“I’m not going to engage in political fear mongering about something that is very serious to the safety and security to the people I represent,” Braley said Wednesday afternoon on a conference call with reporters.

In particular, Braley singled out Matt Strawn, chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa, as someone who appears to be engaged in politicizing the discussion. Earlier today Strawn issued a press release that called on Braley, who has not yet made a decision regarding the move of detainees to the Illinois facility, to “reverse his support for housing Guantanamo terrorist detainees on American soil and near the Iowa border.”

“My question for people like Matt Strawn is, ‘Where were you when convicted terrorists were being housed in federal prisons in the Midwest?’ There are 340 inmates, who are either connected to international or domestic terrorism, and 35 of those inmates are currently already incarcerated in federal prisons in the state of Illinois.”

One of those housed in Illinois, according to Braley, is an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent who is an inmate in a federal prison in Marion, Ill. Others include individuals convicted of being involved in international drug cartels.

“If people had taken the time like I did to travel to Thomson, Ill. and get an extensive briefing from the Federal Bureau of Prisons director, they would be aware of this fact,” he said.

Federal authorities are considering the purchase of a prison facility near the town of Thomson, Ill., located just across the Mississippi River from Clinton. The facility, which was constructed in 2001 yet never fully used by the state, would be modified and used as a maximum-security facility that is anticipated not only to house between 100 and 150 detainees from Guantanamo Bay, but also roughly 1,400 other federally convicted individuals. It is unknown at this time if the Federal Bureau of Prisons would still be interested in purchasing the facility if it were not available for housing the terrorism suspects.

On Monday, Braley traveled to Thomson to meet with local authorities and residents, and to receive a private briefing and tour of the prison facility. During the briefing, Braley said many of his questions were about the public services impact that would be experienced by Clinton, which is the largest community in the immediate geographical area.

“I wanted to know how it would impact the people I represent from both a safety/security and economic standpoint,” he said.

The area surrounding the prison in both Iowa and Illinois has been hit hard by the recent economic downturn. The projected economic impact of the facility, if the plan moves forward, is $1 billion annually, based upon the additional federal prison employees that would be hired once the facility is operational and the construction and other workers that would provide the modifications to prepare the facility.

“One of the things I made clear when I met with these officials is that I’m keeping an open mind, and that I would not make up my mind on whether or not I felt this was a good decision until I had been fully briefed and had an opportunity to share concerns that had been expressed with the constituents I represent in Iowa,” said Braley. “We are working right now with the federal officials to try to set up some type of a public meeting on the Iowa side so that residents can come, share their concerns and learn more about how this decision, if it is implemented, will impact them.”

Although details are still being worked out for the exact date of that meeting, Braley said he would like to see it held in Clinton due to the impact the facility will have on that community.

“The thing that people are forgetting is that there is going to be a very large population at the Thomson facility that are not detainees, but are very dangerous individuals — just as there are at other maximum-security federal prisons all over the county,” Braley said. “I think people need to be thinking about the implications of bringing those individuals into the area just as seriously as they are the possibility of bringing very dangerous people in from Guantanamo.”

If the facility is selected and the terrorism suspects from Guantanamo Bay are housed there, those individuals will be transported to the east coast for prosecution and trial. Also, even if they are found not guilty of their charges, none of them will ever be released on U.S. soil. Due to Congressional mandates, those individuals would need to be transported to their home country for release, or perhaps handed to a different country for further criminal prosecution.

Although housing detainees from Guantanamo on American soil has recently become a partisan issue, individuals on both sides of the political aisle have expressed their support for closing the facility, which many believe has become a recruitment rallying cry for terrorists.

“I have heard from so many Iowans over the past few days who are rightfully concerned about the proposed location of Guantanamo Bay terrorist-detainees in our backyard,” he said.

U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, who has not said for sure whether he will support Latham’s bill, represents the portion of Iowa that is most near the Thomson Correctional Center, and he toured the facility with a federal task force on Monday. If the plan moves forward, the Federal Bureau of Prisons would purchase the now mostly-empty facility from Illinois and revamp it for use for roughly 100 terror suspects.

Following the facility tour, Braley, who was the only member of the Iowa delegation to participate, spoke about the experience:

“I wanted to be there on the ground myself to find out what types of security precautions are already in place,” he said during an Iowa Public Radio interview Monday afternoon. “I wanted to speak to representatives from the White House, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Prisons and Department of Defense about the security implications of this proposal and ask the tough questions that are important to my constituents in the First District of Iowa.”

“My whole point throughout this conversation has been, everyone needs to take a deep breath, listen to what the plan is, and make sure there’s an opportunity for public input so people have the chance to have their concerns addressed,” he said.

He is expected to further address the situation this afternoon on a conference call with reporters.

Latham, like most Republicans in Congress, is openly critical of the Obama administration’s proposed plans to move terror suspects from a military prison at Guantanamo Bay into the United States. The legislation proposed by Latham is one more attempt by the GOP to prohibit the suspects from being held in the country, and echoes the sentiments expressed by Republicans who represent Illinois.

In contrast, Illinois Democrats like U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and Gov. Pat Quinn view the move as an opportunity to possibly provide economic revitalization to a hard-hit portion of the state. Jerry Hebeler, who serves as mayor for the neighboring town of Thomson is also in favor, stating that the detainees “can’t be any worse than any murderer” and that the maximum-security facility was built for such a purpose.

President Barack Obama has said he wants Guantanamo Bay facility by January. A nearly-empty Illinois prison near the Mississippi River on the border with Braley’s district is among U.S. locations being considered to house the detainees.

Caitlin Legacki, Braley’s communication director, said the congressman has met with officials from the White House, Department of Homeland Security and the Illinois Bureau of Prisons to discuss the security implications associated with this proposal.

“Additionally, Congressman Braley believes the input of surrounding communities should be considered in this decision-making process,” Legacki said. “This decision should be made based on our national security interests and the safety and security of our citizens, not based on people trying to score political points.”

Earlier Monday, Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn called on Braley to oppose the proposal to move the detainees to Illinois. That call was later joined by U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, who said if the terrorist were ever released “innocent people would die and some of them likely will be Americans.”

According to Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics, there are already 347 inmates in federal prisons convicted of international or domestic terrorism. Those include Richard Reid, known as the “shoe bomber,” Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the man behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Wadih El-Hage, Osama bin Laden’s former secretary, and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was convicted for his role in the 9/11 attacks.

Under the plan to shut down the Guantanamo Bay facility, only about 60 detainees would be transferred to Illinois.

A nearly-empty Illinois prison near the Mississippi River on the border with Braley’s Iowa district is among U.S. locations being considered to hold 100 detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

President Barack Obama has said he wants to close the Guantanamo Bay facility in January, and if that happens a U.S. facility must be found.

Strawn said Iowans should be worried about the possibility of the detainees being held so close to the Hawkeye State. The House voted to last month against bringing the detainees to the U.S., with Braley voting to support the move.

“These terrorists pose a clear threat to the national security of our nation,” Strawn said. “It is time for Congressman Braley to stand up for his constituents, admit he was wrong, and tell President Obama that these prisoners are not welcome in the Heartland.”

Supporters of closing Guantanamo Bay say the facility and the fact that many of the detainees have been held indefinitely without trial hurts the reputation of the United States. They also contend fears of bringing the detainees to the U.S. are exaggerated.

In a joint statement, David Keene, founder of American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and former representative and presidential candidate Bob Barr called on Republicans to support the move.

“… The federal prison system has proven itself fully capable of safely holding literally hundreds of convicted terrorists with no threat or danger to the surrounding community,” the statement said. “The scaremongering about these issues should stop.”

A spokesman for Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, told The Quad-City Times that there are already 350 inmates in U.S. prisons convicted of international or domestic terrorism, including 35 in Illinois.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said the prison, which has sat virtually empty since its construction in 2001, could bring more than 3,000 jobs to the region.

Braley, a Waterloo attorney, was chosen to respond to a Republican effort to block a vote on the bill. The parliamentary move, called a motion to recommit, would have forced the bill to be redrafted. Republicans were expressing concern about the cost of medical malpractice insurance and Braley was trying to make the point that health care reform should be about “standing up for patient safety.”

That’s when Republicans began heckling him.

Here’s the video:

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (center) joins with Pres. Barack Obama and other lawmakers in applauding Jeanne White-Ginder, mother of Ryan White, during remarks during the signing of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 at the White House. (Photo: Pete Souza, White House Photographer)

The Ryan White Program, the largest federal program specifically dedicated to providing HIV care and treatment, distributes funds to heavily impacted metropolitan areas, states and local community-based organization to provide medical care, medications and support services to more than half a million people each year.

The bill was named after an Indiana teenager, a hemophiliac, who was expelled from school when it was learned that he had contracted the disease from a contaminated blood treatment. Although he died from the disease in April 1990, his struggle prompted a national conversation about the disease as well as funding for treatment and research.

White’s mother, Jeanne White-Ginder, was present at the signing ceremony last week Thursday, as was U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

“Today marks an important milestone in our ongoing national struggle with HIV and AIDS,” Harkin said. “Twenty-eight years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued its first warning about the disease we now know as AIDS. Today, we approve the fourth extension of the Ryan White CARE Act, the comprehensive legislation first enacted in 1990, for the prevention and treatment of HIV and AIDS.

“As a result of the Ryan White program, we have among the best HIV and AIDS treatment programs in the world. With this new legislation, we’ll make it also the fairest — with greater access for all, higher standards of quality, and guaranteed continuity of care.”

The reauthorization:

• Preserves access to life-saving medications, health care and support services for persons living with HIV and AIDS who have come to depend on publicly-funded systems;
• Extends the system of care to persons with HIV and AIDS who have faced waiting lists for medications and severe limits on their access to specialty health care;
• Protects governmental and community-based institutions charged with providing this care as all face growing case loads and the more challenging needs of an evolving population of persons with HIV/AIDS;
• Balances the needs of high-prevalence cities and states with those experiencing rapidly growing epidemics.

“My hope is that as we continue to improve the Ryan White CARE Act to meet the needs of this disease, the remedies we adopt will continue to come from the bright lights of science, not the dark fears of bigotry. This is an important day for people living with HIV and AIDS, and for all Americans. We must do more to provide care and support for those caught in the epidemic. This legislation will give us the time and support we need to accomplish that goal,” Harkin said.

The Senate bill was crafted by HELP Committee under the guidance of Harkin. On the House side, U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley worked within the subcommittee on health to help craft the bill.

In addition to signing the fourth installment of the Ryan White program, President Obama also published a landmark final rule today that ended a two-decade-old ban on entry to the U.S. of persons who were infected with HIV or AIDS.

“[T]ackling this epidemic will take far more aggressive approaches than we’ve seen in the past — not only from our federal government, but also state and local governments, from local community organizations, and from places of worship,” Obama said during the signing ceremony. “But it will also take an effort to end the stigma that has stopped people from getting tested; that has stopped people from facing their own illness; and that has sped the spread of this disease for far too long.

“Twenty-two years ago, in a decision rooted in fear rather than fact, the United States instituted a travel ban on entry into the country for people living with HIV/AIDS.  Now, we talk about reducing the stigma of this disease — yet we’ve treated a visitor living with it as a threat.  We lead the world when it comes to helping stem the AIDS pandemic — yet we are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people from HIV from entering our own country.”

Congressional campaigns had to turn in their quarterly fundraising reports this week, documenting money raised and spent between July 1 and Sept. 30. Information about other elected officials and challengers is below.

Fourth District Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ames, is next on the list, raising $153,507 during the quarter. His campaign has nearly $420,000 cash on hand.

Third District Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Des Moines, raised $104,132, bringing his cash-on-hand total to $343,215.

Second District Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Mt. Vernon, raised $101,200 and has $278,404 cash on hand.

Fifth District Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron, raised $70,570 and has $173,833 cash on hand.

Several challengers also filed reports. Republican Dave Funk, who is running against Boswell, raised $16,477and ended the quarter with $6,226 cash on hand. Democrat Mike Denklau, who is running against King, raised $13,615 but has more than $10,000 in campaign debt.

“One of the problems is that in many states the lack of competition is what gave rise to the need for a public option,” Braley said. “People who oppose the public option are ignoring the reality that in many states there is no competition. So, if you give states who have a strong political influence from one or two major health insurance companies, that convince those states to opt-out of the public option, it leaves the consumers in those states without a meaningful choice. That goes against the whole purpose of creating a public option.”

The compromise, which is under consideration by Senate Democrats as a way of mitigating a Republican filibuster, would provide a robust national public option. All states would initially be included in the public option, but would have the opportunity to waive it in favor of a private-only health insurance system.

“Keep in mind that what we come up with in our merged bill may not be what finally emerges either out of the Senate or out of conference,” said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, and the reiterated his promise that the final bill that goes to the White House will have “a strong public option.”

Harkin added that he is one of the Democratic Senators who has floated the idea of allowing state’s to opt-out of a national public option.

“I’ve talked to various people about that,” he said. “It might be a possibility.”

Both Houses — and both political parties — are now considering compromises in their chamber while keeping a firm eye on how those changes will ultimately impact the final bill that goes to the White House. For instance, if the public option within the House version of the reform bill is weakened, and the Senate fails to include a public option in its merged effort, the prospects of having any meaningful public option in the final bill are diminished. In that respect, it is important for those in the Senate who want the final bill to have a public option to have one included in their bill, even if that means watering it down to avoid filibuster and to entice affirmative votes from more moderate members.

Harkin, as chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, will be instrumental in negotiating with Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) on what type of bill initially appears on the floor of the Senate. Harkin also made clear this morning that the official point person for the HELP Committee during the negotiations will be Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who led the health care reform process while Sen. Edward Kennedy was incapacitated with illness. Both Dodd and Harkin, however, are in agreement that the bill placed on the floor of the Senate must initially include a strong public option — something that Baucus did not include in the Senate Finance Committee’s bill, and something that Reid has no yet signaled will happen.

Members of the House are working to merge three committee reform bills, all of which include a public option.

“It could be stripped from the bill in the House if an amendment is approved that would remove the public option,” Braley said. “I don’t see that happening in the House bill. I’m confident that the House bill will have a robust public option. We had a lengthy caucus meeting yesterday, trying to find additional savings that were tied to the public option and how the provider network would be constructed.”

A key point of contention for Braley, as well as for elected officials from other less densely populated states, is that any public option also level the playing field for Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement rates.

“The challenge in doing this is that there is a lot more cost savings if you go to a public option that is based on a reimbursement rate of Medicare plus five percent, but in states like Iowa where Medicare has long been underpayed to physician providers, that is much less of an incentive,” Braley said.

“If you have public option, and you can’t recruit providers to participate, then you don’t have a meaningful public option no matter how much savings it could achieve. Part of the debate we are having in the caucus right now is how you strike a balance between what we have in the bill, which is a negotiated rate right now between Medicare and 50 percent of the private pay rate, or something like Medicare plus five [percent]. We won’t know how that plays out in the House until we see the final language of the bill.”

That’s because the trips were paid for by Latham’s political action committee and touted as fundraising events, a practice that is legal but that government reform advocates contend turns the PAC into little more than a slush fund designed to skirt campaign finance law.

U.S. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ames.

And an Iowa Independent investigation found similar trips to prestigious golf resorts around the country throughout 2008, all paid for with PAC money.

These types of political action committees, known as “Leadership PACs,” are designed as a way for lawmakers to raise money to be passed along to other members of their party for their campaigns. By making donations to members of their party, lawmakers can use their leadership PACs to gain clout and boost their bids for leadership posts or committee chairmanships.

But a joint investigation by the nonprofit news site ProPublica, ABC News and the Washington Post found that a majority of the money raised by leadership PACs goes to entertainment, administrative costs, fundraising and other categories that “are so vague that it’s impossible to know for sure how the money was spent.”

ProPublica found lawmakers used money from their PACs to pay for trips to places like Churchill Downs, Disney World and the Country Music Hall of Fame. They found that Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., used nearly $65,000 to commission a portrait of himself.

All five of Iowa’s congressmen and both senators have leadership PACs (Sen. Tom Harkin has two). But Latham’s organization, dubbed For America’s Republican Majority (FARM PAC) is getting the lion’s share of attention.

Latham, along with House Minority Leader John Boehner, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss and North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, held a golf outing touted as a fundraiser for their leadership PACs at the Greenbrier Resort in West Virginia in July.

In June, Latham hosted an Atlantic City weekend to benefit his PAC. Lodging at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort cost FARM PAC $1,377.36.

Disclosure reports filed in 2008 with the Federal Election Commission show FARM PAC paid for hotel accommodations at prestigious golf resorts around the country, including the Greenbriar Resort in September;  The St. Regis Hotel-Monarch Beach in Dana Point, Calif. in August; and the LaQuinta Resort & Club near Palm Springs, Calif., in January.

Since returning to the capitol from the August recess, Latham has held two D.C. fundraisers for FARM PAC, with a third scheduled for Oct. 27.

FARM PAC has raised more than $75,000 this year. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the largest donors to FARM PAC in 2009 include Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris), AT&T, California Dairies Inc. and Latham for Congress. The PAC raised $205,447 during the 2008 election cycle, with almost all of it coming from lobbyists, PACs and corporate leaders.

For some reason, ProPublica did not include Latham’s PAC in their breakdown of more than 400 leadership PACs. The site did, however, look at rest of Iowa’s congressional delegation and found that they have not followed down a similar path as Latham.

More than 80 percent of money spent during the 2008 election cycle by Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley’s leadership PAC, Bringing Leadership Back PAC, was spent on campaign contributions to fellow Democrats.

Republican Rep. Steve King’s Conservative Principals PAC spent nearly 50 percent of its money on what ProPublica classifies as “entertainment, events and travel,” mostly on payments to the fundraising telecommunications company Liberty Phone Center.

Democratic Rep. Dave Loebsack’s I-PAC and Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell’s BOSPAC spent almost all of the very small amount of money raised in 2008 on campaign contributions.

A little more than 70 percent of the money spent by Harkin’s Independent Action Inc. during the 2008 election cycle went for administrative costs. As for his To Organize a Majority PAC, more than 57 percent of its expenditures went to campaign contributions for Harkin’s senate colleagues, with 25 percent going to “fundraising consultants.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s Hawkeye PAC spent nearly 78 percent of its money on campaign contributions.

Responding to a request for comment, Latham’s spokesman, Fred Love, said in an e-mail to the Iowa Independent that the congressman’s official office does not work with or speak on behalf of any campaign committees. Phone calls to the number listed for the Alexandria, Va., offices of FARM PAC were not answered.

For more background on the controversy surrounding leadership PACs, read ProPublica’s report here.

HR 3221, also known as the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, would support early childhood education and provide for “green” school building renovations. The most contentious provision of the bill, however, would end government-subsidized loans in the private sector and replace them with direct government funding. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that removing the subsidies will save taxpayers $87 billion — monies that Democrats say can then be used to increase education grants to low- to moderate-income Americans.

According to U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Waterloo), the impact on Iowa will be enormous. His office estimates that the legislation will invest more than $726 million in Iowa over the next 10 years to increase the annual Pell Grant from $5,350 in 2009 to $5,500 in 2010 and then to $6,900 by 2019. The 1st District, which Braley represents, is estimated to receive $82.5 million.

“This bill makes federal grant money more accessible and reliable, and allows young people to graduate with less debt,” Braley said. “This is a huge step in the right direction to make higher education more affordable for Iowa families.”

Despite a highly-lauded and bipartisan amendment being attached to the legislation that removed federal funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Republican support did not materialize for the full legislation. U.S. Rep. Tom Latham (D-Ames) and U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Kiron) both voted against the legislation, even while King issued a press release in favor of the ACORN attachment.

According to Latham, the bill represents “an unprecedented government power-grab.”

“College students and their families ought to have choices when looking for ways to fund a college education,” he said. “This bill virtually forces students to rely solely on the federal government for student loan options. It threatens choice of — and access to — higher education funding.”

The bill has also received opposition from banks and other private institutions such as Sallie Mae and Citigroup that currently serve as middle-men in government-subsidized student loans — an industry currently estimated at $92 billion. Although the companies work directly with students to provide school loans, the government guarantees up to 97 percent of the loans that are made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, which is slated for sunset under the new legislation. The lenders, who will now begin lobbying Senate members for alternative plans, warn that loss of the program will mean loss of jobs in their sector.

U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Mount Vernon), who supported the bill, was instrumental in the inclusion of “green school” and workforce development initiatives into the bill. Loebsack believes the provisions will encoruage greater collaboration between industry, college and workers to strengthen overall workforce development.

“The workforce development provisions will help connect community colleges to industry leaders — so that our students are receiving the most up-to-date and highly in demand skill set and our businesses are getting new corps of workers equipped to meet their current needs. By bringing everyone together, these provisions can grow and save entire industries while empowering our workforce to advance into the 21st century,” Loebsack said.

The legislation passed the U.S. House on a predominately party-line vote of 253 to 171. Although Pres. Barack Obama has already signaled his approval, members of the U.S. Senate will still need to pass their own version of the legislation.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Indianola), who now serves as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, issued a press release shortly after the House vote in praising the legislation. His intention is to present a similar bill this fall.