[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 27, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2217-S2220]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF COLIN HACKETT KAHL
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the
nomination of Colin Kahl to serve as Undersecretary of Defense for
Policy.
Our Nation needs leaders at the Department of Defense who are not
driven by a partisan agenda and are committed to making sure our troops
have all the resources and support they need to succeed. We need
leaders who understand that our adversaries are regimes like those in
Communist China and Iran and that our friends are countries like Israel
and its partners in the Middle East. That is not Dr. Kahl. I have grave
concerns about Dr. Kahl's lack of support for one of our great allies,
Israel, weakness toward Communist China and desire to rejoin the
disastrous Iran Deal.
The Undersecretary of Defense for Policy serves as the Defense
Secretary's top national security adviser, a position that requires
sound judgement and an even temperament. Dr. Kahl's history of partisan
rhetoric makes him unfit for this position.
For all these reasons, I oppose Mr. Kahl's nomination and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose Colin Kahl's
nomination for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and I advise my
colleagues to do the same, as we are getting ready to take a vote on
this very important position in the Pentagon. That, to me, is one of
the most important positions we have at the Department of Defense.
While I have many policy disagreements with Dr. Kahl, which I have
discussed at length with him, I want to say I have a long history of
working across the aisle, with Democrats and Republicans, on defense
issues, even with those with whom I don't agree on their policies. As a
matter of fact, the Presiding Officer and I have a very strong working
relationship, and we don't agree on a lot of issues, particularly on
issues of the military.
I serve on the Armed Services Committee, and I take these matters
very seriously. They are some of the main reasons I ran for the U.S.
Senate 6\1/2\ years ago. I focus a lot on military personnel, uniform
and civilian, whom we put in the Pentagon and who have this enormous
responsibility to oversee the Department of Defense.
Whether they are Assistant Secretaries, Under Secretaries, admirals,
or generals, I try to understand where they are coming from, and I have
a record of strongly supporting almost all of them, whether they have
been in the Obama administration, the Trump administration, or even are
in the Biden administration. For example, I not only supported the
Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, knowing that I wasn't going to
agree with him on everything, but I actually introduced him at his
confirmation hearing because I served with him in the military, and I
know he is a man of honor and character. I strongly supported the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kath Hicks, given her background and
knowledge. Yet some nominees I have not and I will not support,
particularly in this area that is so important to our Nation's defense.
I will object to these people because, like Dr. Kahl, I don't believe
he has the temperament or judgment to do the job.
Like I said, I have looked at and focused on dozens and dozens of
members with regard to their temperament and judgment who need Senate
confirmation to the Department of Defense. The vast, vast majority,
Democrat or Republican, I have supported but not this one. And this is
a really important position. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
is essentially the No. 3 position in the Pentagon.
As I mentioned, it is my view and, I believe, the view of most of my
colleagues, at least on this side of the aisle, that Dr. Kahl does not
have the temperament or judgment. In fact, I believe that he has the
potential to be a liability to our national security and our defense
and not to be viewed favorably by the men and women he is supposed to
lead.
Let me talk about temperament and give a little bit of background.
Not even a year ago, a number of Senate Democrats, my colleagues,
wrote of the official who was nominated by the Trump administration for
this same position, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, BG
Anthony Tata. The letter that was signed by a number of my Senate
Democratic colleagues, many of whom are on the Committee on Armed
Services, focused on that nominee's record of ``offensive and
inflammatory comments which would disqualify you from serving in your
current position and the position for which you have been nominated.''
That is one of the quotes. Remember, this was for the same position but
with the Trump administration.
This letter also read that he had made inflammatory remarks regarding
the President--that would be President Obama--and inflammatory remarks
regarding rhetoric for Members of Congress as well. Again, that was
last year. This is the standard that was being used.
This letter goes on to read:
Your multiple past statements cannot be dismissed as simple
aberration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
this letter dated July 24, 2020
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be
printed in the Record as follows:
[[Page S2218]]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 24, 2020.
Brigadier General (ret.) Anthony J. Tata,
Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of Defense,
Washington, DC.
Dear Brigadier General Tata: We write to urge that you
withdraw your nomination to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy at the Department of Defense (the Department) and
resign your current position as a senior advisor. Your record
of offensive and inflammatory comments disqualifies you from
serving in your current position and the position for which
you have been nominated.
If confirmed by the Senate to be Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy, you would become ``the principal official
reporting to the Secretary of Defense who is responsible for
policy development and planning [. . .], lead[ing] the
formulation and coordination of national security and defense
policy with the Department of Defense [. . .], integrat[ing]
policies and plans to achieve desired objectives [. . . and]
build[ing] partnerships and defense cooperation with U.S.
friends and allies. In other words, you would have
significant, wide-ranging influence on the policies and
activities of the Pentagon and defense relationships with our
most critical allies and partners.
Anyone nominated to be a high-ranking Pentagon official
must be qualified and also a person of high character whose
record is consistent with the values of our country and those
of the U.S. military. Nominees should see the value
diversity, inclusion, and unity bring to our institutions.
Unfortunately, your history of public remarks does not meet
this standard. In 2018, you said that Islam is the ``most
oppressive violent religion I know of,'' and that the 2015
agreement to block Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon alone
is more than enough evidence of [former President Barack
Obama's] drive to subvert U.S. national interests to Islam
and a globalist agenda. You called President Obama a
``terrorist leader'' and alleged that the former president
``made no secret of his belief that a weaker America made for
a stronger world. Moreover, you falsely claimed that
President Obama ``is a Muslim--repeating a claim used by
then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and others who
attempt to incite anti-Muslim prejudice and otherize Islam by
suggesting it is an inferior religion and synonymous with
terrorism. You also said in a now-deleted tweet on July 2,
2018, ``Never a doubt. Among dozens of clues, Obama supported
Russian meddling in 2016 election & influenced Israeli
elections to try to oust Netanyahu & help Hamas & Muslim
brotherhood U.S. really did have Manchurian Candidate in
White House.
Unfortunately, your inflammatory remarks did not stop
there. You reserved further dishonorable and disqualifying
rhetoric for members of Congress as well. For example, you
claimed that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congresswoman Maxine
Waters ``have always been the same violent extremist'' and
referred to Congresswoman Waters in particular as a ``vicious
race baiting racist.'' Only after your nomination became
public and reports exposed your repugnant statements, many of
which you deleted, you walked them back in a recent letter to
the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman and Ranking
Member. In that letter, you reportedly refer to your
offensive tweets as an ``aberration in a four-decade thread
of faithful public service. Furthermore, you noted that
despite your ``strong record of inclusivity and
bipartisanship in my commentary,'' you ``did misspeak in 2018
on Twitter in hyperbolic conversations'' and that ``[t]here
is no excuse for those comments, for which I take complete
responsibility and also fully retract and denounce.''
Your letter to committee leadership appears to be a
conveniently timed retraction by someone who has suddenly
realized his nomination is in jeopardy. But your multiple
past statements cannot be dismissed simply as an aberration.
No one with a record of repeated, repugnant statements like
yours should be nominated to serve in a senior position of
public trust at the Pentagon. Your views are wholly
incompatible with the U.S. military's values.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We call on you
to withdraw your nomination.
Mr. SULLIVAN. You have almost the identical situation here. What
happened with General Tata is that his nomination, for a lot of these
reasons, was withdrawn by the Trump administration. Yet now you have
the same, almost identical issues with this nominee, and when I showed
this letter to my Democratic colleagues, they were like, ``Oh, no.
That's OK.'' It is not OK. It is not OK.
So let's talk about temperament and tweets with Dr. Kahl.
Really, the issue here is, is he more of a political hack who is
tweeting all of the time--he tweets quite a lot--or is he somebody with
the temperament of a partisan internet troll, or is he a measured
national security professional who can lead the Pentagon in the No. 3
position? Unfortunately, I think it is the former issue, not the
latter. He has a long history of tweets.
Just like the issues that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle objected to last year for this same position with the Trump
administration's nominee, who was withdrawn for these reasons, here is
just a small example of Dr. Kahl's tweets. These are the same issues
that my colleagues were concerned about. There have been a lot of
attacks on Members of Congress. OK. That is fine. We are in the public
arena.
Here is what he wrote:
The GOP used to pride itself as the party that put values
front and center in U.S. foreign policy. Now they are the
party of ethnic cleansing.
OK. I don't think we are the party of ethnic cleansing. That is
pretty strong stuff.
He tweeted more:
Let's not mince words. The Trump administration kidnapped
children. The Republican Party, in terms of national
security, are now part of a ``death cult.''
He retweeted the now discredited Lincoln Project attacks. I know a
lot about them. It spent a lot of money in my race. It is a very
discredited group of people, by the way. Very disturbed are some of
their leaders at the Lincoln Project.
He calls and tweets that the President of the United States, the
Commander in Chief, is a moron, is repugnant, is a coward. He went on
to call my colleagues in the Senate many additional things that I won't
repeat here. He did this a lot.
No matter what your views are of my colleagues or of the former
President, words matter, and attacks matter. If you can't refrain from
making them, maybe you don't belong in the No. 3 position in the
Pentagon. That was the conclusion that pretty much everybody made last
year, so why should it be different with this candidate? It shouldn't
be different.
Don't get me wrong. It is a free country. You are allowed to tweet
and criticize the Commander in Chief and Members of Congress all the
time. That is fine. That is what America is. That is what democracy is.
But that doesn't mean you get a free pass to be the No. 3 guy at the
U.S. Department of Defense, which is what he wants.
So that is temperament, and I don't think it is a good temperament
with which to lead the Pentagon at all.
Let's talk about judgment, especially policy judgment. The questions
of temperament are often closely aligned with but they are not the same
as judgment, particularly as it relates to policies. Judgment is being
able to assess a situation, use history as a guide, and take
appropriate action.
I think this nominee lacks judgment, which is something that was
shown when he was then-Vice President Biden's National Security
Advisor. Let me provide a few examples.
First, as many know, he was a staunch advocate for the Iran nuclear
deal and, I believe, an advocate on being soft on Iran.
By the way, it is not always said in public, but a bipartisan
majority of U.S. Senators and a bipartisan majority of Members of the
House all opposed the Iran deal, but in my view, appeasing the world's
largest state sponsor of terrorism, these terrorists--leaders with the
blood of thousands of American troops on their hands--is not smart
policy judgment.
Dr. Kahl doesn't seem to know when we can press the Iranians, and
this is a really big issue. Every time someone tried to press them--
draw a redline, take aggressive action--he criticized it.
Dr. Kahl, in 2015, argued for sanctions relief on Iran, claiming that
the vast majority of the relief would go to butter, not guns. Well, we
know how that turned out. That money went to arming terrorists and the
continuation of Iran's proxies around the Middle East and around the
world who were committing terrorism.
Dr. Kahl said that pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal was ``a
dangerous delusion.''
He said: The ``hawks in Congress''--and I think he meant that as an
insult. By the way, I view that not as an insult, particularly after
the Obama-Biden administration cut defense spending by 25 percent and
drastically reduced readiness--who are supporting pulling out of the
Iran deal ``won't be satisfied until they get the war they have pushed
for decades.'' Really? I didn't want war with Iran. Those who opposed
the JCPOA--again, a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senators--didn't
want a war with Iran. We just thought the JCPOA was misguided.
[[Page S2219]]
After the U.S. strike that killed Iranian terror commando Qasem
Soleimani, Kahl tweeted the following:
Trump has started a war with Iran and Iraq.
Really? I think what the President and our fine military did when
they killed General Soleimani was reestablish deterrence, which we had
lost in the Middle East when this terrorist killed thousands and
wounded thousands of U.S. service men and women and never had to pay
consequences. We reestablished a redline and said: If you kill
Americans, you are going to pay.
Guess what. That war never happened, although Kahl predicted it
Even Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Zarif, acknowledged in these
tapes that we have been talking about here on the Senate floor that the
killing of Soleimani ``was when the United States delivered a major
blow to Iran more damaging than if it had wiped out an entire city in
an attack.'' That was from the Foreign Minister of Iran's knowing that
what we did was very significant.
Dr. Kahl, if you look at his tweets, wouldn't have done that because
he thought it would have ``brought the war that the hawks want.'' We
didn't want a war, and we didn't get a war.
Just like John Kerry, who is now being accused of leaking secrets
that Israel had--one of our most important allies--to Iran, the world's
largest state sponsor of terrorism, I believe he is soft on Iran.
We are going to get to the bottom of the Kerry issue, by the way. It
is alleged what he did, but if he did it, if he sold out Israel for
Iran, he needs to resign and be fired. We are going to get to the
bottom of that.
Let me mention one other issue. It is a sensitive one--I admit it--
but I think it is also an important one with Dr. Kahl.
At his confirmation hearing, he said that one of his priorities was
to ``stamp out `systemic racism' within the ranks of the military.''
Now, look, I care about this issue, and every organization has bad
people in it. I spoke on the Senate floor last year about some of these
issues. I put forward legislation last year in the NDAA that looks at
why we aren't having promotions of African Americans at higher ranks
and at the highest ranks of the military. This is an issue I care
about, but when he said this in his confirmation hearing--systemic
racism within the ranks--I was very curious. Has he served in the
ranks, maybe? No, he hasn't. I have for 26 years--still serving. Where
did he get the information? That is a broad statement to make about our
troops whom you want to lead.
During the hearing, Dr. Kahl admitted he had ``no credible evidence
to back up that kind of statement.'' Well, that is a real lack of
judgment.
You are besmirching a bunch--a big portion of the force, with no
credible data to back it up, and you want to be the No. 3 leader in the
Pentagon?
This is judgment, and this is one of the many reasons I am going to
vote against him, and I hope that my colleagues do.
Let me end with one final thing. Dr. Kahl made a statement in his
confirmation hearing about the requirements of the job:
The position of undersecretary of defense for policy, while
it's a political appointment, is not a political job. It's a
policy job, one that requires [whoever is in the position] to
be nonpartisan.
Well, given his judgment, given his temperament, I don't believe Dr.
Kahl has lived up to his own assessment of what is required to serve in
the Pentagon's third most important defense role. I don't believe he
has the qualifications for this position. There are plenty of good
policy experts--Democrats, I am sure, who do--and I would encourage my
colleagues to vote against this nomination for these reasons.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 7
minutes prior to the vote on the Kahl nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Colin Kahl, the
President's nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
The most basic responsibility of our government and our military is
to protect the national security of the American people, which requires
helping our allies and constraining our enemies. The Pentagon's policy
chief is responsible for those evaluations.
Unfortunately, I have come to believe that Colin Kahl's judgment is
irreparably marred by obsessive animosity toward Israel. I can think of
no other way to explain his years of consistently wrong views regarding
the Middle East--and not just wrong but impulsive and reckless.
He has repeatedly spilled out his conspiracy theories and attacks on
Twitter and other public venues. He views the world through a cracked
lens.
And I challenge my Democratic colleagues to explain one simple thing:
What other explanation, other than animosity to the world's only Jewish
state, could possibly account for all of these staggeringly wrong
judgments?
I would like to begin with a topic the Senate has been united on: our
opposition to anti-Semitism and to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
In 2019, this body came together unanimously to pass a resolution
that I authored, along with Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, condemning
anti-Semitism as a unique form of bigotry that distorts people's
judgments.
Recently, a top adviser to the Ayatollah Khomeini acknowledged what
the world long knew--that in 2018, in an operation right out of a
Hollywood action movie, Israel seized Iran's national nuclear archive.
The archive proved that Iran had been keeping nuclear weapons
blueprints and materials on the shelf. The nuclear deal, of which Kahl
was a principle architect, had been flawed from the start.
Kahl responded to the news of the raid by suggesting on Twitter the
archive was fabricated by Israel, with the aim of dragging American
boys and girls into another Middle East war. This was a pernicious,
anti-Sematic conspiracy theory, a blood libel, not just pernicious but
wrong.
That was not the only time Kahl leveled troubling conspiracy theories
about Israel and Iran. He suggested on Twitter that Trump's policies
regarding the Iran deal and Jerusalem were linked to donations from
Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson. This is not the judgment of anyone
who should be anywhere near power or policy.
Another decision the Trump administration made was to move our
Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. There was an active debate within the
Trump administration. I leaned in vigorously with the President, and
the President agreed with the view I articulated; that we should say to
our friends and our enemies that we stand unshakably with the nation of
Israel.
Kahl spent years fighting against that move, fighting against moving
our Embassy. According to reports from 2012, Kahl was personally
responsible for trying to remove language from the Democratic Party
platform embracing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
This is a long-abiding passion of his.
And when President Trump recognized Jerusalem, Kahl predicted it
would isolate the United States and Israel and even potentially trigger
a third intifada. He was wrong.
Just like he was wrong about supporting Israel, he was wrong about
opposing Iran. In 2017, Congress passed legislation mandating that the
President declare Iran's IRGC a terrorist organization. Kahl said we
were playing ``politics'' so that we could show we were tough on Iran,
and again he predicted disaster. Again, he was wrong.
Kahl has even attacked Democrats on this issue. For instance, he has
repeatedly attacked Chairman Menendez for trying to ``kill'' and use
``poison pills'' to block appeasement of the Iranian regime.
Turning to current topics, the Obama-Biden team shamefully,
repeatedly, recklessly used leaks to leak secrets about Israeli
operations against Iranian terrorists and forces.
Now there are new reports on a taped phone call that then-Secretary
of State Kerry may have leaked Israeli attacks to Iranian Foreign
Minister Zarif, with whom he is personally close. If verified, these
reports would mean he maliciously endangered not just Israeli national
security but American lives. If these reports are true, John Kerry
should resign, and if he doesn't resign, President Biden should fire
him.
Colin Kahl was prominent in shaping Obama-Biden policies on Israel
and
[[Page S2220]]
Iran, and he has been credibly accused of weaponizing and leaking
classified information.
I recently joined 17 other Senators in a letter to FBI Director Wray,
requesting that the FBI immediately investigate whether he did so. But
we are not going to have the answer before we vote today, and I don't
see how he can be principally advanced without it.
On issues of foreign policy, this body is often united when standing
up against our enemies and standing for our friends. This nominee, I
believe, is the most virulently anti-Israel nominee who would serve in
the entire Biden administration.
Many of our friends on the Democratic aisle like to say they support
the nation of Israel. Well, this is a chance to demonstrate you mean it
because you cannot vote to confirm a rabid, anti-Israel, conspiracy
theory-tweeting radical to the No. 3 position in the Department of
Defense and then claim you are a reliable friend of Israel.
Colin Kahl's record is extreme, fringe, and radical. He has a
lifelong obsession with and antipathy to the State of Israel, and he
has demonstrated a willingness to endanger Israeli lives and American
lives to advance that hostility.
I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this
nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.