[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2400-S2401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Welcoming the President of France

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, before I begin, I want to welcome the 
President of France, Emmanuel Macron, who just finished his address 
before a joint meeting of Congress. His words were timely, particularly 
his admonition to reject false idols of our time: isolationism, 
cynicism. He argued that if we were to advance principles upon which 
both our Nations were founded--as he would say, ``liberte, egalite, and 
fraternite''--he would say it better than I, of course--and secure the 
prosperity and security of our peoples in the future, we must seek 
further cooperation with our allies and engagement with the world. I 
hope everyone at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue takes President 
Macron's words to heart.
  Madam President, the Senate is considering the nomination of Mike 
Pompeo to be the next Secretary of State. I must admit that even after 
his confirmation to the directorship of the CIA, I remained concerned 
about Mr. Pompeo when he was in the Congress. I talked to him directly. 
I told him how deeply disappointed I was in how he handled the Benghazi 
hearings, how partisan they were. I told him some of his comments about 
minority groups--Muslims in particular--were way over the top. Over the 
course of his tenure at Langley, I met with him several times after 
that first meeting where I had given him my views on some of the things 
I disagreed with in what he did.
  I have to say, those meetings were good meetings. He was very candid 
with me. He is obviously very smart. He is obviously well informed 
about foreign policy--far more well informed than Secretary Tillerson 
was when he came to visit me before his nomination hearing. In 
particular, what gave me some good feeling was that Mr. Pompeo was 
particularly strong on Russia sanctions, even showing some separation 
from the President as we met. I began to think Mr. Pompeo was better 
than my first impression, which has been guided particularly by his 
very poor performance in the Benghazi hearings. Then, he was nominated 
for Secretary of State. That is a whole different ball game. Anyone 
nominated for such a critical security position deserves the most 
careful and thoughtful scrutiny.
  With that in mind, I met with Mr. Pompeo privately, where I 
interviewed him on foreign policy. Frankly, on many issues, our views 
were not the same. He was far more hawkish than I prefer our diplomat 
to be. Frankly, my views were probably, on this issue, a little closer 
to the President's, who remembered, as I do, that in Iraq, we spent 
over $1 trillion and lost close to 5,000 of our bravest young men and 
women, and Iraq doesn't seem much better off today than it was then.
  My view was that he was too quick to recommend strong military action 
when diplomacy might do. At the same time, I believe the President 
should get to pick his team. President Trump wanted a more hawkish 
Secretary of State--it would be concerning to me, but it is his 
decision--and Mr. Pompeo answered my questions with the same candor and 
forthrightness as in our previous meetings.
  I thought I would wait for his hearing--because speaking in public is 
different than speaking privately to a Member of the Senate--before 
making the decision. At Mr. Pompeo's hearing, I became very 
disappointed. First, the President has shown in word and deed that he 
often directs foreign policy by impulse--erratically, inconsistently. 
The fact that we are contending with several hotspots in the world--
North Korea, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and Russia--means we need 
someone in the State Department who not only prizes the value of 
diplomacy but is willing to check the President's worst instincts. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Pompeo's testimony--and, of course, public testimony 
is the real test--did little to convince me that he would be a strong 
tempering influence on an often erratic President. He didn't convince 
me that he would be the kind of Secretary who most of us believe 
Secretary Mattis is, who is able, successfully, to check the President 
when the President may go off base. Even more disappointing was Mr. 
Pompeo's tepid responses to questions about his commitment to bedrock 
principles such as rule of law.
  As important and difficult as our foreign policy decisions are, the 
Nation is facing a great test. The President seems to tempt rule of law 
in America when it comes to the investigation of whether there was 
collusion between his administration, his campaign, and Russia. An 
investigation to look into this--to look into Russian interference in 
our elections and whether there was participation of the President or 
members of his campaign or administration--is vital to the bedrock of 
America. Even worse is if a President says: I can undo this 
investigation one way or another; I can thwart it.
  He is already trying to intimidate it, but fortunately Mr. Mueller is 
not the type who is intimidated, and Mr. Rosenstein does not seem to be 
either. These questions were crucial. A key position like Secretary of 
State should be able to speak out on this kind of issue because America 
is recognized throughout the world as the country that most prizes rule 
of law. If our Secretary doesn't speak out strongly against this, it is 
not only bad for our country but not good for his ability to do his job 
around the world. Unfortunately, I was deeply disappointed.

  Mr. Pompeo responded, when put to this question as to whether he 
would stand up to the President, whether he would resign or otherwise 
protest the President's actions that would undermine the rule of law--
his answers were weak. He did not say he would resign if the President 
fired Mueller or Rosenstein. To me, a Cabinet officer should do that. 
He did not even unequivocally state that he would publicly urge the 
President not to fire Mr. Mueller. That was not good enough, but I 
thought I again owed Mr. Pompeo a direct discussion because he is a 
talented man, and the President does deserve the benefit of the doubt.
  So I called him into my office for one private meeting, one final 
meeting. I asked him pointedly whether he would be able to simply say 
publicly, before we voted on him, that the President shouldn't fire 
Special Counsel Mueller. I asked him what he would do if the President 
fired the special counsel or Mr. Rosenstein. His answers were extremely 
insufficient. I also asked him if he would be willing to recant or undo 
some of what he had said about Muslims, Indian Americans, LGBTQ 
Americans, and women's rights now that he was in line to be our 
Secretary of State and had to deal with countries that might be 
affected by his remarks. Again, he demurred. When he left that meeting, 
I emerged with a clear conscience in that a vote against Mr. Pompeo's 
nomination was the right thing to do.
  I still believe a President deserves his team and that disagreements 
on policy alone are not sufficient reasons to reject a nomination, but 
I gave Mr. Pompeo the benefit of the doubt and three chances to answer 
the questions I thought were extremely important to assuage my broader 
concerns about his nomination. He did not answer those questions in any 
way that was satisfying. So, with a clear conscience, I will be voting 
against his nomination.
  Let me be clear. This is not about politics. This is not about 
denying the

[[Page S2401]]

President his team just for the sake of it. It is about the role of 
Congress and, frankly, the Cabinet to provide a check on a President 
who might go off the rails and undo the respect for the rule of law, 
the tradition of the rule of law, that we have had in this country for 
so long.
  It is my view that the next Secretary of State, in this unique moment 
of history, with a President who seems to behave erratically and with 
little regard, oftentimes, for our Nation's history, a President who 
tests our constitutional order, must be willing to put country first 
and stand up for our most sacred and fundamental, foundational values--
for the rule of law, for the idea that no person, not even the 
President, is above the rule of law.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Pompeo, in these very difficult and troubled 
times, didn't meet that test as much as I wish he had. I don't doubt 
that the President could nominate someone with the right experience, 
the right values, and the right commitment to our core, national 
principles to earn my vote to be Secretary of State, but I do not 
believe Mr. Pompeo has those qualities so I will be voting no on his 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.