[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 68 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2458-S2460]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Remembering Matthew Pollard

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise to note 
the passing of, and acknowledgement of, the service of a valued member 
of the Intelligence Committee staff. On the evening of April 23, while 
attending a conference on behalf of the committee, Matthew Pollard lost 
his life to a heart attack. He was 52 years old. Matt is survived by 
his mother, three older sisters, and a young son Bradley, who was the 
cherished one.
  Matt served honorably in the Army as an intelligence officer and 
twice deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, from 2003 to 
2004, and Operation Enduring Freedom, from 2009 to 2010.
  Matt was smart. He was really smart. He held a master's degree in 
strategic intelligence and mechanical engineering and was close to 
completing his third master's degree.
  Matt had one of those jobs, like many who serve on my committee, that 
you can't talk about very much. That silence did not accurately reflect 
the value he brought to the Intelligence Committee. He filled a 
critical role. He was the majority staff member responsible for 
conducting oversight over the Nation's overhead architecture. In 
layman's terms, he knew satellites. Matt knew a lot about satellites. 
He knew about what they were capable of and what they weren't capable 
of. He knew what they cost and, perhaps more importantly, what they 
should not have cost.
  Matt also had the unique ability to explain the unexplainable, which, 
as many here know, is a rare skill. Matt had a mind and an eye for 
detail, both technical and budgetary. He prided himself in finding ways 
to cut the costs of those fantastically expensive programs.
  On our committee, he had a discerning eye for calling out contractors 
when he saw deficiencies. Matt was good-natured with his colleagues in 
industry. He was tough, but those same colleagues loved him. Matt would 
half smile, half frown at a presentation, and you could see contractors 
lower their heads and shuffle their feet a little bit because they knew 
Matt was right. He was universally respected and liked by all who 
encountered him, whether they sat on the same side of the table or 
whether they were on the other side. When Matt passed away on Monday, 
word literally spread around the country in a matter of hours. His loss 
is devastating to many, including the committee, the members, and the 
staff.
  Matt actually served twice on the staff of the Intelligence 
Committee. He began his first tour with us in March of 2002. That first 
tour lasted 11 years. Matt couldn't stay away from the Senate for long, 
though, and he gave in to tremendous pressure from the Appropriations 
Committee to join them, which he did in April of 2014.
  Matt's drive to serve was strong. When I became chairman in January 
of 2015, I had one objective: persuading him to rejoin the Intelligence 
Committee, and it was one of my top priorities. I am eternally grateful 
that I was able to lure him away from the appropriators and know, 
without a doubt, he was one of the strongest members of the 
Intelligence Committee staff.
  Matt studied. Matt inquired. He never backed down from a debate. Matt 
spoke his mind and spoke truth to power, and he did it often without 
bias. We loved him for all of it, and we will sorely miss Matt.
  However, more importantly than the values he brought to the 
committee, to the U.S. Senate, and to the Intelligence Committee was 
how Matt conducted himself as a person and as a father. Matt loved his 
son Bradley. That is probably what I will remember most about Matt. 
Bradley was Matt's world--Boy Scouts, campouts, soccer games. If 
Bradley was involved, Matt was there. He was a great dad.
  We weren't surprised when we heard that Matt recently misjudged the 
forecast. Despite wearing only a T-shirt and shorts in 40-degree 
temperatures and whipping winds, he cheered loudly as Bradley played 
his first soccer game. This is one small example of his devotion to 
Bradley, whom he proudly referred to as ``my boy.''
  Bradley, I want to say thank you for sharing your father with us. We 
will forever be grateful.
  Given Matt's hours and portfolio, he, like many of the staff, often 
worked on the weekends, and Bradley was a regular presence in the 
committee, on those weekends, in the committee space. He often could be 
found playing board games with kids of other staffers who were also 
working weekends and similarly engaged in finding a work-life balance.
  Matt's devotion and generosity extended beyond Bradley. He was also 
known, on occasion, to lead many adventures around the Capitol. He 
would take him through the complex with small herds of children in tow 
so their parents could actually get some work done. Kids would come 
back full of stories with ``guess what we did'' to their parents.
  We at the committee, and our sister committee on the House, will miss 
having the benefit of his wisdom and his experience. So, too, will 
those in the intelligence community who worked with Matt, to include 
the senior leadership at some of the most important agencies.
  While the American people may have never known Matt by name, 
hopefully, this statement will give you some insight into his character 
and, more importantly, the contributions he made to our Nation's 
security. We will miss his expertise, his infectious sense of humor 
and, most importantly, his friendship.
  Mr. President, before I yield, I would like to turn to Senator Blunt.
  Mr. BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I certainly agree with and really understand and appreciate all the 
comments the chairman just made about

[[Page S2459]]

Matt Pollard. He was the person I worked most closely with in the intel 
community. He served his country his whole adult life. He loved his 
country. He loved his work. He understood the importance of protecting, 
advancing, and defending who we are.
  The chairman pointed out his real dedication to his son. Often, Matt 
would come over to my office for a topline indication of what we were 
going to be doing when we got to the Intel Committee. Since you really 
can't talk about that until you get to the Intel Committee, a sure way 
to get a good conversation going was to say: Tell me about that son of 
yours. He would have chapter and verse of what had happened in the last 
few days of the things he was doing with Brad.
  He was really appreciated by his coworkers. I talked to the Chaplain 
yesterday. He went to see our Intel team moments after they found out 
about the loss of Matt Pollard, and the Chaplain was impressed by the 
emotional sense of loss this whole team felt.
  He knew more about his area of expertise than anybody on our staff. 
We will miss that, but we will mostly miss him. We are grateful for his 
service, grateful for his dedication to his country and his son and the 
future of both his country and his family.
  I yield back to the chairman.
  Mr. BURR. I thank my colleague Senator Blunt.
  Mr. President, we are saddened, but we are blessed. We are saddened 
at the loss, and we are blessed that we participated in a small part of 
Matt Pollard's life on Earth.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we are about to vote on cloture on the 
nomination for Secretary of State. I, once again, just to summarize, 
express my opposition to Mike Pompeo serving as this Nation's top 
diplomat.
  As I said earlier this week in committee, I am genuinely disappointed 
to be casting a vote against the 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, which I outlined in detail yesterday on the 
floor and will not go through in detail here again.
  I do want to say, though, in listening to the remarks of some of my 
colleagues this week, I was struck by how easily some characterize 
legitimate concerns about a nominee as a purely partisan act. I was 
struck by suggestions that somehow Democrats obstructed this 
nomination.
  Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committee agreed to every request 
of the chairman in the process of considering this nomination. We held 
hearings on the date the chairman requested. We held the business 
meeting to vote on the nomination on the date the chairman requested. 
We sent the nomination to the floor. Yesterday, we had an opportunity 
to debate the nomination on the Senate floor, and today we will vote. 
That is not obstruction. That is a fair and appropriate process--agreed 
on in a cooperative manner.
  Democrats have worked with Republicans in a constructive manner to 
confirm a wide range of nominations. We voted for the President's 
nominees for Cabinet members. Nikki Haley was confirmed as the U.N. 
Ambassador, 96 to 4; John Kelly was confirmed as the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, 88 to 11; and Deputy Secretary of State John 
Sullivan was confirmed, 94 to 6. This body confirmed Secretary of 
Defense Mattis by a vote of 98 to 1--98 to 1.
  It seems Republicans complain about Democratic votes only when they 
don't get what they want. I would say it is the President who is 
politicizing many of these nominees by nominating people he must know 
cannot draw broad bipartisan support. There are many qualified 
candidates this President could have nominated for this critical 
position, whom I am sure my colleagues and I--as well as others--would 
have been happy to confirm.
  Let me close by providing more actual facts. In the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee alone, we have sent 86 nominees to the Senate 
floor, and 77 of them have been confirmed, mostly through unanimous 
consent. It is the Trump administration that has failed to keep pace on 
nominations. Of the 172 Senate-confirmed positions at the State 
Department, our Embassies, and USAID, the Trump administration has not 
nominated anyone to fill 76 of those vacancies. They include 
ambassadorial vacancies left unfilled, which include critical countries 
of great strategic importance like South Korea, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, 
Saudi Arabia, Sweden, South Africa, and Turkey.
  The committee had agreed to hold a nomination hearing for three 
nominees just this past week, when the administration asked that the 
hearing be indefinitely postponed. Let us not forget that Republican 
leadership can bring up any nominee on the floor at any time they 
choose. This suggestion that not supporting a nominee you believe is 
unqualified is a purely partisan act is ridiculous, based upon the 
facts. What is partisan is to hold up a qualified nominee for Justice 
to the Supreme Court, like Merrick Garland for 295 days, without a 
hearing or even a vote. So please save me the sanctimonious voices of 
this question of partisanship.
  It is the article I right of this body to vet nominees and cast the 
vote they think is correct. I believe strongly that the Congress plays 
a vital role in the check and balance of any executive branch, and I 
believe that regardless of who is sitting in the White House. That is 
what article I is all about.
  I close simply by saying, we will continue working to advance those 
nominees who are qualified. We will continue to work with the chairman, 
as we have, and we will support those nominees who truly are qualified. 
Even if we do not agree, we certainly want to be of support in the 
mission to make sure America is safe and secure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for, as he 
mentioned, allowing this process to go forward and for our being able 
to vote on this nominee today. I think all of us are aware that there 
is a NATO summit where foreign ministers are going to be present. Our 
passing him out today will allow Director Pompeo, Secretary of State 
Pompeo, to be a participant in a meeting that needs to take place. So I 
thank him for his cooperation and, certainly, for his point of view.
  Let me offer a different point of view, though, as it relates to this 
nominee.
  I think he is one of the most outstanding nominees we could have for 
this position. I did not know him well when the process began. I knew 
he had done a very good job as the Director of the Central Intelligence 
Agency. Yet I have to tell you that through the process of his going 
through the confirmation hearings and the conversations we have had and 
the meetings we have had, I think he is going to be exemplary. Let me 
just go through his resume briefly as I know people are here, ready to 
vote.
  He graduated first in his class at West Point. He served our Nation 
in uniform and patrolled the Iron Curtain. It was there that he learned 
about diplomacy and the effect that diplomacy can have on the world. 
What I have found from those individuals who have worn the uniform, 
from those people we hold on a pedestal like our Presiding Officer, is 
that they respect diplomacy more than most anyone else because they 
know it is the thing that keeps our men and women from being in harm's 
way. I know this nominee believes strongly in the role of diplomacy and 
has seen it in action firsthand on the ground.
  After serving in the military, he graduated from Harvard Law School, 
where he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then founded his 
own company, acting as the CEO. He became the president of another 
company after that. So he has served in the private sector. He was 
elected four times in Kansas to represent the Fourth District in the 
U.S. House of Representatives.
  Let me just say this. Sometimes people say things when they are in 
public office and when they are running campaigns, and I know something 
has been said about that. I will say we confirmed Secretary Kerry and 
Secretary Clinton by 94 votes, and I can assure you that during their 
campaigns, they may have said some things that Republicans didn't 
particularly care for. Yet

[[Page S2460]]

we went ahead and confirmed them with 94 votes on the floor.
  For the last 15 months, he has served our Nation as the Director of 
the Central Intelligence Agency. I think everyone knows how he has run 
that Agency, and I think everyone knows the culture that he has built 
there. Right now, the State Department has a terrible culture. The 
morale is terrible. As my friend the ranking member mentioned, a lot of 
positions have not been filled, but they also feel like they have not 
had a leader in some time who has really stood behind them and raised 
them up in order to leverage our diplomatic efforts around the world. I 
believe this particular nominee will be excellently suited for that. He 
has demonstrated that at the CIA.
  I strongly support his nomination. With that, I look forward to the 
vote. I look forward to his serving our Nation. I don't know of a 
person in the United States of America who could have more current 
knowledge about what is happening around the world in his current role. 
As we know, he has already met with the North Koreans. We have known 
for some time that the CIA has been our contact, our back channel, with 
the North Koreans. He is the perfect person to come in at this time and 
lead those efforts diplomatically.
  I yield the floor.
  I also yield back any remaining time.