[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 15 (Monday, January 30, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S468-S469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



       Unanimous Consent Requests--S. 240 and Executive Calendar

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will speak and then make my two 
motions, and then the Senator from Arkansas can speak and either object 
or not, whatever he decides.
  Mr. President, earlier I spoke at length on the President's Executive 
order. I just want to repeat that this Executive order has made us less 
safe, less secure, put our troops in the field at increased risk, and 
was implemented in a way that has caused chaos and confusion across the 
country. Most fundamentally of all, it is un-American. It flies in the 
face of a grand American tradition of granting refuge to those fleeing 
persecution, regardless of their race, religion, or political views. It 
is dangerous. It is shameful. It is wrong. It must be reversed 
immediately. And I know that many of my colleagues agree with me. They 
know this is wrong. A dozen Republican Senators and counting, including 
my good friend, the senior Senator from Arizona, have expressed serious 
concern. One former Republican CIA Director said that it ``makes us 
less safe than we were on Friday.''
  So let's repeal the order and then sit down to discuss a smart, 
thoughtful, effective way to counter terrorism. President Obama wanted 
tougher vetting. Democrats are happy to look at proposals to that 
effect but not this ineffective, un-American policy that will do more 
to empower our enemies and inspire those around the globe who would do 
us harm.
  Now I am going to make a second unanimous consent request, and I will 
do them seriatim, as the UC allowed.
  The second request is, I ask unanimous consent that we delay the 
confirmation vote on Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson until 
these Executive orders are overturned and he commits to opposing them.
  So far, this is the most important foreign policy order of the new 
administration, and in the committee hearing for his nomination, Mr. 
Tillerson appeared--he wasn't 100 percent certain--to roundly reject 
the idea of a blanket travel ban just like the one President Trump 
signed. He said: ``I don't support a blanket type of travel ban on 
people coming to this country.'' He stressed in his opening statement 
that moderate Muslims are going to be our greatest allies in the fight 
against Islamic extremists. The implication was that he wouldn't 
support a proposal that would in any way alienate and inflame them. He 
said he didn't think it was helpful to suggest that Americans should be 
afraid of Muslims. That would suggest he might be wary about a policy 
that explicitly singles out seven majority-Muslim countries for 
different treatment under U.S. policy.
  Now, many of the comments Mr. Tillerson made to the committee are at 
odds with the President's policy. So Democrats and Republicans alike 
and the American people, most of all, deserve to know whether Mr. 
Tillerson would implement this Executive order or not because it seems 
to directly contradict comments he made under oath to a Senate 
committee. Key allies around the world are wondering whether the 
potential future Secretary of State supports this policy, and so are 
the American people.
  Here are some important questions: Did he have any involvement or 
consultation in the construction or drafting of the Executive order? 
How would he answer the outcries from countries around the world that 
are asking that President Trump rethink this policy? Does he think it 
would make us less safe? Does he think it would alienate moderate 
Muslim communities in the United States and around the world? And does 
he believe current green card holders should be subjected to another 
round of scrutiny if they come back to the United States, even though 
they have been vetted before?
  We need these answers from President Trump's nominees, and Mr. 
Tillerson's nomination is before the Senate right now, so it is 
imperative that we know what he thinks before moving forward.
  So, Mr. President, I am making two unanimous consent requests.
  First, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Senator Feinstein's bill, S. 240, introduced 
earlier today; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided; and 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be considered read 
a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; 
finally, that there be no amendments, motions, or points of order in 
order to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
  If the Democratic leader wants to proceed.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I have a second unanimous consent request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on 
Calendar No. 2, the nomination of Rex W. Tillerson for Secretary of 
State, be postponed until Executive Order 137 is rescinded and Mr. 
Tillerson has provided in writing to the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee information pertaining to his involvement in the development 
of the Executive order, as well as a statement declaring whether or not 
he agrees with the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the first request of the 
Senator from New York?
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I object to the first request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the second request of the Democratic leader?
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, so once again we are hearing the Democrats 
and the media traffic in fake news. We heard a lot on this floor and 
over the weekend about a Muslim ban. This is a so-called Muslim ban 
that applies only to seven countries, and it does not apply to 
Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Nigeria--the five largest 
Muslim populations in the world. I have heard lots of claims on TV 
about 134 million Muslims who could be affected. Of course that leaves 
1.6 billion Muslims who are not affected.
  This is not a Muslim ban; this is a temporary pause of movement from 
seven countries, which President Trump did not pick from thin air. He 
picked from acts of this Congress and the Obama Department of Homeland 
Security--five countries in a state of near anarchy; a sixth country, 
Iraq, which has had a large part of its territory overrun by the 
Islamic State; and a seventh, Iran, which is the world's worst state 
sponsor of terrorism. Moreover, it is not a ban; it is simply a 
temporary pause for 3 to 4 months to evaluate whether Obama 
administration policies are strong enough to keep this country safe.
  We also heard claims that this is somehow unconstitutional. However, 
there is no free-floating global right of people around the world to 
come to this country. President Trump's order is nothing more than a 
temporary pause on migration from countries with very weak state 
institutions or which sponsor terrorism, while the President and the 
administration take a more thorough review of our vetting procedures 
and the refugee program as a whole.
  Secretary Kelly has stated that it does not apply to green card 
holders. Secretary Mattis is reportedly advising that the long-term 
policy accommodate Iraqis with a documented history

[[Page S469]]

of serving with our troops, which I obviously support.
  In fact, a temporary pause for security evaluations is so sensible 
that in November 2015, after the Paris terrorist attacks, even the 
minority leader suggested that ``a pause may be necessary.'' It wasn't 
beyond the pale then, and it is not now. Moreover, the people who are 
enforcing our laws on the frontlines agree with President Trump. The 
union for Border Patrol and Customs Enforcement agents has stated that 
they support this order and two other related immigration orders.
  Yet here is the minority shedding crocodile tears over President 
Trump's immigration refugee policy, but where were those tears for the 
last 8 years when President Obama's foreign policy created all of these 
refugees? Where were the tears when President Obama overthrew the 
Government of Libya with nothing to follow? Where were the tears when 
President Obama withdrew from Iraq, leaving that country to fend off 
Iran and the Islamic State? Where were the tears when President Obama 
gave Iran $100 billion to continue its imperial campaign throughout the 
Middle East, to include overthrowing the Government of Yemen through 
its proxies? And most notoriously, where were the tears when President 
Obama stood idly by and watched Syria go up in flames? Spare me the 
tears now.
  If the minority is worried about the President's counsel and wants to 
make a difference in the real world, I suggest we get to work and we 
confirm Rex Tillerson to be the Secretary of State and Jeff Sessions to 
be the Attorney General. In the meantime, I object.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is there further debate?