[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4137-S4144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STEALTH SURVEY
Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I rise with great concern regarding a
program just revealed in the Sunday New York Times--outstanding work by
Robert Pear--``U.S. Plans Stealth Survey on Access to Doctors.'' I am
asking my colleagues to join me in sending a letter to Secretary
Sebelius, sharing our concerns with the legality, standards, and
repercussions of this program.
I have deep concerns regarding the Department's recent plans for this
so-called stealth survey, its legality, the notification to Congress,
the lack of standards for any misconduct or bad reporting by the staff
hired to carry out this work in looking clandestinely at American
doctors and their practice of medicine. The cost and proposed
clandestine method of collecting information about physicians' offices
is questionable. Therefore, I will be requesting details on how this
survey will be conducted and how investigators will be punished for
misconduct or extortion they may carry out in their duties and how
patient and physician confidentiality will be maintained.
In our letter, we are outlining 12 key questions.
No. 1. Since there are already a number of surveys answering this
question, does this expenditure of taxpayer money add anything? We are
asking for the Department to provide detailed records of their
literature review on the current research that has already been
published on the subject before launching this taxpayer-funded expense.
We are also asking for the total cost of this program to be revealed.
No. 2. We are asking for records on how the National Opinion Research
Center of Chicago, IL, won a Federal competitive bid to carry out this
work.
No. 3. In concluding the results of this survey, how will the NORC
decide what qualifies as an acceptable response or best practices from
physicians they have targeted?
No. 4. How will patient and doctor confidentiality be maintained? If
researchers report bad information or use this survey for extortion,
bribery or other acts, how will they be disciplined?
No. 5. Once concluded, who has access to this information--the
Department, the White House, the Congress, the press?
No. 6. By what criteria will individual physicians be targeted for
participation? Will age, average incomes, surrounding office locations
or political affiliation be excluded from factors considered when
targeting physicians?
No. 7. Will Federal employees carry out this work or will it be
conducted by a contracted call center for data collection? Also, who is
qualified to conduct this survey and how will they be chosen?
No. 8. If the staff improperly releases patient or physician data,
how will they be disciplined?
No. 9. I would like their description of the fiscal year 2011
Appropriations Committee program or account under which this was
funded.
No. 10. I am also requesting a description of the statutory
authorization used to carry out this work and the congressional
notifications informing the committees of jurisdiction of their intent
to obligate funds for this purpose.
No. 11. I am also asking for specific sections identified in the
President's budget under which the funding for this work was requested.
No. 12. If a physician wishes to correct data collected by the NORC,
what legal redress does he or she have?
There have been a number of very reliable studies which confirm that
many patients on Medicaid and Medicare cannot find a doctor to see
them. Previous studies also confirm that we do not have enough doctors,
particularly primary care doctors. We all know government programs
often provide poor service and suffer from funding failures or
corruption.
In this time of serious fiscal constraint, I urge us to focus our
limited Federal resources on ways we can actually address these
problems rather than launch another taxpayer-funded spending program to
clandestinely review the work of our physicians.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak as in morning business for up to 7 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Deficit
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I just wish to bring to my colleagues'
attention a very well-written but disturbing op-ed in today's Wall
Street Journal by one of our country's foremost economists, a person
whose calculations and prognostications we should not lightly lay
aside, Larry Lindsey.
In this piece, entitled ``The Deficit Is Worse Than We Think,'' he
posits three reasons why we need to get serious about deficit
reduction. I will just mention the three reasons, put this op-ed in the
Record, and make a comment or two about it.
First, he says, if interest rates in this country go back to their
historic levels, we would have annual interest expenses on our debt
roughly $420 billion higher in 2014 and $700 billion higher in
[[Page S4138]]
2020, and the 10-year rise in interest rates would be about $4.9
trillion higher than under the current cost of borrowing. That would
obviously wipe out any savings, and then some, that we are trying to
achieve in our deficit reduction discussions.
The second problem is, the official forecasts for growth are probably
far too rosy considering the current circumstances. If we were to grow
at a rate that he believes is much more realistic than those projected
by the President's budget, we will miss the President's budget number
by a cumulative 5.2 percentage points and incur an additional debt of
$4 trillion, which is the equivalent to all the 10-year savings in the
budget that passed the House of Representatives.
Third, the cost estimates for what we call ObamaCare are going to be
well off the mark, unfortunately, on the low end, that the
prognostications by people who have surveyed the businesses that will
either keep their insurance or turn that cost over to the government
will result in an extra bill for the taxpayers of roughly $74 billion
in 2014, rising to $85 billion in 2019 because of the subsidies that
the government will have to pay into that.
His conclusion is:
Only serious long-term spending reduction in the
entitlement area can begin to address the nation's deficit
and debt problems.
Because that is where the bulk of the money we spend goes. I think he
is absolutely correct. But if he is correct about these projections,
then we are not even close to achieving the savings we need to have in
order to avoid a cataclysmic future for our country.
Also, as noted today in an article from the Arizona Republic, the
growth rate for the first quarter of this year was 1.9 percent. The
Associated Press is forecasting that for the next quarter it will be
2.3 percent. That is way lower than any of us would like. It is too
anemic to even keep up with our population in terms of job growth. This
article notes:
The economy has to grow 3 percent a year just to hold the
unemployment rate steady and keep up with population growth.
And it has to average about 5 percent growth for a year to
lower the unemployment rate by a full percentage point. It is
9.1 percent today.
So we can see we are growing at less than half the rate needed to
begin to make a dent in unemployment. This bodes very badly for our
future.
Finally, in a National Review Online piece today by Andrew Stiles,
there is this reference to a Harvard economist, Alberto Alesina. I will
quote from this article.
Alberto Alesina, a Harvard economist who has analyzed the
ways in which various countries responded to large fiscal
crises, concludes that spending cuts are ``much more
effective'' than tax increases in stabilizing the debt
without harming the economy. ``In fact, in several episodes,
spending cuts adopted to reduce deficits have been associated
with economic expansions rather than recessions,'' Alesina
writes. These findings were echoed in a report from Goldman
Sachs analysts Ben Broadbent and Kevin Day, which examined
``every major fiscal correction in the OECD since 1975.''
The point of all these things is the projections about economic
growth, about increases in interest rates and expenditures by the
Federal Government all point to the need for us to reduce our expenses
at the Federal Government level and that spending cuts are a much more
effective way to stabilize the debt and not hurt the economy than tax
increases.
I say all this because, as everyone by now knows, the negotiations
that were being conducted under the auspices of Vice President Biden
have broken down over the issue of whether tax cuts have to be a part
of the resolution of the issue. The point is--the point we have been
making is--tax increases in times such as these, when we are trying to
come out of a recession and we need economic growth, would be the wrong
medicine for this ailing economy, that the better way to do it is by
spending reductions. It is obvious from Larry Lindsey's piece that the
spending reductions we have been talking about, far from being
Draconian, are actually not nearly enough in order to achieve the
result we have to have to avoid the kind of interest rate increases and
increased costs at the Federal Government level that he predicts.
I hope my colleagues will think again as to the sort of ideological
commitment they have to raising taxes. In the context of today's issue,
that should not be part of our discussion. That will only hurt the
economy, inhibit job creation and economic growth, and delay the day
when we begin to recover from this economic downturn. Instead, we need
to focus on the kind of spending reductions that were embodied in the
budget that the House of Representatives passed and that those of us on
this side of the aisle have been trying to put forward as a condition
for increasing the debt ceiling.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the Wall Street Journal op-ed by Lawrence Lindsey.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2011]
The Deficit Is Worse Than We Think--Normal Interest Rates Would Raise
Debt-Service Costs by $4.9 Trillion Over 10 Years, Dwarfing the Savings
From Any Currently Contemplated Budget Deal
(By Lawrence B. Lindsey)
Washington is struggling to make a deal that will couple an
increase in the debt ceiling with a long-term reduction in
spending. There is no reason for the players to make their
task seem even more Herculean than it already is. But we
should be prepared for upward revisions in official deficit
projections in the years ahead--even if a deal is struck.
There are at least three major reasons for concern.
First, a normalization of interest rates would upend any
budgetary deal if and when one should occur. At present, the
average cost of Treasury borrowing is 2.5%. The average over
the last two decades was 5.7%. Should we ramp up to the
higher number, annual interest expenses would be roughly $420
billion higher in 2014 and $700 billion higher in 2020.
The 10-year rise in interest expense would be $4.9 trillion
higher under ``normalized'' rates than under the current cost
of borrowing. Compare that to the $2 trillion estimate of
what the current talks about long-term deficit reduction may
produce, and it becomes obvious that the gains from the
current deficit-reduction efforts could be wiped out by
normalization in the bond market.
To some extent this is a controllable risk. The Federal
Reserve could act aggressively by purchasing even more bonds,
or targeting rates further out on the yield curve, to slow
any rise in the cost of Treasury borrowing. Of course, this
carries its own set of risks, not the least among them an
adverse reaction by our lenders. Suffice it to say, though,
that given all that is at stake, Fed interest-rate policy
will increasingly have to factor in the effects of any rate
hike on the fiscal position of the Treasury.
The second reason for concern is that official growth
forecasts are much higher than what the academic consensus
believes we should expect after a financial crisis. That
consensus holds that economies tend to return to trend growth
of about 2.5%, without ever recapturing what was lost in the
downturn.
But the president's budget of February 2011 projects
economic growth of 4% in 2012, 4.5% in 2013, and 4.2% in
2014. That budget also estimates that the 10-year budget cost
of missing the growth estimate by just one point for one year
is $750 billion. So, if we just grow at trend those three
years, we will miss the president's forecast by a cumulative
5.2 percentage points and--using the numbers provided in his
budget--incur additional debt of $4 trillion. That is the
equivalent of all of the 10-year savings in Congressman Paul
Ryan's budget, passed by the House in April, or in the
Bowles-Simpson budget plan.
Third, it is increasingly clear that the long-run cost
estimates of ObamaCare were well short of the mark because of
the incentive that employers will have under that plan to end
private coverage and put employees on the public system.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has
already issued 1,400 waivers from the act's regulations for
employers as large as McDonald's to stop them from dumping
their employees' coverage.
But a recent McKinsey survey, for example, found that 30%
of employers with plans will likely take advantage of the
system, with half of the more knowledgeable ones planning to
do so. If this survey proves correct, the extra bill for
taxpayers would be roughly $74 billion in 2014 rising to $85
billion in 2019, thanks to the subsidies provided to
individuals and families purchasing coverage in the
government's insurance exchanges.
Underestimating the long-term budget situation is an old
game in Washington. But never have the numbers been this
large.
There is no way to raise taxes enough to cover these
problems. The tax-the-rich proposals of the Obama
administration raise about $700 billion, less than a fifth of
the budgetary consequences of the excess economic growth
projected in their forecast. The whole $700 billion collected
over 10 years would not even cover the difference in interest
costs in any one year at the end of the decade between
current rates and the average cost of Treasury borrowing over
the last 20 years.
Only serious long-term spending reduction in the
entitlement area can begin to address the nation's deficit
and debt problems. It should no longer be credible for our
elected
[[Page S4139]]
officials to hide the need for entitlement reforms behind
rosy economic and budgetary assumptions. And while we should
all hope for a deal that cuts spending and raises the debt
ceiling to avoid a possible default, bondholders should be
under no illusions.
Under current government policies and economic projections,
they should be far more concerned about a return of their
principal in 10 years than about any short-term delay in a
coupon payment in August.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I assume that we are now on the Cole
nomination?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are on the nomination.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, earlier this year the Senate expressed
its opposition to proceeding to Mr. Cole's nomination when it failed to
invoke cloture. I was a strong advocate against the Senate invoking
cloture on Mr. Cole's nomination because the Justice Department had
failed to respond to a legitimate oversight request that both Senator
Chambliss and I made relating to two separate topics.
The Justice Department was withholding vital documents related to my
inquiry of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm's Operation Fast
and Furious and to an inquiry by Senator Chambliss in his capacity as
vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence.
As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been seeking and
still seek documents, information, and access to witness interviews to
determine who approved Operation Fast and Furious. This was an
operation that you have heard me talk about often where ATF agents were
ordered to knowingly allow straw buyers to obtain weapons on behalf of
criminals and traffickers intent on smuggling those weapons into
Mexico.
The courageous agents who blew the whistle and testified about their
efforts to warn supervisors about the dangers referred to this practice
as ``walking guns.'' Of the more than 1,800 weapons allowed to
``walk,'' hundreds have been recovered in connection with crimes in the
United States and Mexico, including two such weapons in connection with
the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
After seeking information from the Justice Department, I was
repeatedly told that the ATF did not knowingly allow these sales.
Working with Congressman Issa, who is chairman of the House Government
Oversight Committee, we released information that showed that the
initial denials were false. This risky policy was, in fact, implemented
at ATF and the Justice Department.
Despite the seriousness of the whistleblowers' allegations and my
repeated inquiries, the Justice Department continued to deny me access
to the documents. As a result, I urged my colleagues to oppose cloture
on James Cole to be Deputy Attorney General. Well, that cloture
opposition worked. We have since reached an agreement with the Justice
Department and Senator Leahy that will guarantee my access to vital
document information and witnesses regarding this ATF operation.
I also understand that Senator Chambliss has reached an agreement on
obtaining the information he has sought on behalf of the Intelligence
Committee. Accordingly, I now lift my opposition to the Senate holding
a vote on Mr. Cole's nomination. However, I want to explain that I am
going to vote against his nomination for many reasons.
I oppose the nomination of James Cole to be Deputy Attorney General
at the Department of Justice because I have serious concerns regarding
Mr. Cole's qualifications. In addition, I am troubled by President
Obama's recess appointment of Mr. Cole to this position. I have been
consistent in my opposition to recess appointments over the years on
committees where I have been chairman or ranking member. Whenever the
President bypasses the Senate; in other words, bypasses our
confirmation of a person, by making a recess appointment, such nominees
will not receive my support where I have been lead on my side
responsible for reviewing such nominees.
We have a process in place for nominations, and if the President is
not willing to work with Senators to clear nominations, the nominee
should not get a second bite at the apple. The Deputy Attorney General
is second in command at the Justice Department and is responsible for
overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Department.
Managing this vast bureaucracy is a difficult task that requires a
serious commitment to protecting our national security, enforcing our
criminal laws, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars. We need a qualified
leader who has the smarts, the capability, and the willingness to
manage Department programs and root out inefficiencies and abuse in
those programs.
After reviewing all of his responses and his hearing testimony, I
concluded that I could not support Mr. Cole's nomination to be Deputy
Attorney General. In particular, I am seriously concerned about Mr.
Cole's views on national security and on terrorism. Back in 2002, Mr.
Cole was author of an opinion piece in the Legal Times. In that piece
he stated:
For all the rhetoric about war, the September 11 attacks
were criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian
population, much like terrorist acts of Timothy McVeigh in
blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City, or of Omar
Abdel-Rahman in the first effort to blow up the World Trade
Center. The criminals responsible for those horrible acts
were successfully tried and convicted under our criminal
justice system without the need for procedures that altered
traditional due process rights.
But I want to quote further.
The acts of September 11th were horrible, but so are . . .
other things.
The other things he referred to were the drug trade, organized crime,
rape, child abuse and murder. Mr. Cole's opinion piece argued that
notwithstanding the involvement of foreign organizations such as al-
Qaida, we have never treated criminal acts influenced by foreign
nationals or governments as a basis for ``ignoring the core
constitutional protections engrained in our criminal justice system.''
Mr. Cole concluded his opinion piece by arguing that in addition to
stopping future terrorist attacks, the Attorney General is a criminal
prosecutor and that he has a special duty to apply constitutional
protections ingrained in our criminal justice system to even including
terrorists captured on foreign battlefields.
Mr. Cole wrote this opinion piece 2 days short of the first
anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Given the close proximity in
time to the September 11 attacks, we must accept this opinion piece as
Mr. Cole's true beliefs about the application of the civilian criminal
justice system to terrorism cases, including those who masterminded the
9/11 attacks.
From the opinion piece and his responses to our inquiry, it appears
that if given a choice of prosecuting high-ranking terrorists in
civilian courts or military commissions, Mr. Cole would likely favor
civilian courts based upon his longstanding belief in the role that the
Attorney General plays in protecting the principles of the criminal
justice system.
Absent a clear statement from Mr. Cole about what factors would
warrant selecting a civilian or a military forum, it is hard to look at
his entire record of past opinion, his testimony and responses to our
questions, and reach any different conclusion.
In fact, my concerns about the individuals at the Justice Department
supporting prosecution of terrorists in civilian criminal court have
been validated by recent events surrounding the arrest of two Iraqi
nationals at Bowling Green, KY. These Iraqi nationals have admitted
targeting American troops in Iraq, plotting to equip foreign fighters
in Iraq with weapons such as grenades and missile launchers. They made
their way to our country and somehow got past the Department of
Homeland Security.
After they were identified, the Justice Department is seeking to try
them in civilian court even though their activities regarded terrorist
activities and took a very military approach.
Attorney General Holder has been steadfast in supporting their
prosecution in civilian court. It appears to me
[[Page S4140]]
that no one in the Justice Department, including Mr. Cole, has objected
to prosecuting these individuals in civilian court. This is despite the
clear nexus to the battlefield in Iraq. So it now appears the Justice
Department, where Mr. Cole currently serves as a recess-appointed
Deputy Attorney General, rewards terrorists who are smart enough to
evade Homeland Security's determination on whether they can come to
this country, and at the same time make their way from the battlefield
with the same rights and privileges as American citizens. All of this
occurred on Mr. Cole's watch as Deputy Attorney General.
Military tribunals have many advantages to civilian criminal courts
and are better equipped to deal with dangerous terrorists and
classified evidence while preserving due process. I am troubled that
Mr. Cole does not appear to share this belief. Because of his responses
and testimony, I have serious concerns about his support for civilian
trials for terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield. This is of
particular concern, given that the Deputy Attorney General oversees the
National Security Division at the Justice Department.
Now for a second reason. I have concerns about Mr. Cole's abilities
relative to oversight of government programs. We asked about oversight
of the Department of Justice's grant programs. When he was asked, Mr.
Cole failed to commit to a top-to-bottom review of the programs, nor
has he undertaken such a review since he was recess appointed. Given
the enormous Federal deficits and enough examples of the tremendous
inefficiencies, duplications, and waste in these programs, one would
assume the Deputy Attorney General would be looking for cost savings in
the Department. I am disappointed Mr. Cole has failed to recognize that
there is a need for a comprehensive review of Justice's grant
programs--not only for the sake of saving taxpayer dollars at a time
when we face skyrocketing fiscal deficits but also to ensure that grant
objectives are being met in the most efficient and effective manner
possible.
A third reason. I have concerns about Mr. Cole's abilities based on
his performance as an independent consultant tasked with overseeing the
insurance firm AIG. By way of background, the Justice Department
provided copies of the reports Mr. Cole issued when he was overseeing
AIG, but they were labeled ``Committee Confidential.'' As a result of
their being labeled ``Committee Confidential,'' I cannot discuss with
specificity the contents of those documents publicly. Nevertheless,
when taken into context with the public responses provided by Mr. Cole
to my questions, a troubling picture develops about Mr. Cole's
performance in his role as independent consultant. The responses and
reports do not dispel the serious questions raised about Mr. Cole's
independence or his completeness. Further, they reveal what appears to
be a level of deference to AIG management one would not expect to see
from someone tasked with the responsibility of being an ``independent''
monitor.
In order to clarify a number of questions on this matter, Senator
Coburn and I sent a followup letter seeking additional answers from Mr.
Cole. Mr. Cole's reply clarified that the Department of Justice, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York Attorney General's
Office were aware of his practice of seeking input from AIG and making
modifications to the reports. He indicated that the changes AIG made
were often factual changes, such as AIG employee names, dates of
materials, and events. He also indicated that some of the changes
requested by AIG were included in a section of the report entitled
``AIG Response.'' However, he added that ``on a few occasions'' AIG
would ``suggest a stylistic change of phrasing in the analytical
section of the report.'' He stated that while he included the edits
made by AIG, he ``did not believe that a detailed presentation of this
factual review process was necessary to an understanding of each
party's position.''
As a result, the reports did not necessarily show which edits AIG
made that were incorporated. Instead, he said those changes were
available in working papers that were ``available to the SEC, the DOJ,
and the New York Attorney General's Office.'' Unfortunately, he added,
``the agencies--which were aware of this practice--did not request such
documents.''
While I appreciate Mr. Cole's responses to these clarifying
questions, they raise concerns about how independent his monitoring
was, what changes were ultimately requested by AIG, what changes were
included, and how much the SEC and the Department of Justice knew about
edits AIG was making to the ``independent'' reports.
In addition, I have serious concerns about Mr. Cole's decision to
suspend compliance review at AIG's financial products division
following the government bailout of AIG. In his testimony, Mr. Cole
acknowledged that subsequent to the government bailout of AIG, he
scaled back his efforts until the future of AIG as a corporation was
determined. After Mr. Cole suspended his monitoring, AIG restructured
its compliance office and terminated a number of staff overseeing the
company's compliance with SEC regulations. Mr. Cole said after it was
determined that AIG's financial products division would not be
dissolved, the compliance and monitoring were ``revived and are being
reviewed and implemented where applicable.''
Under Mr. Cole's watch, AIG not only got $182 billion of taxpayer
dollars for a bailout, but was able to talk the independent
consultant--Mr. Cole--out of monitoring what the company was doing.
I am concerned about Mr. Cole's ability to perform the duties
required of a Deputy Attorney General. In that role, he would be in a
position to potentially influence future compliance monitors appointed
under settlements with the Justice Department, the Securities and
Exchange Commission, and other corporations that have violated the law.
Independent monitors need to be truly independent and, of course,
completely transparent. They are selected and appointed to ensure the
interests of the American people are protected.
For these reasons, I cannot support the nomination of Mr. Cole to be
Deputy Attorney General, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I am very pleased that soon we will be
voting on Jim Cole to be the Deputy Attorney General of the United
States. This is a person who puts principle over politics, a person who
is very important in our war against terror and who will use all lawful
tools to keep our Nation safe. So I am proud to take a few moments to
urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation. I think that is in our
national security interests, and I know he will be and already is an
incredible asset to this country in keeping us safe and doing so in the
best traditions of the U.S. Attorney General's Office.
I would like to talk for a moment on a personal basis because I got
to know Jim Cole when I was serving in the House of Representatives. I
was on the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee is not a committee,
as you know, on which a Member asks to serve; it is something we must
do.
We had a very sensitive investigation in the House of Representatives
concerning the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and the six of us
who served on the Ethics Committee needed to come to a fair,
nonpartisan conclusion to this very challenging investigation. To say
we thought this would be impossible was an understatement of where we
first thought we would be in regard to the investigation. But then we
reached out and agreed to bring in an independent counsel to help us in
our deliberations. That person was Jim Cole.
Jim Cole worked with all of us to look at the facts and do what was
in the best interests of the House of Representatives, the best
interests of our country, and to leave our politics aside so that we
could come out with a result that was fair and would restore confidence
in the legislative process. In fact, we did that. We were able to reach
a totally unanimous judgment, one that was agreed to on the floor of
the House of Representatives and I think spoke volumes about our
ability to get our work done in the best interests of our Nation.
[[Page S4141]]
I thought Jim Cole did a fabulous job, a great job in helping us.
That was also the view of Porter Goss, who was the Republican leader on
the Ethics Committee and chairman of the committee at the time. He said
he felt Jim Cole brought professionalism at the highest level to our
investigation and allowed us to come forward with a fair nonpartisan
conclusion. That is the exact person we need in the Department of
Justice. It is the person we need to be Deputy Attorney General of the
United States.
The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General are our Nation's
lawyers. They don't represent one party; they represent our country. We
need leadership in the Department of Justice who will work in a
nonpartisan way, a way that will bring nonpartisan leadership to the
Department of Justice. Jim Cole is that type of person. He has the
experience, he has the character, and he has the commitment to fill
this very important position in our Nation, with 13 years in the
Department of Justice and experience in public interest law. His career
has been devoted to the public interest in community service.
I was listening to my colleague and friend Senator Grassley talk
about his concerns about some of the private law practice of Jim Cole.
Here is a person who has devoted his life basically to community and
his career in public interest law. He has been a prosecutor. He has
been a person who has dealt with white-collar criminals. And, yes, he
is an effective attorney. As those of us who are lawyers know, we will
represent our clients aggressively, but we don't lose sight of our
system. That has been Jim Cole throughout his career. He will bring the
expertise he has had in his previous experience to represent our Nation
well. These are tough times. We are dealing with threats around the
world where we need an Attorney General and a Deputy Attorney General
who will use all lawful tools in order to protect our country.
It is interesting that Jim Cole enjoys endorsement from both sides of
the aisle. When we look at high-ranking Department of Justice former
officials, both Democrats and Republicans have endorsed Jim Cole's
confirmation to be the Deputy Attorney General.
Let me quote from one Republican source that I think is typical of
the endorsements we have received encouraging the confirmation of Jim
Cole. We received a letter from Fred Fielding. I think most of you know
Fred Fielding. He was White House Counsel for former President George
W. Bush. I think most of us had close dealings with and respected him
greatly in the service to the Bush administration. This is what Fred
Fielding said about Jim Cole:
Mr. Cole combines all the qualities you would want in a
citizen public servant. He understands both sides of the
street and is smart and tenacious, and is a person of
unquestioned honor and integrity.
Well, I agree with Fred Fielding. This is the type of person we need
to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
I am pleased we are going to have this vote later on today. I
encourage my colleagues to vote for his confirmation. It is important
that we have individuals in these key positions who enjoy the full
confirmation from the Senate, and I hope my colleagues will join me in
supporting this nominee.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the
nomination of Lisa O. Monaco to be the Assistant Attorney General for
National Security that is before the Senate.
The Assistant Attorney General for National Security is a fairly new
position but a very important one, especially in a time of rapidly
evolving threats to our nation and increasingly challenging legal
questions about how to prepare for and combat those threats.
As the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Ms. Monaco
would represent the government in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, FISA, proceedings and sign off on applications to allow the
government to move quickly to track down terrorists and spies operating
against the United States. She will be the principal official in the
Department of Justice for engaging with the intelligence community as
agencies determine the authorities and limitations under the law.
Ms. Monaco's confirmation is long overdue. She was approved
unanimously by both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees
last month after the May 1 strike against Osama bin Laden.
Importantly for the Assistant Attorney General for National Security
position, that operation netted a large cache of al-Qaida documents,
communications, and videos that will, no doubt, lead to new
counterterrorism leads.
On May 8 National Security Adviser Tom Donilon was on ``Meet the
Press,'' and he said, ``This is the largest cache of intelligence
derived from the scene of any single terrorist. It's about the size,
the CIA tells us, of a small college library.''
In the past 2 months, intelligence and law enforcement professionals
have been scouring that information for new threats, leads, and
insights into al-Qaida and global terrorism. As the intelligence gained
is turned into counterterrorism actions, Lisa Monaco will oversee those
activities.
The bottom line is that at this time of heightened potential threat
of terrorism, the Attorney General, the intelligence community, and the
entire administration need to have their team in place.
Ms. Monaco was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 9
and by the Senate Intelligence Committee on May 24, in both cases by
unanimous vote. Both committees held nomination hearings for Ms. Monaco
and for both committees, she completed prehearing and post-hearing
questions. I know Ms. Monaco also had a chance to meet with members of
both committees and it is clear she is impressive and well-qualified.
There is no doubt that Ms. Monaco has the experience to be an
effective Assistant Attorney General for National Security. Let me
describe her background in more detail.
Since February 2010, Lisa Monaco has served as the Principal
Associate Deputy Attorney General or acted in that capacity, and she
served as Associate Deputy Attorney General from January 2009 through
February 2010.
She also has considerable experience with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, having served as chief of staff to Director Robert
Mueller, September 2007-January 2009.
Ms. Monaco spent 6 years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the
District of Columbia when she received the Attorney General's Award for
Exceptional Service, the Department of Justice's highest award. She
also received Department of Justice Awards for Special Achievement on
three occasions, in 2002, 2003, and 2005.
She received her law degree from the University of Chicago Law
School, 1997, and her B.A. from Harvard University, 1990.
Ms. Monaco's nomination has received support from a range of former
senior officials of the FBI and Department of Justice, including former
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and former Assistant Attorney
General for National Security Kenneth L. Wainstein.
So we see that Ms. Monaco's background and qualifications are
impeccable. I strongly urge the Senate to approve her nomination to be
the Assistant Attorney General and wish her success in this position.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. After extensive and unnecessary delays, the Senate will
finally vote today on three important nominations to fill high-level
posts at the Department of Justice. Two of these positions have
national security responsibilities. I have been here since the Ford
administration, and I cannot recall a time when the Justice Department
and the country were deprived of such critical appointees. Whether we
had a Republican or Democratic President, we always quickly filled
these kinds of national security positions. So it is hard to understand
why we have not been able to vote on nominees for positions with
significant national security responsibilities such as the Deputy
Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for the National
[[Page S4142]]
Security Division--especially when we are 2\1/2\ months away from the
10th anniversary of September 11.
The nominations of Jim Cole to be Deputy Attorney General, Lisa
Monaco to be Assistant Attorney General for National Security, and
Virginia Seitz to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal
Counsel have been blocked for months by Republican obstruction over
matters not related to the qualifications of the nominees and in abject
disregard of the needs of the Justice Department and the country. So I
am glad that today we are finally going to vote and, I trust, confirm
these superbly qualified nominees.
The unprecedented filibuster of the nomination of the Deputy Attorney
General has been especially egregious. The Deputy Attorney General is
the No. 2 position at the Justice Department, and it is a position with
key national security responsibilities. Despite significant bipartisan
support and unquestionable qualifications, Jim Cole's nomination has
been blocked for nearly a year. He was reported favorably by the Senate
Judiciary Committee in July of last year--11 months ago--but the
Republicans prevented a vote. He was renominated and reported favorably
a second time in the middle of March, but Republicans stalled and
filibustered consideration of the nomination last month. During my time
in the Senate, I have seen the nominations of many Deputy Attorneys
General. Every time they have been voted on favorably by the Senate
Judiciary Committee--whether under Republican or Democratic control--
their nomination has been voted on within a matter of days on the
Senate floor. This is the first time in the Nation's history that a
President's nominee to serve as Deputy Attorney General was
filibustered, and it was wrong.
Jim Cole's nomination should not have been controversial. It is a
nomination supported by former Republican Senator Jack Danforth, who
was nominated by President Bush to be our Ambassador to the United
Nations. Senator Danforth worked with Jim Cole for more than 15 years.
When he introduced him at his confirmation hearing, Senator Danforth
described Mr. Cole as someone without an ideological or political
agenda. He also wrote to the committee:
Jim is a ``lawyer's lawyer.'' He is exceedingly
knowledgeable, especially on matters relating to legal and
business ethics, public integrity and compliance with
government regulations. He is highly regarded . . . as a
skillful litigator. As his resume demonstrates, he has long
and deep experience in the Department of Justice.
I agree. Jim Cole served as a career prosecutor at the Justice
Department for a dozen years and has a well-deserved reputation for
fairness, integrity and toughness. He has demonstrated that he
understands the issues of crime and national security that are at the
center of the Deputy Attorney General's job. Nothing suggests that he
is anything other than a steadfast defender of American safety.
We have received numerous letters of support for Mr. Cole's
nomination, including letters from many former Republican public
officials. I put several of those letters in the Record last month. The
Senate should have heeded those recommendations as well as the advice
of former Deputy Attorneys General of the United States who served in
both Republican and Democratic administrations. They wrote to us last
December to urge the Senate to consider Mr. Cole's nomination without
delay--last December--pointing out that the Deputy Attorney General is
``the chief operating officer of the Department of Justice, supervising
its day-to-day operations'' and that ``the Deputy is also a key member
of the president's national security team, a function that has grown in
importance and complexity in the years since the terror attacks of
September 11.'' They were right. The Senate was wrong to filibuster
this nomination. The Senate has the opportunity today to finally
confirm this good man and public servant. I trust this institution will
take that opportunity.
Incredibly, the nomination of the Deputy Attorney General was
subjected to a partisan filibuster for over three more months while the
country faces concerns about terrorism in the aftermath of the
President's successful operation against al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.
It is hard for me to understand how, at a time when experts are
concerned that al-Qaida will seek reprisals, some in the Senate have
delayed action to ensure that President Obama has his full national
security team in place. No matter who is President, we should want that
President to have their national security team in place for the good of
all Americans.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Senate Democrats expedited law enforcement
and national security nominations, confirming an additional 58
officials to posts at the Justice Department before the end of 2001.
The Senate should have done the same with the nomination of Jim Cole.
Senate Republicans should have treated Mr. Cole's nomination with the
same urgency and seriousness with which Senate Democrats treated all
four of the Deputy Attorneys General who served under President Bush.
All four were confirmed by the Senate by voice vote an average of 21
days after they were reported by the Judiciary Committee. No Deputy
Attorney General nomination had ever been subjected to a filibuster
before. That is what Senator Republicans did this year. It was wrong.
In addition, Senate Republicans have blocked votes on the nomination
of Lisa Monaco to head the National Security Division at the Justice
Department, another key national security position. Her nomination has
been blocked even though it was considered at hearings and reported
unanimously, not only by the Judiciary Committee but also by the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence. She was reported unanimously by all
Democrats and all Republicans in two key committees. Senator Grassley,
Senator Chambliss and all the Republican members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
voted for her. To have an almost 2-month delay has been incredible--she
should have been confirmed right after her nomination was reported by
the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.
Lisa Monaco's nomination has long been supported by former Justice
Department officials, including former Attorney General Mukasey, who
served during President George W. Bush's administration. He wrote:
Based on my meetings and conversations with Ms. Monaco, I
believe that she has both sound judgment and a keen
understanding of national security law. Which is to say, she
understands both the stakes and the rules.
The Monaco nomination to head the National Security Division at the
Justice Department should have been confirmed before the Memorial Day
recess. I have little doubt that she will be confirmed overwhelmingly.
But the almost two-month delay is not excused by voting for her
confirmation now. The National Security Division has been without her
leadership. The national security team has been without another key
member.
Virginia Seitz is another superbly qualified nominee with bipartisan
support who should have been confirmed before the Memorial Day recess,
but whose nomination has been blocked from consideration by Senate
Republicans. A Rhodes Scholar and former Supreme Court clerk, Ms. Seitz
has received support for her nomination from some of the most
preeminent lawyers in the country, including many who have served in
Republican administrations. This nomination was also reported
unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. All Republican members and all
Democratic members voted for her. Then Senate Republicans turned around
and blocked her confirmation.
I have seen the crocodile tears of some over the last few days as
they lament the lack of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion on how the
War Powers Act applied to the NATO-led operation in Libya. It is Senate
Republicans who are responsible for having delayed and blocked the
Office of Legal Counsel from having its Assistant Attorney General in
place. Today, after 7 weeks of obstruction, the Senate will finally
consider the nomination of Virginia Seitz.
The treatment of these nominees is now carrying over to other
nominations and important legislative initiatives, as well. Just last
week we witnessed for the first time since the infamous partisan vote
on the nomination of Ronnie White of Missouri, the spectacle of
Republican Senators who had voted in favor of a nomination in committee
switching to vote against the
[[Page S4143]]
nomination when considered by the Senate. We have seen Republican
Senators, who in consultation with the White House and Judiciary
Committee approved a judicial nominee, flipping to oppose the nominee.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has considered two national security
bills during the last 2 weeks. Both times Republican Senators professed
to support the legislation as they voted against it. The most critical
and time sensitive is the bill before the Senate to authorize a limited
extension of the term of service of FBI Director Robert Mueller, as the
President has requested. The President made his request more than 6
weeks ago in light of ``the ongoing threats facing the United States,
as well as the leadership transitions at other agencies.'' He asked us
``to join together in extending [Director Mueller's] leadership for the
sake of our nation's safety and security.''
Rather than join together as Senate Democrats did with the President
following 9/11, 7 of the 8 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee opposed the bill. We have to consider and pass that bill
without delay. Both the House and Senate have to pass it before the
August recess. With the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001,
attacks approaching, and in the face of continuing threats in the wake
of the President's recent, successful operation against Osama bin
Laden, we need the continuity and stability of having FBI Director
Mueller in place. Without enactment of this legislation, he will not
be. He will be forced from that critical post on August 3.
I urge all Senators, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, to join
together for the good of the country to take quick action to pass the
FBI extension, S. 1103. We cannot afford a repeat of the unnecessary
delays that have held up these nominations finally considered today.
I thank today's nominees for their dedication and look forward to
working with them as they faithfully execute their important
responsibilities at the Justice Department. I also thank their families
for their patience and for the support they give these outstanding
public servants. In my 37 years in the Senate I have never seen a time
when so many good nominees are held up, even though eventually so many
then go through unanimously. I wish Senators would stop and think for a
moment: This is awfully hard on their spouses and their children. It is
awfully hard among their friends who wonder, Is there something we
don't know about? Why were they held up so long?
We can all take our political positions--and should. We all vote--and
should. But let's not take it out on the good Americans who want to
serve their country, oftentimes at great sacrifice. Remember, we also
take it out on their families.
Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded and to speak as in morning business.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I will not
object. But insofar as many had planned to be here for the 12 o'clock
scheduled votes, could the Senator from Florida tell me how long he
wishes to take?
Mr. RUBIO. Five minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. I will not object, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
libya
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, over the last 2 weeks, we have seen a
deepening divide between the White House and Congress over Libya. It is
a clash that was completely avoidable but also counterproductive.
First, for the life of me, I do not understand why this
administration did not bring this issue to the Congress from the
outset. In the early days of the Libyan rebellion, the President should
have come to the Congress, informed us that an armed rebellion had
arisen against Libya's anti-American, criminal dictator; that the
rebels were asking for our assistance in establishing a no-fly zone
over Libyan air space so they could take care of the dictator
themselves; and that with our support, he intended to work with our
allies to establish such a no-fly zone.
If this President had done this, I believe he would have found
support here and Qadhafi would have been gone a long time ago.
But instead, this administration waited. While it did, Qadhafi
reestablished momentum and began to carry out a new level of atrocities
unprecedented even by his murderous standards. And then, only with the
Qadhafi mercenaries on the outskirts of Benghazi threatening to
massacre thousands of innocent civilians, did the United States finally
agree to participate.
But even that was botched. First, we ceded most of the operation over
to our NATO allies. God bless them for trying, but they do not have the
military capability to finish the job.
Second, the President never consulted Congress, again ignoring a co-
equal branch of government unnecessarily.
And then, when finally he was pressed under the War Powers Act, he
claims the United States is not involved in hostilities in Libya.
Why we have reached this point is something history will have to
explain. Suffice it to say, it didn't have to be this way. And the
reason why it is is 100 percent the result of the President's failure
to lead.
Now, all that being said, we need to decide what to do next. This is
not about hawks versus doves or interventionists versus isolationists
or any of the other labels being thrown around here.
And this cannot be about how upset any of us are at the President for
botching the handling of this matter.
What we do next should be decided based on what is in the best
interest of our country.
And here is the reality: Whether you agree with it or not, the United
States is now engaged in a fight, and it is a fight that only has two
possible endings.
It can end with the fall of a brutal, criminal, anti-American
dictator or it could end in that dictator's victory over our allies and
us.
I would suggest, given these two choices, the best choice for America
is the first one, the fall of the anti-American dictator.
Going forward, how do we do this? First, we should officially
recognize the Transitional National Council.
Second, we should provide additional resources to support the
council, including access to Libyan funds frozen here in the United
States. And by the way, we should also make sure the frozen funds are
also used to reimburse us, the United States, for the cost of this
operation.
Third, we should intensify strike operations to target the Qadhafi
regime and get rid of this guy once and for all, and as soon as
possible.
Then, fourth, we should go home and allow the Libyan people to build
a new nation and a new future for themselves.
I understand that, rightfully so, many here in the Congress and
across America are weary of more war and more overseas engagement
during a time of severe budget constraints at home.
But the fact remains, whether you agree with it or not, we are
already involved. We are already involved in Libya. We have already
spent a considerable amount of money there. Are we going to let all
that go to waste? Are we prepared to walk away and get stuck with a
lose-lose proposition? We spent all this money on Libya, and Qadhafi is
still around?
It is in our national interest to get this over with already.
This afternoon, the Foreign Relations Committee will meet to consider
a resolution on this matter. I am concerned that rather than push the
President to do what is necessary to bring this conflict to a
successful conclusion, some are pushing to restrict our campaign.
No matter how you may feel about the original decision, we must now
deal with the situation as it now stands. And the bottom line here is
that if we withdraw from our air war over Libya, it will lengthen the
conflict, increase the cost to American taxpayers, and raise doubts
about United States leadership among friends and foes alike.
Here is what withdrawal will mean in real terms:
[[Page S4144]]
The coalition would quickly unravel. Qadhafi would emerge victorious,
even more dangerous and determined to seek his revenge through
terrorism against the countries in NATO and the Arab League that tried
and failed to overthrow him.
We would see a bloodbath inside Libya. This killer, Qadhafi, will
unleash unspeakable horrors against the Libyan people. And the ripple
effects will be felt across the Middle East. For example, the
prodemocracy movements in places like Iran and Syria would conclude
that they too might be abandoned and the dictators they oppose would be
emboldened.
Our disengagement would irreparably harm the NATO alliance.
I fully understand the frustration at the way the President has
handled this situation, but the answer to any problem is not to make it
worse.
Some may think what we do here this afternoon on the resolution is
largely symbolic, simply intended to send a message to the White House.
Yes, it will send a message to the President, but it will also send a
message to Qadhafi and those around him.
And here is the message that I fear we may send: That the coalition
is breaking and the Qadhafi regime might yet win. I know that is not
anyone's intention, but that is the very real risk we run.
There is a better, more pragmatic way forward.
Let's pass a resolution backing these activities.
For those frustrated with the President's failure to adequately make
the case for our involvement, our job in Congress is to push the
administration to do a better job explaining our effort in Libya.
Here is the good news: The tide in Libya appears to be turning
against Qadhafi. The opposition in Benghazi has succeeded in expanding
the territory under its control, breaking the siege laid by regime
forces on Misrata, the country's third largest city.
At the same time, the Qadhafi regime has been shaken by further
defections and collapsing international support.
Libya is at a critical juncture. And for the United States, there is
only one acceptable outcome--the removal of the Qadhafi regime and,
with it, the opportunity for the Libyan people to build a free and
democratic society.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield back all remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of James Michael Cole, of the District of
Columbia, to be Deputy Attorney General?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl),
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), and the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 97 Ex.]
YEAS--55
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--42
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Kohl
Manchin
Udall (NM)
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Virginia A. Seitz, of the District of
Columbia, to be an Assistant Attorney General?
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Lisa O. Monaco, of the District of
Columbia, to be an Assistant Attorney General?
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, and the
President shall be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, today, the Senate considered the
nomination of James Cole to be deputy Attorney General of the United
States. I voted against his nomination and want to explain my vote.
Mr. Cole has been a vocal critic of the use of military commissions
to try terrorists. Based upon my review of his record, it is apparent
that he is an ardent supporter of the use of article III courts to try
terrorists. He has advocated a criminal law approach to prosecuting
terrorists. By way of example Mr. Cole has stated:
For all the rhetoric about war, the September 11 attacks
were criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian
population.
Testifying before the Judiciary Committee, he refused to say whether
he favored a civilian or military trial for Osama bin Laden, should he
be captured alive.
I believe that such decisions should be made on a case-by-
case basis, based on all the relevant factors and
circumstances available at the time of the suspect's capture.
Additionally, under Mr. Cole's watch, the Justice Department has
announced that it would try two Iraqi nationals who were arrested in
Kentucky on charges related to attacking and killing U.S. troops in
Iraq, in civilian courts.
While Mr. Cole has the academic and legal background necessary to
fill this position, his actions as Deputy Attorney General and history
supporting civilian trials for terrorists clearly establishes that he
will pursue an agenda that seeks to ensure that terrorists are tried in
article III courts. These issues are of paramount concern and I cannot
support a nominee who subscribes to these views. Accordingly, I had no
choice but to oppose this nomination.
____________________