[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2408-S2410]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Remembering Ted Van Der Meid

  Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to Ted Van Der Meid, a longtime 
House of Representatives leadership staff member, who died of 
pancreatic cancer on March 19.
  For the 10 years before Ted left the Congress, I worked with him 
every day the Congress was in session. He was a great public 
servant. Ted was emblematic of the professional staff that we count on 
here in the Senate and across the Rotunda in the House of 
Representatives. His dedication to the Constitution, the Congress, and 
democracy guided his work.

  Ted didn't seek personal glory or seek to accumulate vast wealth. 
Instead, he woke up every day working to make the Congress a better and 
safer place for the American people.
  He served as a staff member for several Members, including Jan Meyers 
and Lynn Martin, before serving as the general counsel to House 
Republican Leader Bob Michel where he worked on Congressional reform 
initiatives.
  After leaving Leader Michel's office, he served as the chief counsel 
for the Ethics Committee.
  When Denny Hastert became Speaker of the House, Ted became his chief 
of floor operations and chief legal counsel. In a wide portfolio, Van 
Der Meid coordinated with the House majority leader on all floor 
activities. He also was in charge of the institutional operations for 
the Speaker.
  That institutional responsibility became especially important in the 
context of the 9/11 attacks.
  It was Ted who drove the completion of the Visitor's Center that not 
only made the Congress more accessible to the American people, but also 
made the Capitol a safer and more secure place for the visitors and for 
those who come to work here every day. Ted was also involved in the 
potentially critical continuity of government discussions that 
overshadowed other concerns in 2002.
  When Ted retired from the Congress, he eventually went to work for 
the Pew Charitable Trust, where once again he devoted his time in 
seeking to make this institution work better for the American people. 
In particular, he helped to establish forums where staff from a diverse 
set of Members got to know each other in more causal settings. It was 
Ted's view that the better staff and Members knew one another, the 
better they could find common ground and make progress on behalf of the 
voters.
  Ted was taken away from us much too early. He fought the good fight 
and always thought about how he could make this Congress and this 
country a better place for all Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nomination of 
Mike

[[Page S2409]]

Pompeo to be our next Secretary of State.
  By now, we have all heard about Director Pompeo's accomplishments: 
first in his class at West Point, U.S. Army officer, graduate of 
Harvard Law School, editor of the Harvard Law Review, successful 
businessman, and Member of Congress. It is rare that a nominee to this 
position has had so many diverse accomplishments.
  Some of my colleagues who are opposed to Director Pompeo argue that 
he will not deliver tough messages to the President or outline all of 
the policy options. They argue that Director Pompeo is a hawk who would 
prefer armed conflict to diplomacy. I find these comments 
disappointing. That has not been my personal experience with Director 
Pompeo. In addition, military officers are frequently the last ones to 
seek a military solution to a foreign policy challenge because they 
know firsthand the cost of war. On the other hand, they also know that 
without strength, no amount of diplomacy will be able to stop an 
authoritarian dictator.
  I believe Director Pompeo's recent trip to North Korea highlights how 
effective and committed he is to pursuing diplomatic opportunities. He 
not only defended core U.S. interests, but he also moved the United 
States and North Korea closer to negotiations. Maximum pressure, 
combined with a willingness to talk, is working right now.
  I also want to address the issue of communication with Congress. I 
have heard claims about information not being shared with the Hill. As 
a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have worked with Director 
Pompeo regularly and can personally vouch for his accessibility and 
candor. Having worked with a number of CIA Directors over the years on 
the Intelligence Committee, I can personally attest that Director 
Pompeo is at the top of the class for being open and straightforward.
  I would also like to address the issue of bipartisanship. Since 
coming to the Senate a decade ago, I have had the chance to vote for 
three Secretaries of State. Mr. Pompeo will be my fourth. In each case, 
I have supported the President's nominee to serve as Secretary of 
State. President Obama's choices for Secretary of State would certainly 
not have been my choices. In the case of Secretaries Clinton and Kerry, 
there were numerous issues where we had substantial disagreements. I 
believed that as to the Secretary of State, however, the President was 
entitled to deference as to his choice, and that choice deserved 
bipartisan support because their credibility as the top diplomat is 
strengthened by bipartisan support.
  Another important factor is that, with Secretary Pompeo, world 
leaders will know that he speaks directly on behalf of the President--
something that has been an issue in the past. This quality is very, 
very important for a Secretary of State.
  Director Pompeo is more than qualified to serve as Secretary of 
State. In fact, at this point, because of his service at the CIA, 
Director Pompeo is uniquely positioned to be a very successful 
Secretary of State. No other place in our government provides more 
insight into the inner workings of other countries than the work of our 
intelligence agencies. The CIA is certainly one of the top intelligence 
agencies, and Director Pompeo, in his service, has had access to and 
indeed directed the work of the CIA and has a very deep and profound 
understanding of the other nations in the world, and that applies 
particularly to the troubled spots in the world. He is uniquely 
qualified because of this experience to serve as Secretary of State.
  We have often used the phrase ``politics ends at the water's edge'' 
to signal that our domestic political differences do not erode our 
diplomats' strength overseas. I hope that this vote does not change 
what has been a longstanding goal for our diplomatic efforts.
  I urge my colleagues to thoughtfully consider support for Director 
Pompeo.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what has happened to the State Department 
under this administration is almost impossible to imagine. What we are 
seeing there is a devastation and a decimation of the resources of a 
great part of our government, one of the most important parts. It is a 
small percentage of our budget, but the work done by the State 
Department is critically important in maintaining the position of the 
United States around the world, projecting our image--our values--where 
we can, helping the helpless in parts of the world where many countries 
come to their aid.
  Under this administration in the last year, we have seen things 
happen that are unimaginable. When it gets down to the basics, key 
posts are unfilled at the State Department. There are more than 30 
vacancies in ambassadorial positions. Don't blame Congress for it. In 
many cases, they have not even sent us the names of the nominees.
  Can anyone here believe that we still do not have an ambassador from 
the Trump administration to South Korea? South Korea? We spend time 
talking about the Korean Peninsula and the future of the Korean 
Peninsula, and this President cannot find an ambassador to represent 
the United States in South Korea. What is the possible explanation for 
this? He can't blame anyone but himself. He has not sent us a nominee 
to even consider.
  We are faced with a nuclear-armed North Korean dictator. We have 
28,000 American U.S. military personnel who are literally risking their 
lives in South Korea, and we don't have a diplomat on the scene to try 
to make sure that the United States is well represented.
  The Department is also hemorrhaging top staff. Under Secretary Tom 
Shannon--one of the most respected--is scheduled to leave soon. It is 
no surprise this is happening. President Trump has repeatedly proposed 
dramatic, irresponsible cuts in the budget of the Department of State. 
His administration has kept top diplomats out of key discussions and 
deliberations. How, at a time of such international unrest in this 
dangerous world we live in, can we be diminishing and demoralizing our 
topline diplomats? How can that be a smart way to keep America safe?
  I have been hoping someone would come along to right the ship at the 
State Department--someone to draw on this amazing reservoir of American 
talent in the areas of diplomacy and foreign policy, someone to make 
sure our best diplomatic efforts are projected to prevent conflict and 
to further American interests, someone who could be a proud face of 
America around the world.
  It was in this context and with this challenge that I met with Mike 
Pompeo. He and I have met and had serious and challenging discussions 
before, notably when he was nominated to be Director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency. We met again a few weeks ago. It was a good, 
candid conversation. He seemed to understand the desperate situation at 
the State Department and that the State Department's top experts should 
be included in key administration discussions.
  This conversation left me in the same place, I believe, that Senator 
Menendez pondered at the end of Pompeo's Foreign Relations Committee 
hearing: Who is the real Mike Pompeo?
  You see, I find it hard to square the reasonable man I met with the 
other day with some of his actions and comments. For example, has 
Michael Pompeo completely renounced the use of torture? He said he 
would not obey an order from the President to use torture. Let me add 
it is tragic that we have a President who brags about using such 
illegal, abhorrent, and un-American approaches, but we still have to 
worry about this. Contrast that with Mr. Pompeo's previous defense of 
waterboarding or his jarring comments about the 2014 Senate 
Intelligence Committee's torture report when he said ``Senator 
Feinstein [today] has put American lives at risk'' and that the 
intelligence operatives whose acts were scrutinized were ``heroes, not 
pawns in some liberal game being played by the ACLU and Senator 
Feinstein.''
  Or what about Mr. Pompeo's association with prominent anti-Muslim 
figures in the United States, like Frank Gaffney? The Southern Poverty 
Law Center calls Mr. Gaffney one of America's most notorious 
Islamophobes. For

[[Page S2410]]

example, Gaffney favors congressional hearings to unmask subversive 
Muslim conspiracies and was even banned from the far-right Conservative 
Political Action Conference events after accusing two of its organizers 
of being agents of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet Mr. Pompeo appeared on 
Mr. Gaffney's radio show at least 24 times between 2013 and 2016.
  What about when Mr. Pompeo used his position on the House 
Intelligence Committee to accuse then-Secretary of State Clinton of 
orchestrating a wide-ranging coverup of the Benghazi attacks that ended 
in the tragic loss of American lives in Libya? Is there anyone here who 
believes for a minute that was not a political witch hunt, which in 
part led to the further discrediting of the critical congressional 
committee involved--a committee that, incidentally, has lost all 
legitimacy in the current investigation over Russia's involvement in 
our election?
  I face this decision on Mr. Pompeo with real concern. There are many 
policy issues on which Mr. Pompeo and I might disagree, notably on the 
Iran nuclear agreement. I asked him point-blank: What do you think is 
going to happen to this nuclear agreement to stop the Iranians from 
developing a nuclear weapon?
  His conjecture was that this President would walk away from it and 
hope that our European allies, who also signed on to this agreement, 
would enforce it. Does that sound like a cogent foreign policy for a 
leader in the world like the United States?
  Our Nation desperately needs someone to bring leadership to the State 
Department, but torture, Islamophobia, and wild political conspiracy 
theories don't seem to mesh with being our Nation's top diplomat from 
where I am standing.
  I will vote against Mr. Pompeo's nomination. I sincerely hope I am 
wrong about this nominee. I believe he will be approved by a very small 
margin. I hope he will, in the end, uphold our Nation's laws and values 
when it comes to torture, tolerance, and international cooperation. I 
hope he will make sure diplomacy is exhausted before we turn to yet 
another war and, in particular, that he will resist John Bolton and 
others who are notorious for wanting to rush into military conflict. I 
hope he will listen carefully to Secretary Mattis at the Defense 
Department--someone I supported and someone I trust. I hope he will be 
clear to this President, as the man who is the Secretary of State in 
his administration, that climate change and Russia are truly threats to 
our Nation and well-being. Doing this will help strengthen America's 
leadership abroad and help build greater trust and cooperation in 
Congress.