[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20127-20130]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nominations of Alissa M. Starzak, of New 
York, to be General Counsel of the Department of the Army; John Conger, 
of Maryland, to be a Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense; 
Stephen P. Welby, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; 
and Franklin R. Parker, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of 
the Navy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, will the Presiding Officer inform me when 
I have used 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified when his time has 
expired.


                           Starzak Nomination

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, these are all able and capable individuals 
who have been nominated and approved by the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. I want to pay particular attention to the nomination of 
Alissa Starzak to be general counsel of the Department of the Army. I 
have had the pleasure of working with Ms. Starzak for several years in 
her current capacity as the deputy general counsel of the Department of 
Defense. She has done an extraordinary job. I am confident that her 
extensive legal experience in her current--as well as previous--
position has prepared her well for the position for which she has been 
nominated.
  Prior to her current position at the Department of Defense, Ms. 
Starzak worked at the CIA's Office of General Counsel and also served 
as counsel on the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 
I don't need to tell my colleagues in the Senate how much we rely on 
capable and motivated staff to fulfill our responsibilities on behalf 
of the American people.
  I understand from Senator Feinstein, under whose chairmanship Ms. 
Starzak served, that her work in support of the committee was nothing 
short of exemplary. She was an extraordinary asset to the committee in 
all of its deliberations.
  Ms. Starzak was originally nominated to be general counsel of the 
Army in July 2014, and she was later approved by the Senate Armed 
Services Committee by a voice vote in December 2014. Unfortunately, Ms. 
Starzak was not confirmed by the full Senate prior to the adjournment 
of the last session of the Congress. She was renominated in January of 
this year and her nomination was unanimously agreed to by a voice vote 
of the committee earlier this month.
  The Army has now been without a Senate-confirmed general counsel for 
nearly 2 years, thereby contributing to institutional instability and 
uncertainty. It is time to provide the Army with the leadership it 
deserves. If confirmed today, Ms. Starzak will join a new Secretary of 
the Army and also a new Army Chief of Staff, GEN Mark Milley, where 
together they will begin to address the challenges--all of them 
critical--that face the Army and all of our services.
  I have no doubt that Ms. Starzak is up to the task and will execute 
her duties with the best interest of the men and women in uniform in 
the U.S. Army and their families. These thoughts will always be in the 
forefront of her mind, and I urge my colleagues to support her 
nomination.
  I wish also to point out that there were several issues raised with 
respect to Ms. Starzak's performance as a member of the staff of the 
Intelligence Committee. All of them have been found to be inaccurate. 
One suggestion is that there was a document known as the Panetta 
review, and that the committee staff gained inappropriate access to 
this document.
  Senator Feinstein pointed out--at the time she was the chairman of 
the Intelligence Committee--during a March 2014 floor speech that this 
Panetta review and all of these documents were accessed by staff 
through the regular use of a search tool provided by the CIA on a 
computer network provided by the CIA to search documents provided by 
the CIA. This was a process that was overseen and monitored by the CIA, 
obviously.
  This specific suggestion, allegation, or whatever you want to call 
it, has been reviewed by the CIA's Inspector General, the Senate's 
Sergeant at Arms, the CIA's Accountability Review Board, and they found 
no wrongdoing on the part of members on the Intelligence Committee 
staff.
  There was another suggestion that some of these documents were marked 
deliberative and/or privileged. According to Senator Feinstein, this 
was not especially noteworthy to SSCI--Intelligence Committee staff--
because they were providing, at the direction of their Senators, a 
review of CIA activities, and thousands of these documents were marked 
deliberative, procedural, privileged, et cetera. The responsibility of 
the Congress is to oversee the CIA--not what they will let us look at 
but what we must look at.
  Additionally, Senate legal counsel confirmed to Senator Feinstein 
that Congress does not recognize these claims of privilege when it 
comes to documents provided to Congress for its oversight duties, and 
this review process was completely within the purview of the Senate's 
oversight responsibility.
  And then there was another suggestion, or allegation, that, in fact, 
Ms. Starzak was involved in the relocation of these Panetta review 
documents from an offsite CIA facility to the offices of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee here in the Hart Building. These are absolutely 
and totally without merit because it turns out that the date of the 
removal of the documents from the offsite facility occurred late in 
2013, more than 2 years after Ms. Starzak left the staff of the 
Intelligence Committee.
  I think it is important to get these facts and conclusions by 
authoritative sources, such as the Sergeant at Arms, the CIA Inspector 
General, and the Accountability Review Board of the CIA because there 
have been some suggestions that she was, in fact, culpable, and that is 
not the case at all.
  I again urge all of my colleagues to support a very capable 
individual who has the skill, the dedication, and the ability to be an 
extraordinary general counsel for Department of the Army.
  With that, I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one yields time, the time will be 
charged equally.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
divided equally.
  We have already divided the time equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REED. How much time do we have remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight and a half minutes.
  Mr. REED. I believe Senator Feinstein is coming to the floor.

[[Page 20128]]

  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. REED. 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. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally charged to 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I am very pleased to rise in strong 
support of the confirmation of Alissa Starzak to be the general counsel 
of the Army. I urge my colleagues to support her nomination in the vote 
we are about to take.
  Alissa was nominated for the position in July of 2014. While she was 
reported out favorably by the distinguished Armed Services Committee 
last year, she did not receive consideration by the full Senate prior 
to the end of the 113th Congress. The President nominated her again in 
January of this year, and I am very pleased that the Armed Services 
Committee, under the chairmanship of John McCain and the ranking 
member, Jack Reed, approved her nomination just a week ago, and I thank 
both of them for doing so.
  I support Alissa Starzak for the only reason that matters: She will 
be an excellent general counsel for the Department of the Army. First, 
she is a strong lawyer. Second, she cares deeply about the men and 
women of the U.S. Army. Given the many challenges our military faces, 
we can't afford to have this position remain vacant when there is a 
very strong candidate before us.
  Since mid-2011, Alissa Starzak has been a senior attorney within the 
Office of General Counsel of the Department of Defense. She currently 
serves as a deputy general counsel. She has led the Department's 
interactions with Congress on preparing and negotiating the annual 
Defense authorization, and she has had senior roles in policy 
discussions about detainee affairs, sexual assault, and harassment in 
the military.
  Alissa has strong expertise in the legal challenges that confront the 
U.S. Army, and she is well suited to provide legal guidance to the 
Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army and ensure the Department 
strictly obeys the law.
  More importantly for me, Alissa was a counsel on the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence from early 2007 to 2011, first under Chairman 
Jay Rockefeller and then continuing under my chairmanship. In that 
role, she worked diligently on legislation to update the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, culminating in the FISA Amendments Act 
of 2008, and she drafted our Intelligence authorization bills, among 
other issues.
  From December 2007 until her departure from the committee in 2011, 
Alissa was one of two staff leads for our review of the CIA's Detention 
and Interrogation Program. She coauthored a summary of interrogations 
of two early CIA detainees, Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri, that spurred 
the committee to approve, by a 14-to-1 vote, a full review of the 
entire program.
  As the colead of that study, Ms. Starzak reviewed many thousands of 
documents, drafted portions of the committee's study, and advised me 
and other members of the committee on the progress of the 
investigation. She departed the committee in 2011--that was 4 years 
ago--before the completion of the report, its declassification, and its 
public release.
  I know her work on the SSCI study came up during her confirmation 
hearing at the Armed Services Committee, and I want the record to be 
perfectly clear. Alissa Starzak departed the committee staff in May of 
2011, well before the controversy of the CIA gaining unauthorized 
access to the committee staff computer network and well before the 
controversy over the so-called Panetta Review documents. So it is not 
fair to blame her for anything that happened during that time. She was 
not there and has not been there for 4 years.
  As I stated in a Senate floor statement on March 11, 2014, a portion 
of the CIA's Panetta Review was transported securely, consistent with 
its classification from a CIA off-site location to another secure 
facility--the committee's safe in the Senate. This relocation occurred 
in late 2013, more than 2 years after Ms. Starzak left the committee 
staff and long after she began her work at the Pentagon. She had no 
prior knowledge and no role in the transportation of the document to 
the Senate. So there should be no confusion on that point.
  Before coming to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Alissa 
Starzak worked as an attorney at the CIA's Office of General Counsel 
and as an associate in the international law firm of O'Melveny & Myers.
  She clerked for the Honorable E. Grady Jolly on the Fifth Circuit of 
Appeals after graduating from the University of Chicago Law School with 
honors. Ms. Starzak did her undergraduate work at Amherst College where 
she graduated magna cum laude. So Alissa Starzak has the intelligence, 
the right background, and the strong experience within the Department 
of Defense to be general counsel for the Army.
  I urge my colleagues to confirm Alissa Starzak. It is unfortunate 
that it has taken a year and a half since she was first nominated, but 
I am very pleased we are voting to confirm her today.
  I conclude by thanking Senator McCain and Senator Reed for working 
together to get this done.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, since no one else seeks the floor at 
this time, it has just been brought to my attention that there are a 
couple of letters here which I thought are on point, and it will become 
clear.
  This letter is from Alberto Mora:

       I want to state my absolute and explicit endorsement for 
     the nomination of Alissa Starzak to be the next General 
     Counsel of the Army.
       By my current affiliation with the Harvard Kennedy School's 
     Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, I served as the General 
     Counsel of the Navy from 2001-2006. I have served alongside 
     many of the most senior civilians in the Department of 
     Defense, and I know what qualities successful civilian 
     leaders should bring to their work, among them professional 
     competence and a commitment to honorable public service. 
     These two qualities describe Ms. Starzak.
       The Senate has honored me four times by confirming me for 
     appointments in both Republican and Democratic 
     administrations. I am familiar with and supportive of the 
     Senate's role in confirming senior federal officials, but I 
     fear that in Ms. Starzak's case her confirmation has been 
     impeded for reasons unworthy of the Senate. As you are no 
     doubt aware, she served as counsel on the Senate Select 
     Committee on Intelligence for more than four years. Her work 
     on that committee was thorough and professional; she has 
     served the Congress and our republic ably. That she has been 
     disparaged for her work is wrong. It sends a clear and 
     troubling signal to every congressional staffer of both 
     parties that his or her dedicated public service may be 
     treated not as a credential, but as a disqualification for 
     senior administration appointments. If that signal is 
     confirmed by failing to confirm Ms. Starzak--not for what she 
     did wrong, but for what she did right--it would only serve to 
     damage the Senate, this and future administrations, and our 
     nation.

  It is signed by Alberto Mora.
  I would also like to submit a letter from RADM John D. Hutson, U.S. 
Navy, head of the JAG Corps, retired.

       I write to express my complete and unequivocal support for 
     the nomination of Alissa Starzak to be the next General 
     Counsel of the Army. I have deep concerns that

[[Page 20129]]

     her nomination has been the subject of unfortunate and nasty 
     political theater, but I am heartened to know that her 
     nomination will receive a full floor vote on Monday, 14 
     December 2015. As you are no doubt aware, she served as a 
     professional staff member on the Senate Select Committee on 
     Intelligence for more than four years. . . .
       I served as The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. I 
     underwent the confirmation process. As the senior uniformed 
     lawyer in our service, I spent significant time assisting 
     nominees with confirmation. Throughout my career I worked 
     alongside, and under, some of the most capable, professional, 
     and brilliant people who make up the civilian ranks of 
     appointed leaders in our government. While I don't know her 
     personally, I am very familiar with her reputation, which is 
     stellar.
       I write because I believe her case has been one that has 
     damaged our republic. She has been maligned for performing 
     her duties as a public servant, and her nomination was held 
     up because of events that occurred after she left the 
     committee staff.
       I encourage you in the strongest terms to confirm her for 
     this position. Losing her services to the rankling of 
     partisan disputes would be to the detriment of both the 
     Department of Defense and the country.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John D. Hutson,
                                                Rear Admiral, USN.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   McLean, VA,

                                                December 11, 2015.
       Dear Senator: I write to state my absolute and explicit 
     endorsement for the nomination of Alissa Starzak to be the 
     next General Counsel of the Army.
       Before my current affiliation with the Harvard Kennedy 
     School's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, I served as the 
     General Counsel of the Navy from 2001-2006. I have served 
     alongside many of the most senior civilians in the Department 
     of Defense, and I know what qualities successful civilian 
     leaders should bring to their work, among them professional 
     competence and a commitment to honorable public service. 
     These two qualities describe Ms. Starzak.
       The Senate has honored me four times by confirming me for 
     appointments in both Republican and Democratic 
     administrations. I am familiar with and supportive of the 
     Senate's role in confirming senior federal officials, but I 
     fear that in Ms. Starzak's case her confirmation has been 
     impeded for reasons unworthy of the Senate. As you are no 
     doubt aware, she served as counsel on the Senate Select 
     Committee on Intelligence for more than four years. Her work 
     on that committee was thorough and professional; she has 
     served the Congress and our republic ably. That she has been 
     disparaged for her work is wrong. It sends a clear and 
     troubling signal to every congressional staffer of both 
     parties that his or her dedicated public service may be 
     treated not as a credential, but as a disqualification for 
     senior administration appointments. If that signal is 
     confirmed by failing to confirm Ms. Starzak--not for what she 
     did wrong, but for what she did right--it would only serve to 
     damage the Senate, this and future administrations, and our 
     nation.
       I encourage you to confirm Ms. Starzak without further 
     delay.
           Sincerely,
     Alberto Mora.
                                  ____

                                                December 11, 2015.
       Dear Senator: I write to express my complete and 
     unequivocal support for the nomination of Alissa Starzak to 
     be the next General Counsel of the Army. I have deep concerns 
     that her nomination has been the subject of unfortunate and 
     nasty political theater, but I am heartened to know that her 
     nomination will receive a full floor vote on Monday, 14 
     December 2015. As you are no doubt aware, she served as a 
     professional staff member on the Senate Select Committee on 
     Intelligence for more than four years. Unfortunately, she has 
     been unfairly and inappropriately used as ``leverage'' in a 
     partisan quarrel.
       I served as The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. I 
     underwent the confirmation process. As the senior uniformed 
     lawyer in our service, I spent significant time assisting 
     nominees with confirmation. Throughout my career I worked 
     alongside, and under, some of the most capable, professional, 
     and brilliant people who make up the civilian ranks of 
     appointed leaders in our government. While I don't know her 
     personally, I am very familiar with her reputation, which is 
     stellar.
       I write because I believe her case has been one that has 
     damaged our republic. She has been maligned for performing 
     her duties as a public servant, and her nomination was held 
     up because of events that occurred after she left the 
     committee staff.
       I encourage you in the strongest terms to confirm her for 
     this position. Losing her services to the rankling of 
     partisan disputes would be to the detriment of both the 
     Department of Defense and the country.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John D. Hutson,
                                  Rear Admiral, USN, JACG, (Ret.).

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  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. COTTON. 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. COTTON. I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Starzak nomination?
  Mr. COTTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), 
the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. 
Risch), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. 
Peters), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from 
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 335 Ex.]

                                YEAS--45

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--34

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Boxer
     Coats
     Cruz
     Flake
     Graham
     Heller
     Johnson
     Kirk
     McCain
     Merkley
     Moran
     Paul
     Peters
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Scott
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Vitter
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.


                            Vote Explanation

 Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, unfortunately, due to inclement 
weather that delayed my flight to Washington, DC, I was unable to 
attend today's rollcall vote on the nomination of Alissa M. Starzak to 
be General Counsel of the Department of the Army. Had I been able to 
attend, I would have supported her nomination.


                       Vote on Conger Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Conger nomination?
  The nomination was confirmed.

[[Page 20130]]




                        Vote on Welby Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Welby nomination?
  The nomination was confirmed.


                       Vote on Parker Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Parker nomination?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

                          ____________________