General Info
Grassley Statement on Cameras in the Supreme Court, Iowa Supreme Court Justice Cady testifies before Senate Committee PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Monday, 12 December 2011 14:39

***Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady’s prepared testimony is attached.

 

Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Hearing of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts

“Access to the Court: Televising the Supreme Court”

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

 

Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for calling a hearing on increasing the public’s access to the Supreme Court.  Over ten years ago, Sen. Schumer and I introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bill which would grant federal judges the authority to allow cameras in the courtroom.  Since that time, this bill has been brought before the committee many times.  And each time it has been scrutinized, improved upon, and reported out under broad bi-partisan support.

Today’s hearing focuses on a companion issue: whether or not the Supreme Court should permit cameras in its courtroom.  Just yesterday, Sen. Durbin and I introduced “The Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2011,” a bill which would require the Supreme Court to broadcast and televise its proceedings.  Like the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, this bill has also been brought before the committee on several occasions.  It, too, was reported out favorably with bi-partisan support and was championed by my friend, Senator Arlen Specter, who I am pleased to see here today.

My interest in expanding the people’s access to the Supreme Court increased eleven years ago when the Supreme Court decided to hear arguments on the Florida recount during the 2000 Presidential Election.  Senator Schumer and I urged the Supreme Court to open the arguments to live broadcast.  In response, the Supreme Court took the then unprecedented step of releasing an audio recording of their arguments shortly after they occurred.  It was a sign of progress that gave the entire country the opportunity to experience what so few get to: the Supreme Court at work.

Just last year, the Supreme Court began releasing audio recording of its proceedings at the end of each week.  This is another step in the right direction and I applaud the court for increasing its transparency and access.  But it is not enough.  I believe that the nature of our government and the fundamental principles upon which it was built require more.

As Abraham Lincoln said, ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Our Constitution divides power.  It creates a system of checks and balances.  But most importantly, it makes the government accountable to the people.  The best way we can ensure that the federal government is accountable to the people is to create transparency, openness, and access.

Sadly, the vast majority of the people do not believe they have adequate access to the Supreme Court.  According to a poll released last year, 62 percent of Americans believe that they hear too little about the workings of the Supreme Court.  Two-thirds of Americans want to know more.  What could be a better source of the workings of the Supreme Court than the Supreme Court itself?

In 1947, the Supreme Court stated, “what transpires in the courtroom is public property.”  Well, if its public property, then it belongs to the whole public, not just the 200 people who can fit inside the public gallery.  With today’s technology, there is no reason why arguments could not be broadcast in an easy, unobtrusive, and respectful manner that would preserve the dignity of the Supreme Court’s work and grant access to the millions of Americans wishing to know more.

My state, Iowa, knows something about this.  For over 30 years, it has permitted the broadcast of its trial and appellate courts.  In fact, I am pleased to welcome Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady here today.  He has come to share with this committee his unique perspective of presiding over a court that broadcasts its proceedings.  He is a strong proponent of transparency and continues to pioneer new ways to give the public greater access to their court system.  I look forward to hearing his testimony and thank him for his time here today.

Before we begin, I ask that three things be included in the record.  First is a letter I wrote to Chief Justice Roberts last month, urging him to permit cameras during the court’s upcoming arguments over the constitutionality of President Obama’s healthcare law.  This upcoming case is the perfect example for why the Supreme Court should televise its proceedings.   It is a case which will address the role and reach of the federal government.  All of us deserve to see and hear the legal arguments in a case which will have a lasting effect on every single American.

The second and third are newspaper editorial opinions. One is written by the Editorial Board of Iowa’s second largest paper, The Gazette.  The other is written by the Editorial Board of the Washington Post.  Both express belief that the Supreme Court must permit its proceedings to be broadcast.  It isn’t often that the American Heartland and the Washington Establishment agree on something.   I ask that each of these be made part of the record.

Once again, I want to thank Sen. Klobuchar for organizing this hearing.  I would also like to thank each witness in advance for their testimony.  This is a distinguished panel of witnesses who will provide excellent insights.  I am eager to hear what each of you has to say.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

 

-30

 
Grassley Introduces Bill to Require Televising Supreme Court Proceedings PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Sen Chuck Grassley   
Monday, 12 December 2011 14:36
WASHINGTON –Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Dick Durbin introduced legislation today to require open proceedings of the Supreme Court to be televised.

The Cameras in the Courtroom Act of 2011 would require television coverage of all open sessions of the Court, unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that doing so would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more of the parties before the Court. A similar bill was approved by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee last Congress.

In addition, on November 15, Grassley asked Chief Justice John Roberts to provide audio and video coverage of the landmark Supreme Court proceedings of the federal health care reform law.  Grassley said that broadcasting the health care reform law proceedings would not only contribute to the public’s understanding of America’s judicial system, but provide an excellent educational opportunity on a case that has the potential to have a far reaching impact on every American

"Nine Justices have a tremendous amount of influence on the lives of the people of this country, yet people know very little about the highest court in our country.   In fact, next year, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about a law that has the potential to impact every American.  Allowing cameras in the Supreme Court will help bring much needed transparency to a process that is largely unknown to the American public," Grassley said.

The Cameras in the Courtroom Act only applies to open sessions of the Supreme Court – sessions where members of the public are already invited to observe in person. Public scrutiny of Supreme Court proceedings will produce greater accountability, transparency, and understanding of our judicial system.

A hearing on the Cameras in the Courtroom Act will be held tomorrow in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. The hearing will be chaired by Senator Amy Klobuchar and will feature testimony from Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady. More information on tomorrow’s hearing – including a link to the live webcast - can be found here.  Klobuchar, along with Senators John Cornyn and Richard Blumenthal, are also cosponsors of the bill.

In addition, Grassley is the author of bipartisan legislation that would allow the chief judge of federal trial and appellate courts to permit cameras in their courtrooms.  The bill would direct the Judicial Conference, the principal policy-making entity for the federal courts, to draft nonbinding guidelines that judges can refer to in making a decision pertaining to the coverage of a particular case.  It also instructs the Judicial Conference to issue mandatory guidelines for obscuring vulnerable witnesses such as undercover officers, victims of crime, and their families.  Included in the bill are safeguards to protect vulnerable witnesses, to exclude jurors from broadcast, and to allow a judge to use his or her discretion in determining whether to allow cameras in the courtroom.

-30-

 
Weekly Video Address: Defense Authorization Bill PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Monday, 12 December 2011 13:53

Advisory for Iowa Reporters and Editors

Friday, December 2, 2011

During his weekly video address, Senator Chuck Grassley discusses an amendment he cosponsored to give the National Guard a seat at the table when major decisions are made, including how Defense Department resources are allocated. During the debate to authorize Pentagon spending, Senator Grassley also cosponsored an amendment to the defense authorization bill to contain runaway spending on direct contractor salary reimbursements.

 

Click here for audio.

Here is the text of the address:

As part of a bill debated this week to authorize Pentagon spending, the Senate approved an amendment I cosponsored to give the National Guard a seat at the table when major decisions are made, including how Defense Department resources are allocated.

I’m a member of the National Guard Caucus in the Senate, and this amendment will build on reforms achieved in 2008.  The total force concept adopted by the Defense Department in 1970 made the Guard and Reserves integral to any extended campaign by U.S. forces, but the culture at the Pentagon has been slow to adopt the reality.

Last year, Iowa was ranked 15th in the nation for the percentage of our population serving in the National Guard.  Recently, we welcomed home the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 34th Infantry Division, which had more than 2,800 soldiers serving on combat duty in Afghanistan.  It was the largest single unit deployment of the Iowa National Guard since World War II.  It’s time to give the Guard and Reserves support that’s on par with that dedicated to active forces.

I cosponsored another amendment to the defense authorization bill to contain runaway spending on contractor salary reimbursements.  A large portion of government contracts actually reimburse the contractors directly for costs, including the salaries of their employees.  These cost-reimbursement type contracts are used extensively by the Defense Department.  The amendment I introduced with Senator Barbara Boxer of California limits unreasonable expenditures under these types of contracts.  We can’t afford to waste increasingly limited defense dollars.

-30-

 
Facts are STUBBORN Things...Having their Cake and Eating it, Too. PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Monday, 12 December 2011 13:52

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing with Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer Questions for the Record received December 2, 2011 and letter from Attorney General Eric Holder, October 7, 2011

The February 4th Response - The Justice Department can’t have it both ways

  • Attorney General Holder letter to Senator Grassley, Congressman Issa, October 7, 2011: “Senator Grassley has suggested that I was aware of Operation Fast and Furious from letters he provided to me on or about January 31, 2011 that were addressed to the former Acting Director of ATF.  However, those letters referred only to an ATF umbrella initiative on the Southwest Border that started under the prior Administration -- Project Gunrunner -- and not to Operation Fast and Furious.”
  • Senator Grassley: “Did your Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) Jason Weinstein review the Department’s February 4, 2011 letter to me?”

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, December 2, 2011: “Yes, DAAG Weinstein reviewed the letter; he also participated in its drafting.”

“Based on the documents being produced by the Justice Department, I understand that two emails attaching drafts of the letter were sent to me by DAAG Weinstein on February 2, while I was in Mexico (February 1-3), and that I forwarded one of those emails to my personal email account on that day; I also understand that on February 4, after I had returned from Mexico, I received two emails attaching signed versions of the letter, including the final version, and that on February 5, I forwarded both emails to my personal email account. However, as I testified, I cannot say for sure whether I saw a draft of the letter before it was sent to you.”

FACT

The letter which Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein participated in drafting, and which Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer was sent drafts of, stated: “ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.”  Weinstein knew this was clearly false because he knew about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver, which he brought to Breuer’s attention in April 2010.  Had Breuer read this letter (he is unclear if he read it), he would have known this sentence was false as well.

Like Senator Grassley’s January 27 letter, the Justice Department’s February 4 letter applied to all of Project Gunrunner, of which both Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious were a part.  The Attorney General can’t simultaneously claim that Senator Grassley’s January 27 letter was too broad for him to be aware that Grassley was talking about of Fast and Furious but that their response was so narrow as to only apply to Fast and Furious, which is never specifically named in the Justice Department’s February 4 letter.

Documents supporting the FACTS.

 
Why DIDN'T Holder and Napolitano Know about the Connection between Fast and Furious and Agent Terry's Murder? PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Monday, 12 December 2011 10:25

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

Why Didn’t the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security know about the Connection between Fast and Furious to Agent Terry’s Death?

Thursday, December 1, 2011

 

***Click here for video of Grassley’s speech.***

 

For nearly a year, I have been investigating the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Operation Fast and Furious.

 

I have followed up on questions from that investigation as the Senate Judiciary Committee held oversight hearings over the past few weeks with both Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder.

 

Each of them testified about the aftermath of the shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  And I have sought to clarify with FACTS some of the half-truths that were said during those hearings.

 

Each claimed that they were ignorant of the connection between Agent Terry’s death and Operation Fast and Furious until my letters with whistleblower allegations brought the connection to light.

 

However, documents that have come to light in my investigation draw those claims into question.

 

I’d like to address a couple of those discrepancies.

 

Secretary Napolitano went to Arizona a few days after Agent Terry’s death.

 

She said that she met at that time with the FBI agents and the assistant U.S. attorneys looking for the shooters.

 

She also said that at that point in time, nobody knew about Fast and Furious.

 

Yet documents show that many people knew about Fast and Furious on December 15, the day Agent Terry died.

 

Secretary Napolitano referenced the FBI agents looking for the shooters.

 

The head of that FBI field division was present at the December 15 press conference about Agent Terry’s murder.  At that very press conference, the FBI head told a chief Assistant U.S. Attorney about the connection to an ongoing Phoenix ATF investigation.

 

That same night, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke confirmed that the guns tied back to Fast and Furious.

 

These connections were made days before Secretary Napolitano’s visit.

 

The very purpose of her visit was to find out more about the investigation.

 

That leaves a very important question.

 

The Department of Homeland Security oversees the Border Patrol.  Why wouldn’t the Phoenix FBI head have told Secretary Napolitano that the only guns found at the scene of Agent Terry’s murder were tied to an ongoing ATF investigation?

 

And let’s not forget the U.S. Attorney’s office.

 

Secretary Napolitano said she met with the assistant U.S. attorneys looking for the shooters.

The chief assistant U.S. attorney for the Tucson office, which coordinated the Terry investigation, found out about the ATF connection directly from the FBI.

 

So, a very important question comes up.  Why would they conceal the Fast and Furious connection from Secretary Napolitano days later?

 

The Tucson office was overseen by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Dennis Burke, who confirmed to Tucson that guns came from Operation Fast and Furious.

 

When Ms. Napolitano was Governor of Arizona, Mr. Burke served as her chief of staff for five years.  Secretary Napolitano acknowledges that she had conversations with him about the murder of Agent Terry.

 

So, a very important question comes up.  Why would Mr. Burke conceal the Fast and Furious connection from Secretary Napolitano?

 

Even before Secretary Napolitano came to Arizona, emails indicate Mr. Burke spoke on December 15 with Attorney General Holder’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Monty Wilkinson.

 

Before finding out about Agent Terry, Mr. Burke emailed Mr. Wilkinson that he wanted to “explain in detail” about Fast and Furious when they talked.

 

So, a very important question comes up.  On that phone call, did U.S. Attorney Burke tell Mr. Wilkinson about the case’s connection to a Border Patrol agent’s death that very day?

 

The next day, the Deputy Director of the ATF made sure briefing papers were prepared about the Fast and Furious connection to Agent Terry’s death.

 

He sent them to individuals here in Washington, D.C., in the Deputy Attorney General’s office at the Justice Department.

 

Within 24 hours, they were forwarded to the Deputy Attorney General.

 

They were accompanied by a personal email from one of the Deputy Attorney General’s deputies, explaining the situation. Two weeks later, that Deputy Attorney General, Gary Grindler, was named the Attorney General’s Chief of Staff.

 

Yet a month and a half after Agent Terry’s death, Attorney General Holder was allegedly ignorant of the Fast and Furious connection.

 

So, a very important question is unanswered.  Why wouldn’t Mr. Grindler bring up these serious problems with Attorney General Holder, either as his Deputy Attorney General or as his Chief of Staff?

 

It’s clear that multiple highly-placed officials in multiple agencies knew almost immediately of the connection between Operation Fast and Furious and Agent Terry’s death.

 

The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security have failed to adequately explain why Attorney General Holder and Secretary Napolitano allegedly remained ignorant of that connection.  Whether it’s the Attorney General or the Secretary, or members of their staff, somebody wasn’t doing their job.

 

In the case of Secretary Napolitano, either she was not entirely candid with me and others, or this was a gross breach on the part of those who kept her in the dark.

 

The Border Patrol and the Department of Homeland Security lost a man.

 

It was their right to know the full circumstances surrounding that.

 

No one likes the unpleasant business of having to ’fess up, but the FBI, ATF, and U.S. Attorney’s Office owed it to Agent Brian Terry and his family to fully inform the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security.

 

This was the death of a federal agent involving weapons allowed to walk free by another agency in his own government.

 

Let me explain walking guns.  The federal government operates under the rule of law just like all of us have to live under that rule of law.  There are licensed federal gun dealers.  Federal gun dealers were encouraged to sell guns illegally to straw buyers and supposedly follow those guns across the border to somehow arrest people who were involved with drug trafficking and other illegal things.  And, two of these guns showed up at the murder scene of Agent Terry.

 

And, if that’s not serious enough to brief up to the top of the department, then I don’t know what is.

 

-30-

 
<< Start < Prev 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 Next > End >>

Page 327 of 406