[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 184 (Wednesday, November 30, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6889-S6892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I have a second UC request.

[[Page S6890]]

  Understanding that request, I agree with you on the request, and we 
will work to see if we can accomplish something that will be 
satisfactory.
  Now I rise to seek consent to advance the nomination of a friend and 
a Virginian, Leopoldo Martinez, for Executive Director of the Inter-
American Development Bank. I did this a few weeks ago, but the 
important need of America to have an IDB that is investing in the 
region to counter Chinese investments that are occurring every day has 
become even more apparent to me because, since the last time I took to 
the floor to promote Mr. Martinez, I have visited the Dominican 
Republic, Costa Rica, and Panama and seen the tremendous competition 
that we are up against.
  The IDB is the largest source of international financing and 
development financing for Latin America and the Caribbean. It is of 
national interest for the United States to build up the economic 
prosperity of the countries of the Southern Hemisphere.
  Latin America and the Caribbean continue to face challenges from 
COVID-19, where the region had the highest global per capita infection 
and death rate. And 8 percent of the world's population is in Latin 
America, and 30 percent of the world's COVID deaths were in Latin 
America.
  It is also experiencing the largest economic contraction of any 
region in the world. The IDB plays a key role in improving economic 
outcomes for the region. We have seen again and again that when these 
countries have troubled economies, it is not just a faraway problem. It 
drives government corruption, organized crime, drug use, drug 
trafficking, and irregular migration that can start as a country's 
problems, but very quickly they expand beyond the borders of the 
country to affect other nations, including the United States.
  When we don't step up, we see China, Russia and Iran and other 
nations step up.
  Over the last decade, China's investments in Latin America have 
ballooned. They are moving aggressively and rapidly in this space. In 
2020, just for a prepandemic example, China's direct investments in 
Latin America were roughly $17 billion. The China Development Bank and 
the Export-Import Bank of China, both of which I know are state-owned, 
are among the regions's leading lenders. So between 2005 and 2020, 
these two banks together loaned around $137 billion to Latin American 
governments.
  So what does that matter to us? Well, the cost to American interests 
is very clear. In exchange for these funds, China gets favorable access 
to oil resources. They support and control high-value strategic energy 
and infrastructure projects. They force tough decisions on the 
recognition or the removal of recognition of Taiwan. The Dominican 
Republic and Nicaragua flipped their positions after being offered 
financial incentives by China. The few holdouts left, like Haiti, are 
facing increased pressure to do so as well.
  So how do we push back? It is the IDB that allows us to push back. In 
2021, despite the pandemic, the IDB pumped $28.3 billion in 
investments, loans, and assistance into the region. I would note that 
China is now a voting member of the IDB. Our absence has a direct 
impact on China's ability to exert influence even within the IDB 
structure itself.
  Now, again, my colleagues across the aisle, they want a more muscular 
approach on China. They are right. They accuse the Biden administration 
of not doing enough, of being soft, but if you look at the 
extraordinary effort they are putting in to block qualified nominees 
across the region without any justification that meets my standards, it 
is clear that--wait a minute--are these blocks of nominations in the 
Western Hemisphere, are they helping the United States stand up to 
China or are they making it harder for us to do that? If we can't even 
take the step of approving Ambassadors and putting key people in place 
that will use U.S. resources to exert our more pro-democratic 
influence, what is the outcome? China has an active and growing 
presence right here in the neighborhood. Failing to confirm Leopoldo 
and these other nominees based off of accusations and unrelated policy 
concerns, I think, is malpractice in terms of our foreign policy.
  Mr. Martinez is the right man for the job at the IDB. He brings 
decades of experience in the public and private sectors as well as 
academia. He has extensive experience advising Fortune 500 companies, 
private equity funds, international businesses, and nongovernmental 
organizations. He is the CEO of the Center for Democracy and 
Development of the Americas as well as commissioner for small business 
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and on the Board of Visitors at the 
University of Mary Washington. He is a constituent, and I will admit to 
the personal bias that he is also a friend--a person of high integrity 
whom I have known for years and can vouch for.
  Now I want to take now a minute just to respond to some comments that 
were made by my friend--and he is a friend--from Texas about Mr. 
Martinez's background when we last discussed this nomination in 
September. Mr. Martinez was then labeled--accused, actually, somehow of 
being a Chavezista or a Maduro regime sympathizer. I responded without 
notes on that day, but I want to go a little deeper into it to tell you 
about Leo's personal history because that personal history is a 
significant and painful one, and it suggests that his being branded as 
a Chavezista could not be further from the truth.
  Yes, Leo Martinez is a former Venezuelan politician. He was elected 
to his role in the Venezuelan Parliament in opposition to Hugo Chavez. 
His consistent, strong, and public opposition to Chavez resulted in his 
persecution by that regime. For this reason, he had to flee to the 
United States in 2005 to escape persecution by a regime and a very real 
threat of imprisonment. The regime confiscated all of his family's 
assets. The idea that someone who had the courage to risk his life to 
oppose Chavez, who quite literally fled from the regime's attacks, who 
has had his family wealth seized by the Chavez regime, who is in the 
United States and eligible for this nomination because of his 
opposition to the regime--to claim that that person is somehow a 
Chavezista is just outrageous.
  But don't take my word for it. When the accusations were made in 
September, they were thoroughly debunked by fact checkers. Univision 
went line by line through the accusations and found them to be grossly 
incorrect. The very day that President Biden nominated Leo for this 
role, the Maduro regime put a communications official on Venezuelan 
national TV and accused him of being a traitor. That is what the Maduro 
regime says about this nominee that President Biden has put forward to 
carry forward U.S. interests, including our U.S. interests in calling 
for accountability in Venezuela. Does that sound like a Chavezista to 
anyone--a person who would be branded a traitor by the Maduro regime 
because of being too pro-American?
  Ultimately, I understand and respect there are differences of opinion 
within the Senate on some of the Biden administration's policies on 
Latin America. And I also admit that this is a challenging region with 
a number of challenges that are immune from easy answers, but strong 
opposition is one thing, and we are all free to offer bills and 
amendments to go in a different direction and to ask the Senate to vote 
on them.
  But I would ask my colleagues--all of them--what does keeping the 
U.S. Executive Director position at IDB vacant accomplish for us? As we 
try to make smart investments in Latin American to get at the root 
causes of problems like migration, is hobbling the most important 
organization charged with financing our goal really helpful?
  With that said, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the 
following nomination: PN1028, Leopoldo Martinez Nucete, to be United 
States Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank for a 
term of 3 years to succeed Eliot Pedrosa; that the Senate vote on the 
nomination with no intervening action or debate; that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further 
motions be in order on the nomination; that any related statements be 
printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action.

[[Page S6891]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in September, 
Democrats asked unanimous consent to the confirmation of Mr. Martinez 
Nucete. I objected.
  At the time, I explained that President Biden had been pursuing a 
policy in Latin America that has given momentum to the hard left pro-
Chavez, pro-Castro, anti-American movements across the hemisphere.
  Indeed, I have explained at considerable length my deep opposition to 
the misguided foreign policy of President Biden and his administration. 
This President and this administration has consistently shown weakness 
and appeasement to the enemies of America, whether Communist China or 
Russia or Iran or Venezuela, while at the same time demonstrating deep 
animosity to friends and allies of America.
  It is a foreign policy that I believe is precisely backward if the 
objective were defending U.S. national security interests.
  President Trump, the previous President, frequently described his 
foreign policy as an America-first foreign policy. One of the best 
descriptions that can be given of President Biden and the Democrats' 
foreign policy is an America-last foreign policy.
  Every region on Earth has gotten worse, more hostile to America, and 
more dangerous in the 2 years that Joe Biden has been President, and 
yet no region has been hurt more than Latin America.
  President Biden came into office and immediately froze out pro-
American governments in Latin America. For example, he went out of his 
way to undermine and to alienate the government of Colombian President 
Ivan Duque. He denied Duque a phone call for the first 5 months of the 
administration, providing morale and momentum to Duque's domestic 
enemies, and so the predictable result occurred. The Colombian far left 
gained more and more momentum, and a few months ago, leftist Gustavo 
Petro took control of Colombia, a former terrorist with a long record 
of deep anti-American animosity.
  Since then, things have only gotten worse. In the aftermath of recent 
elections, Lula da Silva is set to take control of Brazil, the largest 
country in Latin America. And, of course, Biden immediately picked up 
the phone to call Lula to congratulate him.
  I will note during the same few days, it took Biden a full week to 
call and congratulate Benjamin Netanyahu, who had just won election to 
be the next Prime Minister of our dear friend and ally Israel.
  But for the Biden administration, they were thrilled to see an anti-
American leftist like Lula in power, and they were deeply dismayed to 
see a pro-American friend and ally like Netanyahu in power.
  Just last week, the Biden administration announced that it was 
providing sanctions relief to the Maduro regime in Venezuela.
  Mark my words, I believe this administration is moving step by step 
systematically toward formally recognizing the Maduro regime. That 
would be a catastrophic mistake. I think the Biden administration would 
do it expeditiously. They would do it today if they could, but they 
know the political costs are high so, instead, they are advancing 
incrementally, inch by inch.
  Right now, they are starting to unwind sanctions on Venezuelan oil 
while continuing to stifle drilling here at home, forcing American 
energy producers to seek oil from dictators and enemies of America 
rather than produce high-paying jobs here in the United States.
  And I might note that oil produced in the United States is produced 
much more cleanly, emits less carbon, emits less pollutants than does 
the foreign oil, and yet the Biden foreign policy is such that they 
relish putting billions in the coffers of dictators.
  Back in September, I said that the Senate badly needed to debate the 
trajectory and the likely consequences of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's 
disastrous Latin America policy and that the nomination of Mr. Martinez 
Nucete for Executive Director of the IADB was particularly problematic 
in this context.
  Mr. Martinez Nucete has a long career of being a hard-left partisan. 
In Venezuela, he served as a socialist congressman during the tenure of 
Hugo Chavez.
  His nomination is both an example of, and if confirmed he would fuel, 
the Biden administration's ongoing effort to drag Latin America to the 
far left to empower anti-American Marxists throughout the region.
  Now, I just listened to the words of my friend and colleague, the 
Senator from Virginia, claiming that, in actuality, Mr. Martinez Nucete 
was not the kind of Venezuelan socialist who supported Chavez; he was a 
different kind of Venezuelan socialist. He doesn't dispute that he is a 
Venezuelan socialist former congressman, but he says: No, he wasn't 
exactly of the same flavor of Chavez.
  I will say I am not particularly interested in slicing and dicing the 
varieties of socialists in Latin America operating in Chavez's 
Venezuela.
  I am opposed to former socialist congressmen of foreign nations 
representing the United States of America in any context, let alone at 
international banks.
  I will say my colleague from Virginia spoke movingly about the 
importance of the IADB. I agree. We should have an American 
representative on that bank, and that underscores the need for 
President Biden to withdraw this nomination and nominate someone with 
experience who would advocate for America and not for the far left in 
Latin America.
  I will note also that Mr. Martinez Nucete failed to advance favorably 
out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee because every single 
Republican on the committee voted against him, and it was not just his 
record as a former socialist congressman.
  One of the significant concerns was his deeply manifested hostility 
to religion and to people of faith. That hostility was demonstrated in 
answers and written testimony provided by Mr. Martinez Nucete in 
response to questions that I asked him.

  These answers demonstrated a bizarre and disturbing hostility and 
antipathy for conservatives and people of faith and especially for 
conservative people of faith.
  And let me note specifically what the concerns were. I asked Mr. 
Martinez Nucete, in writing, about his views and to what extent faith 
should be disentangled from development. Development often employs and 
is deeply involved with faith-based nonprofits throughout the 
developing world.
  Here was his answer:

       There should be no entanglement between government and 
     religion. That is a bedrock constitutional principle for us 
     in America. I don't think any particular culture or religion 
     is superior to others in terms of achieving socioeconomic 
     development.

  That answer was nonresponsive and deeply confused. So I asked more 
precisely for Mr. Martinez Nucete to describe the role that faith plays 
in economic development as a constraint or as a contributing factor.
  Here was his answer:

       Education and respect for human rights, promoting social 
     mobility in market economies, is the key to development, not 
     faith.

  For anyone involved in the efforts of the IADB and other 
international banks engaged in development, that is a bizarre answer, 
because faith-based nonprofits have played transformational roles in 
development. It demonstrates, sadly, the kind of antipathy to people of 
faith that is becoming more and more common on the American left and 
apparently was the view of at least one former socialist congressman 
from Venezuela.
  I do not believe this nominee is an appropriate nominee to represent 
the United States of America on this international bank; and, 
therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly, and then I 
will soften my request of my colleague.
  Mr. Martinez was chased out of Venezuela because of his opposition to 
the regime that my Texas colleague opposes.
  As to Mr. Martinez in Venezuelan politics, I didn't concede that he 
was a socialist. You said that I did. I did not. He was a member of 
three parties: the Democratic Party, the Justice First Party, and the 
Democratic Action Party. Those were the parties that he served in. And 
for one period of time, because of disagreements with the parties, he 
was an independent member.

[[Page S6892]]

  So that is why the fact-checkers that went through this in September 
rebutted the allegation that Mr. Martinez was somehow a hard man of the 
left.
  He is an opposition leader, and the proof of that is he had to do 
something that is very difficult: leave his own native country, leave 
family behind, be branded a traitor by the very regime that both of us 
would want to counter, and lose family assets and wealth to the regime.
  I mean, do we want him to sacrifice more than that as evidence that 
he is in opposition to the Maduro regime? Left his country, lost his 
wealth, been branded a traitor--is that not enough to demonstrate his 
bona fides as an opponent of the Maduro and Chavez regime?
  And with respect to the other claims made by my colleague, he doesn't 
like the answers that Mr. Martinez gave about faith. He broadens that 
to suggest that people on the left are against faith.
  I resent that. I was a missionary in Honduras for a year in Latin 
America with Jesuits in 1980 and `81, and I know an awful lot of people 
on my side of the aisle, some who talk about it a lot and some who may 
not talk about it, including the Presiding Officer, whose faith is a 
central and motivating factor in our lives.
  So if you don't like an answer that Mr. Martinez gave, that is a good 
reason, I guess, to vote against him. You have that right. But don't 
use that as an opportunity to say about everybody over on this side of 
the aisle, that we have hostility to people of faith. Many of us have 
sacrificed a lot and acted to do so because of our faith.
  Let me soften my request, since my colleague, I understand, would 
like to vote against Leo Martinez and doesn't like a UC motion that 
would sort of lump everybody together to advance him.
  I would ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the 
majority leader, the Senate consider the nomination PN1028, Leopoldo 
Martinez Nucete, to be U.S. Executive Director of the Inter-American 
Development Bank for a term of 3 years; that the Senate have a vote on 
that nomination--a debate and vote on that nomination, with Members 
able to vote no, but with no intervening action; that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no further 
motions be in order with respect to the nomination; that any related 
statements be printed in the Record; and that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. There are a 
couple of things, but first of all, that nowhere did the Senator from 
Virginia, in his remarks, dispute in any way, shape, or form the 
chronology I laid out about the absolute disaster the Biden foreign 
policy has been in Latin America.
  Nowhere did the Senator from Virginia dispute that as a result of Joe 
Biden undermining our friends and allies, far-left Marxist, anti-
American leaders over and over and over again have risen to power, 
hurting the region and hurting America. That has been a consistent, 
deliberate pattern to undermine our friends and allies and to elevate 
vocal enemies of America.
  My friend from Virginia also said he did not concede that Mr. 
Martinez has said that he was a socialist congressman. I believe what I 
said is he didn't dispute it. But, actually, in saying he didn't 
concede it, my friend from Virginia perhaps inadvertently did concede 
it, because he described on the Senate floor how Mr. Martinez Nucete 
was a member of the Democratic Action Party in Venezuela.
  Democratic Action is a party that is formally and officially part of 
Socialist International. It is a socialist party. And that is one of 
the factors that I believe renders Mr. Martinez Nucete inappropriate 
for this nomination.
  Let me finally talk about faith. I do not remotely question or doubt 
the Senator from Virginia's faith and the good faith with which he 
advocates his positions. He and I served together on the Foreign 
Relations Committee. I will say an unusual thing about my friend from 
Virginia. He is virtually alone among Democratic Senators. He will sit 
and patiently listen to my remarks in public and often in closed 
classified settings. I am certainly not immune from the senatorial 
disease of being sometimes long-winded and enjoying the sound of my own 
voice; although, I will note, I am not the only Member of this body 
afflicted with that particular disease.
  Senator Kaine regularly will sit and listen to my arguments, despite 
the fact that the topics on which we are debating, he disagrees 
passionately with me. I try to reciprocate the favor and listen to his 
arguments, despite the fact that I disagree with many of the things he 
says. And I know that the Senator from Virginia cares deeply about his 
faith.
  I also lament the rise of explicit hostility to faith among the left 
in today's Democratic Party. I recall when one Democrat Senator, 
questioning a nominee in the prior administration, suggested at a 
hearing that his Christian faith made him unsuitable to serve in the 
post to which he had been appointed. I recall when another senior 
Democrat in a confirmation hearing for Justice Amy Coney Barrett said 
infamously that ``the dogma lives loudly'' in her, by which that 
Senator meant Justice Coney Barrett's Catholic faith.
  There was a time a few decades ago when we had a bipartisan embrace 
of religious liberty. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed this 
body overwhelmingly with Democratic and Republican support and was 
signed into law by a Democratic President. Sadly, that Democratic Party 
no longer exists.
  Today's Democratic Party routinely votes in ways directly hostile to 
people of faith. And I need not look to prior confirmation hearings. I 
can look to votes on the floor of this Chamber yesterday. Yesterday, in 
advancing their gay marriage legislation, Democrats stood united 
against religious liberty. My colleague, Senator Mike Lee from Utah, 
introduced an amendment that would protect religious liberty, that 
would prevent the Biden IRS from targeting for persecution churches and 
charities and universities and K-through-12 schools that believe 
marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Every Democrat in this 
Chamber had the opportunity to vote in favor of religious liberty, and 
yet the Democrats in this Chamber overwhelmingly voted against 
protecting religious liberty.
  That is a sad development for this body. I wish we were back in the 
days where the protection of religious liberty was a bipartisan 
commitment. I hope one day we can return to that time.
  Regardless of where today's American Democrats are, Mr. Martinez 
Nucete has written answers that demonstrated an unusual antipathy to 
faith, even among nominees in the Biden administration. And for all of 
these reasons--his antipathy to faith and his history as a socialist 
congressman in Venezuela--I believe this nominee is inappropriate to 
represent the United States on this international bank.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to respond, but I am not going 
to, just to remind my colleague from Texas that the bill we passed 
yesterday had ample protections for religious liberty that we and 
Republicans in both Houses have found very acceptable. But my colleague 
from Rhode Island has been very patient in waiting to take the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.