General Info
2010 Health Care Reform Law Costing Americans Insurance Coverage and Jobs PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Friday, 11 November 2011 15:03

Senator Chuck Grassley made remarks this morning about the impact of the 2010 health care reform law on the individual insurance market and employers, and how it is costing Americans both insurance coverage and jobs.


Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Wednesday, November 9, 2011


Mr. President, I’d like to begin by thanking my friend from Nebraska, Senator Johanns for joining me on the floor today.

America’s families are struggling to put food on their tables, pay their utility bills as winter arrives, and purchase health insurance as costs skyrocket.  Unemployment continues to hover around nine percent and millions of Americans are underemployed.  With the economic situation that our country is facing, Congress must reexamine its actions and realize the errors made through partisan votes.

Last month, The Des Moines Register reported that the American Enterprise Group, an insurance company participating in the individual health insurance market in Iowa and Nebraska, will be leaving the market.  This action shows the importance of repealing and replacing the health care overhaul passed by Democrats in Congress and signed by the President last year before the situation deteriorates further.

American Enterprise notified 110 employees in Iowa and Nebraska that they will lose their jobs sometime during the next three years.  American Enterprise is leaving the individual health insurance market as a result of the instability caused by implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  American Enterprise stated that it will no longer sell individual health insurance policies because of the regulatory environment created by the health care reform bill.

This isn’t an isolated incident for Iowa.  The Principal Financial Group left the small group health insurance market in 2010.  This has cost many Iowans their jobs, while leaving scores of small businesses and their employees to choose from health insurance plans in a health insurance market where there is less and less competition.

The regulatory culprit is the new Medical Loss Ratio regulation.  This regulation requires insurers to pay a certain percentage of premiums in claims.  And I will know supporters will defend the regulation as “keeping insurers in check”, the real world effect is to force insurers to leave the market reducing competition and choice available to consumers.

The small group and individual markets are volatile.  Insurers bear risk and have to set their premiums accordingly.  Insurers are making the rational decision to get out of the market because the risks have become too great.  Competition is reduced and costs rise.

Once upon a time, the President promised Americans that if you like the insurance plan you have, you can keep it.  This is more evidence that that promise rings hollow.  This recent plan pull out will leave 35,000 individuals without the insurance plan they have grown accustomed to receiving.  Forcing people to choose a different insurance option can lead to higher costs and may limit the health care accessibility these individuals have depended on for years.

This is especially detrimental when these individuals have a pre-existing condition or an acute chronic disease.  The President specifically promised that if people want to keep their health care coverage they would be able to after the passage of this law.

This is just one of the many examples of how this overhaul has led to broken promises made by the President and the Democrats when pushing through the passage of this legislation in a partisan way.  These problems will certainly continue.

The Congressional Budget Office expects people in the individual insurance market to see an average nine percent rise in premium costs solely based on the passage of the health care law.  Is that increased accessibility or affordability?

Not only has the health care overhaul caused health insurance companies to leave parts of the health insurance market and health insurance costs to increase, it has also put additional burdens on employers.  Some employers will no longer offer their employees health care coverage.  Higher taxes and mandates put on employers by the new health care law have left many employers without the resources to maintain current coverage for family members of their employees.

The negative impact this legislation is having on large employers and those insured by employers is demonstrated by the National Business Group on Health.  In its recent annual survey, overall plan costs for large employers are expected to rise by 5.9 percent in 2012.  The National Business Group on Health also notes that seven out of ten employers will lose their grandfather status, meaning that employees will lose their current health care plan and employers will be subjected to additional regulations.

According to this same survey, three out of ten employers are unsure if they will continue to insure employees due to the health care overhaul.  Other employers will increase the employee share of the insurance premium, and many employers state that they will likely lower the level of health care coverage offered to their employees.  For example, Wal-Mart will not allow many of its new part-time employees to receive health care insurance through the company.  Many of these workers are already under-employed.

They work hard, yet don’t always have adequate resources to purchase health insurance on their own, especially as costs in the individual insurance market continue to increase due to the new health care law.  Additionally, many businesses are simply dropping coverage for their own employees because of the extra cost incurred with the health care bill recently enacted.

It is more affordable for some employers to drop coverage for their employees and pay the fine associated with the employer mandate.  An employer must provide health insurance for their employees if they have more than fifty employees, or fifty full-time equivalent employees.  Employers who are required to insure employees will be fined $2,000 per employee who seeks health insurance through one of the exchanges created under the health care overhaul.

Any employer-sponsored plan must meet the definitions set by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on what an adequate health insurance plan is under the mandate.  This requirement will increase insurance costs for employers and employees when they must upgrade health insurance benefits in order to meet the standards defined in the regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Forcing employers to provide health insurance when they are having a tough time hiring new employees just adds to the burden employers are facing in this struggling economy.  Employers will likely pay their increased health insurance costs by reducing employee take-home pay or by increasing the employee share of health insurance premiums.  Also, employers will continue struggling in future years as the federal government increases, year by year, the requirements for health insurance benefits needed to avoid the penalty associated with the employer mandate.  Furthermore, employers already faced with economic uncertainty have had to deal with government regulations that continue to change, creating greater uncertainty.

A Department of Health and Human Services rule released last November allows fully-insured group plans to switch insurance providers as long as the insurance benefits provided to the beneficiaries remain comparable; however, this is only for group plans that switch after November 15, 2010.  The Department of Health and Human Services wrote this new rule so more group plans can find affordable coverage and shop around for similar coverage at a cheaper rate.  If the group insurance plan carrier was changed before November 15, 2010, the plan would lose grandfather status which would subject the plan to numerous insurance regulations and increased costs.

Ironically, what created the need for this new rule was another rule that the President’s administration and HHS crafted in June 2010 that stated plans would lose their grandfather status if they switched carriers.  This chaotic situation shows what happens when the government is given more authority to regulate the health insurance market.  Mr. President, what we have here is a mess.  We need to put a halt to the implementation.  We need to repeal the law and start over again with common sense solutions.  We need to move away from the regulatory and bureaucratic nightmare that is costing Americans their coverage and too many Americans their job.


Allison Redman Serves Areas in New York Affected by Hurricane Irene PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by readMedia   
Friday, 11 November 2011 15:00

PELLA, IA (11/09/2011)(readMedia)-- During her fall break, Allison Redman, a junior elementary education major from Davenport, Iowa, along with 17 other students from Central College in Pella, Iowa, traveled to Esperance and Schoharie in New York to help clean up some of the destruction caused by Hurricane Irene in August.

The group left after classes Wednesday, Oct. 12 and drove through the night to reach New York. On Friday, they helped clean up the remains of destroyed homes on Priddle Camp Road in Esperance, trying to make sense of the piles of houses the flooding from Irene left behind.

"There was nothing left to salvage," said Kristin Tremper, coordinator of Reformed Church in America relations at Central, who organized the trip. The students moved garbage out into the street so that trucks could pick it up.

On Saturday, Oct. 15, students worked in Schoharie to muck mud out of basements and rip out ruined drywall.

The trip wasn't all hard work for the students. On Thursday, they did a ropes course, ziplining and a cave tour at Howe Caverns. They also hiked and visited The Old Stone Fort, a revolutionary war museum in Schoharie.

"Our students are awesome," said Tremper. "This was the best group I've ever been able to work with. It was a joy to get to know them."

Central College is a four-year, private, residential, liberal arts college in Pella, Iowa, affiliated with the Reformed Church in America. Central offers a bachelor's degree in 39 majors and pre-professional advising. For more information about Central, call 877-462-3687 or go to

Grassley Reacts to Holder Testimony before Judiciary Committee PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Friday, 11 November 2011 14:38

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley released the following statement after Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the Judiciary Committee for a regular oversight hearing.

“The Attorney General did a lot of dodging and weaving today.  He didn’t seem to be alarmed that nobody notified him that the guns found at Agent Terry’s murder scene were from Fast and Furious.  And, while he said that he regretted the fact that the department provided false information to Congress, it’s unclear what he will be doing to hold accountable those in the department who knew it was false.  It’s unconscionable that a federal agency would let such a misleading letter stand for more than nine months.  The head of the Criminal Division knew it was false, his deputy knew it was false, the whistleblowers knew it was false, the documents suggested it was false, and I discovered it was false—but, if Congress had relied on the department’s official talking points, we still wouldn’t know the truth today.  Congress deserves more candid and honest responses to our questions.”

River Pilot Vodka Honored With National Awards As Distillery Reaches Visitor Milestone PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Ryan Burchett   
Friday, 11 November 2011 14:31

Le Claire, Iowa, November 8, 2011 – Mississippi River Distilling Company has recently been recognized with two exceptional industry awards for their spirits.  MRDC’s River Pilot Vodka received the Beverage Tasting Institute’s (BTI) Gold Medal in the International Review of Spirits as well as a Bronze Medal at this year’s 2011 New York International Spirits Competition (NYISC).

River Pilot was recognized in BTI’s Unflavored Vodka category.  The tasting was completed in BTI’s Chicago Tasting Room on November 1.  River Pilot received a score of 90, which put it in the “Exceptional” category and garnered the gold medal award.

BTI described River Pilot as, “Aromas of rye cracker and salt water taffy with a satiny dryish medium-to-full body and a grainy, creamy vanilla, dusty stone, and Brazil nut accented finish.  A nice balance of raw and refined characteristics.”

The Beverage Testing Institute relies heavily on highly experienced, professional guest tasters who are either retailers, restaurateurs, or prominent writers that are especially knowledgeable about the beverage category being reviewed.  All panelists are rigorously screened and audited and then trained in BTI’s proprietary blind tasting methodology.

The second award came from the prestigious New York International Spirits Competition.  NYISC uses trade-only judges from top to bottom that consist of people who are buyers from the top retail stores, restaurant and bar owners, distributors and importers.  Each submission is placed in its product category and along with other spirits in its same price range.  While the full list of 2011 winners has not yet been publicized, in 2010 only 2 medals were awarded in this highly competitive category.

“These are fantastic awards and such a compliment to what we are doing,” Ryan Burchett, owner/distiller says.  “To have a product handmade from local ingredients be recognized with by two prominent nationally recognized organizations in the industry is just outstanding.  It lends a lot of credibility to what little guys like us are doing.”

These awards are on the heels of another national recognition for MRDC’s River Baron Vodka.  In August, River Baron was recognized as the 8th best vodka made in the United States by

It’s been an exciting time at the distillery as MRDC crossed another big milestone over the weekend.  The distillery welcomed its 20,000th visitor in less than 11 months of being open.

“It has been so encouraging to visit with all the people who have stopped in to see what we’re all about,” said owner/distiller Garrett Burchett.  “People have taken such a tremendous interest in our locally grown products.  We love having the opportunity to share our story with everyone who walks in the door and for them to see the grain-to-glass process in person.”

Mississippi River Distilling Company is open from 10 AM to 5 PM Monday through Saturday and from 12 to 5 PM Sundays.  Free tours are offered to the public daily on the hour from 12 to 4 PM or by appointment.  The tour takes visitors through the entire distilling process.  Tours end in the Grand Tasting Room with free samples of products for those patrons over 21 years of age.  Mississippi River Distilling Company’s next product release will be their much anticipated Cody Road Bourbon Whiskey will hit store shelves on December 2, 2011

Grassley Presses Holder at Oversight Hearing--Prepared Opening Statement and Documents PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Friday, 11 November 2011 13:05

Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Oversight Hearing on the Department of Justice

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important oversight hearing.  If our time were not so limited, I would have liked to ask about the department’s conference budget, the broken system of reviewing FBI whistleblower cases, the department’s attempt to use the tragic failure in Fast and Furious as a pretext to call for new, stricter gun laws, and many other important topics.  However, oversight on Operation Fast and Furious has been my focus since the last time Attorney General Holder appeared before the committee.

Just over nine months ago Attorney General Holder sat in my office.  After discussing a number of items with him, I handed him two letters I had written to the Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Kenneth Melson.[1] A member of my staff briefly outlined the allegations contained therein that had come to us from an ATF whistleblower.

My letters mentioned: (1) the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, (2) the allegation that ATF had sanctioned the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to straw buyers, (3) the allegation that two of those weapons had been found at the scene of Agent Terry’s death, and (4) the allegation that the whistleblowers who provided this information were already facing retaliation.[2]

Just four days later, I received a response back from the Justice Department.[3] That response explicitly stated that the whistleblower allegations were “false” and that “ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.”[4] In the nine months since then, mounting evidence has put the lie to those claims.  We have learned that instead of making every effort to interdict, ATF actually allowed the transfer of firearms in several operations, in hopes of making bigger cases.[5] Agents who objected to the practice called it “walking guns.”[6] In addition to documentary evidence contradicting the department’s denials, six ATF agents testified powerfully at two House Oversight Committee hearings about gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious.

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer admitted one week ago in this room that the department’s letter to me in February was absolutely false.[7] Think about that for a second.  It’s bad enough that the head of the Criminal Division admits that the department’s letter to me was false.  It gets worse, though.  He admitted that he knew all along that it was false.  Although he could not recall whether he helped edit it, he knew it was false because he was aware of a previous gunwalking operation called Wide Receiver.  Yet he remained silent for nine months as the public controversy over gunwalking grew.  He was aware that Congress had been misled and yet made no effort to correct the department’s official denial.  I am eager to hear whether the Attorney General thinks that is acceptable and what he intends to do about it.

Much has been said recently about guns being walked in Operation Wide Receiver “during the Bush era.”  It doesn’t matter to me when it happened, we need to get to the bottom of it.  According to the Justice Department, Bush-era prosecutors refused to bring the case.[8] However, under Mr. Breuer’s leadership headquarters revived it despite the gunwalking issues.[9] Reviving the case may have provided the green light to the Phoenix Field Division to repeat the gunwalking strategy in Operation Fast and Furious on a much bigger scale.

It seems likely that the same ATF managers responsible for overseeing Wide Receiver might have interpreted the administration’s willingness to prosecute such cases as an approval of gunwalking as an acceptable tactic.  If that was not the case, then it was Mr. Breuer’s responsibility to clearly communicate that gunwalking was not acceptable and to institute oversight and safeguards to ensure that it did not happen again.  He did not do that.

In fact, it is clear from documents produced by the Justice Department that in early 2010, the ATF, Main Justice, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona considered Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious to be a set of related cases.[10] Yet Mr. Breuer claims that he saw the flaws in one but not the other.[11]

As Mr. Breuer’s deputy was learning about the Wide Receiver in March 2010, he asked: “[D]id ATF allow the guns to walk, or did ATF learn about the volume of guns after the FFL began cooperating?”[12] That was the right question, at the right time, about the wrong case.  It was too late to stop gunwalking in Wide Receiver.  However, Fast and Furious was still very active.  By that time, 1,228 weapons had been purchased by the straw buyers in Fast and Furious, and hundreds had been recovered in Mexico.  Gun dealers were giving ATF real time notice each time the straws bought another batch of guns.  As one of the ATF agents testified before the House Committee, “This wasn’t a who done it.”[13] Yet the criminals were allowed to keep breaking the law, all in the hopes of catching bigger fish.

In March 2010, the Attorney General’s current chief of staff, then the No. 2 individual in the department as the Deputy Attorney General, received a personal briefing on Fast and Furious.[14] The briefing included a presentation detailing the numbers of firearms each straw buyer had purchased up to that point, including 313 by one and 241 by another.[15] The presentation explained that those two straw buyers had spent almost $214,000 and $140,000, respectively, on the weapons.[16] A copy of the Deputy Attorney General’s presentation includes his handwritten notations.  One said, “all cash,” which is a typical red flag of straw buying.[17]

The Deputy Attorney General also wrote such detail in his notes as “followed to 3 stash houses.”[18] Yet the presentation also clearly included a map that he labeled “seizures in Mexico.”[19] Didn’t he stop to question how these weapons were going from being under surveillance at stash houses in the U.S. to being recovered in Mexico?  Didn’t he ask why search warrants or other techniques could not have been used to seize the weapons and prevent them from being trafficked to Mexico?  Or was the strategy of “allowing the transfer of firearms to continue to take place” explained to him?[20]

That’s how it was described in other briefing papers prepared by ATF, and one of the emails transmitting that paper said it was “likely to go to the DAG [Deputy Attorney General].”[21] The ATF strategy was clearly documented.  Agents were even forbidden to stop and question the straw buyers for fear that it would scare them off and stop further straw buying at the cooperating gun dealers.

In the same time period the Deputy Attorney General received such a detailed briefing, the Justice Department’s Criminal Division in Washington, D.C. assigned a prosecutor  to Fast and Furious as the result of a direct request from ATF Director Melson to Mr. Breuer.[22] Simultaneously, Mr. Breuer’s deputies and the Justice Department Office of Enforcement Operations reviewed and approved detailed wiretap applications for Fast and Furious.  Mr. Breuer and his deputies were quick to recognize gunwalking in a Bush-era case and ask all the right questions.  Yet, tell-tale information was right under their very noses that the same field division was doing it again, and Mr. Breuer claims he didn’t make the connection.[23]

Mr. Breuer admitted before this committee last week that that very same deputy who informed him of gunwalking in Wide Receiver also approved at least one of the wiretap applications in Operation Fast and Furious.[24] As Mr. Breuer himself said, “The Congress made clear in law that wiretaps on telephones are an extraordinarily intrusive technique.”[25] Thus, wiretap applications are extremely detailed documents.  In order to justify tapping the phone of a private citizen, the law requires that law enforcement agencies show that they have tried everything else first. Agencies have to explain the techniques they have tried or considered in order to explain to the court why a wiretap is the only way to get the evidence needed for prosecution.  The Justice Department is supposed to review those claims to make sure they are legally sufficient.

But the very same facts that would show the need to obtain the wiretap would also show that the Justice Department knew these individuals were trafficking weapons.  Indeed, the goal of the wiretap was to identify other co-conspirators.  That’s all well and good, but they should have stopped the flow of guns in the meantime. Anyone reviewing the affidavits would likely know that was not happening.

The Justice Department has now produced 10 memos about Operation Fast and Furious received by the Attorney General from March to November 2010, including two he did not reference in his October 7, 2011, letter to Congress.[26] Additionally, the Office of National Drug Control Policy recently produced another three memos addressed to the Attorney General on the issue, bringing the count to 13.[27] These additional three memos were also not included in the Attorney General’s October 7 letter.  The memos describe the government’s knowledge that straw buyers were responsible for the purchase of over a thousand firearms and that the guns were being supplied to Mexican drug trafficking cartels.  The Attorney General has said that since he does not have time to read the memos he receives, these memos were read by his staff instead.[28] I look forward to hearing today who on his staff did read them, who was responsible for overseeing the case, and why it was deemed unworthy of his attention.

I am also interested to hear when the Attorney General learned of the connection between Operation Fast and Furious and the weapons found at the scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death.  The Attorney General’s then-Deputy Chief of Staff Monty Wilkinson, spoke with U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke about Operation Fast and Furious the very day that Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry died.[29] Did he learn of the connection between Fast and Furious and Agent Terry’s death and bring it to the Attorney General’s attention?  Then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler found out within 48 hours of Agent Terry’s death of the connection to Fast and Furious.[30] Just two weeks after that, the Attorney General announced that Mr. Grindler would be his new Chief of Staff.  Did Mr. Grindler bring the connection between Fast and Furious and Agent Terry’s death to the Attorney General’s attention?

One month ago Attorney General Holder finally acknowledged that Operation Fast and Furious was flawed.[31] Yet he said on September 7 of this year:

[T]he notion that somehow or other that this thing reaches into the upper levels of the Justice Department is something that at this point I don’t think is supported by the facts.  And I think as we examine and as all the facts are in fact revealed, we’ll see that is not the case.[32]

I look forward to closely examining this claim with Mr. Holder today.

I would also add that those who seek to use this tragedy to call for new gun control should note that many of the individuals involved in Fast and Furious should have been indicted and arrested nearly a year before they were.  While trafficking in firearms is a real problem in Mexico, blaming our Second Amendment freedoms in the U.S. isn’t accurate and won’t fix anything.

Countless stories have documented the weak controls of U.S.-made weapons in Central American nations which has been a source for firearms in Mexico.  Other sources, such as weapons that walk off Mexico military bases, pose a problem too.

So, to say that guns in Mexico are “sourced” to the U.S. just because they were made here is misleading.[33] It doesn’t mean that they were ever sold in a retail gun store in the U.S.  The faulty statistics include U.S. weapons sold to the military in Mexico, weapons that were transferred into Mexico years ago, guns from Fast and Furious, and many other sources.

More accurate statistics breaking down what is really known about the sources of guns in Mexico would help, and I urge the Attorney General to provide these more detailed breakdowns. As we learn more about the utter failure to enforce our existing gun laws in Fast and Furious, I’m eager to hear from Attorney General Holder who he plans to hold accountable. I also want to know how he plans to prevent another tragedy like this in the future.

Let me be clear.  The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter how many laws we pass if those responsible for enforcing them refuse to do their duty—as was the case in Fast and Furious.


[1] Letters from Senator Charles E. Grassley to Kenneth Melson, Acting Director of the ATF (Jan. 27, 2011, and Jan. 31, 2011).

2 Id.

3 Letter from Ronald Weich, Asst. Att’y Gen, U.S. Dept. of Justice, to Senator Charles E. Grassley (Feb. 4, 2011) .

4 Id.

5 Email from George Gillett to David Voth, Oct. 05, 2010, HOGR DOJ 001349-001352 (Attachment 1).

6 Joint Staff Report, The Department of Justice’s Operation Fast and Furious: Accounts of ATF Agents, at p. 19 (June 14, 2011).

7 Combatting International Organized Crime: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime and Terrorism of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011) (statement of Lanny Breuer, Asst. Att’y Gen.).

8 Letter from Ronald Weich, Asst. Att’y Gen., Department of Justice, to Senator Patrick J Leahy (Oct. 31, 2011).

9 Id.

10 Id.

11 Combatting International Organized Crime: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime and Terrorism of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011).

12 Email from Jason Weinstein to Kevin Carwile, Mar. 16 2010, HOGR DOJ 003438 (Attachment 2).

13 Operation Fast and Furious: The Other Side of the Border: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 112th Cong. 128-129 (2011) (statement of Carlos Canino, ATF Acting Attache to Mexico).

14 ATF Monthly Meeting with the Acting Deputy Attorney General, HOGR DOJ 002817-002823 (Mar. 12, 2010) (Attachment 3).

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 Email from George Gillett to David Voth, Oct. 05, 2010 (Attachment 1).

21 Id.

22 Email from Kenneth Melson to Lanny Breuer, Dec. 04, 2009, HOGR DOJ 2730 (Attachment 4).

23 Combatting International Organized Crime: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime and Terrorism of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011).

24 Id.

25 Id.

26 Memorandum to the Attorney General from Kenneth Melson, HOGR DOJ 003270-003271 (Mar. 01, 2010); Weekly Report to the Attorney General from Lanny Breuer,  HOGR DOJ 003263 (Oct. 25, 2010) (Attachment 5).

27 Weekly Memoranda to the Attorney General from NDIC, ONDCP F&F 000134-000137, 000183-000187, 000205-000208  (Attachment 6).

28 Letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Chairman Issa, et al.  (Oct. 7, 2011).

29 Email from Monty Wilkinson to Dennis Burke, HOGR USAO 003073-003074 (Dec. 14, 2010) (Attachment 7).

30 Email from Brad Smith to Gary Grindler, HOGR DOJ 002875-2881 (Dec. 17, 2010) (Attachment 8).

31 Letter from Attorney General Eric Holder to Chairman Issa, et al.  (Oct. 7, 2011).

32 Carrie Johnson, Holder Takes Heat Over ‘Fast And Furious’ Scandal, NPR (Oct. 6, 2011) available at

33 Letter from Senator Charles E. Grassley to Acting Director Kenneth Melson (June 16, 2011) (Attachment 9).

<< Start < Prev 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 Next > End >>

Page 400 of 470