There are so few institutions left in the federal government that the electorate can count on to be neutral, free of bias, and independent. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), which essentially serves as Congress’ research arm, has always been such a body. So, naturally there are some congressional Republicans who are anxious to change that.
In recent months, several Dem lawmakers have asked the CRS to offer objective legal opinions on the president’s warrantless-search program. More specifically, because the CRS lacks access to how the program operates, lawmakers asked the agency to review the administration’s legal arguments. Neither result wasn’t encouraging for Bush or his unquestioning allies. First, the CRS said the program “does not seem to be as well-grounded” legally as the administration claimed. Second, the CRS said the administration had specific legal responsibilities in briefing lawmakers about the program, which were not met.
So, how did the president’s supporters on the Hill respond? By questioning the White House’s rationale? Hardly. They’re going after the CRS.
In a scathing letter, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence accused the Congressional Research Service (CRS) last week of issuing a partisan memorandum on domestic surveillance to the agency’s director.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) called the memorandum, which was requested by ranking member Jane Harman (D-Calif.), “a flawed and obviously incomplete analysis” in his letter Wednesday to CRS Director Daniel Mulhollan.
“Media reports have further suggested the possibility of additional circumstances that could lead an objective observer to question whether the memorandum in question was truly nonpartisan,” Hoekstra said in the letter.
Does Hoekstra have any proof that the CRS legal analysis was influenced at all by partisanship? No, but because it disagreed with the White House, Hoekstra more or less assumes there’s a problem.
This is silly. If the CRS concludes the administration is on weak legal ground, blaming the messenger might make the GOP feel better, but it’s hardly a serious approach. For that matter, Steven Aftergood, director for the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, explained that sending angry missives to the CRS director may be a not-so-subtle attempt at intimidation.
[Aftergood] said the criticism of the CRS concerned his agency because it might chill criticism of the administration.
“Chairman Hoekstra is at liberty to disagree with CRS; CRS is not above error,” Afterhood said. “But the tenor of Hoekstra’s letter is a warning not to criticize the administration policy and that is very disturbing. … It is a shocking and unjustified claim. [The report] may be debatable, but to call [CRS] partisan is childish.”
To which Hoekstra replied, “I know you are but what am I?” (Not really, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he did.)