As I’ve said many times in the past, presidents
should be given a good deal of discretion when choosing their political
appointees.
And so long as their nominees are
qualified and do not obstruct the advice and consent process, the Senate should
not stand in the way of their confirmation.
After all, Presidents are ultimately
responsible for the actions of their Administration.
And if the buck truly stops at the Resolute
Desk, they need to be able to trust their subordinates to get the job
done.
That being said, I must vote no on the
nomination of Samantha Power to be the Director for USAID.
On February 18th, I sent a letter to Ms.
Power asking questions regarding emails that came out of her office during her
time serving as the UN Ambassador.
Heavily redacted versions of those emails
obtained by my office appear to suggest that Ms. Power’s staff may have been working
behind the scenes to remove the Islamic Relief Agency from the Treasury’s
Sanctions list.
That organization was placed on the
sanctions list for funneling money to terrorist groups, and removing it would
have allowed it to receive private donations as well as taxpayer funds.
In her letter responding to my questions,
Ms. Power claimed that she was not working to take ISRA off the sanctions list.
She further claimed that the emails in
question were part of an effort to challenge false claims made by ISRA at the
UN denying their involvement in terrorist financing.
In order to verify her claims, I have
requested on multiple occasions that she provide un-redacted copies of the
emails and complete answers to the questions that I posed in my original
letter.
But after three months, all I’ve received
is a collection of public press releases.
I haven’t received the emails I requested,
and I haven’t received answers to my questions.
Normally, political nominees wait until
after they’re confirmed to start ignoring congressional inquiries
But in this case, it seems the Executive
Branch has decided advice and consent is going to be a mere formality, and
there’s no need to wait.
This seems to be a pattern.
For instance, I asked Secretary Becerra a number
of specific questions for the Record as part of the Finance Committee vetting
process.
I received responses that didn’t even try
to address the substance of my questions.
I also asked Interior Secretary Deb
Haaland to reconcile some conflicting information on her House financial
disclosures and responses to questions for the record for the Energy Committee
about her taxes.
These weren’t gotcha questions. In fact,
it was probably an innocent mistake, if anything.
But, she declined to respond at all.
Maybe the White House figures they don’t
need Republican votes so they don’t need to answer even routine vetting
questions from Republicans.
But, then they cannot blame Republicans
whom they ignore for voting No.