[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 192 (Tuesday, November 2, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7591-S7593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to seek unanimous consent 
for eight to nine nominees to critical State Department posts.
  Each of them moved through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
with bipartisan support, and the only reason the Senate has not 
confirmed them is due to the political obstinacy of a couple of my 
Republican colleagues. And the evidence of that is that when we have a 
vote, as we had earlier today for the Assistant Administrator of AID, 
it passed 59 to 40--59 to 40.
  We have heard many complaints about the management of the State 
Department and the conduct of U.S. foreign policy in recent months. And 
while the State Department is not a perfect institution--for that fact, 
no institution is--its leadership was decimated by the prior 
administration.
  The assistant secretaries and ambassadors who should be participating 
in the rebuilding of the institution and the development and 
implementation of U.S. foreign policy are instead languishing on the 
Senate floor--dozens, dozens.
  Nominees who should be the face of the United States at international 
organizations--like the United Nations, NATO, the Organization for 
Security and Co-operation in Europe--are instead waiting for the Senate 
to act. The government of the People's Republic of China is watching. 
Even though the majority of this body has recognized that the 
Government of China represents the greatest geopolitical challenge to 
the United States, we are letting China eat our lunch on the world 
stage.
  Our Republican colleagues have spoken at length in opposition to this 
administration's handling of the situation in Afghanistan, but they 
refuse to allow the Senate to vote on nominees who are critical to 
dealing with the refugee situation resulting from the U.S. withdrawal 
and the much-needed stabilization efforts.
  By the way, a withdrawal that was already precooked by the Trump 
administration when it made a surrender deal with the Taliban that said 
we will leave on a date certain, we will release thousands of Taliban 
prisoners--which they did, to the Taliban, who became fighting 
soldiers--we ultimately will not only leave at a date certain, but we 
have done nothing to get any of the promises that the Taliban made 
enforced, and we reduce our troop level dramatically. That is what 
President Biden inherited.

  Now, I have heard a lot about the handling of the situation in 
Afghanistan, but my colleagues refuse to allow the Senate to vote on 
nominees who are critical to dealing with the refugee situation 
resulting from that withdrawal and the much-needed stabilization 
efforts.
  Nominees being held by the Republicans include the Assistant 
Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration; and the 
Assistant Secretary for Conflict and Stabilization Operations. That 
cannot stand.
  And for all the talk of needing to work with our allies and partners, 
how does holding our nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to Israel or the 
U.S. Ambassador to Canada actually advance U.S. interests?
  It does not. It is seriously detrimental to our national security.
  Before I ask unanimous consent, I understand Senator Schumer would 
like to speak prior to these UC requests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, thank you. I have some brief remarks, and 
I want to thank my friend, the Senator from New Jersey, who will move 
in a few moments to have this Chamber approve a number of critical 
nominees for our national security and is going to be, shamefully, 
blocked.
  He has been a great fighter not only for these men and women, but on 
foreign policy in general, one of the great leaders. And his passion 
for this issue comes from a desire to have us have the greatest 
strength abroad diplomatically and geopolitically as well. So I cannot 
thank him enough.
  Mr. President, of all the mandates of the government, the most 
important is

[[Page S7592]]

protecting the American people from threats foreign or domestic. To do 
so, the President relies on an army of dedicated public servants--our 
expert Ambassadors, Diplomats, Under Secretaries, and Assistant 
Secretaries, who play a critical role in our government.
  But for months, Senate Republicans have gone to great lengths to 
place pointless holds on over 100 of these nominees. The consequence is 
scores of empty desks in the State Department and in our Embassies and 
the Department of the Treasury and other Agencies.
  These nominees are not controversial. They are routinely confirmed by 
consent in this Chamber, until a few people decided that they wanted to 
make a big show of this for whatever reason. No one ever did this 
before. No one ever did this--maybe one individual nominee here or 
there, but not all of the nominees. It is so risky to the security of 
the United States.
  By this point in the Trump administration, for instance, both sides 
worked together to confirm 32 Ambassadors by voice vote. Most of us 
didn't like the Trump administration or the people he was appointing, 
but we had enough integrity, enough faith in the future of this country 
and the strength of this country not to let politics enter into what 
had been routine decisions.
  Right now, Republican obstructionism has meant only four nominees 
have been agreed to. So the bottom line is--let me be clear--
Republicans who are holding up these nominees are endangering our 
national security, making it harder for our country to respond to 
threats at home and abroad.
  We hear a lot of talk about national security on the other side, but 
what it comes down to is that they are preventing 32 State Department 
nominees and 10 Defense Department nominees for quick confirmation. 
That is wrong, and I would hope that they would think about it and let 
these fine people go through the way that has been done under 
Democratic and Republican administrations in the past.
  Mr. President, of all the mandates of government, the most important 
is protecting the American people from all threats, foreign and 
domestic. To do so, the President relies on an army of dedicated public 
servants: our expert diplomats, ambassadors, Under Secretaries, and 
Assistant Secretaries who play a critical role in our government.
  But for months, some Senate Republicans have gone to great lengths to 
place pointless holds on over 100 of these nominees. The consequence 
has been scores of empty desks in the State Department, in our 
embassies, in the Department of the Treasury and countless other 
agencies.
  These nominees are not controversial; they are routinely confirmed by 
consent in this Chamber. By this point in the Trump Administration, 
both sides worked together to confirm 32 ambassadors by voice vote. But 
right now, Republican obstruction has meant only four such nominees 
have been agreed to.
  Let me be clear: Republicans who are holding up these nominees are 
endangering our national security and making it harder for our country 
to respond to threats at home and abroad.
  Our Republican counterparts always like to talk a good game on 
national security concerns, but when it comes down to it they are 
preventing 32 State Department nominees and at least 10 Department of 
Defense nominees from quick confirmation. All of these are career 
national security professionals who are eager to return to public 
service and project American strength abroad.
  This is not how the Senate normally works to process these dedicated 
public servants. Indeed, a number of our colleagues on the other side 
have complained that the Senate is taking up a lot of time processing 
these individuals.
  If Republicans take issue with the amount of time we are taking, they 
should speak with their own members who are directly prolonging the 
process through their obstruction. Republicans could decide right now 
to allow these nominees to go by consent.
  This Chamber, under this leadership, is not tolerating a few Members 
who want to muck up the confirmation process just to make a scene.
  In the weeks and months to come we are going to work through these 
nominees as long as it takes. I hope that our Republican colleagues 
immediately drop their objections and give President Biden the 
officials he needs in place to keep the American people safe.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, with that hope, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following 
nomination: Calendar No. 239, Michele Jeanne Sison, of Maryland, a 
Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career 
Ambassador, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International 
Organization Affairs); that the nomination be confirmed; 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 to 
the nomination; and that the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I 
understand that multiple of my colleagues have objections to all of the 
nominees that the Senator from New Jersey is going to offer this 
evening. So I will be here to object on their behalf and also on my own 
behalf with regard to a few of them.
  Mr. President, I want to address one of those nominees, Julianne 
Smith, the President's nominee to be United States Ambassador to NATO. 
This is a nominee to whom I object myself, and I want to explain why, 
briefly.
  Before I do that, however, I just have to make one comment on the 
Senate majority leader's remarks about his own inability to get these 
nominees confirmed.
  Now, I agree that many of these nominees are important, and that is, 
in fact, one of the reasons we should have a vote on them. The 
Ambassador to NATO, for instance, as I am about to argue, is a very 
important position. And the positions that she takes, the arguments 
that she makes are very important, which is why we ought to go on the 
record and actually have a vote.
  But the Senate majority leader's comments--as if he has no control 
over the calendar. He is the majority leader of the United States 
Senate. He decides when we vote. He decides what we vote on.
  What are we doing now?
  The floor is empty. We could be voting.
  What are we doing later this week?
  He is gavelling us out of session so that Members across the aisle 
can go on a field trip to Glasgow, Scotland.
  We could be voting.
  It is getting a little rich to hear the Senate majority leader, who 
is doing almost nothing--have we brought up the defense bill?
  No action. Multiple major issues--no action from the Senate majority 
leader.
  If these nominees are so critical, he ought to be putting them on the 
floor for votes. He doesn't want to do that because, apparently, he 
can't control the floor or he just doesn't want to work for very long 
or he doesn't want to work very hard. I mean, I leave that to him. But 
it is quite ridiculous for the majority leader to blame Republicans, 
who cannot prevent votes.
  Can I just be clear? Republicans do not have the ability to prevent 
votes on any of these nominees. The filibuster for these nominees 
doesn't exist.
  We can vote whenever the majority leader wants. It is his decision 
when to bring them to the floor.
  Now I want to comment on one just briefly. On Julianne Smith--one 
nominee tonight to whom I object--this is the President's nominee, as I 
said a moment ago, to be the next United States Ambassador to NATO.
  I think the Senator from New Jersey and I can agree that this is a 
very important position. I am sure the Senator believes that, and I 
agree with him 100 percent. And I just want to take a minute and say 
why I think it is important and why we need to vote--actually vote--on 
her nomination.
  A decade ago almost, 2014, after the Russian invasion--incursion into 
Ukraine, NATO allies finally recognized that they were not spending 
enough--our NATO allies--on their own defense and on our common 
defense. So they pledged as a group to commit at least 2 percent of 
their respective GDPs to their own defense and to meet that target by 
2024. So far, large numbers of them are not on track to do so.

[[Page S7593]]

  In fact, Ms. Smith said, in response to my own questions about this, 
that it is clear that a group of allies will fail to deliver on this 
pledge by 2024; and, currently, another group are not close to meeting 
it, although they say they hope to make up the difference.
  Here is my point: The security situation has not improved since 2014. 
It has deteriorated. Russia, as we speak, is still menacing Ukraine. 
And now China is menacing Taiwan.
  The United States is already facing hard choices, and we are going to 
face harder choices yet about how we allocate our defense resources, 
which are scarce; how we allocate our force posture, how we structure 
our force posture in a world that is growing more dangerous. And the 
China threat, in particular, is one that is going to make us make 
difficult choices in what we prioritize in the Asia-Pacific versus what 
we prioritize in Europe.
  The bottom line is we need our allies to meet not only their 2-
percent commitment, but we need them to do more in Europe for their own 
defense because we must focus on the deteriorating security situation 
in the Indo-Pacific and in the Asia-Pacific with regard to China and 
its imperial ambitions in Taiwan.
  I asked Ms. Smith for her commitment that she will press our NATO 
allies not only to meet their 2-percent commitment, but to revise that 
commitment so that we can have a truly common defense in this era of 
multiplying challenges and deteriorating security. She has refused, 
unfortunately, to give me that commitment.
  I can't block her nomination, but I can ask that we take a vote on 
it. And so for that reason, in a moment here, when Senator Menendez 
brings her nomination to the floor, I will object and ask for a vote on 
her, in particular; and I will, as I said, object to others on behalf 
of my colleagues. With those comments, on behalf of my colleagues and 
myself, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. It is disingenuous to suggest that this can all happen 
by the majority leader and 60 votes. There were no calls when 
Republicans controlled this Chamber for votes on each and every 
nominee. On the contrary, as the leader said, large numbers of Trump 
nominees to the State Department or Ambassadorial or State Department 
positions were passed on voice. They were passed on voice vote.
  I don't know. In the case of NATO, I think the nominee made it very 
clear before the committee--I know that our colleague is not a member 
of that particular committee--but she made it very clear before the 
committee that she was advocating for all of our allies to reach their 
2-percent commitment.
  And what better way to achieve it than to actually have an Ambassador 
at NATO to pursue that goal?
  But if you don't have anybody there, guess what. You can't pursue 
that goal.
  So let me try again.
  I want to ask that it be in order to make the same request with 
respect to Executive Calendar No. 327, Anne A. Witkowsky, of Maryland, 
to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Conflict and Stabilization 
Operations).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. So we will continue to have conflict and stabilization 
without anybody being be in charge.
  I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to 
Executive Calendar No. 318, Christopher P. Lu, of Virginia, to be 
Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations 
for U.N. Management and Reform, with the rank of Ambassador.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Here is an example. We hear we want reform at the U.N., 
but we can't put the person there in charge of helping us reform the 
U.N.
  I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to 
Executive Calendar No. 462, Julieta Valls Noyes, of Virginia, a Career 
Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be 
an Assistant Secretary of State (Population, Refugees, and Migration).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. All right. I heard a lot of my colleagues talk about 
how we should get more SIV people from Afghanistan. This is the person 
who could help us do it.
  I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to 
Executive Calendar No. 437, Julianne Smith, of Michigan, to be United 
States Permanent Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization, with the rank and status of Ambassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask that it be in order to make the same request with 
respect to Calendar No. 461, Marcia Stephens Bloom Bernicat, of New 
Jersey, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of the 
Minister-Counselor, to be Director General of the Foreign Service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I can't wait to hear the next objection to someone who 
would be Ambassador to Israel--to Israel.
  I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to 
Executive Calendar No. 452, Thomas R. Nides, of Minnesota, to be 
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
America to the State of Israel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. So we will have no Ambassador in Israel as we deal with 
the challenges of Iran and others in the region. It is mind-boggling, 
all of those who get up here and talk about our ally, the State of 
Israel, the importance of the State of Israel, but we won't have an 
Ambassador there to help us meet the challenges that Israel has.
  I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to 
Executive Calendar No. 443, Michael Carpenter, of the District of 
Columbia, to be U.S. Representative to the Organization for Security 
and Cooperation in Europe, with the rank of Ambassador.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

                          ____________________