Iowa U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Cumming) can count himself among the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, according to a USA Today analysis of financial disclosures of members of Congress.

Harkin has an estimated net worth of $16.6 million, putting him among the 57 members of Congress or 11 percent that are worth $9 million or more and thus in the wealthiest 1 percent.

The wealthiest 1 percent measurement has become popular in recent months as Occupy Wall Street demonstrators and others have begun referring to themselves as “the 99 percent,” decrying wealthy Americans and corporations they say aren’t paying their fair share in taxes.

Other members of the Iowa Congressional delegation aren’t included in the wealthiest 1 percent. U.S. Rep. Tom Latham (R-Ames) is worth $5 million; U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-New Hartford) is worth $3.2 million; and U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Des Moines) is worth $1 million.

U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack (R-Mount Vernon) is worth $499,000; U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Waterloo) is worth $435,500; and U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Kiron) is worth $240,000.

The wealthiest members of Congress are U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Cal.), at $448.1 million; U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), at $380.4 million; and U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), at $231.7 million (most of which is courtesy of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is worth $6.8 million; and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is worth $27.2 million.

House Speaker John Boehner is worth $4 million; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) is worth $101.1 million; and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is worth $5.4 million.

Net worth doesn’t include primary residences or other personal property.

“It is deeply disturbing that one in five veterans under the age of 25 is unemployed. The men and women who fought for our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan have to fight for a job when they return home — and the odds are stacked against them” Harkin said Thursday during a conference call with reporters.

“We have a solemn obligation to do right by the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk for our nation.”

Government officials estimate that roughly 240,000 veterans who served in the Middle East are currently unemployed. The bill approved by the Senate provides tax breaks of up to $9,600 to businesses that put them to work.

The tax breaks were included in the Obama administration’s American Jobs Act, a $447 billion package that was wholly refused by Republican lawmakers last month. U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley says the initiative dates back to May 2010 and this past January, when he and U.S. Sen. Max Baucus introduced and reintroduced the Veterans Employment Transition Act, or the VETs Jobs bill.

“These men and women are extremely capable,” Grassley said. “They have a lot of skills to offer in the workplace. The legislation that Senator Baucus and I put together clears some bureaucratic hurdles and adds a financial incentive to encourage employers to seek out veterans.”

The legislation reinstates a tax credit that expired at the end of 2010, and makes it easier for veterans and small businesses to use. The credits will range from $2,400 to $9,600 in 2012, depending on the veteran hired. Tax exempt organizations are eligible for the credit.

• $9,600 for veterans with service-connected disabilities unemployed for 6 months or longer in the past year
• $5,600 for veterans unemployed for 6 months or longer in the past year
• $4,800 for service-disabled veterans hired within 1 year of being discharged
• $2,400 for veterans who do not fit any of the above categories and are unemployed for between 4 weeks and 6 months in the past year

Any veteran who has left active duty in the past five years who has discharge paperwork showing 180 days of qualified active duty would be eligible for the credit. This would include those men and women who were activated by their states as members of the National Guard. The bill also helps service members market themselves to prospective employers by requiring the military to educate service members about how the credit works.

The only senator to vote against the Vow to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 was South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint, who indicated the measure gave veterans an unfair advantage.

“I cannot support this tax credit because I do not believe the government should privilege one American over another when it comes to work,” DeMint said on the floor Thursday.

The U.S. House is expected to take up the measure next week, and U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack is optimistic that the bill will be quickly passed.

“Tomorrow, we set aside time to honor the men and women who have served our great country in uniform. As we pause to pay tribute to them, we must also remember that we have a moral obligation to serve our troops and veterans with the same dedication and honor with which they serve us. Yet our troops are returning home from the battlefield to face the same economic reality that families across our country are facing,” Loebsack said in a Thursday statement.

“The World War II generation returned home and became part of our nation’s economic recovery. Today, as we work to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it is up to all of us as a grateful nation to ensure that those who have fought for us overseas do not have to fight for a job here at home. This generation of veterans can and will be part of our economic recovery, but we must give them the opportunity to do so. This bipartisan legislation demonstrates the progress we can make when both sides of the aisle work together.”

Two members of Iowa’s federal delegation are veterans. Harkin served as an active-duty jet pilot in the U.S. Navy from 1962 to 1967. U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell served 20 years in the U.S. Army, including two one-year tours of duty as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam.

According to a January 2011 report by Jennifer Rizzo of CNN, only 20 percent of the members of Congress have served in the military — 25 from the Senate and 90 from the House. It is the lowest level since World War II.

All the the committee’s Democrats approved the Respect for Marriage Act which would repeal DOMA and allow legally married couples to access federal benefits such as Social Security. Republicans countered that the repeal would undermine “traditional marriage.”

The bill was offered by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, and every Republican on the committee spoke out against it.

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said, “The Fourteenth Amendment would probably never have been ratified if the public understood it to provide for same-sex marriage.

“This goes against the morality of many millions of Americans. I’ve always supported the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. It’s not about discriminating against anyone.”

It’s about “stable families, good environments for raising children and religious beliefs,” Grassley said.

“The Iowa Supreme Court made up a right to same-sex marriage. The people rose up and voted out all of the judges who were up for retention. In Iowa, the judges ignored the constitution,” Grassley added.

Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, a Democrat, said, “I support this bill because it takes the federal government out of the business of defining marriage.”

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said it would cost the government too much money if same-sex couples had access to Social Security like their heterosexual counterparts.

He also charged Democrats were out of touch by raising the issue.

“What’s changed since 1996? This is just another sign of how out of touch some of our friends across the aisle have been. I think it’s a transparent appeal to an interest group the other side needs in 2012.”

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said even though he voted for DOMA in 1996, he realized his vote was wrong.

“I believe I was wrong and I readily acknowledge that my views on this issue changed. It’s not because of votes,” he responded to Coburn. “It’s the right thing to do. I don’t care if it costs me votes.”

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said the repeal would “force states to recognize same-sex marriage.”

“Repealing Section 2 [of DOMA] means these sates may be forced to recognize valid marriage that their laws prohibit,” he said.

Cornyn said states have mostly chosen to affirm traditional marriage, adding he wished Democrats would support state’s rights in other instances. “I wish my liberal friends would pay attention to the prerogatives of the individual states in other situations.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said “repealing DOMA respects states right to make their own determination about marriage.”

On state-based bans on same-sex marriage, he said, “It’s not a question of if they are repealed, it’s a question of when.”

Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said, “I was struck at the hearing on the bill last summer by the people who testified. They were discriminated against and unfairly harmed. They were denied protections like the ability to take off work to care for a dying partner and denied survivor benefits when a partner died.”

She also said the issue wasn’t about religion.

“Whatever we vote on today and whatever happens today, the bill doesn’t require any church or mosque or synagogue to perform same-sex marriage. As the debate on this continues, we cannot lose sight of that.”

“I have tremendous respect for Sen. Grassley,” Sen. Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, said. “I just believe you misstated the history of marriage. Marriage has not existed as a union between one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture. In many cultures, men have been able to marry many women and young girls. For centuries, women have been treated as cattle in marriage. Further, if the religious purpose for marriage is procreation, why would we sanction marriage between an 89-year-old widower and an 80-year-old widow? I just think we need to be accurate when we talk about the history of marriage, the history of man and woman, the history of our institutions.”

Franken spoke about couples in Minnesota who have been harmed by DOMA including a young couple who met in divinity school and married in Connecticut who have to lie on their federal tax forms and say they are single.

He talked about another Minnesota couple that married in Iowa, John and Jeff Westerfied. John was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

“Jeff won’t have the federal right to take a medical leave. If John passes, Jeff won’t see a dime from Social Security,” said Franken. “DOMA hurts people who love each other. DOMA hurts people who want to adopt kids and raise them and take care of them. DOMA hurts families.

“We need to pass this bill. Straight people aren’t suddenly going to become gay, Straight people aren’t going to stop getting married. We are going to be just fine. Really.”

Golding spent $36,656 and had $14,640 on hand at the end of the reporting period. She spent $19,298 on advertising and $6,512 on campaign signs, and gave $7,500 to the Republican Party of Iowa and its Eisenhower Club.

The Republican Party of Iowa and its Eisenhower Club accounted for the vast majority of the in-kind contributions, giving $92,571 to Golding’s campaign.

Cindy Golding

The largest contribution to Golding’s campaign came from the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation Political Action Committee, which gave her campaign $10,000. The Hawkeye PAC (Grassley’s Leadership PAC)gave Golding $5,000, as did Nathan Crain of Dallas, Texas. Golding also donated $7,415 to her campaign.

Golding’s opponent, Democrat Liz Mathis, has yet to file her report. The statutory due date is Nov. 4.

Mathis outraised Golding, $63,406 to $44,808, from July 15 to Oct. 14. Mathis also enjoyed $292,426 of in-kind contributions compared to $69,418 for Golding.

Mathis and Golding are locked in a special election that will determine control of the Iowa Senate. Former State Sen. Swati Dandekar (D-Marion) recently left office to take a position on the Iowa Utilities Board, leaving Democrats with a slim 25-24 advantage in the Senate. The election is Nov. 8.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said in his written opinion that the proposed settlement, which creates a system of compensation for black farmers and their descendants who joined the class-action suit claiming discrimination by the government, is fair and workable.

“Historical discrimination cannot be undone,” Friedman wrote.

There are two compensation streams available to the farmers, depending on the individual paper trail in each case. The first stream, known as “Track A” would provide an uncontested payout of $50,000 to qualified claimants. The second stream, known as “Track B,” could provide up to $250,000, but requires more documentation of wrongdoing. Farmer must choose one track or the other, and it is estimated that nearly 70,000 farmers across the nation will be eligible for compensation. More details regarding the plan can be found in an earlier report by The Iowa Independent.

The black farmers’ case is an outgrowth of Pigford v. Glickman, a federal class-action lawsuit originally settled in 1999. The farmers alleged that the USDA had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by maintaining a pattern and practice of discrimination against African American farmers.  Such pattern and practice delayed, denied, or otherwise frustrated the efforts of African American farmers to obtain loan assistance and to engage in the vocation of farming, they said.

The Obama administration agreed in February to provide a second round of damages to people who were denied earlier payment because they had missed  filing deadlines. The person who pushed to allow more black farmers to join the case and for more money to be set aside for settlements was Iowa’s own U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley. In a February press release, Grassley noted that “many people were shut out of the process.”

But not all elected officials have been similarly supportive. U.S. Rep. Steve King said in November 2010 that the American people should be outraged by the development, since it sends the message that “if you’re a minority, you deserve a check from the government.”

The Obama administration is “focused on race,” King said in an interview with WHO-AM’s Jan Mickelson. Essentially, the entire lawsuit was pitched to black farmers as their “40 acres and a mule,” he added, referencing the Civil War era practice of providing land to former slaves who became free as Union armies occupied areas of the Confederacy.

“The Department of Agriculture has admitted that discrimination occurred,” Grassley said during a Senate floor speech on the matter. “We are obligated to do our best in getting those who deserve it, some relief. This is a chance for people who believe they were wronged to show their case before a neutral party and have it judged on the merits. It’s time to give justice to these claimants who were previously left out, and move forward into a new era of civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.”

More recently U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, while on a tour of flooded areas near the Missouri River in Iowa, characterized the government settlement with black farmers as fraud. Bachmann and King, while noting the damage done by the flooded Missouri, said the money set aside for the discrimination settlements could have been put to better use if it had been given to the flood victims.

It isn’t the first time that King and Bachmann have beat on this particular drum. Bachmann sent out a press release last November alleging that the numbers of farmers involved in the settlement didn’t add up, because there were many more claims than black farmers — a claim nearly identical to what has been made by King. In addition, King has referred to the settlement as “slavery reparations.”

Final approval for the settlement came after a fairness hearing in early September. Although some farmers argued they should be allowed to pursue higher damages, Congress left little flexibility into the plan, which prevented Friedman from pursuing such alternatives.

In a statement distributed by the White House, President Obama said, “The U.S. District Court’s approval of the settlement between the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and plaintiffs in the Pigford II class action lawsuit is another important step forward in addressing an unfortunate chapter in USDA’s civil rights history. This agreement will provide overdue relief and justice to African American farmers, and bring us closer to the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was founded on. I especially want to recognize the efforts of Secretary Vilsack and Attorney General Holder, without whom this settlement would not have been reached.”

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he is “thrilled” by the court’s decision, and looks forward to the process being completed.

Since my first day at USDA, I made it a priority to treat all Americans with respect and dignity and to ensure equal access to our programs. Court approval of the Pigford settlement is another important step to ensure some level of justice for black farmers and ranchers who faced discrimination when trying to obtain services from USDA. President Obama, Attorney General Holder and I are thrilled by the court’s approval so we can continue turning the page on this sad chapter in USDA history. In the months and years ahead, we will not stop working to move the Department into a new era as a model employer and premier service provider for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.

Government officials estimate that it will take a year, if not more, for all the affected farmers to work their way through the compensation process.

Franken cited the high-profile lawsuit against Anoka-Hennepin School District in Minnesota, where six students and their families allege pervasive anti-LGBT harassment.

“My understanding is that LGBT persons are covered under the hate crimes act, and to the same extent that other groups like minorities and women [are],” Franken said. ”This Congress has said we need to protect LGBT Americans in the same way we protect other vulnerable groups, doesn’t it follow that we should protect LGBT students from bullying to the same extent that we protect other groups?”

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez responded that bullying against LGBT students has grown in recent years.

“The bullying of kids who are LGBT is probably our largest growth area in our docket,” Perez said, citing investigations in multiple states. ”And we have an investigation in your neck of the woods in a matter,” referring to allegations of discrimination in the Anoka-Hennepin School District.

Perez said the issue was one of “safety, whether it’s kids who are gay or kids who are Muslim or kids who speak English with an accent.”

“This is an emerging growth area, I regret to say. That’s why the President had a day-long summit on bullying and I very much appreciate your leadership in this area,” Perez told Franken, offering his support for the Student Non-Discrimination Act.

”Kids are dying, kids are being brutally assaulted, kids are scared.”

Franken mentioned the suit brought by the National Center for Lesbian Rights on behalf of a gay student at Anoka-Hennepin who was a “victim of harassment.”

“A student who I will call ‘E.R.’ faced physical assaults and pervasive bullying based solely on her sexual orientation and appearance,” Franken said. ”Sadly, harassment for students based on sexual orientation and gender identity is frequent and disturbing, and while the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act provides some protection based against sexual orientation based violence, it’s clearly not doing enough for LGBT students.

Franken said that “we need an explicit ban” on discrimination against LGBT students in schools.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he welcomed an opportunity to provide oversight of the Civil Rights Division.

“The Civil Rights Division is well-deserving of oversight,” Grassley said during opening remarks. “I think the Division has pushing the envelope very far, and many of its decisions are questionable.

“The Division has taken extreme positions in religious employment cases, seeking to make school districts accommodate teachers very disruptive and unreasonable demands for time off. It has brought actions against school districts based on reading the term ‘sex’ to mean ‘sexual orientation.’”

Grassley questioned Perez regarding partisan motivations that might be present in the Civil Rights Division as well as in relation to a U.S. House investigation of alleged voter intimidation. In the case, Grassley said whistleblowers testified that the DOJ has refused to prosecute the case because it allegedly involved African Americans intimidating Caucasians. Grassley pushed Perez toward a pledge to release any and all documents related to the incident to the U.S. House Committee in question. Perez said the DOJ, and specifically the Civil Rights Division, has been “incredibly responsive” to the House requests.

(Lynda Waddington contributed to this report.)

In a press release Wednesday, Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorsky lambasted statewide progressive group Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement for “obstruct[ing] town halls and other events, even physically blocking Senator Grassley from talking with the media and getting into his car after an event on Monday night.”

Sue Dvorsky

“The behavior of Iowa CCI is unproductive, embarrassing, and has no place in a serious debate,” Dvorsky said. “Yes, we should be working to protect Social Security, doing everything to keep our air and water clean, and ask our elected officials tough questions. Unfortunately, this group has become less focused on results and more focused on creating chaos that gets their name in the paper.”

Douglas Burns, co-publisher of the Carroll Daily Times Herald as well as an alum and still frequent contributor to The Iowa Independent, attended the Monday night Grassley town hall at New Hope Village. So incensed by the display of certain activists at that meeting, he wrote an opinion piece labeling the same as “moon-howling” and “despicable.”

… Most of the CCI contingent was not from Carroll County. Some were paid political hacks clearly bent on pushing (literally) Mr. Grassley into a YouTube moment with shouted, confrontational questions.

Now, of course, CCI members have a right to be heard, to voice their concerns in strong and certain terms.

But they overstepped the bounds of civil discourse in Carroll in a big way by confronting Grassley in a physically hostile way, inhibiting his free movement. …

Speaking with The Iowa Independent Tuesday, Burns remained notably frustrated by what he had witnessed the previous night.

Upon further investigation into the matter, The Iowa Independent was told by sources who also attended the meeting that the activists appeared to be “playing it up for video cameras” that were present.

Only weeks ago, it appeared that several labor unions, the IDP, Iowa CCI and other local progressive groups were literally marching in lock-step as they demonstrated in Des Moines against GOP policies in Iowa perceived as hurting middle and low income families.

Iowa CCI tweeted the following quote from Howard Zinn, but has otherwise not issued a public reply to the IDP release: “When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians not to fall in meekly behind them.”

Responding directly to Dvorsky’s remarks, Iowa CCI notes that Dvorsky and other members of IDP staff were not in attendance at the Carroll event. The group says its members stand by their beliefs and their behavior at the event.

“It’s unfortunate that Sue Dvorsky and the Iowa Democratic Party have this view of the town hall based off of one reporter’s distorted account of what happened,” said Rosie Partridge, small business owner and CCI member from Wall Lake. “I was there. People raised their hands, asked questions, and it was anything but disruptive.”

The organization, which has been active in the state for more than 30 years, has been instrumental in pushing for and achieving environmental policy, especially as it pertains to large agricultural operations. They have also advocated for everyday citizens to take a more active role in government in an attempt to stymie corporate policy influence. Members are not known for being timid or quiet when they demonstrate — in the streets, outside the Governor’s mansion, at town hall events or under the golden dome — but physical altercations have always been rare.

“Iowa CCI is doing a disservice to the state, to true progressive values, and to their members who signed up to make a difference and change our state for the better,” Dvorsky said. “Instead of bragging about ‘crashing’ a town hall, designed to give citizens a forum to discuss their concerns, they could be educating Iowans about what’s really at stake and actually make a difference.

“It’s unfortunate that they continue to mistake screaming for persuasion and embarrass themselves in this manner.”

Ferol Wegner, a CCI member from Des Moines said, “Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are so important, and so vital to the future stability and vitality of our country [that] sitting back quietly while career politicians debate cuts to our livelihood would be unacceptable. It is our duty as citizens to change the debate to raising revenues from wall st and the super wealthy so elected officials know what we want, and then to hold them accountable.”

At this time last year, presumed tea party activists attended and disrupted several events by state and national elected officials. Like Iowa CCI reportedly did at the Grassley event, the right-wing activists carried signs and shouted or booed their disapproval, often drowning out answers or comments from the elected officials. There was no press released or denunciation from the Republican Party of Iowa concerning the actions of such individuals last year.

(Editor’s note: This post was updated to include responding statements from Iowa CCI.)

Both Schumer and ranking member John Cornyn (R-Texas) framed reform of high-skilled immigration policy as necessary for American economic competitiveness and, in particular, for keeping foreigners who are educated in U.S. universities in the national workforce after they graduate.

“We should staple a green card to their diplomas,” Schumer said in his opening remarks, instead of requiring them to leave once their student visas expire.

But the senior members sparred over whether reform of the employment visa system should be piecemeal, or part of a broader comprehensive package. Cornyn, addressing his Democratic colleague, said, “I think we can do just this,” arguing that the current stalemate in Congress over comprehensive reform didn’t mean that individual reforms couldn’t be achieved. But Schumer retorted that comprehensive reform is necessary because so many other stakeholders in the immigration debate want to be a part of successful legislation. Other Senate Democrats on the committee, including Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (R-Conn.) agreed.

Dr. Puneet S. Arora, an Indian-born clinical researcher who first entered the U.S. 15 years ago and is still waiting for a green card, told the committee that the policy that prevents him and thousands of otherwise successful Indian immigrants in the United States from acquiring a permanent visa is the requirement that the fixed quantity of employment-based visas not exceed a certain percentage for each country of origin. Thus, the disproportionately large number of Indian immigrants to the U.S. means that Arora must wait many years on a long waiting list before getting his green card.

Chuck Grassley

One point of controversy, picked up on by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), was whether there really are labor shortages in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) reliant industries. Dr. Ronil Hira, an immigration policy expert from the University of Rochester, said that other experts on the panel (those representing the employer side of the immigration debate) were misrepresenting the extent to which high-skilled jobs are really going unfilled because of a lack of qualified workers. He pointed out that high-skilled native-born American workers are suffering from high unemployment rates (although not as high as low-skilled workers are). But other panelists, including the chief executive of NASDAQ OMX and the president of Cornell University, responded that looking at raw unemployment numbers fails to capture the ways in which jobs requiring very particular skills aren’t being filled for lack of candidates.

“For years, our country has struggled to find a way forward on immigration reform. Since the debate reached its peak in 2007, our economy has experienced turmoil comparable to the Great Depression. Americans are out of work, families are being foreclosed on, and businesses are suffering. I agree we must do all we can to improve our economic situation. However, I have concerns with the notion that increasing immigration levels and enacting legalization programs is the answer to the current economic downturn,” Grassley said.

Hira argued that temporary visas are abused by companies located in the United States that use them to hire foreign engineers at below-market prices. Schumer agreed that he believes this is a problem, which was why he sponsored last year’s border enforcement bill, which raised the fees that high-tech companies must pay if they wish to sponsor foreign workers.

Perhaps the most contentious moment in the hearing was when Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), after lecturing the business leaders present for supporting the torpedoed 2007 Senate comprehensive reform bill, began to debate Microsoft’s top lawyer Brad Smith over whether a Canadian style points system would be better than the United States’ employer-driven immigration system: “I would take Canada’s system in a heartbeat,” Sessions said, because it was a “national policy” rather than a policy allowing businesses to pick and choose who should get a visa.

Canada’s immigration system assigns points to visa applicants based on their economic desirability, including such factors as the education level, languages spoken and other specific skills possessed by the immigrant. Business leaders and immigration experts have criticized points systems because they fail to directly take employers’ needs into account.

During the second part of the hearing, the committee heard from three mayors from across America, one of whom was the Republican mayor of Uvalda, Ga., who is a party to the lawsuit against that state’s new immigration law. Mayor Paul Bridges argued that the immigration law will devastate Georgia’s economy and actually decrease public safety because local police will be diverted to enforce the law.

Mayor David Roefaro of Utica, N.Y., highlighted the contribution that Bosnian refugees had made to his city’s economy. These Bosnian immigrants were admitted under the humanitarian, not employment or family, visa quota provided under existing U.S. immigration law, but Roefaro stated that they had nevertheless empowered Utica to create more jobs than they would have otherwise.

Schumer concluded the hearing with the concurring observation that many different types of immigrants can contribute to economic growth.

Obama’s comprehensive speech covered a variety of topics, though he emphasized the United States would give its support to countries forming new democracies — specifically Egypt and Tunisia — and would protect Israeli security interests, while fostering tolerance of religious minorities in the Arab world.

However, the President also called for restoring the pre-1967 borders between Palestine and Israel, which met with some disagreement from certain lawmakers in Washington D.C.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said he appreciated the President’s support of Israel as it “complements the goal of spreading freedom and peace in the region,” but was also critical of Obama’s idea to reinstate the borders between long-time foes Israel and Palestine.

“While the United States has a role to play in setting the stage for peace negotiations, we shouldn’t undermine this process by setting preconditions on Israel, as the President now has done,” Grassley said through a spokesman Thursday.

U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), called Obama’s speech both “timely and comprehensive,” and said he agreed with Obama’s support of Egypt and Tunisia.

“The Middle East is changing, and I am hopeful that this progress will bring stability and peace to the region,” Boswell said through a spokesperson. “I was pleased that he addressed Arab-Israeli relations and the need for a two-state solution.”

Other legislators hope Obama’s stances will redefine U.S.-Arab relations and foreign policy in the Middle East.

“With the death of Osama bin Laden, it is time to get away from the ‘war on terror’ mentality that has driven so much of our policy, which I’ve never agreed with, and which puts great strain on our relations with Islamic nations,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said through a spokesman.

Watch President Obama’s remarks below:

The bill, House File 589, passed the Iowa House on a 66-to-27 vote March 17. Upon arrival in the Iowa Senate, it was referred to the Agriculture Committee, where it was approved on March 21 and recommended for passage. Although several amendments to the bill have been placed on file, the proposed legislation remains filed under unfinished business and is unlikely to get a hearing of the full Senate before the session ends.

If enacted, the bill would provide special protections unique to agricultural operations that would not only protect livestock and crops from damage by outsiders, but would make it a specific crime, labeled as “crop operation interference” or “animal facility interference,” to “produce a record which reproduces an image or sound occurring” at the animal facility or crop operation without consent of the owner. The bill also explicitly notes that it is not to be applied to animal shelters, boarding kennels, commercial kennels, pet shops or pet impoundments.

If found guilty of such a crime, the first offense would be considered an aggravated misdemeanor and all subsequent offenses would be classified as Class D felonies. All those found guilty would be subject to restitution, and could be civilly sued by the owners of the facility for “an amount equaling three times all actual and consequential damages” in addition to court costs and attorney fees. Also, the court is provided a legislative path for granting “any equitable relief that the court determines is appropriate.”

Sandy Greiner

“On the videotaping thing… first of all, there has been some amendments drawn, but I think the most important thing that you need to know is that it isn’t always described accurately in the news media,” Greiner told audience members at a League of Women Voters legislative forum Saturday.

“This is about someone who intentionally comes to [a farmer] and applies for a job with the intention of getting inside to take photographs. They never say, ‘I want to come to your farm and take photographs.’ They just say, ‘I want to be your top-notch power-washer,’ or your feed grinder, or whatever it is that they want to do. That’s what this bill is trying to get at: People who misrepresent themselves and their intentions.”

Greiner added that the bill “is not about hiding anything,” but offers “protection for any employer.”

“I mean, it doesn’t matter if you own a hardware store and someone is not turning on the fans when they are mixing paint — you know, OSHA has all of the rules. If somebody comes in as an employee and seeks that jobs with the distinct purpose of doing something to defame you, that is where the problem lies.”

The bill before the legislature does not provide these unique protections — or protections outside of existing trespass and fraud laws — to all businesses. The bill is specifically written to only address agricultural facilities with livestock or crops. As noted above, the bill makes it very clear that certain other businesses that work with animals, such as pet shops and kennels, are exempt from the offered protections.

But even if the bill did extend protections to all business owners, a member of the forum audience noted loudly that such a scenarios described by Greiner would only be a problem if the employer was already engaging in unlawful activities.

“But the problem is this: We have two documented situations in other states where two people came on board and they literally staged things. That happened in a chicken facility and a place out east,” she said. “If we have people that are literally creating situations, then that’s bad. That shouldn’t happen. I don’t think anybody in this room would agree that is a good thing, if you have people intentionally setting somebody up.”

Although Greiner admitted that the bill is not likely to have further debate in the Iowa Senate, she said she felt it was important to speak out about the proposed legislation at the forum and to clear up misconceptions.

“The way the bill has been described in some segments of society has been less than accurate and I think it is important, whether we like it or not, we at least describe the bill forthrightly,” said Greiner.

Joe Bolkcom

Iowa Sen. Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City) added that the bill is not likely to come up because many lawmakers believe “that we already have strong trespassing laws that we should just enforce.”

“I know there was at least one specific example where people did get hired, took pictures of animals not being well taken care of and then the video came out and it was a big deal,” Bolkcom said. “We’ve had a lot of conversation about it and there have been huge issues about the constitutionality of it … and it is my hope and sense that we are not going to find the language that we can get agreement on in this issue. Hopefully, it is going to go away.”

CNN analysts also concluded that the bill, which has made an appearance in other states this year, is “likely unconstitutional.”

U.S. Sens. Chuck Grassley, a Republican, and Tom Harkin, a Democrat, have both worked for years on federal agriculture policy and have also trended toward additional protections for those who serve as whistleblowers.

This spring Grassley introduced legislation that would extend whistleblower protections to government employees. “I’ve often said whistleblowers are as welcome as skunks at a Sunday picnic, despite the fact that all they do is bring forward the truth,” Grassley said during his floor statement on the proposal.

And, just hours before the Iowa House approved the HF 589, Harkin told reporters that what lawmakers were considering didn’t seem to be good public policy or generally in the public’s best interest.