[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 181 (Monday, December 14, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8626-S8629]
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
[[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.
____________________
