[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10098-10109]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER R. HILL TO BE AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Nomination of Christopher R. Hill, of Rhode Island, a 
     Career Member of the Senior

[[Page 10099]]

     Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be Ambassador 
     Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
     America to the Republic of Iraq.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know we are here to discuss the 
nomination of Christopher Hill to be our Ambassador to Iraq. I want to 
talk about that for a few minutes.
  But I have to say, as I was sitting there listening to the 
distinguished minority leader complaining about the interest we are 
paying on the debt, I almost choked on the absurdity and irony of the 
situation in which we find ourselves. The reason we have to have an 
enormous stimulus plan is because of the mismanagement of our entire 
economy and Government over the course of the last 8 years. Not once--
the Senator from Rhode Island will know this--not once did the 
President of the United States George Bush veto a spending bill--not 
once. It was under the leadership of the Republicans as the chairs of 
all the essential spending committees of the Congress. They had the 
House, they had the Senate, they had the White House. During that 
period of time, they took a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into a 
$10 trillion debt and about a $5.6 trillion deficit--the most 
irresponsible period of fiscal management in the history of this 
country. Not to mention what they did with respect to the management of 
the regulatory process of our country, where, as we know, deals were 
allowed to be made on Wall Street that had no business being made. 
Regulators were taken out of the industry itself and it was like 
putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop in the most overt sense 
possible, so regulation went out the window.
  We are paying the price for that today. The American taxpayer is 
paying the price. The average homeowner is paying the price. Retirees 
are paying the price. Workers--unprecedented numbers of people laid off 
because of the hollow, empty Ponzi scheme investments and commission 
schemes that were engaged in on Wall Street and elsewhere. It is 
staggering.
  To listen to them come to the floor with no alternative plan--they 
don't offer any alternative as to how you put America back to work. 
They just say: No, don't spend this money. Oh, my God, we are building 
up a terrible deficit--despite the fact that for 8 years they were 
silent about the deficit. There is something in public where you earn 
the right, sort of a moral level of rectitude or of justification for 
saying the things you say. I have to tell you, it is hard to listen to 
some of these folks, who were so much a part of that, without even 
accepting responsibility for it. They don't come down and say, you 
know, we made a blooper of a mistake or, boy, did I misjudge this or 
that or whatever. It is a wholesale flip-flop transition that is 
absolutely staggering in its proportions. Judging by the polling 
numbers on the President reflecting the decisions he is making, tough 
decisions about how to get the country moving again, I think the 
American people get it. I hope we are going to spend our time more 
profitably around here than playing the traditional political game of 
delay and obfuscation and those tactics.
  The reason I mention that is the reason we are on the floor today 
debating the nomination of Christopher Hill is more of the same. It is 
exactly part of the same process of politics as usual in Washington, 
DC. There is no reason that for the last 2 weeks, while the Congress of 
the United States was on its Easter break--many Members back home or 
traveling the world, dealing with a lot of issues--there is no reason 
we did not have an ambassador in Iraq, which is what General Odierno 
wants, what General Petraeus wants, what the President wants, what the 
American troops need and deserve.
  Time and again, Senators have come to the floor and said there is no 
military solution in Iraq. The reason we are drawing down our numbers 
of troops there now is to transfer authority to the Iraqis themselves 
so our troops can come home and so they can assume responsibility for 
their country. As all of us know, that cannot happen completely and 
properly until and unless the political issues of Iraq are resolved. As 
the Washington Post noted, we have not had an ambassador in Iraq since 
last February. So we have gone all this time with the principal issue 
which needs to be resolved, which is political, without the principal 
player, who is the Ambassador.
  It is stunning to me that a few Senators have decided not just to 
register their opposition--which they can do. They have a right to do 
that, come to the floor, speak against the nomination and let's have a 
vote. He is going to be overwhelmingly supported to be the next 
ambassador to Iraq. But we will have delayed and diddled and who knows 
what opportunity may have been delayed or lost as a consequence of our 
not having the principal political player on the ground in Iraq in 
order to help negotiate.
  The fact is, Chris Hill, when you look at the record, even some of 
the arguments that are being made about him by the few who oppose him 
do not stand up. They do not stand up to scrutiny. In over three 
decades of service at the State Department, as ambassador to 
complicated, difficult parts of the world--Ambassador to Macedonia and 
Poland, to South Korea--Chris Hill has proven himself to be one of 
America's most talented diplomats. Today we are asking him to take on 
one of the most challenging diplomatic posts, one that if you look at 
his record through the years he has been preparing for in different 
ways in each of these different posts.
  Senator Lugar yesterday joined in the effort to get this vote and to 
approve this nomination. I appreciate enormously the partnership 
Senator Lugar has provided for years on the Foreign Relations 
Committee, as a partner to now-Vice President Biden, and now working 
with me and with the rest of the committee. Senator Lugar believes in 
calling things the way he sees them and in making judgments based on 
the facts--above all, in trying to have a foreign policy presence for 
the United States that is bipartisan, where the politics end at the 
water's edge. The fact is, Ambassador Hill's decades of diplomatic 
experience, as Senator Lugar has pointed out, give him the skills that 
matter the most in Iraq--the ability to achieve our objectives in a 
complex, challenging, sectarian, volatile, complicated environment.
  This is exactly the experience Chris Hill brings to this effort. He 
was one of the principal players in helping to resolve the civil wars 
in the Balkans. Many of us remember how difficult and, frankly, 
gridlocked that particular situation looked. He has worked on 
multiparty international negotiations. He has dealt with hostile 
regimes in the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program. 
Several times he has conducted his diplomatic efforts alongside a 
sizable military presence.
  His next assignment will require him to bring every single one of 
these experiences to the table. He will have to do it working against 
the clock as we finally bring our troops home from Iraq. We have set a 
timetable. It is a timetable that the military and Defense Department 
have agreed with, and it is one that many people believe will require 
the Iraqis to stand up for themselves in ways that they had been 
unwilling to do previously. But the fact is that to properly effect the 
transition that is going to be needed to bring those troops home, it is 
going to require more diplomacy, smarter diplomacy, and more urgent 
diplomacy. Now more than ever we need to enlist Iraq's neighbors in 
working constructively to stabilize Iraq, and that includes Iran and 
Syria.
  Iraq today still presents extraordinary challenges. Nobody should 
believe that because we have announced the troops are going to start to 
come home that Iraq is a done deal. It is not a done deal. It is still 
tricky, it is volatile, explosive. There are very complicated issues 
such as the oil revenues, the Federal Constitution, the resolution of 
the city of Kirkuk and the Kurds' interests. All are these are 
political solutions that need to be arrived at. I believe Chris Hill 
brings the skills necessary to help us to be able to do that.

[[Page 10100]]

  A few weeks ago, the Foreign Relations Committee strongly endorsed 
Chris Hill's nomination. As I said a few moments ago, I absolutely 
respect the right of any Senator to object to a nominee and to want to 
make their points about that nominee. But when you know you do not have 
the votes to legitimately block a nomination, to delay that nomination 
for critical weeks I think borders on the irresponsible. It makes this 
institution look a little silly in some ways. The fact is, if you look 
at the issues that have been raised, those issues have been 
consistently and accurately answered on the record. Let me go through a 
couple of them.
  Concerns have been raised about Ambassador Hill's record dealing with 
North Korea. Let me address that directly. First, some have attacked 
Chris Hill for not pressing hard enough against North Korea's atrocious 
human rights record. My friend Senator Brownback in particular has been 
outspoken in this regard, arguing that Ambassador Hill reneged on a 
promise made at a July 31, 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee 
hearing.
  Well, Ambassador Hill has spoken directly to that before our 
committee in answer to a question he was asked by Senator Lugar. 
Yesterday, I asked that portions of Ambassador Hill's Senate testimony 
be submitted for the Record so Senators could read that today in the 
Congressional Record and make their own judgment.
  But Ambassador Hill did the following in answer to a question from 
Senator Brownback: He did consent to invite the Special Envoy for North 
Korean human rights, a fellow by the name of Jay Lefkowitz, to future 
negotiations, except those that were specifically dealing with nuclear 
disarmament. That is appropriate. Those are two totally different 
portfolios. Mr. Lefkowitz was responsible for human rights, but what 
was being negotiated was the nuclear component, as Ambassador Hill 
explained at his nomination hearing. The problem is that the talks with 
North Korea never got beyond the issue of nuclear disarmament. It never 
got to the broader, more general issues that were before them.
  Furthermore, the call on whether to include the Assistant Secretary 
for Human Rights in the six-party talks was made above Chris Hill's pay 
grade. That was not a Chris Hill decision, that was a decision for the 
President of the United States and the Secretary of State.
  Let me tell you precisely what Secretary of State Condi Rice said 
about Mr. Lefkowitz and his efforts. Publicly in the New York Times, 
she is quoted rebuking the Human Rights Assistant Secretary in a public 
way. It is rather extraordinary that that would happen. But here is 
what she said:

       He is the human rights envoy. That is what he knows. That 
     is what he does. He doesn't work on the Six-Party talks. He 
     does not know what is going on in the Six-Party talks. And he 
     certainly has no say what American policy will be in the Six-
     Party talks.

  That is not a Democrat talking; that is his boss, the Secretary of 
State, Condi Rice, talking about his interference in the process. And 
Chris Hill was taking daily instructions, as he ought to be as a 
diplomat, from Secretary of State Condi Rice and from the President of 
the United States.
  So, you know, this is ridiculous that we are here tying up a 
nomination over something Chris Hill had absolutely no power to 
fundamentally change. It was not his right to make that decision. He 
did not make that decision. He followed his instructions. If Senator 
Brownback has a complaint, his complaint is with Secretary of State 
Condi Rice and President George Bush.
  Lost in this is also the fact that Chris Hill was extraordinarily 
outspoken in his criticism of human rights in North Korea. He was 
plainspoken with respect to that, and he was diligent in his effort to 
improve human rights in North Korea. Listening to some of his critics, 
you might get the impression that Chris Hill was somehow indifferent to 
the suffering of the North Korean people. Nothing could, in fact, be 
further from the truth.
  First, he expressed, on a number of occasions, using the plainest 
language, that North Korea's human rights record was ``abysmal,'' 
making clear in public and private that North Korea cannot fully join 
the international community short of significant improvement on this 
issue.
  Yesterday, my colleague from Kansas showed pictures comparing North 
Korean gulags to Nazi concentration camps. He warned that he must not 
be silent about North Korea's conduct. He is right. We must not be 
silent. Most importantly, Chris Hill agrees with him, and Chris Hill 
was not silent. He made it plain in open testimony before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee in July of 2008. Let me quote from that 
testimony because it speaks eloquently to Ambassador Hill's character 
and to his concern for the innocent victims of North Korea's repressive 
system. Here is what Chris Hill said in 2008, well before being 
nominated for this job, before the Armed Services Committee of the 
Senate:

       The DPRK's human rights record is, quite frankly, abysmal. 
     And every day that the people of North Korea continue to 
     suffer represents an unacceptable continuation of oppression. 
     I have seen--I've personally seen satellite images of the 
     DPRK's extensive prison camp system. This is truly a scar on 
     the Korean Peninsula . . .

  So he refers specifically to the photos Senator Brownback showed 
yesterday.
  He goes on to say:

       It is reported that North Koreans suffer torture, forced 
     abortion, and in some cases, execution. The dangers faced by 
     North Korean refugees who flee their country in search of a 
     better life, often only to face suffering or eventual 
     repatriation with a very uncertain fate, are certainly, or 
     are similarly, unacceptable. The United States' dedication to 
     improving the lives of North Korean people will never wane, 
     and we will continue to seek all available opportunities to 
     improve this heartbreaking situation.
       We have repeatedly made clear to the DPRK that human rights 
     is not only a U.S. priority--frankly, it's an international 
     priority. It is a part of the standard of joining the 
     international community. We've emphasized how much we value 
     the advancement of human rights in all societies and our need 
     to have this and other outstanding issues of concern 
     discussed in the normalization process.

  So Chris Hill could not have been more clear, time and again, in his 
negotiations, in his public comments, in his testimony to the Senate, 
about the human rights situation.
  Second, Chris Hill worked closely with his colleagues to implement 
the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004, sponsored by our friend, the 
Senator from Kansas. Consistent with that act, Ambassador Hill secured 
the admission of the first North Korean refugees into the United States 
in 2006. He helped ensure the safe passage of asylum seekers from the 
north who were detained in other countries. He backed increased funding 
of radio broadcasting activities and support for defector organizations 
in South Korea, regularly meeting with North Koreans who made it out 
alive.
  Finally, it was the team of Ambassador Hill and USAID official John 
Brause that secured unprecedented access for reputable U.S. 
nongovernmental organizations to deliver carefully monitored food aid 
to North Korean children. In my opinion, there can be no higher 
accomplishment in the field of human rights than to prevent the 
starvation of children. It was not easy for Hill and Brause to convince 
North Korea to permit Mercy Corps, World Vision, Samaritan's Purse, 
Global Resources Service, and Christian Friends of Korea to send 
Korean-speaking foreign staff to the countryside of North Korea in 
order to monitor food aid deliveries. But they did that. They 
accomplished that.
  The fact that several of these NGOs are Christian charitable 
organizations makes this accomplishment even more remarkable given 
North Korea's poor record on religious freedom issues.
  So Chris Hill's record on North Korean human rights is, frankly, 
unassailable, it is admirable, and we do him a disservice if that is 
not acknowledged here in the Senate.
  What is more, Chris Hill achieved these gains inside the limitations 
of a policy that was shaped from above by his superiors in the White 
House, one that properly focused on denuclearization first, while also 
trying to address a wide range of other concerns, including human 
rights, missile proliferation, counterfeiting, drug

[[Page 10101]]

smuggling, and other illicit activities. From the early days of the 
Bush administration, the focus was always clearly on security issues. 
In announcing the results of the Bush administration's North Korea 
policy review on June 6, 2001, the President instructed his security 
team to focus on North Korea's nuclear activities, its missile 
programs, and its conventional military posture. There was no explicit 
mention of human rights in President Bush's policy at that point in 
time, although there was a pledge to help the North Korean people, ease 
sanctions, and encourage progress toward north-south reconciliation. 
But the focus of the administration at that point was national 
security. As Secretary Rice testified to in the Foreign Relations 
Committee back in January of 2005:

       Our goal now has to be to make the Six-Party mechanism work 
     for dealing with the North Korean nuclear program and then 
     hopefully for dealing with the greater problem of managing 
     this dangerous regime.

  This was 6 weeks before Chris Hill was named envoy to the six-party 
talks, and it was 3 months before he was even named Assistant Secretary 
of State. So what are we doing debating the question of Chris Hill and 
this policy, when the policy was put in place by the President well 
before he even became Assistant Secretary of State? He followed the 
policy directives.
  My friend Senator Brownback said yesterday that our North Korean 
policy was a Chris Hill policy. That is not the case, and the record 
proves that is not the case. The decision to focus on the complete 
verifiable and irreversible elimination of North Korea's nuclear 
program was American policy, it was U.S. policy well before Chris Hill 
arrived, and it remains America's policy today.
  Those who criticize Chris Hill for not accomplishing more in the area 
of human rights should also appreciate that he was, in many cases, 
hamstrung. I think he would have liked to have gone further in some 
regards, but his limitations were to the six-party talks, when many of 
us were pressing for bilateral talks, I might add. I remember in the 
2004 campaign, in the debates with President Bush, I advocated moving 
toward biliteral as the way to get things done. And the President said 
no. He stood by the concept of six-party talks. For several years, we 
went on with that. But ultimately it was through the administration's 
eventual transition to a bilateral set of meetings that we actually 
made progress and accomplished what was accomplished in that 
relationship, tenuous as it was.
  So Chris Hill was implementing the policy of President Bush, 
Secretary Rice, National Security Adviser Hadley, Vice President Dick 
Cheney, and those who had the final say on North Korean policy. That 
final say did not then rest with a professional foreign career officer 
who was implementing the policy of his superiors.
  I am also troubled that some of the criticisms of America's policy 
toward North Korea seem to carry with them the implication that Chris 
Hill does not care on a personal level about human rights. Well, this 
runs counter to a lifetime of concern and achievement everywhere he has 
served.
  In Kosovo, Ambassador Hill advocated NATO intervention to prevent 
ethnic cleansing. When more than a quarter million refugees from Kosovo 
flooded Macedonia in 1999, it was Ambassador Hill who worked tirelessly 
to keep the border open and set up dozens of refugee camps across 
Macedonia, protecting every last refugee and pressuring Macedonia's 
leadership to keep taking refugees even as they complained that their 
country could hold no more, even as the number of refugees rose to 10 
percent of Macedonia's population, with a wave of Muslim refugees 
entering a delicately balanced majority-Christian, multireligious 
society. That is what Chris Hill accomplished. He managed to protect 
the rights of those people, and he did so under enormously difficult 
circumstances. He ought to get credit for that. The folks who are 
sounding the drumbeat of human rights ought to be giving him credit for 
the record of what he accomplished in those difficult circumstances.
  Another particular story shows Chris Hill's commitment to human 
rights. In the middle of the night, a crowd had gathered in a refugee 
camp and was preparing to harm two Roma families in that camp. Chris 
Hill personally risked his own safety to stand in front of that crowd 
and allow the families who were being targeted to evacuate while he 
stood there. Those present said it was an impressive display of moral 
and physical courage.
  So while we may disagree with the American policy, let's not allow 
those disagreements to degenerate into personal accusations against a 
man who has given his entire life to serving America's interests and 
ideals and has a decades-long record on human rights to prove it.
  Simply put, Chris Hill is one of the best diplomats we have. That is 
why Senator Lugar expressed his support and spoke of his outstanding 
diplomatic and managerial skills. Vice President Biden has referred to 
Ambassador Hill as ``one of the gems we have in the Foreign Service.''
  For years, many in this body have argued that we ought to follow the 
advice of our commanders on the ground in Iraq. How many times have we 
had a debate in which people have said: Listen to the generals. Listen 
to the commanders in Iraq. Well, here is what they are saying:
  GEN Ray Odierno, the top military commander in Iraq, said:

       Hopefully we will have an ambassador out here very soon. It 
     would certainly help to have an ambassador here as quickly as 
     possible.

  The Pentagon's top spokesman went even further. He said:

       It is vital that we get an ambassador in Baghdad as soon as 
     possible because there is no substitute for having the 
     President's envoy, the U.S. Ambassador, in place and on the 
     job.

  Our Ambassadors have also been unanimous in their support. Ryan 
Crocker, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Negroponte, the three wartime American 
Ambassadors to Iraq, wrote a letter together urging a quick 
confirmation for Chris Hill. They wrote Hill ``brings over three 
decades of experience to this task, especially in the areas of national 
security, peace-building, and post-conflict reconstruction. We need his 
experience during this critical time in Iraq. . . . The issues are 
pressing and the President must have his personal representative on the 
scene now. We encourage the Senate to act promptly to provide its 
advice and consent.''
  One of the principal reasons GEN David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan 
Crocker were able to accomplish so much is because they worked together 
so closely. I know General Petraeus's successor, General Odierno, is 
looking forward to building a similar relationship with Ambassador 
Hill, which explains why he is outspoken in the need to send Chris Hill 
to Baghdad in a timely manner.
  So this is not a time for delay. Chris Hill has promised to leave for 
Iraq within 24 hours of being confirmed, if possible. I believe we 
should have Chris Hill on a plane tomorrow to Iraq. And I hope my 
colleagues--I see none of them in the Chamber who oppose this 
nomination. We are going to try to move to a vote, let me say to my 
colleagues. If there are people who oppose this nomination, they ought 
to be here to do so because we are going to try to move to a vote in 
the early afternoon and not delay this nomination any further.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to join the distinguished 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in support of Ambassador 
Christopher Hill as our next United States Ambassador to Iraq.
  In helping to negotiate an end to the crisis in the Balkans, in 
leading three Embassies, and in working to disarm North Korea's nuclear 
weapons program, Ambassador Hill has gleaned invaluable experience and 
given invaluable service in over 31 years of diplomatic service to this 
country.
  Ambassador Hill is a fellow son of the Foreign Service. My father and 
grandfather were Foreign Service officers,

[[Page 10102]]

and I have some experience of the sense of calling and dedication that 
background provides. He is decent, honorable, and snarled right now in 
Senate politics in a way, frankly, that is less of a reflection on him 
than it is a reflection on us.
  He is also a fellow Rhode Islander, with a family home in Little 
Compton, RI. His family moved there when he was in the fifth grade, 
when United States diplomats, including his father, were expelled from 
Haiti. He attended the Moses Brown preparatory school in Providence and 
later returned to the Ocean State to attend the U.S. Naval War College.
  Now, at the crest of his career, he is a hero of the American Foreign 
Service and one of our very few most distinguished diplomats. He has 
shown in his career a special talent for bringing together ethnically 
divided peoples, a skill that will, obviously, be critical in Iraq. 
When the Balkans erupted in ethnic conflict, Ambassador Hill was a 
central player on the Clinton team that forged the Dayton Accords, the 
peace settlement that ended the Bosnian war.
  In his book on the Dayton negotiations, Special Representative for 
Afghanistan and Pakistan Ambassador Richard Holbrooke described Hill as 
``brilliant'' and ``fearless,'' praising him for being both ``very cool 
and very passionate,'' and for his strong negotiating skills. These are 
the very traits we need in an Ambassador to Iraq.
  Ambassador Hill served as Ambassador to Macedonia during a troubled 
time, and as a special envoy to war-torn Kosovo. He said of this 
conflict that ``like a lot of things in life: you've got to do 
everything you can do'' to be satisfied ``that you have left no stone 
unturned.'' I am confident he will bring the same tenacity to his 
position as United States Ambassador for Iraq.
  As Ambassador to South Korea, Christopher Hill broke diplomatic 
precedent and charmed the South Korean people by repeatedly visiting 
hotbeds of anti-American sentiment, such as universities, where he 
engaged in open debate with audiences. He paid his respects at a 
memorial for thousands of civilians fired upon by a 1980s military 
government. No senior U.S. official had ever before visited this 
memorial, and he won the respect and trust of many through this simple 
yet momentous gesture. A senior official with the American Chamber of 
Commerce in South Korea, Tami Overby, stated:

       He was here the shortest term among the six ambassadors 
     that I've seen here in my 18 years, but [he] had the most 
     impact.

  Ambassador Hill's time in South Korea was cut short as he was tapped 
to head negotiations in six-party talks over North Korea's nuclear 
weapons program. At a time of crisis, when the Bush administration had 
long ignored nuclear proliferation by North Korea, Ambassador Hill 
successfully brought China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and other 
regional partners to the bargaining table. Though some of my Senate 
colleagues have criticized Ambassador Hill for negotiating with North 
Korea, his efforts there culminated in the dismantlement of the 
Pyongyang reactor, slowing North Korean nuclear proliferation and 
protecting United States and world security.
  Now he is President Obama's nominee as Ambassador to Iraq. Timing, as 
Senator Kerry has pointed out, is crucial, and the delay is perplexing.
  Let's look back to May 2005, when the Republican majority leader took 
to the floor to comment on the nominations of Miguel Estrada, Priscilla 
Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown to U.S. courts of appeals. He said then 
of the Senate Democratic minority:

       For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the 
     Senate's ``advise and consent'' responsibilities to ``advise 
     and obstruct.''

  Well, the shoe is on the other foot. My Republican colleagues are 
obstructing the nomination of our much needed United States Ambassador 
to Iraq.
  When, in 2006, Kenneth Wainstein was nominated as the Assistant 
Attorney General for National Security, my colleague from Texas, 
Senator Cornyn, came to the floor and stated:

       Obstruction from the other side of the aisle, Mr. 
     President, is impeding efforts to improve national security.

  He continued:

       Democratic obstruction is impeding this effort to improve 
     national security.

  Today, Republicans are engaged in the very obstruction they 
criticized.
  In 2007, when Michael Mukasey was nominated as Attorney General, the 
Republican leader came here to state:

       If . . . our colleagues intentionally delay the nominee and 
     hold him or her hostage, they will show the American people 
     that their concern for the Department was insincere. . . . In 
     these times, it is especially important that the Senate act 
     promptly. We are, after all, at war.

  Well, they will be the first to tell you that we are still at war, 
and yet on this critical appointment for our new President: 
obstruction.
  Similarly, when it came to the Iraq surge, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle argued vehemently that we should defer to the 
judgment of General Petraeus and commanders on the ground in Iraq. I am 
not so sure about that. Civilian control of the military is a longtime 
and valued American tradition. But that was their argument. We heard 
the name of Petraeus invoked over and over and over again.
  Senator McConnell, in March of 2007, spoke out against setting 
deadlines for U.S. troop withdrawals in Iraq, stating that deadlines 
would ``interfere with the President and General Petraeus's operational 
authority to conduct the war in Iraq as he and his commanders see fit. 
It would substitute for their judgment the 535 Members of Congress.''
  In September of 2007, my colleague from South Carolina, Senator 
Graham, said that ``. . . to substitute the Congress's judgment for 
General Petraeus's judgment, is ill-advised and unwarranted.''
  Those of us who were here through that time remember clearly the 
repeated incantation of the name of Petraeus that featured so 
prominently in the Republican rhetoric.
  Well, I suggest to my Republican colleagues, the time may now have 
come to heed their own advice. Last month, the U.S. military's chief 
spokesman, Geoff Morrell, stated:

       Generals Odierno and Petraeus have come out very publicly 
     and very forcefully in support of Ambassador Hill's 
     nomination. I know they support it. They know him from 
     previous assignments, they like him, they believe he is well 
     suited to the job and are anxiously awaiting his 
     confirmation.

  What happened to the deference to General Petraeus now that he wants 
Ambassador Hill? And it is not just General Petraeus and General 
Odierno and the military establishment engaged in that theater. The 
last three United States Ambassadors to Iraq--all Republican 
appointees--Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, and 
Ambassador John Negroponte, have all also expressed their unequivocal 
support for Ambassador Hill.
  There are areas outside of politics where professional respect 
prevails. As a former U.S. attorney and attorney general, I have seen 
it among prosecutors. We saw it when prosecutors of both parties 
rallied around the Department of Justice when the Bush administration 
and Attorney General Gonzales made their best efforts to ruin that 
great Department. The same principle applies here, the politics of this 
Chamber notwithstanding. The professional colleagues of Ambassador Hill 
know better. They know how good he is, and they know we need him there.
  My distinguished colleague from Indiana, the ranking member of the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, also agrees. He put it well in 
Ambassador Hill's confirmation hearing. ``We're at war,'' he said. 
``This is not a parliamentary struggle among senators with different 
points of view.''
  Senator Lugar is right. This is not or should not be a time for 
bickering. This is the time to confirm our next United States 
Ambassador to Iraq without further delay.
  Christopher Hill has served in the State Department for 31 years. As 
Senator Kerry, the distinguished chair of the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations has said, he is one of our Nation's most accomplished 
diplomats, ready for one of our most difficult assignments. He has the 
votes to be confirmed. Delay now can only impede

[[Page 10103]]

progress in Iraq's future. And it fails me to understand how that could 
be any Member's goal. The situation is better in Iraq, but it remains 
difficult.
  Arab-Kurd tensions are high in the north. Sectarian groups struggle 
for power after January's provincial elections, and elections slated 
for the end of this year will be a key indicator of Iraq's democratic 
direction. The safety of our 146,400 men and women on the ground in 
Iraq, of course, is always of concern. History shows that even major 
gains can always be reversed. So let us get Ambassador Hill out there 
to lead the transition of the United States mission in Iraq from a 
military intervention to a much needed focus on stabilization and 
economic development, and to advance our Nation's interests in that 
troubled region.
  I thank the Acting President pro tempore. I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his advocacy and his 
ardent support of this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am very grateful to the Senator from 
Rhode Island for his comments now, as well as his leadership on the 
committee. And I appreciate his coming to the floor to take time to do 
this.
  I know Senator Cardin has been waiting.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to urge my colleagues to 
confirm the nomination of Christopher Hill to be Ambassador to Iraq.
  I compliment the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Senator Kerry, for his comments. I agree with him on the 
urgency of our action. It is critically important we have a confirmed 
ambassador in Iraq.
  I also concur in the comments of Senator Lugar, the ranking member of 
the Foreign Relations Committee. We are at war. We should be coming 
together, as Senator Whitehouse has pointed out, and acting on this 
nomination.
  I am somewhat confused as to why this nomination has been held up 
several weeks when I think of the fact that a clear, overwhelming 
majority of the Members of the Senate are going to vote for Ambassador 
Hill's confirmation.
  It is critically important we have an experienced diplomat in Iraq as 
our Ambassador. Christopher Hill has devoted his career to service to 
our country as a diplomat. He first volunteered as a Peace Corps 
volunteer in Cameroon. He was Special Envoy to Kosovo, a very difficult 
part of the world. He was Ambassador to Poland and Macedonia and head 
of the U.S. delegation to the six-party talks on North Korea. That 
experience will serve him well as Ambassador to Iraq. He has navigated 
complex regional dynamics in seemingly intractable conflicts to promote 
peace and development in parts of the world where we thought we could 
not make progress. He is exactly the type of experienced diplomat the 
United States needs representing our interests in Iraq. As has been 
pointed out, we need a career diplomat, someone who has the confidence 
of the community to be able to make the type of progress we need to 
make in Iraq.
  Chris Hill has the endorsements of the three prior Ambassadors of the 
United States to Iraq. As Senator Whitehouse pointed out, they were 
appointed by a Republican President. However, quite frankly, Ambassador 
Hill represents a nonpolitical appointment that has bipartisan support 
in Congress. Again, he is the right type of person at this moment to 
represent the interests of the United States.
  Let me speak a little about the urgency of why we need to move 
forward now and get Ambassador Hill confirmed as our Ambassador. Mr. 
President, 140,000 American troops are currently in Iraq. They are 
entitled to have a confirmed ambassador to represent the interests of 
the United States in Iraq. Our soldiers are serving valiantly, and they 
are entitled to have all the tools at their disposal to make sure their 
mission succeeds. One of the most important tools is to have a 
confirmed U.S. Ambassador.
  By August 31, 2010, America's combat mission in Iraq will end. That 
puts more urgency on our diplomacy. There may have been some 
disagreement--there was disagreement--as to the surge of U.S. troops, 
but there is no disagreement as to the surge and the need of a surge 
for U.S. diplomacy. This is a critical time for Iraq. They are going 
through a transition in their political environment. The United States 
needs to be represented by an experienced, confirmed diplomat. Chris 
Hill is that type of an individual.
  Let me speak about a couple of the other issues, starting with the 
refugee issue, which I heard Senator Kerry speak about. I was recently 
in Syria and saw firsthand Iraqi refugees who are currently living in 
Syria. I have been to Jordan. I have seen Iraqi refugees who are living 
in Jordan. There are millions of displaced Iraqis--a couple million 
within Iraq, a couple million outside of Iraq, mostly in the 
surrounding countries--and one of the challenges to a stable Iraq will 
be dealing with that refugee issue. The United States has to play a 
critical role in that, a lead role. We know that. We need an ambassador 
in Iraq on the ground advising the Obama administration as to what will 
be the most effective policies in dealing with the displaced 
individuals within Iraq and the refugees living in surrounding 
countries. We need an ambassador in Iraq now to represent those 
interests to give the President the best advice so we have our best 
chance of a successful mission within Iraq.
  President Obama stated our strategy in Iraq ``is grounded in a clear 
and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: 
an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant. To achieve that 
goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, 
representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor 
safe-haven to terrorists.''
  I think we all agree with President Obama's goals for Iraq, but it is 
clear to all of us that we need a career, experienced diplomat in Iraq 
representing our interests at this critical moment.
  Quite frankly, I don't understand the delay. I really don't. I think 
the vote is going to be overwhelmingly in support of his confirmation. 
Let's get on with it. Let's get him confirmed. As Senator Kerry has 
said, let's get him on a plane to Iraq as quickly as possible so he can 
help serve our interests as Ambassador to Iraq.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for confirmation--and let's get that 
vote as quickly as possible--to represent the U.S. interests in Iraq.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
nomination of Christopher Hill to be Ambassador to Iraq.
  Last week, I had the very distinct privilege of joining Senator Jack 
Reed on a trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to witness firsthand 
the remarkable contributions of our military and civilians abroad. In 
each and every meeting in Baghdad, we were asked about the nomination 
of Ambassador Hill, and it was painstakingly clear that the absence of 
a U.S. Ambassador creates questions regarding America's commitment to 
the future of Iraq.
  I cannot stress enough the concern expressed by our military and 
civilian leadership, as well as the Iraqi Government, that there is no 
high-level civilian representing the United States in Iraq. It is in 
this regard that I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
Ambassador Hill's confirmation.
  Here in the Senate, we understand the intricacies of parliamentary 
procedures, but outside this delay is interpreted differently. It is 
seen by far too

[[Page 10104]]

many as signifying a low priority, a lack of American interest, and a 
slight to the people of Iraq.
  With the beginning of President Obama's drawdown plan and the 
withdrawal of American forces from major cities by this summer, we 
absolutely, positively need an ambassador to coordinate increased 
civilian efforts needed to replace our military presence.
  As Iraqis take important steps to improve security, governance, 
economic development, and the training of police, we must have an 
ambassador to coordinate our efforts and continue to channel U.S. 
resources and support. As Iraq faces the challenge of continued 
sectarian tension--especially between the Arabs and the Kurds--
Ambassador Hill's first task should be focusing on mitigating tensions 
in the north and helping the Iraqis resolve difficult questions 
surrounding the status of Kirkuk and the hydrocarbons law.
  The future of Iraq is incumbent upon critical developments and 
critical milestones that were made this year, and it is incumbent upon 
this body--the Senate--to ensure that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad--the 
largest in the world--has the leadership it needs to succeed in Iraq.
  I have met with Ambassador Hill and I am positive that he is the 
right person for this critical task. His extensive experience in 
diplomacy, nation building, and conflict management--especially in the 
Balkans--has prepared him for the challenge of Iraq. As a member of 
Ambassador Holbrooke's team, Ambassador Hill was deeply engaged in the 
success of the Dayton peace accords in Bosnia. As Ambassador of 
Macedonia, he helped to ensure refugee camps were established for the 
Kosovar refugees. As a Special Negotiator for Kosovo, Ambassador Hill 
was the architect for efforts to secure human rights for the 
population. When those negotiations failed, he recommended NATO 
intervention to prevent ethnic cleansing. Ambassador Hill has been 
tested by some of the very biggest foreign policy challenges in recent 
decades. He has demonstrated time and time again that he has the skills 
necessary to succeed in Iraq.
  The post of Ambassador to Iraq is vitally important to U.S. security 
interests in the region, and I am confident the Senate will soon 
confirm Ambassador Hill. With this in mind, I urge my colleagues who 
oppose this nomination to reconsider their reservations and concerns. 
For that reason, I wish to address a few of those concerns now because 
it is critical to stress the importance of protecting human rights 
throughout the world, and Ambassador Hill does.
  The most serious allegation against Ambassador Hill is related to his 
alleged unwillingness to push North Korea during the Six Party Talks. I 
can tell my colleagues frankly that I would not support Ambassador 
Hill's nomination if I had any question about his commitment to human 
rights. But I have none. He coordinated his efforts closely with the 
State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. 
Together they worked to admit the first North Korean refugees to the 
United States in 2006 and expanded funding in support of North Korean 
human rights. This included expanded radio broadcasting efforts and 
support for North Korean defector organizations in South Korea.
  He has intervened with foreign governments, including China, to make 
sure North Korean asylum seekers did not disappear into detention but 
could have safe transit into third countries. In public and in private, 
Ambassador Hill has made clear to North Korean officials that human 
rights are a primary concern of the United States--as important as the 
nuclear issue. The United States must insist that any settlement with 
North Korea take into account its atrocious record on human rights. 
Ambassador Hill was clear about the primacy of human rights in the 
process of negotiations.
  Critics of Ambassador Hill have looked at a disappointing outcome at 
Six Party Talks and pointed the blame at him. It is a chilling thought, 
but it must be noted that without Ambassador Hill's commitment, the 
situation could have been far worse. In this regard, I am grateful to 
Ambassador Hill for all that he accomplished with a government well-
known for its intransigence--clearly, the most intransigent government 
on the face of the Earth.
  The practical diplomatic skills Ambassador Hill demonstrated in the 
Balkans and North Korea are what we need in Iraq. We will need his past 
experience with refugees and internally displaced persons. We will need 
his ability to interact with all parties as a fair arbitrator, and we 
need his experience with security issues and the training of police.
  Now, more than ever, it is absolutely critical to demonstrate to the 
Iraqi people and the world that we value the importance of the future 
of Iraq. At this critical turning point, we must have a diplomat in 
Baghdad who can confront the many challenges and provide the necessary 
leadership for our mission. It is in this regard that I strongly 
support the nomination of Ambassador Chris Hill, not only because he is 
an accomplished diplomat but because he is the right person for the 
task at hand in Iraq.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, today is a sad day in the history of 
the world. It is Holocaust Remembrance Day. This month marks the 65th 
anniversary of a daring escape from Auschwitz by a teenager who then 
revealed the truth about the death camps, only to be ignored by the 
allied leadership.
  In March 1944, the Germans occupied Hungary and prepared to deport 
that country's Jews--numbering approximately 750,000--to Auschwitz. A 
19-year-old prisoner, Rudolph Vrba, together with fellow inmate Alfred 
Wexler, decided to do something that almost nobody had ever done 
before: escape from Auschwitz. They were determined to alert the world 
about the doom Hungarian Jews would soon face.
  On April 7, Vrba and Wetzler slipped away from their slave labor 
battalion and hid in a hollowed-out woodpile near the edge of the camp. 
On the advice of Soviet prisoners of war, the fugitives sprinkled the 
area with tobacco and gasoline, which confused the German dogs that 
were used to search for them.
  On their second day in the woodpile, Vrba and Wetzler heard Allied 
warplanes overhead. ``They came closer and closer--then bombs began to 
crunch not far away,'' Vrba later recalled in his searing memoir I 
Cannot Forgive. ``Our pulses quickened. Were they going to bomb the 
camp? Was the secret out? . . . Was this the end of Auschwitz?''
  The Allied planes were actually bombing German oil factories in and 
around the Auschwitz complex. The idea of bombing the death camp had 
not yet been proposed to the Allied leadership, and details such as the 
location of the gas chambers and crematoria were not yet known to the 
Allied war command. But that was about to change.
  On April 10, in the dead of night, Vrba and Wetzler emerged from the 
woodpile and began an 11-day, 80-mile trek to Slovakia. There they met 
with Jewish leaders and dictated a 30-page report that came to be known 
as the ``Auschwitz Protocols.'' It included details of the mass-murder 
process, maps pinpointing the gas chambers and crematoria and warnings 
of the impending slaughter of Hungary's Jews.
  ``One million Hungarian [Jews] are going to die,'' Vrba told them. 
``Auschwitz is ready for them. But if you tell them now, they will 
rebel. They will never go to the ovens.''
  A copy of the report was given to Rudolf Kastner, a Budapest Jewish 
leader. Instead of publicizing the information, Kastner negotiated a 
deal that involved bribing the Germans to permit a train with 1,684 of 
his relatives, friends and Hungarian Jewish leaders to leave the 
country. Kastner's action became the centerpiece of a controversial 
trial in Israel after the war.

[[Page 10105]]

  Another copy of Vrba's Auschwitz Protocols was given to Rabbi Michoel 
Dov Weissmandl, a rescue activist in Bratislava, who then wrote the 
first known appeal for the use of Allied air power to disrupt the mass 
murder. Weissmandl's plea to the Allies to bomb the railroad lines 
between Hungary and Auschwitz reached the Roosevelt administration in 
June.
  Assistant secretary of war John McCloy responded that the request was 
``impracticable'' because it would require ``diversion of considerable 
air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in 
decisive operations.'' He also claimed the War Department's position 
was based on ``a study'' of the issue. But no evidence of such a study 
has ever been found by researchers. In reality, McCloy's position was 
based on the War Department's standing policy that no military 
resources should be allocated for ``rescuing victims of enemy 
oppression.''
  Vrba's report convinced the Jewish Agency leadership in Palestine to 
change its position on bombing. Agency leaders initially opposed 
bombing Auschwitz because they believed it was a labor camp, not a 
death camp. But after receiving the Auschwitz Protocols in June, agency 
officials lobbied British, American and Soviet officials to bomb the 
camp or the railways leading to it. Their requests were rebuffed.
  Most important, a condensed version of the Auschwitz Protocols 
reached the U.S. Government's War Refugee Board in June. It helped 
galvanize the board mobilize international pressure on Hungary to halt 
the deportations to Auschwitz. Although that effort came too late for 
the more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews who had been shipped to their 
doom, it did spare the 200,000-plus who were still alive in Budapest.
  The full version of the Vrba report was actually held up in 
Switzerland for three months by U.S. diplomats who regarded it as low 
priority. And when the report finally reached Washington in October, 
the Office of War Information opposed distributing it; OWI director 
Elmer Davis claimed the report was actually part of a Nazi conspiracy 
to ``create contempt for the [Jewish] inmates'' by showing that the 
Jews were not resisting their killers.
  Fortunately, Davis and his cockamamie theories were too late to blunt 
the impact of the Auschwitz Protocols. The Hungarian deportations had 
been stopped, and Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler had played a 
significant role in bringing that about.
  So it was held up by U.S. diplomats, who regarded Auschwitz, in this 
situation, as a low priority.
  I will show you a picture of what is happening in North Korea. These 
are North Korean children who are being starved to death. These 
pictures were smuggled out by activists who wanted us to see what is 
taking place there. There are reliable estimates that up to 10 percent 
of the North Korean population has been starved to death in a gulag 
system, which I have spoken about many times on this floor, or by a 
regime that willfully gives food to those they deem reliable and 
willfully keeps food away from those they deem unreliable--including 
innocent children.
  This is taking place today on Holocaust Remembrance Day, in full view 
of the world, with full knowledge of U.S. diplomatic officials and with 
the knowledge that this has been going on for some time. They have 
deemed it a low priority, that it is not essential for us to deal with 
it at this time, that we have more important obligations to the world 
and to ourselves. And they starve and they die. It continues.
  The situation in North Korea has been studied fairly in depth. Here 
is a report done by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, 
chaired by Vaclav Havel and Eli Wiesel, among others. It is titled 
``Failure to Check the Ongoing Challenge in North Korea,'' about the 
starvation at the gulags. Here is another report titled ``North Korea: 
Republic of Torture.'' They gave this report. And we have our own 
report by the Congressional Research Service, titled ``North Korean 
Refugees in China and Human Rights Issues: International Response and 
U.S. Policy Options.'' So we have a number of studies. Ambassador Hill 
knows of these quite well.
  Here on Holocaust Remembrance Day, this sounds eerily familiar--
deeming this a low priority, saying that we have other more urgent 
needs and we should not divert resources or attention or focus to 
another area. And they continue to die. It seems as if we have seen 
this play before. It always saddens me to see this play. I don't like 
it.
  The title for this year's Holocaust Remembrance Day is ``Never Again: 
What You Do Matters.'' I think that title could not be more appropriate 
when we are debating the new potential Ambassador who will go to Iraq. 
It does matter. This has been a matter that for some length of time I 
have negotiated with this Ambassador--to elevate this issue in North 
Korea. But it hasn't taken place. And we continue to see this 
situation.
  I guess you could say: Well, OK, we could do that. We must have 
gotten a great deal for letting this situation be ignored. Yet as 
articulated last night--actually it will be worthwhile to go through it 
right now.
  Let's look at the deal we got from the North Koreans in the six-party 
talks. Let's put these guys on the side bench. We are not going to 
consider them right now. It is low priority.
  This is what the United States got out of the six-party talks where 
we set aside the human rights issue--not now, even though we have a 
special envoy for human rights, even though the Congress passed a bill, 
the North Korean Human Rights Act, after we have done all these things, 
but, OK, we are going to set that aside right now because we got a good 
deal in the six-party talks out of the North Koreans. I know they are 
difficult to deal with, tough negotiators, crazy, but we got a good 
deal this time.
  What we got out of it was we obtained an incomplete declaration from 
North Korea which the United States was unable to verify. They gave us 
a declaration, and we could not verify it. It was incomplete. It was 
also radioactive, which is spiteful on the part of the North Koreans. 
The actual report was radioactive.
  They imploded a cooling tower at Yongbyon--a little bit of theater, a 
camera shot, a photo op. It did not stop them from producing nuclear 
material there. It is just less safe to do it now in this spot. They 
are even saying now they are going to produce there.
  In the last 2 weeks, they have launched a missile that flew over 
Japan and has a range to reach the western United States. They have 
captured and detained two U.S. citizens who were reporting on this 
situation.
  They are being investigated for selling nuclear material to Iran. 
That is what has happened in the last 2 weeks. They pulled out of the 
six-party talks and kicked out U.N. inspectors. That has happened. That 
was the deal we got.
  What did the North Korean regime get so we could set aside this sort 
of human rights mess there and kind of ignore that? What did they get? 
They got delisted as a state sponsor of terrorism. They were able to 
access funds they had in an international bank. Probably those were 
gotten funds by selling drugs or by printing U.S. currency, which they 
are greatly proficient at doing. They obtained key waivers of U.S. 
sanctions imposed after the regime's illegal nuclear detonation in 
2006. So we waived those sanctions. They got off the state-sponsored 
terrorism list. They received tens of millions of dollars worth of U.S. 
energy assistance, fuel oil we gave them. That is what the Soviets used 
to give the North Koreans. Now the United States is giving it to North 
Korea. They were allowed to continue totalitarian oppression and 
starvation of the North Korean people and continued operation of a 
gulag of concentration camps for political dissidents. They were never 
required to release or account for all abductees or POWs or acknowledge 
a clandestine uranium enrichment program or their role in Syria's 
reactor bombed by the Israelis. That was a North Korean-designed 
reactor. They didn't have to say: This is what we did with that. They 
were able to test ballistic missile technology in violation of U.N. 
Security Council sanctions without any meaningful consequences.

[[Page 10106]]

  That was the deal we got, and that was the deal North Koreans got. We 
called off the human rights issue, which I was pushing and a number of 
people here were pushing for years, holding up different things in the 
system saying, you have to deal with this because we don't like these 
pictures; we know what is going on; you have to stop it. No, we have to 
put all that aside; this is a great deal. It was a terrible deal.
  Who was the head of all these negotiations? It turns out it is the 
individual we are now going to promote to the lead diplomatic post 
around the world for us, Ambassador Chris Hill, nominated to be our 
Ambassador to Iraq at the very point in time when those negotiations 
are moving into the most important diplomatic phase, more from the 
military phase to the diplomatic phase. This is the key person, this is 
our lead person on the ground, this is our representative to the Iraqi 
people whom we put in place, and this is the deal he got in his last 
assignment. Let's set aside those nettlesome human rights issues that 
always seem to pop up and get in the way.
  On its face, we should not put the individual who negotiated that bad 
deal and ignored that terrible situation into our best and most 
important post around the world. We should not do that. And certainly 
adding insult to injury, doing it on Holocaust Remembrance Day when we 
have a modern equivalent--not an equivalent, that is not fair to say--
we have a systematic modern killing by a government of millions of 
North Koreans, and that is taking place now.
  One can say, I guess, there is nobody else who would take the post in 
Iraq. And yet CNN was reporting the story about General Zinni, a highly 
decorated individual of our Government, being offered the post of 
Ambassador to Iraq by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, being 
congratulated by Vice President Joe Biden, and then mysteriously it is 
pulled back and he is not given the post. Here General Zinni, a highly 
qualified, knowledgeable individual of what is taking place in the 
region--he was certainly a skeptic on parts of the war, an individual 
with whom I disagreed, but he had his basis to do that--this is the 
individual who was initially nominated for this post or initially put 
forward and then suddenly is abruptly pulled out and instead they bring 
forward an individual who negotiated this bad deal.
  Why not General Zinni? If people are so upset, as they I guess 
rightfully should be, that we do not have anybody in that post, why did 
they throw the last ambassador out so quickly before we got this one in 
or bring in General Zinni who doesn't have these questions and problems 
and doesn't have this history of a horrific failure. Why not General 
Zinni? We can move him through fast. No problem. He is knowledgeable 
and qualified, not this controversial background nor this ignoring of a 
human rights disaster in North Korea as being problematic and 
nettlesome and harmful to the overall debate.
  Never again, as we say, never again are we going to let this sort of 
situation bubble up on us. Never again Rwanda. Never again a holocaust. 
Never again, as it happens today.
  I want to go through what is happening. I have a number of points I 
want to cover, but let me start with this. I had a lengthy and ongoing 
discussion with Ambassador Hill about the human rights situation in 
North Korea and the problems with it. He refused to invite the Special 
Envoy Jay Lefkowitz to those negotiations. I talked directly with Jay 
Lefkowitz since that period of time. Jay said he was never invited by 
anybody or by Mr. Hill to the six-party talks or any associated talks. 
He was kept away from them.
  There has been a refusal by Ambassador Hill to comply with the North 
Korean Human Rights Act. He refused to make use of resources at his 
disposal to assist in bringing out the human rights issues overall.
  I want to read from the record what Ambassador Hill said. We had this 
ongoing negotiation. I know there is some question about what he 
actually committed to. I have been talking with people at the State 
Department for some period of time. They continue to say: No, we are 
not going to do human rights, but we might do something, this or that. 
I said: It is not good enough; it needs to be involved in the actual 
negotiations and is actually a key to getting the regime under control 
and getting it to stop doing the terrible things it is doing now if you 
bring up the human rights issues. When you put exterior pressure on 
North Korea--you have to stop the missiles, nuclear development--the 
leader can say to his own people: They are threatening us and we have 
to stand together and be protected. When you talk about human rights, 
this is what he is doing to his own people. It weakens the regime. They 
refused to bring that up.
  In a hearing before the Armed Services Committee on the six-party 
talks and implementation activities, Ambassador Hill spoke. Senator 
John Warner worked with me, saying: Will you work with Ambassador Hill? 
Yes, if he includes the Special Envoy for human rights in these talks. 
If he agrees, fine, let's get it out in a public hearing and out on the 
record and move forward with it. This is what happened at that hearing 
on July 31 of last year. I was there. I asked Ambassador Hill:

       . . . will you state that the Special Envoy will be invited 
     to all future negotiating sessions with North Korea?

  That was my question in a public hearing on the record. This was 
choreographed ahead of time. I asked:

       . . . will you state that the Special Envoy will be invited 
     to all future negotiating sessions with North Korea?

  ``All future negotiating sessions with North Korea.''

       Ambassador Hill: I would be happy to invite him to all 
     future negotiating sessions with North Korea.
       Senator Brownback: Thank you.

  Those are two sentences. As a lawyer, that is pretty clear. It is 
``all.'' It says ``all.'' We both say ``all.'' It is not, well, OK, I 
meant this group, not that group of sessions. There was no parsing of 
words because I knew this is what would take place if I did not get a 
complete statement, and it was a complete statement--all future 
negotiating sessions. ``I would be happy to invite him to all future 
negotiating sessions with North Korea,'' and that did not occur.
  We received a statement from Jay Lefkowitz who was our Special Envoy 
to North Korea. I talked with Jay about this. Let me dig up the 
statement he sent back to me on the specifics of whether he was invited 
to any of those sessions. He said he was invited to none of them. Yet 
here is a statement that he will be invited to all. Jay Lefkowitz: I 
was invited to none.
  Misleading or lying to a Member of Congress at the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services by the individual we now are asked to trust with the 
most important account that we have. He is going to be an individual 
who is going to come back up to this body and he is going to be asking 
for resources, he is going to be asking for different things for the 
Congress to do. This is an individual I have had some depth of 
experience with and I am going to question what he is asking and what 
he is guaranteeing then in the process, if this is the way he has dealt 
with me on a very specific, a very clear issue that has come forward.
  A number of my colleagues have questions about his overall 
qualifications to go to the region in Iraq with no prior experience 
there, when you have an individual such as General Zinni who wants to 
take the post and has enormous experience in the types of things about 
which we are talking. I think this is lamentable.
  I put in a bill last night. It calls for resanctioning North Korea 
with the sanctions that were lifted off this deal that was structured. 
This bill calls for resanctioning North Korea, putting it back on the 
terrorism list, not sending them more fuel oil, funds to have at their 
disposal from us, fuel oil to fuel their economy. I think this is 
appropriate for us to be discussing at this point in time since the 
individual who negotiated that deal is the one we are considering for 
this next future negotiation.

[[Page 10107]]

  It is my hope that we can bring that bill up, that we can get some 
sort of vote on it. I remind individuals--and I know President Obama is 
very concerned about what is taking place in North Korea. He stated it, 
he stated very publicly that he is concerned about it. He stated it as 
a candidate, and he stated it as a Senator.
  I want to put up a quote from Candidate Obama who was also then 
Senator Obama at that point in time about what he was saying about 
North Korea. He said this:

       Sanctions are a critical part of our leverage to pressure 
     North Korea to act. They should only be lifted based on North 
     Korean performance. If the North Koreans do not meet their 
     obligations, we should move quickly to re-impose sanctions 
     that have been waived, and consider new restrictions going 
     forward.

  This is Candidate Obama, Senator Obama, now President Obama, what he 
stated on June 26, 2008.
  What has been the performance by North Korea? I have gone through 
this. I think it is worth noting, but the most obvious one is a big 
missile test that took place less than 2 weeks ago. They are now 
restarting a nuclear reactor. They are being investigated for sending 
nuclear material to Iran. The North Koreans have arrested two U.S. 
citizens. That is the performance that has taken place. We go to an 
international body, the U.N., and they say we ought to put sanctions on 
them. I am saying we ought to put our own sanctions back on based on 
what our President said, as a candidate at that time.
  In deference to several of my colleagues, I have much more to say, 
but I will allow others to speak, and then I will come back later in 
the day to speak further.
  With that, at this point in time, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to speak on behalf of Ambassador 
Hill. First of all, I wish to commend my colleagues. Yesterday, by a 
vote of 73 to 17 the Senate confirmed the nomination of Ambassador 
Chris Hill to serve as our Ambassador to Iraq, and I cast a vote for 
him. I did not get the chance yesterday to speak prior to the vote, so 
I wished to take a couple minutes today because I think this is an 
important issue. Its not just about Chris Hill but also about how we 
conduct diplomacy and about a professional, an individual who has 
served in administrations, regardless of politics or party, but as a 
professional. It is extremely important, in my view, that we have a 
cadre of professional people in our diplomatic corps who can serve both 
Democratic and Republican administrations with dignity, with 
professionalism, with brilliance in this case, and that we recognize 
them. That will necessitate from time to time that there will be a 
change in policies, but having individuals who are able to accommodate 
those changes and serve the interests of our country in a highly 
professional capacity is something to be celebrated, in my view, and 
something we need more of, not less. My support for Chris Hill's 
nomination is not to suggest that I necessarily agreed with every 
decision he made when he served at the discretion of Condoleezza Rice 
and President Bush but because he did so professionally and with great 
capacity. That willingness is something I believe we need to celebrate, 
as I said a moment ago, more often.
  Chris Hill is one of America's most accomplished Ambassadors and 
diplomats. He has served as Ambassador of our country to Macedonia, to 
Poland, and South Korea, as Special Envoy to Kosovo, and as a key 
negotiator of the 1995 Dayton Accords. He has been the Assistant 
Secretary of State for East Asia, and the Special Envoy to the six-
party talks on North Korea's nuclear program.
  His experience, tremendous professionalism and discipline, and his 
very keen analytical skills have made Ambassador Hill uniquely 
qualified, I believe, to serve as Ambassador to Iraq. It is high time 
the Senate confirmed him. This has gone on too long, given the 
importance of that Nation and the very precarious situation Iraq is in 
as it transitions from a nation at war with itself to the political 
stability we all hope will be achieved.
  The purpose of the surge in Iraq was to create the breathing space 
for the Iraqis to engage in political reconciliation and the political 
processes that would enable the Government to address the needs of its 
people and to rely less on American Security forces while doing so. The 
reduction in violence is a very positive sign and one that all of us 
welcome. But we must ask ourselves some critical questions as well: 
Have the fundamentals in Iraq changed? Is this reduction in violence 
organic or temporary? Is it sustainable? Have the fundamental 
roadblocks to political reconciliation been removed? How real is that 
progress? How fragile is it? Given the answers to these questions, what 
strategy should the United States employ in Iraq?
  I believe we made the correct decision yesterday by a vote of 73 to 
17 that Ambassador Hill is the right person to analyze these questions. 
He has a wealth of experience in very difficult places around the 
globe. While he lacks the so-called direct experience in this part of 
the world, the skill sets he brings to this are absolutely essential, 
in my view, to navigate these very difficult issues I have raised. So 
we need to recognize that.
  I also believe he is the right individual because he has demonstrated 
a solid grasp of the complex Iraqi reality, as well as a commitment to 
working toward reconciliation in Iraq and helping build an inclusive 
and responsive government that meets the needs of its people, while 
allowing American forces to quickly withdraw in the most responsible 
way possible.
  I am confident Ambassador Hill can accomplish this extraordinarily 
difficult and complex mission because he has demonstrated his ability 
to do so time and time again. Most recently, with the full confidence 
of the former President and Secretary of State, Ambassador Hill 
coordinated difficult and highly sensitive multilateral negotiations 
over North Korea's nuclear program.
  For people who supported President Bush's policy regarding North 
Korea to raise objections to Ambassador Hill's embrace and faithful 
execution of that policy is somewhat illogical. Similarly, it is unfair 
and dangerous for us to sit here and second-guess every split-second 
decision our Ambassadors around the world have to make, often in 
extremely difficult and rapidly changing circumstances, when those 
decisions are consistent with the guidance of the Secretary of State 
and the President, as they were in the previous administration. On one 
such occasion, in fact, in his negotiations on North Korea, then-
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice approved of Chris Hill's quick 
thinking and adaptability, and she was highly critical of his Chinese 
negotiating partners for complicating an already tenuous situation.
  The American people need our Ambassadors to carry out administration 
policy at the direction of the President and the Secretary of State and 
to think quickly on their feet when unexpected circumstances arise. 
Chris Hill has demonstrated the ability time and time and time again to 
make those kinds of decisions that advance our interests as a nation 
through the diplomatic process. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.
  Moreover, I am concerned about the complaints that Ambassador Hill 
did not press hard enough against North Korea on its deplorable human 
rights record. North Korea's human rights practices are horrific. We 
all know it. I know of no one, including Ambassador Hill, who thinks 
otherwise. But to claim Ambassador Hill somehow failed to faithfully 
and energetically carry out the human rights policies of President Bush 
and Secretary of State Rice, I think, is wrong. It is not just unfair 
to him and unfair to the former President and Secretary of State, it is 
a naive oversimplification of a highly complex matter, particularly 
when the reduction of a nuclear threat was the primary objective of 
those efforts.
  Ambassador Hill, has earned the support of the chairman and ranking 
member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Generals Petraeus 
and Odierno, and the last three U.S. Ambassadors to Iraq. Ambassador 
Hill

[[Page 10108]]

has testified before the Foreign Relations Committee and has answered 
all our questions on that committee, and I believe it is time we 
stopped delaying and send this Ambassador to Baghdad, where he is 
needed to carry out the critical missions of our Nation and advance the 
interests of our Nation. I know I am not alone in my belief that we are 
lucky to have such a talented and dedicated public servant to take on 
this daunting task, and I would urge my colleagues to support his 
nomination.
  I referred earlier to the vote yesterday. That vote was on a cloture 
motion to go to Ambassador Chris Hill's nomination. When I said it was 
a vote on his nomination--that vote of 73 to 17--it was a vote that 
allows us to get to the vote on the nomination. I was confusing the 
cloture motion with the vote to come on his nomination, which will 
occur at some point in the next day or two. Again, I urge my colleagues 
to be as supportive in the nomination as they were on the cloture 
motion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                               Earth Day

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, tomorrow is Earth Day, and it is a 
good day to save our mountaintops. I live in east Tennessee, near the 
edge of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Millions of Americans 
visit us every year because of the natural beauty of our landscape. 
They do not come to Tennessee to see the smog, they do not come to 
Tennessee to see creeks polluted by mountaintop mining, and they don't 
come to Tennessee to see ridgetop wind turbines that are three times as 
tall as our University of Tennessee football stadium, which, with their 
transmission lines, would create a junkyard in the sky.
  The American landscape is a part of our environment. It is essential 
to the American character. From John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt to 
Lady Bird Johnson, generations of Americans have worked to protect the 
landscape. Some of the same groups that have worked hardest to protect 
the landscape are neglecting it in pursuit of remedies for climate 
change.
  I am working with three Democratic Members of Congress to try to 
protect the American landscape. The first is Senator Tom Carper of 
Delaware. He and I are introducing legislation to put stiffer controls 
on sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions from coal plants. We have 
the technology to make the air cleaner, and we should be using it. 
There is no need to delay dealing with sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury 
while we figure out what to do about carbon.
  Secondly, Senator Cardin of Maryland and I have introduced 
legislation to ban the practice of blowing off the tops of mountains 
and dumping the waste in streams to mine coal. Coal is essential to our 
energy future. I hope we will reserve a Nobel Prize for the scientist 
who finds a way to deal with the carbon from existing coal plants. But 
we will create many more jobs by saving our mountaintops to attract 
tourists than we will by blowing them up to find coal, especially 
because our State produces less than 2 percent of the Nation's coal.
  Finally, Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina and I hosted a 
forum in Knoxville highlighting the Tennessee Valley Authority and 
their choices for renewable energy. Conservation and nuclear power are 
realistic options for clean electricity for our region, and we should 
move ahead aggressively with both. But solar power, for the longer 
term; underwater river turbines in the Mississippi River; biomass, such 
as wood chips; and methane from landfills are all good choices for 
renewable electricity as well.
  On the other hand, the idea of polluting our landscape with 500-foot 
wind turbines and their transmission towers is preposterous. It makes 
no sense to destroy the environment in the name of saving the 
environment, especially since the wind only blows about 18 percent of 
the time at TVA's one wind farm. And much of that is at night, when TVA 
already has thousands of unused megawatts of electricity that we could 
be using. TVA should take the $60 million it is spending to buy about 5 
megawatts of unreliable wind power and instead buy 10 compact 
fluorescent light bulbs for every TVA household, which, if used, would 
save about 920 megawatts of reliable power--the equivalent of an entire 
nuclear plant.
  Senator Carper and I will host a roundtable this Thursday in the 
Capitol on our legislation to establish stiff standards for sulfur, 
nitrogen, and mercury. The Tennessee Valley Authority needs to go ahead 
and put sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury controls on all its large coal 
plants that it intends to keep open. But TVA actions alone will not be 
enough to give us clean air in the Great Smoky Mountains and in 
Tennessee. We need strong national standards, such as those in our 
legislation because so much of our dirty air blows in from coal 
powerplants in other States.
  During each of the 2-year Congresses in which I have been a Senator, 
I have introduced legislation to curb pollutants from coal plants, 
including carbon. Tomorrow is Earth Day and a good day to save our 
mountaintops. The way we should do that is to have stiffer controls for 
cleaner air, to ban mountaintop removal for coal mining, and to stop 
the practice of wasting ratepayer dollars for ridgetop wind turbines 
that destroy the landscape, which is also an essential part of the 
American environment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Casey pertaining to the introduction of S. 839 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CASEY. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in late February, President Obama made 
an announcement to thousands of marines in Camp Lejeune about bringing 
an end to the war in Iraq. After only 5 weeks in office, this President 
delivered on what I consider to be one of his most important campaign 
promises--to end this war once and for all.
  But amidst this historic position and with this change that is 
looming, the Senate unfortunately has delayed the confirmation of the 
United States Ambassador to Iraq. We have gone almost 2 months without 
an ambassador in Iraq. With more than 140,000 American military 
personnel literally risking their lives in that country, the Senate has 
refused to fill this vacancy and to send our highest ranking civil 
official to Iraq to work with our military for a peaceful conclusion to 
this war. It is unforgivable. It is inexcusable. It is a fact.
  Ambassador Hill, Christopher Hill, the man who has been nominated for 
this position, is a highly accomplished career diplomat. This is not a 
man who comes to this job without experience. He has served America for 
over three decades in some of the world's most difficult and 
challenging situations. Here is what President Obama said in nominating 
Christopher Hill to be our Ambassador:

       From his time in the Peace Corps to his work in Kosovo and 
     Korea, Ambassador Hill has been tested, and he has shown the 
     pragmatism and the skill that we need right now.

  In the former Yugoslavia, Ambassador Hill was at the center of 
negotiations for the Bosnia peace settlement. He was the first United 
States Ambassador to Macedonia, where he helped to build the basic 
institutions of democratic governance and civil society. As our 
Ambassador to South Korea, Christopher Hill worked with Korean 
officials and U.S. military leaders to develop and implement the most 
significant realignment of military posture in the region since the 
Korean war of the 1950s.
  Most recently, as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and 
Pacific Affairs, Ambassador Christopher Hill worked with China, South 
Korea,

[[Page 10109]]

Russia, and other nations to advance negotiations with North Korea over 
its nuclear program.
  Some have argued on the floor that Ambassador Hill did not adequately 
press the North Korean Government on its deplorable human rights 
record. But, in truth, Hill did address the North Korean human rights 
record, but he did so while following the President's request to keep 
denuclearization of the Korean peninsula at the forefront of his 
agenda.
  President Obama's plan to remove 140,000 troops from Iraq, including 
all combat forces by next summer, is a challenge. It is a challenge not 
only for our military but also on the diplomatic front. We will be 
working with the Iraqi Government throughout this transition to make 
certain we do everything in our power to have a meaningful handover of 
authority and a stable Iraq left behind. We are going to have 35- to 
50,000 transitional forces that will remain to train and advise Iraqi 
security forces, to conduct counterterrorism operations, and to protect 
American civilian and military personnel. Those transitional forces are 
scheduled to leave by the end of 2012. Is there anyone who believes we 
can accomplish this without having our best and brightest on the ground 
in Iraq? Is there any parent or spouse, relative, or friend of a 
service man or woman now risking their life in Iraq who does not 
believe we should have an ambassador on the ground? How can we explain 
to these soldiers that for 2 months, while Congress sits here wringing 
its hands, we have not sent an ambassador to Iraq?
  Yesterday, we were forced to have a cloture vote. A cloture vote 
basically says: Stop talking, Senators, and get down to business. Make 
a decision once in a while.
  Do you know what the vote was yesterday? It was 73 to 17. That means 
that not only the 57 Democrats who are here but at least 16 of the 
Republicans joined us and said: Let's get this moving.
  How do we find ourselves in this position where the President wants 
to send the most important civil representative of our Government to a 
nation where American soldiers' lives are at risk and the Senate wrings 
its hands and says: Well, maybe we ought to wait a few days; maybe we 
ought to wait a few weeks; maybe we ought to let this sit over the 
Easter recess while we eat our Peeps and jellybeans. I do not buy that. 
This is a critical decision for America's security interests. Sending a 
diplomat of the skill of Christopher Hill is absolutely essential to 
protect America's interests, to protect the interests of servicemen, to 
make certain we have an ongoing relationship with the Iraqis, so that 
our service men and women can come home safely and Iraq will be stable 
and safe itself afterward. There is no reason to delay this 1 minute 
more. We should vote on Christopher Hill's nomination immediately. Why 
are we denying this? Why are we delaying this when 73 Senators 
yesterday said: Do it. That is enough. There are enough Senators to get 
this job done.
  President Obama stated a clear goal here: ending our combat mission 
in Iraq by August 31, 2010. When the combat mission ends, the United 
States will still leave behind in Iraq the largest American Embassy in 
the world, where we will maintain a diplomatic mission to help a 
country still struggling to build stability and democracy. Is there 
anyone who questions whether we need an ambassador to be in that 
Embassy? Shouldn't that person have been there weeks ago instead of 
being delayed by the other side in the Senate?
  I do not deny to any Senator the right to speak, express their 
concerns or reservations about any appointment. I do not deny to any 
committee of this Senate the opportunity to have a hearing, which 
Ambassador Hill did have. All of that happened in the regular order. At 
the end of the day yesterday, 73 Democratic and Republican Senators 
said: Get on with it. Still, we languish over this nomination at this 
very moment. The military leaders, American military leaders of Iraq, 
have been begging this Senate to do its job and send an ambassador who 
can complement the fine work of General Odierno in Iraq. We continue to 
delay.
  The President's plan for Iraq is measured and thoughtful and will 
bring a resolution to this war. It sends a message to the Iraqi 
political leadership that they have to take responsibility for their 
own future. It takes into consideration the concerns and 
recommendations of the senior military leaders regarding the time for 
the drawdown and the manner in which it will be implemented. It frees 
resources for the real battle against al-Qaida in Afghanistan, which 
was the source of the 9/11 attacks. It includes comprehensive 
diplomatic engagement with all of the countries of the region not only 
on the future of Iraq but on other important regional challenges. It 
begins to put an end to the extraordinary cost to America and American 
families in terms of lives and dollars that the Iraqi war has entailed.
  Our military men and women have served heroically in Iraq. I have 
been there to visit them. I have been several times in my home State to 
see our Guard units take off and join the conflict. I have been there 
to welcome them home, attended the funerals. We could not ask for 
anything more. They have given us so much, and they continue to do so 
as we meet in the safety of the Senate Chamber here in the Capitol. 
More than 4,200 Americans have been killed, 165 from my home State of 
Illinois. When the war started, I said I would write a note to the 
families who lost soldiers from my State. Little did I dream that years 
later I would still be signing those notes, as I did yesterday. 
Thousands have suffered serious physical and psychological injuries. 
That is the real cost of this war. Civilian experts in and out of the 
Government have also served with distinction and paid with their lives. 
Thousands of innocent Iraqis have died. I have seen firsthand the 
dangerously hard work our soldiers face.
  We owe them gratitude and admiration, but we also owe them our best 
efforts to make certain we bring this war in Iraq to an end in the best 
possible way. President Obama has the strategy, but to implement this 
strategy we need an experienced ambassador in Iraq without any further 
delay.
  I wonder what would have happened under the previous administration 
if the Democrats had held up a key appointment of an ambassador to Iraq 
in the midst of a war. Well, I can tell you what would have happened: 
The rightwing radio would have gone crazy, talking about endangering 
American servicemen by not filling this critical position. We would 
have speeches on the floor about shirking our responsibility and that 
we cannot go home for a break until we send a full complement of our 
best and brightest to represent America in Iraq. I can almost predict 
that would have happened if we had been so shortsighted under the 
previous administration as to hold back a career diplomat such as 
Christopher Hill.
  Well, it has happened here, and it is happened for too long. It is 
unforgivable. It is inexcusable. Members have had plenty of time to 
give their speeches, to express their concerns, even to vote no, which 
is their right to do if they believe this man is not the right person 
for the job. But it is time for us to get on with this important 
mission. We owe it to those men and women who are risking their lives 
in Iraq. We owe it to all who have served there and to the American 
people who have sustained this war, as expensive as it has been in 
terms of life and costs. It is time for us to stop wasting time. It is 
time for us to fill this position and send Christopher Hill to be the 
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________