[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10006-10009]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF CRYSTAL NIX-HINES FOR THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING HER 
TENURE OF SERVICE AS THE UNITED STATES PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE TO THE 
   UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination as follows:
  Nomination of Crystal Nix-Hines, of California, for the rank of 
Ambassador during her tenure of service as the United States Permanent 
Representative to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and 
Cultural Organization.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes of debate on the nomination equally divided in the usual form.
  Who yields time?
  No one having yielded time, the time will be charged equally to both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Crystal 
Nix-Hines to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Organization, otherwise called UNESCO. I 
wanted to speak on this nomination and once again express my firm 
opposition to the administration's stated intention to circumvent U.S. 
law--the law that was passed by this body regarding funding of UNESCO--
and an intention repeated by Ms. Nix-Hines at her hearing before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year.
  I have nothing personal against this individual. I have not met her. 
I am sure she is a woman of good character and qualified for the job. 
But nevertheless I think it is important that we understand before we 
take this vote what we are doing here and why we shouldn't be doing it 
and that Ms. Nix-Hines's previous statement is relevant to her 
confirmation to this organization.
  If confirmed, this nomination will result in the administration 
sending a representative to an organization which we do not fund and in 
which we have no vote. That is right. We will be sending a confirmed 
U.S. Ambassador to an organization which we do not support and in which 
we have no vote. That contradiction can only mean the administration is 
still attempting to change those circumstances by seeking waiver 
authority, and that is the reason why I am speaking today and why I am 
opposing this nomination.
  Let me provide some context. In late 2011 UNESCO offered membership 
to the Palestinian Authority. This was a consequence of a Palestinian 
campaign to achieve recognition as a state by appealing unilaterally 
and directly to the United Nations and its agencies. UNESCO's decision 
to admit Palestine as a full member has further dimmed prospects for 
negotiated peace in the Middle East.
  My fear is that this step--which the Palestinians regard as a 
success--will encourage them to press for membership in other U.N. 
bodies as well, achieving a legitimacy through the U.N. that they don't 
deserve as a state and that they need to understand presents major 
obstacles to ever achieving some type of reconciliation between the 
Israelis and the Palestinians. This will harm Israel, it will harm the 
Palestinians' own interests, harm the U.N. agencies involved, and 
damage our own national interests.
  To prevent this sort of unilateral maneuver by the Palestinians, U.S. 
law--it is the law--has long prohibited funding to any U.N. agency that 
admits Palestine as a member. The purpose of this termination and the 
will of Congress regarding it was to discourage such reckless behavior 
by the U.N. and by the Palestinians.
  Let me repeat that. The harm that is done through this has caused 
us--brought us to a point where we passed a law signed by the President 
that said we will not support any agency that acknowledges and admits 
Palestine as a recognized state. That is our policy.

[[Page 10007]]

So funding UNESCO or even providing a waiver for that would be a clear 
violation of U.S. law.
  We have seen the administration try to work around Congress in a 
number of ways, neglecting to check the law in terms of what they are 
required to do. We are currently in an embroiled situation here with 
this detainee release from Guantanamo of five of the top leaders of the 
Taliban--a blatant violation of the law that exists on the books in 
terms of consultation with Congress before this is done. Nevertheless, 
that is not what I am here for today. That is another issue.
  Our laws require the United States to cut off budget support to 
UNESCO, and we will do the same to other agencies that also circumvent 
the correct path to negotiated settlement. I think that is good policy.
  When some administration officials spoke publicly soon after the 
UNESCO vote about finding a ``work-around'' or seeking a waiver, I 
introduced legislation not to tolerate such alternatives and said I 
would not support the waiver. I repeated those efforts in subsequent 
State and Foreign Operations appropriations bills when the 
administration included appropriations for UNESCO in its budget request 
and Secretary Kerry said in his testimony that they would be ``seeking 
to change or repeal the law.''
  In his comments on the subject, Secretary Kerry spoke about the value 
he saw in this U.N. agency but said nothing about the value of 
discouraging Palestinian efforts to circumvent negotiations and change 
its status at the U.N. before there is an agreed settlement.
  Similarly, in Ms. Nix-Hines statement for the Foreign Relations 
Committee, she spoke forcefully about her views on UNESCO and its 
importance to U.S. interests. Maybe it is true, maybe it is not true, 
but nevertheless she said nothing about how the Palestinian end run at 
the United Nations has harmed our quest for a Middle East settlement. 
She repeated the administration's intention to seek a waiver of 
existing law to resume contributions to UNESCO, declaring, ``We are not 
a country that turns tail when decisions do not go our way. We are not 
a people who shrink from challenge.''
  Well, that is true, we are not. But in stating that, she has equated 
a principled stance on an important issue--a stance she does not agree 
with--as an act of cowardice. It is an act of law. It is an act that 
was passed by this body with support from the House of Representatives 
and signed by the President of the United States. So her statement 
makes no sense unless you come to the conclusion that she was handed 
talking points--as other members of the administration have been--and 
told: Go ahead and go down and say this if this question comes up. 
Don't worry about the facts.
  I can understand why a nominee to UNESCO would want to restore U.S. 
funding to the organization and thus restore the U.S. vote there, but 
to purposely ignore or misconstrue the opposing view--one stated in 
U.S. law and supported by this Congress for 20 years--and then to go on 
and imply that such a view is cowardly--that is offensive. That is 
offensive to those Members who have supported this law, who enacted 
this law. It is offensive to the President who signed this law. It is 
offensive to the American people who sent us here to pass laws and to 
enforce those laws as passed. To call that action cowardly is something 
that is offensive as well.
  The laws that are designed to discourage U.N. bodies from admitting 
Palestinian authority before a comprehensive settlement are essential 
if negotiations are to have any chance at all. Far from being 
anachronistic, as some connected with UNESCO are claiming, they are 
more current and important now than ever. It is now that the 
Palestinians are trying to change their status at the U.N. 
unilaterally, and it is now that we must use the available tools to 
prevent it.
  If we were to grant waiver authority to the administration as they 
have requested, the floodgates would open. The existence of waiver 
authority--not to mention the actual exercise of a waiver--would 
embolden the Palestinians to make even greater unilateral efforts to 
achieve membership in U.N. bodies, and the result would present 
repeated funding dilemmas for us and would make a true negotiated peace 
that much more difficult to achieve.
  The nomination of a candidate for the UNESCO position at least gives 
me this opportunity to restate clearly and unambiguously once again 
that I remain firmly opposed to providing funds to UNESCO or any other 
U.N. agency that repeats this serious error, and I hope my colleagues 
would understand this and support it also. Thus, I cannot support 
funding UNESCO while Palestine is a member, nor will I support a waiver 
of existing restrictions, and I don't think anyone else should either 
because it violates U.S. law.
  To repeat, this nomination means the administration wants to send a 
representative to an organization which we do not fund and in which we 
have no vote. That contradiction can only mean the administration still 
wants to change those circumstances by seeking waiver authority, and 
therefore I will oppose this nomination and hope my colleagues will 
support the same.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I wish to urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting Dr. Stanley Fischer to be Vice 
Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. I also 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Jerome Powell and Dr. 
Lael Brainard to be members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
  Each of these individuals has a unique set of skills and experiences 
to provide the Board of Governors a diverse perspective on how to 
continue to help the economy recover and promote a more stable 
financial system.
  Dr. Fischer's background is impressive. In May, he was confirmed by 
the Senate to be a member of the Federal Reserve. Between 2005 and 
2013, he was the head of the Bank of Israel. Prior to his service at 
the Bank of Israel, Dr. Fischer held positions as the vice chairman of 
Citigroup and the First Deputy Managing Director of the International 
Monetary Fund. Before the IMF, Dr. Fischer was the Killian professor 
and Head of the Department of Economics at MIT, where he taught some of 
the most preeminent economists of our time, including former Fed 
Chairman Ben Bernanke, former Council of Economic Advisers Chair Greg 
Mankiw, and European Central Bank President Mario Draghi. Former Fed 
Chairman Bernanke said of Dr. Fischer: ``Stan was my teacher in 
graduate school, and he has been both a role model and a frequent 
adviser ever since. An expert on financial crises, Stan has written 
prolifically on the subject and has also served on the front lines.''
  Mr. Powell became a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors 
in 2012. He has served during a period in which the Fed tackled a 
number of important issues, including implementing the Wall Street 
Reform Act and maintaining strong monetary policy that promotes job 
creation and economic recovery. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Powell 
was a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center, where he 
focused on Federal and State fiscal issues. Mr. Powell also served as 
an Assistant Secretary and as Undersecretary of the Treasury under 
President George H.W. Bush.
  Dr. Brainard previously served as Under Secretary for International 
Affairs at the Treasury from 2010 to 2013. She also served as Deputy 
Director of the National Economic Council and as the U.S. Sherpa to the 
G8. She was vice president of the Brookings Institution and an 
Associate Professor of Applied Economics at MIT Sloan School of 
Management.
  The Federal Reserve Board has many important tasks at hand including 
effective monetary policy that promotes full employment, continued 
implementation of Wall Street Reform, and taking steps that will 
improve financial stability, reduce systemic risk and end ``too big to 
fail.'' I am confident these three nominees will be extremely valuable 
in these endeavors and I hope we can confirm them without delay. I urge 
my colleagues to support Dr. Brainard, Mr. Powell, and Dr. Fischer.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in

[[Page 10008]]

support of the nomination of Dr. Stanley Fischer to be Vice Chairman of 
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. I know Dr. 
Fischer personally and have worked with him over the years, and I am 
fully confident that he is well qualified to succeed Janet Yellen as 
Vice Chairman of the Fed, as she begins her tenure as Chair.
  Dr. Fischer has had an extraordinarily impressive and well-rounded 
career thus far. After receiving his bachelor's and master's degrees 
from the London School of Economics and his Ph.D. at MIT, Fischer 
served in high-level positions in academia, the private sector, as well 
as at multiple international financial institutions. His knowledge and 
expertise of economic policy is world-renowned--in fact some of the 
most influential economic policy makers today, including former Federal 
Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the head of the European Central 
Bank, studied under the guidance and influence of Dr. Fischer.
  Most recently, Stanley Fischer served as governor of the Bank of 
Israel. Appointed in 2005 by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon 
and Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Dr. Fischer led Israel's 
central bank and steered its economy through the global financial 
crisis. When the global crisis first hit in 2008, Fischer took decisive 
action to protect the Israeli economy. His decision to lower interest 
rates actually came a day before the Fed, the Bank of England or the 
European Central Bank took similar action.
  It is largely due to his leadership that while other countries, 
including the United States, were still struggling in the depths of 
recession in 2009, Israel emerged more or less unscathed. In fact, by 
2009 the Israeli economy had recovered to the point where central bank 
assistance was no longer needed, and Fischer actually made the decision 
to raise interest rates. Furthermore, as the recession spread across 
the United States and Europe, foreign capital began to flow into 
Israel, raising the value of its currency, the shekel--which became a 
big problem for Israeli exports. To offset this inflation, prop up 
Israeli exporters, and boost the economy, Fischer again had to act 
quickly to depreciate Israel's currency, buying up $100 million each 
day in foreign currency. In less than 1 year, he had reduced the value 
of the currency by 25 percent and given Israel a trade surplus of $5 
billion.
  His quick and intelligent actions in the face of crisis helped 
maintain financial and price stability and improve employment. These 
actions shielded the Israeli economy from the recession and produced 
strong growth. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated in 
2013, ``Fischer was a key contributor to Israel's economic growth. His 
experience and wisdom have helped the Israeli market reach many 
achievements, even in a time of global crisis.''
  Prior to his tenure at the Bank of Israel, Dr. Fischer served as the 
head of the Economics Department at MIT, chief economist at the World 
Bank, and as the number two official at the International Monetary 
Fund, IMF. He also spent time in the private sector as vice president 
of Citigroup from 2002 to 2005.
  Throughout his impressive career, Dr. Fischer has undoubtedly learned 
valuable lessons in responding to global financial and economic crises. 
His extensive policymaking experience and expertise make him uniquely 
qualified to serve in the Fed's number two position and navigate the 
challenges we face as our economy continues to recover from the worst 
recession since the Great Depression. Most importantly, I am sure we 
will see soon, Dr. Fischer is a collaborative leader, a visionary, and 
an absolute joy to work with. We are truly lucky to have a leader of 
such courage and character up for this position, and I urge my 
colleagues to swiftly approve his nomination.
  Mr. COATS. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Crystal Nix-Hines, of California, for the rank of Ambassador during 
her tenure of service as the United States Permanent Representative to 
the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization?
  Mr. COATS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. There is a sufficient 
second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Oregon 
(Mr. Merkley), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Cochran), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 188 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boxer
     Burr
     Cochran
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Moran
     Rockefeller
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to 
be determined by the Majority leader, in consultation with the 
Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider 
Calendar No. 9, treaty document 112-1; that the treaty be considered as 
having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and 
including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; that any 
committee declarations be agreed to as applicable; and that the 
resolution of ratification be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized immediately following the three voice votes that we expect 
coming up now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 10009]]



                          ____________________