AMES, Iowa - The floods, storms and tornadoes of 2011 are taking their toll on the nation's children, who may be stressed, worried or frightened about what is happening to them and their families. Staff members from Project Recovery Iowa offer tips on talking to kids about natural disasters in this month's Science of Parenting radio program podcast from Iowa State University Extension.

The podcast is available for free download from the Science of Parenting website or iTunes.

Science of Parenting podcast co-host Douglas Gentile is an ISU Extension specialist and associate professor of psychology. He said, "We know from research that kids of different ages are scared by different things, they worry about different types of things, they have a totally different understanding of what's happening. So how do we work with kids of different ages?"

Keep Kids Safe
First, adults, parents and other caregivers need to let children know that "we're here to keep them safe and to provide a safe environment," said Teresa Zilk with the Iowa Department of Human Services, which implements Project Recovery Iowa, a free and confidential, federally funded crisis counseling program.

Remain calm and try to alleviate the children's fear, added Abby Lamont, a crisis counselor with Project Recovery Iowa. Listen to them and let them talk on numerous occasions. Let them know they are reacting normally to an abnormal circumstance.

Limit the Details
Both Zilk and Lamont suggested limiting children's exposure to the details of the disaster. They don't need to see all the news coverage. However, Zilk said, ask them about what they've seen and how they feel about it. Give them a lot of hugs and face time, and let them know the family will get through this difficult time.

"They might keep asking about [the disaster]. You might have to revisit the subject a few times," Zilk said. And, it's OK for parents to say they don't know the answer to their child's question or how to explain what's happening.

However, reinforce children's feeling of safety, Zilk said. "Yes, this terrible thing happened. But we're still a family. We're still whole. We're still able to make it."

Give Kids Times to Talk
Give older children ample opportunities to talk about their feelings, Lamont said. She also suggested engaging young children in activities that will build their resilience. For example, keep track of every time it rains but doesn't flood by marking the days on the calendar. After a few months, count the marked days to help kids learn that it can rain a lot but not flood, and they can remember that they got through it.

Children at any age may show signs of trauma, Lamont said. For example, young children may have night terrors or regress to a behavior they had when they were younger, such as clinging to their parents or bedwetting. Such behaviors are normal reactions to the stress of a disaster. However for all children, parents should watch for signs of unusually aggressive behavior, loss of concentration or inability to sleep, which may indicate that the child needs additional help to cope with the crisis.

Project Recovery Iowa serves residents of Hamilton, Story, Polk, Jasper, Warren, Marion and Wapello counties with counseling and referral related to natural disasters. Lamont said, "We're a listening ear, we're a peer counselor. We try to reassure them that, 'yes, everything that you're feeling is very, very normal.'"

Zilk encouraged other Iowans to call ISU Extension's Iowa Concern Hotline, 800-447-1985. "Someone is available 24 hours, seven days a week. You will not be able to get a crisis counselor to come to your door, but you will be able to speak to someone over the phone," she said.

Download Science of Parenting Podcasts
Science of Parenting podcasts are available for free download from the Science of Parenting website, www.scienceofparenting.org, or can be subscribed to in iTunes. Each month a new, 30-minute Science of Parenting program, as well as previous programs, will be available, as well as blog posts and other research-based parenting information.

-30-

DEA and FBI may have failed to share key information on informants

WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Monday, July 4, ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson testified before investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee about Operation Fast and Furious.  Following this interview, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, expressed their deep concerns about the involvement of the DEA, FBI, and other agencies - including the possibility that they were aware of and even working with people connected to Fast and Furious suspects.

In addition to these concerns noted in the letter to the Attorney General, Acting Director Melson made key assertions to investigators:

·           Contrary to denials by the Justice Department, Acting Director Melson acknowledged the agents had in fact witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns any further.

·           the ATF group executing Operation Fast and Furious had been placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney's office.

A copy of the text of the letter from Issa and Grassley to Attorney General Holder is below.  Click here for a copy of the signed letter.

July 5, 2011

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

Yesterday, Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson participated in a transcribed interview regarding Operation Fast and Furious and related matters with both Republican and Democratic staff.  He appeared with his personal counsel, Richard Cullen of McGuireWoods LLP.  His interview had originally been scheduled through the Justice Department to occur on July 13 in the presence of DOJ and ATF counsel.  As you know, however, under our agreement Department witnesses who choose to attend a voluntary interview with their own lawyer are free to exercise that right rather than participate with counsel representing the Department's interests.

After being made aware of that provision of our agreement, Acting Director Melson chose to exercise that right and appeared with his own lawyer.  We are disappointed that no one had previously informed him of that provision of the agreement.  Instead, Justice Department officials sought to limit and control his communications with Congress.  This is yet another example of why direct communications with Congress are so important and are protected by law.[1]

Acting Director Melson's cooperation was extremely helpful to our investigation.  He was candid in admitting mistakes that his agency made and described various ways he says that he tried to remedy the problems.  According to Mr. Melson, it was not until after the public controversy that he personally reviewed hundreds of documents relating to the case, including wiretap applications and Reports of Investigation (ROIs).  By his account, he was sick to his stomach when he obtained those documents and learned the full story.  Mr. Melson said that he told the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) at the end of March that the Department needed to reexamine how it was responding to the requests for information from Congress.

According to Mr. Melson, he and ATF's senior leadership team moved to reassign every manager involved in Fast and Furious, from the Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations down to the Group Supervisor, after learning the facts in those documents.  Mr. Melson also said he was not allowed to communicate to Congress the reasons for the reassignments.  He claimed that ATF's senior leadership would have preferred to be more cooperative with our inquiry much earlier in the process.  However, he said that Justice Department officials directed them not to respond and took full control of replying to briefing and document requests from Congress.  The result is that Congress only got the parts of the story that the Department wanted us to hear.  If his account is accurate, then ATF leadership appears to have been effectively muzzled while the DOJ sent over false denials and buried its head in the sand.  That approach distorted the truth and obstructed our investigation.  The Department's inability or unwillingness to be more forthcoming served to conceal critical information that we are now learning about the involvement of other agencies, including the DEA and the FBI.

The Role of DEA, FBI, and Other Agencies

When confronted with information about serious issues involving lack of information sharing by other agencies, which Committee staff had originally learned from other witnesses, Mr. Melson's responses tended to corroborate what others had said.  Specifically, we have very real indications from several sources that some of the gun trafficking "higher-ups" that the ATF sought to identify were already known to other agencies and may even have been paid as informants.  The Acting Director said that ATF was kept in the dark about certain activities of other agencies, including DEA and FBI.  Mr. Melson said that he learned from ATF agents in the field that information obtained by these agencies could have had a material impact on the Fast and Furious investigation as far back as late 2009 or early 2010.  After learning about the possible role of DEA and FBI, he testified that he reported this information in April 2011 to the Acting Inspector General and directly to then-Acting Deputy Attorney General James Cole on June 16, 2011.

The evidence we have gathered raises the disturbing possibility that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons but that taxpayer dollars from other agencies may have financed those engaging in such activities.  While this is preliminary information, we must find out if there is any truth to it.   According to Acting Director Melson, he became aware of this startling possibility only after the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and the indictments of the straw purchasers, which we now know were substantially delayed by the U.S. Attorney's Office and Main Justice.  Mr. Melson provided documents months ago supporting his concerns to the official in the ODAG responsible for document production to the Committees, but those documents have not been provided to us.

It is one thing to argue that the ends justify the means in an attempt to defend a policy that puts building a big case ahead of stopping known criminals from getting guns.  Yet it is a much more serious matter to conceal from Congress the possible involvement of other agencies in identifying and maybe even working with the same criminals that Operation Fast and Furious was trying to identify.  If this information is accurate, then the whole misguided operation might have been cut short if not for catastrophic failures to share key information.  If agencies within the same Department, co-located at the same facilities, had simply communicated with one another, then ATF might have known that gun trafficking "higher-ups" had been already identified.  This raises new and serious questions about the role of DEA, FBI, the United States Attorney's Office in Arizona, and Main Justice in coordinating this effort.  Nearly a decade after the September 11th attacks, the stovepipes of information within our government may still be causing tragic mistakes long after they should have been broken down.

Efforts to Oust Melson

In the last few weeks, unnamed administration officials have indicated to the press that Acting Director Melson would be forced to resign.  According to Mr. Melson, those initial reports were untrue.  Regardless of what we might have thought before about how he should handle a request to resign, we now know he has not been asked to resign.  We also now have the benefit of hearing his side of the story and will have a chance to examine what he said and compare it to the other evidence we are gathering.  However, that will take some time.

Mr. Melson served as the First Assistant to the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia for 21 years, from 1986 to 2007.  That is a career position.  After the controversy over the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, he took over the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA).  He indicated that he was asked to convert to a non-career Senior Executive Service (SES), a politically appointed position, in order to speed the hiring process, and he agreed.  However, his former position at EOUSA is currently filled by a career SES employee, Marshall Jarrett.  As you know, for civil servants, the distinction between career and non-career status is significant.

In 2009, he said he was asked to take over as Acting Director of the ATF.  Acting Director of the ATF is by its nature a temporary job.  According to Mr. Melson, he was willing to serve the Department with the understanding that after a short tenure as Acting Director, he would return to a position as a career senior executive elsewhere within the Department.

However, two days after he told Acting Deputy Attorney General Cole about  serious issues involving lack of information sharing, the Wall Street Journal reported that unnamed sources said that Melson was about to be ousted.

The revelations about Operation Fast and Furious have focused intense scrutiny on the ATF.  It has no doubt taken a toll on the agency and the good people who work there.  Much of that damage has occurred because the Department prevented ATF from being more forthcoming and responsive to questions from Congress.  This is the context in which Mr. Melson decided to submit to an on-the-record interview with private counsel, pursuant to our agreement with the Department.

Technically, Mr. Melson no longer enjoys the due process protections afforded to career officials.  Given his testimony, unless a permanent director is confirmed, it would be inappropriate for the Justice Department to take action against him that could have the effect of intimidating others who might want to provide additional information to the Committees.

We hope that the Department will take a much more candid and forthcoming approach in addressing these very serious matters with the Committees.   If other important fact witnesses like Mr. Melson have a desire to communicate directly with the Committees they should be informed that they are free to do so.  They should also be notified that if they are represented by personal counsel, they may appear with personal counsel rather than with Department lawyers.

Any decision about Mr. Melson's future with the Department would need to be justified solely on the basis of the facts and the needs of the agency, rather than on his decision to speak to us.  We encourage you to communicate to us any additional significant information about any such decision so that we can work together to ensure that it would not impede our investigation.  For now, the Office of Inspector General is still conducting its review, and we are still conducting ours.  Knowing what we know so far, we believe it would be inappropriate to make Mr. Melson the fall guy in an attempt to prevent further congressional oversight. 

Sincerely,

_______________________________                      _______________________________

Darrell Issa, Chairman                                                Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight &                                         Committee on the Judiciary

Government Reform                                                   United States Senate

U.S. House of Representatives

 

cc:

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform

The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman

U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary 

[1] Specifically, no officer or employee may attempt to prohibit or prevent "any other officer or employee of the Federal Government from having direct oral or written communication or contact with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress" about a matter related to his employment or the agency "in any way, irrespective of whether such communication or contact is at the initiative" of the employee or Congress (emphasis added).  Moreover, the prohibition also applies to any officer or employee who "removes, suspends from duty without pay ... any other officer or employee of the Federal Government ... by reason of any communication or contact of such other officer or employee with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress."  Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, P.L. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, § 714 (2010), as continued by §1104 of P.L. 112-10?which extends the funding levels, as well as "the authority and conditions provided in such Acts," through September 30, 2011.  See generally, Government Accountability Office, "Department of Health and Human Services?Chief Actuary's Communications with Congress," B-302911 (Sep. 7, 2004) (discussing the history and background in support of the government-wide prohibition on attempts to prevent direct communications with Congress).  As you know, obstructing or impeding a Congressional inquiry is also a criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1505. 

-30-

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley has asked the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to comply with his request for information and account for the commission's resistance to transparency to date in order to build trust in the way the commission is handling the public's business.

"If anything, the shadows around the LightSquared project should have led the Federal Communications Commission to proceed with caution rather than step on the gas," Grassley said.  "The opposite happened and the FCC needs to be held accountable.  The public spectrum is limited, and it's a valuable asset that the Federal Communications Commission is responsible for protecting."

Since April, Grassley has sought information about a conditional waiver granted by the FCC to LightSquared, a new wireless Internet network project.  His inquiry was prompted by the project being on a fast track for government approval, despite concerns that it could jam the existing navigational systems used in farming, trucking, air travel, law enforcement, by the military and in general consumer navigation, and that the person funding the operation is a controversial hedge fund founder who is reportedly under federal investigation for questionable financial dealings.

Testing of LightSquared's technology is ongoing.  Disruption of GPS service has been identified, including for first responders, along with other interference concerns.

The text of the letter sent today from Grassley to Mr. Julius Genachowski is below.

July 5, 2011

Mr. Julius Genachowski

Chairman

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

 

Dear Chairman Genachowski:

On April 27, 2011, I sent you a letter asking for documents regarding the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) communications with LightSquared, Harbinger Capital, Mr. Phillip Falcone, and the White House.  I requested a response by May 10, 2011.  On May 31, 2011, over one month after my initial request, you responded with a letter that did not respond to any of my questions and offered a general defense of the FCC's expedited procedure regarding LightSquared.

When my staff followed up with your legislative affairs office to seek an explanation for your failure to be responsive, my staff was told that the FCC chose to intentionally ignore the document requests in my letter.  FCC staff asserted that, as a general matter, the FCC does not respond to Congressional document requests unless they are made by the Chairmen of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce or the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.  In a subsequent conversation, your legislative affairs staff asserted that if a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the same information were made, the FCC could draw out the process for approximately two years and that any documents eventually provided would be heavily redacted.

As none of this information was contained in the letter you sent to me, I am writing to see if it is in fact accurate and if so, explore the FCC's apparent decision to take an extreme position against transparency, which would stifle congressional oversight and public scrutiny in direct contradiction to President Obama's stated policies and instructions on open government.  In the interest of providing a full and complete answer to the questions I raised on April 27, 2011, I respectfully request that you answer the following questions.  In addition, when replying to this letter, please number your answers in accordance with my questions.

1.      Does the FCC plan to respond to the document request I made on April 27, 2011?

a.       If so, when will the FCC provide these documents?

b.      If not, why not?

2.      Is it the FCC's position that Congressional document requests are to be ignored unless they come from the Chairmen of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce or the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation?

a.       If not, please cite examples between January 1, 2000 and the present when the FCC has responded to document requests made by Senators and Members of Congress who do not chair committees of jurisdiction over the FCC.

b.      If so, is the FCC concerned that this position inhibits congressional oversight (please explain why or why not)?

c.       If so, why does the FCC not simply treat such requests as FOIA requests and process them accordingly rather than ignore them altogether?

d.      If so, is this a written policy?

i.      If so, please provide the policy and state how long it has been in place.

ii.      If not, please provide any written evidence indicating that this policy was in place prior to my letter regarding LightSquared.

3.      Was your legislative affairs staff correct in stating that a FOIA request regarding all the documents I requested in my April 27, 2011 could take approximately two years?

a.       If so, why would it take so long and how is that consistent with statutory obligations under FOIA?

b.      If not, approximately how long would it take to fulfill a FOIA request regarding these documents?

4.      What is the average length of time the FCC has taken to respond to FOIA requests from January 1, 2006 to the present?

5.      In my initial letter I noted that Mr. Phillip Falcone is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for obtaining a $113 million loan from his hedge fund, Harbinger Capital, to pay his taxes, without the consent of his investors.  Since then, it has come to light that Mr. Falcone and his firm are also the subject of additional SEC investigations that include allegations of "market manipulation" and violations of the "short sale rule" involving three separate stocks.[1] According to published reports, Mr. Falcone's hedge fund, Harbinger Capital, controls roughly 80% of LightSquared's shares.[2] In continuing to support, "the opportunity presented by LightSquared" is the FCC concerned regarding these multiple investigations of Mr. Falcone?[3]

6.      Does the FCC have any safeguards to ensure that valuable spectrum allocations are not made to serial violators of our nation's securities laws?

a.       If so, what are those safeguards?

b.      If not, why does the FCC not have such a policy?

Thank you for your cooperating and attention in this matter.  I would appreciate a written

response by July 20, 2011.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Chris Lucas on my staff at 224-5225.

 

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

CHICAGO - June 30, 2011. In his office, Governor Pat Quinn today signed the fiscal year 2012 state budget and issued the following statement:

"Line by line, I have carefully examined the budget passed by the General Assembly and identified areas for improvement and reduction. I also re-prioritized government spending to protect our state's core principles.

"The first step in this process was a technical review of the numbers. In assessing each line-item, I discovered and eliminated double-appropriations by more than $336 million. Next, I reduced bureaucracy costs by more than $11 million. 

"I then evaluated the proposed spending against last year's levels. The state will maintain current spending levels for school transportation by reducing the General Assembly's proposed amount by $89 million, and returning to the amount that was spent in fiscal year 2011. 

"Finally, state government must continue to address its Medicaid obligations. Neglecting our bills today only creates bigger problems tomorrow. With this in mind, I implemented a line-item cut to Medicaid in the amount of $276 million. 

"From day one, I have stressed the need to invest in education by reducing high administrative costs and reallocating those funds to the classroom, particularly in early childhood education. Implementing a budget is not a one-day event, but rather a year-round process filled with robust debate and difficult decisions. Today, I enacted a fiscal year 2012 budget of $32.987 billion. Overall, I reduced the budget passed by the General Assembly by $376 million. With these reductions, I am implementing smart efficiencies that support Illinois on its continuing path to fiscal and economic recovery."

Today, Governor Pat Quinn took action on the following bills:

Approved

HB 116    AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 124    AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 326    AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 2107   AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 2109   AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 2165   AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 2167   AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 2168   AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 3639   AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 3697   AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 3700   AN ACT concerning appropriations

SB 2414   AN ACT concerning appropriations

SB 266    AN ACT concerning state government

SB 335    AN ACT concerning finance

SB 401    AN ACT concerning revenue

HB 2858   AN ACT concerning finance

SB 1802   AN ACT concerning state government

SB 2172   AN ACT concerning finance

Line Item Vetoed

HB 117     AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 123     AN ACT concerning appropriations

HB 132     AN ACT concerning appropriations

Reduction and Line Item Vetoed

HB 327     AN ACT concerning appropriations

Reduction Vetoed

HB 3717    AN ACT concerning appropriations

For a more detailed explanation of reductions, please see attachments.

###