Executive Session
Floor Speech
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - April 21, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise today to join the distinguished
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in support of Ambassador Christopher Hill as our next United States Ambassador to Iraq.
In helping to negotiate an end to the crisis in the Balkans, in leading three Embassies, and in working to disarm North Korea's nuclear weapons program, Ambassador Hill has gleaned invaluable experience and given invaluable service in over 31 years of diplomatic service to this country.
Ambassador Hill is a fellow son of the Foreign Service. My father and grandfather were Foreign Service officers, and I have some experience of the sense of calling and dedication that background provides. He is decent, honorable, and snarled right now in Senate politics in a way, frankly, that is less of a reflection on him than it is a reflection on us.
He is also a fellow Rhode Islander, with a family home in Little Compton, RI. His family moved there when he was in the fifth grade, when United States diplomats, including his father, were expelled from Haiti. He attended the Moses Brown preparatory school in Providence and later returned to the Ocean State to attend the U.S. Naval War College.
Now, at the crest of his career, he is a hero of the American Foreign Service and one of our very few most distinguished diplomats. He has shown in his career a special talent for bringing together ethnically divided peoples, a skill that will, obviously, be critical in Iraq. When the Balkans erupted in ethnic conflict, Ambassador Hill was a central player on the Clinton team that forged the Dayton Accords, the peace settlement that ended the Bosnian war.
In his book on the Dayton negotiations, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Ambassador Richard Holbrooke described Hill as ``brilliant'' and ``fearless,'' praising him for being both ``very cool and very passionate,'' and for his strong negotiating skills. These are the very traits we need in an Ambassador to Iraq.
Ambassador Hill served as Ambassador to Macedonia during a troubled time, and as a special envoy to war-torn Kosovo. He said of this conflict that ``like a lot of things in life: you've got to do everything you can do'' to be satisfied ``that you have left no stone unturned.'' I am confident he will bring the same tenacity to his position as United States Ambassador for Iraq.
As Ambassador to South Korea, Christopher Hill broke diplomatic precedent and charmed the South Korean people by repeatedly visiting hotbeds of anti-American sentiment, such as universities, where he engaged in open debate with audiences. He paid his respects at a memorial for thousands of civilians fired upon by a 1980s military government. No senior U.S. official had ever before visited this memorial, and he won the respect and trust of many through this simple yet momentous gesture. A senior official with the American Chamber of Commerce in South Korea, Tami Overby, stated:
He was here the shortest term among the six ambassadors that I've seen here in my 18 years, but [he] had the most impact.
Ambassador Hill's time in South Korea was cut short as he was tapped to head negotiations in six-party talks over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. At a time of crisis, when the Bush administration had long ignored nuclear proliferation by North Korea, Ambassador Hill successfully brought China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and other regional partners to the bargaining table. Though some of my Senate colleagues have criticized Ambassador Hill for negotiating with North Korea, his efforts there culminated in the dismantlement of the Pyongyang reactor, slowing North Korean nuclear proliferation and protecting United States and world security.
Now he is President Obama's nominee as Ambassador to Iraq. Timing, as Senator Kerry has pointed out, is crucial, and the delay is perplexing.
Let's look back to May 2005, when the Republican majority leader took to the floor to comment on the nominations of Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown to U.S. courts of appeals. He said then of the Senate Democratic minority:
For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate's ``advise and consent'' responsibilities to ``advise and obstruct.''
Well, the shoe is on the other foot. My Republican colleagues are obstructing the nomination of our much needed United States Ambassador to Iraq.
When, in 2006, Kenneth Wainstein was nominated as the Assistant Attorney General for National Security, my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, came to the floor and stated:
Obstruction from the other side of the aisle, Mr. President, is impeding efforts to improve national security.
He continued:
Democratic obstruction is impeding this effort to improve national security.
Today, Republicans are engaged in the very obstruction they criticized.
In 2007, when Michael Mukasey was nominated as Attorney General, the Republican leader came here to state:
If ..... our colleagues intentionally delay the nominee and hold him or her hostage, they will show the American people that their concern for the Department was insincere. ..... In these times, it is especially important that the Senate act promptly. We are, after all, at war.
Well, they will be the first to tell you that we are still at war, and yet on this critical appointment for our new President: obstruction.
Similarly, when it came to the Iraq surge, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued vehemently that we should defer to the judgment of General Petraeus and commanders on the ground in Iraq. I am not so sure about that. Civilian control of the military is a longtime and valued American tradition. But that was their argument. We heard the name of Petraeus invoked over and over and over again.
Senator McConnell, in March of 2007, spoke out against setting deadlines for U.S. troop withdrawals in Iraq, stating that deadlines would ``interfere with the President and General Petraeus's operational authority to conduct the war in Iraq as he and his commanders see fit. It would substitute for their judgment the 535 Members of Congress.''
In September of 2007, my colleague from South Carolina,
Senator Graham, said that ``..... to substitute the Congress's judgment for General Petraeus's judgment, is ill-advised and unwarranted.''
Those of us who were here through that time remember clearly the repeated incantation of the name of Petraeus that featured so prominently in the Republican rhetoric.
Well, I suggest to my Republican colleagues, the time may now have come to heed their own advice. Last month, the U.S. military's chief spokesman, Geoff Morrell, stated:
Generals Odierno and Petraeus have come out very publicly and very forcefully in support of Ambassador Hill's nomination. I know they support it. They know him from previous assignments, they like him, they believe he is well suited to the job and are anxiously awaiting his confirmation.
What happened to the deference to General Petraeus now that he wants Ambassador Hill? And it is not just General Petraeus and General Odierno and the military establishment engaged in that theater. The last three United States Ambassadors to Iraq--all Republican appointees--Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, and Ambassador John Negroponte, have all also expressed their unequivocal support for Ambassador Hill.
There are areas outside of politics where professional respect prevails. As a former U.S. attorney and attorney general, I have seen it among prosecutors. We saw it when prosecutors of both parties rallied around the Department of Justice when the Bush administration and Attorney General Gonzales made their best efforts to ruin that great Department. The same principle applies here, the politics of this Chamber notwithstanding. The professional colleagues of Ambassador Hill know better. They know how good he is, and they know we need him there.
My distinguished colleague from Indiana, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, also agrees. He put it well in Ambassador Hill's confirmation hearing. ``We're at war,'' he said. ``This is not a parliamentary struggle among senators with different points of view.''
Senator Lugar is right. This is not or should not be a time for bickering. This is the time to confirm our next United States Ambassador to Iraq without further delay.
Christopher Hill has served in the State Department for 31 years. As Senator Kerry, the distinguished chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has said, he is one of our Nation's most accomplished diplomats, ready for one of our most difficult assignments. He has the votes to be confirmed. Delay now can only impede progress in Iraq's future. And it fails me to understand how that could be any Member's goal. The situation is better in Iraq, but it remains difficult.
Arab-Kurd tensions are high in the north. Sectarian groups struggle for power after January's provincial elections, and elections slated for the end of this year will be a key indicator of Iraq's democratic direction. The safety of our 146,400 men and women on the ground in Iraq, of course, is always of concern. History shows that even major gains can always be reversed. So let us get Ambassador Hill out there to lead the transition of the United States mission in Iraq from a military intervention to a much needed focus on stabilization and economic development, and to advance our Nation's interests in that troubled region.
I thank the Acting President pro tempore. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his advocacy and his ardent support of this nomination.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source