[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2454-S2458]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Richard Grenell

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, in addition to the nomination of the 
Secretary of State, later today we are considering the nomination of 
Richard Grenell to be our Ambassador to Germany. I opposed Mr. 
Grenell's nomination in committee, and I will again oppose his 
nomination today.
  If confirmed, Mr. Grenell will assume the post at a time of strain in 
the bilateral relationship since the election of President Trump, who 
has disagreed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on several key 
issues.
  Germany is one of our most critical partners and a key ally in 
upholding the post-World War II order responsible for securing peace 
and prosperity. Germany is a key NATO ally, serving with distinction 
and sacrifice in Afghanistan. Germany also serves on the frontlines of 
Europe against an aggressive Russia that is actively seeking to 
destabilize German democracy in the same way it does American 
democracy. Germany showed great humanity in accepting so many migrants 
when that crisis escalated in 2015.
  This is a close ally for our security but, more importantly, an ally 
in championing the values we hold dear as a country. It would have been 
my hope and desire that for such an important ally as Germany, the 
President would have put forth a serious, credible, experienced 
diplomat who could strengthen our relationship with Germany. Instead, 
President Trump nominated Mr. Grenell.
  In a few moments, I will read things that Mr. Grenell has tweeted in 
the past and that he continues to tweet, even as his nomination has 
been pending before this body. I do not savor having to read you these 
tweets because, frankly, I don't think they are suitable to have to say 
on the floor of the Senate.
  But since the majority and the President have prioritized this 
nominee and the vote will occur a little later, the American people 
deserve to know exactly who the Trump administration wants to represent 
the United States to our great friend and ally Germany. So I will read 
a selection of Mr. Grenell's tweets for the Record:
  ``Did you notice that while Michelle Obama is working out on the 
Biggest Loser, she is sweating on the East Room's carpet?''
  Rachel Maddow should ``take a breath and put on a necklace.''
  He said this about Callista Gingrich: ``Callista stands there like 
she is wife #1.''
  He said in another quote: ``Do you think Callista's hair snaps on?''
  This is just a selection--just a selection. I chose not to read some 
that I consider the most insulting out of respect for this body.
  These are not the words of a child or a teenager who does not 
understand the power of words; these are the words of a grown adult who 
had previously been a public face of the Bush administration for 8 
years. Mr. Grenell's derogatory comments about women are simply 
unacceptable for anyone to make in public, let alone a diplomat.
  I would go further. Not only do these tweets show bad judgment, they 
show us who Mr. Grenell really is and how comfortable he is publicly 
contributing his own brand of toxic political discourse. Will he do 
such things if he is confirmed and goes to Germany? Will he insult via 
his Twitter account the female Chancellor of Germany? I don't know. I 
hope not.
  In the committee process of considering his nomination, Mr. Grenell 
was asked about these tweets and other comments he has made. Do you 
know what he said? He assured us that he understood there was a 
difference between being a private citizen and being a public figure 
and that he would never say or tweet such things as a public figure. So 
imagine our surprise when Mr. Grenell started tweeting again after he 
had been voted out of the committee. Astonishingly, he retweeted a 
WikiLeaks tweet which included documents stolen by Russian 
intelligence.
  Madam President, the other nominee before us today, CIA Director Mike 
Pompeo, has called WikiLeaks ``a non-state hostile intelligence 
service.'' That is what CIA Director Mike Pompeo called WikiLeaks--``a 
non-state hostile intelligence service.'' He went on to say about 
WikiLeaks that it will ``take down America any way they can and find 
any willing partner to achieve that end.''
  Imagine that. Amidst all the controversy about the connection between 
WikiLeaks and Russia and their interference in our 2016 election and 
while under consideration for an ambassadorship by this body, Mr. 
Grenell feels perfectly comfortable tweeting out emails stolen by 
Russian intelligence to interfere in our democratic process--basically, 
in essence, as Mike Pompeo describes, doing the work of Russian 
intelligence.
  These are not the actions of a person with anything close to good 
judgment. These are not the actions of a diplomat. I urge my colleagues 
to reject sending Mr. Grenell to Germany as a U.N. Ambassador.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I did not vote for Rex Tillerson to be 
Secretary of State. Although Mr. Tillerson was a successful corporate 
executive, I did not believe that heading the world's largest oil 
company was the right resume for the Nation's top diplomat. Mr. 
Tillerson is a man of substantial intellect who wanted to do the right 
thing, but his record as Secretary of State speaks for itself. He did 
not do well, and the country, the State Department, and its employees--
including some of our most experienced diplomats who felt they were no 
longer relevant--paid a substantial price.
  For that reason, it is imperative that the next Secretary of State 
has the qualities and professional track record to restore the 
preeminent role that the Department has traditionally played in U.S. 
foreign policy.
  It is also for that reason that today I intend to vote against the 
nomination of CIA Director Mike Pompeo to be Secretary of State.
  By all accounts, Mr. Pompeo, like Mr. Tillerson, is a man of 
substantial intellect, and my conversations with him have seemed to 
confirm that. As we have learned, that alone is not enough to qualify 
one for a job that should be filled by someone who has proven that he 
or she understands and is skilled in the art of diplomacy and whose 
beliefs are consistent with fundamental American values. As the 
country's top diplomat, the Secretary of State should be a vocal and 
persuasive advocate for diplomacy to avoid conflict and crises. 
Unfortunately, I believe Mr. Pompeo's record falls far short.
  Mike Pompeo has made no secret of his strong support for President 
Trump, whose saber rattling, provocations, and so-called America First 
policies would more accurately be described as ``America Alone.'' The 
President has called for drastic cuts in the State Department's budget 
and personnel that would sharply diminish its role in diplomacy and 
development. He would weaken international organizations and alliances 
that serve our interests and undermine U.S. global leadership at a time 
when China and our other competitors are seeking every opportunity to 
expand their global reach. Unlike Secretary of Defense Mattis who, in 
response to the White House's proposed cuts, has been a strong advocate 
for the State Department's mission and budget, I am not aware that Mr. 
Pompeo ever publicly expressed a view either way until his confirmation 
hearing.
  Mr. Pompeo supported the invasion of Iraq, and he has defended the 
use of torture, two of the most profoundly misguided foreign policy 
decisions since the Vietnam war. As far as I know, it was not until 
this week, when his nomination was in jeopardy, that he said the Iraq 
war that he had long defended was a mistake, a mistake that claimed the 
lives of thousands of

[[Page S2455]]

American soldiers and sowed chaos in the Middle East. The fact that he 
has insisted that waterboarding is not torture and, by implication, 
acceptable should by itself be disqualifying for the job of Secretary 
of State.
  He has supported keeping open the Guantanamo detention facility, 
arguing that detainees ``should stay right where they are'' and that 
the facility ``is the right place for [detainees] from both a security 
and legal perspective.'' That is as wrong as it is disturbing. The 
indefinite detention without trial of detainees at Guantanamo 
contradicts our most basic principles of justice, degrades our 
international standing, and harms our national security. Mr. Pompeo's 
position is particularly troubling, given the President's expressed 
intent to send new prisoners to Guantanamo for the first time in more 
than a decade.
  Mr. Pompeo has opposed what he called the ``disastrous'' Iran nuclear 
agreement, and he appears to favor withdrawing from it despite the 
International Atomic Energy Agency's determination that Iran is in 
compliance and support for the agreement from a wide spectrum of 
diplomatic, scientific, and national security experts. As far as I am 
aware, he has offered no realistic alternative, and the consequence 
would be to isolate the United States from our closest allies and to 
risk Iran restarting its centrifuges and quickly obtaining a nuclear 
weapon.
  During the negotiations to halt Iran's nuclear program, Mr. Pompeo 
supported military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, 
reportedly arguing that it would take ``under 2,000 sorties to destroy 
the Iranian nuclear capacity,'' which he described as ``not an 
insurmountable task for the coalition forces.'' It might not be 
insurmountable, except for the fact that it would be the end of the 
coalition since few, if any, of our partners would join us. Beyond 
that, the unilateral use of preemptive military force on that scale in 
a volatile region in which Russia has its own security interests could 
ignite a regional war with far-reaching, possibly catastrophic, 
consequences.
  While the world's scientists overwhelmingly warn of the long-term 
dangers of climate change, Mr. Pompeo is an unabashed climate change 
sceptic. He has said that the Paris Climate Agreement, which is 
supported by practically every country including China, amounted to 
``bowing down to radical environmentalists.'' That is extremist 
rhetoric about what many believe to be the most serious challenge 
facing our planet, a challenge that can only be met through diplomacy, 
and it belies a disturbing intolerance for opposing views.
  Mr. Pompeo has accused American Muslim leaders of being ``potentially 
complicit'' in acts of terrorism that they do not specifically condemn. 
He has said that Muslims ``abhor Christians'' and that they ``will 
continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray and stand 
and fight and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ is our savior 
and is truly the only solution for our world.'' It would be hard to 
think of a more effective way to alienate the Muslim community, without 
whose help we cannot effectively counter violent extremism.
  As a Member of Congress, Mr. Pompeo cosponsored legislation to ban 
all refugee admissions, regardless of country of origin, even though 
people seeking safety are already subjected to a rigorous vetting 
process. It should alarm each of us that the nominee to oversee the 
bureau charged with protecting refugees, migrants, and other vulnerable 
people uprooted by conflict--a tradition we take pride in--would take 
such a crass, ideological approach to our country's refugee admissions 
policies.
  Mr. Pompeo has suggested that the Federal Government should collect 
records of American citizens' communications, without warrants and in 
bulk, and combine them with ``publicly available financial and 
lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.'' 
Think about that, at a time when the public is already outraged by 
Facebook's and Cambridge Analytica's misuse of personal data.
  As a Member of Congress, Mr. Pompeo criticized President Obama for 
going to Cuba, accusing him of making ``unilateral concessions.'' It is 
true that the restoration of diplomatic relations with Cuba--which was 
overwhelmingly supported by the people of both countries--did not 
include an agreement by the Cuban Government to hold free and fair 
elections, nor to stop persecuting opponents of the government. No one 
who knows Cuba expected that. But if free and fair elections and 
respect for human rights are Mr. Pompeo's prerequisite for having an 
embassy and an ambassador in a foreign country, we will need to close a 
lot more embassies than the one in Havana.
  We could begin with our embassies in China and Russia, Saudi Arabia 
and Egypt would be next, then Jordan and Morocco, Honduras, Vietnam--
the list goes on. The fact is we need embassies staffed with qualified 
personnel, including in countries whose governments we disagree with, 
so our diplomats can work to protect our interests and the interests of 
Americans who travel, study, work, or serve there. That is diplomacy 
101.
  Mr. Pompeo opposes LGBT rights and has no record of defending civil 
society activists and independent journalists who risk their lives 
speaking out against corruption and abuses of human rights by foreign 
security forces, particularly in countries we consider friends or 
allies. He has also worked against women's reproductive rights, 
including cosponsoring radical legislation that would make abortion 
illegal nationwide, even in cases of rape. He voted to defund Planned 
Parenthood and for the ``global gag rule,'' which prevents foreign 
nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. funds if they use 
their own money to provide safe abortions or even information about 
abortion services in their country.
  I take no pleasure in opposing Mr. Pompeo's nomination. I wish I 
could vote for him, as I am the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Operations. I 
strongly support the State Department, its mission, its personnel, and 
its programs. I have consistently defended its budget when others here 
or in the White House sought to cut it.
  I am pleased that Mr. Pompeo has said he wants to fill the vacant 
senior leadership positions at the State Department and that he 
recognizes that the United States has a duty to ``lead the calls for 
democracy, prosperity, and human rights around the world.'' But his 
record in Congress and his staunchly ideological views raise grave 
concerns about the policy direction he would give to those senior 
leaders. Given his record and beliefs, there is little reason to 
believe that he will be an effective or consistent defender of 
democracy and human rights abroad, particularly in the face of 
President Trump's abandonment of those values and principles.
  In many other respects, Mr. Pompeo's testimony before the Foreign 
Relations Committee had all the characteristics of a ``confirmation 
conversion,'' when he contradicted many of his previous statements and 
positions. As Senator Menendez asked, Which Pompeo are we voting for? 
The job of Secretary of State is too important, especially with Donald 
Trump in the Oval Office, to roll the dice and discount everything Mr. 
Pompeo has said in the past.
  If Mr. Pompeo is confirmed, as it appears he will be, I will make 
every effort to work with him to advance our foreign policy and 
national security interests, as I did with Secretary Tillerson after 
opposing his nomination, but given the impulsive and reckless 
statements and actions of this President and the upheaval at the State 
Department during the past year, we need a Secretary with the necessary 
temperament, values, and longstanding commitment to diplomacy and 
development. I hope he proves me wrong, but today I do not believe we 
have that in this nominee.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the 
nomination of Mike Pompeo to be our next Secretary of State.
  After considering his testimony before the Foreign Relations 
Committee, his work as Director of the CIA, and his record as a 
Congressman, I believe he doesn't possess the skillset necessary to be 
our country's top diplomat.
  The Secretary of State must be well-versed in the art of diplomacy. 
They must possess a deft touch necessary to

[[Page S2456]]

operate on the world stage. Unfortunately, Mr. Pompeo's record and his 
rhetoric show how ill matched he is for this position.
  Above all, I fear that he would only reinforce President Trump's 
worst impulses to lash out at our adversaries rather than pursue dogged 
diplomacy. This is particularly concerning when it comes to Iran. The 
Iran nuclear agreement is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever 
negotiated. It blocks Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, 
protecting our security and the security of our partners in the region. 
By all reports, it appears President Trump is set on walking away from 
the Iran nuclear agreement next month, even though Iran continues to 
abide by its strict terms.
  If confirmed, I don't believe Mr. Pompeo would even try to walk the 
President back from that foolish decision. Instead, he would most 
likely feed the President's desire to leave, not because of its merits, 
but simply because it was negotiated by President Obama.
  To be clear, if the United States abandons the agreement, we will do 
so on our own. Our international partners--including the United 
Kingdom, France and Germany--have said they will remain in the 
agreement so long as Iran complies with it. To date, the IAEA 
inspectors and our own intelligence community have all said that Iran 
remains in full compliance. When the nuclear agreement was signed, Iran 
was less than a year away from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
  Today, all of Iran's paths to a weapon--the plutonium, uranium and 
covert--are blocked. The fact that today Iran cannot obtain a nuclear 
bomb is in spite of Mr. Pompeo's efforts.
  During the negotiations leading up to the agreement, then-Congressman 
Pompeo not only called for the United States to abandon diplomatic 
efforts, he encouraged us to attack Iran. He said, ``It is under 2,000 
sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. This is not an 
insurmountable task for the coalition forces.''
  During his recent confirmation hearing, he was unable to source that 
claim or name which other nations would have joined our coalition. That 
is an especially perplexing position since our strongest allies were 
all negotiating alongside the United States at the time.
  After the nuclear agreement came into effect, Mr. Pompeo continued 
his campaign by sending the Supreme Leader a highly provocative letter. 
He taunted Tehran, asking for a visa to inspect Iran's nuclear 
facilities, monitor their elections, and receive a briefing on their 
ballistic missile programs. His publicity stunt only served to further 
inflame tensions between our countries.
  Finally, shortly after our elections and the day before he was 
nominated to be the Director of the CIA, he tweeted: ``I look forward 
to rolling back this disastrous deal with the world's largest state 
sponsor of terrorism.''
  When asked about his position during his confirmation hearing, Mr. 
Pompeo instead simply discounted the real and dangerous possibility 
that Iran would restart its nuclear weapons program if we abandon the 
agreement. I see no reason to believe his misinformed views have 
changed in the past year.
  As troubling as Mr. Pompeo's hostile view toward Iran is, I am 
equally concerned by his divisive remarks about minority groups within 
the United States. Following the Boston Marathon bombings, Mr. Pompeo 
falsely suggested Muslim Americans were complicit in the attacks. The 
following year, he characterized U.S. counterterrorism efforts as a 
struggle between Islam and Christianity.
  After the Supreme Court's landmark ruling legalizing same-sex 
marriage, Mr. Pompeo said the court's opinion was a ``shocking abuse of 
power'' that ``flies in the face of . . . our Constitution.'' He has 
also claimed that the ``ideal'' family has a father and mother, a 
shockingly outdated view of families here in the United States and 
around the world.
  Finally, the State Department plays a leading role in providing 
family planning assistance abroad. Under Mr. Pompeo, I fear the State 
Department will retreat from providing this vital assistance.
  As a Member of the House, Mr. Pompeo repeatedly cosponsored 
legislation to limit a woman's right to choose. Specifically, he 
supported bills to make abortion illegal nationwide, even in the case 
of rape.
  He also repeatedly supported the ``global gag rule,'' known as the 
Mexico City policy, which restricts U.S. funds to any foreign health 
clinic that provides abortion services, even if it is legal in that 
country.
  All too often, rape is considered a weapon of war. Our global health 
programming should not be restricted in a manner that ignores this ugly 
reality.
  The Secretary of State is charged with representing America's values 
to the world and must be committed to exhausting all means of diplomacy 
to avoid conflict. I don't believe Mr. Pompeo can do that and shouldn't 
be confirmed as Secretary of State.
  Therefore, I will vote no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I would like to address the nomination of 
Director Pompeo to be the next Secretary of State. I intend to vote 
against this nomination, and I would like to explain how I reached this 
conclusion.
  This was a difficult decision. I supported Director Pompeo's 
nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Director 
Pompeo is a talented individual who has spent his life in public 
service, but the job of Secretary of State requires different skill 
sets and experiences than that of Director of the Central Intelligence 
Agency.
  As such, the Senate has a constitutional responsibility to review 
Director Pompeo's qualifications anew with respect to this specific 
nomination. As I indicated, the role of the Secretary of State is 
significantly different from that of the CIA Director. The question 
before us is whether Director Pompeo has the right background, 
judgment, and independence to faithfully execute the duties of 
America's top diplomat. Using those criteria, I have to oppose this 
nomination.
  One of the first tasks for the next Secretary of State will be to 
rebuild the capabilities and morale of the Department of State. Over 
the last year and a half, the Department has struggled with widespread 
vacancies, drastic proposed budget cuts, a Foreign Service treated with 
contempt by the White House, and a failed reorganization effort under 
Secretary Tillerson. The result has been the hemorrhaging of decades of 
foreign policy expertise, the demoralization of those who continue to 
serve at State, and the marginalization of diplomacy as an instrument 
of national power.
  I question whether Director Pompeo is right for the task of reversing 
the damage wrought at the State Department. During his time in the 
House, then-Congressman Pompeo was a staunch supporter of Tea Party 
proposals to slash the very State Department programs that are critical 
for advancing our foreign policy and national security interests. 
During his confirmation hearing earlier this month, Director Pompeo 
declared his commitment to end the ``demoralizing'' vacancies at the 
State Department and strengthen the diplomatic corps. Even if Director 
Pompeo has had a late conversion on the road to his nomination for 
Secretary of State, it is not clear whether he will be any more 
successful than Secretary Tillerson was in gaining White House approval 
for his desired candidates for senior positions or convincing this 
President to listen to the advice of our experts at Foggy Bottom.
  My deeper concern is whether Director Pompeo is the right choice to 
carry out the Secretary of State's role as the lead advocate for 
diplomacy as a means of advancing our national interests.
  The need for effective diplomacy to solve our most pressing security 
challenges has never been greater. Today's national security threats 
are complex, including the reemergence of near-peer competitors Russia 
and China who seek to undermine the rules-based international order, 
regional challenges from rogue regimes in North Korea and Iran, and the 
continuing threat from violent extremist groups that seek to exploit 
ungoverned spaces to spread their destructive ideologies. Such 
challenges to our national security require a comprehensive strategy 
that coordinates military and nonmilitary tools of national power.

[[Page S2457]]

  I am concerned that President Trump's bellicose rhetoric and 
budgetary priorities indicate a predisposition for choosing military 
action over diplomatic solutions. Since September 11, we have asked our 
men and women in uniform to go above and beyond in addressing security 
and stability challenges globally, and they have responded 
magnificently. As we face expanding threats below the level of armed 
conflict and insecurity arising from regional destabilization, we need 
an increased focus on nonmilitary tools and diplomacy to prevent or 
mitigate these challenges. The next Secretary of State needs to be an 
effective counterpart for Defense Secretary Mattis in finding 
diplomatic solutions to the complex crises we face in Syria, the Middle 
East, North Africa, the South China Sea, and North Korea.
  Based on his record, I am not convinced that Director Pompeo will 
serve as the strong voice for diplomacy that our military and our 
country need to counter these pressing threats. Time and again, 
Director Pompeo has chosen to reject negotiations and call for the use 
of force. His track record calls into question his ability to be an 
effective advocate for diplomatic solutions that are in U.S. national 
interests.
  With regard to the nuclear deal with Iran, known as the joint 
comprehensive plan of action, or JCPOA, Director Pompeo has called for 
``rolling back'' this multilateral agreement that was carefully 
negotiated alongside the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and 
China. Director Pompeo's opposition to the Iran nuclear deal runs 
counter to views of Defense Secretary Mattis and most senior military 
leadership. As a congressman, Director Pompeo sought to undermine 
negotiations with Iran and advocated for military airstrikes to destroy 
its nuclear program. During his confirmation hearing, Director Pompeo 
indicated that he would not push back against President Trump's 
reckless impulse to withdraw from the JCPOA in mid-May, saying instead 
that he would ``recommend to the President that we do our level best to 
work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal.'' 
This response is in spite of the fact that, by all accounts, the JCPOA 
is working as intended and Iran is verifiably meeting its commitments 
under the deal.
  Withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal would also have a profoundly 
harmful effect on our nuclear negotiations with North Korea. North 
Korea has little reason to engage with us in a serious dialogue if it 
suspects that we may later withdraw unilaterally from any agreement 
without cause. During the Trump administration, the risk of conflict 
with North Korea has increased to unprecedented levels, and the 
diplomatic preparations over the coming weeks will be critical to the 
success of President Trump's upcoming summit with the North Korean 
leader. However, should that summit fail to produce meaningful 
constraints on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, I am concerned that the 
administration will use this failure as a pretext for pivoting to a 
preemptive strike against North Korea, and I am not confident that 
Director Pompeo will be effective in urging restraint by President 
Trump in opposing military action while seeking to redouble efforts to 
find a negotiated solution.
  Perhaps the most difficult role of any Secretary of State is being an 
independent voice willing to say no to the President. I recognize that 
some say that one of Director Pompeo's highest qualifications for 
Secretary of State is his close relationship with the President because 
foreign leaders will know that, when Director Pompeo speaks, he has the 
backing of President Trump. Director Pompeo's alleged ``rapport'' with 
President Trump raises concerns that he will only tell the President 
what the President wants to hear and will not provide objective, 
nuanced policy recommendations based on U.S. foreign policy interests. 
I believe we are already seeing this dynamic with respect to the JCPOA.
  Unfortunately, we have seen this scenario before. Early in the George 
W. Bush administration, the President surrounded himself with like-
minded advisers who were predisposed to distorting the intelligence on 
Iraq, and, as a result, they failed to present nuanced policy options 
on the march to war against Saddam Hussein. I am concerned that we will 
find, in hindsight, that Director Pompeo's closeness to President Trump 
will prove less an asset and more a shared blind spot that will lead to 
simplistic policy recommendations, an unwillingness to stand up to the 
President when he is wrong, and an indulgence of the President's 
impulsive preference for strategy-free displays of military force.
  The President needs a top diplomat who will provide independent 
foreign policy recommendations, will press to exhaust all possible 
diplomatic avenues for the safety of our military and citizens, and 
will boldly represent our core American values. While I believe that 
Director Pompeo is an honorable and decent man, who has provided life-
long service to our country, he is not the right nominee for Secretary 
of State at this time. As such, I will oppose Director Pompeo's 
nomination for Secretary of State.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the 
nomination of Mike Pompeo for Secretary of State.
  After closely reviewing Mr. Pompeo's record and past statements, I 
have concluded that he is not the right person to serve as Secretary of 
State. While I respect him and will work closely with him, I cannot 
support his nomination.
  The world continues to look to America for our leadership on 
diplomacy and bringing our allies together. That includes upholding 
international agreements, such as the Paris accord, which Mr. Pompeo 
has opposed. It also includes respect for people of different ethnic 
and religious backgrounds, and Mr. Pompeo's past statements about 
Muslims and immigrants greatly concern me.
  While I voted in favor of confirming Mr. Pompeo to be the Director of 
the CIA and thank him for his service, Secretary of State is a 
different job with different responsibilities.
  Thank you.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the President's 
nomination of Director Mike Pompeo to serve as Secretary of State.
  Director Pompeo has a very long record of public service which has 
prepared him for this very important position. Let's start at the 
beginning.
  Director Pompeo was top of his class at the U.S. Military Academy at 
West Point, and he served honorably in the U.S. Army. He is also a 
graduate of Harvard Law School. In Congress, Director Pompeo was a 
leader on issues of national security and foreign relations. Finally, 
and most recently, as Director of the CIA, Director Pompeo has been a 
successful leader of the world's best intelligence professionals who 
work to resolve some of our Nation's most sensitive and difficult 
problems.
  I have heard on the floor of the Senate recently a number of my 
colleagues who have called into question whether he should serve as our 
Nation's top diplomat. He has served in the military. He has served as 
Director of the CIA. What I want to do is go back to the time he spent 
at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
  I wish to remind the body that in the military, we serve in many 
missions, but one of them does include diplomacy. As the Presiding 
Officer understands, as military members--whether a marine or a 
soldier--oftentimes during conflicts you stand shoulder-to-shoulder 
with members of other countries. You must have an understanding of the 
cultural effects and the cultural differences between our nations, and 
you work to resolve problems. Whether with the indigenous population or 
whether it is within the military ranks, we serve as diplomats.
  At West Point, I know Director Pompeo learned this lesson very well. 
Many of us--whether you go through a military academy or whether you 
are going through a Reserve Officer Training Corps Program at a 
university like I did at Iowa State--you learn about what we call the 
instruments of national power. Those instruments of national power are 
called DIME. It is an acronym, D-I-M-E.

[[Page S2458]]

  D stands for diplomacy. We learn that, again, as members of the 
military and as officers in our Nation's military--so diplomacy. The I 
is information. The M, of course, is military and military action. The 
E stands for economic action, such as sanctions.
  Within the realm of diplomacy, we are taught and we work with 
Ambassadors, and we work through Embassies. We are taught about the 
realm of negotiations and treaties and various policies that affect 
different nations around the globe. We are engaging in international 
forums. Again, working in the defense space, of course, we have many 
opportunities to engage with leaders from other countries. Diplomacy--
it is the very basis of the instruments of national power that we all 
learn.
  I know Director Pompeo, in his capacity--whether serving at the CIA 
or going back many years to when he served in the U.S. Army, quite 
admirably, or back at the Academy when he was first taught those 
instruments of national power, or DIME, that he is well-versed in 
working with many nations in very difficult circumstances. Again, 
Director Pompeo has a very long record of public service.
  Director Pompeo also has had very strong relationships, and he values 
those relationships. His relationship with Secretary of Defense Mattis 
will prove invaluable as he works to ensure peace through strength. 
Additionally, I am confident he will inspire and lead the men and women 
of our State Department to achieve results for our Nation, and those 
results will be centered around diplomacy.
  Director Pompeo understands the threats we face as a nation every 
day. During a time when the threats against the United States continue 
to grow around the globe, it is important--important--for President 
Trump to have his full diplomatic and national security team in place. 
We must do this. Diplomacy. Diplomacy.
  Director Pompeo is also the right person to serve as our top 
diplomat. He will rise to meet the challenges and foster the 
relationships we need around the world to keep our Nation free, secure, 
and prosperous. Again, I go back to the instruments of national power: 
D-I-M-E. The first is always diplomacy. Director Pompeo understands, 
and I am glad that we as a body will be taking up his confirmation vote 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this eminently qualified man as our 
next Secretary of State.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.