[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Page 13845]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   NOMINATION OF JEFFREY DeLAURENTIS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday President Obama nominated Jeffrey 
DeLaurentis to be U.S. Ambassador to Cuba. If confirmed, Mr. 
DeLaurentis would be the first U.S. Ambassador in Havana in more than 
half a century.
  I have known Jeff DeLaurentis since he became the U.S. chief of 
mission in Havana, and he is the obvious choice to be ambassador. He is 
a career diplomat who is universally respected by his peers and by 
Democrats and Republicans in Congress for his intellect, his integrity, 
and his thoughtfulness.
  The decision to resume diplomatic relations with Cuba has been widely 
supported, and the number of Americans traveling to Cuba is increasing 
dramatically. We need an ambassador who knows Cuba, who is respected by 
the Cuban Government, and who will stand up for U.S. interests and 
values. Jeff DeLaurentis is that person. The Cuban people have their 
ambassador in Washington. The American people need their ambassador in 
Havana.
  Not surprisingly, one Senator who has opposed the resumption of 
diplomatic relations with Cuba criticized the nomination of Mr. 
DeLaurentis. While he did not challenge Mr. DeLaurentis's 
qualifications for the job, since he is obviously exceptionally well 
qualified, the Senator instead said ``rewarding the Castro government 
with a U.S. ambassador is another last-ditch legacy project for the 
president that needs to be stopped.'' He said the nomination ``should 
go nowhere until the Castro regime makes significant and irreversible 
progress in the areas of human rights and political freedom for the 
Cuban people.'' He was joined in his opposition to Mr. DeLaurentis's 
nomination by another Senator.
  Having been to Cuba many times where I have met with Cuban Government 
officials, as well as with critics of the government, including some 
who have been persecuted and imprisoned, no one is a stronger defender 
of human rights there than I am. Like President Obama, we all want the 
Cuban people to be able to express themselves freely and to choose 
their own leaders in a free and fair election.
  For 50 years, we have tried the isolationist approach advocated by a 
dwindling minority of Members of Congress, and it has failed miserably. 
The Castros are still in power, and Cuba is still a country where 
political dissent is not tolerated.
  No one who knows Cuba expected the resumption of diplomatic relations 
to quickly result in an end to repression or free elections. But I am 
confident that, in a lot less than 50 years, the Cuban people will have 
a lot more freedom than they have had for the past 50 years.
  Consider for a moment what it would mean if we did what these 
Senators advocate. Not only would we have no ambassador in Cuba, to be 
consistent, we would have no ambassador in China, Vietnam, Russia, 
South Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia, or in any number of other countries where 
human rights are routinely violated, where political opponents, 
journalists, and human rights defenders are imprisoned and tortured, 
where there is no such thing as a fair trial, where civil society 
organizations are threatened and harassed, and where dissent is 
severely punished.
  Is that what the Senators want, or are they just concerned about 
human rights in Cuba? Their argument is as illogical as it is 
inconsistent.
  The purpose of an ambassador is to represent the interests of the 
U.S. Government and the American people. Appointing a U.S. Ambassador 
is not a reward to a foreign government, any more than their 
ambassadors are a reward to our government. Do the Senators think that 
our ambassador in Russia is a reward to President Putin, or that having 
an ambassador in Moscow somehow conveys that we agree with President 
Putin's corrupt, repressive policies? Does anyone think that Russia's 
ambassador is somehow a reward to the Obama administration? Or that our 
ambassador in Vietnam legitimizes the repressive policies of that 
government? Does anyone think that the Cuban Government regards its 
ambassador here as a reward to us?
  Let's be sensible. The United States has interests in every country, 
even if it is just to stand up for the rights of Americans who travel, 
study, or work overseas. But there are many other reasons like 
promoting trade and investment, protecting national security and public 
health, and supporting educational and cultural exchange.
  We could do as these Senators urge and downgrade our diplomatic 
presence and withdraw our ambassadors from every country where there is 
a repressive government. That, of course, would mean that our lower-
ranking diplomats would be relegated to meeting with foreign officials 
of lesser rank than ambassador.
  And, of course, those governments, like Cuba, they would still have 
their ambassadors in Washington, with access to officials of comparable 
rank in our government. Would that help us advocate for U.S. interests, 
for U.S. values, for the American people?
  We either believe in diplomacy or we don't. We either empower our 
diplomats or we don't. The Cubans, after a year of difficult 
negotiations, agreed to reopen embassies. Now, with their ambassador 
here conducting business, we are somehow better off without an 
ambassador there? Of course not.
  I understand that this is an emotional issue for some Cuban-American 
families. But after 55 years, Cuban-Americans overwhelmingly support 
the new policy of engagement. They want the U.S. to have an ambassador 
in Havana.
  There is a time for family politics, and there is time for what is in 
the interest of the nation as a whole. Ambassadors serve the national 
interest, and that is what Jeff DeLauentis would do, and he would do so 
as a career diplomat with years of experience.
  Finally, I want to quote from Alan Gross, who as we all know, spent 5 
long years in a Cuban prison. This is what Mr. Gross said about Mr. 
DeLaurentis's nomination: ``I advocate for the appointment of a U.S. 
Ambassador to Cuba and I have a very high regard for Ambassador Jeff 
DeLaurentis. Had there been diplomatic relations between the U.S. and 
Cuba in December 2008, a U.S. Ambassador could have prevented the loss 
of five years of my life. Any one in Congress who opposes this 
nomination goes against the best interests of the United States.''
  We should listen to Alan Gross. He suffered in Cuba, as do thousands 
of Americans imprisoned overseas. They depend on our ambassadors to 
assist and advocate for them, just as we would if it were a member of 
our families.
  I urge these Senators to put what is in the interests of the American 
people over their personal interests and to not obstruct the 
confirmation of Jeff DeLaurentis, a superbly qualified nominee, from 
becoming ambassador to Cuba.

                          ____________________