Exacutive Session

EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - February 15, 2005)

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, earlier today, the senior Senator from Massachusetts spoke on this nomination. I have enormous respect and affection for my colleague from New England, but on this occasion I believe his comments were well off the mark. Here are some of the words my colleague spoke:

Our problems with the administration on this nomination pale in comparison with the failure of the Senate Republican majority to carry out its own constitutional responsibilities on this nomination. Instead of insisting on adequate answers to questions raised by the documents, they have acquiesced in the Government's coverup and abdicated their own independent constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent.

I sincerely believe that were I fortunate enough to have the senior Senator from Massachusetts serve on the committee the Presiding Officer and I serve on, he would never have said those words or reached such a harsh judgment.

He went on in his statement to call these proceedings "a blatantly defective consent." Again, I so wish that the senior Senator from Massachusetts had had the opportunity to participate in our committee's process. He would have found that our committee has the most thorough process for considering nominations of any committee in the entire Senate. I believe our committee is the only one, for example, that has the staff on both sides of the aisle interview the nominee. We posed to Judge Chertoff 250 written questions, both before the hearing and after the hearing. We had a lengthy hearing in which members on both sides of the aisle were free to ask the toughest questions possible to the nominee.

There was no limit on the questions that could be submitted for the record, and the nominee sat for hours patiently, fully, and candidly answering the questions posed to him by the members of the committee. So I believe that the judgment of the Senator from Massachusetts does not reflect the process we undertook for this nominee. I truly wish he could have seen the process because I think he would have reached a different conclusion. And I say that with a great deal of personal affection for my friend from Massachusetts.

The fact is, first, that Judge Chertoff has undergone intense scrutiny by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. I cannot imagine how anyone could conclude, given the number and the scope of questions posed to the judge, that this was somehow "defective consent."

Second, on the issue of the e-mails and the nominee's knowledge of questionable interrogation techniques used by certain DOD personnel at Guantanamo, Judge Chertoff's testimony could not have been clearer. He told the committee under oath that he was "not aware" of any practices at Guantanamo that "even approach[ed] torture." He said he had "no knowledge" of any interrogation techniques other than those that he described as "plain vanilla." These are straightforward, plain words--"I was not aware"; "I had no knowledge." They are not susceptible to multiple interpretations. They are not ambiguous. They do not suggest the need to refresh the nominee's recollection. They do not invite speculation as to what the nominee meant. And there is only one reason why some of our colleagues would feel the need to ask other people about what they said to Judge Chertoff, and that is, if we did not believe him.

This is a distinguished public servant, a sitting Federal judge who is testifying before our committee under oath. There is no reason to doubt his testimony. His testimony was clear, it was forthright, it was candid. It is demeaning to suggest that somehow we need to probe this further because we do not believe this distinguished public official.

I asked this question yesterday, but I am going to repeat it again: Since when have we become so cynical about good people who are willing to step forward, sacrifice, and serve our country? How could our colleagues from Michigan and Massachusetts come to this floor, praise Judge Chertoff, pledge to vote to confirm him, and then condemn the nomination process when we have concluded that the judge gave us truthful, straightforward answers, and we have no reason to doubt the answers he gave us? He was not evasive. He was straightforward. It does not make sense to criticize the process because the committee refuses to engage in an exercise that, at its core, is built upon the premise that Judge Chertoff is somehow being less than truthful with the committee. I reject that premise. There is no basis for it.

Let me close these remarks by saying a word about the Senate's constitutional role of advise and consent because I think a lot that has been said about this role misses an essential point.

We, the Senate, advise and consent. It is the President who appoints. We do not appoint. Sometimes I think some of my colleagues believe the Senate should do all of the appointing for the President, but that is not how the system works. That is not how our Constitution works. Indeed, as Professor Laurence Tribe has noted-and he is a liberal law scholar, not a conservative one-the appointments clause "seeks to preserve an executive check upon legislative authority in the interest of avoiding an undue concentration of power in Congress"-in Congress--"in executing our responsibilities."

We should do well to remember that it is the President who is appointing these positions. It is our job to advise and consent. We have performed that job well in this case. We subjected this nominee to extraordinary scrutiny, despite the fact that he has already been confirmed by this body three previous times. Nevertheless, as is appropriate, we went through a full confirmation process with a review of his biographical questionnaire, his finances, with a full FBI check, with an extensive public hearing that stretched several hours, and with 250 written questions, primarily from Democratic members, submitted to him for response. What more can we ask? What more can we ask of a nominee who is simply stepping forward to answer the call to serve his country? And what more can we ask of a Senate committee in carrying out this solemn duty with which we are vested?

As much as I have respect and affection for my colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, I cannot let his comments pass. That is why I felt compelled to explain to all of my colleagues what the process was and that the Senator's description simply does not reflect what was done. I am certain-absolutely certain-that had he been a member of the committee, had he joined with us in the nomination hearing, he would have reached an entirely different conclusion about the integrity and thoroughness of the process.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I do anticipate that further of my colleagues will be coming to the floor. I will yield to them when that happens.

(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 380 are printed in today's RECORD under "Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.")

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

http://thomas.loc.gov