[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 64 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2578-S2579]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NOMINATION OF THEODORE CHUANG

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to talk for a few minutes on 
one of the nominations we have today, the nomination of Theodore Chuang 
to be district judge for Maryland. This nomination was voted out of 
committee on a 10-to-8 vote. I opposed the nomination in committee, and 
I would urge my colleagues to do the same today. I can't support the 
nomination because of the central role Mr. Chuang played in the 
administration's persistent and steadfast stonewalling of the 
congressional investigation into the attack on our diplomatic mission 
in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. That attack resulted in the first 
murder of a sitting U.S. Ambassador in over 30 years. Three other brave 
Americans serving their country were killed in Benghazi as well.
  As we all know too well, just hours after the fighting had ended, 
this administration--in the middle of a Presidential campaign at the 
time--rushed to blame the attack on an obscure Internet video. The 
administration denied what was already clear: that what had happened at 
Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist attack that had nothing to do 
with any video. The CIA's Libya station chief and other administration 
officials immediately recognized and reported that the attack was an 
act of terror, not a spontaneous demonstration. The American people 
demanded answers. Congress demanded answers as well. But the 
administration has systematically stonewalled our ability to get those 
answers. That is where this nominee's role comes into play.
  Following the Benghazi attack, Mr. Chuang left his position at the 
Department of Homeland Security to undertake a special detail at the 
State Department. His job at the State Department was to provide legal 
guidance and manage the Department's responses to the congressional 
investigation into a terrorist attack.
  For months the State Department ignored congressional inquiries. That 
forced the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee to issue 
subpoenas in August 2013. Mr. Chuang received those duly issued 
subpoenas but continued the administration's policies of systematic 
stonewalling.
  So let me be very clear. The State Department has never asserted that 
the emails, the documents or witness interviews conducted by the 
Benghazi Accountability Review Board are protected by executive 
privilege. The State Department has never asserted any privilege 
justifying its refusal to disclose documents responsive to these 
subpoenas. The State Department has never provided any legal basis 
whatsoever for its continued stonewalling of this investigation.
  So following Mr. Chuang's nomination hearing before our Judiciary 
Committee, I asked him several questions for the record about why the 
State Department refused to comply with its legal obligation to respond 
to the subpoenas. Mr. Chuang, who was in charge of coordinating the 
State Department's responses, couldn't come up with a legal basis. 
Instead, he cited only ``institutional concerns.''
  That ought not be a good enough answer for what is a legitimate role 
of oversight by the Congress, trying to get answers to legitimate 
questions. In other words, abstract ``institutional concerns'' does not 
permit the executive branch to toss a congressional subpoena into the 
garbage.
  Benghazi raises questions of vital national importance that to this 
very day remain unanswered. They remain unanswered because this 
administration refuses to honor its legal obligations to comply with 
the congressional oversight that is being done through the 
extraordinary measure of subpoena. The American people deserve better 
and so do we. We are members of coequal branches of the Federal 
Government.
  But the Benghazi scandal isn't simply going to go away. In fact, just 
this week additional emails came to light demonstrating that the White 
House led a coordinated messaging effort on Benghazi from the very 
beginning.
  This is what one of the emails said: It was the administration's goal 
``to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and 
not a broader failure of policy.''
  That quotation is from an email sent by the administration's Deputy 
National Security Advisor on September 14, 2012--2 days after the 
attack. That email was sent even though officials on the ground in 
Libya had reported that the attack was an act of terror.
  Some have called this email the smoking gun, proving that the 
administration intentionally misled the American people about the 
terrorist attack, but no matter how this email is characterized, it was 
clearly responsive to congressional subpoenas and does not seem to have 
been produced until a government watchdog group filed a Freedom of 
Information lawsuit seeking to compel the administration to comply.
  So let me be clear. From what we know now, it took a Freedom of 
Information Act request and an ensuing lawsuit to force the State 
Department to produce documents that were obviously related to the 
terror attack at Benghazi, and this is the case even though the House 
committee made multiple requests for those documents and then issued 
subpoenas compelling their production.
  I am sure Mr. Chuang thought he was doing his duty to zealously 
represent his client when he was managing the document subpoenas the 
State Department received from Congress, but his role in coordinating 
administrative responses was plainly unsatisfactory and unacceptable 
and something that goes against the grain of an administration that on 
day two of their administration--in other words, January 21, 2009--said 
this was going to be the most transparent administration in the history 
of the country.
  We should demand more and expect more respect for congressional 
oversight. For this reason I have decided to oppose this nomination, a 
nomination that was reported out of committee on a 10-to-8 vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nominations 
related to the cloture vote of Theodore Chuang and George Hazel.
  Senator Cardin and I are recommending these two outstanding men to 
serve on the U.S. district court in Maryland. Senator Cardin and I are 
proud to nominate these men because of the outstanding qualities they 
will bring to the Federal bench in Maryland that has had a long and 
distinguished career of absolutely fantastic judges.
  We have before us two Maryland judges who will be taking a different 
status--Judge Titus and Judge Williams. Judge Williams served in the 
Southern District of the Maryland Federal court--and we salute those 
two for

[[Page S2579]]

their outstanding service. On another day I will say what a great job 
they have done.
  Senator Cardin and I take our responsibilities for recommending to 
the President the people of the highest caliber to serve as judges. We 
believe very strongly in the concept of an independent judiciary, 
people who will bring to the bench absolute integrity, judicial 
competence and temperament, a commitment to the core constitutional 
principles that have made our country great, and also though a history 
of civic engagement in Maryland--because a judge is not how many Law 
Review articles they write but can they administer equal justice and 
continue to honor equal protection under the law. Mr. Chuang and Mr. 
Hazel meet and exceed these standards.
  Mr. Hazel comes with an incredible background. He served as an 
assistant U.S. attorney to the district court of Maryland. He has been 
the southern division coordinator on tough issues such as Project 
Exile, a Federal-State partnership addressing gun and violent crimes in 
Prince George's County and surrounding areas. He spent 5 years in 
private practice at Weil, Gotshal & Manges. He is also a man of faith, 
involved deeply in his church, Metropolitan Baptist Church, where he 
serves as a deacon.
  Most recently, he has worked with the Baltimore State's attorneys 
office. The Baltimore State's attorney's office faced a lot of 
challenges. It faced dated technology and difficulties in maintaining 
chain of custody on evidence. He came in to work with our new State's 
attorney, which is an elected position, and he is a real reformer. So 
whether you were a prosecutor or you were a defendant, you knew it was 
going to be one of the best well-organized offices in Maryland.
  Hazel brought that kind of know-how to make sure the apparatus of 
government worked because that was all part of making sure people got 
equal justice: Did we have the right guy when we were a prosecutor? Did 
we have the right evidence? Did the prosecutor have the right tools? 
Did the public defender or their private counsel have the opportunity 
to provide the defense of them? We have been able to do that. Also, 
working in his church he has shown he has been available to provide all 
kinds of pro bono services.
  He is a graduate of a distinguished law school and he is a Morehouse 
man. I think when he takes the Federal bench and takes that oath, we 
are going to be proud of the service he does.
  Then there is Mr. Chuang, the one who has been under dispute today. 
Gosh, I wish the whole Senate could meet him as well as Mr. Hazel. This 
is a new generation coming into the Maryland Federal judiciary. Mr. 
Chuang's parents and his own story is that of the American dream.
  Mr. Chuang's parents came with practically nothing from Taiwan 
seeking the American dream and a better life for their family. He 
worked very hard and then went on to some of our most distinguished 
schools. He went to Harvard Law School and Harvard University. He was a 
summa cum laude undergraduate and named by Time magazine as one of the 
high achievers. At Harvard, he was with the Law Review. But as I said, 
it is not how many Law Review articles one writes; it is, do they right 
wrongs in our society.
  Yes, he has served at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; yes, 
he has worked in government positions; yes, he has worked in private 
practice at Wilmer Cutler; yes, he has been at the Department of 
Justice; and, yes, he did provide legal counsel to the State 
Department. I am going to talk about that.
  First of all, I am kind of tired of this Benghazi witch hunt stuff, 
but I am not going to go into that. I respect my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. Congress has a right to oversight.
  But let me make the record clear: Mr. Chuang's role during his 
temporary assignment was as legal counsel providing legal advice and 
representation to his client. His client was the State Department. 
Although he provided legal advice related to the House Committee on 
Oversight & Government Reform, he did not have decisionmaking authority 
over whether to provide subpoenaed documents to the committee. That was 
at higher levels. If the committee had a beef with the State 
Department, they should have taken it up with the Secretary of the 
State, which I know they did.
  During his 6-month detail, the State Department produced a vast 
majority of documents and witnesses requested by the HOGR.
  In the case of the subpoena in question--which was for internal files 
of the independent Accountability Review Board that conducted the 
Benghazi investigation--the State Department agreed to produce most of 
the documents but has to date declined to produce memoranda of 
interviews of State Department personnel because disclosure of those 
witness statements may chill cooperation in future ARBs. Although State 
offered to discuss alternative means of serving the committee's 
request, the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform has not 
actively engaged the State Department on this since the fall of 2013.
  Opposition to Mr. Chuang's nomination will have no impact on whether 
the State Department produces the documents, and he is not a State 
Department employee.
  So I respect my colleagues for wanting to have cooperation. I don't 
dispute whether they have a legitimate grievance. I leave that in that 
field and domain, but I would say Mr. Chuang's role was that of a civil 
servant, providing advice to the leadership of the State Department on 
this matter. Then the State Department's job, at its highest level, was 
to negotiate with the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, 
chaired by Mr. Issa and the ranking member, our very good colleague 
Congressman Cummings of Baltimore.
  So if we are going to vote against Chuang because the Secretary of 
State did or did not do something, I think we have other problems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for 1 additional minute to summarize.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If we continue to attack people because of the job they 
did for which they had no decision about, we are going to have a 
chilling effect on who comes into government.
  If these two men whom I am recommending and whom the President has 
nominated were in private practice, they could be making hundreds of 
thousands of dollars. Because these two men are duty-driven, with 
outstanding educations, backgrounds, and experience, they have chosen 
public service. I hope the Senate chooses them to serve on the Federal 
bench. This body is going to be very proud of them the way Senator 
Cardin and I are in bringing them to the floor's attention. I urge that 
we invoke cloture.
  I yield the floor and ask that we follow regular order.

                          ____________________