General Info
Press Release from the St Patrick Society of the Quad Cities. PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Carey Ralston   
Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:13
Annual search for the Irish Mother of the Year. All nominations must be an original letter of approximately 150 words. A nominee should be involved in family, church and community, have a good sense of humor and demonstrate her pride in her Irish ancestry. Nominations must be received by the St. Patrick Society no later than March 2, 2012. Mail nomination to: The St. Patrick Society, Quad Cities, U.S.A. at P.O. Box 4487, Davenport, IA 52808

 

Applications for the GRAND PARADE XXVll-March 17, 2012- are now available. Contact John Scally (309)-788-2341 for complete details. (The GRAND PARADE is at its limit for vehicles of any kind) Parade applications must be received by the St. Patrick Society no later than March 2, 2012.

 

The St. Patrick Society, Quad Cities, U.S.A. announces a $1000 scholarship to be awarded March 16, 2012. Applications are available from high school counselors, online www.stpatsqc.com , or from Matt Wissing at (563)-265-9353. Eligible applicants must be related to a current St. Patrick Society member and must evidence the ability to pursue a college or university education, as substantiated by grade point average, class standing and ACT/SAT scores. Involvement in extra curricular school and community activities will also be considered. Letter of recommendation from educators, counselors, employers and others are helpful. Applications are not judged on a basis of need. Scholarship applications must be received by the St. Patrick Society no later than March 2, 2012.

 

For more information on the St. Patrick Society of the Quad Cities please visit www.stpatsqc.com or visit our Facebook Page-St Patrick Society Quad Cities USA

 
Pressure Placed on Immigration Adjudicators to Approve Immigration Benefits PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Tuesday, 10 January 2012 14:47

Friday, January 6, 2012

Senator Chuck Grassley today said that a draft copy of a report he requested from the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General’s office confirmed the accounts he heard from whistleblowers about the undue pressure placed on Immigration Service Officers to approve immigration benefits.

Here is Grassley’s statement.  A copy of Grassley’s request to the Inspector General, as well as letters to Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano can be found here.

“Whistleblowers have been complaining for several years that leadership in Washington, D.C. and immediate supervisors were placing inappropriate pressure on immigration adjudicators to simply find a way to approve benefits.  This ‘Get to yes’ attitude doesn’t serve the American people who expect a thorough and complete analysis.  When a quarter of the immigration service officers felt pressure to approve questionable applications, and 90 percent of respondents felt they didn’t have sufficient time to complete interviews of those who seek benefits, there are serious and widespread problems that need to be addressed by the department.  This comes down to the safety and security of the American people, which should not be compromised by any means.

“The Inspector General took to heart the concerns he heard from Immigration Service Officers, and he made some serious and thoughtful recommendations.  I’m particularly interested in the implementation of recommendations by the Inspector General to develop standards to permit more time for an adjudicator’s review of case files, develop a policy to establish limitations for managers and attorneys when they intervene in the adjudication of specific cases, and issue policy that ends any informal appeals process and the special review of denied cases.  These get at the heart of the whistleblowers’ allegations, and would go a long way to changing the ‘Get to yes’ culture that prevails at the agency.”

 
Administration Ignores 90 Years of Legal Advice from DoJ, Senators Question Role of DOJ in Role on Recess Appointments Ruling PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Tuesday, 10 January 2012 14:42

Friday, January 6, 2012

Senators Press Administration on Ignoring 90 Years of Legal Advice from Justice Department

 

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley is leading Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in questioning the administration’s decision to ignore more than 90 years of legal precedent in making four controversial recess appointments while the Senate remained in session.

The members argue that the Justice Department, including the Office of Legal Counsel, has clearly said that a congressional recess must be longer than three days – and perhaps at least as long as ten— in order for a recess appointment to be constitutional.  This position has become the stated position of the executive branch, in cases before the Supreme Court and other legal filings, regarding the required length of time for a recess in order for the President to make a recess appointment.

“The Justice Department and the White House owe it to the American people to provide a clear understanding of the process that transpired and the rationale it used to circumvent the checks and balances promised by the Constitution,” Grassley said.  “Overturning 90 years of historical precedent is a major shift in policy that should not be done in a legal opinion made behind closed doors hidden from public scrutiny.”

In their letter, the members wrote that they were, “Seeking information about what role, if any, the Department or OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) played in developing, formulating, or advising the White House on the decision to make these recess appointments.  Further, we want to know whether the Department has formally revised or amended past opinions issued by the Department on this matter.”

The letter continued to explain that the questions were necessary, “Given the Department’s historical position on this issue and the President’s unprecedented decision to unilaterally reject the years of Department precedent and Executive Branch practice.”

The letter was signed by Senate Judiciary Committee members Grassley, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Here’s a copy of the text of the letter.  A signed copy of the letter can be found here.

 

January 6, 2012

Via Electronic Transmission

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530

 

Dear Attorney General Holder:

On Wednesday, President Obama deviated from over 90 years of precedent established by the Department of Justice (Department), and the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), by recess appointing four individuals to posts in the Administration, namely Richard Cordray as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three members of the National Labor Relations Board, despite the fact that the Senate has not adjourned under the terms of a concurrent resolution passed by Congress.  This action was allegedly based upon legal advice provided to the President by the Office of White House Counsel.  We write today seeking information about what role, if any, the Department or OLC played in developing, formulating, or advising the White House on the decision to make these recess appointments.  Further, we want to know whether the Department has formally revised or amended past opinions issued by the Department on this matter.

 

In 1921, Attorney General Daugherty issued an opinion to the President regarding recess appointments and the length of recess required for the President to make an appointment under Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  The Attorney General opined that “no one, I venture to say, would for a moment contend that the Senate is not in session when an adjournment [of 2 days] is taken.  Nor do I think an adjournment for 5 or even 10 days can be said to constitute the recess intended by the Constitution.”[1] The reasoning of the 1921 opinion was given affirmative recognition in subsequent opinions issued by the Department, including opinions issued in 1960,[2] 1992,[3] and 2001.[4]

 

The Department has also weighed in on the applicable time period for recess appointments in legal filings in federal courts.  In 1993, the Department filed a brief in the federal district court for the District of Columbia arguing, “If the recess here at issue were of three days or less, a closer question would be presented.  The Constitution restricts the Senate’s ability to adjourn its session for more than three days without obtaining the consent of the House of Representatives.”[5] Additionally, the Department, via the Office of the Solicitor General, argued in a 2004 brief to the Supreme Court, “To this day, official congressional documents define a ‘recess’ as ‘any period of three or more complete days—excluding Sundays—when either the House of Representatives or the Senate is not in session.”[6] This exact argument was also filed by the Solicitor General in another case during 2004.[7] Most recently, the Deputy Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court in 2010 that “the recess appointment power can work in – in a recess.  I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days.”[8]

 

Taken together, these authorities by the Department clearly indicate the view that a congressional recess must be longer than three days – and perhaps at least as long as ten[9]— in order for a recess appointment to be constitutional.  These various authorities have reached this conclusion for over 90 years and have become the stated position of the Executive Branch, including multiple representations before the Supreme Court, regarding the required length of time for a recess in order for the President to make a recess appointment.

 

Given the Department’s historical position on this issue and the President’s unprecedented decision to unilaterally reject the years of Department precedent and Executive Branch practice, we ask that you provide responses to the following questions:

 

(1)   Was the Department asked to provide legal advice to the President regarding the decision to issue recess appointments of Cordray, Block, Flynn, and Griffin?  If so, was a formal opinion from the Department prepared?  If so, which office at the Department prepared the advice?  If such advice was prepared, when will it to be made public?

 

(2)   If a formal opinion was prepared, provide a copy of that opinion.

 

(3)   Attorney General Opinions, such as the one offered in 1921, are essentially the forerunner to opinions that today come from the Office of Legal Counsel, providing legal advice to the President and executive branch on questions of law.  Such OLC opinions are accorded, in the words of one former head of OLC, a “superstrong stare decisis presumption.”  Was the 1921 Attorney General Opinion withdrawn to make way for this new opinion of law that a recess appointment could be exercised when the Senate is in recess for only three days?

 

(4)   Has the Department formally withdrawn any other prior opinions issued by the Attorney General or OLC regarding the length of time a recess must extend prior to the President making a recess appointment?  If so, which ones were withdrawn or overturned?  Provide the basis for withdrawing or overturning those opinions.

 

(5)   Given this unprecedented maneuver of recess appointments taking place while the Senate stood in recess for only three days, would it be the Department’s position that the President could make a recess appointment during the weekend or when the Senate stands in recess from the evening of one weekday to the morning of the next weekday?

 

(6)   In 2010, the Deputy Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court that “recess has to be longer than 3 days” for the President to use the recess appointment power.  Does the Department continue to support this position?  If not, why not?

 

(7)   In the event that the Department has not withdrawn or overturned any of the prior opinions issued by the Attorney General or OLC, how does the Department reconcile those opinions with the decision of the President to make recess appointments while the Senate remained in Session?  If you believe the positions can be reconciled, provide a legal basis supporting this position.

 

(8)   Do you believe the President’s decision to make these recess appointments notwithstanding the absence of an adjournment resolution is constitutional?  Please explain.

 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and for responding no later than January 20, 2011.  We look forward to your detailed response.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

[1] 33 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 20, 25 (1921).

2 41 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 463, 468 (1960) (stating “I fully agree with the reasoning and with the conclusions reached in that opinion.”).

3 16 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 15, (1992) (concluding that the President could make a recess appointment during an intrasession recess from January 3, 1992, to January 21, 1992).

4 2001 OLC LEXIS 27.

5 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, at 24-26, Mackie v. Clinton, 827 F.Supp.56 (D.D.C. 1993), vacated as moot, 10 F.3d 13, (D.C. Cir. 1993).

6 Brief for the United States in Opposition, Miller v. United States, No. 04-38 (2004) available at http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0038.resp.pdf (last visited Jan. 5, 2012) (citing

7 See Brief for the United States in Opposition, Evans v. Stephens, No. 04-828 (2004) available at http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0828.resp.pdf (last visited Jan 5, 2012).

8 New Process Steel v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., No. 08-1457 pg. 50 (March 23, 2010), statement of Deputy Solicitor General Neil Katyal available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1457.pdf (last visited Jan. 5, 2012).

9 It is noteworthy to add that according to the Congressional Research Service, prior to President Obama’s recent recess appointments, no president in the past 30 years dating back to President Reagan, had made a recess appointment in a shorter recess than 11 days for an intersession recess and 10 days for an intrasession appointment.  See Henry B. Hogue, Congressional Research Service, Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions, pg. 3, Dec. 12, 2011.

 





[1] 33 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 20, 25 (1921).

[2] 41 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 463, 468 (1960) (stating “I fully agree with the reasoning and with the conclusions reached in that opinion.”).

[3] 16 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 15, (1992) (concluding that the President could make a recess appointment during an intrasession recess from January 3, 1992, to January 21, 1992).

[4] 2001 OLC LEXIS 27.

[5] Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, at 24-26, Mackie v. Clinton, 827 F.Supp.56 (D.D.C. 1993), vacated as moot, 10 F.3d 13, (D.C. Cir. 1993).

[6] Brief for the United States in Opposition, Miller v. United States, No. 04-38 (2004) available at http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0038.resp.pdf (last visited Jan. 5, 2012) (citing

[7] See Brief for the United States in Opposition, Evans v. Stephens, No. 04-828 (2004) available at http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2004-0828.resp.pdf (last visited Jan 5, 2012).

[8] New Process Steel v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., No. 08-1457 pg. 50 (March 23, 2010), statement of Deputy Solicitor General Neil Katyal available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1457.pdf (last visited Jan. 5, 2012).

[9] It is noteworthy to add that according to the Congressional Research Service, prior to President Obama’s recent recess appointments, no president in the past 30 years dating back to President Reagan, had made a recess appointment in a shorter recess than 11 days for an intersession recess and 10 days for an intrasession appointment.  See Henry B. Hogue, Congressional Research Service, Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions, pg. 3, Dec. 12, 2011.


 
Iowa Supreme Court Opinions PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Iowa Judicial Branch   
Tuesday, 10 January 2012 14:26
January 6, 2012

Notice: The opinions posted on this site are slip opinions only. Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure a party has a limited number of days to request a rehearing after the filing of an opinion. Also, all slip opinions are subject to modification or correction by the court. Therefore, opinions on this site are not to be considered the final decisions of the court. The official published opinions of the Iowa Supreme Court are those published in the North Western Reporter published by West Group.

Opinions released before April 2006 and available in the archives are posted in Word format. Opinions released after April 2006 are posted to the website in PDF (Portable Document Format).   Note: To open a PDF you must have the free Acrobat Reader installed. PDF format preserves the original appearance of a document without requiring you to possess the software that created that document. For more information about PDF read: Using the Adobe Reader.

For your convenience, the Judicial Branch offers a free e-mail notification service for Supreme Court opinions, Court of Appeals opinions, press releases and orders. To subscribe, click here.

NOTE: Copies of these opinions may be obtained from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Judicial Branch Building, 1111 East Court Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50319, for a fee of fifty cents per page.

No. 09–1170

STATE OF IOWA vs. LEE ALLEN BREUER

No. 11–0435

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. MATTHEW M. BOLES

No. 11–0799

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD vs. GORDON LILES

 
New F&F docs reiterate that DOJ knew about guns being walked in Wide Receiver PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Tuesday, 10 January 2012 09:36

Thursday, January 5, 2012

 

Senator Chuck Grassley released the following statement after the Justice Department provided additional documents related to the gunwalking scandal that has plagued this administration.  The documents were provided only after being issued a subpoena from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

 

“The documents dumped today by the Justice Department prove that this administration knew that guns were walked in Operation Wide Receiver, yet did nothing about it even as it was happening again in Fast and Furious.  I’ve said all along that walking guns is wrong, period.  I don’t care who did it.  We know that Lanny Breuer knew about guns being walked in Operation Wide Receiver, which is why he needs to do the right thing, hold himself accountable and resign.”

 

Here is a copy of Grassley’s statement given on the Senate floor outlining his call for Breuer’s resignation.

 

***Supporting documents can be found here.***

 

Prepared Floor Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Holding People Accountable for Gunwalking

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

 

I have been investigating ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious for almost 11 months now.

It is past time for accountability at the senior levels of the Justice Department.

That accountability needs to start with the head of the Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer.

I believe it is time for him to go, and I’d like to explain why I have come to that conclusion.

The Justice Department denied in a letter to me on February 4, 2011 that ATF had ever walked guns.

Mr. Breuer had been consulted in the drafting of that erroneous letter.

On May 2, 2011, rather than acknowledging the increasingly obvious facts and apologizing for its February letter, the Justice Department reiterated its denial.  Thus, when the Justice Department revealed on October 31 of this year that Breuer had known as far back as April 2010 about gunwalking at ATF, I was astounded.

This was a shocking revelation.

The controversy about gunwalking in Fast and Furious had been escalating steadily for 10 months.

The Justice Department had publicly denied to Congress that ATF would ever walk guns.

Yet, the head of the Criminal Division, Mr. Breuer knew otherwise and said nothing.

He knew that the same Field Division was responsible for walking guns in a 2006-2007 case called Wide Receiver.  But the real shock was how Mr. Breuer had responded within his own Department when that earlier gunwalking was first brought to his attention in April 2010.

He didn’t tell the Attorney General.

He didn’t tell the Attorney General’s Chief of Staff.

He didn’t tell the Deputy Attorney General.

He didn’t tell the Inspector General.

Instead, he simply told his deputy to meet with ATF leadership and inform them of the gunwalking “so they know the bad stuff that could come out.”[1]

Later, his deputy outlined a strategy to “announce the case without highlighting the negative part of the story and risking embarrassing ATF.”[2]

For 18 months, the embarrassing truth about ATF gunwalking in Wide Receiver and Breuer’s knowledge of it was successfully hidden.

It only came out because of the Congressional investigation into gunwalking in Fast and Furious.

The public outrage over Fast and Furious comes from average Americans who cannot understand why their own government would intentionally allow criminals to illegally buy weapons for trafficking to Mexico.

Next week, it will be one year since Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by bandits armed with guns as a direct result of this policy of letting guns walk.

The Terry family and all Americans who sympathize with their loss are rightfully outraged and astonished that our own government would do such a thing.

Yet when Mr. Breuer learned of a case where ATF walked guns in a very similar way, all he did was give ATF a “heads up.”

There seems to be a vast gulf between what outrages the American people and what outrages Lanny Breuer.  Mr. Breuer showed a complete lack of judgment by failing to object to the gunwalking that he knew about in April 2010.

If Mr. Breuer had reacted to gunwalking in Wide Receiver the way most Americans reacted to gunwalking in Fast and Furious, he would have taken steps to stop it and hold accountable everyone involved.

Fast and Furious might have been stopped in its tracks.

When Mr. Breuer came before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism the day after those revelations, I gave him a chance to explain himself.

I listened to what he had to say.

He told us that he “thought that … dealing with the leadership of ATF was sufficient and reasonable.”

Clearly, it was not sufficient.

Mr. Breuer even admitted as much, saying: “I regret that I did not alert others within the leadership of the Department of Justice to the tactics used in Operation Wide Receiver when they first came to my attention.”

He regrets not bringing gunwalking in Wide Receiver to the attention of the Attorney General, but what about bringing it to the attention of Congress?

He didn’t even step forward to express his regret until emails that detailed his knowledge were about to be produced under Congressional subpoena.

It is astounding that it took the public controversy over Fast and Furious to help the chief of the Criminal Division realize that walking guns is unacceptable.

He’d had nine months after the February 4 letter to step forward, correct the record, and come clean with the American public.

He’d had 18 months after learning of gunwalking in Wide Reciever to put a stop to it and hold people accountable.

He failed to do so.

So during his testimony, I asked him point blank if he reviewed that February 4 letter before it was sent to me.

His misleading answers to these questions form the basis for my second reason for calling on Mr. Breuer to resign.

He responded that he couldn’t say for sure but suggested that he did not review the letter.  He said: “[A]t that time, I was in Mexico dealing with the very real issues that we are all so committed to.”

Now, last Friday the Justice Department withdrew their February 4th letter to me because of its “inaccuracies.”

The department also turned over documents under subpoena about who participated in the drafting and review of the letter.

So imagine my surprise when I discover from documents provided Friday night that that Mr.  Breuer was far more informed during the drafting of that letter than he admitted before the Judiciary Committee.

In fact, Mr. Breuer got frequent updates on the status of the letter while he was in Mexico.

He was sent versions of the letter four times.

Two versions were emailed to Mr. Breuer on February 4, after he’d returned from Mexico, including the version of the letter that was ultimately sent to me that day.

At that time, he forwarded the letter to his personal email account.

Mr. Breuer’s deputy also sent him two drafts of the letter while he was in Mexico, and he also forwarded one of those to his personal email account.

We do not know whether he did that in order to access it on a larger screen than a government-issued Blackberry or whether he engaged in any further discussion about the letter in his non-government email account.

However, we do know that in response to the draft received in Mexico, he wrote to one of the main drafters of the letter, “As usual, great work.”

The Justice Department excluded Breuer’s compliment about the content of the draft from the set of emails it released to the press on Friday.

That evening, Mr. Breuer submitted answers to written questions.  He wrote:

“I have no recollection of having [seen the letter] and, given that I was on official travel that week and given the scope of my duties as Assistant Attorney General, I think it is exceedingly unlikely that I did so.”

So as late as Friday night, Mr. Breuer was still trying to minimize his role in reviewing the letter despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Why would Mr. Breuer say “great work” about a letter he claims not to have read?

It just isn’t credible that someone like Mr. Breuer would forget about his involvement in a matter like this.

Mr. Breuer’s failure to be candid and forthcoming before this body irreparably harms his credibility.

His complete lack of judgment and failure to deal with gunwalking when he first learned of it in April 2010, was bad enough, but this is the final straw.

Mr. Breuer has lost my confidence in his ability to effectively serve the Justice Department.

If you can’t be straight with Congress, you don’t need to be running the Criminal Division.

It’s time to stop spinning and start taking responsibility.

I have long said that the highest-ranking official who knew about gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious needs to be held accountable.

That standard applies no less to officials who knew about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver.

Gunwalking is unacceptable no matter when it occurred.

Documents make clear that Assistant Attorney General Breuer was the highest-ranking official in the Justice Department who knew about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver.

He did nothing to correct the problems, alert others to the issue, take responsibility, or even admit what he knew until he was forced to by the evidence.

Therefore, I believe the Attorney General needs to ask for Mr. Breuer’s resignation and remove him from office if he refuses.

If Mr. Breuer wants to do the honorable thing, he should resign of his own accord.

Now I’m not someone who flippantly calls for resignations.

I’ve done oversight for many years, and in all that time, I don’t ever remember coming across a government official who so blatantly placed sparing agencies embarrassment over protecting the lives of citizens

He has failed in his job of ensuring that the government operates properly, including that people are held accountable.

Because of that, Mr. Breuer needs to go immediately.

Anything less will show the American people that the Justice Department isn’t serious about being honest with Congress in our attempt to get to the bottom of this.

Just last night, the Justice Department sent a letter refusing to provide several Justice Department staff for transcribed interviews.

The letter explicitly goes back on the assurances I received when I consented to proceed with the confirmation of three senior Justice Department officials.

One of my conditions for agreeing to proceed with those nominations was that officials who agreed to voluntary interviews in this investigation would have either a personal lawyer present or a Department lawyer present, but not both.

I personally met with the Attorney General and he had that condition listed on a piece of paper in front of him.

It looked as if he had read it and was familiar with it, yet he never objected to that condition.

Dozens of witness interviews have been conducted under that understanding with no problem.

The only difference now is that instead of ATF witnesses, we are now seeking to interview Justice Department witnesses.

Well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

There’s no reason to change the rules in the middle of the game.

I was relying on the Attorney General and the other officials at the Department to honor their agreement.

Apparently, that’s not going to happen.

Fortunately, Chairman Issa has the ability to require the witnesses to appear via subpoena if they refuse to appear voluntarily under the conditions that the Department previously agreed to.

I am confident that he will do that if it becomes necessary.  And, I will take whatever steps I have to take here in the Senate to encourage the Department to reconsider and stick to its original agreement.

 

-30-

 
<< Start < Prev 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 Next > End >>

Page 386 of 473