DES MOINES, IA (09/20/2012)(readMedia)-- For families already busy juggling the demands of work and home, college planning might seem like the last thing to worry about. However, with the cost of a higher education rising faster than inflation, nearly every family will face the problem of how to pay for it when the time comes. Thankfully, the answer is quite simple - start saving today. By starting early, saving regularly and making smart investment choices, families can make their savings work for them - and College Savings Iowa is here to help.

In the past 35 years the cost of obtaining a college education has increased by 1,120 percent, which is four times faster than the consumer price index.* With continuing increases in the price of a college education, it is as important as ever to start saving early. Any amount, saved on a regular basis can grow into a substantial amount, which may help reduce the need to borrow to cover educational expenses.

College Savings Iowa, administered by the State Treasurer's Office, is a budget-friendly 529 plan that offers multiple investment choices, as well as significant federal and state tax benefits to help families grown their savings even more. An account can be started with as little as $25 and the assets can be used to pay for qualified higher education expenses at any eligible college, university, community college or accredited technical training school in the United States or abroad. Iowa state taxpayers can deduct up to $2,975 in contributions per beneficiary account from their 2012 adjusted gross income.**

As a way to help families start saving, we are celebrating College Savings Month throughout September and giving away a $5,290 College Savings Iowa account - our largest giveaway to date. For more information and to enter the giveaway, please visit www.my529iowaplan.com any time before November 30.

Don't forget...saving for college is an investment for a lifetime - opening the door to a world of opportunity for the children in your life. Start saving today and help make college a reality for them - you'll be glad you did! For more information about College Savings Iowa, visit www.my529iowaplan.com or call 888-672.9116.

*From Bloomberg.com. Cost of College Degree in U.S. Soars 12 Fold: Chart of the Day. August 15, 2012. Michelle Jamrisko and Ilan Kolet.

**Adjusted annually for inflation. If withdrawals are not qualified, the deductions must be added back to Iowa taxable income. The earnings portion of nonqualified withdrawals may be subject to federal income tax and a 10% federal penalty tax, as well as state and local income taxes. The availability of tax or other benefits may be contingent on meeting other requirements.

###

Investment returns are not guaranteed and you could lose money by investing in the plan. Participants assume all investment risks as well as responsibility for any federal and state tax consequences. If you are not an Iowa taxpayer, consider before investing whether your or the designated beneficiary's home state offers any state tax or other benefits that are only available for investments in such state's qualified tuition program.

For more information about the College Savings Iowa 529 Plan, call 888-672-9116 or visit www.collegesavingsiowa.com to obtain a Program Description. Investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses, and other important information are included in the Program Description; read and consider it carefully before investing. Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.

College Savings Iowa is an Iowa trust sponsored by the Iowa State Treasurer's Office. The Treasurer of the State of Iowa sponsors and is responsible for overseeing the administration of the College Savings Iowa 529 Plan. The Vanguard Group, Inc., serves as Investment Manager and Vanguard Marketing Corporation, an affiliate of The Vanguard Group, Inc., assists the Treasurer with marketing and distributing the Plan. Upromise Investment Advisors, LLC, provides records administration services. The Plan's portfolios, although they invest in Vanguard mutual funds, are not mutual funds.

Floor Speech of Senator Chuck Grassley

on the Disclosure of Tax Returns by Administration Officials

Delivered Wednesday, September 19, 2012

On August 2, the Majority Leader decided that the valuable time of this body would be best employed by speculating on the contents of the tax returns of presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney.  These remarks also touched upon the vetting process of the Finance Committee.  As a senior member of the Finance Committee, as well as a former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee, I have come to familiarize my colleagues with the Committee's vetting process.

On Thursday, August 2, the Majority Leader exclaimed, "As we know, he has refused to release his tax returns.  If a person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn't be if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns."

This statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of the confirmation process for cabinet officials and the Finance Committee vetting process in particular.

The fact is, most prospective cabinet officers do not need to disclose their tax returns.  Actually, no prospective cabinet officer is required to make their tax returns public in ordinary circumstances.

To my knowledge, the Finance Committee is the only committee that asks nominees to provide copies of tax returns.  Specifically the Finance Committee asks that nominees provide copies of their last three Federal tax returns.  The Committee may request further returns if it is warranted by the circumstances.

The Committee asks for this information for a few reasons.  To begin with, many nominees referred to the Finance Committee, such as the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of the IRS, will be able to exercise significant influence over tax policy and administration.  Additionally, the examination of a nominee's tax returns sheds light on the nominee's character.

Over the last few years, several high-flyers in the Obama administration have come up short when measured by their tax returns.   Therefore, the vetting process utilized by the Finance Committee has received a lot of attention.

Only two cabinet officers and one position with the status of cabinet-rank are referred to the Finance Committee.  These are the Secretaries of the Treasury and the Department of Health and Human Services, and the United States Trade Representative.

As I said before, to my knowledge the Finance Committee is the only Committee to requests copies of actual tax returns.  This means that, not counting the vice president, there are 19 members of the cabinet who do not release their tax returns during the Senate confirmation process.

As I said, no cabinet official is required to make his or her tax returns public.  This goes to the details of the Finance Committee's vetting process.

All nominees referred to the Committee are required to submit copies of their last three filed tax returns.  These copies, along with other financial data, are shared with a very limited number of staff specially designated by the Chairman and Ranking Member.

While being reviewed, the returns themselves are kept under very tight control.  Most staff for the Chairman and Ranking Member do not have access to the tax returns.  Neither the Chairman nor Ranking Member may unilaterally release the tax returns or information obtained from them.

This means that even when I was Chairman, the Committee rules prohibited me from unilaterally releasing a nominee's tax returns or even making public that nominee's specific tax information.

When an issue is identified pertaining to a nominee's tax information, the Chairman and the Ranking Member jointly determine how to proceed.  Information is only released under bipartisan agreement, and after consultation with the nominee.

For example, Secretary Geithner was given the opportunity to withdraw his nomination before the world learned of his failure to pay all of his taxes. He was also provided an opportunity to review the bipartisan memo that the Committee eventually released.

In sum, no nominees vetted by the Finance Committee need to make their tax returns public, and in the majority of cases no information is released.  Additionally, the purpose of the vetting is not to damage the credibility of the nominee.  I bet those seeking Governor Romney's tax returns are operating under a different standard.

I especially find it interesting that the Majority Leader compared Governor Romney to cabinet officials when speculating as to the contents of Governor Romney's returns.  There seems to be an implication that a discovery of unsatisfied tax obligations would be problematic to the Leader.

While the Majority Leader may want to speculate as to whether or not Governor Romney has paid his taxes, there are nominees and officials of the current administration we know did not completely satisfy their tax obligations.

I will start this trip down memory lane with our current Treasury Secretary.  Due in large part to his failure to pay self-employment taxes, irregularities in Mr. Geithner's returns added up to his owing a total of $48,268 in taxes and interest to the IRS.  Those seeking a full accounting of the episode may read the bipartisan memorandum prepared by the Finance Committee, which is part of the record of his January 2009 nomination hearing.  As I said, we don't need to speculate whether or not Secretary Geithner completely paid his taxes; we know he did not.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius disclosed that in preparation for her confirmation she filed amended tax returns for 2005, 2006, and 2007.  She voluntarily made this information public in the form of a letter to Chairman Baucus and me.  This letter was printed in the record of her nomination hearing.  The result of those amended returns was that she paid a total of $7,040 in additional tax and $878 in interest to the IRS.

Finally, I want to mention former Senator Tom Daschle, who was the administration's nominee to be Secretary of HHS for a brief period.  Though Mr. Daschle withdrew his nomination before the Finance Committee held a hearing on his nomination, it was widely reported, including in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, that he failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes in the three years prior to his nomination.

In mentioning Secretaries Geithner and Sebelius, and Mr. Daschle, I'm not suggesting anything beyond the reported facts of their circumstances or that their tax errors were intentional.  I just wanted to remind the Majority Leader of these situations where it is not necessary to speculate on whether or not taxes were owed.

While I appreciate the Leader's newfound attention to the Finance Committees vetting process, I want to ensure everyone has a clear understanding of the Committee's process.  I'd be happy to discuss the Committee's procedure with any interested colleague.  I am sure Ranking Member Hatch and his staff would also be happy to discuss the process with anyone who is interested.

-30-

Federal Judge Rules for Workers In EEOC Lawsuit, Further Proceedings on Disability-Based Abuse and Harassment Allegations Lie Ahead

DALLAS?Hill Country Farms Inc., doing business as Henry's Turkey Service ("Henry's Turkey") violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by paying 32 workers with intellectual disabilities severely substandard wages, a judge ruled in an EEOC lawsuit. The court ordered the company, based in Goldthwaite, Texas, to pay its former employees lawful wages totaling $1.3 million for jobs they performed under contract at a turkey processing plant in West Liberty, Iowa, between 2007 and 2009.

The EEOC alleged in the lawsuit (No. 3:11-cv-00041 , filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Davenport Division,) that Henry's Turkey exploited a class of disabled workers because their intellectual impairments made them vulnerable and unaware of the extent to which their legal rights were being violated.

In this latest ruling, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Wolle found that, rather than the total of $65 dollars per month Henry's Turkey paid to the disabled workers while contracted to work on an evisceration line at the plant, the employees should have been compensated at the average wage of $11-12per hour, reflecting pay typically earned by non-disabled workers who performed the same or similar work. The EEOC's wage claims for each worker ranged from $28,000 to $45,000 in lost income over the course of their last two years before the Henry's Turkey Service operation was shut down in February 2009.

"This case reflects the Commission's longstanding commitment to enforce the antidiscrimination laws nationwide on behalf of all workers, including workers with intellectual disabilities and other vulnerable communities," said P. David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC.  It is a serious mistake for any employer not to adopt safeguards against unlawful discrimination based on the assumption that workers will not exercise their rights due to fear or the lack of understanding."

"I believe that this positive result furthers the ongoing discussion about how far our country has come in promoting and supporting employment opportunities for persons with mental, intellectual and developmental disabilities," said Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the Dallas District Office of the EEOC, who is litigating the case. "Unfortunately, this case also reflects the sad reality that we still have a ways to go to ensure that employment of persons with disabilities does not require them to sacrifice their true earning capacity or their human dignity."

In its motion for partial summary judgment, the EEOC argued that Henry's Turkey Service was not justified in paying disabled workers wages that were lower than the minimum wage for Iowa where they lived and worked, and that the disabled workers, some of whom had performed the work for over 25 years, were due the same wage rate as non-disabled workers. In support of its motion,  EEOC included the statement of a West Liberty Foods supervisor, who stated that the contracted Henry's workers were as productive as other workers in the plant, and that they actually demonstrated their knowledge and skills to persons who were being hired to replace them as the Henry's Turkey contract operations were winding down.

The EEOC also submitted evidence from West Liberty Foods records showing that while the plant paid Henry's Turkey Service as much as $11,000 per week for the work performed by the crew of 25-30 disabled men, Henry's paid the men only an average of $15 per week each.

Henry's maintained that it should be credited with wages for providing a 100-year-old former schoolhouse as living quarters. The EEOC submitted evidence, however, from various witnesses, including admissions by Henry's supervisors, that the "bunkhouse"--from which the men were later evacuated--was closed down by the state fire marshal as unsafe, its heating was inadequate, the bug-infested building had rodent problems, and the roof was in such disrepair that buckets were put out to catch water pouring in. The EEOC's position, supported by testimony of the U.S. Department of Labor, was that it was unlawful for the company to deny the disabled workers their full wages and benefits by claiming a "credit" for these substandard living conditions.

Dr. Sue Gant, an expert witness, supported the EEOC's claims that the company's scheme involved purposeful financial exploitation of the trusting workers. She concluded that Henry's conduct "including acts of deliberate misrepresentation" about wages and expenditures, was profit-driven and deprived the workers of "economic independence and self-sufficiency." She further declared that the company "took advantage of the workers. . .knowing that they would not likely be discovered because the workers were disabled."

"Company officers were never able to explain why they were deducting about $1,000 per month from each employee's wages to cover the company's alleged room and board and expenses, while simultaneously pulling out hundreds of dollars per month from each of the men's personal Social Security SSI and disability benefit accounts to reimburse itself for the very same described
'expenses'," added Regional Attorney Canino. Anyone could plainly see that the math just didn't add up, while the personal costs to the men continued to multiply."

In addition to the discriminatory pay practices which are the subject of the Court's order, the EEOC's suit also alleges that the company subjected the disabled workers to abusive verbal and physical harassment, unnecessarily restricted their freedom, and imposed harsh punishments and other adverse terms and conditions of employment such as requiring them to live collectively in substandard living conditions and failing to provide proper health care. The EEOC's trial on these remaining issues regarding mistreatment of the workers is currently scheduled for March 2013.

The EEOC enforces the nation's laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.

###

DES MOINES, Iowa - A Davenport man was reading the newspaper before starting work when he discovered he'd won a $10,000 prize in Wednesday's Powerball^® drawing.

Robert Johannsen, 43, was at E. J. Welch Company in Davenport, where he is the branch manager, when he checked his numbers against those printed in the newspaper.

"I was with my coworkers and I just did not believe it, so I had to come up here to make sure," Johannsen said.

Johannsen claimed his prize Thursday at the Iowa Lottery's regional office in Cedar Rapids. He said the high jackpot is what drove him to purchase a ticket at Porter's Convenient 66, 1512 Lincoln Way in Clinton.

"I haven't told too many people," Johannsen said. "But now I'm here, now I believe it!"

Johannsen said he's planning to take some time to think about how to use his winnings.

"It hasn't really hit me yet," he said.

The winning numbers in the $110 million Powerball jackpot drawing on Wednesday were 24-33-36-48-56 and Powerball 6. Johannsen won a $10,000 prize by matching four of the first five numbers and the Powerball. Had he added the Power Play^® to his ticket, Johannsen would have multiplied his win to $40,000.

There was no jackpot prize winner in Wednesday's drawing. The estimated jackpot for this Wednesday's drawing is $149 million.

Players can increase their prizes with the Power Play (except the jackpot). The cost is $1 per play. Players who chose the Power Play prior to Jan. 15 and matched four white balls and the Powerball won a $10,000 prize multiplied by the number that was chosen for the Power Play. In the new $2 Powerball game, players who choose the Power Play and match four white balls and the Powerball win a $40,000 prize.

Winning numbers may be checked at the lottery website at www.ialottery.com or through the winning numbers' hot line at (515) 323-4633. Winning numbers may also be checked with lottery retail outlets or by calling the lottery at (515) 725-7900 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday-Friday.

Players may visit the Iowa Lottery at 2323 Grand Ave. in Des Moines or go to one of the lottery's regional offices in Council Bluffs, Storm Lake, Mason City or Cedar Rapids to claim prizes.

Since the lottery's start in 1985, its players have won more than $2.9 billion in prizes while the lottery has raised more than $1.4 billion for the state programs that benefit all Iowans.

Today, lottery proceeds in Iowa have three main purposes: They provide support for veterans, help for a variety of significant projects through the state General Fund, and backing for the Vision Iowa program, which was implemented to create tourism destinations and community attractions in the state and build and repair schools.

 

###