The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“MORNING BUSINESS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S3691-S3692 on June 17, 2014.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes, with the time equally divided by the two leaders or their designees.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the distinguished senior Senator from Iowa is here to speak on one of the nominations. I am sure that if the Republican leader does come, he would yield to the Republican leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Kadzik Nomination
Mr. GRASSLEY. For the third time in a couple weeks, I want to speak about one of the nominees we are going to be voting on today. That nominee is Peter Kadzik. He has been nominated to the Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs. He would have the position of Assistant Attorney General. Today I would like to make a few concluding comments about this nominee's record as well as this administration's record, more broadly speaking, with respect to congressional oversight.
It is hard for me to imagine a nominee who is less suited to head the Office of Legislative Affairs than Mr. Kadzik. It is not a mystery how the nominee will run that office if he is confirmed, and we know that because he has been Acting Assistant Attorney General for well over a year, and he has a long and well-established history of contempt for congressional oversight authority. It is clear to me that when it comes to this nominee, past practice will be an accurate predictor of future performance. Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence that justifies my conclusion. I will start with the nominee's record of contempt for congressional oversight even before he joined the Justice Department.
When he was a private attorney back in 2001, the House ordered the nominee to testify as part of the Congress's investigation into the eleventh-hour pardon of billionaire tax fugitive Marc Rich. The nominee represented Rich. Not only did the nominee refuse to appear voluntarily, but he got on a plane to California the day before he was scheduled to testify before the House committee. In order to get him to testify before the House, the House had to send the U.S. Marshals to personally serve him with a subpoena in California. Isn't that a cute way to act when Congress is trying to speak to him? When he returned to Washington, he actually claimed that his lawyers had never bothered to mention the subpoena to him before he left on that plane trip to California. We know that claim isn't true because of handwritten notes that are now part of the record of this nominee's confirmation hearing.
Unfortunately, things haven't improved much since then. The nominee's record as Acting Assistant Attorney General has been completely unacceptable. Senators' letters and questions go unanswered for many months before the nominee provides--most often--a largely nonresponsive reply. So, as I said last week, this administration is sending a message by nominating Mr. Kadzik to the Office of Legislative Affairs. That message is this: You can expect more of the same.
I want to ask my colleagues this: How much more abuse of this body's prerogative by this White House are we willing to accept? How much more stonewalling of our legitimate, reasonable requests for information are we prepared to tolerate as we try to carry out our constitutional responsibility of oversight? How many more times do you intend to look the other way as this administration flaunts the law through illegal and unilateral executive action?
In recent weeks the administration has raised the stakes. Two weeks ago the President approved the release of the Taliban five from Guantanamo without so much as a phone call to the chair or vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Disposition of the detainees at Guantanamo is one of the most important issues related to the war on terror, and Congress has a well-defined role under the law when it comes to releasing dangerous terrorists. But the administration doesn't care about the role Congress has assumed for itself under the Constitution and under the laws we write. This administration has shown total contempt for its obligations under the law--a law they took an oath to uphold. I guess the President's view is that it is better to ask forgiveness after the fact than it is to abide by his constitutional obligation to follow the law and take care that law is faithfully executed.
That is one reason why this nomination is so important. It is a perfect example of this administration's contempt for oversight and contempt for the law.
This Senator believes Congress is entitled to learn why the administration thinks it is free to ignore the law. That is why I asked the Attorney General to provide the legal rationale for the President's unilateral executive actions that the Office of Legal Counsel gave to the administration that they could ignore the law that said they had to notify Congress 30 days ahead of time when they were going to release Guantanamo prisoners. But back in May the nominee refused to disclose the Office of Legal Counsel materials.
Given the administration's flagrant disregard for the law governing the release of the Taliban fighters, I think my request to the Attorney General is all the more important right now. So I renew my request that the administration provide us with whatever advice it received from the Office of Legal Counsel before it decided to violate the National Defense Authorization Act and go forward with the stealth release of the Taliban prisoners.
On June 5 I asked the Attorney General to provide the Justice Department's legal rationale by June 19, which happens to be just 2 days from now. At the very least Senators should wait for a vote on this nomination until then so we can determine whether the Justice Department intends to comply with our request for the legal justification as to why the President could ignore the law when these prisoners were released. That would be a modest first step the administration could take to demonstrate it is serious about respecting oversight authority and the constitutional responsibility of the Congress to do that oversight and whether or not they respect the separation of powers under the Constitution.
I will conclude. My colleagues know this nominee embodies the administration's disregard for oversight authority and its dismissive approach to its legal obligations.
That much is clear. But my colleagues also need to remember this: If they vote for this nominee, they are voting to diminish congressional authority. If they vote for this nominee, they are voting to give the President more of a free pass than he already assumes--and specifically in this case on the unlawful release of Taliban fighters. They are voting also to empower unlawful execution of executive actions by this and future administrations. They are voting to chip away at the network of checks and balances that undergirds the relationship between the executive and the legislative branches--the very signal the Constitution writers sent to the Colonies that they didn't want one person making decisions in our government; they wanted that to be divided authority.
Also remember that one day the shoe may be on the other foot. One day there may be a Republican administration that is just as cavalier about its legal obligations. If that administration ignores our oversight request, any Senator who voted for these people will have no right to complain.
I urge Senators to stand up for the Senate's constitutional responsibilities of oversight and stand up to this administration and vote no.
I yield the floor.
____________________
