Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S5570-S5571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFIRMATION OF JOHN RAKOLTA
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I wish to express my reservations about
the nomination of John Rakolta, Jr., to be Ambassador to the United
Arab Emirates. Historically, the United States has sent career foreign
service officers to serve as ambassadors to the United Arab Emirates,
men and women well-versed in the complexities and challenges facing the
region. Mr. Rakolta would be the first political nominee to serve as
Ambassador to this critical post. The U.S. mission in the United Arab
Emirates has benefitted from experienced, trained diplomats who can
adroitly navigate our important security partnership while also
addressing some of our major policy disagreements, particularly
regarding involvement in conflicts throughout the Middle East.
In nominating Mr. Rakolta, this administration is putting a political
nominee with no diplomatic experience at the helm of one of our most
critical Middle East posts. While Mr. Rakolta possesses extensive
business experience, he lacks knowledge of the arms sales process,
security commitments, and complex diplomacy that we should demand of
our emissaries to the United Arab Emirates. This is a risky venture
that could jeopardize our effectiveness in the region. It also is part
of a concerning trend that has reduced the number of career ambassadors
serving abroad. The historically even split between political and
career nominees is becoming further skewed toward political
ambassadors.
Mr. Rakolta's nomination is also indicative of the lack of due
diligence and forthrightness demonstrated by a number of this
administration's nominees. It took months for the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee to obtain an accurate and complete picture of the
extent of Mr. Rakolta's business holdings, litigation history, and the
role he played at a questionable nonprofit, ostensibly related to
economic development.
Mr. Rakolta initially failed to include key details in the paperwork
he submitted to the committee. He did not disclose dozens of companies
that he had owned or managed, including many with an international
presence, and omitted dozens of foreign lawsuits, among other details.
More concerning, however, he did not disclose that he had served on the
board of a nonprofit that had been the subject of intense public
scrutiny, including questions about payments the board approved for its
executive director. These issues and omissions not only slowed down Mr.
Rakolta's nomination, but raised concerns about Mr. Rakolta's candor
and forthrightness with the committee.
The committee relies on nominees to be transparent and forthcoming
about relevant information to ensure that there are not actual or
potential conflicts of interest or issues that call into question a
nominee's fitness for public service. When these details are obscured,
omitted, or hard to obtain, it further erodes the confidence that a
nominee is well-qualified and committed to serve in a given position.
Mr. Rakolta's failure to provide accurate details to the committee did
not inspire confidence about his diligence or transparency. Further,
the details that the committee did obtain raise concerns about the type
of leadership that
[[Page S5571]]
he would bring to a critical U.S. embassy. Therefore, I opposed his
nomination.
____________________