the bill, again, s-1945, sponsored by senator dick durbin of illinois and senator grassley of iowa. this committee hearing markup session should last until about 11:30 eastern this morning. there's senator durbin. later this morning we'll bring you live coverage from the conservative political action conference here in washington. >>> that is judiciary committee chairman patrick leahy addressing his chair getting ready to gavel in this markup hearing on legislation requiring televising supreme court proceedings. >> senator grassley, senator blumenthal, senator feinstein. senator schumer moment ago. we have six in the room, a couple others out in the anteroom so i think we'll check if you have no objection and get started. >> we should get started. >> usually once we get started people show. today the committee can move forward with the hearing we held last month. three would fill emergency judicial vacancyies ies in illi and also today we have an emergency procedure. senator grassley has asked to proceed on the bipartisan bill to televise the united states supreme court proceedings.

senator grassley as well. the supreme court considers many important things and soon they will consider the affordable health care act. a measure which literally touches the lives of every single american, every family, every business. i think it's important that as our hearings and deliberation on that measure were open to the public, the actual arguments before the supreme court should be open as well. on this point there is bipartisan agreement. despite many of our strong disagreements on the merits and constitutionality of that particular piece of legislation. democrats and republicans from both chambers have urged the court to permit live video and audio broadcasts of the health care reform arguments. i want to thank senator grassley and senator blumenthal particularly for their leadership in these efforts. some argue that the supreme court is already sufficiently open and accessible because the court releases audio recordings at the end of the week, makes written opinions available on the website, and of

grassley. mr. sessions. mr. graham. i have no proxy. >> no proxy. [ inaudible ] . >> by proxy. [ inaudible ] >> mr. chairman. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, the votes are 11 yea, 7 nay. >> thanks for holding back. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have opposed this in the past, i see no reason to change my point of view. and let me give you my opinion. the court does not want this, they may not want to speak out as a whole, but justice scalia, rehnquist, kennedy and have opposed it. so five justices have opposed it. i don't believe we should tell the supreme court what to do. we are separate branches of government. and i do not believe the justice is better because it's televised. and i have seen actual situations where in my view it is worse where it is televised. i understand that there is a move to do this, this bill does have a narrow exception, except that exception is so narrow, that it is rarely used. i believe it has opened the door to television and in my observations, when this reaches the trial court, you see prosecuto

lawmaker chuck grassley he wants nights' award for his stance on a law called the violence against women act which provides funding for investigations prosecutions of domestic violence against women i know it's one of those rare occurrences where the name of bill actually adds up to what it does but the bill was originally introduced by then senator joe biden and was passed into law under president clinton in one thousand nine hundred four since then it's been reauthorized twice by congress once in two thousand again in two thousand and five both times there were no objections plenty of bipartisan support a no brainer and the bill hasn't faced objections because it's been pretty successful that's for thus far according to the huffington post the reporting of domestic violence has increased by fifty one percent that's not saying that domestic violence is necessarily up or rather a sign that women are feeling more comfortable coming forward to police about the abuse well now the a.w.a. as it's called is up for reauthorization again with a few modifications designed to place an emphasis on

a powerful privacy law that was written and passed by chairman leahy and grassley. i want to use this hearing to make sure that everyone knows what the video privacy protection act is and how it protects our privacy and our civil liberties. i want to look at how we might update the video privacy protection act and i want to look at a specific bill to amend the law that was just passed in the house. 25 years ago, judge robert bork was before the full senate judiciary committee as a nominee to the supreme court. during that hearing, a local reporter ask judge bork's video store for a record of the movies he had watched. there was no law against it, so the video store gave him the records and the reporter wrote a story about them. the senate judiciary committee was split on judge bork's nomination but it was unanimous in its outrage over what hat happened. there wasn't anything particularly memorable about judge bork's movie rentals. in fact, they consisted primarily of mysteries and caper films. but that wasn't the point. the movies we choose to watch are our business

. >> senator grassley? >> senator wyden brought up the issue that i was going to start with on the air guard. so i don't expect you to say any more than what you said to him but i would like to make a comment about your answer. and that would be this, is that you probably correctly quoted the secretary of the air force, that it was, that the active duty had taken probably as much as he can. and so something had to come from the guard. but we got the distinct impression with our meeting of the iowa delegation in regard to the des moines 132nd fighter wing being removed. that, that while the last time they went through cuts, the air force did it and now it was the guard's turn. as opposed to being what senator wyden, having data-driven. we asked for a lot of this data. but we're not getting anything. and we heard from the national guard burg, of which fighter wing to cut. after the decision had been made to take the cut out of the air national guard. so we're looking for the statistical basis, the data basis,

senator grassley's remarks are stunning. stunning indictment of the house republicans in terms of their action on this bill. he said, and i know my colleagues have read this into the record already. senator grassley said, it's astonishing and extremely disappointing that the house would fulfill wall street's wishes by killing this provision. that would be the provision on political intelligence. the senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that's behind the scenes. if the senate language is too broad as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? i hope to see senator grassley said, a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a house-senate conference and other means. if congress delays action, as mr. conyers has said, if congress delays action, said senator grassley, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows just the way wall street likes it. well, the senator's statement is very widely covered. "the hill" today has a big front page. grassley

>> again, i completely agree with senator grassley. the sec and generally speaking, the financial regulate ors have enormaus power. we don't need action up and downed power. they just haven't done the job. we need new people to come in there who are actually going to do the job of prosecuting and enforcing these rules. >> one of the people trying to prosecutor, new york's attorney general knight snyderman. >> this for the mers violations is so long over new. it's the electronic mortgage registry, a gigantic scheme to evade taxes and commit perjury and fraud by, you know, failing to properly register mortgages. you have 12 million foreclosures here in new york state and they are all merged as a plaintiff. the company has 70 employees. they couldn't possibly be the real plaintiff foreclosure cases. it's long other than dew. it's incredible it took this long for somebody to move against these banks for setting up this registry but it's a great thing that he did. >> is that perhaps the only route the public has to hope state officials will

i would also put in the record senator grassley is statement -- senator grassley's statement in the record. >> thank you. i appreciate your work on this, mr. chairman. we had a very good hearing on this. we had a spirited debate about this at the hearing. many good witnesses and a few things that i use from that hearing held to respond to what senator feinstein said. first of all, the i what chief justice testified that the concerns of some people about televised court proceedings have not materialized in iowa. they have cameras in the courtroom, all of their hearings are televised, have been able to move forward as a court, and they have seen it as a positive thing. and this is true of other courts inland print the other piece about this, and i do have sympathy -- courts in the land. the other piece about this, and i do have sympathy that there have been issues with that and a judge should be able to make that kind of decision. but i think you are in a whole different land when you're talking about the supreme court of our land and that is the u.s. supreme court. you do not have the issue

it might have been through a letter i received from senator grassley february 9th. i'm not sure if it was contained in there. there were certainly media reports in february. i'm not sure exactly how i found out about the term "fast and furious." >> would it be fair from your own knowledge to say neither lenny brewer, as head of the criminal division nor jason winestein did anything to stop the program after they learned what it was about. >> stop the program. >> fast and furious prior to brian terry's debt? >> they both admitted they were aware of operation wide receiver and connected the techniques used in wide receiver to operation fast and furious and as a result did not take any action in that regard. both admitted that was a mistake. >> let's go through this, i think in my limited time i want to make sure we deal with wide receiver versus fast and furious. as of today, do your law enforcement authorities, such as the atf see a straw purchase, rather than arrest them at the door with no evidence, follow them to the next location? >> see them -- >> in other words

senator grassley's remarks are stunning. a stunning indictment of the house republicans in terms of their action on this bill. he said, and i know my colleagues have read this into the record already. senator grassley said, it's astonishing and extremely disappointing that the house would fulfill wall street's wishes by killing this provision. that would be the provision on political intelligence. the senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that's behind the scenes. if the senate language is too broad as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? i hope to see senator grassley said, a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a house-senate conference and other means. if congress delays action, as mr. conyers has said, if congress delays action, said senator grassley, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows just the way wall street likes it. well, the senator's statement is very widely covered. "the hill" today has a big front page. grassle

thank you, senator grassley for co-sponsoring this measure. arlen specter made senate history sitting at the witness table. he admonished me for not moving this bill more quickly. [laughter] i am happy to say that i got the message and i have conveyed it to senator leahy. we are here. supreme court justices are appointed for life 10. they make the decisions that changed the lives of americans. the so-called public hearings of the supreme court are open only to 250 americans on a real-time basis. just how important is it in a democracy to bring the proceedings of an important american institution into full view of the american people? let me read this -- "people in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult to accept what they cannot observe." those are the words of 1986. for too long, the american people have been prohibited from observing the proceedings of the supreme court. think about our extra effort to make certain that the nominations process and hearings before this committee on separate co

but this time around some people are objecting to the the authorization efforts and senator chuck grassley is leading the charge republican from i was says that he has problems with three of the provisions for stars he's opposed to the part of the would give protections to abuse victims which is designated to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation he said quote these substitute creates so many new programs for undeserved populations that are risks losing focus on helping victims of every group is a priority no group is a priority so chuck is one of those conservatives who thinks of the community as undeserving of being protected from violence and would seriously but chuck doesn't just have a problem with the provision he's also upset about expanding the availability of visas for abuse victims who are also undocumented immigrants see according to the pop politician the way is meant to protect victims of violence it shouldn't be an avenue to expand immigration law or give additional benefits to people here unlawfully and another insane comment from chuck animists. to take

senator derbin and senator grassley have asked to proceed on their bipartisan bill to televise the united states supreme court proceedings. now we have the power to use technology to allow greater access to public proceedings of the government so all americans can witness the quality of justice in this country, not just those of us who had the opportunity to be physically at one of the hearings or which each one of us has the opportunity to do what he wants, some of us are members of the bar of the supreme court but that leaves 320-some-odd-million americans that don't get to see it. and with technology, it would deepen americans' understanding of the workings of the supreme court. all americans and the continuing importance of the constitution. this is especially important at a time when decisions by the supreme court are greatly affecting the daily liveses of hard working americans. this important case will decide whether people's elected officials have the power under our constitution to enact legislation related to how to ensure the market to make health care more affordable. to expan

. >> senator grassley? >> mr. secretary, the first question i'm going to ask you to respond to in writing, because i want it to be a longer or whatever it takes for you to answer it, but it comes from the president's proposal for a fiscal responsibility fee. the president's been asking this in his budgets for three straight years, imposing a fee on t.a.r.p. recipients to help recoup the costs of t.a.r.p. when the president first proposed this in 2010 for fiscal year 2011, i asked cbo and joint tax to analyze who would bear the brunt of this new fee. cbo responded quote, the cost of proposed fee would ultimately be borne to varying degrees by an institution's customers and employees and investors. so he's proposing the same thing this year and so i would like to include in the record, mr. chairman, the questions i asked cbo and their responses, and then what i would like to have you do is read that and indicate if you agree or disagree with cbo's analysis, and particularly if you disagree with any of re that you pr

it's open. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator grassley. >> thank you, chairman nelson. thank you, chairman bernanke. i want to ask you more about the shock to the economy that you have been discussing. you talk about the pace of the recovery being slow and particularly for the millions of people who are hurting, unemployed, underemployed, and that all of this really comes together as part of a sluggish expansion that left the country vulnerable and in shock. so i can see plenty of shock. the payroll tax debate bogging down into a quagmire and talking about two months or another short term effort. we mentioned europe as another one. we mentioned the question of sequestration and, you know, to me, that alone puts a very negative spectacle out because it would mean that in a lame duck session of 2012 in congress, uyou'd see the flailig that you did after 2010. so my first question to you on the shock issue is doesn't this serve to shock our economic system just to have all this delay and week after week of bickering and inability to get decisions on the payroll taxes for o

grassley: thank you. thank you. so what i'm telling my colleagues here is that we just have terrible lack of cooperation from the justice department. the justice department is not only thumbing its nose at a few members of the senate, they're doing it to the entire congress of the united states. when we know there's 80,000 pages of documents and they only give us 6,000 pages, when there's 100,000 e-mails and we get a handful of e-mails. and then why would they be so mysterious, wanting to puss -- put a disk under our door on a friday night, giving it two hours before? what sort of attitude is that of the justice department towards the cooperation that you ought to have with our filling our constitutional role of oversight? so i guess -- i'd say it hardly any cooperation whatsoever that we get from the justice department. now, even though we get a dribble here and a dribble there, even though we get a c.d. under the door instead of very open face-to-face receiving documents, what we got last friday did reveal further

senator chuck grassley. >> thank you. jon: republican of iowa.on on preparations to end u.s. involvement in afghanistan. we have jennifer griffin at the pentagon where plan something apparently underway to end combat operations sometime next year and in washington, catherine herridge on efforts to broker a peace deal with the taliban by moving some of their leaders held at gitmo somewhere else. we'll begin with plans to wind down the combat operation. obviously the stories are not mutually exclusive. that's why we wanted to bring jennifer and catherine on together. jennifer, what are you hearing in the halls of pentagon? >> reporter: there is no good explanation from the pentagon why defense secretary leon panetta decided to make proannouncement on route to brussels, about the end of nato's combat role in afghanistan when he did. the announcement was supposed to be made in may at a brussels meeting in chicago. the white house and panetta were on the same page about this announcement we're told you about nato leaders such as secretary-general, the

grassley, senator grassley jind chorus of watchdog groups and democrats crid criticizing the house version- criticizing the house version. president for citizens of responsibility and ethics in washington said the cantor provision is a sham and aimed at tricking americans into thinking he's dealing with the issue. that was a quote. and so whether you're talking about "politico," "washington times," "the washington post," associated press, "roll call" or whether you're just talking about members of the house democratic caucus or citizens across the nation, we did pass a version of the stock act today, it was a weakened version, it wasn't good enough, and, mr. speaker, if americans across this country decided that they were going to demand that there be a conference committee in which the stronger provisions were adopted, i think that would be a very good thing. the americans across this country, i think they agree with what's written in this "the washington post" article. they write, a scaledback ethics bill headed toward likely passage on the house thursday despite complaints from senators

i agree with senator grassley. it's another example of the sec failing to do its you have to think about the context of this. imagine a single mother who gets caught for committing welfare fraud in someplace like riverside county california. she is going to lose her kids. they are going to take her kids away and put them in foster care. here, you have this guy gantic companies like jp morgan chase, they are cereally caught and they are allowed to continue engaging in the same kind of business activities and they give them special waivers to go out and raise money? it's unbelievable we do not show the same kind of consideration to other kinds of citizens. >> the sec, therefore, is not using its powers, deliberately doesn't that blow a hole in president obama's argument that the sec should have more power? >> again, i completely agree with senator grassley. the sec and generally speaking, the financial regulate ors have enormaus power. we don't need action up and downed power. they just haven't done the job. we need

now, senator grassley calling this an astonishingly and deeply disappointing move by the house of representatives, and eric cantor's spokesperson saying that the provision was slashed because it was quote extremely broad and added to the unintended consequences of the provision would have on the first amendment rights. democrats critical and asking for more inpla nation of what the house republicans were doing, and louise slaughter is former chairman and now ranking democratic committee, and she says that the things that she feared greatly to come upon us are coming about because this bill, she says has been totally weakened. she spoke to the reporters on capitol hill about this, and also some of the provisions that she wants in this stock act. >> when writing their own version of the stock act, eric cantor and the house leadership did not consult the bipartisan coalition that has championed this bill and over the week neither i nor mr. walls were asked to contribute to the final product and nor was our leader consulted in any way. and despite championing the bill for six years, i was left comple

than 1,300 pages of correspondence relating just to the issue of how the original letter to senator grassley came to be drafted. these documents support the account of senior department of justice officials that they relied on factual assertions from the u.s. attorney's office in phoenix and from atf. within two months of the february 4th, 2011, letter to the senator, dmt officials told committee staff that the letter was unintentionally inaccurate

grassley told the daily caller, quoteing now, the standards for tax exemption deserve review as a parttewardship on the part of congress and should be considered as part of any comprehensive tax reform. we asked media matters to provide somebody to respond to today's daler -- daley caller's pace. the daily reported column is based on e-mails, one of which read we should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of fox news anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staffs so the moral of the lessones, don't party it up too hard. >> i hear you. thank you, doug. >> the president touring a unionized boeing plant in washington state. a south carolina lawmaker calling that a big slap in the face to workers in his state. [ horn honks ] ♪ ♪ can see that you're busy... but you were gonna help us crunch the numbers for accounts receivable today. i mean i know that this is important. . let's be clear. they are but this is important too. [ man ] the receivables. [ male announcer ] michelin knows it's better for xerox to help manage their finan

now i predict, i saw senator grassley, talking about investigating this. he didn't like it either but an actual congressional investigation that will make news. >> jon: we'll keep an eye on it here. time for another break. if you see evidence of media bias, e-mail us. are the media overplaying the coverage of iran's nuclear threat? >> new concerns about iran's nuclear threat gives way to increased media attention. but now the media are blamed for beating the drum for war. and it's lin for the win. jeremy lin's story makes headlines but could all the attention draw a foul. find out next. nnouncer ] all stuffed up? simple relief is here. introducing robitussin® nasal relief pills. the right relief for nasal congestion...in a pill. ♪ ne from robitussin®. relief made simple. woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you -- including the fact th

it might have been through a letter i received from senator grassley on february 9th. i'm not sure if it was contain inside there. there were certainly media reports about it in february. again, i'm not sure exactly how i found out about the term fast and furious. >> would it be fair from your own knowledge to say that neither lanny breuer as head of the criminal division nor jason weinstein did anything to stop the program after they learned of what it was about? >> stop the program -- >> fast and furious. prior to brian terry's death. >> yeah. i mean, they both admitted that they were aware of operation wide receiver and never connected the techniques that were used in wide receiver to operation fast and furious, and as a result did not take any action in that regard. and both have admitted that that was a mistake. >> let's go through this, i think in my limited time i want to make sure we do deal with wide receiver versus fast and furious. as of today do your law enforcement authorities such as the atf have the ability to see a straw purchase and rather than arrest

it's worth $402 million a year and it's totally unregulated so senator grassley and i had been sort ofator lahey to try to get the bill into conversation. we think it's terribly important that we do this. >> jon: right. >> now, the house bill was hijacked. we knew nothing about it. we had had a committee meeting once which cantor stopped and said we would do some more about this later. after the senate passed the bill there was this great tphrurfully the house to do something. he took the bill and made it into a suspension, which takes two-thirds vote but doesn't give you the opportunity to amend it which cut us out again from doing anything about political intelligence. >> jon: now, congresswoman, i'm going to have to stop you. everything that you just described sounds insane to me. >> it is. you're absolutely right. >> jon: it sounds insane. >> it is insane. >> jon: enough idea of we would like to stop congress people from committing an act that if you are not in congress is illegal to commit. >> and people go to jail for it. >> jon: and people go to jail for it and yet what you're s

senator grassley's exactry right about that. we have to show the american people that we in congress play by the same rules that they do, that we're not above the american people, so when we go home to our districts as i do every week. every weekend i'm home. people have faith in us. they have confidence in the institution of congress, and that they know as we should that we play by the same rules that they do. and i want to thank congresswoman slaughter and congressman walz for organizing this special order tonight. i am very, very proud. this is only the second time i've done this since i've been in congress. this is my sixth year. i could not be more proud to come up here and speak on this important issue. i do it because of the people in iowa, people in my district tell me it's the right thing to do. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. thank you. . ms. slaughter: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from new yor

your response to senator grassley in regards to the bush tax cuts that may expire at the end of the year but isn't there another problem which is that they didn't pay for them? it's good in the short term but the long term is coming. to pay for it today, you're going to pay for it tomorrow. and you're going to pay with interest. isn't that also a problem to this equation? as you deal with tax policy, you have to pay for it, right? >> yes, senator. i was not endorsing anything -- >> i agree. >> i was saying the cumulative effect of all these things, explace of the payroll tax, explace of the bush tax cuts and other things, ektively would be a sharp change in the near fiscal position. i'm not saying don't pay for it. i'm saying do it over a long period of time but do it seriously. you don't want to push it off tomorrow. you want to make a credible and strong plan. >> that's right. i want to make sure that's in the discussion. i was one of those that supported the 4 trillion. i think wed noo to be aggressive. if you get an imbalance, you'll you'll have a direct impact. there are good signs.

on january 27th, senator grassley first asked department of justice about fast and furious and withinays we are given a false statement of facts denying that guns were ever allowed to walk. within days of that, we began to know that fast and furious was going to be difficult. that was more or less groundhog day a year ago. today is groundhog day again. this committee has lost its patience to wait longer. we will not wait until the next groundhog day to get answers for the american people and brian terry and others. on march 3rd, 2011, john dotson goes public. agent dotson is here today. he, too, deserves to have this nightmare of uncertainty, of having a temporary assignment, not being allowed to do the job for which he has dedicated his career put behind him. on october 11th, after months and months and months of this committee trying to get further documentation we issued subpoenas for documents. we were told two things. first of all, they are difficult and time consuming to give us. yet, ten times as many documents were provided to the inspector general. more than three times as ma

led in part by former senator arlen spector and now senator chuck grassley and now jerry connelly. >> that is right. the proponents of the bill are careful to point out it is not a partisan issue or ideological issue. it boils down to whether or not you think the congress should have the authority to, you know, mandate its will on the supreme court obviously under the separation of powers. there are some people who feel like that is not proper. diane feinstein, the democrat, is one of those people. she voted against the bill in the senate judiciary committee. the issue is making that statement of why are we telling them their business. if they don't want cameras, they shouldn't have cameras. why not let them make that decision? >> if this passes by the house and senate, it doesn't force the supreme court to place cameras inside the chamber. >> what it would do is allow the supreme court to decide. first of all, this would only be for proceedings that are open to the public. oral arguments where, you

the event honored cancer survivor and advocate barbara grassley. our parent company comcast, nbc universal, sponsored the event. >>> a new report says nine out of ten of us are eating over twice as much sodium as we should be. most of it is not coming from the salt shaker either. the centers for disease control and prevention says that much of the salt intake comes from what we eat, from when we eat out. the salt comes from lunchmeats, pizza, fresh and processed poultry, soups, cheeseburgers, cheese, pasta, and bread. the cdc suggests eating out less and eating more fruits and vegetables. always the advice. more fruits and vegetables. >> bacon double cheeseburger not a good idea. >> probably not a great idea. good but not a great idea. >>> late night talk show host jimmy fallon turned the white house into playground. >> the greed >> the comedian joined the first lady for her let's move campaign. >> we'll start with a stair race. you ready? >> i was

barbara grassley, our parent company, comcast universal, sponsored that event.ring rickey minor tonight, jay welcomes --

let me start by echoing the comments of senator grassley. i want to compliment you on the decision that you have taken to enhance the transparency of the fattah's activities. i know you've put a lot of thought into this and advocated this for a long time and i have long shared your view that it's better for our economy and for everyone involved if the fed does operate with greater transparency. specifically i like the fact that you have articulated the target. we could have long been the interesting discussions about what exactly that should be but the fact that he or specify a number is constructive and so i want to thank you for the development. i want to talk a little bit about the dual mandate that you have to contend with and then of these combined simultaneously objectives of providing full employment and maintaining price stability. >> you said if i think you have it right the fed is through the monetary policy can control inflation over the long run, but cannot control unemployment. is that your characterization? so the thing that i'

. >>> senator grassley? >> i only have a couple questions before i do that, i want to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleagues about the so-called contraceptive rule. i think you got it very wrong the first try and you have a lot more work to do. my question deals with whistle blowers. first question does. and of course, i made the point that i wouldn't be able to perform my constitutional oversight of the executive branch without federal whies he'll blowers, they shed light on matters that affect public safety and the public and risk losing their jobs, they expose incompetence and promote reform take leads better government, has done a lot of good. the fda faces accusations that it monitored nine fda scientists personal e-mail accounts. however, the health and human services office of inspector general concluded the employees did not leak genuinely classified information. instead it looks like fda monitored the accounts because the whistle blowers were talking to the office of the special cou

certainly senator grassley would say the same thing when, in fact, he was told he didn't have subpoena authority, he wasn't the chairman. it's the reason he originally came to this committee, so that we could begin the process of getting what he was denied in the senate. >> well, i can say this. i was the one who made the determination that we were going to release that february 4th material, the deliberative material. and it was never brought to my attention that we had the things that you just said. the decision i made was based solely on what i thought was the right thing to do and without any notion in my mind that there was coercion -- not even coercion in a negative way. that there was the threat of criminal prosecution or anything like that. my determination was made only on what i thought was right given the provision -- the regrettable provision of inaccurate information. others might have known about that. i did not. and i was the one who made the call. >> i don't want to belabor this point, but i do want to make a point. i signed a subpoena october 12th. it was to you. so th

letter from the department of justice and we've already made reference to it, and this is to senator grassley, the response dated january 27th, 2011 and january 31st, 2011 to acting director kenneth nelson of the department of bureau, tobacco, firearms, explosives. we thank you for the support. the allegation described in your january 27th letter that atf sanctioned or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported it to mexico is false. atf makes every effort to interdict weapons purchased illegally. then on that very same day, below is a synopsis of assistant attorney general lanny brewer's meetings with the mexican attorney general's office, mexico' federal police and the secretary of foreign relations. now who else is there? a.g. brewer, deputy teef mission, john feeley from the state department, daag blanco, kevin sudwell, all of these folks are here and at the end of it, at the end of it, here's what they come up with. aag brewer told ventura there had been a proposed increase in the u.s. sentencing or guidelines for straw purchasers. a