privilege, mr. chairman, i will resist the temptation to contrast senator obama's position of executive privilege with president obama's position on executive privilege but i would just note that the juxtaposition is the start. if he was not part of the drafting of the february 4 letter, if he did not know about fast and furious before bryant terry was murdered, if he did not approve the wiretap application, what in the world is he asserting executive privilege for? he is either part of it or he is not. if he is part of it, we have had a series of witnesses that have misled this committee. if he is not part of a, he's got no business asserting executive privilege. >> on thursday, house minority leader nancy pelosi call the contempt about a shameful display of abuse of power. she said house republicans are pursuing a because the attorney- general is challenging so-called voter suppression loss for the minority leader accused house republicans of diverting the

debate on jobs and passing a transportation bill. current funding for transportation programs expires at the end of the month. this is 30 minutes. >> good morning -- this is a very interesting week because so many things are coming together or not. what we have seen is a shameful display of abuse of power by the republicans in the house of representatives. instead of bringing job- creating legislation to the floor, the press -- the transportation bill, they are holding the attorney general of the united states in contempt of congress. for doing his job. it is really important to note how this is connected with some of their other decisions. it is no accident. it is no coincidence. that the attorney general of the united states is the person

responsible for making sure that a voter suppression does not happen in our country, that issues that relate to the civil liberties of the american people are upheld. these very same people are holding in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress. suppress. they are closely allied with those who are suffocating the system, on limited special interests, secret money, and they are poisoning the debate. they are poisoning the debate with that money. what does the average citizen say? they throw up their hands and said a pox on both your houses and that is a victory for the special interests. our founders had in mind a democracy where the government of the many, the votes of the many of the voice of the many

determine our government. these folks want toxicity. it's of the voice of the many, the checkbook of the very, very few determine the outcome of the election. again, a plutocracy. what you see is diversionary tactics. let's not talk about the transportation bill which is only nine days till that expires, student loans which is only nine days until the interest rate, lower interest rate will expire. instead, lettuce tie the hands of the person who is assigned to make sure that the american people have the right to vote, who have the right to vote are able to vote and that their vote is counted. it is all tied together. combined with their threat on the debt ceiling, the republican

the leg suggests in -- the lead -- suggests uncertainty but paralysis. in our economy. we hear it over and over again from businesses large and small. and a threat to our credit rating, to our full faith and credit of the united states of america contributes to a paralysis on the part of businesses who want to hire but are not. why would they do such a thing? it is because it is their philosophy. they are the party that makes adam smith look like a keynesian. issez faire. no regulation, no discipline for those who would exploit the

system for privatizing the game and nationalizing the risk. in our financial transactions. laissez faire in terms of not wanting initiatives like clean air or clean water, public education, public housing, public health, medicare, medicaid, social security. this is what they believe, no government and bless their hearts, they act upon their beliefs. their beliefs are dangerous to a thriving middle class in our country. we see so much of it coming together. why would they oppose the initiative to create jobs? jobsresident's american act text some people called obstruction. it is obstruction but obstruction is their orthodoxy. they don't believe in the public role.

it is not that they're obstructing this way of getting something done, it is no way for them. that is why they take pride in being the do nothing congress. everybody knows that our founders had in mind that there would be a public role and we would have a public/private partnership and that the education of our children, incentives for the creation of jobs, and later, economic security for our seniors, economic and health security for our seniors. i think we all believe that kids should be clean and safe neighborhoods, the security of our country all done in a fiscally sound way has no political bias to it. that is not partisan in any way. if you are or -- if you're orthodoxy, your belief is that there should be no public role and the only role of government

is to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our country and let something trickle-down, if it does, that's ok. if it doesn't, as the speaker said, so be it. we do not say amen to that. their approach under the bush years, george w. bush years, created the deficit, did not create jobs, took us to the brink of a depression that is very hard to grow out of and not to assign blame to him which the whole world has already done but when they bring this up again as their approach, then you have to say this did not work before, it will only make matters worse for the middle-class. we are saying to them, pass the

transportation bill. take away the uncertainty to students for the interest they will pay on student loans. past the middle income tax cut so that we can remove all doubt that that will exist and not be held hostage to tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country. we have seen it all in their budget in which they have enshrine the unfairness which is their goal. how else would you describe elimination of medicare, making seniors pay $6,400 more while getting fewer benefits while you get in over $300,000 tax cut to people making over $1 million per year? do you think it's fair for students to pay double interest on their student loan while you give that same several hundred thousand dollar tax break to the wealthy? you see it all coming together.

diversion from not doing their job of helping us come together on a transportation bill. for 35 years, it has always been bipartisan and has always been a job creator and it always contributed to the safety of transportation in our country, the promotion of commerce, the quality of life moving people and products to and from home and work but now it has been held up. nine days to go, let's hope that there is still a chance that there can be some interest on the part of the house republicans to support with 74 members of the united states senate -- one was absent was on record -- supporting a bipartisan bill. that is unacceptable to the house republicans. this is a serious time

especially as we go into the fact that there are approximately 140 days until the election. 140 days until the election or maybe with a monday off, 140 days until the day off after the election. it is very important not only to our economy which is important, not only to our one in five kids that live in poverty in america who are being cast aside, not only to those who are looking for jobs and this paralysis is preventing them from being unleashed but also important to our democracy. suppress the vote, suffocate the debate with unlimited dollars, poisoned the debate, a victory for the special interests. enshrine on fairness in favor of the special interests at the expense of a thriving middle- class. it is a very important week.

it is nine days as we go into a celebration of our own independence. it is important for us to understand that you cannot change the policy unless you change the politics, unless we, as i have issued to you before, unless we dare by disclosing. amend the constitution to overturn citizens united reformed the system to reform the system as best as possible and elect reformers that will do that on -- from both parties. we are at a crossroads but it is important to know that this is nothing accidental coincidental or happened to happen. the decision to suppress the

vote, to validate policies and has increased the deficit and increased employment in our country and that is exactly what they had in mind. >> they're pretty tough on george w. bush's attorneys general. what is the difference between republicans are doing to eric holder and the democratic majority did to michael mukasey and alberto gonzales'? >> in the house, our contempt of congress was addressed to josh bolten and ms. meieirs. those others never came to a vote on the floor. the circumstances are quite different. we were talking about political intervention and the hiring of

u.s. attorneys for having them retain their positions, political intervention from the white house and the very rigid in a very political manner. far be it from me to speak about this issue because he lies to cummings was --elijah cummings conducted himself well in the hearings yesterday in a very fair way. the particular is of the cases are very different. as you know, we won our case and the court ruled in our favor and i can only speak to our own experienced. >> ranking member cummings yesterday's said he would become

one of the most extreme speakers that have ever watched over the house. do you agree? >> i defer to the superior knowledge and wisdom of mr. cummings on the subject. i know that this case is very different from what we had before a few years ago. >> to see -- do you see any problem solving the student laws retroactively? >> yes. >> the interest rate will only apply to new amounts, not to current rates that suppose you are a student >> suppose you are a student and your ticket out alone and you sign up for 6.8%. you have signed up. sometime down the road you're going to perhaps renegotiate the loan? that is an affirmative action and you have to know how to do that. there are costs involved that would probably be passed on to

the bar were. -- to the borrower. people have been to make decisions based on a certainty. how the pit -- how about the uncertainty that this may not be the interest biped. i pay. you don't even know it would be retroactive so why would we do that except to humor the intransigence of the republicans in the house of representatives. why should students have to take that on certainty if we agree that the interest rate should be 3.4%, not 6.8%? it hurts the students. i can give you chapter and verse on this. we had a presentation as recently as this morning on what it means to student and it needs

a great deal to student and their family. so much so that their families may have to decide with this uncertainty, not knowing if this may happen. we just may have to pass up going to school this year. >> i want to follow up about the contempt issue. the attorney general was saying he was willing to give over some of these documents and the next day that president exited executive privilege and made it a very public clash between the president and the house. are you concerned that you and the president want this to be about jobs without a focus on the fight between the president and the republican house? >> i am trying to enlarge the issue for you. thatis part of the scenheme the right wing over the edge -- i don't think all republicans subscribe to this -- the over the edge gag which dominates the

house of representatives has said this is the best way for us to spend our time, to review a policy that began in the bush administration. a mistake was made and a person was fired, tens of thousands of documents have been turned over. without going into all the conversations between the president and the return a general, i know that the administration made every attempt to make every document available to them. i was present when the president said that to the speaker of the house. >> car were norquist is going to meet with some house republicans and know what his pledges. he will talk about what the pledge means and what it doesn't mean ve? what is a need to have this interaction between the republicans and mr. norquist when this is such is theme in

republican circles? >> i think they are in touch every day. his physical presence here is not any different than the influence he has on that caucus where he says a pledge to me is more important than a pledge to uphold the constitution of the united states. other than that, we should take a pledge to uphold our democracy, not to give tax cuts to the richest people in the country. it undermines fairness in our country, destabilizes the middle class, does not create jobs, and increases the deficit. >> you said there is a difference as between the attorneys being fired. >> the court ruled in our favor. >> it has not -- this has not gone to the court yet. they admitted they were walking guns into mexico and some and ended up dying and the department of justice sent a letter that was later retracted.

what you think the difference in substance of the two cases are? >> i think there's a vast difference in the two examples that you pointed out. i am going to el it toijah , better than everyone has made is very proud in doing the right thing on this. they are trying to take this to a balanced place about what our responsibilities. contempt of congress? contempt of congress? they are frivolously using that important vehicle. who isermine the person assigned to stop the voter suppression in our country. i am telling you, this is connected. it is no accident. it is a decision and it does -- it is as clear as can be.

it is not only to monopolize his time, it is to undermine his name as he goes forward to protect>> the supreme court didt rule on health care but they will issue the ruling in the next week or so. earlier this week, democrats discussed interesting plans for a range of options. i had best do this question before -- asked you this question before but i am wondering what the plan of democrats is in the event demanded it struck down? >> the only meetings i have been parted -- party to are the ones we have heralded the benefits of the plan that tens of millions

of people of party benefited from, also. and people are now on their parents' plan until they are 26. many more young people cannot be discriminated on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. seniors pay less for their prescription drugs because of the legislation, which closes the doughnut hole. it mean something to seniors. the annual check up without copays, very important wellnes'' initiatives in the legislation, those are just some benefits that are ready their that tens of millions, maybe as many as 80 million people already benefit from. that is what we are talking about. what we are trying to defend in this legislation. there have been some other implementations that have nothing to do with a court case, but i believe that the court will rule in favor.

we are ironclad on the constitution. we will just see what the court does. we believe in judicial review, the republicans have not come up until now, have that belief in judicial review. all the sudden, they're big proponents of more reverses' medicine, which just a few years ago, they were saying -- marbury versus madison, which just a few years ago, they were saying they were against. there is also something that was said that the speaker was going to take the massachusetts case to the supreme court. these taxpayers dollars depend on this bill. i think it is important to note because i have talked to you about when the republicans have not believe in judicial review

and one of those occasions was on the bill arunta doesn't buy it. they rode a bill that said this in this in this. the court will not and should not have judicial review over doma. they wrote a bill stripping the supreme court of the right to rule on it. it passed the house. it did not pass the senate. thank god. >> i want to ask you about health care. on policy, i know you are -- [laughter] you have told us it will be 6003. -- 6 to 2.

if the court strikes down the mandate and leaves in place all of the things that you know voters -- can you justify leaving those things in place without a mandate everybody knows will help kids under 26? all those other things. how can you leave those other things in place? >> just to borrow supreme court metaphor, you have to have the mandate in order for this to work from a financial standpoint. but, that does not mean -- we want to keep those in place. the biggest difference in the lives of the american people -- let me say one of. one is that you cannot be deprived of coverage if you

have a pre-existing medical condition. this is huge. this is huge. insurance companies even say that they really cannot do that. unless the premiums skyrocket. if american people like the idea that they and their children cannot be deprived of health care because of pre-existing medical conditions, then that will require some other action in order for that to happen. what could that be? it could be something passed in the congress similar to what we had in the house bill, which was a surcharge on the wealthy to pay for aspects of that. that was our pay for. the senate had another idea. states can take their own action in california. we have our legislation under

the governorship of mitt romney -- a mandate he said was necessary. some states already have prototypes. they could have a public option. in other words, we are aware of speculation. i do not usually like to go in that world but you are asking some of the things that could happen. we cannot say to the american people that we are going to throw you out the mercy of the insurance companies who refused coverage to you, rescinded policies going into the operating room, raise your rates to a point of having to be prohibitive. we have to remember one of the main reasons -- if you had no other reason to pass the health care bill and everybody loved their insurer, the cost of it

was unsustainable to individuals, families, businesses, our economy, competitiveness. and to the public budget, whether it is county, state, or our federal budget. you had to have legislation that had these things connected and took us down a path of increasing cost to all of the entities i mentioned, including the federal budget. there are many things in there we do not take credit for from the cbo. some things that go along with it like electronic medical record, that kind of things. this will drive down the cost of health care, as well.

that is not figured in the cbo report. the think tanks have said this would be billions of dollars in savings over the life of the bill. let us hope and pray that the court will love the constitution and that we will have a decision that is based on the merits and constitution of the u.s. >> thank you. >> those are all the things the american people will demand. can congress justify leaving the goodies on the table? >> throughout all of that, we have to be sensitive to cost. let us just say the majority in the house right n has no interest in making these things available, you should seek in

their budget, they want to do away with medicare. they do now to strengthen it. you know, you see "the wall street journal" in their editorial, at $2, two papers. all that good news in the rest of the place and the insane editorial page. [laughter] does that happen where you are? they are separate, but tell me. they will have fun with that, right? they're criticizing some of the republicans to say we like some of these things and we would like to perpetuate them. again, there has to be a way to pay for it, to reduce the cost, to expand coverage, to improve the quality, and this bill did not -- did just that.

hopefully, they will see the in order to have these things the american people who are taking advantage of them already, to have the exchanges of the mandate -- states can do what they need to do. that will not be the answer. some of these same people reaching the insurance companies are getting millions of news clients subsidized by the taxpayers. under a federal civil rules. that is a beautiful thing for them. it is the whole federal structure -- if it comes down

into makes matters worse. they are in the crocodile tear place. they want to keep charging more for premiums but now they would rather see -- they do not want to have to deal with 50 states. this conversation is speculative until we see what is going to happen. it is a remarkable thing. nobody knows. do not forget, they're going after eric holder because he is supporting measures to overturn the boater suppression in the states. this is no accident. this is no coincidence. it is a plan on the part of the republicans.

thank you very much. >> [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in response, john boehner said americans deserve to know what happened in operation fast and furious. he declined to say that eric holder should resign but described it at a very -- as a very serious matter. his remarks are 15 minutes. >> good morning. the american people are continuing to ask the question, where are the jobs? families and small businesses are struggling with high unemployment. rising prices and stagnant wages. the republicans have been relentlessly focused on helping small businesses create jobs and we will remain focused on that goal. congress also has a

responsibility to the american people to learn the truth about what happens in fast and furious. on february 4, 2011, the department of justice denied allegations that it allowed guns to be smuggled into mexico. 10 months later, the justice department formally withdrew its denial it awknowledgeed that it made false claims about this operation. the amount administration -- the obama administration failed to find out how and why it is made these false claims. we are talking about a program that gave mexican drug dealers guns and those guns killed an american border agent. the american people deserve the truth. the administration has an obligation to turn over the relevant documents right now.

the decision to invoke a hit -- executive privilege is in a mission of the white house officials being involved in decisions that misled the congress and have covered up the truth. what is the obama administration hiding? today, the house will pass the domestic energy and jobs act, which will help create good paying jobs and by expanding american energy project in -- this is the latest in a series of more than 30 house passed jobs bills that have removed government barriers to economic growth and stop policies that are driving up gasoline prices. house republicans want to get a highway bill done. we want to build and our colleagues are working toward producing a bill. we want to make sure it is a bill that includes real reforms to ensure that taxpayer funds are paid for -- pain for legitimate projects that support

economic activity. not planning more -- planting more flowers around the country. we support jack reed initiatives like the keystone pipeline. -- job-creating initiatives like the keystone pipeline. we will create jobs. we will prevent a massive tax hike and providing for a fairer, simpler tax code that lowers rates and closes special interest locals. stopping the tax hike is critical to our economy. which more and more democrats are awknowledging every day. tax reform will feel job creation in our country. republicans will vote on measures to stop a car for regulations that are creating more uncertainty and hurting small businesses. in the coming days, the supreme court will rule on the president's health care law which is driving up health care

costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. unless the court throws out the entire lot, the house will vote to repeal whatever is left of obamacare. then, we need to enact common sense step-by-step reforms that protect jobs and protect access to the care americans need from a doctor they choose get a lower cost. i will take your questions. >> nancy pelosi said that this is diverting attention from issues like the transportation bill and undermining an attorney general that is trying to guarantee the right to vote in various states. do you have a response. >> -- do you have a response? >> i met with the conferees on the highway bill today. they have been heavily engaged. clearly, there is some movement that has been under way since the meeting that i had with

senator reid. we are continuing to do our work. the american people deserve the truth about what happened -- deserve the truth about what happened with fast and furious. the family deserves answers about why their son was killed in an operation run by the u.s. government. in this statement -- "our son lost his life protecting this nation and it is very disappointing that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves, rather than revealing the truth about fast and furious." this is a very serious matter. until yesterday, it was just the department of justice that we were concerned about.

clearly, at the 11th hour wind 50th minute, the white house decided to inject themselves into this, where there had been no indications that the white house has been involved at all. there have been lots of claims about how many times this white house in that white house in the past have invoked the issue of executive privilege. a privilege that has preserved -- that is preserved for the president and his top advisor spend their deliberation. why the white house would invoke executive privilege over department of justice documents raises very serious questions. >> knowing what you know now, should attorney-general holder resign? >> we are trying to get to the facts and the truth about where this program started, white continued, and why an american

border agent was killed as a result of it. we want the truth. we want to get to the bottom of this. the house will vote next week. unless these documents that we are looking for are in fact turned over. this is about getting to the truth for the american people and the family. it is not about personalities. >> you say this is very serious. there are some that say we should negotiate. are they not looking at this correctly? is there dissention in your conference over this? >> the negotiation that was proposed by the attorney general is that we should except some documents of his choosing and as a result of him turning over some documents of his choosing, that we would never, ever pursue contempt.

this is not hard the rational basis for negotiation, nor is it a reasonable attempt at turning over the documents that we have been asking for. i have been heavily involved in this for months. making sure that everything was done and that what we were asking for was reasonable. i understand their is a criminal investigation going on and i do not want to do anything that would interrupt criminal investigations. the documents relating to why they sent a letter in february 4 of last year, why someone retracted the letter, with the deliberations are have nothing to do with the criminal trial. those documents are important

for the truth to come out. >> i know what the attorney general said. there's some that seem to say -- >> as more members understand all the facts as i know them and as chairman eisa -- issa knows them, this was done with plenty of deliberation and time for the administration to work with us to resolve this issue. >> some of the challengers that your party supports will not sign the pledge. one person thinks for party has no support. is the press not as important? >> mr. norquist will come up

here and have a conversation about -- the american people understand that raising taxes in this economy is the wrong thing to do if we are serious about creating jobs. we're going to move our extensions next month, all on our principles for tax reform. listen, i have been around the political process for a long time. i have never voted to raise taxes. but, when -- we have a big job to do. i am not interested in raising taxes. but, we can discuss whether loophole closings or tax increases -- i hope they resolve it all. if you -- >> i know you believe spending is the problem. given that some members of your party are showing decisions to sign the pledge, you have shown willingness to raise tax revenues as part of an effort to

bring down the debt. do you feel more members of your party are coming around to that? do you think that will make finding common ground on this issue easier? >> negotiations with the president, i have additional revenues on the table. revenues out of economic growth, more efficient tax systems, opportunity costs. listen, i do believe that there is a way to resolve this. at this point, giving this government more revenue would be like giving a cocaine addict too much to quit -- who wants to quit more cocaine. we have to deal with the entitlement crisis that is terrorizing the existence of these programs. that conversation will continue well into next year. >> the believe that by pursuing

the citation, you will distract from jobs? many people are saying this is getting you off message. >> our focus has been on jobs. members of congress take an oath of office to uphold the constitution and laws of the u.s. when those laws are broken, the congress has a responsibility to provide oversight of the executive branch. we are pursuing a legitimate concern about making sure the american people know the truth behind fast and furious. >> if there are negotiations up fast and furious -- >> chairman issa as a better handle on the types of documents that are needed. i will do everything to help facilitate a conversation, but i do believe is his

responsibility and he is in a better position to understand exactly what documents he needs. >> there is a lot of concern that this class does not just take effect on january 1. particularly, there will be decisions made and that could affect the economy. are you committed to turning off the sequestered before the elections? >> listen, we have done everything we have to -- everything we can to try to replace the sequestered. that is what the house acted to move a bill to the senate to make sure that these reductions, which are coming and will come before the first of the year, do not happen. we are concerned that you cannot wait for the department -- you cannot wait until january 2 and flip a switch and fined $50 billion worth of savings next year. i am convinced we will see pink

slips coming month after month as we get up to january 2. if the sequester is replaced. it is time for the senate to act. by the way, we have not heard anything out of the senate. we have not heard anything of the president. maybe instead of campaigning every day, he could be concerned about the security of the american people and concerned about the job picture in our country by working with the congress to make sure the sequestered does not go into effect. >> is grover norquist still a random person? [laughter] >> jay carney said the administration has nothing to hide from congress. the president has asserted executive privilege over document signed by the congress as part of -- saw by the

congress. here is a portion of the briefing. >> i wanted to talk about fast and furious. in the standouts, there is some arrangement reached between the white house and congress. could you tell us if there is an effort under way between the white house and congress? >> i can tell you that we certainly would like to resolve this if there is a good faith desire to resolve it on the part of the house republicans. i think it is worth taking a step back. the beginning of this year, republicans announced that one of their chief legislative and strategic priorities was to investigate the administration and damage the president ticked a political point.

we are nine days away from the expiration of federal transportation funding which guarantees jobs for 1 million construction workers because congress has not pass the country take the transportation bill. we are 10 days away from student loan rates doubling. instead of creating jobs are helping the middle class, congressional republicans are focused on this politically motivated fishing expedition. the problem with gun walking was a field-driven tactic that dated back to the previous administration and it was this administration's attorney general who ended it. the attorney general has accommodated congressional investigators, including producing 7600 pages of documents and testifying at 11 congressional hearings. yes, republicans insist on moving forward with -- that is

purely political. given the economic challenges facing the country, we believe house republican should instead be engaged in efforts to create jobs at brodie economy rather than political theater. >> you think it is political theater. is there something happening behind the scenes to resolve this? >> the attorney general requested a meeting with the chairman of the committee and while i would refer you to the department of justice for more details, made an effort to reach a resolution on this matter. it is certainly -- we believe worth the effort of trying to find a solution, but we have to have a willingness on the other side to work with us to find a solution. it is important for the public to know -- the public is not aware of this matter.

every document related to the fast and furious operation has long since been investigators. and as i noted before, this is an operation and a tactic that was generated in the field during the previous administration that, when it was discovered by the attorney general, when he became aware of it, he ended it in this administration. he referred it to the inspector general for investigation. it has been recognized by the attorney general and others in this administration, including the president, as a flawed tactic that needed to be ended and investigated, and this administration has done that. what this is about, after all this time and all these documents and all the testimony, is an attempt to score political points. i think it's a -- speaking of

flaws -- a flawed attempt, because it is this approach i think that explains at least in part why this congress has the lowest public approval ratings of any in memory, if not history. so that is our view of the matter. >> last question. can you clarify or elaborate on what you mean by every document has been provided when the president has asserted privilege on some documents? >> correct. the issue here is about after- the-fact, internal documents that have to do with the executive branch's ability to operate appropriately and independently in response to congressional investigations and media inquiries. everything that has been -- every piece of documentation that relates to the operation itself -- if the interest here is in the operation -- how it came about, its origination, how it was approved, why such a flawed tactic was employed, that has been provided to

congressional investigators. the assertion of privilege has to do with the protection of the executive branch's capacity, enshrined in the constitution in the separation of powers, to deliberate independently and respond appropriately to congressional investigators' requests and to media inquiries. i would note also that, as i said, the attorney general referred this manner, when he learned of it and put a stop to it, to the inspector general. the inspector general has access to all the documents at issue here, and is investigating at the attorney general's request. reuters and then jake.

this -- >> there are hundreds of faceless, innocent mexican citizens web been murdered as a result of this. the only thing that we knew was that guns from american gun dealers were going into mexico and causing all of these problems when, really, the government was sanctioning these sales and sending them to mexico. >> she is interviewed by major garrett tonight at 9:00, part of booktv. >> grover norquist was on capitol hill on thursday to speak with republican lawmakers. senate democratic leadership held a briefing on what they see is problems with mr. norquist's pledge not to raise taxes. this is about 15 minutes.

>> sorry to hold everyone up. we had to make sure it turned out ok. it dealt with the rural water system. i felt a surge russia not be treated any different. anyways, sorry to keep you waiting. the leader of the republican party is appeared today. he may be surprised to learn it is not mitt romney. you know who it is. it is grover norquist.