[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.

                          ____________________