[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 173 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8198-S8200]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, one need only watch the news to see how our 
Nation is facing threats abroad. We are doing the best we can, but as 
the world grows more dangerous, Senate Republicans continue to block 
and obstruct the President's national security. They are blocking the 
very people who could help us respond to these threats.
  Take, for instance--for week after week after week--Azita Raji, who 
has been nominated to be our Ambassador to Sweden. Nearly 300 Swedish 
citizens have left to fight in Syria or Iraq, making this nation the 
second largest country of origin per capita for foreign fighters in 
Europe. The Swedish Government is on heightened alert for an attack. 
Yet the United States doesn't have a Senate-confirmed Ambassador to 
represent us in Stockholm.
  Similar to Sweden, Norway is also dealing with the growing threat of 
terror, and some of their citizens have joined the radical ranks of 
foreign fighters, but due to Republican obstruction, our Nation does 
not have a confirmed Ambassador in Norway.
  Sam Heins, a Minnesota attorney nominated by President Obama, has 
been pending on the floor since July. We are now in December. So I 
personally applaud the Presiding Officer today for finally removing the 
holds on these two good people. I appreciate it very much. He and 
others have held up these nominees, and it is unfortunate. It is gone. 
I am pleased. In the wake of the Paris attacks and threats across the 
continent, it is imperative that we have Ambassadors working with 
European governments at the highest levels.
  Perhaps the most egregious example of Republican obstruction is the 
nomination of Adam Szubin. This man would lead--if he were approved in 
the Senate--a team within the Department of State that disrupts 
terrorist financing networks, cutting off money for terrorists so they 
cannot finance their attacks. Hand in hand, they work with the Treasury 
Department. You would think that such an important nominee would be 
quickly confirmed, but Mr. Szubin's nomination has been pending

[[Page S8199]]

for more than 200 days. Remember what he does--remember what he would 
like to do, I should say. He would lead a team that disrupts terrorist 
financing networks, cutting off money for terrorists so they can't 
finance their own evil deeds.
  The chairman of the banking committee, the senior Senator from 
Alabama, has previously called this position ``a vital position in the 
effort to combat terrorist financing,'' but in spite of this, the 
committee on banking continues to block Szubin, despite his 
qualifications. I am sorely disappointed so many Republican Senators 
have decided that scoring political points is more important than 
confirming these national security nominations.
  Two weeks ago, I asked the senior Senator from Iowa to put an end to 
his partisan investigation of Secretary Clinton. For months, the senior 
Senator blocked more than 20 Foreign Service promotions. In fact, for a 
day it was some 600 nominations, just simply people who were in the 
Foreign Service who were entitled by law to a promotion. Well, he 
blocked these people for a long time, talking about how he wanted more 
documents from the State Department. I told the senior Senator that I 
thought it was a mistake to target career promotions, so I was 
surprised, happily so, when he appeared to change course and allow 
these good public servants to get the promotions they earned and 
deserved.
  Unfortunately, though, just as he took one step forward, he 
immediately took another step back. Although he allowed the list of 20 
Foreign Service promotions to proceed, he doubled down on his 
obstruction by placing a hold on Tom Shannon, President Obama's nominee 
to serve as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, an 
extremely important position that is not filled now. Ambassador Shannon 
is a career member of the Foreign Service, with more than 30 years of 
experience. He served as our Nation's Ambassador to Brazil, he worked 
on the National Security Council in the last Bush administration, and 
his experience will help the State Department strategy in combatting 
ISIS, but he can't do that because we were not able to approve him 
because of the holds.
  The Senator from Iowa continues to block other important nominees, 
such as David Robinson to be Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau 
of Conflict and Stabilization. He is a 30-year veteran of the Foreign 
Service. This is a man who has served the Nation in Afghanistan, 
Bosnia, and many other places around the world.
  Brian Egan has been nominated to be the State Department Legal 
Advisor, their lawyer. He has been a senior member of the legal team in 
the State Department, Treasury, and the National Security Council at 
the White House, but he has been held up since June without a vote, all 
because of Republican obstructionism.
  Remember, it would be nice if the State Department had a lawyer, but 
as the senior Senator from Iowa will tell you, he has nothing against 
Tom Shannon, David Robinson or Brian Egan. Senator Grassley has 
expressed no substantive objections to these nominees or questions 
about their capabilities. Senator Grassley is blocking these important 
nominations for the sake of his committee's political crusade against 
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--who as we all know is 
running for President. This good woman scares Republicans because she 
will likely win. It is all part of the disturbing trend of the 
Judiciary Committee to politicize the oversight process.
  It appears the constitutional duties of the Senate are taking a 
backseat to a political hit job on a Democratic candidate for 
President. Just look at what he and his committee are doing; that is, 
the chairman and his committee. They are requesting transcribed 
interviews from the Clinton staff. They have asked for timesheets. The 
committee investigation has gone so far as to ask for the maternity 
leave records of one of Secretary Clinton's closest aides, Huma Abedin. 
It appears that until the senior Senator from Iowa gets the maternity 
leave records he has requested and everything else he has requested, he 
is going to continue to block State Department nominees. I am 
disappointed my friend from Iowa refuses to do what I believe is the 
right thing. He should drop these unwarranted holds. I am disappointed 
he continues--under the guise of oversight--his anti-Hillary Clinton 
crusade, which is hurting American security. Each day this 
investigation continues, we can see what a waste of taxpayer resources 
this has become.
  Last month, when given the opportunity, my friend from Iowa refused 
to address the significant amount of resources his committee is 
spending to investigate Secretary Clinton. Why? If he is so confident 
of the work his committee is doing, why not readily acknowledge the 
amount of taxpayer resources that are being used? But aside from the 
wasting of taxpayer dollars, I am troubled by the way his committee 
staff is operating. The press reports have suggested the Republican 
Judiciary Committee staffers are selectively leaking confidential 
information. For example, in September, the State Department gave the 
committee information that Senator Grassley requested, with specific 
instructions that the documents remain confidential. That is because 
the information shared with the Judiciary Committee contains sensitive 
information or other personal information from State Department 
employees. Included in the State Department's response to Senator 
Grassley was a big warning in bold capital letters across the page--in 
very large bold letters: ``US DEPARTMENT OF STATE PRODUCTION TO THE 
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ONLY; NOT AUTHORIZED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.''
  The email reproductions from the State Department also contained a 
watermark in red capital letters saying the emails were not for public 
release. It was across the entirety of that document. It had the 
watermark and the large bold letters.
  Within 24 hours, that information was public and reporters began 
calling with questions. Within 48 hours, stories were published based 
on the emails given to the Judiciary Committee that falsely created the 
appearance of impropriety by Ms. Abedin--and I mean false. A reporter 
forwarded the watermark emails meant only for the Judiciary Committee 
to her and to her legal team for comment. How did the reporter get 
documents that were solely in the possession of the Judiciary Committee 
staff?
  As I have said before, Ms. Abedin is an American success story. She 
has reached the highest levels of politics, as an aide to Secretary 
Clinton for decades, through her hard work and loyalty. Senator John 
McCain said that Ms. Abedin is ``an honorable woman, a dedicated 
American, and a loyal public servant.'' She doesn't deserve the 
treatment that has come from the Judiciary Committee. Republican 
investigators on that committee cannot stop their fixation on Ms. 
Abedin, even going so far to request her maternity leave records. As a 
result, her personal information, including Social Security number and 
payroll records, has been given to the press.
  Violating the privacy of hard-working staff members--and in 
particular a staff member--to score political points against Secretary 
Clinton is unbecoming of the world's greatest deliberative body. The 
Senate has been through difficult times in the past when confidential 
information has been leaked. Senator Grassley and I were both here in 
the 1990s when then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell came to the 
floor to address this disturbing trend. He said:

       The unilateral decision by a Member or employee to release 
     confidential committee information is inconsistent with the 
     Senate's practice of making such decisions openly and 
     collaboratively. Arrogation of this responsibility by 
     individuals can destroy mutual trust among Members and be 
     harmful to this institution.

  That is an understatement. Senator Mitchell's quote gets to the heart 
of the matter. Leaking information undermines the institution of the 
Senate and the trust between its Members. In the Republican fervor to 
target Secretary Clinton over Benghazi, we should not lose sight of the 
rules that govern our behavior in the Senate. The Benghazi report on 
her is now over $5 million. It is wrong to target a former Clinton aide 
with invasive requests about her maternity leave and pass her personal 
information on to members of the press.
  It is wrong to politicize the legitimate oversight role of Congress 
ahead

[[Page S8200]]

of the 2016 Presidential election. Sadly, the improper disclosure of 
sensitive materials related to Secretary Clinton's aides only 
demonstrates the underlying political position of the Judiciary 
Committee's oversight. Going forward, I hope my Republican colleagues 
will exercise greater restraint in the relentless pursuit of Secretary 
Clinton, but, more importantly, I hope Senate Republicans take their 
constitutional responsibility more seriously to offer their advice and 
consent on the Presidential nominees. I hope they take them very 
seriously. It is shameful that the Republicans are blocking critical, 
national security nominees for political purposes. I would ask them to 
please change course because the American people are watching.

                          ____________________