[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 15 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S403-S404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          NOMINATIONS STALLING

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last week at the State of the Union 
Address, President Obama laid out the challenges facing America--they 
are many--and he called on us to rise above partisanship to try to find 
good solutions for America. I think most Americans agree with that. Oh, 
there are some Yellow Dog Democrats and some hard-shell Republicans who 
say: Never compromise, never, but they do not represent the majority of 
America. The majority of the American people could care less about 
Democrats and Republicans. They worry about this Nation and its future. 
They worry about their families, their neighborhoods, their schools, 
and they wonder why we squabble so much here and spend so much time 
tied up in knots over arguments that do not make any sense.
  I just heard the majority leader describe four individuals who have 
stepped up when the President asked them to and said: We will serve. Do 
you know what it means when you say you will serve? It means the FBI 
looks through every aspect of your life. You fill out lengthy 
questionnaires, you prepare yourself to go before a committee and be 
asked questions about every aspect of your life, personal and public. 
You submit your name to the press to let them look through everything 
as well. And then you bring your name, of course, to the floor of the 
Senate, in this case, for final scrutiny. Is there any wonder that a 
lot of people say: Thanks, but no thanks. I am not interested in doing 
that. I love my country, but, you know, I value my privacy, and I do 
not want to go through that hassle. But some have the courage to step 
up and say: I will do it if the President asks. I am not going to say 
no. If my country needs me, I will contribute in any way I can.
  Let me give you an example of one of them. His name is Clifford 
Stanley. He has a 33-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps. He retired 
in 2002 with the rank of major general. He comes from a family devoted 
to military service. His father and his brother served in the Army. His 
daughter is an officer in the Navy. He has a niece in the Air Force. 
Dr. Clifford Stanley was the first African-American regimental 
commander in the history of the U.S. Marine Corps.
  The President nominated him in October to serve as Under Secretary of 
Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The Armed Services Committee held 
a hearing in November and reported his nomination to the full Senate on 
December 2. He came out of the committee without controversy. Is it any 
wonder? Thirty-three years in the Marine Corps, the first African-
American regimental commander in its history, a man who has served his 
country so well and risked his life for this great Nation, reported by 
the Armed Services Committee to the full Senate floor in December. We 
are now in February.
  This is a critical post he has been appointed to by the President. He 
would be in charge of basically managing the readiness of the U.S. 
Armed Forces. Dr. Stanley would have the responsibility to oversee the 
National Guard and Reserve. There are 143,000 Americans who are serving 
in that capacity today in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
He would be responsible for the health of the men and women in uniform. 
The budget the President submitted yesterday includes $30.9 billion for 
health care for the members of the military family who are covered by 
TRICARE. That would be one of Dr. Stanley's responsibilities.
  Finally, he is a senior policy adviser on retirement, career 
development, pay, and benefits. It is a critically important role for 
our military and our families who really support these military people. 
And Dr. Stanley is clearly qualified to do it. He has gone through the 
process of scrutiny and investigation.
  Yesterday on the floor of the Senate, when the majority leader asked 
for permission so that he could go forward and serve our country again 
in the Department of Defense, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, 
objected. I would like to hear why. What is it about this man that he 
objects to? Is there something we do not know about Dr. Stanley? Is 
there something he knows about his 33 years of service in the Marine 
Corps? I bet there is not. I bet there is another reason for it. I do 
not know if we will ever know that. But the fact is, he was objected 
to. But he was not the only one.

  Laura Kennedy is the nominee of the President to serve as U.S. 
Representative to the Conference on Disarmament. That is the way we 
meet together with the other nations around

[[Page S404]]

the world to try to reduce the advance of nuclear arms and the threat 
of nuclear war. Her nomination is based on the fact that she is an 
experienced diplomat with talent and skills that are desperately needed 
in this very involved, difficult, and important negotiation. She has 
already served with distinction in several high-profile positions with 
the Foreign Service. She was the Ambassador to Turkmenistan, the Deputy 
Chief of Mission to the United Nations, and the Deputy Commandant at 
the National War College.
  She was reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 2 
months ago. What is holding her up? Yesterday, the majority leader 
asked that Laura Kennedy, the nominee to be the Representative to the 
Conference on Disarmament, be approved by the Senate, and the Senator 
from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, said: I object. Well, I think Senator Shelby 
owes it to all of us to come and tell us why. What is it he objects to 
about Laura Kennedy? Does he feel she is not qualified? If he does, 
let's hear why, and then let's bring it to a vote of the Senate. Is 
that not fair?
  Then there is Caryn Wagner, the nominee for Under Secretary for 
Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security. Do we 
need someone to deal with intelligence in this time of the threat of 
terrorism? Do we need someone like that at the Department of Homeland 
Security? We need them yesterday; we do not need them tomorrow. The 
Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis is considered the chief 
intelligence officer of the Department of Homeland Security. The Under 
Secretary has to bring together all of these different agencies and 
branches of government to make sure they coordinate their efforts.
  We know what happened last Christmas. There was not enough done. It 
was not done in a timely way to deal with this man who threatened the 
lives of those who were on that airline destined for Detroit.
  Caryn Wagner is highly qualified to meet the demands of this 
position. She was the senior Defense Intelligence Agency representative 
to the U.S. European Command and to NATO. She is an instructor at the 
Intelligence and Security Academy. She retired from the House Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence in October of 2008, where she served 
as budget director and cyber-security coordinator. Before that, she 
served as Assistant Deputy Director of National Intelligence. Her 
experience also includes serving as a signals intelligence and 
electronic warfare officer in the U.S. Army. That is a pretty strong 
resume, isn't it. She is a person you would want in this job 
immediately. Why in the world would we risk an attack on the United 
States by withholding critical personnel and critical leadership when 
it comes to gathering intelligence in the Department of Homeland 
Security?
  Yesterday, the majority leader asked for consent to have the Senate 
move her nomination forward. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, 
objected. I would like to ask the Senator, what does he know about 
Caryn Wagner that would lead him to object to her serving the United 
States of America and trying to keep us safe? If he knows something, 
the next half hour on the floor of the Senate is available to the 
Republican side. I invite him or the leadership to come forward and 
tell us what is wrong with this nominee. Why are you holding up this 
nominee?
  Then, of course, there is Phillip Goldberg, the nominee for Assistant 
Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. This man has served 
as our Ambassador to Bolivia, Chief of Mission in Kosovo, and Deputy 
Chief of Mission in Chile, under Republican and Democratic Presidents 
as well. He is the coordinator of the U.N. Security Council resolution 
monitoring the implementation of resolutions on North Korea.
  He would be head of the Bureau of Intelligence Research at the 
Department of State. A big part of their responsibility is to make sure 
our foreign policy is based on good intelligence gathering around the 
world to keep America safe and secure. For over 60 years, this branch 
of our government has led the State Department review of sensitive 
counterintelligence and law enforcement activities. In 2004, the Senate 
Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that this agency was one of 
the few dissenting votes 2 years earlier when the CIA and other 
intelligence shops overstated the threat of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. 
This agency got it right. Although its primary customer is the State 
Department, this agency serves many other branches of government. The 
confirmation of Philip Goldberg would provide essential leadership.
  Yesterday, the majority leader came to the floor and asked unanimous 
consent for Phillip Goldberg to serve in the Department of State to 
gather intelligence to keep America safe. He asked consent that we move 
to his nomination, a nomination with no controversy. The Senator from 
Alabama, Mr. Shelby, objected. Please, I ask my colleagues on the 
Republican side of the aisle, come to the floor and explain to us what 
is wrong with Philip Goldberg. What disqualifies him for this position 
in this administration? Make your best case, if you have one, against 
him or any one of these nominees, and then, out of a sense of fairness 
and at least a sense of giving this country and this President the 
people he needs on a team he needs to keep us safe, let's come to a 
vote immediately on these four nominees.
  I do not hold out a lot of hope that any Republican will come to the 
floor with objections against any one of those people because, you see, 
these objections are sometimes based on some grudge, some project, 
something else. I do not assign that to the Senator from Alabama. I 
have no idea why he objected. But if he has a substantive objection to 
any or all of these four people, he should come forward and tell us. He 
owes it to the Senate. He owes it to the American people. In fairness, 
he owes it to these four people who have served our country well and 
want to continue to do so. They should not be left in this uncertainty.

                          ____________________