[国会纪录卷161，第181（星期一，2015年12月14日）] [参议院] [网页的S8626-S8629]执行会议______执行日历投票站主任。按照以前的订单，参议院将继续执行会议审议以下提名，其业务员会报告。该法案店员阅读阿利萨M. Starzak纽约，的提名是陆军部的总顾问;约翰·康格，马里兰州，是一名首席副国防部副部长;史蒂芬P.韦尔比，马里兰，是国防部助理部长;和富兰克林帕克R.伊利诺伊州，是海军的助理国务卿。主持会议的官员。根据以前的顺序，将有30分钟辩论以通常的形式等分。参议员从罗德岛。Reed先生。 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 [[Page S8627]] 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. 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 [[Page S8628]] 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 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. [[Page S8629]] 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. 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. ____________________