07 Aug 2015

Gov. Branstad to announce special project aimed at promoting and preserving Iowa history

By Robert Jackson Jr.

Announcement to be made at a press conference Tuesday at the State Historical Building

 

(DES MOINES) - Iowa Gov. Terry E. Branstad will announce a special project aimed at promoting and preserving Iowa history for future generations at a press conference on Tuesday, August 11, 2015, at 1 p.m. at the State Historical Building.

The following press conference is open to credentialed members of the media:

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

1 p.m. Gov. Branstad announces special project aimed at promoting and preserving Iowa history

State Historical Building - Collection Vault

600 E. Locust Street

Des Moines, IA

###
07 Aug 2015

Grassley Announces Intent to Place a Hold on 20 More State Department Nominees Over Agency's Lack of Responsiveness to Letters, Phone Calls

By Rick Martin

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has added to the number of State Department nominees on whom he intends to place a hold, citing a continued lack of responsiveness to his inquiries regarding what should be the public's business.  

"I will object because, in addition to the multiple inquiries I've made that are still unanswered, I sent another letter to the State Department today and the Department has failed to confirm receipt, yet again," Grassley said late Wednesday in his statement announcing the holds.   "In addition, my staff placed multiple phone calls to Department personnel to inquire as to the status of the most recent letter. Department personnel have failed even to return phone calls." 

Grassley said the new holds on 20 nominees for Foreign Service Officer positions come after he put the State Department on notice that if it failed to become more responsive, he would be forced to place holds on Foreign Service Officer candidates.  "My objection is not intended to question the credentials of the individuals up for appointment," Grassley said.  "However, the department must recognize that it has an obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner."

Earlier, Grassley announced he intends to object to any unanimous consent request to consider the nomination of David Malcolm Robinson to be Assistant Secretary for Conflict and Stabilization Operations and Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization when the nomination reaches the Senate floor.  The objection comes over the agency's poor responsiveness to questions about personnel practices and conflict of interest management and proper email use and management.  In addition to stymieing Congress, the State Department also has withheld information from outside entities such as the Associated Press

Since June 2013, Grassley has sought answers from the State Department on its use of the Special Government Employee designation.  Grassley has written numerous letters to the State Department on these concerns and other related matters, adding questions as new developments warrant, such as Secretary Hillary Clinton's use of and top aide Huma Abedin's alleged use of private email for official purposes.  The State Department has been largely unresponsive.

Grassley's statement for the Senate record on his new holds is available here.

 

-30-
07 Aug 2015

IRS targeting scandal; report shows political biases, poor management created disastrous environment

By Grassley Press

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on the first bipartisan report from Congress on the IRS' targeting scandal.  The Finance Committee released the results of its long-time investigation.

"This report is alarming for taxpayers.  Even the Democrats who have been quick to defend the IRS in the targeting scandal agreed the agency mistreated conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.  Both sides agreed the IRS targeting scandal came from a 'dysfunctional culture' and poor management.  It's clear to me from the report that political biases and poor management went hand in hand to let politically motivated behavior continue unchecked.  When the people in charge are politically biased and overlook and even encourage bad actors in the ranks, you have the perfect environment for the targeting scandal.  Poor customer service goes hand in hand with those at the top who don't care what managers are doing or not doing.

"The findings are a wake-up call.  The IRS' job is to collect taxes and give answers on tax compliance, including tax exemption.  It shouldn't leave taxpayers hanging. The agency cannot legally or ethically target people over their political beliefs.  The Finance Committee ought to act on this report and fix what's broken at the IRS.  As part of that, the committee should consider my bill to beef up taxpayer rights and IRS customer service.  That includes extending a remedy to social welfare organizations to force answers in instances where the IRS fails to act on an application in a timely manner or makes a negative determination on their tax-exempt status.   My bill updates the '10 deadly sins' of actions by IRS employees that require mandatory termination to include official actions taken for political purposes, a reform that's necessary based on the findings of this report.  These provisions and many others would help turn around the disastrous state of business at the IRS as exposed in the targeting scandal."

Grassley, with Sen. John Thune, introduced the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Enhancement Act of 2015 in June.  Grassley is former chairman of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over the IRS.  Grassley championed the 1988, 1996 and 1998 taxpayer rights laws currently on the books.

The Finance Committee report is available here.  More information on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights Enhancement Act of 2015 is available here.

07 Aug 2015

Grassley hold on State Department nominee over agency unresponsiveness

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said he intends to object to unanimous consent to consider a State Department nominee, commonly known as placing a hold, over the agency's poor responsiveness to questions about personnel practices and conflict of interest management and proper email use and management.  Grassley said that in addition to stymieing Congress, the State Department also has withheld information from outside entities such as the Associated Press, which has sued to force production of documents previously requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

"These actions illustrate a pattern of conduct that clearly demonstrates a lack of cooperation and bad faith in its interaction with Congress," Grassley said of the State Department.  "This is unacceptable and cannot continue."

Since June 2013, Grassley has sought answers from the State Department on its use of the Special Government Employee designation.  His questions came after revelations that a top aide, Huma Abedin, used the special status to work at the State Department and private sector entities at the same time.  It's unclear whether the State Department properly managed any potential conflicts of interest.  It appears the Special Government Employee status granted to Abedin was unusual and distinct from how agencies generally use the designation, which is for technical outside expertise rather than for a current government employee's convenience or desire to work off-site (Abedin cited spending time in New York with her family as the reason for having that status).  Grassley has written numerous letters to the State Department on these concerns and other related matters, adding questions as new developments warrant, such as Secretary Hillary Clinton's use of and Abedin's alleged use of private email for official purposes.  The State Department has been largely unresponsive.

Grassley announced he intends to object to any unanimous consent request to consider the nomination of David Malcolm Robinson to be Assistant Secretary for Conflict and Stabilization Operations and Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization when the nomination reaches the Senate floor.  Grassley said the hold is not intended to question the nominee's credentials in any way.  "The nominee is an innocent victim of the State Department's contemptuous failures to respond to congressional inquiries," Grassley said.

Grassley's statement for the Senate record on the hold is available here.

A list of the letters in question to the State Department is available here.

Information on Grassley's latest inquiry to the State Department is available here.

-30-
07 Aug 2015

'All' Means 'All'-Ensuring Inspector General Access to All Records Needed for Independent Oversight

By Rick Martin

Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

At a Hearing Titled: "'All' Means 'All':

The Justice Department's Failure to Comply with Its Legal Obligation to Ensure Inspector General Access to All Records Needed for Independent Oversight"

August 5, 2015

 

The Inspector General Act of 1978 created Inspectors General as independent and objective units within the executive branch.  Since then, the American taxpayers have relied on IGs to carry out three important tasks:

One, is to conduct audits and investigations of agency programs.

Two, is to promote the integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness of those programs.

And three, is to keep Congress and agency heads fully informed about program operations, deficiencies, and the need for corrective action.

To help IGs achieve these goals, Section 6(a) of the IG Act authorizes Inspectors General to access "all" records belonging to their respective agency.

But two weeks ago, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion claiming that "all" does not actually mean "all."

Today we will examine how this opinion is hindering the work of the Justice Department's Inspector General and threatens all Inspectors General.

The IG Act means what it says.  The DOJ IG is legally entitled to access ALL Department records, period.  If the Inspector General deems a document relevant to do his job, then the agency should turn it over immediately, without hesitation or review.

According to the DOJ Inspector General, the Department did exactly that, prior to 2010.  However, in 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation suddenly changed that practice, after the IG uncovered some embarrassing information about the FBI's misuse of exigent letters.  The FBI claimed it had the right to refuse to provide the IG information in over a dozen categories, including information related to wiretaps, grand jury material, and consumer credit reports.  The FBI claimed its attorneys would review material first and then have the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General decide what could be released to the Inspector General.

Congress did not intend to create this sort of litigation-style standoff inside the Department.  It is a waste of time and money for two divisions of the same government Department to be fighting over access to the Department's own records.

The Department's current practice is exactly the opposite of what the law envisions.  Under the law, an inspector general must be independent, because agencies cannot be trusted to investigate themselves.  If IGs have to ask for permission from senior leadership, they would not be truly independent.

The IG Act does allow the Attorney General - not the FBI - to prohibit the Inspector General from carrying out or completing an investigation, but only in certain limited circumstances.  When that extraordinary step is taken, it must be done in writing to the Inspector General.  And the Inspector General must forward that written notice to Congress.

The FBI would have us believe that, instead of written notice being required to block an IG investigation, it needs written permission to comply with an investigation.  That is simply not how the law is designed to work.

The IG testified to Congress multiple times about these problems since taking office in 2012.  So, Congress took action to resolve the dispute.  We essentially bolded and underlined Section 6(a) of the IG Act that ensures access to documents.  Not literally.  But, Section 218 of this year's Justice Department Appropriations Act declared that no funds should be used to deny the IG timely access to all records.  Section 218 also directed the Inspector General to report to Congress within five days whenever there was a failure to comply with this requirement.

In February and March alone, we received four of those reports that the FBI refused to comply.

I wrote to the FBI twice about these notices, and still have not received answers to most questions.

So, Mr. Kevin Perkins, the FBI's Assistant Deputy Director, is here to account for these matters.   Also here to testify is Mr. Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General for the Justice Department.  I would like to find out from these two witnesses what the practice of the FBI was prior to 2010, and whether that practice complied with the procedures that the OLC opinion now argues is mandatory.

The FBI is not above the law.  It has an obligation to comply not only with the Inspector General Act, but also with the restrictions Congress placed on its appropriations.  That means, FBI employees cannot legally be spending their time withholding and reviewing documents before providing them to the IG.  However, this is exactly what the FBI has been doing.  And now, the OLC opinion actually endorses that practice.  OLC needed 68-pages of tortured logic to support its claim that neither the IG Act, nor Section 218, means what it says.

Not surprisingly, last Thursday, the appropriations committee authors of Section 218 wrote a joint letter to the Deputy Attorney General that said the following:

"OLC's interpretation of section 218 - and the subsequent conclusion of our Committee's intention - is wrong.

 

For OLC to determine our intentions as anything other than supporting the OIG's legal right to gain full access to timely and complete information is disconcerting.

 

We expect the Department and all of its agencies to fully comply with section 218, and to provide the OIG with full and immediate access to all records, documents and other material in accordance with Section 6(a) of the Inspector General Act."

 

That's about as clear of a statement you can get, and the intent of the IG Act is equally clear.

But, unfortunately, only a few pages of OLC's 68-page opinion actually discuss the IG Act.  Instead, most of the opinion - 46 pages - analyzes just three legal provisions whose general limitations on disclosure allegedly override the law's specific promise of Inspector General access.  Those three provisions relate to, Title III wiretap information, Rule 6(e) grand jury information, and Fair Credit Reporting Act information.

It is unclear why so much ink was spilled on just these three provisions given that the FBI has cited nearly a dozen provisions in withholding records from the Inspector General.  And there are dozens, if not hundreds, of generally applicable nondisclosure provisions throughout the U.S. Code that could also limit Inspector General access under the tortured logic of the OLC opinion.

OLC argues that nondisclosure statutes like these trump the IG Act unless Congress makes it extra clear that they don't, by specifically mentioning those statutes by name in the IG Act.

Think about that for a moment.

According to OLC, the IG Act would have to mention each and every non-disclosure statute by name before DOJ would believe that Congress really meant to ensure access to "all records."

That is simply unworkable.

We don't even have a definitive list of non-disclosure statutes that might need to be listed.  The Congressional Research Service is studying that question at my request, but listing specific exemptions to dozens or hundreds of non-disclosure statutes would be too unwieldy.  That's why we used the word, "all" - to cover everything without having to list each potential exception.  It really is that simple.

Members should be able to ask the Office of Legal Counsel about this and many other problems with its opinion.  Unfortunately, the Department refused to provide a witness from OLC for today's hearing.  In response to the invitation, the Department said that the head of OLC, Mr. Karl Thompson, is out of the country today.

However, personnel from Inspectors General across government are here with us in the audience today.  If you are here from the Inspector General community and made time to be here today, we welcome you.  Would you please stand?

Thank you all for joining us.

In Mr. Thompson's absence, the Committee asked DOJ to provide an alternate witness from his office.  However, the Department claimed that it did not have enough time to prepare a witness.  After 14 months of working on this opinion, since May 2014, that office was not ready to discuss it publicly.  That is astonishing.

I also invited the Deputy Attorney General to testify about procedures she announced in May to improve the IG's access to records.  Four days after the OLC opinion, she updated these procedures to comply with that opinion.  However, these new procedures add further delay and uncertainty to the situation.  The Committee notified her of this hearing with plenty of advanced notice, and even moved the original date from last week to this week.  Unfortunately, however, the Department said that she was unavailable to testify on either date.

So, Mr. Carlos Uriarte, an Associate Deputy Attorney General, is here to take our questions, and I thank him for coming.

Also here to testify is Mr. Dave Smith, the Acting Inspector General of the Commerce Department.  Mr. Smith is here because his office is having trouble accessing documents from the Department of Commerce.  In June, the Department of Commerce cited the then-pending OLC opinion as the reason why it would not share certain materials with his office.

This is a sign of things to come in terms of the effect the OLC opinion will have for IGs to access documents, across government.  And we have three witnesses on our second panel to discuss the implications of the opinion: Professor Paul Light from New York University; Ms. Danielle Brian from the Project on Government Oversight; and Mr. Brian Miller, the former IG of the Government Services Administration.

I want to thank all of them for joining us today.

We all lose when IGs are delayed in doing their work.  Impeding their access to records is unacceptable.

-30-
05 Aug 2015

Safe Routes to School Planning

By Be Healthy QC
What is it?

According to the Safe Routes Partnership, Safe Routes to School is a national and international movement to create safe, convenient, and fun opportunities for children to bicycle and walk to and from school. The program was designed to reverse the decline in children walking and bicycling to schools. Safe Routes to School can also play a critical role in reversing the nationwide trend toward childhood obesity and inactivity.

In 1969, approximately 50 percent of children in the US walked or bicycled to school, with approximately 87 percent of children living within one mile of school walking or bicycling. Today, fewer than 15 percent of schoolchildren walk or bicycle to school. In 2009, US families drove 30 billion miles to take their children to and from school, at a cost of $5 billion in fuel. During the morning commute, driving to school represents 5-7 percent of miles driven and 10-14 percent of traffic on the road.

Safe Routes to School programs are built on collaborative partnerships that include educators, parent, students, elected officials, engineers, city planners and engineers, business and community leaders, health officials, and bicycle and pedestrian advocates. The most successful Safe Routes to School programs incorporate the Five E's: evaluation, education, encouragement, engineering and enforcement. The goal of Safe Routes to School is to get more children bicycling and walking to schools safely on a daily basis. This improves the built environment and increases opportunities for healthy physical activity for everyone.
Developing Safe Routes to Schools in the Quad Cities Area
As part of the Be Healthy QC project funded by the CDC, Bi-State Regional Commission has hired a Planner to focus on designing and implementing Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) programs with interested elementary schools in both Illinois and Iowa. The Planner will offer technical assistance to schools to ensure physical activity practices meet CDC or national standards by developing SRTS Travel guidelines that include identification of issues and mitigating solutions for walking and biking near schools in the Rock Island and Scott County school districts.  This objective will facilitate greater access to physical activity by involving the schools, parents and community to ensure connectivity to the schools for adjoining neighborhoods and will promote physical activity through school commuting.
Project Progress
The first three SRTS plans will be developed for Earl Hanson Elementary and Eugene Field Elementary schools in Rock Island, Illinois and Buffalo Elementary in Buffalo, Iowa.
Before classes were dismissed for the summer the SRTS Planner worked with school staff to collect student travel surveys and parent input surveys. During the summer break the Planner worked with local police departments, city halls and school administration to gather information in order to create profiles for the participating schools. These profiles will help the Planner identify areas where the schools can improve in education, encouragement, engineering and enforcement - the staples of an effective SRTS program.
Once school resumes, the Planner will issue a second round of surveys to both students and parents in order to begin tracking patterns and trends in the data. At this time he will also work with school administration to begin implementation of the SRTS plans he was busy drafting over the summer.
05 Aug 2015

Stakeholder Input Sought for Promise Zones Third Round Application Process

By USDA Office of Communications

Public comments are now being accepted on the proposed selection process, criteria, guides and submissions for the third and final round of the federal Promise Zone Initiative led by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The deadline for comments is September 28, 2015.

This is an opportunity for stakeholders to provide feedback and suggestions on how federal agencies can better work in partnership with local leaders in high-poverty communities to leverage private investments that create jobs, increase economic activity, improve affordable housing, increase educational opportunities, and reduce violent crime.

All written comments will be considered before the Third Round Application Guides are finalized. View the Third Round Rural and Tribal Application Guide. View the Urban Application Guide.

Comments may be emailed to PromiseZones@hud.gov with ''Third Round Promise Zones selection'' in the subject line. Comments may also be sent through regular Post addressed to Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7136, Washington, DC 20410 ATTN: 3nd Round Promise Zones selection.

You may also preview the online electronic application submission process that will be used for Round Three by requesting a personalized test link at MAX Survey. The MAX site includes all fillable forms, attachment upload fields, error checks and email notifications that will be used during the actually application period.

USDA and HUD will host three webinars for those interested in a preview of the proposed selection process, criteria, guides and submissions for the third and final round of the federal Promise Zone Initiative. Comments and questions will also be accepted and answered during the webinars.

Rural Promise Zone Initiative Stakeholder Webinar
Wednesday, August 12, 2015 from 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. EDT
Click here to register for the Rural Webcast

For full details read the Federal Register Notice or visit the Promise Zones Web Page.

#

05 Aug 2015

News from Senator Grassley's Office August 4, 2015

By Grassley Press

Grassley Pursues Inquiry into Planned Parenthood Fetal Tissue Transfers

WASHINGTON - Since media reports of videos describing in detail Planned Parenthood's role in the harvesting of fetal tissue, Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, has opened an inquiry into the organization's facilitation of activities described in the videos. 

Grassley previously made an inquiry to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and more recently has requested information from each of the Planned Parenthood affiliates regarding each affiliate's fetal tissue policies as well as copies of documents such as policies, presentations, guidance, and communications related to its facilitation of the procurement and distribution of fetal tissue.

He has also made inquiries to the three companies noted in the videos as acquiring fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood.  StemExpress, Advanced Bioscience Resources, and Novogenix were asked to provide the committee with information about items such as communications, contracts, revenue and costs associated with their involvement with Planned Parenthood and its affiliates.

Additionally, on Friday, Grassley requested from the Center for Medical Progress all videos and documents related to its fetal tissue investigation that may lawfully be provided to the committee.

In his initial inquiry on July 15, to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, Grassley asked questions about the organization's facilitation of the activities described in the video.  In a separate letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch sent the same day, Grassley noted that the video shows Planned Parenthood's Senior Director for Medical Services, Deborah Nucatola, discussing the statutory interpretation and intent of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.  He asked Lynch to provide the Judiciary Committee with a description of the actions taken by the Department of Justice to ensure compliance with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Planned Parenthood has hired an attorney to answer Grassley's questions.  The Justice Department has not responded to Grassley's questions.

Copies of Grassley's letters to the Planned Parenthood affiliates can be found here (the same letter was sent to all affiliates).  A copy of the letters to StemExpress, Advanced Bioscience Resources, and Novogenix can be found here.  A copy of the letter to the Center for Medical Progress can be found here.  Grassley's July 15 letter to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards can be found here.  A copy of the letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch can be found here.

-30-

Camp Counselor Kept Job, Immigration Benefit Despite Being 'Potentially Egregious' Risk

WASHINGTON - A California camp counselor now charged with child molestation was considered to be a "potentially egregious public safety" risk months before his arrest, but was still allowed to keep his job and immigration benefits, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The information responds to questions raised by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley regarding federal immigration authorities' investigation of the counselor who was in the country based on executive actions taken by President Obama prior to his arrest.

USCIS confirmed that Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was granted work authorization through the President's deferred deportation program, commonly known as DACA, which allowed him to work as a camp counselor at Walden West Science Camp.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was aware that Covarrubias-Padilla was under investigation for child exploitation as early as November 17, 2014, according to records provided by USCIS. While USCIS acknowledged that ICE officials "typically apprise USCIS when a recipient of DACA or an immigration benefit is an investigative target," USCIS failed to learn of the ongoing investigation until March 31, 2015.

According to the response from USCIS, Department of Homeland Security officials notified the Santa Clara Sheriff's Office of Covarrubias-Padilla's suspicious activities on April 29, 2015, the same day that ICE officials confirmed he was employed by the Santa Clara Office of Education.  It wasn't until May 13, 2015, six days after Covarrubias-Padilla was arrested for child molestation and distribution of child pornography, that immigration officials took action to revoke his DACA status and work authorization.

It remains unclear why no action was taken to revoke Covarrubias-Padilla's work authorization and immigration benefits, given that multiple agencies were aware of the ongoing investigation, that he was employed by the Office of Education and that he was considered a "potentially egregious public safety" risk.  Grassley raised this and other questions in a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

A signed copy of the letter is available here.  Full text of the letter follows:

Grassley Continues State Department Document Request Amid New Information

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley is continuing his inquiry into State Department personnel practices amid new information and allegations over a leave payment dispute involving a top aide and significant communications between the aide and an outside firm, potentially creating conflict of interest concerns.  The employee, Huma Abedin, worked for the State Department as a Special Government Employee, an outside firm, Teneo, and the Clinton Foundation at the same time.

"This started as an inquiry about whether a federal personnel designation works as intended," Grassley said.  "As information came in, it evolved to focus on an agency that used the designation in a different way than others in at least one high profile case.   Revelations of private email use and multiple jobs held at the same time by one individual raised more questions.   Now, more details are coming in, and they warrant more questions.  The bottom line is still whether the taxpayers are well-served by agency practices and spending.  No one will know for sure until the State Department is more transparent about how it operates."

Since June 2013, Grassley has sought information about the Special Government Employee designation at the State Department.   He sought all communications between the State Department and Teneo after learning of Abedin's dual employment.  Revelations that Abedin reportedly had a private address on an email server in then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's personal residence and allegedly forwarded some official emails to that private address have raised more questions about the transparency of communications.  In addition, these allegations shed light on possible interference of Freedom of Information Act requests by State Department officials.

Grassley recently received new allegations that Abedin received an undeserved payment for unused leave, to the concern of the Office of Inspector General; concerns over Abedin's potential conflicts of interest, including reportedly being on thousands of emails with a Teneo aide connected to the Clintons, with an alleged request to help with an executive branch appointment for a Clinton Foundation donor; and suggestions that Abedin continued her Special Government Status to have her travel paid to and from New York.

Grassley asked for extensive records and communications on these allegations and information in letters to Secretary of State John Kerry; State Department Inspector General Steve Linick; and Abedin.  His letters are available here, here and here.

-30-

Here is information about Senator Grassley's schedule this week, as of Monday, August 3, 2015.  The Senate is in session.

Senator Grassley will meet with Iowans in Washington, D.C., from the University of Iowa College of Dentistry, the National Society of Accountants and the University of Iowa Student Government.

Senator Grassley will meet with Iowa families from Fredericksburg, Bettendorf, Lisbon, West Des Moines, Iowa City, Council Bluffs, LaPorte City, Carlisle, Le Mars, Toledo, Waterloo, Ames, Reinbeck, North Liberty, Clarksville, Marion, Waverly, Stockton, Urbandale, Williamsburg, Montezuma, Cedar Rapids and Mason City.

Senator Grassley was a guest on a public affairs program hosted by Cindy Kohlmann on KDTH in Dubuque and Bob Leonard on KNIA/KRLS in Knoxville/Pella and will be a guest on public affairs programs hosted by Doug Wagner on WMT in Cedar Rapids and Greg Haubrich on WGEM in Quincy.

On Tuesday, August 4, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in a Finance Committee hearing on "A Way Back Home: Preserving Families and Reducing the Need for Foster Care."  Senator Grassley is the founder and co-chair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth.

On Wednesday, August 5, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will preside over a Judiciary Committee hearing, "'All' Means 'All': The Justice Department's Failure to Comply with its Legal Obligation to Ensure Inspector General Access to all Records Needed for Independent Oversight."  Inspector General Michael Horowitz will testify.  Grassley has led a bipartisan, bicameral effort expressing concern with a recent opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that allows the Justice Department to deny access to records sought by the Inspector General.

On Wednesday, August 5, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will participate in an executive session of the Finance Committee to consider the nominations of Marisa Lago of New York to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative and W. Thomas Reeder, Jr. of Virginia to be Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

On Thursday, August 6, at 10 a.m. (ET), Senator Grassley will preside over the weekly executive business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The committee may consider S. 1814, the Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, sponsored by Senators David Vitter and Jeff Flake and S. 32, the Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2015, sponsored by Senators Grassley, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, John Cornyn, Amy Klobuchar and Richard Blumenthal.

-30-

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing entitled, "'All' Means 'All': The Justice Department's Failure to Comply With Its Legal Obligation to Ensure Inspector General Access to All Records Needed For Independent Oversight," scheduled for Wednesday, August 5 at 10:00 a.m., will be held in Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

By order of the Chairman.

Witness List

Hearing before the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary

On

"'All' Means 'All': The Justice Department's Failure to Comply With Its Legal Obligation to Ensure Inspector General Access to All Records Needed For Independent Oversight"

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 106

10:00 a.m.

 

Panel I

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz

Inspector General

United States Department of Justice

 

Mr. Kevin L. Perkins

Associate Deputy Director

Federal Bureau of Investigation

 

Mr. Carlos Uriarte

Associate Deputy Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

 

Mr. David Smith

Acting Inspector General

United States Department of Commerce

 

 

Panel II

 

Ms. Danielle Brian

Executive Director

Project on Government Oversight

Washington, D.C.

 

Professor Paul Light

Professor

Robert G. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service

New York University

New York, NY

 

Mr. Brian Miller

Former Inspector General

United States General Services Administration

Managing Director

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

Washington, D.C.

 

-30-

03 Aug 2015

"Nothing Compares" at the State Fair to State Treasurer Fitzgerald's Great Iowa Treasure Hunt

By Karen Austin

DES MOINES, IA (08/03/2015)(readMedia)-- State Treasurer Michael L. Fitzgerald announced today that a stop at the Great Iowa Treasure Hunt booth during the 2015 Iowa State Fair may pay off. "The State Fair is a tremendous opportunity for us to reunite people with their lost treasure," Fitzgerald said. "With over a million names listed in the Great Iowa Treasure Hunt, fairgoers could find they have unclaimed money waiting for them to claim."

"Over the years, we have been successful in reuniting people with their lost treasures," Fitzgerald added. "Last year during the fair, over 7,200 unclaimed property claim forms were printed off, totaling more than $1.6 million. Computers will be set up at the booth for people to search for their name and staff will be on hand to answer questions and help treasure hunters print claim forms."

The Great Iowa Treasure Hunt program has returned over $198 million in unclaimed property to more than 468,000 people since Fitzgerald created it in 1983. Unclaimed property refers to money and other assets held by financial institutions or companies that have lost contact with the property's owner for a specific period of time. State law requires these institutions and companies to annually report unclaimed property to the state treasurer's office. The assets are then held until the owner or heir of the property is found. Common forms of unclaimed property include savings or checking accounts, stocks, uncashed checks, life insurance policies, utility security deposits and safe deposit box contents.

Stop by the Great Iowa Treasure Hunt booth at the Iowa State Fair, August 13-23 in the Varied Industries Building. The building will be open from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Visit the Great Iowa Treasure Hunt at GreatIowaTreasureHunt.com to begin your search. Be sure to like Great Iowa Treasure Hunt on Facebook and follow the program on Twitter @GreatIATreasure.

###

31 Jul 2015

News from Senator Grassley's Office July 31, 2015

By Grassley Press

Citizens Against Government Waste President Thomas Schatz presented Grassley with the Taxpayer Super Hero award on Thursday, July 30, 2015.

Grassley Named a "Taxpayer Super Hero"

WASHINGTON?Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today received the designation of "Taxpayer Super Hero" from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.  The title is awarded to lawmakers who earned a score of 100 percent in the council's 2014 Congressional Ratings.

"I appreciate receiving this award from an organization that works to cut wasteful government spending and make the government more accountable to taxpayers.  This has been a priority of mine for a long time.  We don't have a taxing problem.  Washington has a spending problem," Grassley said.

"We applaud and wholeheartedly thank Sen. Grassley for his hard work on behalf of the taxpayers while serving in the Senate.  His courageous votes to cut wasteful spending and make government more accountable should serve as an example to other members, encouraging them to make good on promises to protect the fiscal interests of American taxpayers.  His constituents should be very proud of him," said Council for Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz.

The 2014 report scored 13 votes in the U.S. Senate and identified members whose voting records helped protect and save the taxpayers' money.

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and former chairman and a senior member of the Finance Committee, Grassley conducts proactive and ongoing oversight of the federal bureaucracy to protect taxpayers from waste, fraud and abuse.  He is the author of the qui tam amendments to the False Claims Act that recovered nearly $3 billion for the taxpayers in fiscal 2014 alone.  Grassley is also the founder and chairman of the Whistleblower Protection Caucus, which works to respond to the needs of citizens who play a vital role in protecting against fraud, waste and misconduct.  The caucus also works to educate members of the Senate about whistleblower issues.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste advocates for the elimination of waste and inefficiency in government.

-30-

Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee

On National Whistleblower Appreciation Day

July 30, 2015

 

I am honored to share the podium with so many friends like Fred [Whitehurst], and my colleagues on the Whistleblower Protection Caucus.  I'm also very happy to join them in showing my appreciation for whistleblowers.  Whistleblowers often don't get much appreciation or hear many kind words.  In fact, Whistleblowers are called all sorts of things.  Trust me, I've heard them all.

A lot of folks dismiss whistleblowers for not being "team players."  They won't just "go along to get along."  They're called disgruntled, selfish, insubordinate, and disrespectful of authority and the chain of command.

Critics throw around these words as if they automatically undermine a whistleblower's claim.  Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist?or even a lawyer?to see how short-sighted that is. The folks pointing fingers at whistleblowers are often the ones responsible for the wrongdoing whistleblowers report.

They are also the most likely sources of retaliation.

We passed the Whistleblower Protection Act over a quarter of a century ago, and employers still use all kinds of tricks to retaliate against whistleblowers.

Managers drum up bogus retaliatory investigations against whistleblowers, demote them, fire them, and ruin their reputations.  Some of the latest tricks are pretty sneaky.  My Committee is investigating the FBI's use of Loss of Effectiveness orders to retaliate against employees who report sex discrimination.  Before my Committee investigated these orders, the FBI kept them secret from employees, and employees had no opportunity to appeal them.

U.S. Marshals Service whistleblowers tell me that managers threaten to use the Freedom of Information Act to learn who has reported wrongdoing or talked to the Inspector General.  Then they retaliate against those whistleblowers.  This behavior creates an environment of fear, it chills protected speech, and it perverts the Freedom of Information Act.

However, experience shows us that silencing whistleblowers just allows wrongdoing to fester and spread.

By pointing out problems, whistleblowers foster transparency and make it possible for their organizations to do better.  After all, you can't fix something if you don't know it's broken.  That's just common sense.

Many whistleblowers bravely report their concerns internally to their supervisors before they even think of themselves as whistleblowers.  They expect that their organization will take corrective action.  But many employers don't listen.  Then they discover they could have saved a lot of time, money, and embarrassment by taking a whistleblower seriously.

Fred Whitehurst's case is a great example.  In the 1990s, Fred wrote hundreds of letters reporting serious flaws in forensic analysis at the FBI Crime Lab.  He was subjected to personal attacks, retaliatory investigations, and suspension.  But a 1997 Inspector General Report validated his claims.  The report said that examiners did shoddy work that led to inaccurate testimony in criminal cases.  Then the FBI and Justice Department failed to adequately review the examiners' flawed analysis or inform defendants of evidence that could clear their names.  According to the Inspector General, that failure led to "irreversible harm" for many defendants.

Twenty years after Fred first blew the whistle, the agency finally admitted its mistakes.  According to the FBI, the examiners gave flawed testimony about 90 percent of the time, including in death penalty cases.  This is what happens when organizations treat whistleblowers as liabilities instead of assets.

Experience also shows us that we need to protect whistleblowers who use lawful external channels to report waste, fraud, and abuse.  One example of this is the False Claims Act.  Before I co-authored amendments to the Act in 1986, much of the outrageous fraud in government contracting went undetected and unprosecuted.  Since the amendments, which empowered and protected whistleblowers, false claims suits have recouped over 40 billion dollars in taxpayer funds.

Another example is congressional oversight.  Whistleblowers help Congress ensure the laws we pass work the way they are supposed to.  Without whistleblowers, we might never have known about gun walking in Operation Fast and Furious, the mismanagement of the juvenile justice programs, or the misuse of the EB-5 investor visa program. Whistleblower disclosures like these help bring greater transparency, better legislation and better government.

No one can dispute that we need whistleblowers.  So why do I still get calls every day with fresh stories about reprisals for reporting wrongdoing?  Part of the problem is that there is still much legislative work to be done.

For example, the law does not protect FBI whistleblowers who report wrongdoing to their supervisors.   These are things that Congress can work on.

Unfortunately, no amount of legislation will change a culture that punishes whistleblowers.  To be effective, laws have to be enforced, and wrongdoers have to be held accountable.  With their words and actions, leaders have to make clear that whistleblowers are important and retaliation is not tolerated.

For many years I've asked the President of the United States to have a Rose Garden ceremony honoring whistleblowers.  After all, the tone at the top is critical.  The President has never taken my suggestion.  However, my colleagues in the Senate have joined me in setting the right tone here in Congress with the Whistleblower Protection Caucus.  It has 12 members, with an equal number from each side of the aisle.   Whatever their party affiliation, my colleagues on the Caucus agree with me that whistleblowers should be valued, not punished.

That is why I am here today, to show my appreciation.  The first whistleblower I ever met, Ernie Fitzgerald, once told me that the only thing whistleblowers are guilty of is "committing truth."  Like Ernie, many of you here have risked your career, your personal well-being, and your reputation by "committing truth."  You have shined a light on fraud and unlawful activity, saved taxpayer money, and helped us in Congress write better laws.  You have a made a difference.

Video can be found here.

Whistleblower Appreciation Day

Government employees are entrusted with the responsibility of serving the people of this country.  Most of these employees take their work very seriously.

Unfortunately, though, too often, I've seen fraud, waste and abuse derail the work of a federal agency, and tarnish the good work that its employees do for the American people.

I'm always encouraged, though, by the brave employees who come forward to bring to light misconduct and malpractice.  These whistleblowers uphold the public trust by taking the first step to correct the problem.

Whistleblowers are often treated like skunks at a picnic by their co-workers or bosses for exposing misconduct, even though it brings important accountability to government.

Congress has recognized the important role of whistleblowers by passing laws that protect them from retribution at work after they disclose misconduct.

As we celebrate Whistleblower Appreciation Day this week.  It's time to say thank you to those who have risked their careers to bring about a better quality of government.  It's also a time to renew our commitment to encouraging others to speak out against fraud, waste, and abuse.

Because of the patriotic work of whistleblowers, our government is more accountable to the people.

Thank you.

Grassley Raises Concerns about Handling of Classified Material

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is raising concerns with the executive branch's handling of classified information that is known to be out of the control of the federal government.

"It's a serious breach of national security if the United States government fails to secure classified material in the hands of people not authorized to possess it, no matter who they are.  There are fundamental questions as to what the FBI is doing to securing these classified emails and why the State Department is not fully cooperating with the inspectors general at the State Department and the Intelligence Community to ensure that all of the appropriate emails are identified," Grassley said.  "It's important to make sure that politics aren't taking precedence over national security."

In a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Grassley asked Director James Comey to explain what the Bureau is doing to ensure that classified information within 30,000 Clinton emails known to be on a thumb drive of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's personal attorney, David Kendall, is secured and not further disseminated.

Grassley subsequently sent a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry asking why the agency isn't providing the State Department and Intelligence Community inspectors general with full access to the 30,000 Clinton emails.  In the letter Grassley wrote that, "The State Department's refusal to fully cooperate in this matter is extremely troubling given the risk that national security information is not being adequately protected."

A copy of the text of Grassley's letters to the FBI and the State Department are below.  A copy of the text of Grassley's letters to the FBI and the State Department are below.  A signed copy of the FBI letter can be found here and the State Department letter can be found here

-30-

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

    

Two Ways to Subscribe

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

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

Subscribe!

* indicates required

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

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

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

Click this link to Subscribe now.