21 Nov 2011

Lt. Governor Simon testifies on rural EMS issues

By Kathryn Phillips

Asks state to consider more online training for rural EMTs

GALESBURG - November 15, 2011. As chair of the Governor's Rural Affairs Council, Lt. Governor Sheila Simon asked a state task force today to consider expanding online training for rural emergency medical service (EMS) providers.

Simon said greater online training could improve recruitment and retention of paid and volunteer workers who must take 120 hours of continuing education every four years to remain certified. Rural emergency medical technicians often pay out-of-pocket for continuing education, which can require costly overnight travel and lost wages for volunteers who must take time off from their regular jobs, Simon said.

Simon's request came during a House EMS task force hearing at Galesburg City Hall. The 24-member House EMS task force, which is co-chaired by Reps. Don Moffitt (R-Galesburg) and Lisa Dugan (D-Kankakee), is holding public hearings across the state and will issue recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly by the end of the year.

"The EMS providers we rely on to handle life or death situations are finding themselves on life support," Simon said. "We need to find creative ways to help them attract qualified employees and manage the high cost of doing business in large areas with small populations."

Rural providers are facing revenue problems because reimbursement rates from third-party sources such as Medicaid do not cover the increased cost of providing services, Simon said. Rural providers also report that non-emergency calls for transportation or assistance, which may not be billable or go unpaid, place further strain on budgets.

"It is a privilege to work with Lt. Governor Simon, Rep. Moffitt, fellow task force members and all the EMS personnel on this important state issue," Dugan said. "It is imperative that we realize and help solve some of the problems EMS providers face so they can continue to serve the public."

Under the Governor's Rural Affairs Council, Simon is creating an EMS subcommittee to improve emergency services for rural residents. Dottie Miles, the executive director of Jackson County Ambulance Service, and Greg Scott, EMS coordinator for the McLean County Area EMS System, will serve as co-chairs of the subcommittee.

"This subcommittee will bring together a diverse group of volunteers from across rural Illinois with a variety of EMS experience," Simon said. "I look forward to working with the subcommittee, as well as the House EMS task force, to identify innovative solutions to the problems facing rural providers and residents."

###


15 Nov 2011

Facts are Stubborn Things: Setting the Record Straight on the Justice Department Oversight Hearing

By Sen Chuck Grassley

Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight Hearing with Attorney General Eric Holder, Nov. 8, 2011

·           Senator Grassley: "Who will be held accountable for allowing a letter to Congress with a statement that many people in the Justice Department knew was false?

Attorney General Holder: "Well again I - I have to dispute, with due respect, the assertion that people in the Justice Department knew it was false."

·           Attorney General Holder to Senator Cornyn: "February the 4th, the information that was contained in that letter was thought to be accurate.  It wasn't until sometime after that that we had a sense that the information was not, in fact, accurate.  So it wasn't as if the date upon which we knew the information was inaccurate was on February the 4th."

·           Senator Lee: "And - and you've reiterated several times that people within the Department of Justice believed that the initial statements denying knowledge of Fast and Furious were accurate.  They believed they were accurate.  Obviously these were some people and not all people, right?  Because clearly some people knew.

Attorney General Holder: "Exactly."

FACT

On November 1, 2011, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer admitted in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism that he knew the statement in the February 4th letter to Senator Grassley was absolutely false.  Mr. Breuer had admitted in a statement issued the day before, on October 31, 2011, that gunwalking in a case known as Operation Wide Receiver was brought to his attention in April 2010.  Documents produced by the Justice Department show that in addition to Mr. Breuer, his Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, leadership within the Gang Unit of the department's Criminal Division, and various Gang Unit prosecutors were also aware that guns had been walked in Operation Wide Receiver.  Thus, many senior officials at Justice Department headquarters clearly knew that it was false to assert that "ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally" ? because they at least knew that ATF had walked guns in Wide Receiver.  Correspondence that has been produced in response to Freedom of Information Act requests makes clear that the Criminal Division reviewed the February 4 letter multiple times before it was sent to Senator Grassley.

 

Further, as a follow-up to the letter, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Weinstein conducted a widely-attended briefing on February 10, 2011 for staff of Senate Judiciary Committee members.  In that briefing, Mr. Weinstein did not disclose the gunwalking to staff, and clearly left the impression that they stood by the Justice Department's Feb. 4 denial of the whistleblowers allegations, even though he was the same individual who brought gunwalking to Mr. Breuer's attention nine months earlier in April 2010.
15 Nov 2011

News from Senator Grassley's Office

By Grassley Press

Good Government 101:  Public's Right to Know

by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

A bit of wisdom attributed to a 16th century philosopher has nearly become cliché' in today's 21st century information age:  Knowledge is power.

The Internet and widespread, user-friendly technology allow people from around the world to mobilize, communicate and share unfiltered information and ideas like never before.  Going digital has revolutionized consumer behavior, the global economy and the public's expectations for information.

The public's right to know dates back to America's founders whose advocacy and altruism planted the seeds of our republic that would create a lasting government created of, by and for the people.

James Madison, hailed as the father of the U.S. Constitution, served as the primary architect of our system of checks and balances and embraced the rights of the individual, saying, "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

Representing Iowans in the U.S. Senate, I have championed the public's right to know and to protect freedom of information.

Meeting with Iowans in each of Iowa's 99 counties at least once every year for the past three decades helps keep me accountable to the people who elect me to public office.  Keeping in touch with constituents - whether it's face-to-face or by e-mail, with traditional news outlets or via social media - helps me to uphold the public trust.

What's more, I take seriously my oath of office to uphold the Constitution.  As an elected caretaker of our representative democracy, I work to nurture and cultivate the freedoms and responsibilities of all Americans.

Transparency, openness, accessibility and accountability are non-negotiable cornerstones of good government that build faith in the three branches of the federal government.  Bureaucratic stonewalling and judicial over-reaching foster cynicism and distrust that harm public confidence.  In turn, this damages the government's ability to effectively serve its citizens and, for example, could lead to an erosion of voluntary tax compliance.

From City Hall, to the Statehouse, to Capitol Hill, the taxpaying public has a vested interest in the people's business.  Taxpayers deserve scrupulous stewardship of their tax dollars and assurance that our system of checks and balances is working to root out waste, fraud and abuse and to protect the integrity of the rule of law.

That's why I have worked year after year to keep the people's business open for public consumption.  Most recently, that includes my ongoing oversight of the:

  • Department of Justice's "Fast and Furious" gun walking fiasco that allowed the illegal sale of thousands of weapons to flow to Mexico;
  • Department of Health and Human Service's decision to shut down a public website with information on malpractice cases involving thousands of the nation's doctors;
  • Federal Communications Commission and its attempt to block information from members of Congress and the public about a fast-tracked licensing agreement for a politically-connected applicant;
  • Securities and Exchange Commission's missteps in its mission to protect investor confidence and the integrity of capital markets, including my efforts to support whistleblowers, tighten the revolving door between investment firms and regulatory and law enforcement, and to protect record-keeping relevant to investigations of wrongdoing on Wall Street.

The public's right to know is a fundamental liberty of citizenship.  So whether it's protecting watchdogs and whistleblowers or clearing out bureaucratic cobwebs with stronger sunshine laws, I'm working in Washington to promote access to government information.  The taxpaying public pays the bills, and the taxpaying public deserves to know how its government operates.

As James Madison wrote, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it."  That's why I'm committed to encourage, enable and engage the public to, as Madison also said, "arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

Friday, November 11, 2011

 

Q&A on the Deficit Reduction Committee

with U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Q:        What exactly is the deficit reduction committee in Congress, and under what authority was it created?

A:        Last summer, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011.  The law made it possible for the federal government to borrow more money, avoiding possible default on debt, and authorized the formation of a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.  Twelve members of Congress - six Democrats and six Republicans - were named by party leaders to the Joint Committee, and two of them are designated as co-chairs.  Committee members are charged with presenting a ten-year proposal for at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by November 23.  Both the Senate and the House are supposed to vote on the Joint Committee's legislative package by December 23.  If the Joint Committee doesn't agree on deficit reduction legislation or it is not enacted, then an automatic spending reduction process would be triggered beginning in January 2013.  These automatic reductions would be divided evenly between defense and non-defense spending.  The way that the Budget Control Act restricts amendments and limits time for debate is unusual.  I'm an advocate for regular order where standing committees develop responsible policy and legislative proposals in their areas of jurisdiction.  And, I voted against the Budget Control Act because the spending reductions weren't proportional to the massive fiscal challenges we face.  But, Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution gives to both the Senate and House the power to "determine the Rules of its proceedings," and the Budget Control Act was adopted by Congress and signed into law by the President on August 2, 2011.

 

Q:        Can Congress unravel the law if the Joint Committee isn't successful, preventing the automatic deficit reduction from taking effect?

A:        As the director of the Congressional Budget Office recently said, "Any Congress can reverse the actions of a previous Congress."  At the same time, there is tremendous pressure to begin reversing unsustainable growth in the federal debt and deficits.  In 2009, for the first time ever, the deficit was more than $1 trillion.  From 1946 to 2008, budget deficits averaged 1.7 percent of the gross domestic product and exceeded five percent only three times.  From 2009 to 2011, budget deficits will average 9.4 percent of the gross domestic product.  The federal debt held by the public has grown from 40 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 to an estimated 69 percent of the gross domestic product in 2011.  The fact that Congress can vote to abandon plans put in place for spending restraint - and, too often, either has unraveled budget controls or never adopted them in the first place - makes the case for a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget.  I'm a co-sponsor of legislation that would establish a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.  The last time the Senate voted on a balanced budget amendment was in March 1997, when the nation's debt was less than half of what it is today.  The resolution failed by one vote.  A balanced budget amendment passed the House of Representatives in 1995.  Both the Senate and the House of Representatives must vote on a balanced budget amendment this year, sometime before December 31, thanks to a requirement in the Budget Control Act.

 

Q:        Don't tax increases need to be part of the solution for reducing deficits and debt?

A:        Fiscal discipline and economic growth need to be the top priorities for deficit and debt reduction.  Unchecked government spending will further threaten economic opportunity with higher debt and higher taxes.  It might be one thing if tax increases actually were used to reduce the deficit, but that's not what happens.  Since World War II, every new dollar in tax increases has resulted in Congress' spending $1.17.  Raising taxes has been a license for Congress to spend even more.  And, every dollar spent by Congress is a dollar taken out of the economy, and higher taxes leave fewer resources for the private sector to make investments, expand production, and create sustainable jobs.  The work of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction should stay focused on reducing spending, not on finding ways to increase revenue to fuel excessive government spending.  In addition to supporting reforms to entitlement spending to make sure valued programs are available to future generations of Americans and sustainable for taxpayers, I've submitted specific recommendations to the Joint Committee for spending reductions totaling hundreds of millions to even billions of dollars from administrative restructuring, reduction of duplicative  and overlapping programs, and unnecessary and wasteful programs under the authority and jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where I serve as Ranking Member.  I also made recommendations to the Joint Committee for my bipartisan legislation that would save $4.8 billion in federal government spending on prescription drugs, including through Medicare and Medicaid, by stopping deals between name-brand and generic drug makers that keep less expensive drugs off the market.  I've urged the Joint Committee to adopt caps on farm payments, for a savings of $1.5 billion, and backed a goal of saving $23 billion in spending from programs that fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Agriculture.  The bottom line is that Washington doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.

 

Friday, November 11, 2011
11 Nov 2011

Bringing Families of Fallen Servicemembers Together

By Spc. Dorian Daily, 139th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment

BELLEVILLE, IL (11/08/2011)(readMedia)-- Losing a family member can be difficult, especially when that loved one made the ultimate sacrifice while serving his or her country. However, those who grieve do not have to take the journey alone.

The Illinois Connections for Families of the Fallen (ICFF) held a conference "Connections in Southern Illinois: Bringing Families of the Fallen Together" on the campus of Southwestern Illinois College Nov. 5. ICFF is a coalition of more than 25 organizations, including the Army Survivor Outreach Services (SOS) program.

"ICFF ensures families are connected to resources, connected to their local community, and connected to peer support," said Bob Gillmore, the support coordinator of Army Survivor Outreach Services and native of Petersburg.

The event was open to the families of fallen servicemembers. Participants were asked to bring a personal token of remembrance to use as a symbol of strength.

The event was comprised of three tracks: groups/workshops, resources, and creative arts.

In the groups/workshops track, participants discussed how they coped with the loss of their servicemember. Everybody described their grieving process differently.

"We found that we were so busy, we really didn't have time to grieve," said Sheila Tracy of Palestine, who attended on behalf of her son, Pfc. Jacob Tracy.

In the resources track, participants learned how to improve advocacy skills, develop peer networks in their home area, reach financial goals, and change or restart their careers.

The creative arts tracks helped participants reveal a creative side some may have thought they never had.

"Art therapy is a mental health profession that uses a creative process and art materials to help people express themselves," said art therapist Leslee Goldman of Evanston. "When it comes to mourning a loved one, it becomes another language of expression for those who cannot find the words to say. The grieving process can be long and challenging and not everyone is comfortable with just talking."

Children also attended the event and participated in activities with their family. The activities were designed to help families share positive memories of their loved one.

"My dad was a really nice person who wanted to make his family happy and laugh," said a young Belleville participant describing his father, who served in the Marine Corps and Air Force. "He is irreplaceable."

Another young participant, Jayse Weikert of Jacksonville, described his father, Illinois National Guard Staff Sgt. Matthew Weikert in only one word: "Awesome!!!"

Participants also had the opportunity to contribute to The Memorial Mosaic Wall, which was created by using tile pieces. Everyone contributed one piece to create an entire picture. It will travel throughout Illinois to enable others to contribute to this ever evolving piece.

The purpose of the SOS program is to provide long-term support to families of the fallen. This is done by facilitating support groups, providing life skills education, and connecting Survivors with counseling resources. SOS also works closely with benefits coordinators, casualty assistance officers, and others to ensure survivors receive the necessary services.

08 Nov 2011

Davenport Parks and Recreation Earns National NRPA Accreditation

By Ron Summers
Davenport. Iowa, November 4, 2011 - The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) announced today that Davenport Parks and Recreation became one of only 104 park and recreation agencies accredited by the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA). This distinguished accomplishment was announced during the NRPA 2011 Conference in Atlanta, Georgia.

National accreditation through CAPRA is an extensive multi-year process, which includes the completion of an application and detailed self-assessment report, a site visit by a committee of experienced park and recreation professionals, and a final assessment completed by the agency and the Commission. Accreditation requires agencies to respond to 144 standards representing elements of effective and efficient park and recreation operations. To become accredited, agencies must fully meet 36 standards deemed fundamental to a quality agency and at least 92 of the remaining standards.

CAPRA accreditation is the only national accreditation for park and recreation agencies, and is a measure of an agency's overall quality of operation, management and service to the community. Accreditation is valid for a period of five years, renewed thereon for 5 years terms.

The Commission is comprised of representatives from NRPA, the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration, the National Association of County Park and Recreation Officials, the International City/County Management Association, the American Association for Physical Activity and Recreation, the Armed Forces Recreation Society and the Council of State Executive Directors.

"I'm proud of the hard work and dedication from the department staff to achieve this recognition," said Seve Ghose, Director of Parks and Recreation. "The City can also be proud knowing that their Parks and Recreation department has been recognized for excellence in service and operations." "By successfully completing the CAPRA accreditation process, these agencies have proven their ability to provide the highest level services and programs. NRPA truly commends our 2011 accredited agencies for their overall excellence in serving their communities and contributing to the health and vitality of America" said Barbara Tulipane, CEO of NRPA.

Parks and Recreation joins Davenport Police, Fire and Public Works in achieving national accreditation status. With formal presentation to Parks and Recreation of accreditation status, Davenport is now the first city in the United States to achieve national CALEA, CFAI, APWA and CAPRA accreditation status, while operating libraries accredited at the state level.

###
08 Nov 2011

Governor Quinn Announces Major Expansion of Illinois' Open Data Initiative

By Andrew Mason

Addition of Federal Datasets Pushes Total Sets Available on Data.Illinois.gov to Nearly 5,000

CHICAGO - November 4, 2011. Governor Pat Quinn today announced a major expansion of the information available on Illinois' open data portal, Data.Illinois.gov. The state recently received approval from the federal government to provide more than 4,700 additional datasets containing Illinois-related information collected by a number of federal agencies. This brings total datasets available through Data.Illinois.gov to nearly 5,000. Illinois' open data portal is an initiative of Governor Quinn's Illinois Innovation Council.

"Giving people greater access to the information government collects can improve the lives of all Illinois residents," Governor Quinn said. "Today's announcement gives our innovators and entrepreneurs even more information and tools to promote innovation throughout Illinois."

Data.Illinois.gov empowers the public to access and employ information collected and maintained by the government. It contains a user-friendly interface that describes what data is available, how it can be accessed, and different tools for making use of it. The site is maintained by the state of Illinois and encourages public participation in government by empowering Illinois' innovators to use government data in new and creative ways.

New datasets available on Data.Illinois.gov include the results of the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, which tabulates incomes, home values and average commuting times. Other datasets include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's state-by-state toxic release inventory and the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports on the Midwest economy.

The new data supplements information already posted by the Illinois Departments of Transportation, Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Revenue, Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Public Health, Central Management Services and Employment Security, as well as the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. The site will continue to grow as more data from more agencies are added, with the goal of making as much data as possible available.

The Illinois Innovation Council was created by Governor Quinn in February to promote economic development through innovation and the engagement of citizens, developers, academia and industry. For more information on the council, please visit www.illinoisinnovation.com.

###
08 Nov 2011

Grassley Concerned about Local Ordinances Undermining Federal Immigration Laws

By Sen Chuck Grassley

WASHINGTON -- Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley is leading an effort to make sure the Obama administration is not turning a blind eye to local governments that resist in cooperating with federal immigration authorities and blatantly ignore the immigration status of individuals with whom they come into contact.

In a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Grassley, along with Senators John Cornyn of Texas, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, wrote that they were specifically concerned about the department's handling of Cook County, Ill.  The senators wrote that in a meeting with Gary Mead, the Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, "Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff were told that Cook County presents a major problem for immigration enforcement efforts.  In fact, Mr. Mead said that Cook County is the most egregious example of sanctuary city policies and that this situation presents 'an accident waiting to happen.'"

"The Secretary needs to step up and take control of this situation before Cook County's ordinance is copied by other local governments," Grassley said.  "These anti-enforcement policies are allowing criminals to walk free and putting the safety of the public at risk."

In addition, recent press reports indicate that much to the chagrin of local Border Patrol agents, the U.S. Border Patrol ended transportation checks on random busses, trains and airports.  According to agents, the searches were an effective tool for deterring illegal immigration.

"This all adds up to an administration that has little concern with the rule of law.  Sanctuary cities undermine the ability of law enforcement personnel to enforce the laws on the books, and until the administration shows a desire to put an end to the practice, local governments will continue to thumb their nose at law enforcement," Grassley said.

Here is a copy of the text of the letter.  A signed version of the letter can be found here.

 

November 2, 2011

 

 

The Honorable Janet Napolitano

Secretary

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

 

Dear Secretary Napolitano:

 

We write to express serious concerns about the Administration's lack of attention to local law enforcement jurisdictions that enact policies that undermine federal immigration law.  Specifically, we are very concerned with policies enacted by Cook County, Illinois, and how your department is responding to them.

 

At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 19, you were asked if you had communicated with Cook County officials about a recently passed ordinance that prohibits federal government officials from having access to undocumented persons detained by the county.  This ordinance aims to free suspected undocumented individuals jailed by the county on misdemeanor cases, in spite of requests from federal law enforcement to hold them for possible deportation.  During the hearing, you indicated that you had not participated in any discussions with Cook County.  You also indicated you had not had any discussions with the Justice Department about how they will handle local jurisdictions, such as Cook County, that harbor undocumented individuals.

 

When briefed by Gary Mead, Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff were told that Cook County presents a major problem for immigration enforcement efforts.  In fact, Mr. Mead said that Cook County is the most egregious example of sanctuary city policies and that this situation presents "an accident waiting to happen."  Mr. Mead also reported that the Department is relying on the ICE District Director to resolve the situation, although ICE Assistant Secretary Morton has taken some direct steps to address the matter.

 

We would like to know what specific steps have been and will be taken by your Department to compel Cook County to reverse its policy of ignoring immigration detainers.  In addition, we would request an overview of meetings held between federal officials and Cook County, including any emails or other documentation that exist, to understand how the federal government has been or is attempting to rectify the situation.

 

More importantly, we urge you, as Secretary, to take a direct role in this matter.  Cook County's ordinance is a serious threat to the public's safety that requires your immediate and personal attention.  This is too important of an issue to go unresolved, and as a matter of national security, we urge you to take control of the situation so that detainers are not ignored and undocumented individuals are properly detained and put in deportation proceedings.

 

Finally, we encourage you and your colleagues in the Administration to seriously consider taking action against local or state jurisdictions that enact policies that purposely undermine the law or encourage their officers not to cooperate with the federal government when it comes to immigration enforcement.  Given the current fiscal crisis facing the federal government, serious consideration should be given to withholding federal grant dollars to local or state jurisdictions that fail to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement.  The Administration has a responsibility to ensure that the homeland is protected, and it must not turn a blind eye to such entities that proactively defy the immigration laws we have on the books.

 

Thank you and we look forward to your timely response.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Chuck Grassley

John Cornyn

Tom Coburn

Jeff Sessions
01 Nov 2011

Grassley Questions Justice Department's Proposed FOIA Regulations

By Rick Martin

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

01 Nov 2011

A Call for Justice in the Land

By Jo Cohrs
Currently we are witnessing around the country if not around the world a movement that has been given the name "Occupy Wall Street" after the focus of the very first gathering that seems to have begun this movement that now encompasses over 80 cities in the United States. At its core this is a movement that is calling the nation to think again about justice for all citizens. The Preamble to the US Constitution begins with these words: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice,..." The call for justice, fairness between people was at the core of our coming together.

Yet as a faith based group we also must look at the unique tradition coming from the Holy Scriptures and understand that the call for justice is again central to our mission. When the Prophet Amos was speaking to the leadership of the Northern Kingdom of Israel his message from God was again for justice for many were being ignored by that same leadership. In the 5th chapter of that book and in the 24th verse we find these words, "Let justice roll down like water and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream" Amos was calling for the nation to remember that it needs to see that justice falls on all of its citizens.

In the New Testament in the Gospel of Luke we find Jesus reading from the Prophet Isaiah as he stands before the congregation of his home town. He says, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free. To proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

This then is our directive, to bring good news to the poor and to proclaim release to the captives. As we look at our current society we see a nation where the wealth has been denied to many, where the advances of health care have been denied to many, where  opportunity for worthwhile employment has been denied to many.

Occupy Wall Street and the other occupy manifestations around the country are reminding us that justice is at our core as a people and as a faith community we need to take this opportunity to reiterate that not only is this at the core of the Republic but it is a directive in the center of our faith.

Churches United of the Quad City calls upon the Christian Church to remind the community through word and deed that justice and working for justice is at the center of the faith. We must use this opportunity to lift up the call from the Jesus that we follow and remember those that often get forgotten. Let this be the moment in history when the people of faith say this society must offer compassion to all, fairness to all, justice to all.

"Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family you did it to me."(Matthew 25:40)

Voted by Churches United of the Quad City Area Board of Directors 10/27/2011
01 Nov 2011

IOWA FARM BUREAU SUPPORTS STATE ROAD FUNDING RECOMMENDATION

By Iowa Farm Bureau

WEST DES MOINES, IOWA - Oct. 27, 2011 - With rural roads making up nearly 90,000 miles of the state's 114,000-mile road system, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) applauds the Governor's Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission recommendation for an additional 8 to 10 cents per gallon fuel tax.

"Our roads and bridges have been severely impacted over the years by flooding and neglect, negatively impacting all of Iowa, but especially our rural communities, businesses and farms. Our members believe it's imperative to repair the roads and bridges to help rural Iowa thrive," said Craig Lang, IFBF president. "We believe that an increase in the fuel tax is the fairest way to fund those repairs because it charges people who actually use the roads whether they live in Iowa or are from out of state."

Lang notes that IFBF delegates in 2008 passed policy calling for the fuel tax increase to repair the state's roads and bridges.

The tax increase recommendation was made to the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) this week after several listening sessions around the state. The recommendations will be submitted to the Iowa Legislature by the IDOT by the end of the year.  The IDOT reports that Iowa needs an additional $215 million per year to meet critical roadway needs and the recommended increase will generate $184 million to $230 million per year.

-30-

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

    

Two Ways to Subscribe

1. Subscribe to free weekly e-mail content updates.

You'll get both the current official narrative challenge and What's Happenin' in the Quad Cities.
(Did you know we publish a new Real Astrology and RCR Crossword every week?) 

Subscribe!

* indicates required

2. Get 12 monthly issues mailed first class for $48

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Subscribe now.