[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4699-4704]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of David 
Friedman, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Israel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I would like to talk about U.S. support 
for Israel. It used to be that U.S. support for Israel was bipartisan. 
One of the most deeply disappointing realities in Washington today is 
that this support is becoming characterized as increasingly partisan. 
That is because--what happened was Republicans came out against one of 
President Obama's signature foreign policy achievements, the Iran 
nuclear deal.
  That opposition came in the face of consensus among national security 
experts across the political spectrum, both here and in Israel, that 
this deal was good for the security of Israel. Ultimately, what 
happened is, it politicized our foreign policy in the Middle East to 
the point that what would have otherwise been a bipartisan vote for a 
bipartisan consensus Ambassador to the country of Israel from the 
United States, will now be confirmed along mostly party lines.

[[Page 4700]]

  People will look at this confirmation and say: U.S. support for 
Israel now exists largely on a partisan basis. Let's be clear. It does 
not. I support every penny that goes to Israel. I think it is critical 
that the country maintains its qualitative military edge in the region, 
and I take a backseat to no one in my personal or professional passion 
for the United States-Israel relationship.
  That is why I cannot support Mr. Friedman's nomination to be the U.S. 
Ambassador to Israel. He has radical views. He has made outrageous and 
offensive statements on a wide range of issues.
  Here is a sampling of his past comments. Mr. Friedman has said that 
the State Department is anti-Semitic. He has said that President Obama 
is an anti-Semite. He has said that the two-state solution solves a 
``nonexistent problem.'' Mr. Friedman has called for Israeli citizens 
who are Arabs to be stripped of their civil rights. He has lobbed one 
of the worst words in Jewish history at large parts of the American 
Jewish community, calling them ``kapos,'' which is a term for the Jews 
who worked for the Nazis in concentration camps. These are more than 
just provocative statements by Mr. Friedman; they are lies.
  For decades, the United States has stood firm as an honest broker of 
peace. We have said to both sides that they can trust us to help end 
this conflict, and that is based on the principle that the United 
States is passionate about peace in Israel but dispassionate about how 
we get there. Mr. Friedman is not objective about how we get there. On 
the contrary, he is very passionately for settlements, and he is very 
passionately against the two-state solution, which means he is 
basically against decades of bipartisan U.S. foreign policy.
  Just a few months ago, the organization he led advertised that they 
have a new program that will train students to ``successfully 
delegitimize the notion of a two-state solution.'' This group is 
actively working to take the two-state solution off the table.
  I understand that the Senate is not fully aligned on U.S. foreign 
policy when it comes to Israel. I understand we have our disagreements. 
We may disagree on whether a two-state solution is best, on where our 
Embassy should be located, and on how to approach the peace process, 
but there are some things we ought to be able to agree upon: that our 
Ambassador to Israel should not be more involved in Israel's politics 
than our own, that our Ambassador to Israel should not be so 
provocative that they wouldn't even be welcome at the negotiating 
table, and that our Ambassador should not be the kind of person who 
uses language to fuel violence, hate, and instability. That means we 
should be able to agree that our Ambassador to Israel cannot be Mr. 
Friedman.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no to support U.S.-Israel 
relations and reject Mr. Friedman's confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, the Middle East poses some of the most 
difficult diplomatic challenges faced by our Nation. The region is 
troubled, unstable, sometimes dangerous. Conflicts span over centuries. 
Peace throughout the region seems distant and far away. And the 
problematic powers, like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Russia, promote 
their own interests in the area, sometimes violently, and those 
interests are often contrary to ours.
  The United States is deeply involved throughout the region. Israel is 
America's staunchest ally in the Middle East and one of our closest 
friends on the world stage. The United States has had and will continue 
to have a special relationship with Israel, and our country will 
continue to protect and aid Israel to help secure her survival.
  I am a strong supporter of Israel. I believe that a qualitative 
military edge is necessary for the safety of Israel, and I have always 
voted to support military aid. I have also been a strong supporter of 
the two-state solution. A peaceful resolution between Israel and the 
Palestinian people would help heal the source of many of the 
insecurities facing Israel, but peace has eluded Israel and the 
Palestinians for decades. Mutual distrust runs deep. Tensions are high 
between Israel and many of its neighbors.
  For all these reasons, the ambassadorship to Israel is one of the 
State Department's most important diplomatic posts and one of the most 
sensitive. Since Israel became a nation, the post has been held by 18 
of some of our most experienced, skilled, and knowledgeable diplomats. 
The vast majority were career Foreign Service officers. Many served in 
both Republican and Democratic administrations. All had significant 
international and government experience prior to their appointment.
  The Ambassador to Israel must be able to thread the needle between 
Israel and its neighbors. He or she needs to have the confidence, 
respect, and trust of powers throughout the region. He or she must be 
seen as an honest broker and have the temperament and finesse to defuse 
conflict while able to stand one's ground and have the capacity to find 
common interests and common ground.
  However, with David Friedman, the President has put forth a nominee 
who has no diplomatic experience whatsoever, no government or 
international experience, who is known for his offensive statements 
toward Jewish groups and others with whom he disagrees, and who has 
repeatedly expressed extreme policy views--views antagonistic to any 
realistic peace process with the Palestinians. Mr. Friedman is not a 
seasoned diplomat; he is the President's bankruptcy lawyer. President 
Trump and Mr. Friedman clearly have a lot of experience with 
bankruptcy, but it is hard to think of a pair of personalities less 
suited to diplomacy in a volatile region.
  Mr. Friedman has vocally opposed a two-state solution--a cornerstone 
of U.S. foreign policy for peace in the region since President Ronald 
Reagan. He not only supports but has generously funded Israeli 
settlements--settlements long considered as an obstacle to peace by the 
United States and deemed illegal by much of the international 
community.
  Mr. Friedman's intemperate remarks have been widely reported. He 
lashed out that liberal Jews ``suffer a cognitive disconnect in 
identifying good and evil.'' He said that the State Department has 
``[a] hundred-year history of anti-Semitism'' and that President Obama 
is ``an anti-Semite.'' Most horrific, he said:

       J-Street supporters . . . are far worse than kapos--Jews 
     who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps. . . 
     . They are just smug advocates of Israel's destruction 
     delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas--
     it's hard to imagine anyone worse.

  Five former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel, serving under both Democratic 
and Republican administrations, called Mr. Friedman ``unqualified'' to 
assume the role of chief diplomat to Israel.
  Twenty-nine Holocaust scholars objected to his ``kapo'' remarks. The 
historical record shows, they said, ``that kapos were Jews whom the 
Nazis forced, at the pain of death, to serve them in the concentration 
and extermination camps. . . . These Jews faced terrible dilemmas, but 
ultimately were made into unwilling tools of Nazi brutality. . . . To 
brand one's political opponents, members of one's own community, as 
kapos, merely for engaging in legitimate debate, is historically 
indefensible and is a deeply disturbing example of the abuse of the 
Holocaust and its victims for present political gain.''
  A group of Holocaust survivors called his use of ``kapo''--and I 
quote a group of Holocaust survivors--``slanderous, insulting, 
irresponsible, cynical and immensely damaging to our people.''
  More than 600 rabbis wrote that his remarks were ``the very 
antithesis of the diplomatic behavior Americans expect from their 
ambassadors.''
  While Mr. Friedman apologized during his confirmation hearing for his 
abusive language, I don't believe it erases his past behavior and 
suddenly qualifies him for the job.
  This post should be earned over time, through actions and words that 
demonstrate without question that the

[[Page 4701]]

nominee has the right judgment, temperament, and skills. Mr. Friedman 
has not come close to demonstrating that. We should not risk confirming 
him to this important post. We have seen how distracting and 
destructive hotheadedness is at the seat of power.
  During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Friedman also walked back his 
positions on a two-state solution and Israeli settlements, which 
prompted the committee chair to wryly ask him why he even wants the 
Ambassador position if he has to ``recant every single strong belief 
you've had.''
  I am a strong supporter of Israel. I want to see the State of Israel 
prosperous and secure forever into the future. I believe in the right 
of the Palestinians to self-determination, to chart their own course 
and their destiny. I want to see peace between Israel and the 
Palestinians and between Israel and her neighbors. That is what the 
vast majority of Americans want. The United States has a strong 
national interest in securing this peace. The last thing we need is 
another active military conflict in the Middle East, which could draw 
in U.S. forces. That is why over 40 years U.S. policy has held that the 
only realistic path to peace is through a two-state solution. The 
Palestinians are entitled to a homeland. A two-state solution is the 
only viable path forward for Israel.
  As Secretary Kerry said, ``If the choice is one state, Israel can 
either be Jewish or democratic. It cannot be both.''
  Given Mr. Friedman's past staunch support for a one-state solution 
and expansion of Israeli settlements, is he really ready and able to 
embrace and put forward opposing policy positions? Can he ever be 
viewed by the Palestinians and the international community as an honest 
broker?
  I am under no illusion about how difficult it will be to achieve 
peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Many Presidents and able 
diplomats have tried and failed to achieve settlement. But the United 
States must continue to do its best to reach an accord. Above all, we 
should not make the current situation worse. We need a steady hand in 
the Middle East.
  I am not convinced that Mr. Friedman is qualified for this job, with 
no diplomatic experience and a history of extreme positions and 
intemperate language. His contrition is too little, too late. I am 
worried that by ignoring these huge red flags with his nomination, we 
run the risk of a diplomatic incident that could needlessly increase 
risk of conflict in the region. Therefore, I must vote no on this 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about President 
Trump's selection of David Friedman to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to 
Israel.
  Our relationship with Israel is of tremendous importance. We are 
strong allies, and we have a strong military, diplomatic, economic, and 
cultural relationship with the State of Israel. As a Jew, the 
importance of that relationship is something that I feel in my bones, 
and as a Senator, working to make our relationship with Israel stronger 
is a major priority. I strongly believe that part of strengthening that 
relationship is doing everything we can to help make progress toward a 
peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Helping to 
resolve that conflict has consistently been one of the top diplomatic 
priorities of the United States.
  There are very important implications in this selection for the 
Israeli people, the Palestinian people, the Middle East region, and 
even beyond. We need an Ambassador who can rise to the challenge, 
someone who can bring the parties together for negotiations and be 
regarded as legitimate in the eyes of all parties. Mr. Friedman is not 
that man.
  Mr. Friedman's past conduct demonstrates that he lacks the tools one 
needs to be a good diplomat. For starters, diplomacy is about choosing 
your words carefully. It is about reasoning with those with whom you 
disagree. Diplomacy means not resorting to insults and to name-calling 
when you have a disagreement, which is something that Mr. Friedman has 
done time and time and time again.
  In an op-ed he penned for the newspaper Arutz Sheva, Mr. Friedman 
called supporters of the American Jewish Organization J Street ``far 
worse than kapos.''
  Now, for those who don't share the history, I was born in 1951, and I 
grew up with the holocaust and the stories of the holocaust pounded 
into my head, and I know what ``kapos'' are. It is the term that refers 
to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis--with the Gestapo, the guards 
at the concentration camps during the holocaust. When asked to 
repudiate his statement on J Street, Mr. Friedman refused, and in fact 
doubled down, stating ``They're not Jewish, and they are not pro-
Israel.'' For those who don't know, J Street is a pro-Israel 
organization dedicated to the two-state solution--a goal that is shared 
by successive U.S. administrations, both Democratic and Republican. The 
two-state solution is the only way to keep Israel a Jewish State and a 
democracy.
  Mr. Friedman's smearing of our fellow Jews--my fellow Jews, many of 
whom are members of J Street, this is a calumny. This should be a 
disqualifier for someone seeking to represent the United States in the 
State of Israel. Mr. Friedman's statement shows that he lacks 
understanding of history--of our history, the history of the Jewish 
people--it shows he is intolerant of opposing views, and he is 
profoundly insensitive. That is probably why so many of my fellow Jews 
have reached out to me, have urged me to reject his nomination.
  Mr. Friedman's offensive remarks don't stop there. He regularly 
insults those with whom he disagrees. He even called me a clown and a 
moron after I pointed out the anti-Semitic stereotypes evoked in the 
Trump campaign's final ad. As I told Mr. Friedman when we met in my 
office, I have been called a moron before--that kind of thing happens 
in campaigns all the time--but as I also reminded him, part of being a 
diplomat is being diplomatic.
  Now, while I have serious concerns with Mr. Friedman's temperament, 
my biggest issue with this nominee is his lack of commitment to the 
peace process. For example, right after being nominated to serve as 
Ambassador, Mr. Friedman stated that he ``looked forward to doing this 
from the U.S. embassy in Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem.''
  It has been a longstanding policy of the United States to recognize 
Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel. This policy has been viewed by 
successive administrations as important for helping maintain regional 
stability and peace with Israel and its neighbors. An abrupt change in 
this tradition would make it more difficult for the United States to 
play the role of arbiter, to achieve peace and security between the 
Israelis and the Palestinians. At a time when we need to reduce 
tensions in the region, Mr. Friedman was sending the exact wrong 
message. What I find even more troubling is Mr. Friedman's support for 
settlement building. Successive U.S. administrations have recognized 
that new settlements are barriers to peace. Mr. Friedman has served as 
president and has been actively fundraising for the American Friends of 
Beit El, the nonprofit that supports the expansion of that settlement--
expansion which is illegal under international law, an expansion deep 
inside of Palestinian territory.
  How can we possibly help advance peace between the two parties with a 
man who believes there ought to be more settlements--one of the very 
things that observers on both sides of this conflict recognize as a 
significant obstacle to peace. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has 
remained intractable for far too long, proving a hardship--a tragedy--
for Israelis and Palestinians both and impacting regional and even 
global security. I believe--I am convinced that a just and lasting 
agreement between the two parties on a two-state solution, though very 
difficult, can and must be achieved. Confirming David Friedman as 
Ambassador of the United States to Israel will only serve to make that 
job more

[[Page 4702]]

difficult, if not impossible, and in my mind would be a tragedy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Friedman nomination.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Senate will soon vote on the nomination of 
David Friedman to be U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
  I oppose his nomination.
  Mr. Friedman has made a career of derogatory and inflammatory 
statements about U.S. policy in the Middle East, about former U.S. 
officials, about the Palestinians, and about American Jews who have 
views that differ from his own.
  He has written falsely that President Obama and Secretary Kerry 
engaged in ``blatant anti-Semitism,'' that liberal American Jews are 
``far worse than kapos,'' and that they ``suffer a cognitive disconnect 
in identifying good and evil.''
  He has accused the State Department of a ``hundred-year history of 
anti-Semitism,'' apparently because diplomats in both Republican and 
Democratic administrations have not always agreed with the actions of 
some of Israel's leaders.
  Those comments alone should disqualify him for this sensitive 
position.
  Mr. Friedman has also raised millions of dollars for Israeli settlers 
and bragged about leading the effort to remove the two-state solution 
from the Republican Party's platform.
  Regarding the two-state solution, he wrote that it is ``an illusion 
that serves the worst intentions of both the United States and the 
Palestinian Arabs.'' That renunciation of longstanding U.S. policy 
should also, by itself, disqualify him for the job of Ambassador to 
Israel.
  Mr. Friedman is certainly entitled to his own views as a private 
citizen, even if they are offensive and counter to U.S. interests and 
values. But can anyone honestly say that this nominee is qualified or 
suited to represent the American people in Israel?
  Five former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel, who served under Republican 
and Democratic Presidents going back as far as President Reagan, say 
the answer is no.
  An alliance as longstanding as ours with Israel, which has far-
reaching consequences for the entire Middle East, requires effective 
daily management by an experienced diplomat who not only has knowledge 
of the region but the temperament and appreciation of our short- and 
long-term interests.
  I do not see how anyone could conclude that Mr. Friedman possesses 
the requisite temperament or objectivity. The record is devoid of 
evidence that he appreciates the critical distinction between the 
interests of the United States and the parochial interests of an 
extreme constituency in Israel that he has fiercely advocated for over 
the course of his long career.
  Mr. Friedman's confirmation hearing provided him the opportunity to 
assuage concerns about his divisiveness, including the many disparaging 
remarks he has made and his close identification with and support for, 
the Israeli settler movement.
  During the hearing, he disavowed his past undiplomatic statements, 
saying he was speaking as a private citizen.
  Mr. Friedman's remarkable confirmation conversion falls far short of 
convincing evidence that changing his title to ``Ambassador'' will 
cause him to divorce his life's work and objectively serve the 
interests of the American people.
  We all want what is best for the American people. We also share a 
desire to find a viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict 
that protects the rights and security of both peoples.
  Neither goal can be achieved by pursuing policies that further 
inflame tensions and erode the role of the United States as an honest 
broker for peace.
  There are any number of qualified Americans who could capably support 
that role. Mr. Friedman is not among them.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, our Ambassador to Israel is one of our 
most consequential diplomatic posts. Israel is our greatest friend and 
ally in the Middle East and one of our closest partners in the world. 
The bonds between our peoples have been unbreakable from Israel's 
beginning. Israel is a bastion of democracy and prosperity in a violent 
and unstable region, where Israel faces relentless threats to its 
security. It is imperative that our Ambassador to Israel have an even 
temperament, the utmost of integrity, and the ability to forge unity 
across entrenched divisions.
  I have a profound and steadfast commitment to Israel and to the 
Jewish community. That is why I am so concerned with David Friedman's 
nomination to become Ambassador to Israel.
  Mr. Friedman appears to have few, if any, of the qualities needed for 
this position. He is an extraordinarily polarizing figure who has 
expressed views far outside of the longstanding bipartisan consensus on 
Israel. His body of published work makes clear his extreme positions. 
Mr. Friedman has asserted that Israel cannot trust the majority of 
American Jews. He has accused the entire State Department--an 
institution he now seeks to join--of anti-Semitism. He has called our 
coalition allies and partners in the fight against the Islamic State 
``cowards,'' ``hypocrites,'' and ``freeloaders.'' Given his radical and 
divisive rhetoric, I do not believe that he is capable of forging unity 
at home or stability abroad.
  Furthermore, Mr. Friedman has written that he does not believe in a 
two-state solution. For decades, through Democratic and Republican 
administrations alike, the United States and the international 
community have held that the two-state solution is the only way to 
achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Mr. 
Friedman's position on the two-state solution, coupled with his 
offensive statements, led five former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel to 
urge the Senate not to confirm him.
  Shimon Peres, one of Israel's greatest leaders, once said, ``Our 
problem is not to submit to the differences but to overcome them.'' 
Americans and Israelis deserve nothing less than an Ambassador who 
lives up to this ethos, one who seeks to strengthen Israel by advancing 
peace in the region. Given Mr. Friedman's public statements, I doubt 
that he can be that person. For these reasons, I cannot support his 
nomination.
  Mr. FRANKEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, at 2:15 p.m., the Senate vote on the 
Friedman nomination and that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table and the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action with no intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for a period of 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as ObamaCare, on its seventh 
anniversary of being signed into law by our previous President, Barack 
Obama.
  Looking back at what has happened to healthcare over the past 7 
years, there isn't a whole lot of good news to report. Since that time, 
Americans have been hit with hundreds of billions in new taxes, 
healthcare costs have risen exponentially, and families have struggled 
with fewer options and reduced access to healthcare services.
  Just in the last year, healthcare premiums have gone up 25 percent 
for the typical ObamaCare plan. That number is even higher in my home 
State of South Dakota where premiums have increased 37 percent. 
ObamaCare has also driven health insurance companies

[[Page 4703]]

to completely leave the marketplace, leaving Americans with fewer 
insurance options. Again, I will use my own State as an example. Under 
ObamaCare, the number of companies offering insurance in the individual 
market in South Dakota has dropped from 13 to a mere 2 today. While 
this is unfortunate, we are better off than folks in Alaska, Alabama, 
Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming, all of whom have no options at 
all, as only one insurer offers plans in those exchanges. This is also 
the case for more than 1,000 counties across the Nation, basically one-
third of all the counties in total.
  As a result of these skyrocketing costs and reduced options, the 
number of Americans enrolling in ObamaCare continues to drop 
dramatically. Projections continue to be millions fewer than predicted. 
Between 2016 and 2017, nearly a half-million fewer Americans signed up 
for the exchange. All of this has barely moved the number of uninsured 
South Dakotans between 2010, when ObamaCare was enacted, and today. So 
the health insurance market was crippled, premiums have skyrocketed for 
hard-working families, and our economy has suffered tremendously under 
the ACA, only to have the same number of insured and uninsured 
individuals in my home State as before we started.
  Nationwide, Americans are rejecting ObamaCare in record numbers. We 
saw this rejection of ObamaCare repeatedly over the past 7 years, when 
the American people elected into office candidates who at least in part 
ran on the platform of repealing ObamaCare. ObamaCare's higher taxes, 
fees, and penalties on businesses and investors have also taken a toll. 
Meanwhile, consumers who are facing higher premiums and deductibles 
have less to spend on goods and services. With one-sixth of our economy 
tied to healthcare, this has been detrimental to growth and to 
opportunity. It has also been easy to see how the healthcare industry 
has rejected ObamaCare over the past 7 years, with many insurers 
pulling out of the market and in other places the markets collapsing 
altogether. This limits competition and leaves little room in the 
healthcare industry, which is why ObamaCare is failing to control the 
cost of healthcare in our country. Cost control is a crucial component 
in providing truly affordable healthcare, and that begins with the 
elimination of ObamaCare's added bureaucracy and paperwork. We must get 
government out of the way and allow competitive markets to work once 
again, and that is what we are seeking to do with ObamaCare's 
replacement, which is expected to receive a vote in the House later 
today.
  Since we started the process of repealing and replacing ObamaCare, my 
office has received a number of calls and emails from South Dakotans 
who have expressed concerns. I want to make it clear to them and to all 
Americans that during the period in which we transition away from 
ObamaCare and toward a more affordable, competitive system, we 
understand that the continuation of coverage is an essential component. 
We plan to include a number of items that are very important to the 
American public: guaranteed renewal of coverage, portability of 
coverage for those who change jobs or leave the workforce by retiring, 
and a ban on lifetime limits, because if you bought insurance, you 
shouldn't run out of insurance.
  The provisions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act which were 
included in ObamaCare should be included in our plans. There should be 
no exclusions on preexisting conditions if one maintains insurance from 
policy to policy, without lapses, and we should include provisions to 
allow children to remain on their families' plans until they are at 
least the age of 26.
  We understand that there is a way to retain all of these positive 
provisions which are vital to ensuring continued health insurance 
coverage for all American families who want it, while also providing a 
fair and open marketplace that provides a strong, healthy, competitive 
market. This, in turn, will bring affordable, efficient health 
insurance with innovative products that will actually help to control 
the cost of care. That is what the GOP alternative, while still far 
from perfect, is seeking to do. One thing we do know is that the end 
result will be better than ObamaCare.
  As a father and a grandfather, I understand how important it is to 
have access to affordable healthcare. No one should be priced out of 
healthcare coverage for one's family. But our current system is simply 
not working. After 7 years of ObamaCare, the American people are 
dealing with higher healthcare premiums, fewer options, more taxes, and 
reduced access to care. Health providers are struggling with more 
bureaucracy, with more time spent filling out paperwork instead of 
caring for patients, and being frustrated by ObamaCare's crippling new 
regulations.
  As I have said from time to time, ObamaCare is a rapidly sinking 
ship, and there is simply no hope for a recovery. On its seventh 
anniversary, it is hurting more people than it is helping, and it must 
be repealed and replaced before it totally crumbles under its own 
weight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise as the ranking Democrat on the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee to comment on the nomination of Mr. 
Friedman to be the U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Shortly, we will be 
having that vote.
  I consider the U.S.-Israel relationship to be a strategic anchor for 
the United States in the Middle East and one of our most important 
relationships with any country. Since the creation of the State of 
Israel, support for this relationship has been bipartisan, bicameral, 
and supported by successive U.S. administrations. This bilateral 
relationship is also sustained by the deep bonds of friendship between 
the people of our two countries. This relationship has benefited Israel 
and has benefited the United States.
  Given the range of strategic challenges across the globe that our 
country faces and the unprecedented instability and violence embroiled 
in the Middle East today, it is critical that we take steps to unify 
support for the U.S.-Israel relationship across the political spectrum. 
Thus, I believe it is vital that the U.S. Ambassador to Israel be seen 
as a unifying figure in this enduring relationship.
  I really do believe that there is broad understanding and support in 
the Senate and the House for the special relationship between the 
United States and Israel--Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle 
East, a country that we can rely on for important intelligence 
information and that has an economy which is similar to ours. It is a 
country that has enjoyed a special relationship with the United States 
since 1948, when Harry Truman recognized Israel after the historic vote 
at the United Nations.
  Following extensive consideration of Mr. Friedman's record and taking 
into account his statements during his nomination hearing, I have 
concluded that his past record would make it very difficult for him to 
serve as that unifying force. For that reason, I am unable to support 
his nomination as America's top diplomat in Israel.
  I appreciate Mr. Friedman's efforts before the committee to express 
regret for his substantial record of divisive, inflammatory, and 
offensive statements. Unfortunately, I believe the body of Mr. 
Friedman's published works, not to mention his public statements, will 
compromise his effectiveness in representing the United States and all 
Americans, as well as the Government of Israel and all Israelis.
  Taken together, Mr. Friedman's statements and affiliations make it 
clear that he does not believe a two-state solution is necessary for a 
just and lasting peace. I am concerned that Mr. Friedman's history on 
this issue, in which he calls the two-state solution a scam, will 
undermine his ability to represent the United States as a credible 
facilitator of the peace process. There is simply no realistic, 
sustainable prospect for lasting peace between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians other

[[Page 4704]]

than as two states, living side by side, with security.
  I thank Chairman Corker for the manner in which this nomination was 
handled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I think we had 
ample opportunity, and I thank Chairman Corker for that, but I do urge 
my colleagues to reject this nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate, 
notwithstanding the previous order, move to the rollcall vote now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Friedman 
nomination?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 96 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Isakson
     Paul
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________