[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 64 (Thursday, April 19, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2310-S2311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Mike Pompeo
Now, Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about an issue as it
relates to the Executive Calendar. What do I mean when I am talking
about the Executive Calendar? Well, in the Senate, under the U.S.
Constitution, we are in the personnel business in addition to being in
the legislative business. Under the Constitution, we have a role--the
advice and consent power of the Senate to confirm the nominees who run
the government. That comes from the executive branch. The White House--
the President puts forward nominations, and we hold hearings and we
confirm them.
I have been speaking on the floor a lot about this lately because, by
any historical measure, unfortunately the Senate has slowed down,
delayed, and obstructed the confirmation of individuals from the Trump
administration whom we are trying to get confirmed to serve in the
government. That is also sad. That is also disappointing. The
statistics are very obvious.
A lot of us have tried to get the press who usually sits up there in
the Gallery to write about this. They don't seem to care, but they
should care. The American people should care.
Whether or not you voted for this President, once somebody wins an
election and they start putting people forward--good Americans--to
serve in the government, what we should be doing here is holding
hearings, seeing if they are qualified, and then voting on whether to
confirm them. Unfortunately, what is happening--and it is all out
there--by any historical measure, my colleagues on the other side have
filibustered and obstructed this administration's nominees to serve
their country at a higher rate than has ever happened in U.S. history.
I have come down here and talked about this a lot. I keep coming down
to ask the Senate minority leader and some of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle: Why are you doing this? Why are you doing
this?
I will give just one example. In the first not even 18 months of the
Trump administration, the filibuster--that is a procedure used here in
the Senate that could require much extended debate--the filibuster has
been used more in the first 18 months than it was in the previous four
administrations combined.
Why? I have been asking the question, why are you doing this? They
don't really have an answer. I haven't heard anyone explain it. I know
part of their base is very upset about the election a year and a half
ago, but it is time to govern now. We have to get people in place and
just vote on them. If you don't like them, if you don't think they are
qualified, vote no. But time and again, we have qualified people who
are being held up for 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 months for no reason, and
it just doesn't make any sense.
The reason I am mentioning this is that there is now talk that it is
not just in terms of a filibuster, but there is a possibility that my
colleagues on the other side, as a total group, all of them, might come
together and all vote against the President's most recent nominee to be
the Secretary of State. That is the current CIA Director, Mike Pompeo.
I certainly didn't agree with everything the Obama administration
did, but if you look at the history of the United States, particularly
as it relates to nominees to head government agencies, to run national
security agencies--the Department of Defense, the Secretary of State--
these have typically been given a lot of leeway from the Senate.
For example, just in my relatively short career here--I sit on the
Armed Services Committee--President Obama put forward a number of
candidates to serve in the government at high levels in the Department
of Defense to help run our national security. One was the Secretary of
Defense. I didn't agree with Secretary Ash Carter on everything, but
what I did was I sat down with him, had discussions with him, and we
brought him up for a floor vote, and I voted to support him.
Let me give another example--Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning, put
forward by President Obama. I didn't agree with everything Secretary
Fanning was focused on. I sat down with him and had good discussions
with him. He was actually being held up by some Republicans, and I
worked to try to get him freed and confirmed.
They were well-qualified individuals.
Again, even if you don't agree with everything that an administration
is doing in terms of foreign policy--there were elements of the Obama
foreign policy that I supported, and there were a lot of elements that
I didn't like. When they put forward well-qualified individuals, I
thought it was the duty of the Senate to sit down with them, meet with
them, discuss your issues with them, and then vote on them.
Typically, in that realm, the individual had been supported, whether
they are a Democrat or a Republican. Let me give a couple of examples.
Secretary of State Tillerson had 55 Senators vote for him. Secretary of
State John Kerry--94 Senators voted for him. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton--94 Senators voted for her. Condoleezza Rice--I worked for
Condoleezza Rice for a number of years. She was a phenomenal Secretary
of State. Eighty-five Senators voted for her. Secretary Colin Powell--
voice vote. That means essentially 100 Senators voted for Secretary
Powell. Secretary Madeleine Albright--I have gotten to know Madeleine
Albright over a number of years. I have a deep respect for her, a
Democrat. That vote was 99 to 0. Warren Christopher, another Democrat--
a voice vote. That means 100, essentially. James Baker--another
Secretary of State I have gotten to know over the years--99 to 0.
You see, this is deep history where, in this body, you are not going
to agree with everything with regard to a President's foreign policy,
but on these kinds of nominations, the history of this body and our
Nation has typically been to be supportive.
Mike Pompeo is the current Director of the CIA. My friend from
Tennessee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker,
gave a speech earlier today. He talked about Mike Pompeo's
qualifications. They are very impressive qualifications.
He went to West Point. By the way, he graduated No. 1 in his class at
West Point. He went to Harvard Law School. By the way, he was the
editor of the Harvard Law Review. This is a smart guy at the top
institutions in America. He served in the Army. He served in Congress.
He was very involved in foreign policy when he was a Member of
Congress. He was a businessman and now is the Director of the CIA.
Probably in terms of an individual in Washington, DC, who has insights
on what is going on around the world in terms of our national security
challenges, there is probably no one who has more insights on this than
Mike Pompeo right now.
There is no doubt, by any measure, by any standard, historical
standard, that when you look at our previous Secretaries of State, Mike
Pompeo is well qualified. He is well qualified.
There is talk--and I hope it is only talk--that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are going to, en masse, vote against him. This
would be getting into some dangerous territory for the United States as
a country. As I mentioned, the tradition of this body is to vote to
support the President's Secretary of State, particularly if he or she
is a well-qualified individual.
[[Page S2311]]
The other side has been criticizing the Trump administration for not
having enough nominees at, for example, the State Department. To be
honest, I think some of that criticism is fair. We need to get out more
nominees. The White House needs to get out more Ambassadors, more
Assistant Secretaries, and more Under Secretaries. But, as I have
mentioned to my colleagues a couple of times, they can't have it both
ways. They can't have it both ways. What do I mean by that? You can't
say to the administration ``Hey, you need more Ambassadors. You need
more Assistant Secretaries. You need a Secretary of State to run our
foreign policy'' and then, when those people are nominated by the
President, delay, delay, delay. That is having it both ways,
particularly if it is a candidate like Mike Pompeo, who is very well
qualified.
Another criticism from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
is that there is just too much chaos in the administration right now,
too much chaos in foreign policy, domestically and internationally.
There is some truth to that, also, I am not going to deny that. But
part of the reason there have been challenges at the State Department
is that this body has been slow-rolling confirmation of the
nominations.
Again, you can't say ``We don't want the chaos'' and then talk about
voting along party lines to derail the nomination of Mike Pompeo,
because that will actually continue and create the kind of chaos that
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are railing against and
say they don't want.
Chaos in the national security and foreign policy personnel world--
that is not what we need. Nobody should be for that. Nobody should be
for that.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Washington
Post editorial from just a couple of days ago that simply reads
``Confirm Mike Pompeo.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From The Washington Post, Apr. 12, 2018]
Confirm Mike Pompeo
(By Editorial Board)
Mike Pompeo's confirmation hearing to become secretary of
state arrived at a moment when the Trump administration is
grappling with a chaotic confluence of actual and looming
foreign crises--including some of its own making. President
Trump is contemplating military strikes against Syria while
also pushing for a U.S. pullout; he has committed to
attempting to negotiate a nuclear deal with North Korea while
threatening to repudiate the nuclear pact with Iran. He is
waging a trade war against China and Japan while counting on
their strategic cooperation against the regime of Kim Jong
Un. And he is doing all this with a badly depleted national
security apparatus: Dozens of senior positions are vacant at
the State Department, and the newly arrived national security
adviser, John Bolton, has started with a purge of senior
staff at the White House.
Mr. Pompeo, who has a reputation as a hawk and who in
Congress relentlessly pursued groundless attacks against
Hillary Clinton's State Department, did his best on Thursday
to be reassuring. He stressed that he favored diplomatic
solutions with Iran and North Korea; he played down the
likely consequences of a decision by Mr. Trump to scrap the
Iran deal next month. Importantly, he promised to defend the
State Department's budget and to quickly seek to fill its
many vacant positions, which would be a welcome departure
from the odd management style of the departed Rex Tillerson.
As has frequently been the case during the past year, it
was not always clear if Mr. Trump and his nominee are in
agreement on major issues. Mr. Pompeo was tough on Russia,
saying conflicts with it were caused by ``Russia's bad
behavior''; Mr. Trump tweeted Wednesday that ``much of the
bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia
Investigation.'' Mr. Pompeo acknowledged that sanctions
against Vladimir Putin's regime had been inadequate and
promised to ``reset . . . deterrence.'' But Mr. Trump tweeted
that there was ``no reason'' for poor relations and suggested
the United States should aid the Russian economy and ``stop
the arms race.''
In this, Mr. Pompeo sounded much like his predecessor Mr.
Tillerson, who often pushed Mr. Trump to be tougher on Mr.
Putin and to resist reflexive impulses to pull U.S. forces
out of Afghanistan and Syria. On human rights, as in support
for the State Department, Mr. Pompeo sounded like an
improvement, saying ``we should defend American values every
place we go,'' including to allies such as Egypt. Democracy
promotion, he said, ``is an important tool of foreign
policy''--an idea that neither Mr. Tillerson nor Mr. Trump
has supported. Though he reiterated his opposition to gay
marriage, Mr. Pompeo said he would defend the rights of LGBT
people both in the State Department and abroad.
Democrats who pressed Mr. Pompeo on his record, including
his questionable statements about Muslims, have legitimate
concerns. But rejecting or delaying his nomination, as Mr.
Trump juggles multiple crises without adequate counsel,
probably would make an already parlous situation worse. Mr.
Pompeo should be deployed to Foggy Bottom in the hope that he
will fulfill his promise to revive and reassert U.S.
diplomacy.
Mr. SULLIVAN. The Washington Post has not necessarily been a strong
supporter of the Trump administration, but right here in their
editorial, they are saying that the Senate needs to confirm Mike
Pompeo.
They make the point that I am trying to make here in my remarks,
which is that rejecting or delaying Pompeo's nomination as Mr. Trump
juggles multiple crises around the world without adequate counsel would
probably make an already parlous situation worse.
``Mike Pompeo should be deployed to Foggy Bottom''--that is the State
Department--``in the hope that he will fulfill his promise to revive
and reassert U.S. diplomacy.'' That is from the Washington Post
article, and I think it is wise counsel for everybody here--
Republicans, Democrats, all of us.
Bipartisanship is important to move things along in the Senate,
whether it is the Coast Guard bill or well-qualified nominees in the
national security world, and it has certainly been a U.S. tradition
with regard to the Secretary of State that not only goes back decades
but centuries.
I am hoping that my colleagues sit down and talk to Mike Pompeo if
they have issues with him, and raise them, but let's get to the floor,
and let's confirm him as the Secretary of State because the State
Department needs a well-qualified individual to run that important
agency, and so does our country.
I yield the floor.
Mr. 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.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.