[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12945-12951]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF SAMANTHA POWER TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED 
                STATES OF AMERICA TO THE UNITED NATIONS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.

[[Page 12946]]

  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Samantha Power, of 
Massachusetts, to be the Representative of the United States of America 
to the United Nations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
hours of debate equally divided between the proponents and the 
opponents.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to strongly support the 
nomination of Samantha Power to be the next United States Ambassador to 
the United Nations, and I commend President Obama for selecting her for 
this extremely important position.
  Born of Irish parents and raised in Ireland until she was 9, Samantha 
and her parents emigrated to Pennsylvania and Georgia, and she attended 
Yale and Harvard.
  She is well known for her accomplishments as a journalist during the 
conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, her Pulitzer Prize-winning book, 
``A Problem from Hell,'' her leadership of the Carr Center for Human 
Rights, and her work as the senior director for Multilateral Affairs 
and Human Rights at the National Security Council.
  Samantha is a person of extraordinary intellect, exceptional 
integrity, and a strong moral compass. She is willing to challenge 
conventional wisdom and fight for things she feels passionately about, 
irrespective of the forces aligned against her.
  Samantha is an internationalist. She believes in the indispensable 
role that multilateral organizations play in addressing global problems 
no country can solve alone--from genocide to global warming to 
international terrorism.
  At the National Security Council she also brought much-needed 
attention to human trafficking, protection for refugees, gay rights, 
and gender-based violence. But what some people may be less aware of is 
the depth of Samantha's devotion to the principles on which this 
country was founded, and which I believe is one of the key reasons the 
President nominated her.
  Samantha is an American patriot. She will not only strive to ensure 
that the United States leads by example at the United Nations, but that 
we do so in a manner that honors the Constitution and the idealism of 
those who wrote it, which continue to inspire people around the world. 
That is what people expect of the United States, and I know of no one 
better suited to turn that expectation into reality.
  At a time when the United States faces emerging threats and 
intensifying competition for natural resources, human rights are under 
assault in many countries, and millions of people live in squalor or 
have fled their homes due to armed conflict, natural disasters, or the 
effects of overpopulation and climate change on the availability of 
land, water and food, how effectively we use our influence globally 
will determine the kind of world our children and grandchildren 
inherit.
  Now is the time for the United States to embrace these challenges, 
and I am confident that Samantha Power will do so with every bit of 
conviction and energy that she has.
  To those Senators of either party who have at times differed with 
this administration over foreign policy or who may doubt the importance 
of U.S. support for the United Nations, I encourage those Senators to 
speak to Samantha directly. There is no one better informed, no one 
more willing to listen to other points of view, and no one more 
persuasive, than Samantha Power.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. RISCH. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Risch pertaining to the introduction of S. 1430 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I rise to promote and suggest to my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle that we support the nomination of Samantha Power to 
be the next Ambassador to the United Nations.
  This is a very complex world we live in today. Certainly the forum of 
the United Nations, in spite of some issues that all of us had with 
that body over the years, remains the one forum where the United 
States, No. 1, gets to exhibit strong leadership with our friends, our 
allies, our adversaries, and a strong voice in the United Nations is 
imperative.
  Samantha Power is an individual who possesses the type of character, 
the type of strong background, and the person who possesses the 
intellect and the right kind of ability to communicate to represent us 
today in this complex world at the United Nations.
  Samantha was born in Ireland but moved to the United States shortly 
thereafter. She was educated in the public schools in Atlanta, Yale, 
and Harvard. Obviously, she has the intellect, from a background 
standpoint, to represent our country at the U.N.
  Between her stints at Harvard and Yale, she did reporting as a 
journalist on the ground, reporting on the Yugoslav wars. She was 
hands-on dodging bullets and being involved from the standpoint of 
making reports to various journals and other publications about what 
was happening in those Yugoslav wars.
  Samantha is an individual who developed a passion for human rights. 
She is not bashful about sharing that passion. It is a commendable 
passion that she has for human rights.
  From 2005 forward, Samantha has been involved almost exclusively in 
the arena of foreign policy, first as a staffer for then-Senator Obama, 
later involved in his campaign, and most recently as a member of the 
National Security staff.
  Samantha is not only knowledgeable, she is knowledgeable in the right 
way when it comes to foreign policy. She is not only smart, but she is 
worldly. She has the charisma, in her own way, No. 1, to express 
herself in a way that right now the United States needs to be 
expressing itself.
  This is why I am so excited about the opportunity to see her on the 
ground at the United Nations representing our great country. She can be 
tough when she needs to be tough. She can be charismatic, and she can 
also be sharp-tongued.
  With the adversaries she is going to have to be dealing with at the 
United Nations, all of those assets are going to come into play. 
Samantha is going to do a great job as our next U.N. Ambassador. I 
applaud her for her willingness to engage in public service. I would 
encourage all of my colleagues to support her nomination to be the next 
Ambassador to the United Nations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I understand we have 1 hour available in 
opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the 
pending nomination. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the 
nomination of Ms. Samantha Power to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the 
United Nations.
  Let me begin by saying that Ms. Power is an impressive person. She 
has an inspiring personal story, she is clearly very intelligent, and 
she has already accomplished much in her career. However, I do have 
three concerns I want to take a moment to highlight today.
  The first has to do with a concern I have about her unwillingness to 
directly answer questions I personally posed to her during her 
confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I 
asked her about statements attributed to her in the past alleging that 
the United States had committed ``crimes'' that it needed to reckon 
with. I raised the question not to embarrass her but to give her the 
opportunity to clarify by either pointing out examples of these crimes 
or to clarify what she meant by those comments. Instead, she kept 
avoiding directly addressing my question. She kept saying that America 
was the greatest country in the world and that she wouldn't apologize 
for America.
  I don't think it is unreasonable to be concerned about those 
statements, and

[[Page 12947]]

I do not think it is unfair to be concerned about the fact that we are 
sending someone to represent us at the most important international 
forum in the world who thinks the United States has committed crimes 
that it needs to reckon with.
  I believe I and members of the committee deserved an answer to the 
question. Instead, what we got in response was a rehearsed line. I 
believe it was a missed opportunity for her and for all of us. To me, 
these statements she made in the past and her inability to answer or 
address them raise questions about her judgment, although--let me be 
clear--I certainly do not question her patriotism.
  Secondly, I have an even greater concern that she is being appointed 
by a President whose foreign policy is fast becoming an utter and 
absolute failure. From crises in the Middle East, to strategic 
uncertainty in Asia, to a country we were told was a partner but is now 
harboring a fugitive and traitor who has done great damage to U.S. 
national security, I believe the world is now more dangerous and more 
uncertain than when President Obama took office. It is increasingly 
apparent that our foes are more willing than ever to challenge us. Even 
more troubling is that those who seek to emulate us, who desire the 
freedom we all, as Americans, enjoy, are often left to fend for 
themselves with little American support.
  A strong, engaged America has been good for the world and for the 
American people. When America fails to lead, the result, as we see in 
Syria today, is chaos--a chaos that allows others with goals other than 
our own to fill the void we leave behind.
  History taught us twice in the last century that even if we put our 
heads in the sand and try to ignore the world's problems, those 
problems will not ignore us. I realize the American people are weary of 
war. We have paid a tremendous price in lives and money in the war on 
radical Islamic terrorism. But to follow the advice of those--including 
some in the Republican Party--who advocate disengagement from the world 
would be a terrible mistake. If we follow their advice, we will only 
pay a higher price in the long term.
  Let me be clear. That does not mean America can solve every problem 
or get engaged in every civil war on the planet. I would confess that 
we also have voices here that are too eager to engage America in every 
conflict on the planet. We need to be careful about when, where, and 
how we engage American forces overseas. But isolationism on the one 
hand and hyperintervention on the other are not our only two options. 
Between these two choices we have a third option, and it is this--one 
based on the idea that while the United States cannot solve every 
problem in the world, there are very few problems in the world that can 
be solved without the United States.
  If a problem can be solved by using an international forum such as 
the United Nations, that is fine, but more often than not the United 
Nations can not and will not confront the problem. In the end, the 
truth is that America is still the only Nation in the world able to 
form and lead coalitions to confront evil and solve problems. It is 
still the only Nation on Earth able to keep the seas open for trade. It 
is still the only Nation capable of maintaining the safe balance of 
power in Asia and Europe and around the world. It is still the only 
Nation on Earth capable of preventing rogue nations from becoming 
nuclear powers. And it is still the only Nation on Earth capable of 
targeting and diminishing radical terrorist organizations that plot to 
attack and kill Americans here at home and around the world.
  We should be careful when we get involved. Foreign aid is not a one-
way street and should always be conditioned and based on our national 
interests. Military power should be employed judiciously and only where 
it can make a difference in defending our long-term goals. But we 
cannot pretend that if we ignore our enemies, they will ignore us. We 
must be involved, and when we get involved we must make sure not just 
that we are doing it the right way, we must make sure we are doing it 
at the right time because sometimes acting too late is worse than not 
acting at all. When we do get involved, it is OK to be motivated by 
humanitarian concerns, but the primary objective of our foreign policy 
must always be to protect our people from those who do or may one day 
want to harm us.
  This is the kind of clear strategic view of America's role and of our 
interests that should guide our foreign policy. It is the kind of clear 
strategic thinking this President has failed to lay out. As a result, 
what we see all around us is failure.
  The President dithered on Syria. We should have tried to identify 
secular rebels early in the conflict, and we should have made sure they 
were the best armed and the best trained group on the ground. Instead, 
the President decided to lead from behind and allow others to decide 
whom to arm, and the result is that today it is rebel groups linked to 
Al Qaeda--foreign fighters, not even Syrians--who are the best armed 
and best equipped groups within Syria. Now I fear Syria may be headed 
toward becoming another Afghanistan before 9/11, toward becoming the 
premier operational area in the world for global jihadists.
  The President entered office with the naive belief that we could 
convince Iran to become a responsible nation by, quite frankly, being 
nicer to them. He wasted valuable early years in his Presidency not 
giving the Iranian threat priority, and now the Ayatollahs continue the 
march toward acquiring both nuclear weapons and long-range missiles 
that can one day threaten the United States.
  I would be remiss if I did not point out that in 2009 he missed an 
opportunity to clearly stand on the side of those protesting a stolen 
election and instead chose not to because he didn't want to interfere 
in the ``sovereignty'' of another nation.
  The President also wasted time thinking the cause of radical Islamic 
terrorism was partially because George W. Bush was hated in the Muslim 
world. But despite his speech in Cairo, despite his efforts to close 
Guantanamo, despite his elimination of the use of the term ``war on 
terror,'' Al Qaeda continues to hate America, and even as I speak here 
today they continue to plan attacks against America here and around the 
world.
  The President is not alone in failing to confront these threats. I am 
afraid that because of the success we have had in preventing another 
attack on the scale of 9/11, some of our leaders in both parties have 
been lulled into a sense of false security. I certainly support the 
privacy rights and expectations of all Americans, but, my colleagues, I 
also know for a fact that the surveillance programs our government uses 
have prevented attacks and saved American lives.
  I think it is a mistake to dismiss privacy concerns as crazy. After 
all, we have a government whose tax-collecting agency has targeted 
Americans because of their political views. But it is also a mistake to 
exaggerate them. After all, if a known terrorist is emailing or calling 
someone in the United States, we had better be able to know who and 
where that person is.
  If Osama bin Laden had been calling someone in the United States on 
their cell phone, I promise you it wasn't a stockbroker. We had better 
know because these people are still plotting against us, and not if but 
when they strike again the American people are going to turn to us and 
ask: What has the Federal Government been doing to prevent this, we had 
better have a good answer.
  We live in a very dangerous world, one, by the way, where our enemies 
aren't just other countries anymore. Our enemies are also rogue states, 
well-armed militias, and radical clerics. This kind of danger calls for 
a clear strategic vision on foreign policy, and this President, sadly, 
does not have one, which brings me to my third and primary concern 
about Ms. Power's nomination, and it is one that is related to the 
United Nations itself.
  We need an advocate in New York who makes it their primary focus to 
ensure that the United Nations is more

[[Page 12948]]

accountable, that it is more effective, and that it serves U.S. 
interests and is not just some multilateral ideal in which we invest 
all of our hopes.
  If she is confirmed today, I hope Ms. Power does indeed become that 
type of Ambassador. But I have not been satisfied by the evidence thus 
far of this administration's willingness to be serious about tackling 
these issues over the last 4\1/2\ years that ensure that every American 
dollar going to the United Nations actually advances America's 
interests. I think Congress needs to play a more active role in forcing 
this very much needed change to occur.
  What I would like to do in closing is spend a few minutes 
highlighting legislation that I recently introduced to this effect. I 
am pleased to have as cosponsors Senators Cornyn, Risch, and Flake, and 
I hope more of my colleagues will join this effort.
  I am not the first person to raise concerns about the effectiveness 
and utility of the United Nations. Former Senator John Danforth, who 
was serving as our Ambassador to the United Nations in 2004, when the 
U.N. General Assembly couldn't even pass a resolution condemning human 
rights violations in Sudan, said at the time:

       One wonders about the utility of the General Assembly on 
     days like this. One wonders if there can't be a clear and 
     direct statement on matters of basic principle, why have this 
     building? What is it all about?

  Anyone who has followed the United Nations closely, especially in 
recent years as the Security Council has failed to respond to the 
crisis in Syria as more than 100,000 Syrians have died and hundreds of 
thousands more have been forced out of their homes, across borders, 
straining all of Syria's neighbors, leaving behind a failing state that 
is becoming a safe haven for global jihadists--all of the people who 
have shared these concerns and have seen this happen should be rightly 
asking the same question Senator Danforth asked back then.
  In the midst of this horrific crisis, the United Nations has even 
been unable to achieve consensus on the issue of whether to allow 
international humanitarian organizations to provide cross-border 
support to tens of thousands of Syrians stuck in camps facing frequent 
shelling and attacks from the Assad regime.
  Just as we are troubled by this inability to tackle the world's 
toughest problems, we should also be angry about the fact that for 
decades more human rights criticism at the United Nations has been 
directed against Israel than against actual human rights violators and 
that U.N. agencies and organizations have employed blatant anti-
Semites; or that for decades recipients of U.S. foreign aid have only 
voted with the United States at the United Nations less than one-third 
of the time and such support, by the way, doesn't even currently factor 
into U.S. decisions about who receives our foreign aid; or the fact 
that the world's most notorious tyrants and human rights violators are 
allowed to serve on the Human Rights Council rather than being 
condemned by it; or by the fraud and the mismanagement that has 
pervaded the U.N.'s peacekeeping operations, including abuses and 
exploitation of the very people that those peacekeepers were sent to 
protect; or by the Security Council resolutions on Iran and North Korea 
that members of the U.N. willfully violate, as we recently saw with the 
Panamanian capture of a ship transferring weapons from Cuba, one rogue 
state, to North Korea, another one; or by the proliferation of mandates 
that have clouded the organization's mission and effectiveness.
  The list goes on and on. But let me be clear. I am not here to argue 
that we don't need the United Nations. Ideally, we would have a United 
Nations where the nations of the world would come together and 
seriously deal with North Korea, Iran, radical Islam, and human rights. 
But the United Nations we have right now isn't capable of any of this. 
It has basically become a forum for nations whose interests are 
directly opposed to ours, to block our efforts using the United Nations 
as cover.
  That is how North Korea and Iran continue to evade sanctions. That is 
how Israel's enemies continue their efforts to delegitimize the Jewish 
State. That is how Assad continues to massacre his own people with 
weapons built in and supplied by the Russians.
  More than six decades after its creation, we still hope for a United 
Nations with resolve, a United Nations that acts with effectiveness and 
purpose. Sadly, the United Nations' persistent ethics and 
accountability problems are limiting its role. Until the organization 
addresses these important issues, it will continue to be ineffective 
and often irrelevant.
  Americans should care about this more than any other people because 
we shoulder the primary fiscal burden of the United Nations' budget, 
and our patience is not limitless. We don't believe in continuing to 
throw money at programs and projects that fail to accomplish their 
objectives.
  So my hope with the legislation I filed is to provide an incentive 
for the United Nations and the President and our Ambassador in New York 
to modernize that international body along a spirit of transparency, 
respect for basic human freedoms, and effective nonproliferation. This 
legislation would also attempt to address the anti-Semitic attitudes 
that have become so prevalent in certain corners of the United Nations 
and seriously diminish the effectiveness and credibility of the entire 
U.N. system.
  At the core of these reforms that I proposed is an effort to instill 
a sense of transparency and competition at the United Nations by its 
adoption of a budgetary model that relies mostly on voluntary 
contributions. This legislation would also strengthen the international 
standing of human rights by reforming the U.N. Human Rights Council in 
a way that would deny membership to nations under U.N. sanctions, 
designated by our Department of State as state sponsors of terrorism or 
failing to take measures to combat and end the despicable practice of 
human trafficking. Other provisions of the bill seek meaningful reforms 
at the U.N. Relief and Work Agency that provides assistance to 
Palestinian refugees of the 1948 Arab-Israli conflict.
  This legislation is needed because the structure and bureaucratic 
culture of the organization often makes it impossible or, at best, 
downright difficult to achieve meaningful reforms.
  In closing, for more than six decades now the United Nations has 
served as an important multilateral forum to address peace and security 
issues throughout the world. But it has never been, and it is not now, 
a substitute for strong American leadership. When America fails to 
lead, the world becomes more dangerous.
  The United Nations is badly broken. I hope we will work to force 
meaningful transparency and accountability reforms for the United 
Nations. But so far this administration does not seem very interested 
in doing so and, unfortunately, at least based on our conversations, 
neither does the nominee before us. Therefore, until we begin to take 
some positive steps in that direction, I will not be able to support 
Obama administration nominees who have not committed to significant 
reform of the United Nations.
  Ms. Power has failed to make such a commitment. Therefore, that is 
why I am voting against her nomination to be our next Ambassador to the 
United Nations.
 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I wish to express my opposition to 
the nomination of Samantha Power to be U.S. Ambassador to the United 
Nations.
  As you know, I am very interested in the ability of our American oil 
and gas industry to compete for business in the country of Myanmar as 
soon as possible. By virtually every international standard, the U.S. 
oil and gas industry is the world leader in technical innovation. It is 
my understanding, however, that Ms. Power, as one of the Obama 
administration's point persons in pursuing a liberal international 
agenda attempted to 'carve out' the American petroleum industry from 
doing business in Myanmar when the United States suspended economic 
sanctions against this country last year. Fortunately, wiser powers 
within the executive branch prevented such a carve out

[[Page 12949]]

from occurring, and now the American petroleum industry can compete 
with those companies from the European Union, China and Russia, which 
are already there. Clearly, this carve out strategy would have been a 
strategic mistake, and it has led me to question seriously Samantha 
Power's ability to represent adequately U.S. national interests and 
security needs at the United Nations. I believe that American 
companies, and especially our oil and gas companies, can play positive 
roles in the democratic transition in Myanmar by demonstrating high 
standards of responsible business conduct and transparency, including 
respect for labor and human rights. Ms. Power's inability to recognize 
this fact is very troubling.
  In addition, I find her position on Israeli-Palestinian relations of 
great concern. Israel is our friend and the sole democracy in the 
Middle East. It is a nation that we should support and promote in a 
region that is torn by violence and conflict. Samantha Power does not 
see it this way. Rather, she believes that Israel should give up its 
historical right to its land, and that the U.S. should impose a peace 
plan upon Israel with the Palestinian Authority. She has also 
repeatedly accused our friend Israel of human rights abuses. This 
certainly does not represent the views of the people or that of the 
leadership of the United States.
  Lastly, in addition to her lack of diplomatic skills, Ms. Power has 
no management experience, causing me to question her ability to lead at 
the United Nations. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. is constantly facing 
management issues, and I had hoped that President Obama would have 
nominated someone who could effectively promote U.S. initiatives there. 
Unfortunately, Ms. Power is not such a nominee.
  It is for these reasons that I oppose Samantha Power's nomination as 
the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
  Mr. RUBIO. I yield back the balance of the time available to the 
opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Samantha 
Power's nomination to be the Ambassador to the United Nations.
  As I said in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I chaired, 
on Ms. Power, her appointment as Ambassador to the United Nations has 
come with much fanfare and with some criticism--which, at the end of 
the day, means she must be doing something right. In that regard, as I 
listen to my colleague member of the committee express his reservations 
and his opposition to Ms. Power, I think we have to have some context.
  When she responded: The United States is the greatest country in the 
world and I will not apologize for it, it was her way of rejecting any 
characterization of statements that she made in the past. It was very 
clear to me. I want a U.N. Ambassador sitting in front of the world who 
considers the United States the greatest country in the world and who 
will not apologize for the United States before that world body. She 
made it very clear that is exactly what she intends to do.
  On accountability, we cannot achieve accountability at the United 
Nations if we do not have a U.N. Ambassador there to lead the effort on 
accountability. On those questions where she was asked by several 
members: Are you committed to making the United Nations a more 
accountable organization, not only did she say yes several times, in 
the affirmative, but she gave examples of how that accountability can 
be achieved. We need an Ambassador to pursue accountability at the 
United Nations.
  Finally, I agree with my colleague that when America fails to lead in 
some critical times, we leave a void in the world. But we cannot lead 
if we do not have a U.N. Ambassador raising their voice and their vote 
on our behalf on some of the critical issues of the day.
  So this nomination is critical to pursuing the national interests and 
security of the United States. Whatever my colleagues might think about 
her nomination, I don't believe anyone can question her considerable 
credentials or her years of service. Certainly, no one can question her 
willingness to speak her mind, especially her willingness to speak out 
on human rights issues around the world.
  As a war correspondent in Bosnia, in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, 
and Sudan, she has, as she said in her Pulitzer Prize-winning book, 
seen ``evil at its worst.''
  Ms. Power has built a career and a reputation as one of the Nation's 
most principled voices against all human rights violations and crimes 
against humanity. I know that voice will be heard around the world 
should we confirm her.
  While some of us may not agree with everything she has written and 
said during her extensive career as a journalist and foreign policy 
professional, she has been a tireless defender of human rights, and she 
has seen the tragedy of human suffering from the frontlines firsthand, 
and it has given her a unique perspective.
  In her role at the National Security Council, she was clearly 
involved with U.S. policy toward the United Nations. She knows the 
United Nations' strengths, its weaknesses, and how it operates. At the 
end of the day the United States needs a representative at the United 
Nations who will uphold American values, promote human rights, secure 
our interests and the interests of our national security. I have every 
confidence in Samantha Power's ability to do exactly that, and I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.
  Personally, I am incredibly appreciative of the principled positions 
she has taken on the Armenian genocide, her belief that we should use 
the lessons of what clearly was an atrocity of historic proportions to 
prevent future crimes against humanity is a view consistent with my own 
and which is supported by her role in the President's Atrocities 
Prevention Board. I agree we must acknowledge the past, study how and 
why atrocities happen, if we are ever to give true meaning to the 
phrase ``Never again.''
  As the son of immigrants from Cuba, I personally appreciate her 
commitment to exposing Cuba's total disregard for human and civil 
rights, and I respect her for not idealizing the harsh realities of 
communism in Cuba. I know from the conversation we had in my office, 
she appreciates the suffering of the Cuban people--the torture, abuse, 
detention, and abridgement of the civil and human rights of those who 
voice their dissent under the Castro regime. I welcome her commitment 
to reach out to Rosa Maria Paya, daughter of the longtime dissident and 
Cuban activist, Oswaldo Paya who died under mysterious circumstances 
last year in Cuba as his car was bumped off the road, and I look 
forward to her fulfillment of that commitment.
  At the end of day, it is fitting that someone with Ms. Power's 
background represent American interests and American values at the 
United Nations. In the words of the U.N. Preamble, it was created ``to 
reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of 
the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations 
large and small. . . .''
  Who better than Samantha Power, a recognized advocate for the 
fundamental rights of every human being, to be our ambassador to the 
United Nations? If confirmed, her focus will, of course, be on the 
crisis du jour: the Middle East, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, 
Pakistan, and others, and the nature of nations that emerge from the 
Arab spring. But I know while she is meeting those challenges, she will 
also be engaged on human rights around the world: on freedom of 
expression in Latin America; on fighting HIV-AIDS, malaria, and polio 
in Africa; on the status of talks to resolve the 66-year-old question 
of Cyprus; on women's rights in Pakistan and labor rights in Bangladesh 
and human rights in Sri Lanka.
  Ms. Power, during her nomination process, has repeatedly expressed 
steadfast support for the State of Israel during her hearing, in her 
testimony,

[[Page 12950]]

and individually to several members of the committee, including myself 
as chair. She has promised to stand up for Israel at the United 
Nations, and I know she will.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the committee in support of 
Ms. Power from six bipartisan former Ambassadors to the United Nations 
be printed in the Record, calling on the Senate to confirm her as soon 
as possible in this time of opportunity, to have a U.S. Representative 
in New York advocating for American interests. I urge my colleagues to 
support this qualified, experienced nominee. I know she will serve the 
Nation well.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Hon. Robert Menendez,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As former U.S. ambassadors to the United 
     Nations in New York, we are writing in support of Samantha 
     Power's nomination as U.S. ambassador and representative to 
     the United Nations. We believe she is eminently qualified for 
     the role and if confirmed she will effectively promote U.S. 
     values and interests.
       She has long been a champion of human rights and an 
     advocate for American leadership around the world. As a 
     Pulitzer Prize winner, university teacher, senior member of 
     the National Security staff at the White House, and 
     journalist, she has the knowledge base effectively and 
     efficiently to promote U.S. interests at the U.N.
       She has a record of support for Israel and she will 
     continue her advocacy as U.N. ambassador for our important 
     ally in the Middle East while bringing to the task the 
     balance and judgment required to advise the President and the 
     Secretary of State on the perspective from the United Nations 
     on the important issues of Arab-Israeli peace as well as the 
     host of other issues which are constantly part of United 
     State's policy in dealing with the world community through 
     and with the United Nations.
       The administration will benefit from her perspective; if 
     confirmed, her experience will allow her to be an effective 
     leader beginning on her first day.
       We believe that the Senate should confirm Samantha Power as 
     soon as possible because in this time of opportunity and 
     challenge we need to have the position of U.S. representative 
     at the U.N. in New York filled and operating--advocating for 
     U.S. interests--at the earliest possible time.
       We would be most grateful if you would ask your staff to 
     insure that this letter is made available to all the members 
     of the Committee of Foreign Relations.
       With warm regards and respect,
     Madeleine Albright.
     John Danforth.
     Donald McHenry.
     Edward Perkins.
     Thomas R. Pickering.
     Bill Richardson.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I also rise to support the nomination of 
Samantha Power to be our Ambassador at the United Nations. Within the 
last month I had a unique opportunity as the junior member of the 
committee that my friend Chairman Menendez chairs, as the head of 
Foreign Relations, to spend the day at the United Nations and learn 
about it from then-Ambassador Rice. I left that day with a couple of 
reactions: first, very proud to be an American, and, second, concerned 
about the challenges the institution faces.
  First, on the proud to be American, I think it is important for us to 
realize, for whatever its flaws, the United Nations would not exist if 
it were not for this country. It is a quintessential American idea to 
pull together an institution that tries to build peace, that tries to 
solve hunger, that tries to solve global health needs. The idea first 
gained force through the efforts of American President and Virginian 
Woodrow Wilson who won the Nobel prize for trying to get the League of 
Nations going at the end of World War I. That league lasted for 20 
years and collapsed, for many reasons, including the lack of 
participation in the United States in the global effort. But the idea 
did not die. The American idea stayed alive, and in 1939 the State 
Department, within 2 years after the collapse of the league, started to 
work on the next version. FDR worked on it during his entire Presidency 
and was scheduled to have the first conference on the United Nations 2 
weeks after his untimely death in 1945.
  The second decision made by President Truman in 1945--the first was 
to keep FDR's Cabinet--was he was posed with this: After FDR's death, 
we can postpone the meeting in San Francisco about the formation of the 
United Nations. But Truman said: No, we are going to go ahead because 
this is something the world needs and America is uniquely positioned to 
lead.
  Ever since its start, in funding and support, through good times and 
bad, through controversies Senator Rubio described on the floor, this 
United Nations has worked hard to do good, worked hard to achieve an 
ideal that may be impossible to achieve. It is a tribute to the U.S. 
role as a global leader that the United Nations exists today.
  I was also struck again by many of the challenges--the challenges of 
a tough globe, the challenges of U.N. problems in the ethics and 
finance area, the challenges that confuse many Americans as we look at 
the U.N., principally those referred to by my colleague Senator 
Menendez, a history of anti-Semitism at the U.N. that confuses us as we 
watch it.
  What are we to do with this institution that we birthed, more than 
any other nation, that still offers great hope and service every day, 
yet still needs significant change? I think what we should do is put a 
strong person in to be U.S. Ambassador, and Samantha Power is that 
individual. She has the strength to tackle the challenges that need 
tackling at the U.N. She has had the career, as described by earlier 
speakers, as a war correspondent, a writer, somebody who snuck across 
borders to take photos of atrocities in Darfur and then bring them to 
the attention of the world. Her writings and her activism have inspired 
generations of activists around the world to take up the cause of human 
rights.
  She has been the President's senior adviser on matters in the United 
Nations in the last 4 years. To focus on this issue, here is what 
Samantha Power has done in that role to help deal with this issue of 
anti-Semitism at the U.N. and the double standard in the treatment of 
Israel. She worked to ensure the closest possible cooperation between 
the United States and Israel at the U.N., where she championed efforts 
to stand up against attempts to delegitimize Israel. She was key to the 
decision of the United States to boycott the deeply flawed ``Durban 
II'' conference in 2009, which turned into an event to criticize 
Israel. She helped mobilize efforts for the U.N. sanctions against 
Iran. She has challenged unfair treatment of Israel by U.N. bodies, 
including the one-sided Goldstone Report, and efforts to single out 
Israel in the Security Council after the Turkish flotilla incident, and 
she opposed the unilateral moves in the U.N. by the Palestinians that 
could undermine prospects for a negotiated peace agreement between 
Palestine and Israel, and how hopeful we are at the events this week, 
and we pray it goes forward and finds positive possibility. This is the 
activity she has had helping the U.N. while she was not the U.N. 
Ambassador. I want her in that seat so she can carry forward on those 
initiatives and others.
  She will champion efforts to protect persecuted Christians and other 
religious minorities in the Middle East and beyond, and she helped 
spearhead the creation of new tools for genocide prevention and she led 
the administration's efforts to combat human trafficking, all values of 
which we can be proud if they would be on display at the United 
Nations.
  I said during her hearing the one thing that made me scratch my head 
a bit about her when I heard she was nominated is I think of her 
primarily as a very blunt and outspoken person, and blunt and outspoken 
is not always the best job description of a diplomat. But in the case 
of the United Nations, with the challenges there, the challenges in the 
needed financial reform, the challenges in the need to push back 
against some instances of anti-Semitism, the challenges of ethics and 
other issues, we need blunt and outspoken at the United Nation. We 
don't need vague and ambiguous. We need the kind of strong leadership 
that Samantha Power would provide.
  I think of many United Nations Ambassadors. It has been an ``A'' list 
of

[[Page 12951]]

people from Henry Cabot Lodge to President George H.W. Bush before he 
was President to Bill Richardson and Andrew Young. We can think of 
many. But the two I think of most--I guess I think of them because they 
are Irish Americans--when I think of Samantha Power is Daniel Moynihan 
and Jeane Kirkpatrick, strong United Nations Ambassadors who stood 
proudly for the values of this country, who gave no quarter, who were 
good diplomats but did not hesitate to call the truth whenever and 
wherever they saw it. I think Samantha Power will do the same, and that 
I is why I support her nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my 
distinguished colleague from Virginia. He is a very thoughtful member 
of the committee. I appreciate his remarks on behalf of Ms. Power.
  With that, I yield all remaining time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Shall the Senate advise and consent to the 
nomination of Samantha Power, of Massachusetts, to be the 
Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, 
with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United States of America 
in the Security Council of the United Nations?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 200 Ex.]

                                YEAS--87

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Barrasso
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Heller
     Lee
     Paul
     Rubio
     Scott
     Shelby
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Inhofe
     Landrieu
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
  The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________