false letter to me.

To this day, he is still the highest-ranking official in ANY administration that we know was aware of gunwalking in any federal program.

Yet he took no actions to stop gunwalking.  He failed to alert the Attorney General or the Inspector General.  Mr. Breuer has failed the Justice Department, and he has failed the American people.  This failure raises some important questions.

When did Attorney General Holder determine that Mr. Breuer was proposing allowing straw purchasers to reach Mexico with trafficked weapons?

What has he done about it?

Will Mr. Breuer be held accountable for hatching a plan to directly violate the Attorney General's anti-gunwalking policy?

The Attorney General clearly testified that the proposal was in "contravention" of the policy.

How does the Justice Department know other senior Criminal Division officials weren't proposing operations similar to Fast and Furious?

These are just a subset of some of the major questions remaining in our investigation of Operation Fast and Furious.

It has now been one year since the Justice Department sent its false letter to me.

How did the Justice Department move from its position of dismissing the complaints of whistleblowers to acknowledging that they were true?

What officials were internally dismissive of the whistleblowers' complaints, and who believed they could have merit and should be taken seriously?

To what extent did Justice Department officials seek to retaliate against whistleblowers?

Exactly how and when did Justice Department officials begin to learn the truth of what happened?

Former ATF Director Ken Melson has testified how and when he learned that guns had walked.

What about Attorney General Holder?

What about Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer?

A year after Operation Fast and Furious concluded, who will be held accountable?

Why didn't top Justice Department officials see the clear connections between Fast and Furious and previous flawed operations that they have admitted they knew about?

How has the Justice Department assessed the mistakes and culpability of these top officials?

It's time for the Justice Department to stop stonewalling and start providing answers.

It's time for them to share with Congress the other 74,000 pages of documents they've turned over to the Inspector General.  It's time for them to give us access to the dozens of other people the Inspector General has been allowed to interview.

In short, it's time for them to come clean with the American people.


Pages