[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19315-19324]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF NORMAN L. EISEN TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND 
 PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF MARI CARMEN APONTE TO BE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND 
 PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF EL 
                                SALVADOR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, en 
bloc, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nominations of Norman L. Eisen, of the 
District of Columbia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Czech Republic, 
and Mari Carmen Aponte, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to 
the Republic of El Salvador.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak about one of the votes 
we are going to have this afternoon, and it has nothing to do with Mr. 
Eisen's job as Ambassador. It is about why he has not been confirmed to 
this point.
  The President announced Mr. Eisen's nomination to be Ambassador to 
the Czech Republic on June 28, 2010. On September 20, 2010, I provided 
public notice of my intention to object to the nomination. In other 
words, as I always do when I put a hold on something--a bill or a 
nomination--I put a reason in the Congressional Record so that 
everybody knows it is me. I am not a secret-holds guy.
  The reason for my objection is not related to the substance of his 
duty as Ambassador; I object to his nomination because of the way Mr. 
Eisen handled the controversial firing of Gerald Walpin and the 
congressional inquiry into that firing. Mr. Walpin was the inspector 
general at the Corporation for National Community Service, AmeriCorps. 
Mr. Eisen was at the White House Counsel's office at the time.
  Any attempt to undermine the independence and integrity of inspectors 
general raises serious concerns with me, and anybody ought to know that 
about this Senator. An inspector general who does his or her job runs 
the risk of losing friends at any agency as well as maybe the White 
House. The Congress must not sit idly by when an inspector general is 
removed improperly.
  After the President abruptly removed Inspector General Walpin from 
office, there were allegations that he was fired for political reasons. 
So I started the investigation. There was evidence that the removal may 
have been motivated by a desire to protect a friend and political ally 
of the President, mayor of Sacramento Kevin Johnson.
  The inspector general and CNCS management were clashing over an 
inquiry into misuse of Federal grant money at a charity run by Johnson. 
There were allegations that the grant money was used to pay for 
personal services for Johnson such as maybe washing his car. There 
seemed to be evidence of that. There were allegations that the grant 
money has been used to pay for political campaign work. So what would 
you expect an inspector general to do?
  The IG was pushing aggressively to require Johnson to repay the 
Federal grant money that his charity could not account for. The 
inspector general was also pushing to have Johnson prohibited from 
receiving future Federal grant funds. This caused, as you might expect, 
a political uproar because some people feared that might prevent the 
city of Sacramento from receiving Federal stimulus dollars during the 
financial crisis.
  All of this background cried out for further investigation. I also 
learned that Mr. Eisen personally delivered an

[[Page 19316]]

ultimatum to Inspector General Walpin. He demanded the inspector 
general resign or be terminated within 1 hour. At the time he delivered 
the ultimatum, no notice had been given or provided to Congress as is 
legally required under the Inspector General Reform Act.
  The IG Act requires the President to tell Congress the reasons for 
removal of an inspector general 30 days before taking action. That is 
what the law requires. Now, ironically, I cosponsored this provision 
with Senator Obama before he became President Obama. The goal of that 
provision is to make sure Congress is aware of why an inspector general 
is being removed.
  We need independent inspectors general. They should not be removed 
for political reasons. So we need to make sure Congress is informed of 
the reasons for getting rid of an inspector general. Mr. Eisen's 1-hour 
ultimatum was an attempt to avoid that provision of law. If the 
inspector general had resigned under that pressure, Congress would not 
have received any notice and the reasons for his removal would have 
remained a secret, but Inspector General Walpin did not resign, and the 
President began the process of removing him with a 30-day notice. At 
first the notice merely said he had lost confidence in the inspector 
general. Senators from both political parties agreed that was too 
vague. So Mr. Eisen provided a second more detailed explanation. The 
second explanation said the inspector general had been ``confused and 
disoriented'' at a board meeting on May 20, 2009. It essentially 
implied that he might be senile.
  So my staff met with Mr. Eisen to try to learn more. So here I give 
you another reason for my hold on Mr. Eisen. During that interview with 
the congressional staff on June 17, 2009, Mr. Eisen refused to answer 
at least 12 very direct questions. I wrote to the White House Counsel's 
office immediately after the interview. I listed the 12 questions he 
refused to answer and asked for written answers.
  I never got a satisfactory reply. So I had to gather the facts 
independently. So Mr. Eisen did provide some information during this 
interview that very day in 2009. The problem is, the information turned 
out to be not true. Eisen tried to assure the staff that the firing was 
not politically motivated. He claimed the agency's bipartisan board of 
directors unanimously supported the removal of Inspector General Walpin 
before the President decided to remove him. He also claimed the White 
House conducted ``an extensive review'' in response to concerns raised 
by the board about Walpin's fitness for that office. He said this 
review was prompted by that incident at the May 20, 2009, board meeting 
where it appeared that the inspector general was disoriented.
  When congressional investigators interviewed eyewitnesses, however, 
their accounts differed slightly. At a minimum, all agreed the 
inspector general lost his train of thought during the presentation. 
Others described it as being a more serious episode.
  The chairman of the board of directors suggested telling the White 
House about what happened. No one on the board objected. So he went and 
met with Mr. Eisen in the White House Counsel's office.
  Now, think about that, would you, please. If you think the inspector 
general might be suffering from some mental incapacity or illness, why 
would you run straight to the White House Counsel's office? It seems to 
me you would talk to his family or the people who worked with him every 
day about your concerns. That would be the only way to find out if 
there had been similar incidents or if it was only a one-time 
occurrence.
  Instead, the chairman of the board asked Mr. Eisen at the White House 
Counsel's office to look into it. According to Mr. Eisen, he conducted 
``an extensive review'' which then formed the basis for the President's 
decision to remove Walpin from office. However, our investigation finds 
no evidence that Mr. Eisen's review consisted of anything more than 
simply asking the CNCS management to describe their complaints about 
Mr. Walpin. Unlike the congressional review, Mr. Eisen did not 
interview each of the board members present at the May 20 meeting. He 
also did not interview the other Office of Inspector General employee 
who was present with Mr. Walpin during that board meeting where they 
said he was disoriented. Instead, Eisen merely collected from the 
agency details about various routine disagreements with the inspector 
general.
  Now, get this. None of the evidence the agency provided to the White 
House related to Mr. Walpin's mental capacity to serve, even though 
that was the question that supposedly prompted the review in the first 
place. Mr. Eisen accepted the agency's version of those disagreements 
without even giving the inspector general a chance to respond.
  Obviously, any agency is going to have some clashes with an inspector 
general, at least if that office operates as a truly independent and 
aggressive watchdog. Mr. Eisen did not provide Mr. Walpin or anyone 
else in the Office of Inspector General an opportunity to reply or give 
their side of the story. Mr. Eisen took action based upon incomplete 
information provided only by agency officials who had adversarial 
relationships with that inspector general.
  He told Congress the May 20 incident was the reason for removing the 
inspector general. But Mr. Eisen failed to give Inspector General 
Walpin or anyone close to him a chance to tell his side of the story. 
To put it as simply as possible: That is just not fair.
  On June 17, 2009, I wrote to White House counsel Gregory Craig 
listing 12 specific direct questions that Eisen refused to answer that 
day. Question No. 4 was this: Which witnesses were interviewed in the 
course of Mr. Eisen's review?
  This question followed a more general question about what Mr. Eisen 
did in the course of his review. His answer to that prior more general 
question included the claim that he conducted witness interviews of the 
board members. However, he refused to specify which witnesses or how 
many witnesses he interviewed. Then he resorted to talking points 
rather than answering specific questions.
  He replied along these lines: No. 1, we did an extensive review; No. 
2, I am not going to get into the details; and, No. 3, all of the board 
members agreed, including the Republican board members.
  Mr. Eisen clearly led the staff to believe that the President's 
decision was based in part on the unanimous agreement of the board that 
the inspector general should go. That was false. The account of Eisen's 
interview is based on memories of both House and Senate staff present 
at that time. Also present was a career law enforcement agent from the 
executive branch on temporary detail to my oversight and investigations 
staff whose recollections confirm this account as well.
  In short, Mr. Eisen's lack of candor and cooperation cannot be 
mistaken for a misunderstanding or a miscommunication. There was no 
miscommunication. Attempts to remove an IG must be evaluated with 
strict scrutiny. When administration officials are asked to provide 
information to Congress, I expect to rely on those officials to provide 
the unvarnished truth. Evidence that a witness may have misled Congress 
is extremely serious.
  Just last month, Mr. Eisen finally admitted his earlier statements 
were not true. He sent me a letter, and I ask unanimous consent to have 
it printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                November 20, 2011.
       Dear Senator Grassley: Thanks very much for meeting with 
     me. I know how busy you are and I very much appreciate you 
     and your staff taking the time to talk about my service as 
     Ambassador to the Czech Republic. I also appreciate the 
     opportunity to discuss your concerns about my interactions 
     with staff relating to the removal of Gerald Walpin as the 
     Inspector General of the Corporation for National Community 
     Service (CNCS).
       With respect to the Walpin matter, you have asked me to 
     clarify certain steps that were taken by the Administration 
     prior to my June 10, 2009 phone call with Mr. Walpin about 
     the President's decision to remove him from office. On May 
     20, 2009, the Chair of the CNCS Board, Alan Solomont, 
     notified the White House that the Board had serious concerns 
     about Mr. Walpin's performance. I personally spoke with Mr. 
     Solomont and obtained his independent recollection of the

[[Page 19317]]

     events of the May 20 Board meeting. To be clear, at that 
     time, CNCS Board Members did not express to the White House, 
     verbally or otherwise, unanimous support for the removal of 
     Mr. Walpin. I believe that, on or about June 8 or 9, 2009, 
     White House personnel also communicated with a Republican 
     Board member, Vice-Chair Goldsmith. I do not recall any other 
     conversations with Board members prior to the removal.
       Thanks again for seeing me and for allowing me to convey my 
     apology in connection with my June 17, 2009 meeting with 
     Congressional staff. It is now my understanding that I 
     answered a few of the questions inaccurately, although at the 
     time I thought they were accurate. Of course, it was not my 
     intent to mislead staff in any way, but to the extent that I 
     was unclear in my responses, or that my declining to answer 
     questions created confusion, I regret it and I sincerely 
     apologize. I have tremendous respect for the role that you 
     and your staff have played in supporting the Inspector 
     General community. I look forward to working with you in the 
     future on items of mutual interest.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                  Norman L. Eisen.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. He sent me a letter on November 20 admitting his 
answers were ``inaccurate.'' He also acknowledged in a meeting with me 
that the key factual findings in the staff report were correct. He said 
he did not intentionally provide false information, and he has 
apologized.
  I am sure he sincerely regrets the way he handled the questions, 
especially since it has led to the difficulty in his confirmation 
process and probably, if we had had that letter as we asked for late 
last year, he would have been confirmed at that particular time.
  Now after my meeting with him this year, I accepted his apology about 
the false or ``inaccurate'' statements. I agreed to proceed to the 
nomination with a 60-vote margin required for confirmation. The 
majority leader did not agree with that, so he decided to invoke 
cloture instead.
  I will oppose cloture because I am still opposed to the nomination. 
My opposition was always based on more than one or two false 
statements. Lack of candor is broader than whether a particular 
statement is technically true. It includes his failure to be 
forthcoming and responsive to those questions that were asked on June 
17, 2009. His evasiveness caused House and Senate staff to spend much 
more time and resources uncovering the truth.
  If he had just answered a few simple factual questions, that would 
not have been necessary. For example, in relation to the 1-hour 
ultimatum, he refused to answer specific questions about his June 10, 
2009, conversation with Mr. Walpin. He would only say that he disagreed 
with certain aspects of Mr. Walpin's account without specifying which 
aspects.
  Word games and evasiveness of that sort are incompatible with being a 
candid and forthcoming witness and ought to be incompatible with a 
person representing the United States as an ambassador. My reasons for 
opposing his nomination also include all of the other circumstances 
surrounding the way Mr. Eisen handled Mr. Walpin's removal.
  Mr. Eisen's attempt to force the inspector general to resign with a 
1-hour ultimatum would have amounted to a constructive removal. It 
would have evaded the congressional notice requirement if he had been 
successful. However, Inspector General Walpin refused to resign and 
even filed lawsuits to try to keep his position. He did not win his 
lawsuit because ultimately the White House did comply with the 
technical requirements of the 30-day notice provision.
  After the controversy erupted, the inspector general was placed on 
administrative leave until 30 days after the second more detailed 
notice to Congress.
  That is why Walpin lost his lawsuit, but that does not change the 
nature and the fact that Norm Eisen attempted to evade the statute.
  He tried to force a quiet resignation and thus remove the inspector 
general from office without the 30-day notice to Congress the law 
requires.
  Because Inspector General Walpin did not yield to the pressure, no 
court had a chance to rule on whether that would be appropriate.
  I am also opposed to this nomination because of the way the White 
House decided to avoid these issues last year with a recess 
appointment. Senate confirmation, under the advice and consent clause, 
is one of the strongest checks on executive branch power.
  Recess appointments are meant to fill vacancies that arise during a 
long recess, not to bypass the confirmation process. This vacancy arose 
on January 20, 2009. Yet the President waited 18 months before making 
an appointment.
  There had already been a lot of controversy over Mr. Eisen's actions 
at the time of his appointment. The White House should have known there 
would be issues with his confirmation. Rather than listening to my 
concerns, the White House decided to bypass Congress. President Obama 
rewarded Mr. Eisen by using a recess appointment to install him as 
Acting U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic.
  Mr. Eisen had several opportunities to address my concerns last year. 
He was scheduled to meet with my staff on December 16, 2010, at 11:30 
a.m., and at approximately 11:15 a.m., the White House postponed the 
meeting until 2:15 p.m. At approximately 2 p.m., the meeting was 
canceled by the White House Office of Legislative Affairs without 
further explanation.
  By calling off a face-to-face meeting in favor of a recess 
appointment, the White House sent the message that the President is not 
interested in hearing the concerns of Republican Members of Congress.
  Once he had his recess appointment, Mr. Eisen did not seek to meet 
with me or my staff again until that appointment was about to expire at 
the end of this year. Only then did he apologize and admit that the 
statements in his staff interview were not accurate. Remember, our 
President, at the time of his inauguration, made a commitment to be the 
most transparent of any administration in our history.
  In summary, Mr. Eisen took action on behalf of the President that ran 
afoul of the Inspector General Reform Act. Mr. Eisen only listened to 
the agency's complaints about the inspector general rather than 
conducting a fair, thorough, and responsible investigation, and then he 
misled congressional investigators about his review and about the true 
basis of the President's decision to fire the inspector general. He 
admitted in this letter to me that he provided inaccurate information 
but claimed it was unintentional.
  This is the second time in the last 2 months an official from the 
Obama administration has done that. The Deputy Attorney General just 
withdrew a letter sent to me on Operation Fast and Furious earlier this 
year because of its ``inaccuracies.''
  I am afraid there is a pattern developing with this administration 
about not leveling with Congress in its constitutional responsibility 
of oversight. When we ask for information from the executive branch, we 
expect honest, forthcoming, and truthful answers. We can disagree on 
policy; we are all entitled to our opinion, but we are not entitled to 
our own facts. Getting the facts straight should not be akin to pulling 
teeth. We need to send a signal that congressional oversight matters 
and there are consequences in misleading Congress.
  It should come as no surprise to anybody that doing our 
constitutional job of oversight is very important to this Senate. I 
know Ambassador Eisen recognizes that. I got that very clearly from him 
in our last meeting in October.
  I don't like interference by people in either a Republican or 
Democratic administration who don't cooperate with my investigations, 
and I will bet every Senator will say that. Therefore, for the reasons 
I just gave, I ask my colleagues to oppose cloture and oppose this 
nomination.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, momentarily, I am going to yield time to 
the Senator from New Jersey.
  Before I do that, I wish to say very quickly--and I am not going to 
make all my comments right now--to my colleague from Iowa, first of 
all, I have great respect for his diligent approach

[[Page 19318]]

to these issues. He has been tremendously receptive to a continuing 
dialog. I express my gratitude to him for that. When asked, he met with 
Ambassador Eisen, and he certainly listened to the facts as they were 
presented by others who have a different point of view.
  Obviously, every Senator here always does draw their own conclusions. 
First, I thank Senator Grassley for his willingness to agree to have 
these votes that we will have today and to move forward with some 
resolution with respect to this nomination.
  I understand he has chosen to oppose the nominee. I simply say to 
him, and I think to others, sometimes in these processes, sometimes in 
the questions for the record, as we call them, where people submit 
written questions, and even in the interviews, there are 
miscommunications, misinterpretations, and misstatements that are not 
intentional and not meant to somehow mislead or deceive somebody.
  I simply say to the Senator that I know he has met with Ambassador 
Eisen and we have now heard why he intends to vote no. I am convinced 
several different individuals and entities have thoroughly investigated 
and examined the removal of Inspector General Walpin, and they have 
found there was no wrongdoing. The Foreign Relations Committee looked 
into it in conjunction with the consideration of this nomination, and 
the Homeland Security Committee examined this issue. It was, in fact, 
litigated in Federal district court and before the D.C. Circuit Court. 
None of these entities--not one--found that either the President 
somehow acted wrongly or illegally or inappropriately in connection 
with the removal of Mr. Walpin from the office.
  To the contrary, the U.S. district court specifically rejected Mr. 
Walpin's claims that he was improperly removed from this position, and 
they dismissed his lawsuit.
  Our friends, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, both of whom 
enjoy strong reputations for integrity within the Senate, stated their 
belief, as ranking and chair of the Homeland Security Committee, that 
the President met the letter and spirit of the Inspector General Reform 
Act.
  I do believe there was some miscommunication. I have talked to the 
Senator from Iowa about it. I think it was unfortunate, and I wish it 
had been cleared up earlier. I believe it was genuinely a 
miscommunication, not an intentional act, and I appreciate the fact 
that Mr. Eisen has apologized to Senator Grassley for his sense of that 
miscommunication--the difference between review and removal and a sense 
of what may have happened in the course of that.
  I also appreciate Senator Grassley's willingness to look beyond that 
and to enforce his principles, as he is privileged to do as an 
individual Senator, but also to allow the Senate to try to do its work 
today.
  I will say a few words about Mr. Eisen and the job he is doing. He is 
doing an outstanding job in Prague on our behalf.
  First, the Senator from New Jersey is here to speak about a different 
nominee. I will yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for yielding. I 
have come to the floor to address the nomination of an extraordinary 
woman--a qualified, talented Latina--to be the U.S. Ambassador to El 
Salvador.
  Unfortunately, some of my Republican colleagues have made Ambassador 
Mari Carmen Aponte a target of inside-the-beltway politics, where the 
political points gained from bringing down an administration's nominee 
supersedes the value gained from having a superior ambassador, 
promoting and guarding American interests at a critical time.
  Born in Puerto Rico, Ambassador Aponte became the executive director 
of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration in 2001. She has 
served as a director at the National Council of LaRaza and the Puerto 
Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. She has presided over the 
Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia and the Hispanic 
National Bar Association. She has excelled in her field, and she has 
won the respect of her colleagues and the diplomatic community.
  Let's look at the record. Nearly 2 years ago, I chaired the 
nomination hearing for Ambassador Aponte to serve as President Obama's 
Ambassador in San Salvador. At that time, one of my Republican 
colleagues objected to her nomination because he was not given access 
to her FBI file to review information about a personal relationship 
Ambassador Aponte had with a Cuban national some 20 years ago.
  Pursuant to precedent, one Democrat and one Republican reviewed that 
file. I was the Democrat. There was nothing in the file to substantiate 
the concerns raised by my colleagues.
  On this issue, I take a backseat to no one when it comes to promoting 
democracy in Cuba and opposing the Castro regime or anybody who 
sympathizes with such a despotic regime. I certainly would never, for a 
moment, let down my guard when it comes to that regime.
  I can assure every colleague on both sides of the aisle that if I had 
any concern that Ambassador Aponte would let her guard down or had any 
questionable relationship with a Cuban national or if there was any 
relationship of the Castro regime in her background, I would not be 
supporting her today.
  This is a respected American diplomat who has been on the job and has 
served this Nation with distinction. In the 15 months since Ambassador 
Aponte was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador during a recess 
appointment, she has impressed the diplomatic establishment with her 
professionalism and won the respect of parties both right and left in 
El Salvador. She has won the respect of civilian and military forces. 
She has won the respect of the public and private sector. She has won 
everyone's support and fostered a strong U.S.-Salvadoran bilateral 
relationship that culminated with President Obama announcing El 
Salvador as only one of four countries in the world, and the only 
country in Latin America, chosen to participate in the Partnership for 
Growth Initiative.
  Most important, Ambassador Aponte has been an advocate for American 
national security and democratic values. As a result of her advocacy, 
El Salvador is again a key ally in Central America, and its troops are 
the only ones from a Latin American country fighting alongside American 
troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Ambassador Aponte has consistently fought efforts by Cuba and 
Venezuela to gain influence in Central America. As a result of her 
negotiating skills, the United States and El Salvador will open a new 
joint electronic monitoring center--jointly funded, by the way--that 
will be an invaluable tool in fighting transnational crime.
  This is a record of success. It is a record of honor. It is a record 
of diplomatic and political distinction. It is the record of a 
dedicated, qualified, experienced, and engaged American diplomat--a 15-
month record that brought our nations together and pursued our 
interests. What more could we ask? What more should we ask?
  Having said that, because of my strong belief that Ambassador Aponte 
is fully and uniquely qualified for this post, during the last several 
months, I worked with the distinguished chairman, Senator Kerry, to 
find a way--despite committee precedent--to allow an additional 
Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee to review the 
Ambassador's FBI file. As a result, not one but two Republicans--my 
colleague and friend from Florida, Mr. Rubio, and the Senator from 
South Carolina, Mr. DeMint--were able to review her file. Since the 
concern had been not having access to the file, we presumed that once 
they were reviewed, they would lift their objections and allow a vote 
on her nomination. Why? Because there is nothing in that file that 
would indicate otherwise. But we were wrong. It wasn't about the file. 
That appeared to just be a delay tactic. The opposition to Ms. Aponte's 
nomination turned out to be about one thing and one thing only; that 
is, politics. Our good-faith effort to provide

[[Page 19319]]

full access to information and address concerns about Ms. Aponte was 
summarily dismissed.
  At her nomination hearing in November, Republican members of the 
committee raised a new concern--an editorial penned by Ambassador 
Aponte on tolerance and nonviolence during Gay Pride Month in June. 
Republicans decried it as disregarding Salvadoran culture and 
questioned her motives for writing the editorial, despite the fact that 
this editorial was the result of a cable edict to all embassies from 
the State Department urging missions to write editorials during these 
events.
  The true irony of this trumped-up allegation is that the editorial, 
which Republicans assert ``stirred controversy and was rebuked 
throughout Latin America,'' mirrored a May 2010 decree by Salvadoran 
President Funes prohibiting discrimination by the Government of El 
Salvador based on sexual orientation.
  So let's be honest, there is no question about Ambassador Aponte's 
qualifications or performance on the job or about whether an editorial 
on tolerance is grounds for sacking an ambassador. This is just another 
Republican dog and pony show to undermine the President's policy 
objectives and attack a qualified Democratic nominee to an essential 
post.
  When the facts, when the files--when there was nothing that 
corroborated the vicious allegations about Ms. Aponte's past, those on 
the other side argued that her editorial on the elimination of 
prejudice was the basis for their opposition. When they learned that 
the Government of El Salvador itself supports this view, Republicans 
again changed their tune. Four weeks after her November 29 nomination 
hearing on the eve of the Foreign Relations Committee business meeting, 
these Members decided they wanted to attack from a different angle. 
They called for a new classified hearing to vet her nomination, to 
permit questions to FBI and diplomatic security investigators about 
whether they had been subjected to political interference for 
determining that Ambassador Aponte was eligible for a security 
clearance.
  I find it pretty appalling that Members of the Chamber would 
essentially suggest without evidence that professional FBI and 
diplomatic security members would bend to political pressure or that 
any administration would apply such pressure, risking U.S. national 
security, on behalf of any person. Those Members knew that the content 
and timing of their request would make it impossible to fulfill. To his 
credit, the chairman of the committee, Senator Kerry, over the last 
several weeks has nonetheless sought to resolve the situation. In fact, 
there has been an offer made to Senator DeMint to go over the whole 
essence of the background of the diplomatic security clearance.
  The shifting basis of the opposition to Ambassador Aponte reveals, to 
me at least, that the motive for this operation is pure partisan 
politics, driven by pure partisan interest, fueled by a pure partisan 
desire to derail an administration nominee for the sake of derailment 
alone, without any regard for the consequences for American foreign 
policy or for the Nation.
  I have seen this Ambassador. She has succeeded beyond anybody's 
wildest expectations in a country that has dramatically turned the 
course of events in a way we want to see it. I urge my colleagues to 
support Ambassador Aponte's nomination. I urge them to put partisan 
politics aside, recognize the benefits to America's security and 
foreign policy interests that her tenure has delivered, and allow 
Ambassador Aponte to continue serving our Nation.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I yield back to the chairman any 
time I may not have consumed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the nomination of Mari Carmen Aponte to be Ambassador to El Salvador. 
Her confirmation has been unanimously opposed twice by all Republicans 
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and for good reason.
  Before I discuss Ms. Aponte, I would like to clarify some facts about 
the nomination process. Several Democrats have voiced complaints 
recently about Senate Republicans' supposed obstruction when it comes 
to President Obama's nominees, but most of his nominees have not even 
been contested. In fact, since Obama became President, the Senate has 
confirmed 1,198 of his nominees. Only a small fraction of these 
nominees have been so controversial that they have been blocked by the 
Senate.
  As a Member of the Senate, I take the Senate's constitutional duty to 
provide advice and consent to the President regarding his nominees 
seriously. While the overwhelming majority of nominees are easily 
confirmed, some do rise to such a level that further debate and 
scrutiny are required by the Senate. Ms. Aponte is one of these 
nominees.
  This is not the first time the Senate has considered confirming Ms. 
Aponte for an ambassadorship. She was first nominated by former 
President Clinton in 1998 to be the Ambassador to the Dominican 
Republic. At the time, Senator Jesse Helms, who was chairman of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, learned of possible background issues and 
concerns by investigators relating to Ms. Aponte's ties to Cuban 
intelligence. Primarily, the question centered around the 12-year 
romantic relationship she had with a man who was targeted as part of an 
FBI counterintelligence investigation and allegedly worked for Cuba's 
spy agency. A high-ranking Cuban defector claimed that Cuban 
intelligence tried to recruit Ms. Aponte to be a spy for the Cuban 
Government. Rather than discuss her past relationship, Ms. Aponte 
withdrew her nomination, and it was filled by someone else.
  Eventually, Ms. Aponte was given a top security clearance by the 
State Department despite what some have described as serious objections 
from career officials.
  When President Obama nominated Ms. Aponte in March of 2010 to be 
Ambassador to El Salvador, Republicans asked for more information to 
address the allegations that had previously surfaced--namely, 
information about the scope of the 1998 investigation, including an 
update to that file; second, information about the Cuban defector who 
was handled by the CIA who publicly alleged that Cuban intelligence had 
attempted to recruit Ms. Aponte through her longtime live-in boyfriend; 
and third, information about the FBI's counterintelligence 
investigation that led to Ms. Aponte's refusal to take a lie detector 
test in 1994, as requested by the FBI. Serious questions, honest 
questions.
  Instead of allowing Senators to access that information and alleviate 
our concerns, President Obama went around the Senate and granted Ms. 
Aponte a recess appointment in August of 2010. For nearly a year and a 
half, Republicans have been continually denied access to Ms. Aponte's 
full FBI record and other information, as the Obama administration has 
rebuffed our requests related to Ms. Aponte's past.
  Shortly after Ms. Aponte was first nominated by President Obama, I, 
along with four other members of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking 
for her assistance in obtaining this information. That same month, all 
eight Republican members of the committee wrote to Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee chairman John Kerry stating that committee members 
had not received requested information needed to fully vet the nominee.
  Let me remind everyone that we never received that information. Ms. 
Aponte was recess-appointed by the Obama administration later that 
summer. We have continued our efforts to work with the administration 
to get access to this information. Chairman Kerry was able to convince 
the White House to allow me to see a summary of the diplomatic security 
background investigation; however, that summary did not address the 
fundamental questions that have arisen, and that summary left me with 
more questions than answers.
  Committee Republicans wrote another letter to Chairman Kerry about

[[Page 19320]]

our concerns last month. In the letter, we said:

       We recognize the need to balance highly sensitive materials 
     during the confirmation process. However, we believe that in 
     this particular case, the scope of the background review was 
     not appropriately complete.

  We went on to say:

       The background summary that was provided was based on an 
     updated investigation, but it did not encompass numerous 
     allegations that the initial background investigation in 1998 
     was tainted by political interference. News reports and other 
     sources alleged that Ms. Aponte received security clearance 
     despite objections from career officials due to outside 
     pressure. However, these allegations and the circumstances 
     surrounding them were not part of the current background 
     investigation. Without additional information, Senators have 
     no way of determining the validity of media stories and 
     rumors that have been circulating about this nominee's past.

  We also asked for a closed hearing due to these lingering issues. We 
wrote:

       We believe that the circumstances warrant additional 
     committee review in the form of a closed hearing. A closed 
     hearing would allow Senators to review and discuss the 
     classified and sensitive data relevant to the nomination and 
     discuss the unresolved issues with investigators and relevant 
     intelligence community officials. As the issue involved both 
     a high-ranking Cuban defector and FBI counterintelligence 
     investigations, a closed hearing would be the most beneficial 
     format available to the committee to rectify the deficiency 
     of information provided.

  Senator Kerry declined to hold a closed briefing and wrote a letter 
back stating:

       In my view the process we have followed with regard to Ms. 
     Aponte's nomination has afforded committee members ample time 
     and opportunity to consider her nomination and secure answers 
     to any relevant questions.

  He also said:

       We should all be in a position now to debate Ms. Aponte's 
     nomination on its merits.

  Senator Kerry then offered to work with my office further to get 
answers from the administration. I believe he did work in good faith 
with our office, but in the end the White House once again denied our 
requests for information.
  While I would agree with Senator Kerry that there has been ample time 
spent on Ms. Aponte's nomination, we still lack critical information. 
The Senate cannot in good faith confirm a nominee who has repeatedly 
refused to answer simple necessary questions related to her past.
  In addition to questions about her past, Ms. Aponte's current 
judgment is also in question. In her recess-appointed capacity as 
Ambassador to El Salvador, Ms. Aponte has inflamed tensions in the very 
country where she should be improving diplomatic relations. Her 
decision to publish an opinion piece hostile to the culture of El 
Salvadorans presents even more doubts about her fitness for the job. 
This op-ed upset a large number of community and pro-life groups in El 
Salvador who were insulted by Ms. Aponte's rhetoric.
  A coalition of more than three dozen groups has since written the 
Senate asking its Members to oppose Ms. Aponte's confirmation. I quote 
from their letter, in which they wrote:

       We respectfully request that Ms. Aponte be removed from 
     post as soon as possible so that El Salvador may enjoy the 
     benefits of having a person as a government representative of 
     your noble country.

  Meanwhile, Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are 
still trying to get access to information about Ms. Aponte's past. Two 
days ago, the White House again denied Senators the right to be briefed 
or review information relevant to this nomination.
  Senators should not be forced to vote on a nominee without a complete 
understanding of her background. I urge you to join us in voting 
against cloture.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the Republican time. How 
much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten seconds.
  Mr. DeMINT. That is pretty good timing.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield back.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Massachusetts, and I rise, Mr. 
President, to speak in support of the nomination of Norm Eisen to be 
Ambassador to the Czech Republic.
  I know Norm in a very personal capacity, so I feel very strongly 
about this nomination. Since I was fortunate to be elected to the 
Senate and came to Washington in the late 1980s, I joined a synagogue 
in Georgetown, and Norm Eisen and his wife and children are members of 
that synagogue, so I have gotten to know them in a totally 
nonpolitical, nondiplomatic way. Based on that, I start with a real 
appreciation of this fine, honorable, public-spirited man.
  He happened to have gone to law school with President Obama. I think 
as a result of that the President knew him and asked him to be the 
ethics counsel in the White House in the first years of the 
administration. I think anybody you talk to, or most anybody you talk 
to, about his performance in that job would say he did an excellent 
job. He was demanding ethically and intellectually. His honor and his 
quest to have the government and those who serve in government act in 
an honorable way is very high.
  When there was a vacancy in the position of Ambassador to the Czech 
Republic, President Obama asked Norm Eisen if he would serve. And the 
President did something that really had a lot of meaning to it. Apart 
from Norman's quite considerable resume as a private attorney, being 
successful and highly regarded and very effective, Norm Eisen is the 
child of survivors of the Holocaust. His mother was actually born in 
the Czech Republic. So what a remarkable moment for President Obama to 
ask him to return to the country from which his family was essentially 
chased--and some worse--in the position as Ambassador of the greatest 
country in the world, the superpower of the United States of America.
  We now have a record of his performance in that position. There was a 
problem with the nomination before, raised by Senator Grassley at that 
time, and so he was a recess appointment. But now he has been there, 
and he has done an extraordinary job. I know from conversations with 
people in Prague that he is very highly regarded by the leadership of 
the Czech Republic. An extraordinary, bipartisan group of foreign 
policy experts has also endorsed his confirmation.
  It would actually be extremely disruptive if we did not confirm Norm 
Eisen in terms of our relations--diplomatic, economic, security 
relations--with the Czech Republic, which are so important.
  So I think if you were considering this nomination and put the 
various arguments on the scales of justice, on one side you have a 
record of public service, of honor, of great family values, of 
intellectual excellence, of belief in public service, of a great record 
now in the time he has been in Prague as our Ambassador. On the other 
side, you have a question about how Norman, while he was in the White 
House as ethics counsel, handled the case of this one individual 
inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community 
Service.
  I have been over this in great detail. In our Governmental Affairs 
part of the Homeland Securities Committee, we oversee the IGs. Senator 
Collins and I have gone over this. And with respect to Senator 
Grassley, who has been very thorough and fair about this and is 
probably the leading protector and defender of the IGs in the Senate, 
in the matter that bothers him, there was a misunderstanding. There was 
not, in my opinion, after looking at this very thoroughly, an 
intentional act of deceit. There was a misunderstanding, and Ambassador 
Eisen has now apologized for that misunderstanding of stating 
unintentionally an inaccuracy.
  So on one side of the scales of justice, you have all these 
extraordinary positives and on the other a question raised about this 
one case he handled, which Senator Grassley and others working for him 
say was deceitful. Ambassador Eisen says it was a misunderstanding, for 
which he apologizes.

[[Page 19321]]

  To me, it is not only in the interest of the United States but also 
in the interest of fairness and justice--with which we like to believe 
we conduct our proceedings here--that the Senate today cross party 
lines and confirm the nomination of Norm Eisen to be Ambassador to the 
Czech Republic.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I stand in support of Norman L. Eisen's 
appointment to be Ambassador to the Czech Republic. It is with great 
confidence in Ambassador Eisen's skill, qualifications, and record that 
I support this appointment. Ambassador Eisen will greatly advance U.S.-
Czech relations and directly benefit American diplomatic and business 
interests, possibly helping to create 9,000 jobs in the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania and elsewhere in America.
  Ambassador Eisen was first nominated to be Ambassador to the Czech 
Republic on June 29, 2010. He was given a recess appointment on 
December 29, 2010 and has served with distinction as Ambassador in 
Prague since that time.
  Ambassador Eisen is highly qualified and suited for this post. He 
speaks Czech, knows and respects Czech culture, and understands the 
country's history in a deeply personal way. His mother was born in the 
former Czechoslovakia and survived Auschwitz. The State Department 
notes that the Ambassador resides in the former Nazi General Staff 
Headquarters, where he and his family now celebrate the Sabbath in the 
same room where Nazis dined 70 years ago ``a powerful Czech-American 
message about the triumph of good.''
  Accompanying his strong multicultural qualifications is Ambassador 
Eisen's quintessentially American personal history. He was the first in 
his family to graduate from high school, college, and law school--all 
with honors. He had a long and successful practice as a private 
attorney at a major D.C. law firm; founded a government watchdog group, 
and served in the White House for two years--2009-10--as Special 
Assistant and Special Counsel to the President. This history prepared 
Norm Eisen to be a successful ambassador representing American 
interests, culture, and values abroad.
  Ambassador Eisen's track record as Ambassador to the Czech Republic 
speaks for itself. Since assuming his post, Ambassador Eisen has 
ensured the U.S. can look to the Czech Republic as a partner troop-
contributing nation in Afghanistan, opponent of human rights violations 
by Iran, and an ally in the European Union and at the United Nations on 
important issues such as Israel.
  Due to Ambassador Eisen's efforts, the defense relationship between 
the U.S. and the Czech Republic is at an historic high point. He has 
been an eloquent advocate in urging Prague to retain the 600 soldiers 
it has sent to Afghanistan, making it one of our most supportive NATO 
allies. The National Review notes that during Ambassador Eisen's 
tenure, ``defense ties with the Czech Republic have broadened and 
deepened.''
  Energy and technology developments have also strengthened the 
relationship between our two nations during Ambassador Eisen's tenure. 
He assisted the Czech government to develop a Center for Civilian 
Nuclear Safety in Prague that would build on efforts to ensure the 
safety of radiological materials. Of special importance to 
Pennsylvanians, Ambassador Eisen has worked in support of 
Westinghouse's efforts to provide civilian nuclear reactors in the 
Czech Republic. Westinghouse employs over 6,000 Western Pennsylvanians 
and over 9,000 Americans in other areas of the country.
  A successful Westinghouse bid in the Czech Republic would create an 
estimated 9,000 direct and indirect high-paying U.S. jobs over the next 
5 years. These jobs will be not only in western Pennsylvania, but also 
in States employing hundreds of high-tech nuclear energy industry 
workers, such as Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Carolina, 
and Utah.
  The American Chamber of Commerce has noted that Ambassador Eisen's 
``presence in the country has been and will be essential to our common 
efforts to advance the interests of U.S. business'' and has 
``invigorated our community and . . . expanded their export 
possibilities, which should add much needed jobs in the U.S. 
manufacturing sector.''
  In addition to defense, energy, and business developments, Ambassador 
Eisen has championed causes important to both Americans and Czechs. 
Having founded a watchdog group and worked on ethics and government 
reform in the White House, Ambassador Eisen is strongly qualified to 
help the Czech Republic address corruption. He helped launch the first 
ever ``World Forum on Governance'' in Prague, at which 100 Czech, U.S., 
and international anti-corruption champions met to develop innovative 
new solutions. The head of Transparency International in the Czech 
Republic has said that ``Ambassador Eisen's efforts have contributed to 
progress in fighting corruption and his continued presence in Prague is 
vital to help maintain that trend.''
  Ambassador Eisen has earned the respect and trust of Czech leaders 
and senior officials. In the words of Defense Minister Alexandr Vondra, 
who formerly served as the Czech Ambassador to the U.S.: ``Norm Eisen 
is one of the most energetic, optimistic ambassadors I have ever seen. 
The bilateral U.S.-Czech relationship needs him.''
  It is clear that Norm Eisen has excelled at the duties entrusted to 
him as the U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic, and I fully support 
his appointment.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I rise also to speak in support of the confirmation of 
Norm Eisen to be U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic.
  In the year since his recess appointment to this position by 
President Obama, Ambassador Eisen has proven to be a strong advocate 
for the United States. He has brought a renewed focus to our defense 
relations with the Czech Republic, resulting in an expansion of our 
bilateral and NATO military cooperation, and the Czech Republic has 
increased its troop contribution in Afghanistan and strongly supported 
international efforts on Iran and the U.S. policy on Israel with the EU 
and the United Nations during his tenure.
  As Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European 
Affairs, I had the privilege of chairing both of Ambassador Eisen's 
nomination hearings. Throughout the nomination process, he has 
demonstrated a strong understanding of the complexities of our 
relationship with the Czech Republic, a drive to fully represent 
American interests and values, and a special humility in having the 
opportunity to represent the United States.
  I would hope that all of our colleagues in the Senate this evening 
will join us in supporting Norm Eisen to be the Ambassador to the Czech 
Republic.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire very 
much. I know she cut her time a little bit because we are getting 
toward the end of these comments with respect to the nominees and to 
the vote.
  Likewise, I haven't said anything about either nominee, and I want to 
say a couple words about each, if I can, and I want to specifically 
answer a couple points made by the Senator from South Carolina with 
respect to Mari Aponte.
  First, with respect to Norm Eisen. He has been an extraordinarily 
effective Ambassador for the United States in terms of our relationship 
with the Czech Republic and he has, by everybody's measure, deepened 
that partnership on key national security interests, and he has been a 
key supporter of American economic interests.
  He has aggressively backed the Westinghouse Company's pursuit of a 
$27 billion contract to construct civilian nuclear reactors in the 
Czech Republic, and that would mean thousands of jobs here in the 
United States. The Chamber of Commerce has called him one of the most 
effective ambassadors to hold this post. He has assisted the Czech

[[Page 19322]]

Government with its plans to develop a center for nuclear safety in 
Prague, and he has been an eloquent advocate of urging Prague to retain 
the 600 soldiers they have sent from the Czech Republic to Afghanistan, 
making it one of our most supportive NATO allies. He has supported the 
Czech Government's efforts to pool defense resources with neighbors, 
and he has supported and enhanced the Czech efforts to establish a NATO 
Center of Excellence for helicopters.
  Finally, he has enthusiastically supported the Czech leadership's 
efforts to promote the stabilization and democratization of six states 
between the EU and Russia--Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Armenia, Moldova, 
and Azerbaijan.
  I think that in every respect Ambassador Eisen has earned the respect 
of the Senate. He understands the culture of the Czech Republic. He 
speaks the language, which is a critical asset for our ambassadors in 
any country in any part of world. And as was mentioned by the Senator 
from Connecticut, he is the son of a Holocaust survivor from the former 
Czechoslovakia and, believe me, he understands the history of that part 
of the world and that country in a very personal way.
  I might also comment that the country's leaders trust him. National 
Review this week said that his efforts have been publicly recognized by 
innumerable Czech officials, including the leading transatlanticists: 
Prime Minister Petr Necas, Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, and 
Defense Minister Sasha Vondra.
  I hope our colleagues today will recognize that he is exactly the 
right person we need in Prague at this time.
  Now let me speak, if I may, to Ambassador Aponte.
  I would hate to see the Senate take this good person and make her a 
part of the political back and forth that has consumed this city and to 
deny her the right to the full appointment as ambassador, given the 
outstanding job she has done in that capacity.
  Let's talk about the accomplishments, rather than talk about 
something from 1990 that, frankly, has been vetted several times not 
just by the committees in her appointments but by the professionals in 
the national security establishment of the United States who have three 
times--not once but three times--given her national security clearances 
at the highest level.
  It seems to me we should recognize that she has done a spectacular 
job of negotiating an agreement with the Salvadoran Government to open 
a new jointly funded electronic monitoring center to fight 
transnational crime. She has helped secure the deployment of Salvadoran 
troops to Afghanistan--the only country in South America and Latin 
America to be doing so, and I think that is no small accomplishment. It 
is clear she has gained the respect of the Salvadoran Government.
  The Foreign Relations Committee has received many letters in support 
of her nomination, including one signed by eight former foreign 
ministers and 18 members of the Salvadoran Congress.
  We heard the Senator from South Carolina a few moments ago say that 
he wanted somehow to get additional information. I think the Senator 
from South Carolina knows I have bent over backward to try to help 
provide that information.
  The first time she was nominated, two members of our committee were 
permitted to look at the FBI report, and we designated Senator Menendez 
and Senator Barrasso. They looked at it, and there was nothing in it 
that struck either of them as restraining people from being able to 
vote for her.
  Then she was a recess appointment, because Senator DeMint at that 
time objected to the nomination. And subsequently, with this nomination 
now, we were again appointing two people to see the FBI record. On this 
occasion we bent the rules, and both Senator Rubio and Senator DeMint 
were allowed to look at the FBI record.
  Subsequent to that we went through a process of trying to schedule 
the nomination. Senator Lugar and I had agreed we would try to do so. 
So Senator DeMint reviewed the background file on November 3; Senator 
Rubio reviewed it on November 7. Her nomination hearing was held on 
November 8, and her nomination was put on the agenda for the November 
15 committee business meeting. The day of that business meeting--not 
before it--the day of the meeting, I received a request that her 
nomination be held over until the next business meeting. I honored that 
request and, indeed, we held it over. That same day I sent a letter to 
the members of the Foreign Relations Committee saying that the next 
business meeting would be rescheduled for 2 weeks later, which was the 
Tuesday after Thanksgiving, November 29.
  Then late in the Thanksgiving recess, I received a letter asking that 
it be deferred indefinitely. The stated reason was to permit the 
committee to hold a closed-door hearing in which we could examine 
whether the FBI properly conducted its investigation relating to Ms. 
Aponte--not for her nomination now, not for her nomination a few months 
ago or last year, but looking into what the FBI did or didn't do in the 
1990s.
  I understand that everybody is busy. We all have a lot to do around 
here. But to wait until the 11th hour to ask for a hearing of that sort 
is, frankly, puzzling. And carrying out an investigation of the FBI is 
no small matter. To suggest that on the several occasions she has 
received a top secret clearance somehow the FBI or the CIA or some 
other entity in our intelligence community bent under political 
pressure is insulting to them. And believe me, if that were true, we 
would have been reading about it on the front pages of the Washington 
Post or New York Times or all the papers a long time ago.
  Let me recap. The background file was reviewed on November 3. No 
request for a closed hearing. Not during the November 8 nomination 
hearing was there a request for a closed hearing. Not in the written 
request on November 15 for a holdover was there a request for a closed 
hearing. And even after the Foreign Relations Committee voted out this 
nomination, I bent over backward to try to help Senator DeMint be able 
to get the answers to his questions, and the White House said they 
would make available to him a briefing at the time of his choosing. 
That request was never responded to.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from 
the White House Director of Legislative Affairs.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                 Washington, DC, December 9, 2011.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Kerry: I write to update you on our efforts 
     to provide background information to members of the Senate 
     Foreign Relations Committee in connection with their review 
     of the nomination of Mari Carmen Aponte to be Ambassador to 
     El Salvador. Ms. Aponte was originally nominated for this 
     post in December 2009, and later recess appointed in August 
     2010. She was re-nominated to this position in February 2011.
       Before detailing our most recent efforts to provide 
     information to the Committee, we believe it is useful to 
     describe our standard practice in this area and detail the 
     substantial steps that have been taken to date. As you know, 
     it has been the practice, for many years and through previous 
     administrations, to balance between protecting highly 
     sensitive materials and accommodating a legitimate need to 
     access relevant information about pending nominees. In this 
     case, we have pushed that balance far in the direction of 
     disclosure to several Committee members.
       It is the standard practice of the White House to make 
     background investigations of nominees before your Committee 
     available, upon request, for review by the Chair and Ranking 
     Member, or their designees, only. Former Counsel to the 
     President, Robert F. Bauer, explained the basis for this 
     longstanding practice in a March 17, 2010 letter to Senator 
     and Committee Ranking Member Lugar, ``[o]ver many years and 
     multiple Administrations, this policy has successfully struck 
     the appropriate balance between protecting the 
     confidentiality of highly sensitive materials and 
     accommodating the Senate's legitimate need to access relevant 
     information about pending nominees.''
       In 2010, when Ms. Aponte's nomination was first under 
     consideration, both you and Senator Lugar designated other 
     members of the Committee--Senators Menendez and Barrasso--to 
     review Ms. Aponte's background investigation in advance of 
     her confirmation hearing. The White House provided those 
     briefings in March 2010. At that time, Senator DeMint made 
     his first request to be

[[Page 19323]]

     briefed on the background investigation despite standard 
     practice limiting that review to only two members of the 
     Committee. Accordingly, Mr. Bauer denied the request.
       Earlier this year, as the Committee considered Ms. Aponte's 
     nomination for the second time, the Committee made the 
     unusual request to have the background investigations made 
     available for re-inspection. The White House in good faith 
     accommodated this request. Senator Lugar designated his 
     review to Senator Rubio, and you allowed Senator Menendez to 
     designate your review to Senator DeMint. The White House 
     provided the briefing to Senator DeMint on November 3, and to 
     Senator Rubio on November 7. Despite this briefing, during 
     the November 29 Committee Business Meeting, Senator DeMint 
     stated that he still had questions regarding Ms. Aponte's 
     background investigation. In a further display of good faith, 
     you committed to working with the Administration to address 
     Senator DeMint's concerns.
       To this end, the White House has worked in close 
     coordination with the State Department to arrange an 
     additional briefing for Senator DeMint. The proposed briefing 
     would have been conducted by Under Secretary Pat Kennedy, 
     Assistant Secretary of Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell, and 
     Donald Reid, who is Senior Coordinator for Security 
     Infrastructure at the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. These 
     three career State Department officials share the ultimate 
     responsibility for conducting background investigations of 
     candidates for Ambassadorial positions and issuing security 
     clearances for such officials. Senator DeMint has to date 
     declined this proposed briefing.
       We are confident that the extraordinary steps that we have 
     taken in this case have afforded Committee members the 
     ability to thoroughly evaluate Ms. Aponte's nomination. Yet 
     every accommodation has been met with a new demand. We are 
     not prepared to make further briefings beyond what has 
     already occurred and been offered. We appreciate your 
     continued work on the timely consideration and confirmation 
     of Administration nominees. Please let me know if I can 
     provide additional information.
           Sincerely,

                                          Robert L. Nabors II,

                                    Assistant to the President and
                    Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, fair is fair around here. I do not think 
this nominee ought to be the victim of a prolonged delay process. She 
has done the job well. She deserves to be sent back. I hope colleagues 
will not filibuster her nomination today.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Norman L. Eisen, of the District of Columbia, to be 
     Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
     States of America to the Czech Republic.
         Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Patrick J. Leahy, Patty 
           Murray, Richard J. Durbin, Kent Conrad, John D. 
           Rockefeller IV, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. 
           Inouye, Debbie Stabenow, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Max 
           Baucus, Charles E. Schumer, John F. Kerry, Mark Udall, 
           Michael F. Bennet.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call 
has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that 
debate on the nomination of Norman L. Eisen, of the District of 
Columbia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the 
United States of America to the Czech Republic shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, before the clerk 
calls the roll, that before the Aponte vote there be 2 minutes of 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), 
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. 
Mikulski), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the 
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted: nay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 70, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Ex.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--16

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Cochran
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     McConnell
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baucus
     Blunt
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Graham
     Heller
     Kirk
     Lee
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Thune
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 70, the nays are 
16. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Norman L. Eisen, of the District of 
Columbia, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the 
United States of America to the Czech Republic?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate prior to 
the next vote.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, Mari Carmen Aponte is an excellently 
qualified Latina who is being politically discriminated against despite 
a record of accomplishment for the United States in El Salvador, which 
is universally recognized as extraordinary, from getting Salvadoran 
troops to fight alongside us--the only Latin American country to do 
so--to creating a new monitoring center to fight transnational crime. 
To suggest that the FBI and diplomatic security would give her not one 
but two top secret clearances that were not merited is the ultimate 
insult to those agencies. It is simply wrong to use alleged nameless, 
faceless accusers to falsely impugn her reputation.
  I urge my colleagues to allow an up-or-down vote on her nomination 
and to vote for cloture so we can get to that vote to let this 
qualified Latina continue to work on behalf of the United States and El 
Salvador as she has successfully done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, all of us regret when there is a situation 
where one of us has to oppose a nomination of a President, and 1,198 
nominations have gone through without being contested. But this is one 
that rises to the level of concern.
  Republicans have been asking questions about this nominee for 
months--in fact, much longer than that--going back to why she refused 
to take a lie detector test, why she withdrew her name when she was 
first nominated for ambassador under Clinton, and why the files have 
not been properly updated. We have asked the White House for private 
meetings with the FBI and CIA to

[[Page 19324]]

give us updated knowledge of what happened in this circumstance so we 
can make a good decision. But there was never an offer to do that. We 
had offers of low-level folks to come talk only to me, not to 
Republicans on the committee. But there are enough questions here for 
honest answers, and we have not gotten them.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote against this nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KERRY. Do we have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time remains.


                             Cloture Motion

  Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination 
     of Mari Carmen Aponte, of the District of Columbia, to be 
     Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United 
     States of America to the Republic of El Salvador.
         Harry Reid, John F. Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Patrick J. 
           Leahy, Patty Murray, Richard J. Durbin, Kent Conrad, 
           John D. Rockefeller IV, Jeff Bingaman, Tim Johnson, 
           Robert Menendez, Daniel K. Inouye, Max Baucus, Charles 
           E. Schumer, Mark Udall, Michael F. Bennet, Al Franken.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Mari Carmen Aponte, of the District of Columbia, to be 
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
America to the Republic of El Salvador shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), 
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. 
Mikulski), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from 
Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator 
from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the 
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted: nay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 227 Ex.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--37

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Corker
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baucus
     Blunt
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Graham
     Heller
     Kirk
     Lee
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Thune
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 
37. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________