[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 28, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7583-S7584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATIONS
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time as the ranking Democrat
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to bring to my colleagues'
attention a very disturbing trend that is taking place on us carrying
out our constitutional responsibilities. It is up to the Senate, and
only the Senate, to confirm--advise and consent--appointments by the
President of the United States that require the confirmation of the
Senate.
I think the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I am honored to
serve on and act as the ranking Democrat, has acted in a very
responsible manner in scheduling hearings and taking action on the
nominations that have been submitted by President Obama. I thank
Senator Corker. He has scheduled these hearings in a very timely way
and scheduled markups in our committee so we can make our
recommendations to the full Senate. That is not true of the Senate as a
body. There are currently 16--16--highly qualified nominees who have
been recommended for Senate confirmation, none of whom are
controversial, who are awaiting action on the floor of the Senate. Some
of these nominees have been waiting as long as 10 months, almost a year
for action by the Senate. Let me repeat this: Not one of these nominees
is being held up because of challenges to his or her qualifications to
assume the responsibilities of the position for which that person has
been nominated. In each of these cases they have cleared the committee
hurdle by unanimous or near unanimous votes in the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
So why have we not taken up those nominees for confirmation votes on
the floor of the Senate? They are not controversial. They are qualified
for the position. The reason is that in each case a Senator has placed
a hold on the consideration of that nominee. What does a hold mean? It
means a Senator has let their respective caucus know they will not
consent to the nomination coming before the Senate either as a
unanimous consent request or for a vote on the floor of the Senate.
That has been the prerogative of Members of the Senate. They can do
that. The way you overcome that is either the Senator eliminates the
hold--in these cases each one of the holds have nothing to do with the
qualifications of the individual for this position--or the majority
leader, Senator McConnell, brings forward the nomination, if necessary
uses a cloture motion in order to get this issue resolved. After all,
one Senator should not be able to stop a nomination on the floor of the
Senate so we cannot carry out our responsibilities of advice and
consent.
Senator McConnell has been unwilling to do that. I understand the
challenges of floor time. I fully do. Ten months some of these nominees
have been waiting. These are critical missions for our Foreign Service.
The reasons these individuals are being held--let me just give you an
example--is because of a Member being upset with the Obama
administration for taking the Iran agreement to the United Nations for
a vote before action in the Senate--having nothing to do with the
nominee we are talking about--or concerns about Secretary Clinton or
concerns about the Secret Service but not related to the person who was
nominated for the position we are talking about. That is just wrong. We
have the constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on
Presidential appointments.
Let me give some examples that fall into this category of the 16
nominees who are currently waiting for Senate confirmation.
We have the Secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization
Operations. The person who has been nominated for that is Ambassador
David Robinson, a career diplomat with 30 years of public service. He
has been the Principal Deputy High Representative in Bosnia-
Herzegovina, one of the most difficult conflict areas in modern times.
He has served both Democratic and Republican administrations. He is a
career diplomat.
The position we are talking about focuses on prevention and response
to mass atrocities and countering violent extremism and election-
related violence. I would think that is a high priority for this
Senate, to make sure the United States has all hands on deck to deal
with these types of international challenges.
Ambassador Robinson has served far and wide under dangerous and
demanding circumstances. He was the Assistant Chief of Mission at the
U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. He served as the Principal
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration. He
served as U.S. Ambassador to Guyana from 2006 to 2008 and as Deputy
Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Georgetown, Guyana, from 2003
to 2006. He also served as the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S.
Embassy in Paraguay from 2000 to 2003.
He is a highly qualified individual who has shown a clear dedication
and commitment to serving his country. He has been waiting almost 7
months for the Senate to act on his nomination.
I wish to cite another example, the State Department's Legal Adviser,
Brian Egan. He has served both Republican and Democratic
administrations. This a critical mission, the Legal Adviser. Just
today, in a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we
had General Allen, and a discussion ensued as to the legal authority we
have in regard to some of our activities. It would be good to have a
confirmed legal adviser so we can get those types of answers.
Like Ambassador Robinson, Mr. Egan has served in both Democratic and
Republican administrations. He began his career as a government lawyer
in 2005, as a civil servant in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the
State Department, which was headed at the time by Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice. He has worked in the private sector. He served as
Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement and Intelligence at the
Treasury Department. He served on the National Security Council staff.
He is a nonpartisan and fair-minded individual who clearly has the
skills and the ability to lead the Office of Legal Adviser at the State
Department. He has been waiting 9 months for confirmation--9 months. He
is a person who has devoted his career to public service.
That is no way to treat people who want to give their service to this
country in an important role. We need to carry out our responsibility.
At the USAID, the Administrator position has not been confirmed. The
USAID Assistant Administrator for Europe and Eurasia has not been
confirmed. The inspector general of USAID has not been confirmed. These
appointments have been in the Senate for some time.
I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk
about the refugee crisis. We are approaching the number of people who
are dislocated in this world similar to what we had at the end of World
War II. The principal agency that deals with this crisis in the United
States is the USAID. We know we have conflict areas all over the world,
and we have heard over and over again that the way we deal with this--
one of our major tools--is through development assistance. We need
confirmed, top management at
[[Page S7584]]
this agency. The Senate has an obligation to act.
None of these nominees are noncontroversial. I want to repeat that.
They are not being held by a Senator because of anything to do with
their qualifications for the position for which they have been
nominated. There have been unrelated issues for a long period of time
compromising the critical missions of these agencies.
Just as tragically, there are 20 innocent USAID Foreign Service
officers who have been held up. These 20 USAID Foreign Service officers
are not nominated for Ambassador positions or Assistant Secretary
position; these are folks who were plucked from a list of 181
promotions that must be confirmed by the full Senate for the promotions
to take effect. In other words, their promotions have not taken effect
because of an individual hold by a Senator for reasons unrelated to
their performance in office--career diplomats, civil service. These are
civil servants who are working hard day in and day out serving their
country in both Democratic and Republican administrations. They are not
involved in the politics of the Senate, and yet they are the casualties
of these politics.
These individuals are called upon to serve in challenging and
sometimes very dangerous places. We are talking about a Supervisory
Program Officer in Cambodia, the Deputy Director for East Africa
Operations in Kenya, the Director of the Democracy and Governance
Office in Rwanda, a Senior Advisor for Civilian-Military Cooperation, a
Resident Legal Officer for the Resident Mission in Asia, an Education
Officer in Honduras, a Regional Legal Advisor in El Salvador, a Deputy
Controller for Financial Management in El Salvador, a Regional Food for
Peace Officer in Ethiopia, a Regional Legal Advisor in Egypt, a Deputy
Education and Youth Office Director in Kenya, the Director of the Food
for Peace Program in South Sudan, the Democracy and Governance Director
in El Salvador, the Economic Growth Team Leader in Zambia, the Economic
Growth Office Director in Ukraine, and a Controller for Financial
Management in Rwanda.
I went through that list because I think everyone would acknowledge
that these are people who are serving in very dangerous places.
As I mentioned, we had a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee with General Allen, who is doing incredible public service
for our representative in the Middle East. He said he wanted to thank
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the attention we have given
to our diplomats.
Often on the floor of the Senate you hear glowing thanks--and I join
in that--to the men and women who have worn the uniform of our Nation
to defend our freedom. Well, our thanks go equally to our Foreign
Service officers who serve in very dangerous positions in order to
advance the U.S. principles of democracy and human rights. We know
about the casualties we have suffered in that regard. These individuals
are entitled to their promotions, and it requires our action. To hold
up their promotions for reasons unrelated to their job performance is
just plain irresponsible, and we need to take up these nominees.
There are ambassadorships that have been open for way too long. I
could mention many of the ambassadorships, but I will just mention
two--Sweden and Trinidad and Tobago.
Sweden, of course, is a strategic ally and an Arctic Council member.
Azita Raji has been nominated. She is a businesswoman who has been the
vice president of J.P. Morgan Securities. She brings her unique
expertise from the business sector to help one of our critical
Ambassador positions. Again, she is a noncontroversial nominee who has
been held up 10 months. Sweden is a critical partner for the United
States.
In Trinidad and Tobago, John Estrada has been waiting 180 days for
his confirmation. Trinidad is a critical place for the United States as
far as drug-smuggling activities that bring drugs into the United
States. We need a confirmed Ambassador to lead that fight against drug
smuggling into the United States. Again, he is being held up for
reasons unrelated to his own qualifications.
I could go through all the 16 nominees. I think I have made my point.
My point is that I think the public would be surprised to learn that
one Senator could block a nomination of a President, and that is used
many times unrelated to the qualifications of that individual for the
position for which he or she has been nominated. It has happened in the
Senate numerous times, as I have just pointed out.
I think it is the responsibility of the Senate to say enough is
enough. It is time for us to act on these nominees so they can continue
their public service in a confirmed position to help us in our war
against drugs, to help us in our international diplomacy, to help us in
development assistance in order to resolve conflicts, and to provide
the very best legal advice to make sure that what we are doing is
consistent with our Constitution.
To do the services of the people for the people of this country, we
have to do our service in the Senate, and that is to take up and vote
on the President's nominees to these critical foreign policy positions.
I urge my colleagues to allow us to bring these nominees up for a
vote so we can carry out our responsibility and so these people can
carry out their critically important missions to the security interests
of the United States.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________