Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today the Senate takes up the
nomination of the 83rd Attorney General.

We all know the former Democratic leadership could have processed
this nomination during last year's lame duck. But in the limited time
we had, they chose to concentrate on confirming a number of judges and
getting a losing vote on NSA reform. Ms. Lynch, at that time, wasn't
high on the priority of the Democratic majority, but now I am pleased
that the Senate was finally able to come to an agreement on the sex
trafficking legislation, so we can turn to the Lynch nomination.

I voted against Ms. Lynch's nomination in committee and will oppose
her nomination again when it is time to vote this afternoon. I will
spend a few minutes now explaining my reasons to my colleagues.

This nomination comes at a pivotal time for the Department of Justice
and our country. The next Attorney General will face some very
difficult challenges--from combatting cybercrime, to protecting our
children from exploitation, to helping fight the war on terror. But
beyond that, the new Attorney General has a mess to clean up. The
Justice Department has been plagued the last few years by
decisionmaking driven by politics--pure politics. Some of these I have
mentioned before, but I would like to give just a few examples.

The Department's own inspector general listed this as one of the top
management challenges for the Department of Justice: ``Restoring
Confidence in the Integrity, Fairness, and Accountability of the
Department.'' That is quite a major management challenge the Department
faces.

This inspector general cited several examples, including the
Department's falsely denying basic facts in the Fast and Furious
controversy. The inspector general concluded this ``resulted in an
erosion of trust in the Department.''

In that fiasco, our government knowingly allowed firearms to fall
into the hands of international gun traffickers, and, I am sorry to
say, it led to the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

Then how did the Department respond to all this obviously wrong
action on their part? They denied, they spun, and they hid the facts
from Congress. And if you hide the facts from the American Congress,
you are hiding the facts from the American people.

They bullied and intimidated whistleblowers, members of the press,
and, you might say, anyone who had the audacity to investigate and help
us uncover the truth.

But Fast and Furious isn't the Department's only major failing under
the Holder tenure. It has also failed to hold another government agency
accountable, the Internal Revenue Service.

We watched with dismay as that powerful agency was weaponized and
turned against individual citizens who spoke out in defense of faith,
freedom, and our Constitution. What was the Department's reaction to
the targeting of citizens based on their political beliefs? They
appointed a campaign donor to lead an investigation that hasn't gone
anywhere, and then, after that, the Department called it a day.

Meanwhile, the Department's top litigator, the Nation's Solicitor
General, is arguing in case after case for breathtaking expansions of
Federal power.

I said this before, but it bears repeating: Had the Department
prevailed in just some of the arguments it pressed before the Supreme
Court in the last several years--and I will give five examples:

One, there would be essentially no limit on what the Federal
Government could order States to do as a condition for receiving
Federal money.

Two, the Environmental Protection Agency could fine homeowners
$75,000 a day for not complying with an order and then turn around and
deny that homeowner any right to challenge the order or those fines in
court when the order is issued.

Three, the Federal Government could review decisions by religious
organizations regarding who can serve as a minister of a particular
religion.

Four, the Federal Government could ban books that expressly advocate
for the election or the defeat of political candidates.

And five, lastly, the way this Solicitor General argued, as I said,
would bring the most massive expansion of Federal power in the history
of the country. The Fourth Amendment wouldn't have anything to say
about the police attaching a GPS device to a citizen's car without a
warrant and constantly tracking their every movement for months or
years.

Now, I have given five reasons of expansion of the Federal
Government. These positions aren't in any way mainstream positions. At
the end of the day, the common thread that binds all of these
challenges together is a Department of Justice which has become deeply
politicized. But that is what happens when the Attorney General of the
United States views himself--and these are his own words--as the
President's ``wingman.''

Because of all the politicized decisions we have witnessed over the
last few years, I have said from the very beginning of this process
that what we need more than anything else out of our new Attorney
General is independence. Ever since she was nominated, it was my
sincere hope that Ms. Lynch would demonstrate that sort of
independence. It was my hope that she would make clear that, while she
serves at the pleasure of the President, she is accountable to the
American people, because the job of Attorney General is defined by a
duty to defend the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. The job is
not simply to defend the President and his policies.

I voted for Attorney General Holder despite some reservations and
misgivings, but I have come to regret that vote because of the
political way he has led the Department. I realize that the quickest
way to end his tenure as Attorney General is to confirm Ms. Lynch, but,
as I have said, the question for me from the start has been whether Ms.
Lynch will make a clean break from the Holder policies and take the
Department in a new direction.

Some of my Democratic colleagues have said that no one has raised any
objection to Ms. Lynch's nomination. This, of course, is inaccurate. No
one disputes that she has an impressive legal background. It was her
testimony before the committee that caused concerns for many Senators,
including me. After thoroughly reviewing that testimony, I concluded
that she won't lead the Department in a different direction. That is
very unfortunate. After 6 years of Attorney General Holder's
leadership, the Department desperately needs a change of direction.

I would like to remind my Democratic colleagues that it was not too
long ago that a majority of Democrats voted against Judge Mukasey for
Attorney General--not based on his records but instead based upon his
testimony before the committee. In fact, then-Senator Obama had this to
say about Judge Mukasey: ``While his legal credentials are strong, his
views on two critical and related matters are, in my view,
disqualifying.''

I asked Ms. Lynch about her views on Fast and Furious, on the IRS
scandal, and other ways the Department has been politicized. She did
not demonstrate that she would do things differently. Instead, she gave
nonanswers. She was eloquent and polished but nonresponsive.

The bottom line is that Ms. Lynch does not seem willing to commit to
a new, independent way of running the Department. That surprised me
very much. Based on everything we were told, I expected Ms. Lynch to
demonstrate a bit more independence from the President. I am confident
that if she had done so, she would have garnered more support.

As I said when the committee voted on her nomination, to illustrate
this point, we need to look no further than the confirmation of
Secretary Carter to the Department of Defense earlier this year. When
he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary
Carter demonstrated the type of independent streak that many of us were
hoping we would see in Ms. Lynch.

Most of the media reporting on the two nominations seemed to agree.
Headlines regarding the Carter nomination in the New York Times and the
Washington Post commended his shift from the President's policies with
headlines such as ``Defense nominee Carter casts himself as an
independent voice,'' which was in the Washington Post, and in the New
York Times, ``In Ashton Carter, Nominee for Defense Secretary, a Change
in Direction.'' But on the Lynch nomination, those same newspapers
highlighted that she defended the President's policies on immigration
and surveillance with headlines such as ``Lynch Defends Obama's
Immigration Action,'' which was in the New York Times, and from the
Huffington Post, ``Loretta Lynch Defends Obama's Immigration Actions.''

Secretary Carter was confirmed with 93 votes. Only five Senators
voted against Secretary Carter's nomination. That lopsided vote was a
reflection of his testimony before the Senate, which demonstrated a
willingness to be an independent voice within the administration.
Unfortunately, Ms. Lynch did not demonstrate the same type of
independence.

I sincerely hope Ms. Lynch proves me wrong and is willing to stand up
to the President and say no when the duty of office demands it. But
based upon my review of her record, I cannot support the nomination.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source