[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 31, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S504-S505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



              Nominations of Steven Mnuchin and Tom Price

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss what happened in the 
Finance Committee today--or what didn't happen in the Finance Committee 
today. Two newspapers--one, the Columbus Dispatch, one of Ohio's best 
and most conservative newspapers, and the Wall Street Journal, one of 
this country's most conservative newspapers--reported that the two 
nominees in front of the Senate Finance Committee had lied to the 
committee. Treasury Secretary-Designee Mnuchin had lied when asked if 
his bank, OneWest, had done robo signings; he said no.
  The Columbus Dispatch investigative reporters found, in fact, that 
they had done robo signings, and they found that dozens--probably 
hundreds, maybe thousands--of Ohioans lost their homes. A woman named 
Miss Duncan, who had paid her mortgage month after month, was doing 
everything right. She was foreclosed on--not anything of her doing--and 
her financial life was turned upside down.
  The Wall Street Journal reported that Congressman Price, the designee 
for Health and Human Services, had lied about insider information he 
had. He had advantages that other investors didn't have in buying 
health care stocks as he sat on the health care committee in the House, 
as he voted, as he wrote amendments and bills dealing with health care.
  These are nominees for agencies--the two most important economic 
agencies in the Federal Government, probably, at least in the Cabinet--
who have lied about things that affect people's lives. It is hundreds 
of people--thousands, maybe, in my State. We are not even the largest 
State on foreclosures caused by OneWest. Thousands, hundreds of 
thousands--who knows how many around the country, as he will not tell 
us yet--have lost homes because of his and his bank's actions, making 
him wealthier, to be sure, but upending people's lives in the cruelest 
kind of way when their homes are foreclosed on.
  We are saying to Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Finance 
Committee: Get some answers here. Find out why these two nominees lied, 
and find out what they are going to do to fix it. Find out what they 
have in their backgrounds that they haven't disclosed to this 
committee.
  We have no business voting on nominees before we have that kind of 
information. That is the reason that Democratic Senators of the Finance 
Committee, led by Ranking Member Wyden, decided not to come to the 
committee to vote today--because it is the only way we can get Senator 
Hatch to bring those two forward to give us the information and to give 
the American public the information they need.
  I might add that we probably did President Trump a favor today, 
because if these two nominees had been brought forward--and I assume 
confirmed, because Republicans are voting for every nominee, it seems, 
no matter what; I haven't seen a break from that yet--they may have 
come to the floor and have been confirmed, and there likely would have 
been a scandal early in the Trump Administration and in the Treasury 
Department and Health and Human Services Department--two incredibly 
important agencies.
  I think that we, perhaps, in some sense, saved President Trump from 
himself and the damage that his nominees could do. I don't expect 
appreciation or thanks from the White House on this, but I do think 
this is an issue that should be taken care of before they head two of 
the most important and largest--if not largest, two of the most 
important--Federal agencies.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss why I intend to oppose the 
nomination of Rex Tillerson as the Secretary of State. This is not a 
decision that I make lightly. I have no doubt that Mr. Tillerson has 
been a successful businessman, managing one of America's largest 
corporations at ExxonMobil. Many have attested to his being a man of 
character who has given back to his community and, particularly, 
through his work with the Boy Scouts of America.
  I have no reason to doubt that he does have the character and decency 
that we would applaud in any person. However, when the United States 
faces some of the most complex global challenges in a generation, this 
is not the time to appoint as our Nation's top diplomat someone who has 
no demonstrated experience articulating and advocating for America's 
interests, values, and commitment to our allies and partners.
  As the events of this past week make clear, we need a Secretary of 
State who will speak up and candidly tell the truth to the President 
when he acts contrary to who we are as a nation and harms our relations 
with our partners and our standing in the world. Without an effective 
voice at the State Department for America's best interests, both within 
the executive branch and outside our borders, we will continue to see 
this administration, I fear, take steps that undermine cooperation with 
our closest allies and neighbors, violate our values, and ultimately 
make our troops and citizens less safe. I am concerned that Mr. 
Tillerson will not be such a voice for the American people.
  Throughout the confirmation process, Mr. Tillerson has repeatedly 
demonstrated either his lack of preparation or his unwillingness, 
perhaps, to specifically declare himself on key issues. In particular, 
I am concerned about his views on Russia, climate change, and 
immigration, and how he will influence a White House that already seems 
determined to pursue campaign promises regardless of the impact on 
American foreign policy.
  On Russia, Mr. Tillerson has demonstrated a familiarity with Putin 
and the Russian Government that is deeply concerning. Mr. Tillerson has 
spent his professional life advancing the interests of ExxonMobil--
indeed, almost to the exclusivity of any other purpose. That is of 
concern, and should be of concern to all of us.
  Even as the United States was reevaluating its relationship with 
Russia in recent years, Mr. Tillerson has deepened his personal 
relationship with Putin, to the point that the Russian President 
awarded Mr. Tillerson the Russian Order of Friendship in 2013, 
supposedly a very high honor for a non-Russian. It appears that Mr. 
Tillerson opposed U.S. sanctions against Russia after Russia's illegal 
annexation of Crimea in 2014 because his multinational corporation 
stood to lose very lucrative oil contracts if sanctions were put in 
place.

  International sanctions against Russia, imposed by the United States 
and the European Union, have sent a clear and effective message to 
Russia that their invasion of Ukraine is unacceptable. These sanctions 
are absolutely critical to multilateral efforts to hold Russia to its 
commitments to end the violence in Ukraine and restore its sovereignty, 
consistent with the Minsk agreements. The Russians claimed that these 
are separatists, that these are Ukrainians rising up, but the truth is 
that this is Russian-inspired, Russian-directed, and at the behest of 
Putin.
  Mr. Tillerson's wavering on Russian sanctions, however, could weaken 
the resolve of our European allies in maintaining these sanctions. It 
could encourage Putin in his efforts to cut a

[[Page S505]]

deal for sanctions relief and cause our allies in the Baltics and 
elsewhere to question the U.S. and NATO commitment to their security. 
This ultimately will make us less safe.
  On climate change, Mr. Tillerson's career up to this point has been 
marked by a disregard for the environment. Strong environmental 
policies, including coordinating global efforts to address climate 
change, are in the best interest of the American people and help 
fulfill our moral responsibility as stewards of the Earth for the next 
generation. That is why I have consistently supported limits on oil and 
gas exploration, bans on drilling in pristine areas, eliminating oil 
and gas tax subsidies and giveaways, increases in research into new 
sustainable energy technologies, and the negotiation of international 
climate treaties. Mr. Tillerson's time at ExxonMobil stands in stark 
contrast to these policy goals and makes me doubt whether, if approved, 
he would effectively protect our environment and work with our partners 
around the world to uphold our commitments as Secretary of State.
  On immigration, I am concerned about whether Mr. Tillerson can be an 
effective advocate for policies that keep the American people safe 
while preserving our ties with key partners and upholding our values 
internationally.
  President Trump's Executive order blocking immigrants from certain 
Muslim-majority nations is, in my view, unconstitutional, un-American, 
cruel to those fleeing danger and injustice, and ultimately makes us 
less secure. It ignores the horrific circumstances refugees are fleeing 
in numerous war-torn regions. It suggests the insertion of arbitrary 
religious and ethnic considerations and fails to account for the strict 
vetting procedures already in place for refugees, particularly from 
Syria and areas of conflict. It is also contrary to our history as a 
nation that, from its birth, has benefited from the contributions of 
hard-working and successful immigrants.
  In particular, this Executive order is a betrayal of our commitment 
to those who risk their lives to serve as translators for our troops 
fighting in Iraq. Through the Special Immigrant Visa Program, we 
promised these brave Iraqis the opportunity to resettle in the United 
States in recognition of their invaluable contributions to our wartime 
missions. Yet this administration has effectively blocked these SIV 
Program recipients without a second thought.
  In addition, the President's actions on immigration are making 
America less safe by undermining key relationships with allies and 
partners. The President's Executive order on immigration hands ISIS a 
self-inflicted propaganda victory that reinforces their claim that the 
United States is at war with all of Islam. It damages our diplomatic 
relationships with Muslim-majority nations, whether on the list or not, 
by undermining their willingness and ability to cooperate with U.S. law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies in sharing information on 
potential terrorist attackers. It may also compel these countries to 
reciprocate by prohibiting Americans from entering their borders.
  Just this morning in the Armed Services Committee, we heard from an 
eminent expert. She indicated to us that the Iraqi Parliament has 
already had a meeting and has essentially resolved to reciprocate by 
banning Americans from Iraq.
  We have examples today of Iraqi pilots training in the United States 
so that they can go back and work with our military personnel to attack 
ISIS. Had their training been scheduled--
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REED. Yes, I will.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. It is my understanding that not only are we fighting 
shoulder to shoulder with Iraqis against ISIL, on the day these orders 
were signed, we had Iraqi pilots in the United States of America 
training to bomb ISIS. If they had come days after the signing of this 
order instead of days before, they would not have been allowed to enter 
the country for this important training; is that correct?
  Mr. REED. The Senator from Missouri is absolutely correct. That is 
the point I was going to make, and she made it more distinctly and more 
decisively.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Sorry. I heard you talking about Iraqis, and I wanted 
to make sure everyone in America understood that they were here 
training with our military to fight ISIS, and the President of the 
United States told them they were no longer welcome.
  Mr. REED. This is something that has been ongoing for many years. I 
can recall visiting a training facility in Rhode Island--formerly 
Quonset Point Naval Air Station; now it is a National Guard station--
where they were training Iraqi Air Force pilots to fly C-130J aircraft. 
Again, had this order been in effect, those pilots would not have been 
allowed in for the training that not only helps them but helps the 
thousands of American military personnel in Iraq, shoulder to shoulder, 
fighting together, depending on not just the presence but the 
confidence of the Iraqi military in the United States and that 
reciprocal mutual relationship. This measure sends a terrible signal to 
them saying: Go ahead and fight, but you won't get to the United 
States.
  It is particularly the case I make with respect to these people who 
feel threatened because they helped us. We have a special visa program, 
but right now that is in limbo because we essentially said they can't 
come in, even though they risked their lives to protect our interests 
and the interests of their own country.
  We are creating huge problems, and, again, I haven't heard the 
nominee speak out decisively and clearly about the problems this policy 
is engendering, and that is incumbent upon the individual.
  We have traditionally granted nominees broad deference out of respect 
for the President, and I don't think this is an issue of simply 
stopping a nominee for the sake of stopping a nominee. But we are not a 
rubberstamp either. We have to come here and make the case. When we see 
examples of behaviors that demonstrably threaten the security of the 
United States, our ability to cooperate with others, our image in the 
world, and we are not confident that our Secretary of State will not 
only reject those but effectively argue within and without that we have 
a higher purpose, a better goal, a better policy, then it is our 
obligation to stand and to render a vote of no, and I intend to do 
that.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.