[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16716-16717]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time as the ranking Democrat 
on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to bring to my colleagues' 
attention a very disturbing trend that is taking place on us carrying 
out our constitutional responsibilities. It is up to the Senate, and 
only the Senate, to confirm--advise and consent--appointments by the 
President of the United States that require the confirmation of the 
Senate.
  I think the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I am honored to 
serve on and act as the ranking Democrat, has acted in a very 
responsible manner in scheduling hearings and taking action on the 
nominations that have been submitted by President Obama. I thank 
Senator Corker. He has scheduled these hearings in a very timely way 
and scheduled markups in our committee so we can make our 
recommendations to the full Senate. That is not true of the Senate as a 
body. There are currently 16--16--highly qualified nominees who have 
been recommended for Senate confirmation, none of whom are 
controversial, who are awaiting action on the floor of the Senate. Some 
of these nominees have been waiting as long as 10 months, almost a year 
for action by the Senate. Let me repeat this: Not one of these nominees 
is being held up because of challenges to his or her qualifications to 
assume the responsibilities of the position for which that person has 
been nominated. In each of these cases they have cleared the committee 
hurdle by unanimous or near unanimous votes in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee.
  So why have we not taken up those nominees for confirmation votes on 
the floor of the Senate? They are not controversial. They are qualified 
for the position. The reason is that in each case a Senator has placed 
a hold on the consideration of that nominee. What does a hold mean? It 
means a Senator has let their respective caucus know they will not 
consent to the nomination coming before the Senate either as a 
unanimous consent request or for a vote on the floor of the Senate. 
That has been the prerogative of Members of the Senate. They can do 
that. The way you overcome that is either the Senator eliminates the 
hold--in these cases each one of the holds have nothing to do with the 
qualifications of the individual for this position--or the majority 
leader, Senator McConnell, brings forward the nomination, if necessary 
uses a cloture motion in order to get this issue resolved. After all, 
one Senator should not be able to stop a nomination on the floor of the 
Senate so we cannot carry out our responsibilities of advice and 
consent.
  Senator McConnell has been unwilling to do that. I understand the 
challenges of floor time. I fully do. Ten months some of these nominees 
have been waiting. These are critical missions for our Foreign Service. 
The reasons these individuals are being held--let me just give you an 
example--is because of a Member being upset with the Obama 
administration for taking the Iran agreement to the United Nations for 
a vote before action in the Senate--having nothing to do with the 
nominee we are talking about--or concerns about Secretary Clinton or 
concerns about the Secret Service but not related to the person who was 
nominated for the position we are talking about. That is just wrong. We 
have the constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on 
Presidential appointments.
  Let me give some examples that fall into this category of the 16 
nominees who are currently waiting for Senate confirmation.
  We have the Secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization 
Operations. The person who has been nominated for that is Ambassador 
David Robinson, a career diplomat with 30 years of public service. He 
has been the Principal Deputy High Representative in Bosnia-
Herzegovina, one of the most difficult conflict areas in modern times. 
He has served both Democratic and Republican administrations. He is a 
career diplomat.
  The position we are talking about focuses on prevention and response 
to mass atrocities and countering violent extremism and election-
related violence. I would think that is a high priority for this 
Senate, to make sure the United States has all hands on deck to deal 
with these types of international challenges.
  Ambassador Robinson has served far and wide under dangerous and 
demanding circumstances. He was the Assistant Chief of Mission at the 
U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. He served as the Principal 
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration. He 
served as U.S. Ambassador to Guyana from 2006 to 2008 and as Deputy 
Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Georgetown, Guyana, from 2003 
to 2006. He also served as the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. 
Embassy in Paraguay from 2000 to 2003.
  He is a highly qualified individual who has shown a clear dedication 
and commitment to serving his country. He has been waiting almost 7 
months for the Senate to act on his nomination.
  I wish to cite another example, the State Department's Legal Adviser, 
Brian Egan. He has served both Republican and Democratic 
administrations. This a critical mission, the Legal Adviser. Just 
today, in a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, we 
had General Allen, and a discussion ensued as to the legal authority we 
have in regard to some of our activities. It would be good to have a 
confirmed legal adviser so we can get those types of answers.
  Like Ambassador Robinson, Mr. Egan has served in both Democratic and 
Republican administrations. He began his career as a government lawyer 
in 2005, as a civil servant in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the 
State Department, which was headed at the time by Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice. He has worked in the private sector. He served as 
Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement and Intelligence at the 
Treasury Department. He served on the National Security Council staff. 
He is a nonpartisan and fair-minded individual who clearly has the 
skills and the ability to lead the Office of Legal Adviser at the State 
Department. He has been waiting 9 months for confirmation--9 months. He 
is a person who has devoted his career to public service.
  That is no way to treat people who want to give their service to this 
country in an important role. We need to carry out our responsibility.
  At the USAID, the Administrator position has not been confirmed. The 
USAID Assistant Administrator for Europe and Eurasia has not been 
confirmed. The inspector general of USAID has not been confirmed. These 
appointments have been in the Senate for some time.
  I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk 
about the refugee crisis. We are approaching the number of people who 
are dislocated in this world similar to what we had at the end of World 
War II. The principal agency that deals with this crisis in

[[Page 16717]]

the United States is the USAID. We know we have conflict areas all over 
the world, and we have heard over and over again that the way we deal 
with this--one of our major tools--is through development assistance. 
We need confirmed, top management at this agency. The Senate has an 
obligation to act.
  None of these nominees are noncontroversial. I want to repeat that. 
They are not being held by a Senator because of anything to do with 
their qualifications for the position for which they have been 
nominated. There have been unrelated issues for a long period of time 
compromising the critical missions of these agencies.
  Just as tragically, there are 20 innocent USAID Foreign Service 
officers who have been held up. These 20 USAID Foreign Service officers 
are not nominated for Ambassador positions or Assistant Secretary 
position; these are folks who were plucked from a list of 181 
promotions that must be confirmed by the full Senate for the promotions 
to take effect. In other words, their promotions have not taken effect 
because of an individual hold by a Senator for reasons unrelated to 
their performance in office--career diplomats, civil service. These are 
civil servants who are working hard day in and day out serving their 
country in both Democratic and Republican administrations. They are not 
involved in the politics of the Senate, and yet they are the casualties 
of these politics.
  These individuals are called upon to serve in challenging and 
sometimes very dangerous places. We are talking about a Supervisory 
Program Officer in Cambodia, the Deputy Director for East Africa 
Operations in Kenya, the Director of the Democracy and Governance 
Office in Rwanda, a Senior Advisor for Civilian-Military Cooperation, a 
Resident Legal Officer for the Resident Mission in Asia, an Education 
Officer in Honduras, a Regional Legal Advisor in El Salvador, a Deputy 
Controller for Financial Management in El Salvador, a Regional Food for 
Peace Officer in Ethiopia, a Regional Legal Advisor in Egypt, a Deputy 
Education and Youth Office Director in Kenya, the Director of the Food 
for Peace Program in South Sudan, the Democracy and Governance Director 
in El Salvador, the Economic Growth Team Leader in Zambia, the Economic 
Growth Office Director in Ukraine, and a Controller for Financial 
Management in Rwanda.
  I went through that list because I think everyone would acknowledge 
that these are people who are serving in very dangerous places.
  As I mentioned, we had a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee with General Allen, who is doing incredible public service 
for our representative in the Middle East. He said he wanted to thank 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the attention we have given 
to our diplomats.
  Often on the floor of the Senate you hear glowing thanks--and I join 
in that--to the men and women who have worn the uniform of our Nation 
to defend our freedom. Well, our thanks go equally to our Foreign 
Service officers who serve in very dangerous positions in order to 
advance the U.S. principles of democracy and human rights. We know 
about the casualties we have suffered in that regard. These individuals 
are entitled to their promotions, and it requires our action. To hold 
up their promotions for reasons unrelated to their job performance is 
just plain irresponsible, and we need to take up these nominees.
  There are ambassadorships that have been open for way too long. I 
could mention many of the ambassadorships, but I will just mention 
two--Sweden and Trinidad and Tobago.
  Sweden, of course, is a strategic ally and an Arctic Council member. 
Azita Raji has been nominated. She is a businesswoman who has been the 
vice president of J.P. Morgan Securities. She brings her unique 
expertise from the business sector to help one of our critical 
Ambassador positions. Again, she is a noncontroversial nominee who has 
been held up 10 months. Sweden
is a critical partner for the United States.
  In Trinidad and Tobago, John Estrada has been waiting 180 days for 
his confirmation. Trinidad is a critical place for the United States as 
far as drug-smuggling activities that bring drugs into the United 
States. We need a confirmed Ambassador to lead that fight against drug 
smuggling into the United States. Again, he is being held up for 
reasons unrelated to his own qualifications.
  I could go through all the 16 nominees. I think I have made my point. 
My point is that I think the public would be surprised to learn that 
one Senator could block a nomination of a President, and that is used 
many times unrelated to the qualifications of that individual for the 
position for which he or she has been nominated. It has happened in the 
Senate numerous times, as I have just pointed out.
  I think it is the responsibility of the Senate to say enough is 
enough. It is time for us to act on these nominees so they can continue 
their public service in a confirmed position to help us in our war 
against drugs, to help us in our international diplomacy, to help us in 
development assistance in order to resolve conflicts, and to provide 
the very best legal advice to make sure that what we are doing is 
consistent with our Constitution.
  To do the services of the people for the people of this country, we 
have to do our service in the Senate, and that is to take up and vote 
on the President's nominees to these critical foreign policy positions.
  I urge my colleagues to allow us to bring these nominees up for a 
vote so we can carry out our responsibility and so these people can 
carry out their critically important missions to the security interests 
of the United States.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________