[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 33 (Thursday, March 7, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Page S1240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           BRENNAN NOMINATION

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday the junior the Senator from 
Kentucky took to the Senate floor to exercise his rights as an 
individual Senator in pursuit of an answer from the Attorney General 
concerning the rights of U.S. citizens.
  The filibuster was extended, heartfelt, and important, and I wish to 
say a few words in reaction to that effort and, as well, on the 
nomination of John Brennan to be Director of the Central Intelligence 
Agency.
  The question he raised was entirely appropriate and should have 
already been answered by the Obama administration.
  First, I wish to state for the Record and to correct any 
misimpression that yesterday's long debate was a criticism of the 
Senate's oversight of our Nation's intelligence activities. In fact, 
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is responsible for 
conducting vigorous oversight of our Nation's intelligence activities, 
and I want to make clear that they were not the subject of last night's 
debate. The members of that committee conduct that oversight in a 
professional, responsible manner, and selflessly serve the rest of the 
Senate in that capacity.
  Let me assure the Senate, the activities of the intelligence 
community are closely monitored and overseen by the Intelligence 
Committee, to include all counterterrorism activities.
  Most recently, the committee has conducted a serious and much-needed 
inquiry into the terrorist attack on the temporary mission facility in 
Benghazi, Libya, and has conducted a thorough review of John Brennan's 
nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Thanks to 
the leadership of Chairman Feinstein and Vice Chairman Chambliss, the 
committee has made significant progress in reviewing Mr. Brennan's 
record, the intelligence related to the terrorist threat in Libya, and 
in reviewing the administration's legal opinions concerning some 
overseas activities.
  Second, in reviewing Mr. Brennan's nomination, Senator Paul has asked 
a series of questions of the executive branch. Senator Paul has a right 
to ask questions of the administration, and the administration has a 
responsibility to answer in keeping with the rules established for 
oversight of intelligence activities and for protecting sensitive 
information.
  The specific question, however, is not an intelligence-related 
question but a straightforward legal question: Does the President have 
the authority to order the use of lethal force against a U.S. citizen 
who is not a combatant on U.S. soil without due process of law?
  To his credit, John Brennan directly answered the question motivating 
Senator Paul's filibuster: The Central Intelligence Agency does not 
conduct lethal operations inside the United States, nor does it have 
the authority to do so. What is befuddling is why the Attorney General 
has not directly and clearly answered the question.
  The U.S. military no more has the right to kill a U.S. citizen on 
U.S. soil who is not a combatant with an armed unmanned aerial vehicle 
than it does with an M-16. The technology is beside the point. It 
simply doesn't have that right, and the administration should simply 
answer the question. There is no reason we cannot get this question 
answered today. And we should get the question answered today. Frankly, 
it should have been answered a long time ago.
  Last, during Senator Paul's filibuster, I noted that I cannot support 
John Brennan's confirmation. During January of 2009, the President 
issued a series of Executive orders which, in my judgment, weakened the 
ability of our intelligence community to find, capture, detain, and 
interrogate terrorists. As President Obama's senior adviser on 
counterterrorism, Mr. Brennan has been a fierce defender of the 
administration's approach to counterterrorism as articulated by the 
Executive orders I just referred to. He has been a loyal, dogged 
defender of the administration's policies, policies with which I 
seriously disagree. My greatest concern is that the Director of Central 
Intelligence must be entirely independent of partisan politics in 
developing objective analysis and advice that he gives to the 
President. After 4 years of working within the White House, confronting 
difficult policy matters on a daily basis, and having attempted to 
defend the administration's policies--sometimes publicly, sometimes to 
the media, and occasionally to the Senate--I question whether Mr. 
Brennan can detach himself from those experiences.

  For that reason I will oppose his nomination.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________