Proclaims "Starved Rock State Park Day" at Popular Illinois Destination

UTICA - October 30, 2011. Governor Pat Quinn celebrated the 100th anniversary of Starved Rock State Park in Utica and proclaimed today "Starved Rock State Park Day" in Illinois. The state purchased 280 acres and created Starved Rock State Park in 1911. Today the park includes more than 2,800 acres along the Illinois River in La Salle County, and is one of the state's most popular tourist destinations.

"Our state parks are valuable resources, allowing families to enjoy Illinois' natural, undisturbed habitat," said Governor Quinn. "Starved Rock State Park has been an important part of our history for 100 years, and I want to encourage everyone to see its spectacular rock formations in person."

Starved Rock State Park is home to 18 canyons formed by glacial melt water and stream erosion. The park is best known for its rock formations, primarily sandstone, laid down in a huge shallow inland sea more than 425 million years ago and later brought to the surface. Today, Starved Rock State Park is one of the most visited state parks in Illinois, welcoming more than 2 million visitors each year. The park's visitors provide tens of millions of dollars of direct economic activity and support hundreds of jobs throughout La Salle County and north-central Illinois.

"The topography of Starved Rock State Park is so unique, it almost looks as though it was carved out of different landscape and set here for all to enjoy," Illinois Department of Natural Resources director Marc Miller said. "It is one of the great wonders of our state."

French explorers built Fort St. Louis at Starved Rock in the winter of 1682-83 to take advantage of its commanding strategic position. They abandoned the area in the early 1700s after conflicts with Iroquois during the French and Indian War (Seven Years War). According to legend, in the 1760s a group of Illiniwek warriors were trapped on top of the 125-foot sandstone butte by opposing Potawatomi and Ottawa fighters. Surrounded and unable to flee, the Illiniwek starved to death, giving rise to the park's name. The butte area was designated a U.S. National Historic Landmark in 1960.

The park is also among the state's most popular destinations for bald eagle watching. Starved Rock State Park, and adjacent Plum Island Eagle Sanctuary, provide ideal winter roosting habitat for bald eagles. In 2004, then Lt. Governor Quinn spearheaded an effort with the Illinois Audubon Society and other environmental groups to save the 55-acre island from development.

Governor Quinn has continued his efforts to support state parks since becoming Governor. Within the first two weeks of becoming Governor in 2008, Quinn reopened 11 state parks that had been closed.

To learn more about Starved Rock State Park or other state parks, please visit www.dnr.illinois.gov.

###

PELLA, IOWA (10/29/2011)(readMedia)-- The following students were accepted to a Central College Abroad study abroad program for the spring 2012 semester:

Justine Jackovich, a native of Eldridge, was accepted to Central College Abroad's program in Granada, Spain.

Patricia Braun, a native of Davenport, was accepted to Central College Abroad's program in Merida, Mexico.

Central College Abroad is a university-based study abroad provider for undergraduate students from colleges and universities throughout the United States. Central College Abroad offers semester, yearlong and summer study abroad programs at nine sites worldwide and operates out of Central College.

Central College is a private, four-year, residential, liberal arts college in Pella, Iowa. Central was recognized in the 2011 U.S.News & World Report's annual rankings of the best liberal arts colleges in the nation.

More information about Central College Abroad is available at www.central.edu/abroad or by calling 800-831-3629.

Open government advocates say "lying" diminishes integrity of federal government

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley is pressing the Department of Justice to explain its proposal to make false statements to Americans submitting Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests if the documents are deemed by the agency as inappropriate to release.

The Justice Department is considering changing existing FOIA regulations to allow agencies responding to a FOIA request to state that no records exist, even if the records do, in fact, exist, whenever they determine that the requested documents they possess fit within a certain exclusion of the law.

"It's hard to believe that the Justice Department thinks it's appropriate to make false statements to the American people to avoid releasing sensitive documents.  How about being truthful and simply saying that if the documents exist they would be sensitive and couldn't be provided?  This administration is creating more distrust of the federal government, which is already at a low point," Grassley said.  "It's long past time for the 'most transparent administration' to start acting like it instead of just talking about it."

Grassley wrote in his letter to the Attorney General, "The new proposed regulation stands in stark contrast to both the President's and your prior statements about FOIA, transparency, and open government.  In fact, this policy directly contradicts your many statements, to me and other members of the Judiciary Committee, as part of your nomination hearing, that you support transparency of the Executive Branch."

Grassley has championed the public's right to know by strengthening and reforming sunshine laws, including oversight and enforcement of the FOIA, and measures to protect watchdogs and whistleblowers.

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley's letter.  A signed copy of the letter can be found by clicking here.

 

October 28, 2011

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 you today regarding the Department of Justice's proposal to amend the Freedom of Information Act Regulations.[1] Under the proposal, a new section 16.6(f)(2) would change existing FOIA regulations to allow agencies responding to a FOIA request to state that no records exist whenever they determine that the requested documents they possess fit within the exclusions under 5 U.S.C. § 552(c).

Institutional FOIA requesters with varying perspectives have expressed their opposition to section 16.6(f)(2).  In sum, they oppose it because it is contrary to FOIA's purpose of ensuring government accountability by providing for public access to information and records.  Requesters argue that section 16.6(f)(2) will interfere with the judicial review that guarantees that agencies are correctly interpreting and applying exemptions under FOIA.  They further maintain that the provision will severely damage government integrity by allowing a law intended to facilitate access to information to be distorted to allow law enforcement agencies to "lie" to our citizens.  In the opinion of requesters, section 16.6(f)(2) is not needed because answers to FOIA requests for documents that fall within § 552(c) exclusions can easily be framed in a manner that is truthful, while still not acknowledging whether any such documents exist.

Under normal circumstances, few requesters would litigate a denial where the FOIA request was denied on the basis that no records exist, because in that situation there should not be anything for a court to order the government to produce.  However, requesters contend that the enactment of section 16.6(f)(2) could very likely result in an increase in FOIA litigation because as soon as requesters understand that a DOJ "no records" response does not necessarily mean that there are no records, they will be forced to sue to discover whether there are any records or whether the response was made under section 16.6(f)(2).

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."[2] The President's memorandum on FOIA called on all government agencies to adopt a "presumption of disclosure" when administering the law.  He directed agencies to be more proactive in their disclosure and to act cooperatively with the public.  To further his goals, the President directed the Attorney General to issue new FOIA guidelines for agency heads.

Pursuant to the President's instructions, you issued FOIA guidelines in a memorandum dated March 19, 2009.[3] Your memorandum rescinded former Attorney General Ashcroft's 2001 pledge to defend agency FOIA withholdings unless they lacked a sound legal basis.  Instead, you stated that the DOJ would now defend withholdings only if the law prohibited release of the information or if the release would result in foreseeable harm to a government interest protected by one of the exemptions in FOIA.  Your memorandum used the same grand language as the President's memoranda.  In relevant part, it reads:

As President Obama instructed in his January 21 FOIA Memorandum, 'The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.'  This presumption has two important implications.

First, an agency should not withhold information simply because it may do so legally.  I strongly encourage agencies to make discretionary disclosures of information.  An agency should not withhold records merely because it can demonstrate, as a technical matter that the records fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption.

Second, ... [a]gencies should always be mindful that the FOIA requires them to take reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information....

At the same time, the disclosure obligation under the FOIA is not absolute.  The Act provides exemptions to protect, for example, national security, personal privacy, privileged records, and law enforcement interests.  But as the President stated in his memorandum, 'The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.'...

... Open government requires not just a presumption of disclosure but also an effective system for responding to FOIA requests.  Each agency must be fully accountable for its administration of the FOIA.

I would like to emphasize that responsibility for effective FOIA administration belongs to all of us?it is not merely a task assigned to an agency's FOIA staff.  We all must do our part to ensure open government.

Proposed section 16.6(f)(2) stands in stark contrast to both the President's and your prior statements about FOIA, transparency, and open government.  In fact, this policy directly contradicts your many statements, to me and other members of the Judiciary Committee, as part of your nomination hearing, that you support transparency of the Executive Branch.  Further, this proposal is alarming given my questions to you at the April 14, 2010 oversight hearing about the significant increase in the use of FOIA exemptions by federal agencies between FY2008 and FY2009.  Although you responded that the significant increase in the use of exemptions was "troubling," your later written response indicated that the "increases demonstrate greater transparency."

I am concerned about your decision to propose section 16.6(f)(2) and share many of the concerns expressed by institutional FOIA requesters.  Accordingly, please respond to the following requests for information:

• Has the DOJ instructed, or otherwise approved, an agency providing a knowingly false statement about the existence of documents in responding to a FOIA request or to a FOIA requester?  If so, how often has this been done?  Describe the circumstances surrounding each use of a knowingly false statement DOJ has approved as an appropriate response to a FOIA request.
• Identify the authority by which the DOJ can adopt proposed section 16.6(f)(2), in light of (a) the case law applying FOIA and (b) the legislative history behind FOIA, both as originally enacted and as subsequently amended.
• Is the DOJ currently using the procedure set forth in proposed section 16.6(f)(2)?  If so, identify how long it has been used and the authority by which the DOJ is able to utilize the procedure absent a new regulation or statute.
• Given the many existing specific FOIA exemptions, such as the national security exemption in (b)(1) and the law enforcement exemption in (b)(7), along with the longstanding use of the "Glomar response," to protect national security and ongoing investigations, why does the DOJ maintain proposed section 16.6(f)(2) is needed?
• Did the DOJ consider less expansive options for reforming FOIA, such as merely codifying the "Glomar response" in regulations?
• What additional, less expansive alternatives were considered?  For example, did the DOJ consider a more limited "national security only" option for cases with national security concerns instead of across the board recommendations for agencies to lie to FOIA requesters when a request includes something as innocuous as the existence of a privileged interagency memorandum?  If so, provide a list of all other less expansive options considered.
• What is your response to the concern expressed by institutional requesters that section 16.6(f)(2) is contrary to FOIA's purpose of ensuring government accountability by providing for public access to information and records?
• What is your response to the concern expressed by institutional requesters that section 16.6(f)(2) will interfere with the judicial review that guarantees that agencies are correctly interpreting and applying exemptions under FOIA?
• What is your response to the concern expressed by institutional requesters that section 16.6(f)(2) will severely damage government integrity by allowing a law intended to facilitate access to information to be distorted to allow law enforcement agencies to "lie" to our citizens?
• What is your response to the argument by institutional requesters that section 16.6(f)(2) is not needed because answers to FOIA requests for documents that fall within § 552(c) exclusions can easily be framed in a manner that is truthful, while still not acknowledging whether any such documents exist?
• What is your response to the argument by institutional requesters that the enactment of section 16.6(f)(2) could result in an increase in FOIA litigation because as soon as requesters understand that a DOJ "no records" response does not necessarily mean that there are no records, they will be forced to sue to discover whether there are any records or whether the response was made under section 16.6(f)(2)?
• One set of comments[4] to section 16.6(f)(2) suggests that when DOJ "determines that a requester is trying to obtain information excluded from FOIA under [5 U.S.C.] section 552(c), the agency should simply respond that 'we interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.'"  What is your response to this suggestion?
• Do you agree that proposed section 16.6(f)(2) is inconsistent with the statements in the President's January 21, 2009 memorandum on FOIA?  If you disagree, explain how you are able to reconcile the two.
• Do you agree that proposed section 16.6(f)(2) is inconsistent with the statements in your March 21, 2009 memorandum on FOIA?  If you disagree, explain how you are able to reconcile the two.
• Does the DOJ intend to submit section 16.6(f)(2) to Congress and to proceed with its implementation?

These are basic questions, most of which should have been answered before you decided to seek comments on proposed section 16.6(f)(2).  Therefore, I ask that you respond in writing no later than November 7, 2011.

Finally, if you intend to proceed with section 16.6(f)(2) as currently drafted, I ask you to confirm this intention in writing when you submit the new regulation to Congress.  Based on the information that I have at this time, I will take all necessary action, including introducing legislation, to block section 16.6(f)(2) from ever taking effect.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

CC: Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

MILWAUKEE, WI - With the increasing prevalence of childhood obesity and other health problems, it's important that parents encourage and teach kids about nutritious food options and physical activity.  The National PTA's (Parent Teacher Association) Healthy Lifestyles Month this November is an opportunity to use creative events and activities to show that living healthfully can be fun.  TOPS Club, Inc. (Take Off Pounds Sensibly), the nonprofit weight-loss support organization, provides advice to promote wellness at home and get involved with the PTA Healthy Lifestyles initiative.

The facts

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, children and adolescents should participate in 60 minutes of physical activity each day.  Today, there are more video games, less homemade meals, and a reduction of physical education and sports programs at school - trends that have contributed to a growing problem of decreased physical activity among children.  One in three children and adolescents are overweight or obese, and according to the American Diabetes Association, one in every 400 children has diabetes.

Although there has been an increase in childhood obesity, there has also been a rise in initiatives to temper this trend.  Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign, a program that TOPS supports, is one such plan that ties into the goals and message of Healthy Lifestyles Month.

It starts at home

It's important to develop healthy habits at home, so children can go to school, friends' houses, and other places, ready to make sensible, healthy choices.

1. Physical activity - Get moving as a family and demonstrate to kids the necessity of exercise, which can also boost self-esteem and confidence and reduce stress.

• Take a group walk or bike ride around the neighborhood after dinner.
• Find free or low-cost physical activity areas in your community, such as a playground, bike trail, tennis court, or park.
• Take on active chores as a family, like raking leaves or shoveling snow.
• Use pedometers and have a contest to see who takes the most steps in a given week.
• Go to the gym as a family.  Many fitness centers offer discounted memberships.

2. Nutrition - While parents typically decide what their children eat, kids will often eat what is available to them.  Surround kids with healthy snacks and homemade meals to ensure that they're making good choices.

• Serve fresh, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables.  Consider more unique snack ideas like homemade smoothies, a fruit salad, or vegetables and hummus dip.
• Offer water, fat-free milk, or 100 percent fruit juice with no sugar added.
• Since nuts and trail mix are often high in calories, serve them in small portions along with another healthy snack.
• Don't force kids to clean their plates if they are full.

3. Grocery shopping - Before going to the store, make a list of groceries your family needs.  Explain to the kids that you will only buy what's on the list to avoid unhealthy options slipping into the cart.  When making your way through the store, focus on the perimeters.  These areas contain healthier options, such as produce and dairy.  Also, never shop with an empty stomach, so you aren't vulnerable to buying extra foods.

Get involved at school

There are numerous ways to become engaged at your child's school.  Joining your local PTA can help you and other parents impact what's served at lunch, emphasize the importance of physical activity during the school day, and plan activities to promote health and wellness.  Here are some PTA program and activity ideas that will keep families moving and promote wellness:

• Create a document for parents about physical activity areas and resources within the community.
• Host a fundraiser for new fitness equipment.  Skip the candy bars and cookies and sell services, magazines, candles, cookbooks, or other alternatives to sweets.
• Plan a 5K run/walk or walk-a-thon event for the school district and encourage families to participate. 
• Hang up posters and other educational materials in the cafeteria to make students aware of the importance of a nutritious meal.
• Hold a seminar for parents with a health and wellness expert.
• Organize a healthy Family Fun Night with nutritious snacks, games in the gymnasium, such as basketball or kick ball, a dance, food trivia, and more.

It's also important to find out if your local school district has a wellness policy.  This should include nutrition education goals, physical activity objectives, guidelines for food available at school, opportunities for parents and students to get involved with the policy development, and plans for evaluation.  The best place to begin inquiring about a school wellness policy is at the district office.

TOPS Club Inc. (Take Off Pounds Sensibly) is the original weight-loss support and wellness education organization.  Founded more than 63 years ago, TOPS is the only nonprofit, noncommercial weight-loss organization of its kind.  TOPS promotes successful weight management with a "Real People. Real Weight Loss." philosophy that combines support from others at weekly chapter meetings, healthy eating, regular exercise, and wellness information.  TOPS has about 170,000 members - male and female, age seven and older - in nearly 10,000 chapters throughout the United States and Canada.

Visitors are welcome to attend their first TOPS meeting free of charge.  Membership is affordable at just $26 per year, plus nominal chapter fees.  To find a local chapter, view www.tops.org or call (800) 932-8677.

###