[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6728-S6731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, we heard over the course of many hours 
last week and, indeed, over the many months that Foreign Affairs 
nominees have been languishing on the Senate floor, the concerns of the 
junior Senator from Texas related to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. We 
also have heard at length from Members of this body about the 
humanitarian situation in Afghanistan--from the junior Senator from 
Missouri.
  As I have said publicly and repeatedly, I share my colleague's 
concerns about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. He put up a series of my 
quotes. They are all true. I am still of that view, but I am not of the 
view that you stop the national security apparatus in order to pursue a 
policy difference and create a whole host of other serious risks for 
the United States.
  I believe and have said that the evacuation from Afghanistan was 
fatally flawed. In fact, the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing 
and heard from Secretary Blinken about the situation in Afghanistan. 
The Foreign Relations Committee is holding a briefing tomorrow about 
the administration's efforts to bolster European energy security to 
counter Russia's efforts in this area. And I intend to continue 
oversight of the situation in Afghanistan and why, over the course of 
20 years, we have failed.
  What I fail to understand is the relationship between the foreign 
affairs nominees pending before this body and those topics. These 
individuals are critical to confronting numerous other global 
challenges, promoting American values, and advancing the safety, 
health, and economic well-being of America. We need them confirmed 
today--today.
  I therefore will rise to seek unanimous consent for the confirmation 
of 10 nominees, including seven career diplomats. Each of them moved 
through the Foreign Relations Committee with bipartisan support. There 
is no reason for Republicans to block their confirmation.
  Let me speak to them for a minute or two.
  This is especially the case at the U.S. Agency for International 
Development. The Administrator of USAID, Samantha Power, is the only 
member of that Agency's senior leadership that has been confirmed by 
this body. Ambassador Power needs her senior leadership team in place. 
Yet her two deputies are languishing on the floor because of Republican 
holds.
  This Agency is grappling with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and 
other humanitarian emergencies that are ravaging the globe. It simply 
cannot function at its best without senior leadership. So why is it 
that Republicans insist on blocking Paloma Adams-Allen and Isobel 
Coleman, two highly qualified nominees to serve as USAID Deputy 
Administrators?

  Let me take a moment to once again raise Haiti. We hear a lot about 
Haiti here on the floor, particularly from our Republican colleagues, 
and the challenge at the border.
  Well, in August, a massive earthquake in Haiti killed more than 2,200 
people, injured 12,000 more, and destroyed tens of thousands of 
buildings. This comes after the assassination of Haiti's President. But 
here, again, Republicans are holding a senior member of Ambassador 
Powers' team, Marcela Escobari, the nominee to be the Assistant 
Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean at USAID. Escobari, 
who will manage our response to the Haiti earthquake, once confirmed, 
already held this very job in the Obama administration. Guess what. She 
was confirmed by voice vote then.
  Now we want to deal with the challenge of Haitian refugees coming to 
the border and other refugees of the hemisphere coming to the border. 
Let's confirm the USAID Deputy Administrator who will deal with that 
issue so we can deal with the root causes. How do we create stability 
in Haiti? How do we provide relief for the Haitian people? How do we 
create feeding for the Haitian people so they are not fleeing their 
country? But, no, we are going to stop this nominee who is going to be 
at the very heart of that. So when you see a new group of Haitian 
refugees, blame yourself.
  We spent many months in this body talking about the challenges posed 
by the Government of the People's Republic of China. The U.S. 
Innovation and

[[Page S6729]]

Competition Act, passed by this body in June, and the Strategic 
Competition Act, which passed almost unanimously out of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, 21 to 1, are proof of that. We have collectively 
come together on this much: to recognize China as the greatest 
geopolitical and geoeconomic challenge for U.S. foreign policy. We have 
rightfully focused on effectively confronting Chinese malign influence. 
Yet we are failing to ensure a fundamentally critical element of that 
strategy; that is, empowered leadership in our diplomatic corps across 
the world.
  Our former colleague Senator Ken Salazar is the only--hear me--the 
only Biden administration nominee who has been confirmed to serve as a 
country Ambassador representing U.S. interests abroad, the only one in 
the 9 months of this administration.
  Let me be clear. Holding up diplomats is effectively ceding influence 
to China and actively undermining U.S. national security interests. 
People come to the floor and talk about China. Well, they are 
empowering China by not having our people in position to counter their 
influence.
  It is a fact that Congo and Angola owe over 40 percent of their 
entire national debt--to whom? To China. So I ask my colleagues, why 
have we not yet confirmed Tulinabo Mushingi, a career Foreign Service 
officer, as our Ambassador to Angola? Why have we not yet confirmed 
Eugene Young, another career Foreign Service officer, as our Ambassador 
to the Congo?
  China and Somalia have recently entered into a new fishing agreement, 
and Chinese vessels are increasingly accessing Somalia's waters and 
strategic coastline adjacent to the Red Sea. Why have we not confirmed 
Larry Andre, Jr., a career Foreign Service officer, as our Ambassador 
to Somalia?
  China's influence is spread across the continent of Africa, including 
its Belt and Road Initiative, which is branded as a development 
initiative but being used by China to advance its own interests. Why 
have we not yet confirmed Elizabeth Aubin and Maria Brewer, two career 
Foreign Service officers, as our Ambassadors to Algeria and Lesotho, 
respectively?
  I spoke on the Senate floor several months ago about Chinese 
influence in Cameroon. We have not had an American Ambassador in 
Cameroon in over a year. Why have we not yet confirmed Christopher John 
Lamora, a career Foreign Service officer, as our Ambassador to 
Cameroon?
  Vietnam sits on the border of China. It is on the frontlines of 
Chinese coercion in the South China Sea. Why have we not yet confirmed 
Mark Knapper, a career Foreign Service officer, as our Ambassador to 
Vietnam?
  Colleagues, each of these nominees I mentioned deserves to be 
confirmed today, and our national security interests demand it.
  In pursuit of what I hope will be a recognition of that--because at 
some point, something is going to happen here in the world, in one of 
these countries or one of these regions. When it happens and we don't 
have our representative there, I think a Member who is objecting is 
going to have to live with that reality.
  Let me ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider the 
following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 336, Paloma Adams-Allen to 
be a Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International 
Development; that the nomination be confirmed; that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order in 
terms of the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Reserving the right to object, I appreciate the 
earnestness on this issue from my friend and colleague the Senator from 
New Jersey. He mentions that something could happen in the world, that 
something will happen in the world. Something, I submit to you, has 
happened in the world, and today we have been learning about it. I am 
talking about the crisis in Afghanistan, the debacle in Afghanistan.
  All day, the Senate has been hearing testimony in the Armed Services 
Committee from Secretary Austin, from General Milley, and from General 
McKenzie about how it came to be that 13 American servicemembers are 
dead, 169 civilians killed, and hundreds of Americans left behind enemy 
lines there as we still speak--the greatest foreign policy crisis that 
this country has seen since Vietnam. And those aren't my words; those 
are the words--the comparison of the Democratic members of the 
committee who repeatedly referenced today Vietnam, the fall of Saigon. 
That is the level of crisis that we are dealing with.
  What accountability has there been for this crisis, for this debacle? 
Because ``crisis'' isn't even quite the right word. That sounds like a 
natural disaster, as if it accidentally happened. That is not the case. 
This is a debacle, a failure of leadership in the first order, and what 
accountability has there been for it? Who has resigned? Who has been 
fired? Who has been relieved of command? Nobody. What actions have the 
administration taken? None.
  What does Secretary Austin say today? He says: Well, we will take a 
hard look at ourselves, and we will ask some tough questions.
  Mr. President, that is not nearly good enough. Americans are dead. 
Americans are stranded behind enemy lines. Our foreign policies are in 
a state of collapse. Our national security is in a state of collapse. 
Enemies around the world are watching what is happening in Afghanistan, 
are seeing an opportunity as the United States shows weakness and 
disarray and chaos. There must be accountability.
  Let me say something more about what we learned today because we did 
learn quite a lot, and all of it is frightening. We learned that the 
President of the United States lied. He lied when he said to the 
American people in an interview on television just a few weeks ago that 
he was never told by any of his military advisers--never told that a 
drawdown on this timetable, his timetable, would result in catastrophe.
  He was asked by George Stephanopoulos:

       Your top military advisers warned against withdrawing on 
     this [timetable]. They wanted you to keep about 2,500 troops.

  President Biden:

       No, they didn't.

  Stephanopoulos:

       They didn't tell you that they wanted troops to stay?

  President Biden:

       No.

  Stephanopoulos:

       So no one told--your military advisers did not tell you, 
     ``No, we should just keep 2,500 troops.''

  President Biden:

       No. No one said that to me that I can recall.

  Today, we heard from General Milley, General McKenzie, and Secretary 
Austin, who--each of them said that they advised the President--it was 
their considered military judgment that the President's plans were 
mistaken. They advised against it. They advised him against it. Yet he 
said: No, no one ever told me. I am not responsible. No one ever told 
me.
  We also learned this: We learned that the President lied when he said 
that he had no idea that the Taliban would take over the country in 
such a short time period.
  From the same interview, George Stephanopoulos said to President 
Biden:

       Back in July, you said a Taliban takeover was highly 
     unlikely. Was the intelligence wrong, or did you downplay it?

  Biden said: No. I think that there was no consensus. If you go back 
and look, they said it is not going to happen.
  Stephanopoulos:

       [But] you didn't put a timeline on it when you said it was 
     highly unlikely. You just flat out [said], ``It's highly 
     unlikely the Taliban would take over.''

  President Biden said:

       Yeah.

  We learned today, in fact, that his commander on the ground, General 
Miller, warned as early as March, March of this year, that the military 
situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating rapidly; that the Taliban 
was on the offensive; that the drawdown of American troops would likely 
result in the collapse of the Afghan Government and the Afghan security 
forces sooner rather than later. It was going to come fast is what 
General Miller said. Yet

[[Page S6730]]

the President says no one ever told him that. He never knew about it. 
In fact, his own commanders on the ground warned him about it.
  What was the consequence of this? Well, the President is either 
forgetting or ignoring or just outright lying about what he was advised 
by his own commanders.
  His administration was failing to plan for the collapse of the Afghan 
security forces. We learned that today too. Secretary Austin said: We 
just didn't plan for a scenario of an Afghan security forces collapse. 
We didn't plan for it.
  Why didn't they plan for it? Why isn't somebody being held 
accountable for it?
  The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan has been warning for 
years that the Afghan security forces were not ready, that they were 
not well equipped, that they were not well trained, and that they would 
not likely stand on their own. We know that the commander on the ground 
shared the same assessment. Yet the administration did not plan for--by 
their own admission did not plan for the collapse of the Afghan 
security forces or the collapse of the Afghan Government, which also 
meant that they did not order the evacuation of American civilians in 
time. They dilly-dallied. They waited. They dithered. They did not 
order the evacuation in time. They waited until the middle of August to 
undertake an evacuation of civilians in earnest, after American troops 
had withdrawn from the country. No wonder there was chaos in Kabul. No 
wonder there was a total disaster. That is the administration's fault. 
They waited because they hadn't planned. They waited because apparently 
they were fighting among themselves--the State Department, Defense 
Department, the White House--all fighting because President Biden 
wasn't leading. It was a total debacle, total chaos.
  My friend the Senator from New Jersey quite reasonably wants to know, 
what is the connection? Why I am objecting to these nominees? Why do I 
want a vote?
  Here is the connection: It is about accountability. No one has been 
held accountable. I note the Senator wants to hear from Secretary 
Austin in his committee. He should hear from the Secretary in his 
committee because what we learned today contradicts quite a lot of the 
testimony that the Secretary of State gave to the Senator from New 
Jersey and his committee earlier--quite a lot of contradictions. He is 
quite right to want to hear from Secretary Austin.
  We need to do more than hear from him; we need to have accountability 
for what has happened. Until we get that accountability, until someone 
is held responsible, until there is some turn, some change, some shift 
in policy--and I have called for the resignations of General Milley, 
Secretary Austin, Secretary Blinken, and the national security 
advisers, all of whom planned and executed this operation. Until there 
is accountability, I think the least the Senate can do is actually 
vote, take at least a vote on this floor for nominees to leadership 
position at the State Department and the Department of Defense.
  Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I have remarks.
  I ask that it be in order to make the same unanimous consent request 
to Calendar No. 337, Isobel Coleman to be Deputy Administrator of the 
U.S. Agency for International Development.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the 
same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 323, Marcela 
Escobari, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Administrator of the 
United States Agency for International Development.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the 
same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 237, Tulinabo S. 
Mushingi, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, 
Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
of the United States of America to the Republic of Angola, and to serve 
concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to 
the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the 
same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 238, Eugene S. 
Young, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, 
Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of the 
Congo.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the 
same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 233, Larry Edward 
Andre, Jr., of Texas, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, 
Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Federal Republic 
of Somalia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the 
same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 234, Elizabeth 
Moore Aubin, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign 
Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the People's 
Democratic Republic of Algeria.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the 
same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 235, Maria E. 
Brewer, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, 
Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of 
Lesotho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the 
same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 236, Christopher 
John Lamora, of Rhode Island, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign 
Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of 
Cameroon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order to make the 
same request with respect to Executive Calendar No. 317, Marc Evans 
Knapper, of California, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, 
Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri wants 
accountability. That is fine. But from a slew of

[[Page S6731]]

career Foreign Service officers who had absolutely nothing--nothing--to 
do with whatever decisions were made in Afghanistan, that is where the 
accountability is going to come from?
  These are people who have committed their lives to serving the United 
States of America. They have committed their lives either in Republican 
or Democratic administrations. It doesn't matter. They carry out the 
mission of the United States and its foreign policy as dictated by the 
President and Congress. They had nothing--nothing--Sao Tome and 
Principe? The Congo? Somalia? Algeria? Lesotho? Cameroon? Vietnam?--to 
do with the decisions in Afghanistan. Yet they are the ones we are 
going to extract a pound of flesh of accountability from--on people who 
had absolutely nothing to do with the decisions on Afghanistan and who 
have committed their lives to the career Foreign Service. These aren't 
political nominees. These are career Foreign Service officers.
  I heard my colleague talk about--that our enemies around the world 
are emboldened. Well, guess what. They are really going to be 
emboldened when we have no Ambassador to counter them in these 
countries, because they have gotten clear sailing. They can do whatever 
they want. They can talk to those heads of state.
  There is no American Ambassador to go in and talk to that head of 
state and say: Mr. President or Mr. Prime Minister--whatever the title 
may be--don't make that choice. It would be a bad choice. We offer you 
a different alternative. We offer you a different set of principles, a 
different set of values--ones that would inure to the benefit of your 
country.
  But no, there is no one from the United States of America who is 
going to be able to go into those countries and say any of that, 
because we are going to extract--when I say ``we,'' I should retract 
that. The Senator from Missouri wants to extract accountability on 
people who have done absolutely nothing as it relates to making these 
decisions.
  When we have problems in this hemisphere with migration, I want my 
colleagues to know, who are objecting, that they will bear a 
significant part of the responsibility, because if we can't deal with 
the root causes to stop people from coming to our southern border, 
whether they be from Haiti or Central America or any other place, then 
we are going to continuously have a flow of people as they avoid 
disaster, civil conflict, authoritarian governments. But, if we had 
people in place to develop the plans and the programs and implement 
them so we could stop the flow and so we could create stability in 
Haiti--guess what--we are less likely to have people come to the 
southern border. But, no, we are going to extract accountability on 
people who have absolutely nothing to do with Afghanistan.

  Not only is this shortsighted, but for those who stand on the Senate 
floor and talk about the national security of the United States, this 
hurts the national security of the United States. It hurts the national 
interests of the United States.
  So I hope that there will be a reflection. Maybe there are better 
targets to pick than career Foreign Service officers in countries that 
have no decision, no policymaking on any of these issues that my 
colleague has a problem with. Maybe there are better ones to pursue.
  In the absence of that, I will tell you there is going to be a rude 
awakening. Mark my words. I have been doing foreign policy for 30 years 
between the House and the Senate. It will happen sooner than you think, 
and you will remember this moment and wish you hadn't objected to some 
of these people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.