[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2401-S2404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



            Calling for the Release of Pastor Andrew Brunson

  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I have come here for the first time in 
what will be a weekly speech that I will give as long as we have 
somebody, in my opinion, who is improperly and unjustly being held in a 
Turkish prison.
  As a matter of fact, this man, Pastor Andrew Brunson, has been in a 
Turkish prison for 565 days. He was arrested in October of 2016. He 
didn't even receive charges until about 2 months ago--so arrested, 
without charges--conspiracy to plot a coup attempt against President 
Erdogan and his regime in Turkey.
  About a month ago--it was, maybe, about 2 months back, 3 months 
back--I heard from some people that Pastor Brunson was afraid that with 
his time in prison and the charges being levied against him, the 
American people were going to read the charges and forget about him and 
turn their backs. That is why I decided to travel to Turkey and meet 
with him in prison about a month ago. It was to let him know I had no 
intention of forgetting him and that I had every intention of making 
sure everybody understood what was going on with this case and why it 
should be a lesson to anybody who is thinking about traveling to Turkey 
today from the United States.
  Before I start this, I have to talk a little bit about Turkey. It is 
a NATO ally. It is a country I led a delegation to when I was Speaker 
of the House in North Carolina. I spent almost 2 weeks there back about 
6 years ago because I saw great opportunities for our State of North 
Carolina and the country of Turkey to build closer ties--closer 
economic ties, closer cultural ties. I saw real opportunities to 
strengthen the relationship with a very important NATO ally. Yet now I 
am beginning to doubt whether what I saw in Turkey--at least the Turkey 
I visited 6 years ago--is the Turkey we are confronted with today.
  Pastor Brunson, a gentleman from Black Mountain, NC, was part of a 
church up there at Montreat, which was the same church, a Presbyterian 
church, that Rev. Billy Graham was a part of. The injustice I see 
displayed to him makes me wonder if the people from the State of Iowa 
or from the State of North Carolina should go to that country until we 
understand whether American citizens can be treated justly there.
  He has spent 565 days in a Turkish prison. For about 15 months, he 
was in a cell that was designed for eight people. It had 21 people in 
it. The others had been charged with terrorism and conspiracy to plot a 
coup. Pastor Brunson has been in Turkey for 20 years. All he is guilty 
of is of being a Christian and trying to bring a Christian message to 
those who want to hear it. He has a church in Izmir. It is a very small 
church. You can only seat about 120 people in it. They open it up, and 
they let anybody walk in off the street to hear what they are saying. 
They work with the police department to make sure they are secure and 
that they understand what they are saying. There was no nefarious 
purpose here except to have done his job for 20 years as a missionary 
in Turkey.
  I am going to come back to this slide in a minute.
  It is also important to understand timing. The coup occurred in 2016. 
Pastor Brunson and his wife Norine had actually traveled back to the 
United States. They were having a visit with family in North Carolina. 
President Erdogan and the Erdogan regime were rounding up tens of 
thousands of people and putting them in prison, even somebody loosely 
associated with the coup, and many who were not were being arrested. 
Pastor Brunson was in North Carolina at the time, but he and Norine 
went back to Turkey at a time when people were being rounded up. When 
he got back, they rounded him up.
  Why on Earth would any reasonable person go back if he had been 
involved with it and had seen what had been happening in Turkey? That 
is just one data point. Now let's cover a few more.
  First off, I have to bring this up. I have to say, after I went and 
visited Turkey for about 48 hours about a month ago, I went back last 
week. I, actually, spent 12 hours in a Turkish courthouse and listened 
to the charges against Pastor Brunson. It was remarkable. It was a 
three-judge panel. Imagine that they are sitting up at the dais, and 
next to them--unlike in our courts, where you have the defense and the 
prosecutor sitting on equal terms--their prosecutor is sitting up at 
the dais and is actually looking like a fourth judge. In Turkey, you 
are, more or less, considered guilty until proven innocent. It truly 
was, in my opinion--look it up if you do not know what a kangaroo court 
is--a kangaroo court.
  They have already decided they want to prosecute him, and they are 
trying to get some of the most specious, circumstantial arguments to 
convict him to 35 years. He is 50 years old. By the way, he has lost 50 
pounds since he has been in prison. A sentence of 35 years is 
effectively a death sentence for the kinds of charges I will tell you a 
little bit about.
  No. 1, it is very clear to me, after spending 12 hours in a 
courtroom, that the Turkish authorities believe that any religious 
organization is actually a part of a broader plot to undermine the 
Turkish Government and to promote terrorist activities. They actually 
view the Christian faiths, the Christian religions in the United 
States--the missionaries--as some sort of coordinated plot to undermine 
the country of Turkey. They view a missionary who risks life and limb 
to go into the Syrian countryside to help people who are trying to flee 
the carnage that is occurring in Syria--to give them food, water, and 
comfort--as being, in some way, someone who is perpetrating and being a 
coconspirator in a plot by the PKK, which is a terrorist organization 
that is focused on opposing Turkey. That is what missionaries are 
subjected to.
  As a matter of fact, there was a part of the court proceedings during 
which they suggested the mere fact that Pastor Brunson, who is a 
Presbyterian, had Mormons enter his church--actually, it is just part 
of the services, and they are services that are wide open to anyone. 
Yet, because of the mere connection with the Mormons, who also do 
missionary work in Turkey and Syria, they were able to glue together, 
on a circumstantial basis, the idea that because they have actually 
talked to each other and the Mormons have also provided missions to the 
Kurdish region, they are a part of the PKK.
  That is what we are talking about. That is why I am giving everyone a 
stern warning. If you are traveling to this country, I can't guarantee 
your safety based on the facts as they exist today. I am trying to get 
somebody out who is only guilty for actually being a Christian 
missionary in Turkey for 20 years.
  I am not going to go into the details of this, but when you invest 12 
hours in a courtroom, it is a really accelerated learning process. Let 
me give you an idea of some of the things they said because they 
observed this. We are not talking about any specific charge for 
something violent that occurred or something damaging that occurred. 
This is the level of evidence that was presented against Pastor 
Brunson.
  There is a dish that is cooked over there. I don't know. I love 
Turkish food. I eat anything. Usually, when I go over there, I gain 
weight. It is good

[[Page S2402]]

food. Well, there was this communication between the daughter and the 
father about a good meal they had had. They suggested that 
communication--because it was of food that is, apparently, enjoyed by 
the Kurds--was a reason to suspect that somehow they were conspirators 
in the PKK plot. So I tell somebody who is traveling to Turkey, be 
careful what you eat and be careful what you like and don't put it on 
Facebook because you, too, could find yourself in a Turkish prison.
  That is the level of argument they are using against this man who has 
been in prison for 565 days. I am not making this up. You could not 
create a movie plot that would be more egregious in terms of the way 
they have treated this man for 565 days.
  After I went to the Turkish prison, Pastor Brunson and I spent about 
an hour and a half together. To the Turkish prison officials' credit, 
they gave me more time than they normally would. At about 59 minutes, 
they get you out of there, but they told me I could spend the time I 
wanted to. The discussion with Pastor Brunson was really heart-
wrenching. The reason it was heart-wrenching is he said: I just firmly 
believe that people are going to forget about me. I think Congress 
could read this 62-page bogus indictment and believe it is true.
  I told Pastor Brunson that the only reason I was there was to look at 
him eye to eye and tell him Congress has his back. This is not going to 
go away until the Turkish people release Pastor Brunson. We did 
something here over the course of 2 weeks. I also told him, in that 
meeting, I was going to get Members of the Senate to sign on to a 
letter and was going to prove to him that the people in the Senate, on 
a bipartisan basis, agreed with my position that Pastor Brunson should 
be set free.
  I know the Presiding Officer knows better than anybody that getting 
66 Senators to sign on to a letter, if you spend 3 or 4 months doing 
it, is uncommon, but to get 66 Senators to come together and sign this 
letter in a couple of weeks is extraordinary. When they heard the 
argument, they knew they needed to be a part of the voice of the 
Senate. It is no coincidence that I wanted to get 60-plus votes. I 
wanted to send a very clear message that we are educating Members of 
the Senate, and we have the votes necessary to move forward with things 
I prefer not to do.
  I prefer to be moving forward with legislation that strengthens the 
relationship with Turkey--our military alliances, our economic 
alliances--our broader relationship. Yet we also need to send a clear 
message that we will take other steps, if that is what is necessary, to 
get the attention of the Turkish administration and President Erdogan 
to do the right thing. I thank all my colleagues who signed the letter. 
Since we published it with 66, we have had others express interest, and 
I think that is very important.

  Now what does President Erdogan say to that? He basically says that 
if we are willing to trade with someone here in this country who he 
believes was involved in the plot, then he will give Pastor Brunson 
back to us.
  We have an extradition treaty with Turkey. If Turkey goes through the 
proper processes that can prove the person he wants in this country 
should be extradited because he is guilty of laws broken in Turkey, 
great. But I find it objectionable to compare that pastor who is here 
or that religious leader who is here with a pastor who spent 20 years 
in Turkey doing nothing but missionary work.
  When I was in Turkey, someone asked me: What do you think about the 
prisoner exchange? I think what has been offered is absurd. But I 
promise you this: If you know of a Turkish person--a Turkish national 
in a U.S. prison who was held for 17 months without charges and then 
was convicted on circumstantial evidence for 5 years, 10 years, or 35 
years, count me in on getting them released without even a concept of 
trade because that would be a terrible miscarriage of justice.
  Let me tell you, there is not somebody in a U.S. prison because there 
is no way that anybody in the United States would have been held 
overnight in jail for the charges I saw demonstrated in that courthouse 
just a week ago. So President Erdogan possibly doesn't know what I now 
know, having sat through 12 hours of court. I have to believe he is a 
fair person, and I have to believe that he is hearing from people in 
his administration who are not telling him what they are trying to do 
to this man in their Turkish judicial system. I am here, and I will be 
here every week to ask President Erdogan to invest the time that I have 
invested to know it is a miscarriage of justice that is going to hurt 
our relationship with Turkey on every level, and I will go from someone 
who is a strong advocate of our Turkish alliance to someone who maybe 
has to think twice about where this relationship goes from here.
  This is the beginning of what I hope is a very short time of my 
coming to this floor and layering in additional facts every week until 
Pastor Brunson is released.
  Again, I warn anyone who is going to Turkey to pay attention to what 
I have just said. Pay attention to the fact that I may not, as a U.S. 
Senator and the Presiding Officer, as a U.S. Senator from Iowa--we may 
not be able to guarantee your safety under the current emergency orders 
in Turkey. You may actually just find a group of friendly people with 
whom you take a picture and you proudly put it on Facebook because you 
are reaching out to people, you are traveling to countries, and you are 
trying to build friendships and relationships. But there may be some 
Turkish bureaucrat who sees that picture and sees a few Kurds in it, 
and suddenly you become a conspirator. You spend 565 days in a Turkish 
prison, and you have your Senator coming over there to take you out. 
That is what is going on in Turkey right now.
  Pastor Brunson represents just one of several people in Turkey for 
whom we have to fight. A NASA scientist has been convicted and 
sentenced to 7\1/2\ years; he has served 1\1/2\ years. He was guilty of 
doing nothing more than going to visit his family in Turkey at roughly 
the time they started the coup attempt. Now he is in prison--an 
American citizen, a dual citizen, a Turkish-American, a NASA scientist 
imprisoned, implicated as being a part of our intelligence agency. I am 
not making this up.
  I have invested the time in Turkey to follow the facts. I wouldn't 
pursue this if all I had were briefings from the State Department or 
the staff. I invested the time to go there, look at the pastor eye to 
eye, look at the judges eye to eye, and look at the prison guards eye 
to eye, and I am convinced this is a risk to every single American. 
Every single one of you should put yourself in Pastor Brunson's place 
and go from here and make sure people know what is going on there.
  Pastor Brunson needs to know he has the backing of the U.S. Senate. 
He will have the backing of the House. My colleague Mark Walker and the 
deputy whip Patrick McHenry are working on a similar letter in the 
House, and we will continue to show that we are in shape, and we are 
ready to run this marathon. Hopefully, they are going to sprint to a 
just decision on May 7. That is his next court date. But if he doesn't, 
you can expect me to be here, and each and every time I am going to add 
some other cases for why we really have to rethink our relationship 
with Turkey until justice is done.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to express my opposition 
to Mike Pompeo serving as the Nation's top diplomat.
  As I stated earlier this week in committee, I am generally 
disappointed to be casting a vote against a Secretary of State nominee. 
I believe the United States needs an effective leader on the global 
stage. But at the end of the day, as I considered Director Pompeo's 
nomination, including his hearing, his past statements, and recent 
revelations, I have lingering concerns along three broad themes. Mr. 
Pompeo failed to express any tangible diplomatic strategies for which 
he would advocate to advance American interests; he failed to be 
forthright with the committee; and, finally, I don't have a 
satisfactory answer to the question: Which Mike Pompeo am I asked to 
cast a vote on?
  Unfortunately, during his nomination process, in which he had an 
opportunity to address all of these concerns, Director Pompeo offered 
contradictory statements and was less than forthcoming when pressed on 
a number of issues.

[[Page S2403]]

  Given the opportunity to outline the strategies he would advocate 
with the administration to deal with the challenges of Russia, Iran, 
North Korea, China or Venezuela, to mention a few, he failed to exhibit 
the depth of knowledge or thoughtfulness about what those strategies 
would be. Granted, he is under the constraints of this administration, 
which has failed to offer a strategic vision for American diplomacy, a 
White House that has failed to effectively outline policies or 
strategies to achieve a series of ever-changing goals and objectives. 
But I expect our chief diplomat to have a vision for diplomacy.
  A meeting is not a strategy. Airstrikes are not a strategy. 
Unilaterally walking away from an international agreement is not a 
strategy.
  Beyond his lack of strategies, I fear Mr. Pompeo was less than 
transparent through his confirmation process. Truthfulness and 
willingness to be forthcoming to the Foreign Relations Committee are 
essential in a Secretary of State nominee. But in his refusal to answer 
questions about the Russia investigation, in which he was interviewed--
a critical issue before the committee--and in his failure to disclose 
any information about his trip to North Korea, which he could have 
disclosed even in a classified setting, although we got to learn about 
it through the press--both critical issues before the committee--he 
exhibited that he was more suited to the clandestine nature of the CIA 
Director than the transparency of a Secretary of State.
  I don't expect a Cabinet Secretary to publicly disagree with the 
President; indeed, it is his or her duty to carry out the President's 
agenda. But as policies are being formulated, I remain skeptical of 
whether he will be forthcoming with Members of Congress, how he will 
approach complex issues, and what that means for our foreign policy.
  This lack of forthrightness ultimately leaves me wondering whether he 
would be willing to push back against the President's worst instincts, 
whether he would be willing to say no to advance a different course or 
whether he would simply be a yes-man.
  When the President blames Russia's aggressive behavior on Democrats--
pretty amazing, on Democrats--will Director Pompeo remind him that 
Russia's aggressive behavior is caused by Russia and no one else? As 
our Nation's top diplomat, would Director Pompeo, as he said in his 
confirmation hearing, value diversity and demand every employee be 
``treated equally with dignity and respect''? Does he believe, as he 
said in his hearing, in ``promoting America's ideals, values, and 
priorities,'' including our collective identity as a nation of 
immigrants and refugees fleeing oppression who have made the United 
States a bastion of hope in the world? Or will we be represented by 
Congressman Pompeo, who voted against the Violence Against Women's Act 
to deny support to victims of gender-based violence and who sponsored 
legislation to roll back marriage equality, or Congressman Pompeo, who, 
as recently as 2016, sponsored legislation to immediately halt refugee 
resettlement in the United States until ill-advised reforms were made? 
These concerns are beyond policy disagreements, which alone are not the 
basis for rejecting a nominee. Rather, this legislative history paints 
a troubling picture of how the United States and our diplomatic efforts 
will be conducted and received by our allies and adversaries alike.
  Will the Department seek to roll back programs advancing women's 
access to healthcare and justice systems--programs that have 
significantly improved the lives not only of women all over the world 
but, by extension, improved stability, prosperity, and governance 
reforms? When we talk about promoting universal human rights in 
countries that seek to oppress people based on their sexual 
orientation, what will our Nation's top diplomat credibly say?
  As we work with our allies who are absorbing literally millions of 
refugees from profoundly devastating crises all over the world and as 
families in my own State of New Jersey and throughout the country open 
their hearts and their homes, what will he credibly say as this 
administration slashes our own refugee program, once a crown jewel of 
our foreign policy, both in establishing our moral leadership and in 
supporting our partners globally?
  On our own border, we simply cannot address the threat of drug 
traffickers or opioids without productive collaboration with Mexico. 
When the President wants to call Mexicans drug traffickers and rapists, 
as our Nation's top diplomat who, during his confirmation hearing, 
insisted his ``record is exquisite with respect to treating people of 
every faith with the dignity they deserve,'' would Mr. Pompeo advise 
the President not to call Mexicans drug traffickers and rapists or 
would the Pompeo who once called an Indian-American political opponent 
a ``turban topper'' prevail?
  How would he explain this kind of rhetoric to people of myriad 
different faiths who wear turbans, whether they are millions of Sikhs, 
Punjabis, or Muslims in India--a critically important ally--or Orthodox 
Christians in the Horn of Africa or tribal leaders in Afghanistan with 
whom we are trying to build constructive relationships based on values 
of democracy and human rights?
  What impact would his accusations that Muslim leaders in the United 
States are somehow ``complicit'' in devastating terrorist attacks have 
as he engages with Muslim leaders and citizens around the world? Nearly 
2 billion people in the world adhere to the Muslim faith, many in 
countries with which we have relationships critical to protecting and 
promoting our national security, with citizens who have suffered the 
most from brutal terrorism.
  Similarly, part of the exceptionalism of the United States comes from 
the power of our diaspora communities, which serve as critical cultural 
and public diplomats to the rest of the world. How can someone who has 
made such derogatory and uninformed remarks conduct effective 
diplomacy?
  As I have said before, I believe it is imperative for the Secretary 
of State to be forthright, to be someone with whom the American people 
and our allies can invest faith and trust, someone who will 
unequivocally champion our values to assert our global leadership.
  Our global leadership comes from our investment in diplomacy and 
development as our primary policy drivers abroad. Unfortunately, I 
don't believe that Director Pompeo is someone who will always 
prioritize diplomacy over conflict, particularly in the context of the 
aggressive foreign policy voices growing around him. I am particularly 
concerned by his past comments on regime change in North Korea and 
Iran. Look, I abhor both regimes, but our national security is a little 
different.
  While he said during his confirmation hearing that war is ``the last 
resort,'' Mr. Pompeo's past statements calling for military action and 
regime change in Iran, for example, will surely follow him as we work 
with our allies to build on multinational agreements to prevent Iran 
from getting a nuclear weapon. His offhand remarks about regime change 
in North Korea will be ever-present as we pursue negotiations to roll 
back North Korea's nuclear weapons program and seek dismantling.
  With all of these concerns of mine, ultimately, I simply do not 
believe that Director Pompeo is someone who can genuinely represent all 
Americans and best promote American foreign policy interests. It is for 
these reasons, among others, that I will be voting against Director 
Pompeo. Let me be very clear. Despite what some of my other colleagues 
may believe or tell the press, this is not a vote in the name of 
political resistance to the President. I have voted for members of this 
President's Cabinet, from the Secretary of Defense, to the former 
Secretary of Homeland Security and now the President's Chief of Staff, 
to our Ambassador to the United Nations, to mention some.

  I will never hesitate to agree with a sound policy or criticize a 
misguided one, regardless of which party is in the White House. I think 
history will certainly prove that and judge it to be true. I will 
always put patriotism and our national security interest over 
partisanship--always.
  I also reject the notion that we should confirm a Secretary of State 
based on world events outside of our control, whether that be a NATO 
summit or a meeting with North Korea. Nobody forced the President to 
fire his former Secretary of State at the time

[[Page S2404]]

he did. And unless Kim Jong Un is unilaterally dictating the terms of 
our relations, we should wait until we have the appropriate people and 
dutiful preparation to achieve the success that we and the world need.
  In closing, as we consider this nominee and the nominee for Germany 
who is also subject to cloture, let me be clear. Despite what the White 
House wants to claim, Democrats are not obstructing nominees through 
this body. The facts are simply not on their side. Of 172 positions at 
the State Department and USAID critical to advancing U.S. interests, 
the administration has failed to even nominate 77 of those positions, 
including 45 ambassadorial positions in critical countries, including 
South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, to mention a few. I could go on 
and on.
  Lest we all forget, Republicans control the votes on the Senate 
floor. Republican leadership can bring up any nominee, once they have 
passed the committee, at any time. That is their prerogative.
  The Founders recognized that an effective democracy needs coequal 
branches of government to operate in a system of checks and balances. 
The President has the right to nominate whomever he wants, but the 
Congress has a responsibility to ensure that person is best suited for 
the job at hand--we have already seen challenges to some of these 
nominees in that process--and in the case of our Secretary of State, 
one who will prioritize diplomacy instead of war and promote 
fundamental values.
  If and when he is confirmed, as someone who has served on both the 
House and the Senate committees tasked with overseeing foreign policy 
administration, I am more than willing to work alongside the nominee to 
provide advice and input as he and the President seek to advance 
American interests and values on the global stage. I will, of course, 
in my capacity as ranking member, work alongside him in pursuit of 
comprehensive and coherent strategies that promote American interests. 
Despite my misgivings, I will always have an open door and seek 
opportunities to advance our shared objectives. We stand ready and 
willing to take any and all actions in the interest of peace, security, 
and all Americans. That has always been my North Star, and it will 
always be.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
my remarks, the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be allowed to make 
remarks for about 3 to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I stand here today to urge the very 
swift confirmation of my good friend, my former colleague, the current 
Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, to serve as America's next Secretary 
of State.
  Mike's resume would put him at the top of any pile. Speaking as 
someone who has hired a lot of folks over 28 years in the private 
sector and now spending time in public service, his resume shines, but 
let's talk about his record of results.
  I just returned from a trip to China. I was with four other U.S. 
Senators. We visited China, South Korea. In fact, while in South Korea, 
we went to the DMZ. I met the Premier of China while I was in Beijing. 
In fact, the same week that I met the Premier of China, Kim Jong Un met 
with President Xi in Beijing. We spent time with the Prime Minister of 
South Korea, as well as time with many other leaders. Their feedback 
was very clear. Perhaps this is the untold story we are not hearing in 
the United States, in the media, and it is this: The administration's 
resolve and their diplomacy is what has brought Kim Jong Un to the 
negotiating table.
  The administration is moving forward toward a denuclearized North 
Korea, and Mike Pompeo has played a critical role in those efforts. As 
Secretary of State, Mike would continue to defend and represent 
American interests abroad, protecting our national security and making 
the world a safer place.
  Mike has not just excelled, he has been the best at everything he has 
put his mind to over the course of his life. He was first in his class 
at West Point, a graduate of Harvard Law School, editor of the Harvard 
Law Review. He served our country in the military. He ran businesses 
before serving in the U.S. Congress, which is where my path crossed 
Mike Pompeo's, as we served as colleagues in the U.S. Congress. Mike 
has the resume, the character, and the record of results to make him an 
exceptionally qualified leader for this job.
  As we wait here in limbo without a Secretary of State, lives are on 
the line, our national security is on the line, and our freedom is on 
the line. I urge my colleagues across the aisle, please stop putting 
politics before America's national interests. For heaven's sake, this 
body passed Hillary Clinton through as Secretary of State with 94 
votes. I urge them to make the best decision for our country and their 
constituents back home and join me in confirming Mike Pompeo as our 
next Secretary of State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Montana for the 
unanimous consent request.