[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 129 (Tuesday, July 30, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5182-S5183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of William Shaw Stickman IV, of Pennsylvania, to be United 
     States District Judge for the Western District of 
     Pennsylvania.
         Mitch McConnell, John Boozman, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, 
           Pat Roberts, Mike Rounds, Thom Tillis, Roger F. Wicker, 
           Cindy Hyde-Smith, Kevin Cramer, John Hoeven, Rob 
           Portman, Dan Sullivan, Chuck Grassley, Richard Burr, 
           John Thune, Roy Blunt.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of William Shaw Stickman IV, of Pennsylvania, to be United 
States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the 
Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. 
Klobuchar), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the Senator 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), and 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 251 Ex.]

                                YEAS--57

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Casey
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--31

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     King
     Leahy
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bennet
     Booker
     Cassidy
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Isakson
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Sanders
     Warner
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 
31.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                       Nomination of Kelly Craft

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the nomination 
of Ms. Kelly Craft to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to the United 
Nations.
  As a firm believer in the strength and power of U.S. diplomacy, there 
are three main reasons I oppose Ambassador Craft's nomination.
  First and foremost, she lacks the experience necessary to stand up 
for American values and promote our national security on the global 
stage.
  Second, during her brief diplomatic tenure in Canada, she posted so 
many absences that I cannot describe it as anything less than a 
dereliction of duty.
  Ambassador Craft has also been unable or unwilling to convince the 
Senate that she will fully separate her professional obligations from 
her family's business interests. We cannot have an ambassador to the 
United Nations who risks using this incredibly influential position in 
ways that could benefit her own family's finances.
  This position is one of the most important diplomatic posts in our 
government. It is a global stage, and every leader who serves in this 
role must always put country first.
  Since its founding, some of our most distinguished public servants 
have represented the United States at the U.N.: George H. W. Bush, 
Jeane Kirkpatrick, Thomas Pickering, Madeleine Albright, John 
Negroponte, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power.
  These Americans brought to the table years of experience as former 
Ambassadors, senior State Department officials, National Security 
Council staff, and more. Ambassador Craft simply cannot match the 
foreign policy and national security expertise offered by these 
distinguished leaders.
  Before serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, she had no previous 
significant foreign policy experience or executive experience at all. 
It would seem that her most relevant credential is that she, along with 
her husband, contributed more than $1 million to the President's 
campaign.
  During the confirmation process, Ambassador Craft's performance 
suggested a deep lack of knowledge and applicable experience.
  I want to be clear. This is not a judgment on her character. This is 
merely an assessment of her ability to represent the United States of 
America on the world stage where she will grapple with some of the most 
complex and challenging foreign policy issues of our time.
  When asked at her hearing to identify the most pressing issues facing 
the U.N. and comment on how the United States could leverage the U.N. 
to pursue our national foreign policy priorities, Craft displayed no 
sophisticated understanding of the many challenges confronting our 
country.
  She failed to mention North Korea's aggression on nuclear 
proliferation. She failed to mention ongoing threats from Iran. She 
failed to mention China's growing power and Russia's continued malign 
influence. When asked about the two-state solution, she could not 
articulate a viewpoint. When asked by Senator Paul whether she believed 
the Iraq war was a mistake, she replied that she was ``not going to 
second guess the . . . Bush administration.''
  In response to Senator Cardin's question about the threat of climate 
change, she said that the United States does not need to be a member of 
the

[[Page S5183]]

Paris climate agreement in order to show leadership. All the more 
disturbing are her past comments on climate change, such as when she 
said, ``I believe there are scientists on both sides that are 
accurate.''
  Taken together, these answers should alarm anyone who hopes that the 
United States can use our power, our influence, and our leadership 
position to promote our interests and answer the great challenges of 
our time. Simply put, never in our Nation's history has a President 
nominated such an underqualified person to this critical post just for 
being a donor.
  Ms. Craft also lacks the professionalism needed to be the U.N. 
Ambassador. As our Ambassador to Canada, she had one job: to represent 
the United States in Canada. Yet, during her time in Ottawa, the 
defining characteristic of her service appears to be how little time 
she actually spent there.
  The numbers speak for themselves.
  During the 608 days she served as U.S. Ambassador in Ottawa, she 
spent 357 days outside of Canada. Let me repeat that. During her 21 
months assigned to Ottawa, she spent an entire year out of Canada.
  For my colleagues who insist she was engaged in trade negotiations, 
the State Department's own records suggest otherwise. Indeed, the 
record shows she spent only 40 days on travel related to USMCA. She 
did, however, spend 210 days at her homes in Kentucky or Oklahoma. I 
repeat, she spent 7 of her 21 months as our Ambassador in Canada at 
home in the United States. The last time I checked, not a single round 
of the USMCA negotiations took place in Kentucky or Oklahoma.
  Additionally, while Ms. Craft claims that she always received 
approval from her travel, records show that she spent at least 11 days 
out of the country without State Department approval. Should she be 
confirmed as Ambassador of the U.N., I think it is very fair to say 
that if an international crisis erupts, we might more likely find her 
in Kentucky than New York City.
  Ambassador Craft's absences represent a total abdication of her 
responsibility as the head of the U.S. Embassy in Canada--one of our 
Nation's most vital allies.
  In one troubling instance, during the month when the Trump 
administration shut down the Federal Government, Ambassador Craft was 
in Ottawa for only 2 days. Rather than provide leadership to Embassy 
personnel during uncertain times, she was at home in Kentucky. Perhaps 
she thought she was nonessential personnel.
  Finally, Ms. Craft has also displayed a lack of diligence when it 
comes to preventing conflicts of interest. I know this administration 
has sunk to some new lows when it comes to mixing family business with 
national security, but that doesn't mean it is OK. Norms are only as 
strong as our will to stand up and defend them. That is why we must 
push back against self-promotion at the expense of the American people.
  We also know that Ambassador Craft's husband, Joe Craft, runs the 
second largest coal producer in the Eastern United States and has 
lobbied the EPA to roll back regulations against air and water 
pollution. Ms. Craft insisted to the committee that her husband ``plays 
no role whatsoever in official U.S. government business,'' but email 
and calendar records tell a different story. When Ambassador Craft 
needed information about a U.S. environmental project, she asked her 
husband--not Embassy employees--to connect her to former EPA 
Administrator Scott Pruitt. When the EPA sent the requested information 
to the Ambassador, they included her spouse on the response. In 
addition, according to official calendars, Mr. Craft participated in at 
least four meetings with U.S. or Canadian Government energy and 
environmental officials. The potential conflicts of interest are 
staggering.
  The nomination of Ms. Craft to this position underscores the Trump 
administration's total lack of respect for the work of diplomacy, for 
our diplomats, and for the United Nations.
  Taken together, Ambassador Craft's lack of experience, her 
dereliction of duty and excessive absences in Ottawa, and her 
unwillingness to address potential conflicts of interest render her 
unfit to serve as our Ambassador to the United Nations.
  In a world of growing challenges, the American people deserve a 
serious, thoughtful, and proven leader to represent their interests at 
the United Nations. They deserve a leader who can leverage the United 
Nations to advance our national security interests and ultimately build 
a safer, more stable, prosperous world. They deserve a leader who will 
put the interests of the people over the profits of their family. Kelly 
Knight Craft is not that leader. For those reasons, I will vote no on 
this nomination and urge my colleagues to join me.

                          ____________________