[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 27, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2217-S2220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                    NOMINATION OF COLIN HACKETT KAHL

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the 
nomination of Colin Kahl to serve as Undersecretary of Defense for 
Policy.
  Our Nation needs leaders at the Department of Defense who are not 
driven by a partisan agenda and are committed to making sure our troops 
have all the resources and support they need to succeed. We need 
leaders who understand that our adversaries are regimes like those in 
Communist China and Iran and that our friends are countries like Israel 
and its partners in the Middle East. That is not Dr. Kahl. I have grave 
concerns about Dr. Kahl's lack of support for one of our great allies, 
Israel, weakness toward Communist China and desire to rejoin the 
disastrous Iran Deal.
  The Undersecretary of Defense for Policy serves as the Defense 
Secretary's top national security adviser, a position that requires 
sound judgement and an even temperament. Dr. Kahl's history of partisan 
rhetoric makes him unfit for this position.
  For all these reasons, I oppose Mr. Kahl's nomination and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Colin Kahl's 
nomination for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and I advise my 
colleagues to do the same, as we are getting ready to take a vote on 
this very important position in the Pentagon. That, to me, is one of 
the most important positions we have at the Department of Defense.
  While I have many policy disagreements with Dr. Kahl, which I have 
discussed at length with him, I want to say I have a long history of 
working across the aisle, with Democrats and Republicans, on defense 
issues, even with those with whom I don't agree on their policies. As a 
matter of fact, the Presiding Officer and I have a very strong working 
relationship, and we don't agree on a lot of issues, particularly on 
issues of the military.
  I serve on the Armed Services Committee, and I take these matters 
very seriously. They are some of the main reasons I ran for the U.S. 
Senate 6\1/2\ years ago. I focus a lot on military personnel, uniform 
and civilian, whom we put in the Pentagon and who have this enormous 
responsibility to oversee the Department of Defense.
  Whether they are Assistant Secretaries, Under Secretaries, admirals, 
or generals, I try to understand where they are coming from, and I have 
a record of strongly supporting almost all of them, whether they have 
been in the Obama administration, the Trump administration, or even are 
in the Biden administration. For example, I not only supported the 
Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, knowing that I wasn't going to 
agree with him on everything, but I actually introduced him at his 
confirmation hearing because I served with him in the military, and I 
know he is a man of honor and character. I strongly supported the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kath Hicks, given her background and 
knowledge. Yet some nominees I have not and I will not support, 
particularly in this area that is so important to our Nation's defense. 
I will object to these people because, like Dr. Kahl, I don't believe 
he has the temperament or judgment to do the job.
  Like I said, I have looked at and focused on dozens and dozens of 
members with regard to their temperament and judgment who need Senate 
confirmation to the Department of Defense. The vast, vast majority, 
Democrat or Republican, I have supported but not this one. And this is 
a really important position. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 
is essentially the No. 3 position in the Pentagon.
  As I mentioned, it is my view and, I believe, the view of most of my 
colleagues, at least on this side of the aisle, that Dr. Kahl does not 
have the temperament or judgment. In fact, I believe that he has the 
potential to be a liability to our national security and our defense 
and not to be viewed favorably by the men and women he is supposed to 
lead.
  Let me talk about temperament and give a little bit of background.
  Not even a year ago, a number of Senate Democrats, my colleagues, 
wrote of the official who was nominated by the Trump administration for 
this same position, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, BG 
Anthony Tata. The letter that was signed by a number of my Senate 
Democratic colleagues, many of whom are on the Committee on Armed 
Services, focused on that nominee's record of ``offensive and 
inflammatory comments which would disqualify you from serving in your 
current position and the position for which you have been nominated.'' 
That is one of the quotes. Remember, this was for the same position but 
with the Trump administration.
  This letter also read that he had made inflammatory remarks regarding 
the President--that would be President Obama--and inflammatory remarks 
regarding rhetoric for Members of Congress as well. Again, that was 
last year. This is the standard that was being used.
  This letter goes on to read:

       Your multiple past statements cannot be dismissed as simple 
     aberration.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
this letter dated July 24, 2020
       There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
     printed in the Record as follows:


[[Page S2218]]




                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2020.
     Brigadier General (ret.) Anthony J. Tata,
     Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of Defense,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Brigadier General Tata: We write to urge that you 
     withdraw your nomination to be Under Secretary of Defense for 
     Policy at the Department of Defense (the Department) and 
     resign your current position as a senior advisor. Your record 
     of offensive and inflammatory comments disqualifies you from 
     serving in your current position and the position for which 
     you have been nominated.
       If confirmed by the Senate to be Under Secretary of Defense 
     for Policy, you would become ``the principal official 
     reporting to the Secretary of Defense who is responsible for 
     policy development and planning [. . .], lead[ing] the 
     formulation and coordination of national security and defense 
     policy with the Department of Defense [. . .], integrat[ing] 
     policies and plans to achieve desired objectives [. . . and] 
     build[ing] partnerships and defense cooperation with U.S. 
     friends and allies. In other words, you would have 
     significant, wide-ranging influence on the policies and 
     activities of the Pentagon and defense relationships with our 
     most critical allies and partners.
       Anyone nominated to be a high-ranking Pentagon official 
     must be qualified and also a person of high character whose 
     record is consistent with the values of our country and those 
     of the U.S. military. Nominees should see the value 
     diversity, inclusion, and unity bring to our institutions. 
     Unfortunately, your history of public remarks does not meet 
     this standard. In 2018, you said that Islam is the ``most 
     oppressive violent religion I know of,'' and that the 2015 
     agreement to block Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon alone 
     is more than enough evidence of [former President Barack 
     Obama's] drive to subvert U.S. national interests to Islam 
     and a globalist agenda. You called President Obama a 
     ``terrorist leader'' and alleged that the former president 
     ``made no secret of his belief that a weaker America made for 
     a stronger world. Moreover, you falsely claimed that 
     President Obama ``is a Muslim--repeating a claim used by 
     then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and others who 
     attempt to incite anti-Muslim prejudice and otherize Islam by 
     suggesting it is an inferior religion and synonymous with 
     terrorism. You also said in a now-deleted tweet on July 2, 
     2018, ``Never a doubt. Among dozens of clues, Obama supported 
     Russian meddling in 2016 election & influenced Israeli 
     elections to try to oust Netanyahu & help Hamas & Muslim 
     brotherhood U.S. really did have Manchurian Candidate in 
     White House.
       Unfortunately, your inflammatory remarks did not stop 
     there. You reserved further dishonorable and disqualifying 
     rhetoric for members of Congress as well. For example, you 
     claimed that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congresswoman Maxine 
     Waters ``have always been the same violent extremist'' and 
     referred to Congresswoman Waters in particular as a ``vicious 
     race baiting racist.'' Only after your nomination became 
     public and reports exposed your repugnant statements, many of 
     which you deleted, you walked them back in a recent letter to 
     the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman and Ranking 
     Member. In that letter, you reportedly refer to your 
     offensive tweets as an ``aberration in a four-decade thread 
     of faithful public service. Furthermore, you noted that 
     despite your ``strong record of inclusivity and 
     bipartisanship in my commentary,'' you ``did misspeak in 2018 
     on Twitter in hyperbolic conversations'' and that ``[t]here 
     is no excuse for those comments, for which I take complete 
     responsibility and also fully retract and denounce.''
       Your letter to committee leadership appears to be a 
     conveniently timed retraction by someone who has suddenly 
     realized his nomination is in jeopardy. But your multiple 
     past statements cannot be dismissed simply as an aberration. 
     No one with a record of repeated, repugnant statements like 
     yours should be nominated to serve in a senior position of 
     public trust at the Pentagon. Your views are wholly 
     incompatible with the U.S. military's values.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter. We call on you 
     to withdraw your nomination.

  Mr. SULLIVAN. You have almost the identical situation here. What 
happened with General Tata is that his nomination, for a lot of these 
reasons, was withdrawn by the Trump administration. Yet now you have 
the same, almost identical issues with this nominee, and when I showed 
this letter to my Democratic colleagues, they were like, ``Oh, no. 
That's OK.'' It is not OK. It is not OK.
  So let's talk about temperament and tweets with Dr. Kahl.
  Really, the issue here is, is he more of a political hack who is 
tweeting all of the time--he tweets quite a lot--or is he somebody with 
the temperament of a partisan internet troll, or is he a measured 
national security professional who can lead the Pentagon in the No. 3 
position? Unfortunately, I think it is the former issue, not the 
latter. He has a long history of tweets.
  Just like the issues that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle objected to last year for this same position with the Trump 
administration's nominee, who was withdrawn for these reasons, here is 
just a small example of Dr. Kahl's tweets. These are the same issues 
that my colleagues were concerned about. There have been a lot of 
attacks on Members of Congress. OK. That is fine. We are in the public 
arena.
  Here is what he wrote:

       The GOP used to pride itself as the party that put values 
     front and center in U.S. foreign policy. Now they are the 
     party of ethnic cleansing.

  OK. I don't think we are the party of ethnic cleansing. That is 
pretty strong stuff.
  He tweeted more:

       Let's not mince words. The Trump administration kidnapped 
     children. The Republican Party, in terms of national 
     security, are now part of a ``death cult.''

  He retweeted the now discredited Lincoln Project attacks. I know a 
lot about them. It spent a lot of money in my race. It is a very 
discredited group of people, by the way. Very disturbed are some of 
their leaders at the Lincoln Project.
  He calls and tweets that the President of the United States, the 
Commander in Chief, is a moron, is repugnant, is a coward. He went on 
to call my colleagues in the Senate many additional things that I won't 
repeat here. He did this a lot.
  No matter what your views are of my colleagues or of the former 
President, words matter, and attacks matter. If you can't refrain from 
making them, maybe you don't belong in the No. 3 position in the 
Pentagon. That was the conclusion that pretty much everybody made last 
year, so why should it be different with this candidate? It shouldn't 
be different.
  Don't get me wrong. It is a free country. You are allowed to tweet 
and criticize the Commander in Chief and Members of Congress all the 
time. That is fine. That is what America is. That is what democracy is. 
But that doesn't mean you get a free pass to be the No. 3 guy at the 
U.S. Department of Defense, which is what he wants.
  So that is temperament, and I don't think it is a good temperament 
with which to lead the Pentagon at all.
  Let's talk about judgment, especially policy judgment. The questions 
of temperament are often closely aligned with but they are not the same 
as judgment, particularly as it relates to policies. Judgment is being 
able to assess a situation, use history as a guide, and take 
appropriate action.
  I think this nominee lacks judgment, which is something that was 
shown when he was then-Vice President Biden's National Security 
Advisor. Let me provide a few examples.
  First, as many know, he was a staunch advocate for the Iran nuclear 
deal and, I believe, an advocate on being soft on Iran.
  By the way, it is not always said in public, but a bipartisan 
majority of U.S. Senators and a bipartisan majority of Members of the 
House all opposed the Iran deal, but in my view, appeasing the world's 
largest state sponsor of terrorism, these terrorists--leaders with the 
blood of thousands of American troops on their hands--is not smart 
policy judgment.
  Dr. Kahl doesn't seem to know when we can press the Iranians, and 
this is a really big issue. Every time someone tried to press them--
draw a redline, take aggressive action--he criticized it.
  Dr. Kahl, in 2015, argued for sanctions relief on Iran, claiming that 
the vast majority of the relief would go to butter, not guns. Well, we 
know how that turned out. That money went to arming terrorists and the 
continuation of Iran's proxies around the Middle East and around the 
world who were committing terrorism.
  Dr. Kahl said that pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal was ``a 
dangerous delusion.''
  He said: The ``hawks in Congress''--and I think he meant that as an 
insult. By the way, I view that not as an insult, particularly after 
the Obama-Biden administration cut defense spending by 25 percent and 
drastically reduced readiness--who are supporting pulling out of the 
Iran deal ``won't be satisfied until they get the war they have pushed 
for decades.'' Really? I didn't want war with Iran. Those who opposed 
the JCPOA--again, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senators--didn't 
want a war with Iran. We just thought the JCPOA was misguided.

[[Page S2219]]

  After the U.S. strike that killed Iranian terror commando Qasem 
Soleimani, Kahl tweeted the following:

       Trump has started a war with Iran and Iraq.

  Really? I think what the President and our fine military did when 
they killed General Soleimani was reestablish deterrence, which we had 
lost in the Middle East when this terrorist killed thousands and 
wounded thousands of U.S. service men and women and never had to pay 
consequences. We reestablished a redline and said: If you kill 
Americans, you are going to pay.
  Guess what. That war never happened, although Kahl predicted it
  Even Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Zarif, acknowledged in these 
tapes that we have been talking about here on the Senate floor that the 
killing of Soleimani ``was when the United States delivered a major 
blow to Iran more damaging than if it had wiped out an entire city in 
an attack.'' That was from the Foreign Minister of Iran's knowing that 
what we did was very significant.
  Dr. Kahl, if you look at his tweets, wouldn't have done that because 
he thought it would have ``brought the war that the hawks want.'' We 
didn't want a war, and we didn't get a war.
  Just like John Kerry, who is now being accused of leaking secrets 
that Israel had--one of our most important allies--to Iran, the world's 
largest state sponsor of terrorism, I believe he is soft on Iran.
  We are going to get to the bottom of the Kerry issue, by the way. It 
is alleged what he did, but if he did it, if he sold out Israel for 
Iran, he needs to resign and be fired. We are going to get to the 
bottom of that.
  Let me mention one other issue. It is a sensitive one--I admit it--
but I think it is also an important one with Dr. Kahl.
  At his confirmation hearing, he said that one of his priorities was 
to ``stamp out `systemic racism' within the ranks of the military.''
  Now, look, I care about this issue, and every organization has bad 
people in it. I spoke on the Senate floor last year about some of these 
issues. I put forward legislation last year in the NDAA that looks at 
why we aren't having promotions of African Americans at higher ranks 
and at the highest ranks of the military. This is an issue I care 
about, but when he said this in his confirmation hearing--systemic 
racism within the ranks--I was very curious. Has he served in the 
ranks, maybe? No, he hasn't. I have for 26 years--still serving. Where 
did he get the information? That is a broad statement to make about our 
troops whom you want to lead.
  During the hearing, Dr. Kahl admitted he had ``no credible evidence 
to back up that kind of statement.'' Well, that is a real lack of 
judgment.
  You are besmirching a bunch--a big portion of the force, with no 
credible data to back it up, and you want to be the No. 3 leader in the 
Pentagon?
  This is judgment, and this is one of the many reasons I am going to 
vote against him, and I hope that my colleagues do.
  Let me end with one final thing. Dr. Kahl made a statement in his 
confirmation hearing about the requirements of the job:

       The position of undersecretary of defense for policy, while 
     it's a political appointment, is not a political job. It's a 
     policy job, one that requires [whoever is in the position] to 
     be nonpartisan.

  Well, given his judgment, given his temperament, I don't believe Dr. 
Kahl has lived up to his own assessment of what is required to serve in 
the Pentagon's third most important defense role. I don't believe he 
has the qualifications for this position. There are plenty of good 
policy experts--Democrats, I am sure, who do--and I would encourage my 
colleagues to vote against this nomination for these reasons.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 7 
minutes prior to the vote on the Kahl nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Colin Kahl, the 
President's nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
  The most basic responsibility of our government and our military is 
to protect the national security of the American people, which requires 
helping our allies and constraining our enemies. The Pentagon's policy 
chief is responsible for those evaluations.
  Unfortunately, I have come to believe that Colin Kahl's judgment is 
irreparably marred by obsessive animosity toward Israel. I can think of 
no other way to explain his years of consistently wrong views regarding 
the Middle East--and not just wrong but impulsive and reckless.
  He has repeatedly spilled out his conspiracy theories and attacks on 
Twitter and other public venues. He views the world through a cracked 
lens.
  And I challenge my Democratic colleagues to explain one simple thing: 
What other explanation, other than animosity to the world's only Jewish 
state, could possibly account for all of these staggeringly wrong 
judgments?
  I would like to begin with a topic the Senate has been united on: our 
opposition to anti-Semitism and to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
  In 2019, this body came together unanimously to pass a resolution 
that I authored, along with Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, condemning 
anti-Semitism as a unique form of bigotry that distorts people's 
judgments.
  Recently, a top adviser to the Ayatollah Khomeini acknowledged what 
the world long knew--that in 2018, in an operation right out of a 
Hollywood action movie, Israel seized Iran's national nuclear archive. 
The archive proved that Iran had been keeping nuclear weapons 
blueprints and materials on the shelf. The nuclear deal, of which Kahl 
was a principle architect, had been flawed from the start.
  Kahl responded to the news of the raid by suggesting on Twitter the 
archive was fabricated by Israel, with the aim of dragging American 
boys and girls into another Middle East war. This was a pernicious, 
anti-Sematic conspiracy theory, a blood libel, not just pernicious but 
wrong.
  That was not the only time Kahl leveled troubling conspiracy theories 
about Israel and Iran. He suggested on Twitter that Trump's policies 
regarding the Iran deal and Jerusalem were linked to donations from 
Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson. This is not the judgment of anyone 
who should be anywhere near power or policy.
  Another decision the Trump administration made was to move our 
Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. There was an active debate within the 
Trump administration. I leaned in vigorously with the President, and 
the President agreed with the view I articulated; that we should say to 
our friends and our enemies that we stand unshakably with the nation of 
Israel.
  Kahl spent years fighting against that move, fighting against moving 
our Embassy. According to reports from 2012, Kahl was personally 
responsible for trying to remove language from the Democratic Party 
platform embracing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
  This is a long-abiding passion of his.
  And when President Trump recognized Jerusalem, Kahl predicted it 
would isolate the United States and Israel and even potentially trigger 
a third intifada. He was wrong.
  Just like he was wrong about supporting Israel, he was wrong about 
opposing Iran. In 2017, Congress passed legislation mandating that the 
President declare Iran's IRGC a terrorist organization. Kahl said we 
were playing ``politics'' so that we could show we were tough on Iran, 
and again he predicted disaster. Again, he was wrong.
  Kahl has even attacked Democrats on this issue. For instance, he has 
repeatedly attacked Chairman Menendez for trying to ``kill'' and use 
``poison pills'' to block appeasement of the Iranian regime.
  Turning to current topics, the Obama-Biden team shamefully, 
repeatedly, recklessly used leaks to leak secrets about Israeli 
operations against Iranian terrorists and forces.
  Now there are new reports on a taped phone call that then-Secretary 
of State Kerry may have leaked Israeli attacks to Iranian Foreign 
Minister Zarif, with whom he is personally close. If verified, these 
reports would mean he maliciously endangered not just Israeli national 
security but American lives. If these reports are true, John Kerry 
should resign, and if he doesn't resign, President Biden should fire 
him.
  Colin Kahl was prominent in shaping Obama-Biden policies on Israel 
and

[[Page S2220]]

Iran, and he has been credibly accused of weaponizing and leaking 
classified information.
  I recently joined 17 other Senators in a letter to FBI Director Wray, 
requesting that the FBI immediately investigate whether he did so. But 
we are not going to have the answer before we vote today, and I don't 
see how he can be principally advanced without it.
  On issues of foreign policy, this body is often united when standing 
up against our enemies and standing for our friends. This nominee, I 
believe, is the most virulently anti-Israel nominee who would serve in 
the entire Biden administration.
  Many of our friends on the Democratic aisle like to say they support 
the nation of Israel. Well, this is a chance to demonstrate you mean it 
because you cannot vote to confirm a rabid, anti-Israel, conspiracy 
theory-tweeting radical to the No. 3 position in the Department of 
Defense and then claim you are a reliable friend of Israel.
  Colin Kahl's record is extreme, fringe, and radical. He has a 
lifelong obsession with and antipathy to the State of Israel, and he 
has demonstrated a willingness to endanger Israeli lives and American 
lives to advance that hostility.
  I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.