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-

01 Nov 2011

Braley Launches Petition Urging Postal Service to Stop Closures of Iowa Post Offices

By Molly Scherrman

Braley will mail petition to US postmaster general

Waterloo, IA - Rep. Bruce Braley today launched an online petition urging US Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe to stop the Postal Service's proposed closures of 178 small town post offices across Iowa.

The petition, which Braley will send - via postal mail - to the postmaster general, can be viewed and signed at the following link: http://www.brucebraley.com/post-office.

"Washington bureaucrats want to close thousands of post offices across the country, including almost 200 here in Iowa," Braley wrote in an email to Iowans.  "This is the wrong move, and I need your help to make sure Washington gets the message that our post offices must stay open.

"The Postal Service is in financial trouble, but closing post offices in Iowa isn't the answer," Braley continued. "One single post office is just a drop in the bucket for the massive Postal Service bureaucracy.  But it can be everything to a small town." 

The Postal Service has released a long list of post offices in Iowa being studied for potential closure.

Earlier this month, a US House committee endorsed a controversial bill that would, in part, allow the Postal Service to move forward with its plans to those post offices.  Braley is a member of the panel, and opposed the bill.  The bill, known as the Postal Reform Act, now must be approved by the full US House.

The full text of Braley's email to Iowans can be viewed below:

--

From: Congressman Bruce Braley

Subject: Help Save Your Post Office

Dear Susan -

I grew up in Brooklyn, Iowa, and our post office was incredibly important to our small community. Back then, before cell phones, text messages and emails, the post office was our way of reaching folks in the outside world.

And still today in many small towns in Iowa, post offices are part of the economic life-blood of our rural communities.

But Washington bureaucrats want to close thousands of post offices across the country, including almost 200 here in Iowa.

This is the wrong move, and I need your help to make sure Washington gets the message that our post offices must stay open.

Will you sign my petition urging Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe to keep Iowa post offices open?

I will send your name, along with everyone who signs the petition - via Postal Mail - to Postmaster General Donahoe.

Here's the text of the petition:

We the undersigned urge you to stop the proposed closure of nearly 200 post offices throughout Iowa. Closing small town post offices jeopardizes the economic health of countless Iowa communities, and deals a blow to towns struggling to survive.

The Postal Service is in financial trouble, but closing post offices in Iowa isn't the answer. One single post office is just a drop in the bucket for the massive Postal Service bureaucracy. But it can be everything to a small town. And I worry that closing post offices could effectively close small towns in Iowa to business.

And that's why I'm fighting to keep post offices open here in Iowa.

Sign my petition and tell the Postmaster General to keep Iowa's post offices open.

Together, we'll make sure Washington gets the message loud and clear: Don't close Iowa's post offices!

Thanks for all you do,

Bruce

# # #

31 Oct 2011

New Reports: Proposed Super Committee Cuts Poised to Weaken State and Local Economies

By Josh Rosenblum

Non-lobbyists Show Secret Supercommittee Could Make Cuts to Over $621 Billion in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in Their States

(Washington, DC) - As lobbyists in Washington converge on the Super Committee, local advocates in states represented by the 12-member "Super Committee" today released new reports detailing the projected fall-out resulting from the committee's proposed cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  Information on the new reports was discussed at press conferences throughout the nation and in Washington where the Supercommittee met publicly for the first time in a month.  In the eleven Super Committee states represented, 20.3 million Americans receive Social Security, 18.5 million Americans receive Medicare, and 21.4 million Americans receive Medicaid.

Money Injected in to Super Committee Members' States Economies By Programs

Social Security in Super Committee States

Medicare in Super Committee States

Medicaid in Super Committee States

Total Spent: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid in Super Committee States

$267.3 Billion

$206.1 Billion

$147.5 Billion

$620.9 Billion

"You can see she would have no housing, day activities, medical, dental or prescription coverage without Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security," said Tom Taranto and Diane McCormack of Dorchester, MA, with regard to their daughter Christina who was born with severe disabilities.

"Too often political and media elites talk about these programs as just cold, unfeeling facts and figures, as if they are divorced from the people whose lives they touch," said Eric Kingson, co-director of Social Security Works. "Too often, the programs are talked about as 'problems' when in fact they really are 'solutions' - solutions that provide benefits that have been earned through the hard work of Americans."

The so-called Congressional "Super Committee" is just 30 days from its deadline.  As lobbyists attempt to save tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, the new reports reveal a possible economic crisis for many Americans should the committee vote to cut benefits.  The full reports are available at http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/super-committee/.

"The American people oppose any cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.  Our elected officials need to know that if they ignore this message, they do so at their own peril," said Ed Coyle the Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans. "This fall, as the Super Committee completes it work, the Alliance for Retired Americans will continue to educate and mobilize seniors and people of all ages on the need to strengthen - not cut - Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."

Opinion poll after opinion poll show that the vast majority of Americans want no cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

###

25 Oct 2011

Lt. Governor Simon, AARP to urge legislators to uphold SB1652 vet

By Kara Beach

SPRINGFIELD - With legislators back in Springfield, AARP Illinois, other advocacy groups and community organizations are bringing the voice of Illinois consumers to the State Capitol to ensure the Governor's veto of Senate Bill 1652 stands. The legislation, pushed by ComEd and Ameren, would increase electric rates annually for the next ten years, while eroding regulation that protects consumers. Today hundreds of residents from across the state, joined by Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon, will rally outside AARP Illinois' State Office in Springfield, before visiting legislators in the Capitol.

TIME: 1 p.m.

DATE: Tuesday, Oct. 25

PLACE: Outside AARP headquarters, corner of College and Edwards, Springfield

###
25 Oct 2011

Braley Statement on Iowa Bridges Ranking Third Worst in US

By Jeff Giertz

Report ranks Iowa bridges among most "deficient" in the country 

 

Washington, DC - Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) released the following statement after a report by the nonprofit group Transportation for America released today said Iowa has the third worst bridges in the United States in terms of their condition and upkeep:

"For four summers in college, I worked for the Poweshiek County Roads Department fixing roads and bridges.  Iowa's economy moves on its roads.  If they're crumbling, our ability to attract new jobs and new businesses to Iowa will crumble too.

 

"We can create jobs in the short-term and make a lasting boost to economic growth - not to mention keeping Iowans safe - by investing in new highways and proper maintenance of our bridges and roads.  We spent billions rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan - it's irresponsible not to make the same investment here at home."

The report says that nearly 22 percent of Iowa's bridges statewide are considered structurally "deficient."  The only states ranking below Iowa were Pennsylvania and Oklahoma.

The full report can be found at the following link: http://t4america.org/

# # #
25 Oct 2011

Secretary Napolitano before the Judiciary Committee-Immigration, Fast and Furious, Grant Spending

By Grassley Press

Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Oversight Hearing of the Department of Homeland Security

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Oversight is a critical function and a constitutional responsibility of the legislative branch.  It's often an overlooked function for members of Congress.  It's not always glamorous.  It's hard work, and it can be frustrating because of bureaucratic stonewalling.

In 2008, I was glad to hear the President-elect talk about the most transparent government ever.  Unfortunately, up to this point, this administration has been far from transparent.

I'm glad the Secretary is here today.  This hearing will give us an opportunity to ask questions that have gone unanswered.  I'm frustrated by the less than forthcoming answers we receive from the administration.

We need a little bit more straight talk from this administration.  This Senator, for one, feels as though our concerns are often dismissed.

For example, just this week, 19 Senators received a response to a letter we sent to the President about immigration policies.  The response didn't come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  It didn't even come from Secretary Napolitano.  It came from a bureaucrat in the Office of Legislative Affairs.  The response was non-responsive.  It's as if our concerns are trivial and insignificant

The issue we wrote to the President about was the prosecutorial discretion directives being issued by the Department of Homeland Security.

In June of this year, Assistant Secretary Morton released a memo directing and encouraging Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to exercise prosecutorial discretion.  Officers were asked to consider the alien's length of presence in the U.S., the circumstances of the alien's arrival in the U.S., particularly if the alien came as a young child, their criminal history, age, service in the military, and pursuit of education in the U.S.

On August 18, Secretary Napolitano announced an initiative to establish a working group to sort through an untold number of cases currently pending before the immigration and federal courts to determine if they can be "administratively closed."

Combined, this memo and this initiative are alarming, especially to those of us who firmly believe in the rule of law.  These policies seem to contradict that very important philosophy.

We have many unanswered questions from this administration about their prosecutorial discretion initiatives.  For example, how many cases will the working group sort through?  What standards will be used for adjudicating cases?  Will those already ordered removed be considered for relief?  Will those with a criminal conviction be eligible for discretion?  How much in taxpayer money will be expended for this effort and when will the working group finish its work?  What will happen to individuals who have their cases "administratively closed"?

We want answers.  We want transparency and accountability.  We want to be a part of the process.  The American people are shareholders, and they deserve to be consulted when major immigration policy is being formulated.

Americans also want to be told the truth.

That brings me to my frustration about the administration's deceptive marketing tactics in claiming that they have deported more undocumented people than ever before.  Secretary Napolitano continues to use statistics that are inflated and inconsistent with the official data produced by the Office of Immigration Statistics.  The Office of Immigration Statistics has been around for a while - since 1883 to be exact.  I'd like to know why the Secretary cherry-picks what numbers she wants to use and refuses to use the statistics provided by the Office of Immigration Statistics.

The department has a credibility problem here.  The Washington Post uncovered the story last December.  Their headline says it all:  "Unusual Methods help ICE break deportation record."  The administration, including the Secretary, use figures prepared by ICE.   ICE uses a different methodology, counting deportations from previous years and operating a repatriation program longer to pad the numbers.  The Office of Immigration Statistics, on the other hand, only counts removals that actually took place during that year.  Let me provide another example.  Secretary Napolitano gave a speech at American University on October 5th, saying that in 2010, ICE removed over 195,000 convicted criminals.  However, the official statistic from the Office of Immigration Statistics is 168,500.  That's a difference of 27,000.

The point is - we don't know what to believe.  The department is using different methodologies from one year to the next.  Homeland Security personnel, according to the Washington Post, are encouraging immigration officials to do what they can to increase the overall removal number.  There's funny business going on, and the department's credibility is at stake.

But, don't just take it from me.  Even the President acknowledged that the numbers are dubious.   During a recent online discussion aimed at Hispanic voters, President Obama said that, "the statistics are a little deceptive."

So, I'd like to hear from the Secretary why they continue to use these "deceptive" statistics, and why the department chooses to use ICE figures, which are embellished and inconsistent, rather than the data from the Office of Immigration Statistics.

I'd also like assurances, which I have asked for repeatedly, that this administration isn't using creative ways to keep as many undocumented people in this country.  I have been voicing concern about this since the amnesty memo was released last summer.  We've talked a lot about deferred action and parole, but there were many more ideas in the memo.  For example, one of the most egregious options laid out in the memo was a proposal to lessen the "Extreme Hardship" standard.  Under current law, aliens are inadmissible for 3 or 10 years if they have been unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days or one year, respectively.  The department has discretion to waive the grounds of inadmissibility if it would result in extreme hardship.  The amnesty memo states, "To increase the number of individuals applying for waivers, and improve their chances for receiving them, Citizenship and Immigration Services could issue guidance or a regulation specifying a lower evidentiary standard for "extreme hardship."  Proponents argue this is needed for family unity, and that the 3- and 10-year bars are overly burdensome.

If the standard is lessened, untold numbers of undocumented individuals will be able to bypass the 3-year and 10-year bars that are clearly laid out in the Immigration and Nationality Act.  I expect to hear from the Secretary if such a plan is being discussed by anyone within the department.  If it is, I will warn her that such an action, in my opinion, would be another blatant attempt to circumvent Congress and the laws we put in place.

On a final matter related to immigration, I'm very concerned by the administration's inconsistent position when it comes to suing states for enacting various immigration laws.  The administration has sued Arizona and Alabama, two states that have enacted laws requiring their law enforcement officers to cooperate with the federal government on immigration matters.  News reports claim that attorneys are considering challenges to other state laws, including Utah, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina.

But, what about cities and states that ignore federal law?  What about Cook County, Illinois, where the county adopted a new policy that orders sheriffs to ignore all federal requests to detain immigrants after they complete their sentence or post bail?  According to the Washington Post, "Less than a month after the board acted, more than 40 suspected illegal immigrants charged with or convicted of felonies have walked to freedom instead of into the arms of federal agents."  This policy clearly puts the public at risk.

The administration should be working with states, not against them, to enforce our immigration laws.  This latest attempt to challenge a state's efforts to enforce the rule of law, while turning a blind eye to cities and states that knowingly harbor illegal immigrants through sanctuary policies, is undermining the very same rule of law that our country was built on.  I would like to know the Secretary's thoughts about the actions of Cook County.

Next, I am interested to hear about efforts to slim down the Department of Homeland Security's massive bureaucracy in order to make it more efficient in executing its mission.  I know that another committee is working on that issue, but it is also of concern to this committee because redundancy in programs inevitably leads to poor coordination of effort and waste of resources.  Every dollar available to the department should be spent on securing our borders, protecting critical infrastructure, and identifying and catching terrorists.  Thus, I am especially interested in learning about the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Policy, which has almost 200 personnel and more than $50 million for its budget.  I should note that I am not singling out Homeland Security in this regard; just last week I sent a letter to the Super-Committee urging the elimination of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy as a way to save money, since its functions seem redundant of other offices.   My consistent goal is to identify organizational reforms that will streamline the bureaucracy, save money, and better accomplish the mission.

I am also interested in hearing about how the department is implementing recommendations to improve FEMA's process for awarding preparedness grants.  In 2010, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, found that FEMA "does not compare and coordinate grant applications across preparedness programs to mitigate potential duplications and redundancy."  As a result, 11 of the 13 programs that GAO reviewed allowed grant recipients to purchase interoperable communications equipment, such as radios.  GAO found that a single state agency could apply simultaneously to four of those programs and receive funding from all four.  FEMA would not realize the redundancy because it has different review processes for each of the four programs.  Similarly, GAO found that the responsibility for program management of the thirteen grants is split among five organizations.  Thus, for one program, the Office of Infrastructure Protection selects critical infrastructure sites for funding to enhance protection, but cannot validate with FEMA whether an applicant has requested similar protection under other grant programs.  Again, this type of redundancy inevitably leads to waste of resources and undermines the mission of the Department of Homeland Security.  I am eager to hear how the department has addressed this problem.

Finally, I have asked Secretary Napolitano in the past about the involvement of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer being detailed in Phoenix to ATF's Operation Fast and Furious.  I also asked Secretary Napolitano at a hearing back in June about whether she had had any communications about Fast and Furious with her former chief of staff, Dennis Burke, who was the U.S. Attorney in Arizona responsible for Fast and Furious.  I did not get any response back from her.  Mr. Burke is to be commended, to some extent, for being the only person to resign and take responsibility for the failed operation.  Of course, I do not believe he should feel obligated to be the only fall guy.  If there are other higher-ranking officials at the Justice Department who should also be held accountable, they should also step up to take responsibility.

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

-30-
24 Oct 2011

Statement from Governor Pat Quinn Regarding Senate Bill 744

By Katelyn Tye

CHICAGO - October 17, 2011. Governor Pat Quinn today released the following statement regarding Senate Bill 744.

 

"Over the past several months, my administration has conducted a thorough review of Senate Bill 744. After decades of fiscal mismanagement and ethical problems, a quick fix with significant and long-lasting consequences for our state is not the answer. My office has spent months examining the proposed bill's potential economic, ethical, revenue and regulatory impacts. We studied the effects of gaming here and in other states. And I have met - at length - with both the bill's supporters and opponents.

 

"Following this comprehensive review, I have determined this bill falls well short of the best interest of the people of Illinois. I will not sign SB 744 as it is currently proposed.

 

"To promote and protect the interests of the people of Illinois, I can only support a smaller, more moderate expansion that prevents corruption and provides adequate revenue for education.

 

"Illinois cannot expand gambling at all without ensuring proper oversight and full integrity. The Illinois Gaming Board must be equipped with ultimate oversight authority and the necessary tools to continue its exemplary record of keeping corruption out of our gaming industry.

 

"To prevent conflicts of interest, I also ask the legislature to take the additional step of banning campaign contributions to elected officials by gaming licensees and casino managers, as lawmakers in other states have done. If we allow any gambling expansion in Illinois, we should do so in good conscience, without the excessive influence of those that may benefit from such an expansion.

 

"Second, as I have said repeatedly, I believe the current bill is top-heavy with too many new gambling locations. I will only support a smaller, more balanced and modest expansion. As long as I'm Governor, Illinois will not become the Las Vegas of the Midwest.

 

"Lastly, I feel it is critical for any expansion to provide adequate revenue for state education and infrastructure. Any unfair tax breaks for lucrative casinos buried into this bill must be scaled back to ensure that the revenues generated go where they should - to statewide education and infrastructure.

 

"The attached framework represents a way forward on this issue, and I look forward to working with members of the General Assembly."

 

###

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.