[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.