[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 88 (Monday, May 22, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3057-S3060]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Haiti
Mr. President, I want to address the Senate on a different subject.
If you will recall the devastating earthquake in this little country of
Haiti--the poorest nation in the entire Western Hemisphere--you can
imagine what that earthquake did. Just as people are beginning to get
their lives back together, here comes a hurricane, and it devastates
even more. As a result, over the course of those years, a number of
Haitians were admitted into the United States under TPS, temporary
protected status. That is a special entry into the United States,
usually because of a natural catastrophe that has occurred in another
nation in the world, but it is with the understanding that, indeed, as
the first word of TPS says, it is ``temporary.''
So into the United States--allowing some relief on all of the
stresses on the local economy and the government because of that
devastating earthquake, and then later the hurricane on top of it--are
approximately just less than 60,000 Haitians here legally on TPS. So
the Government of the United States is making a decision and has just
announced earlier today that it will extend TPS. I might say, that is a
bipartisan request from many of us from the Florida delegation--to
extend TPS until the nation of Haiti can, in fact, absorb 60,000 people
back into its little island economy.
These are people who generally want to go back. Their families are
there. These are people who have now earned a substantial savings that
they send back as remittances to their families. These are people with
skills that Haiti, as it continues to rebuild from a poverty-stricken
nation, will want to have back because of their skills.
I might say that when I knew the Department of Homeland Security was
considering this--whether to revoke the TPS status or to extend it--I
felt quite confident that the Secretary of DHS, General Kelly, the
former commander of Southcom, the U.S. Southern Command--that in his 3-
year stint as commander of Southcom, he in fact would understand all
the nuances because he had lived with that problem. He understood it.
He understood not
[[Page S3058]]
only TPS for the Haitians, but he also understood the TPS that even
years before had been given to a number of Central Americans when they
came into the country under temporary protected status, which they
likewise had been extended, and that status has not been revoked. I
felt quite confident that General Kelly, as the Secretary of DHS, would
extend TPS from ordering immediate removal to the Nation of Haiti of
60,000 people. Indeed, General Kelly announced that decision earlier
today, and he has granted a 6-month extension.
Now, therein lies the problem. I have just spoken to General Kelly,
who is really a tremendous, lifelong marine, very decorated, a true
hero. He is someone that has comported with his duties, whatever it has
been in his service to America, in the most exemplary manner. What I
wanted to discuss with General Kelly was that there is just no way in 6
months that the Nation of Haiti can absorb 60,000 of its people back.
It would be like trying to swallow a bite of food that is way too big
in order to do it.
So what I urged General Kelly after this announcement was made, which
has caused alarm in the Haitian-American community--it certainly caused
alarm in the nation of Haiti, the Government of Haiti. Indeed, the
Ambassador was asking for an extension of at least 18 months. I don't
think it is out of the question that General Kelly will consider that.
Therefore, I asked him to please confer with the leadership in the
Haitian-American community in South Florida, a community he is well
aware of since he lived in Miami for 3 years as the commander of U.S.
Southern Command. I think he will follow that suggestion and meet in
the not-too-distant future with the leaders.
General Kelly also told me he was planning a trip to Haiti to discuss
this directly with the Government of Haiti. That is important because
how can they reasonably absorb them back into society, utilize their
skills--and over what period of time can that be done? Therefore, I
commend General Kelly, the Secretary of DHS, on the way he has
approached it. I would urge our Haitian-American communities in America
to just be patient. Understand that General Kelly is going to do a
comprehensive overview and that in 6 months, come January, suddenly
60,000 people are not going to be kicked out of the country.
The truth is, I am not sure the Government of the United States knows
exactly where all the 60,000 are. So that is going to be another
question of locating them, once the decision is made, which this
Senator has certainly urged at least 18 months before that would start.
I have spoken to the Haitian Ambassador. He told me it is a newly
formed government in Haiti and is working on a plan to further rebuild
and develop the country so its people can make their lives there again.
They have asked for the extension of TPS up to 18 months while they
continue to rebuild. I think that by Secretary Kelly indicating he is
going to Haiti very soon, that he has indicated he is going to
reconsider the decision that was made about 6 months, suddenly revoking
all of their TPS status. As Haiti continues to rebuild, repatriating
60,000 Haitians here in the United States needs to be pursued according
to a plan that will not destabilize the new government's efforts.
Remember, this is a government that had a temporary government
because there was a question about chicanery in the election. There was
actually a temporary President that governed the country, and then new
elections were held with an overwhelming winner who is now the
President of Haiti. So in this newly formed government, you don't want
to destabilize their efforts, which would divert precious resources to
just reintegrating the people who would be sent back from the United
States. It could cause a severe overburden on the government.
Therefore, what this Senator is asking for--what I think, at the end of
the day, will probably be 18 months, given that time, and then start an
orderly transition of those TPS Haitians back to their own country.
Thus, the United States can continue to be focused on helping Haiti
recover from all of these disasters they have suffered. Therefore, I
feel quite confident Secretary Kelly will do that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the
Branstad nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to
support Iowa Governor Terry Branstad's nomination to be U.S. Ambassador
to the People's Republic of China. The position of U.S. Ambassador to
China is one of the most important ambassadorial positions in the
world. I am confident that my friend and Governor, Terry Branstad, is
the right person for the job.
Having worked alongside the Governor for many years, I know he will
exemplify the same leadership, thoughtfulness, and dedication in his
role as Ambassador to China on behalf of the United States as he did
for the people of Iowa. Importantly, Governor Branstad also knows China
and its leaders well. He first met President Xi Jinping while he was
visiting Iowa on an agricultural research trip in 1985.
They have kept in touch over the years, and Governor Branstad has
visited China a number of times on behalf of the State of Iowa. Iowa's
extensive trade relationship with China has given Governor Branstad a
front-seat view of the complexities of our country's broader trade and
economic relationship with China and will provide him with the
foundation to effectively advocate for U.S. interests, as evidenced by
his successful confirmation before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, which approved his nomination by voice vote.
Governor Branstad will not only work tirelessly to foster our trade
and economic interests with China, but he is also prepared to tackle
the many other complex, bilateral issues we have with China, from North
Korea to the South China Sea to human rights. It has been an honor to
serve the people of Iowa alongside Governor Branstad, the longest
serving Governor in U.S. history, and I am thrilled to continue to work
with him in his new role serving the American people.
I thank Governor Branstad for his service to Iowa, and I wish him and
his family the best as they prepare to depart for Beijing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Iowa in supporting
Governor Branstad as our next Ambassador to China. I have the
opportunity of being the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. I knew of Governor Branstad's reputation as the
Governor of Iowa--that he was well thought of and that his leadership
was recognized not only by the people of his State but in our Nation.
So I was, before the nomination was made, impressed by his dedication
to public service. I then had a chance to meet with him in my office. I
must tell you that I was extremely impressed about how he was prepared
to move on to be the Ambassador to China and how he spoke in favor of
our strong ideals.
We then had a confirmation hearing in our committee, and that very
much confirmed his knowledge of the challenges that he has, his
dedication to public service, and that he would be a strong advocate
for American values. So I support his nomination and I urge my
colleagues to confirm Governor Branstad. As Senator Ernst pointed out,
our mission in China is a particularly important international
responsibility.
We know that China plays a significant role--maybe even a dominating
role--in regard to North Korea and in trying to get North Korea to give
up its nuclear arsenal. We also know that China has a very checkered
record on protecting the human rights of its own citizens. We have
major trade issues between the United States and China, in which our
Ambassador needs to be engaged to protect American commercial
interests.
We have the continuing saga between Taiwan and China and living up to
our commitments to protect the integrity of Taiwan. Then, we have a
very dangerous situation in the South China
[[Page S3059]]
Sea, where China has done many provocative activities that will require
the diplomacy of our Ambassador in Beijing in order to encourage the
use of the rule of law in direct negotiations between the parties and
not claiming territory by provocative actions.
So, for all of those issues, we need an experienced Ambassador in
China to represent our interests. What really impressed me about
Governor Branstad is that I do believe he has a passion for American
values.
I particularly appreciated his willingness--and would even say he was
anxious--to represent American and global interests for China's
improving their human rights record and dealing with the right of
religious minorities, dealing with the right of dissent, and dealing
with the right of free expression and the press. He very much spoke
about the need for the rule of law. So while we welcome the emergence
of a prosperous China, we want one that follows international
institutional laws and norms. That is going to be the challenge for our
next Ambassador.
Let me comment on what I believe the Trump administration is doing
that is going to make our next Ambassador's responsibilities even more
challenging than perhaps they should be; that is, that we have seen
already that in the discussions between President Xi and President
Trump with respect to North Korea, it seems like the Trump
administration is prepared to give up some of our American values in
order to make progress with regard to North Korea, such as our
interests in our American workers, our interests in the South China
Sea, in maritime security, our relationship with Taiwan, and human
rights, et cetera.
That would be a bad deal. Yes, we want North Korea to be under
control and to give up its nuclear weapons. Yes, we want China to
exercise a much stronger role in convincing North Korea that it is in
their interests to give up their nuclear weapon program. We want to do
that. There are ways we can. It is in China's interests that North
Korea give up its nuclear weapon ambition. They want a nonnuclear
Korean Peninsula. We should not trade our values in order for that to
be able to occur.
The second matter, which I have talked about on the floor before,
that is going to make it more difficult for our next Ambassador is the
President's continued unwillingness to comply with the emoluments
clause of the Constitution.
As I have said on the floor before, every President before President
Trump either divested of their conflicted ownership of assets or they
set up a blind trust, but Mr. Trump did not. Shortly after his
election, the Trump organization received trademarks through the
Chinese Government that they had been unsuccessful in obtaining for
years, in which they have spent literally hundreds of thousands of
dollars if not more in legal fees.
All of a sudden, 1 week after the President is elected, the Chinese
Government grants these trademarks. It is hard to believe that the fact
that they were dealing with the President of the United States did not
weigh into decisions made by the Chinese Government.
But it does not end there. We also know that a member of his family
was in China to sell the EB-5 visas. That, again, presented a direct
conflict. We actually know that his daughter received three new
trademarks in an incredibly speedy turnaround--the same night that the
daughter had dinner with President Xi.
These things don't look good. The emoluments clause is where a
foreign government tries to influence our President through doing
favors. It is going to be very difficult for the American people--in
fact, very difficult for the international community--to believe that
it was not, in part, due to the position that Mr. Trump holds that
these actions took place.
That violates our Constitution. That is wrong.
The bottom line is that our next Ambassador is going to have to deal
with those issues. We have a hard enough assignment in dealing with
North Korea, trade, the South China Sea, Taiwan, and human rights to
throw in these additional hurdles. So I urge my colleagues to support
Mr. Branstad's nomination. I believe that he is well-qualified to
represent this country. I hope the Trump administration will give him a
stronger hand to play.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think I will be done speaking before
the time for the vote arrives, but I ask unanimous consent for
permission to finish my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally
considering the nomination of Governor Branstad of Iowa to be
Ambassador to China. Before I speak about this very well-qualified
nominee, I would like to express my great disappointment and great
frustration with the seemingly endless obstruction on the part of the
minority.
This nominee received unanimous support in the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee more than a week ago. Yet the majority leader was
required to file cloture on the nominee because there could not be
consent given to move forward with it. We could have approved this
nomination with just a few minutes of debate time. Yet the minority
required that we have the cloture vote and the 30 hours afterwards, not
because they wanted to debate the merits of the nominee but simply to
delay the business of the Senate. It is unfortunate that their delay
has kept an eminently qualified individual from getting into the job to
promote America's interest in China sooner than it now will be.
I am honored to have the opportunity today to speak to my colleagues
about my good friend, Governor Terry Branstad.
Governor Branstad is the longest-serving Governor in U.S. history.
Let me make that clear. Out of 50 States for 230 years, no person in
the United States has served their State as Governor of that State
longer than Terry Branstad has now. He is a lifelong Iowan who has
devoted his life to public service.
After more than 22 years as my home State's chief executive, I am
proud to support Governor Branstad's nomination to serve our country as
the next U.S. Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.
The fact is, Governor Branstad has been an ambassador for Iowa to the
Nation and even to the world for his entire career. He has been a
champion for Iowa and on behalf of Iowans around the globe. As
Governor, he has been vigorous in promoting our State's economy and
opening markets for our farm commodities, financial services, and
manufacturing to the world marketplace.
His nomination should come as no surprise to the people of Iowa. We
have long known and benefited from the relationship Governor Branstad
has had with the people of China. A sister state relationship in 1983
has grown into a successful trade partnership that has benefited Iowa
farmers and businesses.
Perhaps most notably, Governor Branstad enjoys a 30-year friendship
with President Xi. Their first meeting took place in 1985 in Iowa when,
then a Provincial official, Xi led an agricultural delegation to Iowa.
President Xi visited Iowa again in 2012, when Governor Branstad was
back at the helm in his fifth term after a 12-year respite from being
Governor. Their relationship reflects genuine goodwill and, more
importantly, mutual respect.
Governor Branstad has never stopped working to expand Iowa's trade,
investment, and economic partnerships on the world stage, including
many trips to China. He will bring midwestern humility and level-headed
leadership to the job. He is a workhorse who is unafraid to get into
the trenches to get the job done. I have no doubt that he will stand
strong for American values, such as freedom of the press and religious
liberty, and that he will work to strengthen peace, stability, and
prosperity between our two nations.
Once he is confirmed, I am confident that Governor Branstad will
bring to bear his tireless commitment to solve problems and always move
the ball forward. Although his heart will always
[[Page S3060]]
be in Iowa, I know Governor Branstad will throw himself into this job
wholeheartedly.
Governor Branstad is uniquely qualified to help strengthen the trade,
economic, cultural, and geopolitical relationships between our two
countries. I am pleased that he has now been called to serve our entire
Nation, not just the State of Iowa, as Ambassador to China. I have
every confidence that he will represent the United States well and will
excel, just as he has throughout his entire public career.
Without reservation, then, I support this nomination. I also urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.
Thank you very much.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
has expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Branstad
nomination?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, 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 assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Isakson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Alexander) would have voted ``yea'', the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Isakson) would have voted ``yea'', and the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 13, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 133 Ex.]
YEAS--82
Barrasso
Bennet
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--13
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Duckworth
Gillibrand
Hirono
Markey
Peters
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Warren
NOT VOTING--5
Alexander
Harris
Isakson
Lee
Murkowski
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The majority leader.
____________________