[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Page S867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         NOMINATIONS OBJECTIONS


                           Christopher Meade

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President. I intend to object to proceeding to 
the nomination of Christopher Meade to be General Counsel to the 
Treasury Department for the following reason: At his confirmation 
hearing, I asked Mr. Meade for the Treasury Department's legal basis 
for not responding to an oversight request I made regarding the 
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Mr. Meade is 
currently the Acting General Counsel and his response appeared to 
indicate that he interpreted a statute which states: ``Nothing in this 
subsection shall be construed to prevent disclosure to either House of 
Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of the 
Congress'' as a limitation on Congress' ability to access information. 
The plain reading of the statute appears contrary to this 
interpretation.
  In addition, Mr. Meade appeared to interpret a statute which requires 
CFIUS to brief certain specified Members of Congress as restricting 
CFIUS' ability to brief anyone except those members. Again, the plain 
reading of the statute appears contrary to this interpretation. There 
is nothing in this statute which restricts Treasury from briefing any 
other Members of Congress.
  In an attempt to give Mr. Meade an opportunity to clarify his 
statements and explain his legal reasoning I wrote Mr. Meade another 
letter asking him to explain his logic and legal reasoning. I expect 
his reply shortly.
  The most important role a Department General Counsel plays is in the 
interpretation of statutes passed by Congress. If Congress cannot be 
satisfied that Mr. Meade will impartially and accurately interpret 
statutes, this is a grave concern. The issues I have raised appear 
uncontroversial. If a statute says that ``nothing'' in it can be 
construed to prevent the disclosure of information to Congress, I do 
not expect it to be interpreted to limit Congress' ability to access 
information. If a statute does not limit CFIUS' ability to brief 
Members of Congress, I do not expect it to be interpreted to limit 
CFIUS' ability to brief Members of Congress.
  I strongly believe that Congress' job does not end once it passes a 
statute. It is our job to ensure that the Executive Branch enforces the 
statute the way it was written. I will object to proceeding to Mr. 
Meade's nomination until he demonstrates that he will interpret these 
statutes consistent with their plain meaning.


                              Bill Schultz

  Madam President, I would also like to express my opposition to moving 
forward with Bill Schultz as the General Counsel for the Health and 
Human Services Administration. My objection is due to the agency's 
refusal to respond to my oversight requests. It is not based on Mr. 
Shultz's qualifications or ability to do the job. I have met with Mr. 
Schultz and believe him to be fair and hard working.
  However, as I mentioned to him during his nomination hearing and when 
I met with him personally--I have many unanswered letters and document 
requests pending with HHS. Specifically: I have received no response to 
my December 6, 2011, letter eliminating the age restriction on Plan B; 
I received no response to Chairman Issa and my April 5, 2012, letter to 
FDA regarding the monitoring of FDA employees; I received no response 
to my July 16, 2012, letter to FDA regarding the monitoring of FDA 
employees; I received no response to my July 24, 2012, letter to FDA 
regarding the monitoring of FDA employees.
  This is unacceptable.
  FDA intentionally spied on confidential communication with Congress, 
the Office of Special Counsel, and the whistleblowers private 
attorneys. Furthermore, in a meeting with my staff you indicated that 
one month was too long for letters from Congress to go unanswered. My 
letters have gone unanswered ranging from 7 months to over a year.
  Until I receive answers to my letters and document requests, I am 
hesitant to agree to any movement on this nomination.

                          ____________________