[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.
____________________