[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 186 (Tuesday, November 14, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Page S7192]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Confirmation of Derek Kan

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to note last 
night's strong bipartisan vote of 90 to 7 to confirm Derek Kan's 
nomination. I am very happy that Mr. Kan is now able to take up the 
duties of Under Secretary for Transportation Policy at the Department 
of Transportation after a long, entirely unnecessary delay. As I stated 
on the floor last week, it is truly unfortunate that it took 4 months 
and the engagement of the cloture process to confirm this well-
qualified nominee, who obviously has strong bipartisan support.
  I hope that last night's vote will signal to those who are holding 
other well-qualified nominees to the Department--including the 
nomination of Ronald Batory to be Administrator of the Federal Railroad 
Administration and the nomination of Adam Sullivan to be Assistant 
Secretary of Transportation for Legislative Affairs--over funding for 
the multibillion dollar Gateway Project in New York and New Jersey that 
their strategy is misplaced and depriving the Department of the very 
expertise needed to make progress on Gateway and a host of other 
critical issues.
  Mr. President, I have also sought recognition to voice my strong 
support for the nomination of Steven Bradbury to be general counsel at 
the U.S. Department of Transportation. Mr. Bradbury has had an 
extraordinary legal career in both the private and public sector, and 
he is well prepared to address the many challenging legal questions 
that will come before the Department.
  Mr. Bradbury is currently a litigation partner at the Dechert law 
firm here in Washington, DC, and his practice focuses on regulatory 
enforcement and investigations, rulemakings, and judicial review of 
agency actions, as well as appellate cases and antitrust matters.
  From 2005 to 2009, Mr. Bradbury headed the Office of Legal Counsel at 
the Department of Justice, the office that provides essential legal 
advice to the President and the heads of executive departments and 
agencies.
  In that role, he received the Edmund J. Randolph Award and the 
Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service, among other 
awards. Before serving in the Justice Department, he worked in private 
practice for 10 years and clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the 
U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge James L. Buckley on the D.C. Circuit.
  On June 28, 2017, the Commerce Committee held a hearing on his 
nomination, and we reported his nomination favorably on August 2. Last 
night, the Senate invoked cloture on his nomination.
  At his nomination hearing, a number of our Democrat colleagues raised 
concerns over Mr. Bradbury's suitability for this position, mostly 
focusing on a number of opinions he wrote regarding interrogation 
policies while at the Justice Department.
  I do not doubt the sincerity of those who question the Bush 
administration's approach to detainee treatment in the wake of the 
horrific attacks of 9/11. I know that these concerns are not limited to 
a single party.
  Nevertheless, I would suggest that Mr. Bradbury has demonstrated a 
willingness to reexamine the difficult decisions made at that time in a 
manner that underscores the thoughtfulness he would bring to the 
position to which he has been nominated.
  For example, after he became the head of the Office of Legal Counsel 
in 2004, he participated in decisions to withdraw and supersede 
previous legal opinions addressing interrogation policies that had been 
issued by his predecessors.
  In response to questions for the record from some of my committee 
colleagues, Mr. Bradbury elaborated on this topic. Specifically, he 
said:

       I support the McCain-Feinstein Amendment, enacted by 
     Congress in 2015, which mandates that all agencies of the 
     U.S. government are limited to use of the Army Field Manual 
     in the interrogation of detainees and which prohibits the use 
     of physical coercion. I believe the McCain-Feinstein 
     Amendment represents a historic policy decision and a moral 
     judgment for the United States, and it reaffirms America's 
     leadership on interrogation policy and practice. The clear 
     mandate of the McCain-Feinstein Amendment appropriately 
     elevates and vindicates the compelling principle of 
     reciprocity in the treatment of captured U.S. service men and 
     women.

  Mr. Bradbury went on to say:

       Twelve years ago, when I was called upon to advise on the 
     legality of proposed interrogation policies for use by 
     intelligence officers, the McCain-Feinstein Amendment had not 
     been enacted, and it was understood at that time that 
     intelligence agencies operated under a different, less well 
     defined, legal regime from the U.S. Armed Services. I did my 
     best to pull back previous OLC opinions that were overly 
     broad or otherwise flawed; to limit OLC's advice to the 
     narrowest grounds necessary and avoid reliance on expansive 
     interpretations of presidential power; to spell out very 
     clearly the specific factual assumptions on which the advice 
     depended, including the particular conditions, limitations, 
     and safeguards that were required as part of the policies; 
     and to describe in detail the specifics of those policies so 
     that the senior decision makers on the Principals Committee 
     of the National Security Council would be fully apprised of 
     precisely what they were being asked to approve.
       The OLC opinions I prepared on these issues are no longer 
     operative, and the law has changed. I welcome the statutory 
     changes enacted by Congress.

  In sum, I believe that Mr. Bradbury has fully addressed these 
concerns.
  It is also worth noting that Mr. Bradbury's nomination has received 
the endorsement of many bipartisan leaders. During his confirmation 
process, the committee received letters of support signed by more than 
50 former government officials, including former Transportation 
Secretaries Rodney Slater and Norm Mineta; former Attorneys General Ed 
Meese, William Barr, and Michael Mukasey; former counsel to the 
President Fred Fielding; former National Security Advisor Stephen 
Hadley; former Solicitors General Ted Olson, Paul Clement, Greg Garre; 
and many others. He also received the support of nearly 20 State 
attorneys general from across the country.
  Finally, I would also like to address the concerns raised about Mr. 
Bradbury's representation of the U.S. subsidiary of Takata in 
connection with the airbag inflator ruptures before the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
  Mr. Bradbury has agreed to go beyond the requirements of his ethics 
agreement to recuse himself from all aspects of the Takata airbag 
inflator recalls for the duration of Mr. Bradbury's tenure as general 
counsel at the Department of Transportation.
  Because Mr. Bradbury has agreed to go well beyond what is required by 
federal ethics laws and regulations, and well beyond the ethics 
agreement he signed with the Office of Government Ethics with respect 
to the Takata airbag inflator recall, I am satisfied that he has more 
than adequately dealt with conflict of interest concerns and recusals.
  Moreover, as I have noted, Mr. Bradbury has received bipartisan 
support for his nomination, including from former Transportation 
Secretary Rodney Slater and former Transportation Secretary Norm 
Mineta.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Steven 
Bradbury to be general counsel for the Department of Transportation.
  Ms. HASSAN. 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. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________