[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 113 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6156-S6161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF SAMANTHA POWER TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Samantha Power, of
Massachusetts, to be the Representative of the United States of America
to the United Nations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
hours of debate equally divided between the proponents and the
opponents.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to strongly support the
nomination of Samantha Power to be the next United States Ambassador to
the United Nations, and I commend President Obama for selecting her for
this extremely important position.
Born of Irish parents and raised in Ireland until she was 9, Samantha
and her parents emigrated to Pennsylvania and Georgia, and she attended
Yale and Harvard.
She is well known for her accomplishments as a journalist during the
conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, her Pulitzer Prize-winning book,
``A Problem from Hell,'' her leadership of the Carr Center for Human
Rights, and her work as the senior director for Multilateral Affairs
and Human Rights at the National Security Council.
Samantha is a person of extraordinary intellect, exceptional
integrity, and a strong moral compass. She is willing to challenge
conventional wisdom and fight for things she feels passionately about,
irrespective of the forces aligned against her.
Samantha is an internationalist. She believes in the indispensable
role that multilateral organizations play in addressing global problems
no country can solve alone--from genocide to global warming to
international terrorism.
At the National Security Council she also brought much-needed
attention to human trafficking, protection for refugees, gay rights,
and gender-based violence. But what some people may be less aware of is
the depth of Samantha's devotion to the principles on which this
country was founded, and which I believe is one of the key reasons the
President nominated her.
Samantha is an American patriot. She will not only strive to ensure
that the United States leads by example at the United Nations, but that
we do so in a manner that honors the Constitution and the idealism of
those who wrote it, which continue to inspire people around the world.
That is what people expect of the United States, and I know of no one
better suited to turn that expectation into reality.
At a time when the United States faces emerging threats and
intensifying competition for natural resources, human rights are under
assault in many countries, and millions of people live in squalor or
have fled their homes due to armed conflict, natural disasters, or the
effects of overpopulation and climate change on the availability of
land, water and food, how effectively we use our influence globally
will determine the kind of world our children and grandchildren
inherit.
[[Page S6157]]
Now is the time for the United States to embrace these challenges,
and I am confident that Samantha Power will do so with every bit of
conviction and energy that she has.
To those Senators of either party who have at times differed with
this administration over foreign policy or who may doubt the importance
of U.S. support for the United Nations, I encourage those Senators to
speak to Samantha directly. There is no one better informed, no one
more willing to listen to other points of view, and no one more
persuasive, than Samantha Power.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. RISCH. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Risch pertaining to the introduction of S. 1430
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise to promote and suggest to my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle that we support the nomination of Samantha Power to
be the next Ambassador to the United Nations.
This is a very complex world we live in today. Certainly the forum of
the United Nations, in spite of some issues that all of us had with
that body over the years, remains the one forum where the United
States, No. 1, gets to exhibit strong leadership with our friends, our
allies, our adversaries, and a strong voice in the United Nations is
imperative.
Samantha Power is an individual who possesses the type of character,
the type of strong background, and the person who possesses the
intellect and the right kind of ability to communicate to represent us
today in this complex world at the United Nations.
Samantha was born in Ireland but moved to the United States shortly
thereafter. She was educated in the public schools in Atlanta, Yale,
and Harvard. Obviously, she has the intellect, from a background
standpoint, to represent our country at the U.N.
Between her stints at Harvard and Yale, she did reporting as a
journalist on the ground, reporting on the Yugoslav wars. She was
hands-on dodging bullets and being involved from the standpoint of
making reports to various journals and other publications about what
was happening in those Yugoslav wars.
Samantha is an individual who developed a passion for human rights.
She is not bashful about sharing that passion. It is a commendable
passion that she has for human rights.
From 2005 forward, Samantha has been involved almost exclusively in
the arena of foreign policy, first as a staffer for then-Senator Obama,
later involved in his campaign, and most recently as a member of the
National Security staff.
Samantha is not only knowledgeable, she is knowledgeable in the right
way when it comes to foreign policy. She is not only smart, but she is
worldly. She has the charisma, in her own way, No. 1, to express
herself in a way that right now the United States needs to be
expressing itself.
This is why I am so excited about the opportunity to see her on the
ground at the United Nations representing our great country. She can be
tough when she needs to be tough. She can be charismatic, and she can
also be sharp-tongued.
With the adversaries she is going to have to be dealing with at the
United Nations, all of those assets are going to come into play.
Samantha is going to do a great job as our next U.N. Ambassador. I
applaud her for her willingness to engage in public service. I would
encourage all of my colleagues to support her nomination to be the next
Ambassador to the United Nations.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I understand we have 1 hour available in
opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the
pending nomination. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the
nomination of Ms. Samantha Power to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations.
Let me begin by saying that Ms. Power is an impressive person. She
has an inspiring personal story, she is clearly very intelligent, and
she has already accomplished much in her career. However, I do have
three concerns I want to take a moment to highlight today.
The first has to do with a concern I have about her unwillingness to
directly answer questions I personally posed to her during her
confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I
asked her about statements attributed to her in the past alleging that
the United States had committed ``crimes'' that it needed to reckon
with. I raised the question not to embarrass her but to give her the
opportunity to clarify by either pointing out examples of these crimes
or to clarify what she meant by those comments. Instead, she kept
avoiding directly addressing my question. She kept saying that America
was the greatest country in the world and that she wouldn't apologize
for America.
I don't think it is unreasonable to be concerned about those
statements, and I do not think it is unfair to be concerned about the
fact that we are sending someone to represent us at the most important
international forum in the world who thinks the United States has
committed crimes that it needs to reckon with.
I believe I and members of the committee deserved an answer to the
question. Instead, what we got in response was a rehearsed line. I
believe it was a missed opportunity for her and for all of us. To me,
these statements she made in the past and her inability to answer or
address them raise questions about her judgment, although--let me be
clear--I certainly do not question her patriotism.
Secondly, I have an even greater concern that she is being appointed
by a President whose foreign policy is fast becoming an utter and
absolute failure. From crises in the Middle East, to strategic
uncertainty in Asia, to a country we were told was a partner but is now
harboring a fugitive and traitor who has done great damage to U.S.
national security, I believe the world is now more dangerous and more
uncertain than when President Obama took office. It is increasingly
apparent that our foes are more willing than ever to challenge us. Even
more troubling is that those who seek to emulate us, who desire the
freedom we all, as Americans, enjoy, are often left to fend for
themselves with little American support.
A strong, engaged America has been good for the world and for the
American people. When America fails to lead, the result, as we see in
Syria today, is chaos--a chaos that allows others with goals other than
our own to fill the void we leave behind.
History taught us twice in the last century that even if we put our
heads in the sand and try to ignore the world's problems, those
problems will not ignore us. I realize the American people are weary of
war. We have paid a tremendous price in lives and money in the war on
radical Islamic terrorism. But to follow the advice of those--including
some in the Republican Party--who advocate disengagement from the world
would be a terrible mistake. If we follow their advice, we will only
pay a higher price in the long term.
Let me be clear. That does not mean America can solve every problem
or get engaged in every civil war on the planet. I would confess that
we also have voices here that are too eager to engage America in every
conflict on the planet. We need to be careful about when, where, and
how we engage American forces overseas. But isolationism on the one
hand and hyperintervention on the other are not our only two options.
Between these two choices we have a third option, and it is this--one
based on the idea that while the United States cannot solve every
problem in the world, there are very few problems in the world that can
be solved without the United States.
If a problem can be solved by using an international forum such as
the United Nations, that is fine, but more often than not the United
Nations can not and will not confront the problem. In the end, the
truth is that America is still the only Nation in the world able to
form and lead coalitions to confront evil and solve problems. It is
still the
[[Page S6158]]
only Nation on Earth able to keep the seas open for trade. It is still
the only Nation capable of maintaining the safe balance of power in
Asia and Europe and around the world. It is still the only Nation on
Earth capable of preventing rogue nations from becoming nuclear powers.
And it is still the only Nation on Earth capable of targeting and
diminishing radical terrorist organizations that plot to attack and
kill Americans here at home and around the world.
We should be careful when we get involved. Foreign aid is not a one-
way street and should always be conditioned and based on our national
interests. Military power should be employed judiciously and only where
it can make a difference in defending our long-term goals. But we
cannot pretend that if we ignore our enemies, they will ignore us. We
must be involved, and when we get involved we must make sure not just
that we are doing it the right way, we must make sure we are doing it
at the right time because sometimes acting too late is worse than not
acting at all. When we do get involved, it is OK to be motivated by
humanitarian concerns, but the primary objective of our foreign policy
must always be to protect our people from those who do or may one day
want to harm us.
This is the kind of clear strategic view of America's role and of our
interests that should guide our foreign policy. It is the kind of clear
strategic thinking this President has failed to lay out. As a result,
what we see all around us is failure.
The President dithered on Syria. We should have tried to identify
secular rebels early in the conflict, and we should have made sure they
were the best armed and the best trained group on the ground. Instead,
the President decided to lead from behind and allow others to decide
whom to arm, and the result is that today it is rebel groups linked to
Al Qaeda--foreign fighters, not even Syrians--who are the best armed
and best equipped groups within Syria. Now I fear Syria may be headed
toward becoming another Afghanistan before 9/11, toward becoming the
premier operational area in the world for global jihadists.
The President entered office with the naive belief that we could
convince Iran to become a responsible nation by, quite frankly, being
nicer to them. He wasted valuable early years in his Presidency not
giving the Iranian threat priority, and now the Ayatollahs continue the
march toward acquiring both nuclear weapons and long-range missiles
that can one day threaten the United States.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that in 2009 he missed an
opportunity to clearly stand on the side of those protesting a stolen
election and instead chose not to because he didn't want to interfere
in the ``sovereignty'' of another nation.
The President also wasted time thinking the cause of radical Islamic
terrorism was partially because George W. Bush was hated in the Muslim
world. But despite his speech in Cairo, despite his efforts to close
Guantanamo, despite his elimination of the use of the term ``war on
terror,'' Al Qaeda continues to hate America, and even as I speak here
today they continue to plan attacks against America here and around the
world.
The President is not alone in failing to confront these threats. I am
afraid that because of the success we have had in preventing another
attack on the scale of 9/11, some of our leaders in both parties have
been lulled into a sense of false security. I certainly support the
privacy rights and expectations of all Americans, but, my colleagues, I
also know for a fact that the surveillance programs our government uses
have prevented attacks and saved American lives.
I think it is a mistake to dismiss privacy concerns as crazy. After
all, we have a government whose tax-collecting agency has targeted
Americans because of their political views. But it is also a mistake to
exaggerate them. After all, if a known terrorist is emailing or calling
someone in the United States, we had better be able to know who and
where that person is.
If Osama bin Laden had been calling someone in the United States on
their cell phone, I promise you it wasn't a stockbroker. We had better
know because these people are still plotting against us, and not if but
when they strike again the American people are going to turn to us and
ask: What has the Federal Government been doing to prevent this, we had
better have a good answer.
We live in a very dangerous world, one, by the way, where our enemies
aren't just other countries anymore. Our enemies are also rogue states,
well-armed militias, and radical clerics. This kind of danger calls for
a clear strategic vision on foreign policy, and this President, sadly,
does not have one, which brings me to my third and primary concern
about Ms. Power's nomination, and it is one that is related to the
United Nations itself.
We need an advocate in New York who makes it their primary focus to
ensure that the United Nations is more accountable, that it is more
effective, and that it serves U.S. interests and is not just some
multilateral ideal in which we invest all of our hopes.
If she is confirmed today, I hope Ms. Power does indeed become that
type of Ambassador. But I have not been satisfied by the evidence thus
far of this administration's willingness to be serious about tackling
these issues over the last 4\1/2\ years that ensure that every American
dollar going to the United Nations actually advances America's
interests. I think Congress needs to play a more active role in forcing
this very much needed change to occur.
What I would like to do in closing is spend a few minutes
highlighting legislation that I recently introduced to this effect. I
am pleased to have as cosponsors Senators Cornyn, Risch, and Flake, and
I hope more of my colleagues will join this effort.
I am not the first person to raise concerns about the effectiveness
and utility of the United Nations. Former Senator John Danforth, who
was serving as our Ambassador to the United Nations in 2004, when the
U.N. General Assembly couldn't even pass a resolution condemning human
rights violations in Sudan, said at the time:
One wonders about the utility of the General Assembly on
days like this. One wonders if there can't be a clear and
direct statement on matters of basic principle, why have this
building? What is it all about?
Anyone who has followed the United Nations closely, especially in
recent years as the Security Council has failed to respond to the
crisis in Syria as more than 100,000 Syrians have died and hundreds of
thousands more have been forced out of their homes, across borders,
straining all of Syria's neighbors, leaving behind a failing state that
is becoming a safe haven for global jihadists--all of the people who
have shared these concerns and have seen this happen should be rightly
asking the same question Senator Danforth asked back then.
In the midst of this horrific crisis, the United Nations has even
been unable to achieve consensus on the issue of whether to allow
international humanitarian organizations to provide cross-border
support to tens of thousands of Syrians stuck in camps facing frequent
shelling and attacks from the Assad regime.
Just as we are troubled by this inability to tackle the world's
toughest problems, we should also be angry about the fact that for
decades more human rights criticism at the United Nations has been
directed against Israel than against actual human rights violators and
that U.N. agencies and organizations have employed blatant anti-
Semites; or that for decades recipients of U.S. foreign aid have only
voted with the United States at the United Nations less than one-third
of the time and such support, by the way, doesn't even currently factor
into U.S. decisions about who receives our foreign aid; or the fact
that the world's most notorious tyrants and human rights violators are
allowed to serve on the Human Rights Council rather than being
condemned by it; or by the fraud and the mismanagement that has
pervaded the U.N.'s peacekeeping operations, including abuses and
exploitation of the very people that those peacekeepers were sent to
protect; or by the Security Council resolutions on Iran and North Korea
that members of the U.N. willfully violate, as we recently saw with the
Panamanian capture of a ship transferring weapons from Cuba, one rogue
state, to North Korea, another one; or by the proliferation of mandates
that have clouded the organization's mission and effectiveness.
[[Page S6159]]
The list goes on and on. But let me be clear. I am not here to argue
that we don't need the United Nations. Ideally, we would have a United
Nations where the nations of the world would come together and
seriously deal with North Korea, Iran, radical Islam, and human rights.
But the United Nations we have right now isn't capable of any of this.
It has basically become a forum for nations whose interests are
directly opposed to ours, to block our efforts using the United Nations
as cover.
That is how North Korea and Iran continue to evade sanctions. That is
how Israel's enemies continue their efforts to delegitimize the Jewish
State. That is how Assad continues to massacre his own people with
weapons built in and supplied by the Russians.
More than six decades after its creation, we still hope for a United
Nations with resolve, a United Nations that acts with effectiveness and
purpose. Sadly, the United Nations' persistent ethics and
accountability problems are limiting its role. Until the organization
addresses these important issues, it will continue to be ineffective
and often irrelevant.
Americans should care about this more than any other people because
we shoulder the primary fiscal burden of the United Nations' budget,
and our patience is not limitless. We don't believe in continuing to
throw money at programs and projects that fail to accomplish their
objectives.
So my hope with the legislation I filed is to provide an incentive
for the United Nations and the President and our Ambassador in New York
to modernize that international body along a spirit of transparency,
respect for basic human freedoms, and effective nonproliferation. This
legislation would also attempt to address the anti-Semitic attitudes
that have become so prevalent in certain corners of the United Nations
and seriously diminish the effectiveness and credibility of the entire
U.N. system.
At the core of these reforms that I proposed is an effort to instill
a sense of transparency and competition at the United Nations by its
adoption of a budgetary model that relies mostly on
voluntary contributions. This legislation would also strengthen the
international standing of human rights by reforming the U.N. Human
Rights Council in a way that would deny membership to nations under
U.N. sanctions, designated by our Department of State as state sponsors
of terrorism or failing to take measures to combat and end the
despicable practice of human trafficking. Other provisions of the bill
seek meaningful reforms at the U.N. Relief and Work Agency that
provides assistance to Palestinian refugees of the 1948 Arab-Israli
conflict.
This legislation is needed because the structure and bureaucratic
culture of the organization often makes it impossible or, at best,
downright difficult to achieve meaningful reforms.
In closing, for more than six decades now the United Nations has
served as an important multilateral forum to address peace and security
issues throughout the world. But it has never been, and it is not now,
a substitute for strong American leadership. When America fails to
lead, the world becomes more dangerous.
The United Nations is badly broken. I hope we will work to force
meaningful transparency and accountability reforms for the United
Nations. But so far this administration does not seem very interested
in doing so and, unfortunately, at least based on our conversations,
neither does the nominee before us. Therefore, until we begin to take
some positive steps in that direction, I will not be able to support
Obama administration nominees who have not committed to significant
reform of the United Nations.
Ms. Power has failed to make such a commitment. Therefore, that is
why I am voting against her nomination to be our next Ambassador to the
United Nations.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to express my opposition to
the nomination of Samantha Power to be U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations.
As you know, I am very interested in the ability of our American oil
and gas industry to compete for business in the country of Myanmar as
soon as possible. By virtually every international standard, the U.S.
oil and gas industry is the world leader in technical innovation. It is
my understanding, however, that Ms. Power, as one of the Obama
administration's point persons in pursuing a liberal international
agenda attempted to 'carve out' the American petroleum industry from
doing business in Myanmar when the United States suspended economic
sanctions against this country last year. Fortunately, wiser powers
within the executive branch prevented such a carve out from occurring,
and now the American petroleum industry can compete with those
companies from the European Union, China and Russia, which are already
there. Clearly, this carve out strategy would have been a strategic
mistake, and it has led me to question seriously Samantha Power's
ability to represent adequately U.S. national interests and security
needs at the United Nations. I believe that American companies, and
especially our oil and gas companies, can play positive roles in the
democratic transition in Myanmar by demonstrating high standards of
responsible business conduct and transparency, including respect for
labor and human rights. Ms. Power's inability to recognize this fact is
very troubling.
In addition, I find her position on Israeli-Palestinian relations of
great concern. Israel is our friend and the sole democracy in the
Middle East. It is a nation that we should support and promote in a
region that is torn by violence and conflict. Samantha Power does not
see it this way. Rather, she believes that Israel should give up its
historical right to its land, and that the U.S. should impose a peace
plan upon Israel with the Palestinian Authority. She has also
repeatedly accused our friend Israel of human rights abuses. This
certainly does not represent the views of the people or that of the
leadership of the United States.
Lastly, in addition to her lack of diplomatic skills, Ms. Power has
no management experience, causing me to question her ability to lead at
the United Nations. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. is constantly facing
management issues, and I had hoped that President Obama would have
nominated someone who could effectively promote U.S. initiatives there.
Unfortunately, Ms. Power is not such a nominee.
It is for these reasons that I oppose Samantha Power's nomination as
the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
Mr. RUBIO. I yield back the balance of the time available to the
opposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Samantha
Power's nomination to be the Ambassador to the United Nations.
As I said in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I chaired,
on Ms. Power, her appointment as Ambassador to the United Nations has
come with much fanfare and with some criticism--which, at the end of
the day, means she must be doing something right. In that regard, as I
listen to my colleague member of the committee express his reservations
and his opposition to Ms. Power, I think we have to have some context.
When she responded: The United States is the greatest country in the
world and I will not apologize for it, it was her way of rejecting any
characterization of statements that she made in the past. It was very
clear to me. I want a U.N. ambassador sitting in front of the world who
considers the United States the greatest country in the world and who
will not apologize for the United States before that world body. She
made it very clear that is exactly what she intends to do.
On accountability, we cannot achieve accountability at the United
Nations if we do not have a U.N. Ambassador there to lead the effort on
accountability. On those questions where she was asked by several
members: Are you committed to making the United Nations a more
accountable organization, not only did she say yes several times, in
the affirmative, but she gave examples of how that accountability can
be achieved. We need an Ambassador to pursue accountability at the
United Nations.
Finally, I agree with my colleague that when America fails to lead in
some critical times, we leave a void in the world. But we cannot lead
if we do not have a U.N. Ambassador raising
[[Page S6160]]
their voice and their vote on our behalf on some of the critical issues
of the day.
So this nomination is critical to pursuing the national interests and
security of the United States. Whatever my colleagues might think about
her nomination, I don't believe anyone can question her considerable
credentials or her years of service. Certainly, no one can question her
willingness to speak her mind, especially her willingness to speak out
on human rights issues around the world.
As a war correspondent in Bosnia, in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda,
and Sudan, she has, as she said in her Pulitzer Prize-winning book,
seen ``evil at its worst.''
Ms. Power has built a career and a reputation as one of the Nation's
most principled voices against all human rights violations and crimes
against humanity. I know that voice will be heard around the world
should we confirm her.
While some of us may not agree with everything she has written and
said during her extensive career as a journalist and foreign policy
professional, she has been a tireless defender of human rights, and she
has seen the tragedy of human suffering from the frontlines firsthand,
and it has given her a unique perspective.
In her role at the National Security Council, she was clearly
involved with U.S. policy toward the United Nations. She knows the
United Nation's strengths, its weaknesses, and how it operates. At the
end of the day the United States needs a representative at the United
Nations who will uphold American values, promote human rights, secure
our interests and the interests of our national security. I have every
confidence in Samantha Power's ability to do exactly that, and I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.
Personally, I am incredibly appreciative of the principled positions
she has taken on the Armenian genocide, her belief that we should use
the lessons of what clearly was an atrocity of historic proportions to
prevent future crimes against humanity is a view consistent with my own
and which is supported by her role in the President's Atrocities
Prevention Board. I agree we must acknowledge the past, study how and
why atrocities happen, if we are ever to give true meaning to the
phrase ``Never again.''
As the son of immigrants from Cuba, I personally appreciate her
commitment to exposing Cuba's total disregard for human and civil
rights, and I respect her for not idealizing the harsh realities of
communism in Cuba. I know from the conversation we had in my office,
she appreciates the suffering of the Cuban people--the torture, abuse,
detention, and abridgement of the civil and human rights of those who
voice their dissent under the Castro regime. I welcome her commitment
to reach out to Rosa Maria Paya, daughter of the longtime dissident and
Cuban activist, Oswaldo Paya who died under mysterious circumstances
last year in Cuba as his car was bumped off the road, and I look
forward to her fulfillment of that commitment.
At the end of day, it is fitting that someone with Ms. Power's
background represent American interests and American values at the
United Nations. In the words of the U.N. Preamble, it was created ``to
reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of
the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations
large and small. . . . ''
Who better than Samantha Power, a recognized advocate for the
fundamental rights of every human being, to be our ambassador to the
United Nations? If confirmed, her focus will, of course, be on the
crisis du jour: the Middle East, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and others, and the nature of nations that emerge from the
Arab spring. But I know while she is meeting those challenges, she will
also be engaged on human rights around the world: on freedom of
expression in Latin America; on fighting HIV-AIDS, malaria, and polio
in Africa; on the status of talks to resolve the 66-year-old question
of Cyprus; on women's rights in Pakistan and labor rights in Bangladesh
and human rights in Sri Lanka.
Ms. Power, during her nomination process, has repeatedly expressed
steadfast support for the State of Israel during her hearing, in her
testimony, and individually to several members of the committee,
including myself as chair. She has promised to stand up for Israel at
the United Nations, and I know she will.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the committee in support of
Ms. Power from six bipartisan former Ambassadors to the United Nations
be printed in the Record, calling on the Senate to confirm her as soon
as possible in this time of opportunity, to have a U.S. representative
in New York advocating for American interests. I urge my colleagues to
support this qualified, experienced nominee. I know she will serve the
Nation well.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Hon. Robert Menendez,
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As former U.S. ambassadors to the United
Nations in New York, we are writing in support of Samantha
Power's nomination as U.S. ambassador and representative to
the United Nations. We believe she is eminently qualified for
the role and if confirmed she will effectively promote U.S.
values and interests.
She has long been a champion of human rights and an
advocate for American leadership around the world. As a
Pulitzer Prize winner, university teacher, senior member of
the National Security staff at the White House, and
journalist, she has the knowledge base effectively and
efficiently to promote U.S. interests at the U.N.
She has a record of support for Israel and she will
continue her advocacy as U.N. ambassador for our important
ally in the Middle East while bringing to the task the
balance and judgment required to advise the President and the
Secretary of State on the perspective from the United Nations
on the important issues of Arab-Israeli peace as well as the
host of other issues which are constantly part of United
State's policy in dealing with the world community through
and with the United Nations.
The administration will benefit from her perspective; if
confirmed, her experience will allow her to be an effective
leader beginning on her first day.
We believe that the Senate should confirm Samantha Power as
soon as possible because in this time of opportunity and
challenge we need to have the position of US representative
at the UN in New York filled and operating--advocating for US
interests--at the earliest possible time.
We would be most grateful if you would ask your staff to
insure that this letter is made available to all the members
of the Committee of Foreign Relations.
With warm regards and respect,
Madeleine Albright.
John Danforth.
Donald McHenry.
Edward Perkins.
Thomas R. Pickering.
Bill Richardson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I also rise to support the nomination of
Samantha Power to be our Ambassador at the United Nations. Within the
last month I had a unique opportunity as the junior member of the
committee that my friend Chairman Menendez chairs, as the head of
Foreign Relations, to spend the day at the United Nations and learn
about it from then-Ambassador Rice. I left that day with a couple of
reactions: first, very proud to be an American, and, second, concerned
about the challenges the institution faces.
First, on the proud to be American, I think it is important for us to
realize, for whatever its flaws, the United Nations would not exist if
it were not for this country. It is a quintessential American idea to
pull together an institution that tries to build peace, that tries to
solve hunger, that tries to solve global health needs. The idea first
gained force through the efforts of American President and Virginian
Woodrow Wilson who won the Nobel prize for trying to get the League of
Nations going at the end of World War 1. That league lasted for 20
years and collapsed, for many reasons, including the lack of
participation in the United States in the global effort. But the idea
did not die. The American idea stayed alive, and in 1939 the State
Department, within 2 years after the collapse of the league, started to
work on the next version. FDR worked on it during his entire Presidency
and was scheduled to have the first conference on the United Nations 2
weeks after his untimely death in 1945.
The second decision made by President Truman in 1945--the first was
to keep FDR's Cabinet--was he was posed with this: After FDR's death,
we can
[[Page S6161]]
postpone the meeting in San Francisco about the formation of the United
Nations. But Truman said: No, we are going to go ahead because this is
something the world needs and America is uniquely positioned to lead.
Ever since its start, in funding and support, through good times and
bad, through controversies Senator Rubio described on the floor, this
United Nations has worked hard to do good, worked hard to achieve an
ideal that may be impossible to achieve. It is a tribute to the U.S.
role as a global leader that the United Nations exists today.
I was also struck again by many of the challenges--the challenges of
a tough globe, the challenges of U.N. problems in the ethics and
finance area, the challenges that confuse many Americans as we look at
the U.N., principally those referred to by my colleague Senator
Menendez, a history of anti-Semitism at the U.N. that confuses us as we
watch it.
What are we to do with this institution that we birthed, more than
any other nation, that still offers great hope and service every day,
yet still needs significant change? I think what we should do is put a
strong person in to be U.S. Ambassador, and Samantha Power is that
individual. She has the strength to tackle the challenges that need
tackling at the U.N. She has had the career, as described by earlier
speakers, as a war correspondent, a writer, somebody who snuck across
borders to take photos of atrocities in Darfur and then bring them to
the attention of the world. Her writings and her activism have inspired
generations of activists around the world to take up the cause of human
rights.
She has been the President's senior adviser on matters in the United
Nations in the last 4 years. To focus on this issue, here is what
Samantha Power has done in that role to help deal with this issue of
anti-Semitism at the U.N. and the double standard in the treatment of
Israel. She worked to ensure the closest possible cooperation between
the United States and Israel at the U.N., where she championed efforts
to stand up against attempts to delegitimize Israel. She was key to the
decision of the United States to boycott the deeply flawed ``Durban
II'' conference in 2009, which turned into an event to criticize
Israel. She helped mobilize efforts for the U.N. sanctions against
Iran. She has challenged unfair treatment of Israel by U.N. bodies,
including the one-sided Goldstone Report, and efforts to single out
Israel in the Security Council after the Turkish flotilla incident, and
she opposed the unilateral moves in the U.N. by the Palestinians that
could undermine prospects for a negotiated peace agreement between
Palestine and Israel, and how hopeful we are at the events this week,
and we pray it goes forward and finds positive possibility. This is the
activity she has had helping the U.N. while she was not the U.N.
Ambassador. I want her in that seat so she can carry forward on those
initiatives and others.
She will champion efforts to protect persecuted Christians and other
religious minorities in the Middle East and beyond, and she helped
spearhead the creation of new tools for genocide prevention and she led
the administration's efforts to combat human trafficking, all values of
which we can be proud if they would be on display at the United
Nations.
I said during her hearing the one thing that made me scratch my head
a bit about her when I heard she was nominated is I think of her
primarily as a very blunt and outspoken person, and blunt and outspoken
is not always the best job description of a diplomat. But in the case
of the United Nations, with the challenges there, the challenges in the
needed financial reform, the challenges in the need to push back
against some instances of anti-Semitism, the challenges of ethics and
other issues, we need blunt and outspoken at the United Nation. We
don't need vague and ambiguous. We need the kind of strong leadership
that Samantha Power would provide.
I think of many United Nations Ambassadors. It has been an ``A'' list
of people from Henry Cabot Lodge to President George H.W. Bush before
he was President to Bill Richardson and Andrew Young. We can think of
many. But the two I think of most--I guess I think of them because they
are Irish Americans--when I think of Samantha Power is Daniel Moynihan
and Jeane Kirkpatrick, strong United Nations Ambassadors who stood
proudly for the values of this country, who gave no quarter, who were
good diplomats but did not hesitate to call the truth whenever and
wherever they saw it. I think Samantha Power will do the same, and that
I is why I support her nomination.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my
distinguished colleague from Virginia. He is a very thoughtful member
of the committee. I appreciate his remarks on behalf of Ms. Power.
With that, I yield all remaining time.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
There is a sufficient second.
The question is, Shall the Senate advise and consent to the
nomination of Samantha Power, of Massachusetts, to be the
Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations,
with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United States of America
in the Security Council of the United Nations?
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 10, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 200 Ex.]
YEAS--87
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Chiesa
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--10
Barrasso
Cruz
Enzi
Heller
Lee
Paul
Rubio
Scott
Shelby
Vitter
NOT VOTING--3
Inhofe
Landrieu
McCain
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________