[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 150 (Wednesday, September 18, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5570-S5571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CONFIRMATION OF JOHN RAKOLTA

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to express my reservations about 
the nomination of John Rakolta, Jr., to be Ambassador to the United 
Arab Emirates. Historically, the United States has sent career foreign 
service officers to serve as ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates, 
men and women well-versed in the complexities and challenges facing the 
region. Mr. Rakolta would be the first political nominee to serve as 
Ambassador to this critical post. The U.S. mission in the United Arab 
Emirates has benefitted from experienced, trained diplomats who can 
adroitly navigate our important security partnership while also 
addressing some of our major policy disagreements, particularly 
regarding involvement in conflicts throughout the Middle East.
  In nominating Mr. Rakolta, this administration is putting a political 
nominee with no diplomatic experience at the helm of one of our most 
critical Middle East posts. While Mr. Rakolta possesses extensive 
business experience, he lacks knowledge of the arms sales process, 
security commitments, and complex diplomacy that we should demand of 
our emissaries to the United Arab Emirates. This is a risky venture 
that could jeopardize our effectiveness in the region. It also is part 
of a concerning trend that has reduced the number of career ambassadors 
serving abroad. The historically even split between political and 
career nominees is becoming further skewed toward political 
ambassadors.
  Mr. Rakolta's nomination is also indicative of the lack of due 
diligence and forthrightness demonstrated by a number of this 
administration's nominees. It took months for the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee to obtain an accurate and complete picture of the 
extent of Mr. Rakolta's business holdings, litigation history, and the 
role he played at a questionable nonprofit, ostensibly related to 
economic development.
  Mr. Rakolta initially failed to include key details in the paperwork 
he submitted to the committee. He did not disclose dozens of companies 
that he had owned or managed, including many with an international 
presence, and omitted dozens of foreign lawsuits, among other details. 
More concerning, however, he did not disclose that he had served on the 
board of a nonprofit that had been the subject of intense public 
scrutiny, including questions about payments the board approved for its 
executive director. These issues and omissions not only slowed down Mr. 
Rakolta's nomination, but raised concerns about Mr. Rakolta's candor 
and forthrightness with the committee.
  The committee relies on nominees to be transparent and forthcoming 
about relevant information to ensure that there are not actual or 
potential conflicts of interest or issues that call into question a 
nominee's fitness for public service. When these details are obscured, 
omitted, or hard to obtain, it further erodes the confidence that a 
nominee is well-qualified and committed to serve in a given position. 
Mr. Rakolta's failure to provide accurate details to the committee did 
not inspire confidence about his diligence or transparency. Further, 
the details that the committee did obtain raise concerns about the type 
of leadership that

[[Page S5571]]

he would bring to a critical U.S. embassy. Therefore, I opposed his 
nomination.

                          ____________________