[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 31, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S515-S528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Affordable Care Act

  A word about ObamaCare: My friend from Wyoming, a medical doctor 
himself, has felt strongly against the Affordable Care Act since its 
passage. I view it a lot differently.
  There are currently 1.2 million Illinoisans--1 out of 10 in our 
State--who have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. 
Over half of them are now brought into the Medicaid system, the others 
are on insurance exchanges, and many of them have their premiums 
subsidized by our Federal Government.
  In addition, every person in America who has a health insurance plan 
has benefited by the Affordable Care Act. Why? Because we took some of 
the worst abuses in health insurance and said: You can no longer do 
that and sell health insurance in this country. One example is lifetime 
caps--caps on the amount of money that a policy will play. Now, 
$100,000 in coverage may sound like a lot, until you are diagnosed with 
cancer--and then it disappears in a matter of days and weeks. So we 
eliminated lifetime caps on coverage.
  The second most important thing we did was to say: You can't 
discriminate against someone because they have a preexisting condition. 
Is there anyone alive that doesn't have some preexisting condition? If 
it was bad enough in the bad old days before the Affordable Care Act, 
that was enough to either disqualify them from health insurance or to 
run the premiums up to the high heavens. Now you can no longer be 
discriminated against because your husband has diabetes, your wife 
survived breast cancer, or your child has survived a cancer scare 
themselves. We have eliminated that in all health insurance policies.
  The third thing we did was to say that every health insurance policy 
sold in the United States has to cover mental illness and substance 
abuse treatment. The people who pushed for that--Democratic Senator 
Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Republican Pete Domenici of New 
Mexico--both had family histories of mental illness, and they said 
health insurance ought to cover mental illness. They finally prevailed. 
It was included in the Affordable Care Act, so it means that, across 
the board, all of us who buy health insurance are buying care for 
mental illness.
  Is substance abuse treatment important? Think about the opioid and 
heroin epidemic across the United States--across my State of Illinois. 
Where would these families be, with a person in the family suffering 
from addiction, if the health insurance plan didn't provide some 
coverage? The Affordable Care Act requires that.
  When the Republicans say that they want to repeal it, the obvious 
question is: And then what? What happens next, when the insurance 
companies can stop covering these critical areas?
  There is another thing. My wife and I have raised some kids who have 
gone through college, and when they finished college they didn't quite 
go into their long, permanent career. They had a bunch of jobs, looking 
for the right place.
  I can recall calling my daughter, fresh out of the University of 
Wisconsin, and saying: Jen, do you have health insurance? I know you 
did as a student.
  She said: Dad, I'm fine. I'm strong and healthy. I don't need it.
  That is the last thing a father wants to hear.
  Do you know what the Affordable Care Act says? My daughter--anyone's 
daughter--up to the age of 26 can stay on my family plan. How about 
that for common sense? There are 90,000 young people in Illinois 
protected by the family plans because of that provision. Now we hear 
from the Senator from Wyoming that this is a big failure and we have to 
repeal it.
  The last thing we did is important to every senior citizen on 
Medicare across the United States. There used to be something called 
the doughnut hole. It is even hard to describe, but it related to 
paying seniors for their prescription drugs. Here is what it said; try 
to follow this: We will cover you for the first few months of the year, 
with Medicare paying the prescription drug cost. Then you are on your 
own for 3 or 4 months. Once you have delved into your own personal 
savings up to a certain amount, we will come back and cover you again.
  Go figure. It would take a Congressman or a Senator to dream up 
something like that, and seniors across the country felt completely 
vulnerable. When they went into that period of no coverage, many of 
them stopped taking their drugs. That is not a good thing. So we closed 
that gap. We closed that doughnut hole.
  What does it mean to seniors in Illinois? On average, they save 
$1,000 a year because the Affordable Care Act brought this reform to 
Medicare. Now the Republicans say: Let's repeal that. Do they want to 
explain to the seniors in my State that they now have to turn for their 
savings for that gap period again? We don't want to see that happen.
  For 6 years, Republicans have said repeatedly that they want to 
repeal ObamaCare. Repeal ObamaCare. They say it in their sleep. They 
have vote after vote--I think 60 different votes in the House--to 
repeal it, knowing it would never happen with President Obama in the 
White House. Now, the dog done caught the bus. Here they are, in the 
majority in the House and the Senate with a Republican President, and 
their first order of business: Repeal ObamaCare.
  Do you know what they are learning? All across the United States, 
medical health care providers--hospitals, doctors, clinics, and 
others--are telling them that will be a disaster. If you eliminate the 
Affordable Care Act without a replacement as good or better, you are 
going to leave chaos in the system and a lot of people without the 
protection of health insurance.
  So after 6 years, you would think the Republicans would have a 
replacement plan. Right? A substitute. They have had all this time to 
think about it. No, not yet; they are still thinking about it, but they 
are determined to repeal.
  I met with hospital administrators around my State last weekend and 
will continue to in the future. They are worried. We estimate Illinois 
hospitals will lose over 90,000 jobs with the repeal of the Affordable 
Care Act. We know that downstate hospitals and hospitals in rural 
areas--in many States represented here--are going to be forced to 
close. What happens when you close that smalltown hospital in downstate 
Illinois? What used to be a 20-minute ride to the hospital becomes a 1-
hour drive. How important is that? Well, when you are in labor, it is 
important or if you just had a farm accident or you are responding to 
something that happened on the highway, it is critical, life-or-death 
important. So you would think Republicans would have a plan to keep 
these hospitals open. They don't. We haven't seen a substitute.
  They rail against ObamaCare; they rail against the Affordable Care 
Act. They don't criticize the individual components I have described 
because they are wildly popular with the American people.
  The irony of this is that we have spent 6 years trying to convince 
people that the Affordable Care Act, even with its flaws and faults--
and it has them, but even with that, it is good for America. We got 
nowhere. We were beating our heads against the wall.
  Then, when the Republicans took over and started talking about 
repeal, people were stepping back and saying: What am I going to lose 
if they repeal it? The approval rating for the Affordable Care Act 
since Donald Trump was

[[Page S516]]

elected is going up, as people come now to finally understand the value 
of it for their families and their businesses.
  So I say to my friends on the Republican side, as I have said over 
and over again: The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect law. The only 
perfect law was carried down the side of a mountain by Senator Moses on 
clay tablets. Everything else can be improved, and I am ready to sign 
up for that improvement. First, jettison this whole talk of repeal. It 
is totally irresponsible. If we want to have a constructive 
conversation about how to make the Affordable Care Act more affordable, 
covering more people, finally doing something about prescription drug 
costs, let's sit down and do it together on a bipartisan basis. 
Starting with repeal is a nonstarter.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I want to express my support for Rex 
Tillerson to be our next Secretary of State. Mr. Tillerson is one of 
the most distinguished businessmen in the world. His reputation 
precedes him. I don't have to recount for all of you his remarkable 
career--rising from an entry-level production engineer to CEO of 
ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the world. Mr. Tillerson's story 
should be an inspiration to kids across this country: Through hard 
work, discipline, and striving, you can achieve your dreams, even if 
you weren't born into wealth, power, or privilege. Like the Boy Scouts 
he has mentored, like the Eagle Scout he was, Mr. Tillerson inspires by 
his example.
  No one can doubt Mr. Tillerson has acquired a wide range of skills 
throughout his notable life, as well as a gold-plated reputation. I 
think it goes without saying that a man of such varied experiences will 
bring a well-informed and shrewd perspective to the post. In fact, I 
would suggest that it is the very perspective which recommends him most 
for the job.
  I met with him in December, and we had a wide-ranging conversation 
about Russia, the Middle East, human rights, and the many other 
geopolitical challenges and opportunities facing our country. I was 
impressed by the breadth of his knowledge, his familiarity with so many 
world leaders, and his understanding of their peoples. The one thing 
that really stood out to me was his clear-eyed, hard-nosed prudence. It 
is little wonder that Mr. Tillerson comes highly recommended by Dick 
Cheney and Bob Gates, seasoned statesmen with no illusions about the 
world and no doubts about America's role in it. I am confident that as 
Secretary of State, he will protect the interests of the American 
people just as he protected the interests of ExxonMobil's shareholders 
as their CEO.
  I have heard some Senators wonder whether a businessman can really 
walk away from a company and its financial interests--as if it were the 
money that made the man, instead of the man who made the money. Their 
concern reminds me of similar questions raised about one of the best 
Secretaries of State in the modern era, George Shultz. When President 
Reagan nominated him, Secretary Shultz was president and director of 
the Bechtel Group, a large construction concern with business across 
the Arab world. People asked whether Secretary Shultz would therefore 
tilt U.S. policy toward those countries. I think anyone looking back 
today on his record would marvel at those fears.
  In 2015, the World Jewish Congress awarded Secretary Shultz its 
prestigious Theodor Herzl Award on behalf of his work with America's 
good friend Israel. Yes, Secretary Shultz went on to lead a very 
successful tenure, working with different countries all over the world 
and always putting America's interests front and center.
  If anything, Rex Tillerson's business experience will only enhance 
his ability to provide the President his sound, unbiased judgment. If 
you need any more evidence, just look at the way Mr. Tillerson has 
conducted himself throughout the confirmation process. He has answered 
every question and addressed every concern. He has been calm and steady 
under pressure. These are precisely the qualities we need in our next 
Secretary of State.
  Today, I offer my strong support for an outstanding businessman and 
an American patriot, our next Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the nomination.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, this afternoon I 
had an opportunity to meet with King Abdallah of Jordan. During that 
conversation with Members of the Senate, there was a good deal of 
discussion about foreign policy challenges that are very much a part of 
this debate on Mr. Tillerson.
  It was interesting to listen to King Abdallah of Jordan talk about 
his country's commitment to refugees. They have taken in refugees from 
many parts of that region--from Iraq, Yemen, and other countries. They 
have taken in over 600,000 refugees from Syria. I think King Abdallah 
used a number. If you wanted to use a comparable number of refugees 
coming into America, it would be equivalent to about 60 million 
refugees coming into our country. Let me remind you that in Syria, 
President Obama committed to 10,000. It is literally a drop in the 
bucket compared to what Jordan has done in accepting refugees. It just 
underscores even more how wrong President Trump's Executive order over 
the weekend was, which put a hold on our refugee program and restricted 
travel to the United States.
  The vetting that goes forward in Jordan in regard to refugees is 
under the auspices of the United Nations, and of those who are seeking 
refugee status, a very small percentage--I understand it is less than 
one percent--will actually ever get a chance to be considered for 
refugee status here in the United States. Let me remind you that we are 
talking about, generally, women and children who are fleeing 
persecution, who have established themselves as refugees. They go 
through several screening procedures. Their background is thoroughly 
checked. They check all of the different indices as far as different 
agencies are concerned to make sure that they have no concern. Then a 
small percentage of that number actually ever gets to the United 
States. It takes 18 to 24 months. To date, there hasn't been a single 
episode of terrorism from a Syrian refugee. We have a pretty strong 
vetting process--the strongest in the world--that very much puts 
American security first.
  It was disheartening for me to listen to King Abdallah talk about the 
sacrifices his country has made. Of the 650,000 refugees that Jordan 
has taken in from Syria, the King indicated that about 90 percent are 
integrated into the Jordanian society. They are not in camps. They are 
in their schools, in their communities. They have been able to make 
sure that the refugees are well cared for. It is a huge part of the 
budget. I think the King indicated that maybe 20 percent of the 
Jordanian budget deals with refugees. That is a country that 
understands their regional responsibilities and international 
responsibilities.
  The United States has been the leader in the global community, 
recognizing that the flight of people--the refugees--represents not 
only a humanitarian requirement for the global community but also 
security issues. We have to have an orderly process for those who are 
fleeing persecution, and the United States has always been in the 
leadership. We have been in the leadership in opening our borders. We 
are proud of the refugees that came to this country after World War II, 
from Cambodia, Vietnam, and Cuba. There is a long list of those who 
have escaped persecution coming here to the United States and helping 
to build this great country. We recognize that diversity is our 
strength. This made us the great Nation that we are.
  For all those reasons, it was very disheartening to hear President 
Trump's Executive order, where he really questions whether America is 
committed to its traditional values, whether we are going to maintain 
our international leadership, whether we are going to be

[[Page S517]]

credible when we deal with other countries around the world to take on 
the responsibilities of dealing with the flight of people who are 
escaping persecution.
  I mentioned all this because the Secretary of State is the key 
diplomat that we have for America and to use America's power of 
persuasion, of using diplomacy, of using the tools at our disposal 
under the Department of State, including development assistance for how 
we can, in fact, promote those values. We need someone who is going to 
be able to speak out about these policies that were announced over the 
weekend because they weaken America. They make us less safe. I brought 
this out: In reality what you are talking about is how do you engage 
other countries around the world to help us in our war against terror 
when we tell them that Muslims aren't really welcome here in America 
and it is a majority-Muslim country? How does that work? How do we 
protect Americans who are traveling abroad who may be subjected to 
physical danger because of the statements that have been made by our 
President? How do you protect this country from the concerns about 
homegrown terrorism, which might, in fact, be encouraged by the 
recruitment of terrorists as a result of what the President has done in 
his Executive order?
  For all those reasons, it is even more important for us to have as 
the next Secretary of State a person who is committed to the core 
values of this country--that it is part of their gut, and that they 
will be a strong advocate for those issues. I have already indicated 
during the questioning in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that 
we did not see that moral clarity in regard to Mr. Tillerson and in 
regard to those values.
  The second issue that came up in King Abdallah's meeting was very 
interesting. We had a long discussion about Russia and about Russia's 
influence. We know about Russia's influence in Ukraine. We had a little 
discussion about Russia's desires in regard to the Baltics and whether 
the Baltics could be the next Ukraine, as far as Russia's aggression. 
We know that Russia is already in Georgia. Russia is already in 
Moldova. Russia is in Ukraine. Do they have their sights now set for 
Lithuania or Latvia or Estonia or Poland, where there is a large 
Russian-speaking population?
  Interesting observations were made that if Russia sees that we don't 
have resolve, they will use that opportunity to expand their influence. 
We saw that in the Middle East. We saw how in the Middle East Russia, 
which a few years ago had very little influence in the Middle East, now 
has a growing influence in the Middle East--not only in Syria but in 
other countries in that region where you see Russia's active 
engagement. So this is not theoretical.
  Russia's interests are different than our interests. Make no mistake 
about that. They don't share our values. They are not our friends. They 
are trying to compromise our democratic institutions. We have seen that 
over and over--not only the attack on our election system here in the 
United States, not only the attack on the system in Montenegro in 
parliamentary elections, but the concern now in Western Europe, as they 
are entering into the election season. We see over and over what Russia 
has done in denying space for civil society, in compromising dissent in 
their own country, in the way that corruption has been established as 
part of government. All of that is just against the principles that we 
believe in, that we believe the global community has accepted, and that 
leads to the stability in nations and advances America's national 
security interests.

  I must tell you that there are Democrats and Republicans all talking 
about the fact that we have to stand up to Russia. We have to be 
stronger on Russia. Yes, we have been able--thanks to the leadership of 
the Obama Administration--to take the sanctions that were passed by 
Congress. We passed the sanctions. The leadership and Members of the 
Senate and the House have brought about the stronger sanctions regime 
here in the United States. I congratulate my colleague, Senator 
Menendez, who was one of the principal leaders to get stronger 
sanctions here in regard to Russia, and other members of our committee 
who worked on that. We were able to get stronger sanctions. At the same 
time, we were able to get Europe to join us in these sanctions, and 
that helped us. But now there is a concern as to whether these 
sanctions will remain.
  President Trump at least has raised that question as to the 
continuation of sanctions. The question becomes this: Should we be 
maintaining those sanctions until Russia complies with the Minsk 
agreement that are relevant to its invasion into Ukraine? But we should 
also be strengthening those sanctions because of Russia's illegal 
activities in attacking our country and in what they are doing in Syria 
in perpetrating war crimes. We should be looking at stronger sanctions 
against Russia.
  I mention all of that because the person who can lead us in that 
effort is our next Secretary of State. We look at Mr. Tillerson and his 
record as the CEO of ExxonMobil, their relationships in Russia, and his 
answers to questions as to whether we should consider additional 
sanctions. Over and over he says: Well, there are multiple 
considerations. To me, that was a red flag that indicated that maybe 
there is some business interest here. Maybe, if there is a business 
interest, we shouldn't let that be more important than the human rights 
advancements and the other areas that we are concerned about.
  In reality, we saw that in the way ExxonMobil lobbied against the 
original sanctions that were imposed against Russia. They lobbied 
against it because they said it didn't create a level playing field for 
U.S. companies. The reason it didn't create a level playing field is 
that the United States is always the leader on sanctions. We always set 
the international bar as to what we need to do, and then the rest of 
the world follows us. But if we take the lowest bar, we will never have 
a tough enough stance against Russia.
  We need, as the next Secretary of State, a person who is going to be 
a leader in saying: We are going to use every one of our diplomatic 
tools to isolate Russia if they continue this activity of interfering 
with our elections, threatening to interfere with European elections, 
interfering with humanitarian assistance in Syria, or if they continue 
their illegal occupation of Crimea. We need that type of leadership. 
That is one of the reasons we have been so much engaged in this debate.
  There are many other issues about which we talked with King Abdallah 
that dealt with foreign policy challenges, including moving forward 
with broader coalitions against ISIS in the region. All of that 
requires the use of all the power we have. We know that our military is 
very strong. We are very proud of our Department of Defense and very 
proud of the men and women who serve in the military. They are the 
guardians of our freedom. We thank them every day for the sacrifices 
they make on behalf of our Nation. We owe it to them to make sure our 
military is only used as a matter of last resort, that we use all of 
our diplomatic skills in order to prevent the unnecessary use of our 
military, that we only use the military when it is absolutely essential 
and it is a matter of last resort.
  We must have as our chief diplomat a person who will carry out that 
strong commitment to our diplomatic skills and agenda in order to make 
sure that we only use the military when necessary.
  We have heard this before. But it was General Mattis who said: If you 
don't fund the Department of State, if you don't give them the 
resources they need for development assistance, you are going to have 
to give me a lot more soldiers.
  Our diplomats can very much keep us safe, and they can do it with 
less risk to our men and women who serve in the military and at less 
cost.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak concerning the nomination 
by President Trump of Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State. I believe 
I am going

[[Page S518]]

to be speaking a little bit this afternoon and possibly later. This 
will just be part of my remarks this afternoon.
  First, I am going to say some positive things about Mr. Tillerson's 
career and the importance of the position, but then I want to talk 
about the reason for my opposition, which has to do largely with my 
concern about whether he is capable of exercising truly independent 
judgment on behalf of the United States, particularly given his 41-year 
career with ExxonMobil.
  To begin, Mr. Tillerson has an exemplary record with ExxonMobil. I 
was impressed by it. I have been impressed by his business acumen. I 
think this one would, frankly, be relatively straightforward if he had 
been nominated for Secretary of Commerce. I think it would be 
relatively straightforward had he been nominated for Secretary of 
Energy.
  That is an interesting aspect of some of these nominations. I think 
there are some people who are up who--if they were in other positions, 
they might be easier, but because of the ones they have been nominated 
for, it has made it a little more difficult. I put Mr. Tillerson in 
that category.
  Secretary of State is an enormously important position. We all know 
that it is important, but we, even for the public, separate the 
Secretary of State position from others.
  There are four Cabinet Secretaries who by law are not allowed to be 
involved in political campaigns. They can't go out on the campaign 
trail during election season. They are designated as ``special,'' and I 
think they are special for a reason--Secretary of Defense, Secretary of 
State, Secretary of Treasury, and the Attorney General. The reason 
these four positions are made separate, in my view, is they are 
positions that are supposed to have a special gravity, positions that 
are supposed to be above politics. They are also positions that are 
supposed to have a degree of independence.
  An Attorney General needs to have a degree of independence from a 
President because that individual must weigh in on the legality of 
actions even of the administration in making decisions. I think the 
Secretary of State needs some independence and gravitas as well. That 
is why the Secretary of State position is such a special one.
  I want to focus on this area of independence and the independence I 
wanted to see in a Secretary of State Tillerson and that I did not feel 
comfortable enough after the research I have done and after the hearing 
itself. It fits into three basic categories--issues with respect to 
climate, issues with respect to Russia, and issues with respect to the 
development policy that the United States uses in nations around the 
world, including very poor nations that are resource rich but often 
find that their oil reserves or other natural resources put them into 
kind of a resource-cursed position where, resources notwithstanding, 
they actually trend toward authoritarianism and keeping their citizens 
in poverty.
  Let me start with climate. Climate is an enormously important issue 
in Virginia, as it is to all States, but to give you kind of the 
Virginia focus on climate issues, Virginia voters overwhelmingly 
believe that humans are affecting climate and that something should be 
done about it. We have 134 counties. The eastern part of Virginia--
Hamilton Roads, near the Atlantic--is the second most threatened area 
in the United States to sea level rise. So if you go to Hampton Roads, 
VA--1.6 million people, the center of naval power in the United States 
and the world--what you find is sea level rise accelerating to the 
extent that neighborhoods where you could once sell a house, you can't 
sell it anymore. Flooding that was once every few years is now regular.
  Even our Nation's military operations in Hampton Roads are 
jeopardized. There is a main road leading into the Norfolk Naval Base, 
which is the largest naval base in the United States--the largest naval 
base in the world. That road is increasingly flooded just during normal 
tidal conditions. We are not talking about storms; we are talking about 
normal tidal conditions. The inability to get road access into 
America's center of naval power is highly challenging, highly 
problematic. In the future, it is going to be very expensive for us.
  So the climate change issues in Hampton Roads--whether it is 
affecting your ability to sell a house, the ability to conduct naval 
operations--and in many other areas is of deep concern to my State.
  There are climate issues in other parts of my State, from weather 
patterns to warming temperatures wiping out species in the Shenandoah 
National Park because as the temperature warms, the species need to 
move higher and higher, and at some point they can't move any higher. 
So there are endangered species in the Shenandoah National Park because 
of climate issues.
  The issue is not only important to my State, it is a critically 
important part of the job. The Secretary of State in the previous 
administration was involved in crafting the Paris climate accord. 
Nearly 200 nations agreed that climate change is a huge problem and 
that we have to do something about it, and each nation came forward 
voluntarily to craft its own plan so that the world could deal with 
this problem.
  The U.S. played a critical role--Secretary Kerry and others--in 
forging this global coalition around the overwhelming scientific 
consensus. The Secretary of State in this administration, along with 
others--the EPA Administrator--will play a key role in determining 
whether we continue to take seriously climate, whether we continue to 
take seriously the promises we made under the climate accord, or 
whether we go backward. I don't want to go backward because it would 
hurt my State and hurt our country and hurt the world.
  During my examination of Mr. Tillerson during his confirmation 
hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was not happy 
with the answers with respect to climate issues. The overwhelming 
majority of scientists say that climate change is real and that it is 
caused significantly by the burning of fossil fuels and the release of 
CO2. This is not a controversial conclusion; it should not 
be partisan, either.
  The first climate bill that was introduced in this body was 
introduced by Senator McCain in 2004. Then, in 2007, a predecessor of 
mine, Senator Warner of Virginia, a Republican, and Senator Lieberman 
of Connecticut, a Democrat, introduced a bipartisan bill. Senator 
Warner, now retired--John Warner--still speaks regularly on the 
national security implications of climate change.
  During the hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I 
examined Rex Tillerson about the role of ExxonMobil in climate 
research. ExxonMobil is a company that is chock-full of engineers and 
scientists. It is one of the most accomplished companies in the world 
if you just measure it by the extent of engineering and science talent 
that it has.
  There has been a series of investigative articles in the last few 
years in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Review of Books, and 
Inside Climate News that get into the question of what ExxonMobil knew 
about climate science and what they told the public. I wanted to ask 
Mr. Tillerson about this. Some of the information that I put on the 
table during that examination: There was an internal letter in 
September of 1982 from Exxon's Theoretical and Mathematical Science 
Laboratory. This was during the time Mr. Tillerson was working for the 
company.
  I want to read a quote from this letter which I put into the Record 
as I was examining Mr. Tillerson:

       However, over the past several years a clear scientific 
     consensus has emerged regarding the expected climate effects 
     of increased atmospheric CO2. . . . There is 
     unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a 
     temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about 
     significant changes in the earth's climate. The time required 
     for doubling of atmospheric CO2--

  Doubling of atmospheric CO2--

     depends upon the future world consumption of fossil fuels. 
     There is potential for our research to attract the attention 
     of the popular news media because of the connection between 
     Exxon's major business and the role of fossil fuel combustion 
     in contributing to the increase of atmospheric 
     CO2. . . . [O]ur ethical responsibility is to 
     permit the publication of our research in the scientific 
     literature; indeed, to do otherwise would be a breach of 
     Exxon's public position and ethical credo on honesty and 
     integrity.

  In other words, by 1982 the key scientific research organizations 
within

[[Page S519]]

ExxonMobil, which has a sterling cadre of scientists and researchers, 
said: Here is our view of the scientific research--and not just other 
scientific research, they did their own studies to replicate it. They 
concluded that the burning of fossil fuels was going to lead 
potentially to a significant increase in global temperature, with 
catastrophic climate effects.
  There is other information as well that ExxonMobil had within it 
during Mr. Tillerson's tenure with the company. But by 2000, ExxonMobil 
in its face to the public was saying something very different. Despite 
the internal recognition of climate science and the potential effects 
on the economy and on our atmosphere and despite scientists with 
ExxonMobil saying we have an ethical duty to share these facts with the 
scientific community, by 2000, ExxonMobil was publishing, in major 
publications in this country, op-eds--full-page op-eds in newspapers 
and magazines. I am going to read a quote from one, an ExxonMobil 
published op-ed in 2001:

       Knowing that weather forecasts are reliable for a few days 
     at best, we should recognize the enormous challenge facing 
     scientists seeking to predict climate change and its impact 
     over the next century.
       Geological evidence indicates climate greenhouse gas levels 
     experience significant natural variability for reasons having 
     nothing to do with human activity. . . . Against this 
     backdrop of large, poorly understood natural invariability, 
     it is impossible for scientists to attribute the recent small 
     surface temperature increase to human causes.

  So, from 1982, there were scientists at ExxonMobil who were aware of 
it and were saying we have a duty to share this with the public and 
with our fellow scientists, but by 2000, in statements to the American 
public--all during Rex Tillerson's tenure at ExxonMobil--the company 
was taking a very different position.
  I summarized this material during my examination of Mr. Tillerson 
before the Foreign Relations Committee, and I asked him: What do you 
have to say about this evidence and about the numerous public reports 
that ExxonMobil knew about climate science but made a decision to tell 
the American public something different? A pretty straightforward 
question from a Senator whose State is experiencing climate change, a 
pretty important question for a nominee who will be in charge of, as 
Secretary of State, carrying out our obligations under agreements, such 
as the Paris climate agreement.
  Mr. Tillerson's answer to me was a little surprising. He said: Oh, I 
can't answer this. You are going to have to ask somebody at ExxonMobil.
  He had stepped away from ExxonMobil a few days before the hearing. I 
was puzzled by it. So I went back to him and I said: Well, wait a 
minute. I want to make sure I got this right. You were at ExxonMobil 
for 41 years.
  That is right.
  You were an executive at ExxonMobil for more than half of your tenure 
there; isn't that right?
  That is right.
  You were the CEO of ExxonMobil beginning, I believe, in 2006; am I 
right about that?
  You are right about that.
  I am not asking the company's position. You now are no longer at 
ExxonMobil. I am asking you, as somebody who is going to be in charge 
of carrying forward America's obligations under the Paris climate 
accord, whether the allegation that ExxonMobil knew about climate 
science but chose to say something different to the American public--I 
am going to ask you if you can answer that question.
  And he came back again and said: You are going to have to ask 
somebody at ExxonMobil.
  I then asked Mr. Tillerson a really important question. I said this: 
Do you lack the knowledge to answer my questions or are you refusing to 
answer my questions?
  And he said: A little bit of both. A little bit of both.
  And I said to him: You have been there 41 years. I have a hard time 
believing you don't know the answer to this question. I think you are 
refusing to answer my question, and he didn't comment on that.
  I then followed up with one more question to Mr. Tillerson that I 
also think was important because I am a lawyer, and I just wanted to 
make sure I understood this. I asked him: Are you sitting here today 
subject to any kind of a confidentiality agreement that would prohibit 
you from answering the question I just posed to you? And he said no, 
that he was not.
  I asked Mr. Tillerson these questions because I am deeply interested 
in climate change. It affects my State in a significant way, and it is 
directly relevant to his job, but I asked him for another reason as 
well. I am just going to talk for a minute about the reason, and I am 
going to yield to my colleague from Oregon and return later this 
evening on the other points.
  The reason I was asking Mr. Tillerson about this was not just his 
awareness of science, I was asking him to see whether at this point, as 
a nominee for Secretary of State of the United States, he could set 
aside a 41-year loyalty to his previous employer, ExxonMobil, and 
instead focus solely on his obligations to this country if he were to 
be confirmed as Secretary of State.
  I believe he knew the answer to the question I asked him, and he told 
me he was not under any legal agreement that would bar him from 
answering my question, but he, nevertheless, refused to answer my 
question. When I challenged him on it and said: You are refusing to 
answer my question, he basically agreed that was the case.
  I think we are entitled to a Secretary of State who can set aside any 
other loyalty, including an understandable loyalty to an employer of 41 
years, and exercise complete and independent judgment on behalf of the 
interests of this country. The refusal of Mr. Tillerson to answer my 
questions about a matter clearly within his knowledge, clearly within 
the job description of Secretary of State and deeply important to my 
Commonwealth, led me to have significant doubts about whether he could 
separate his previous employment from his independent obligation to 
this job, should he be confirmed.
  I am going to have more to say on a couple of other issues related to 
this independence point when I return later this evening.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's contributions 
and his insights, representing Virginia and representing the United 
States.
  I must say that all of us were quite frustrated by the hearing we 
held with Rex Tillerson. We know that America needs a strong and 
capable Secretary of State. We have many great power issues to wrestle 
with--certainly with Russia, certainly with China. We know we have many 
emerging powers around the globe that will raise issues relevant to the 
security of the United States and the economy of the United States. We 
know the Secretary of State plays a key role in shaping our policy 
toward impoverished nations and how we might facilitate their growth 
and enhance our Nation's relationship with them. Nuclear strategy is 
always an extremely important role.
  This position is perhaps the most important position in the 
administration, second to the Presidency, and it is for that reason 
that we are weighing with such intense attention.
  Already we have challenges that have been raised by the conduct of 
our President over the last 12 days. We have, in 12 days, seen actions 
by President Trump that have diminished our Nation's standing in the 
world, that have offended many of our international neighbors and 
allies, that have weakened the security of our country. So we need a 
capable Secretary of State. We need that person soon.
  Certainly one piece of the pattern we have seen is a new low in the 
relationship with the leadership of Mexico on our southern border, but 
we also have seen actions that have offended over a billion people in 
the world through the Friday night Executive order banning immigration 
from seven Muslim-majority nations along with an order affecting 
refugees fleeing the ravages and devastation of war in many places, but 
Syria is specifically singled out for a longer period of time.
  The President said, well, this is not, in fact, a Muslim ban and that 
it is about the security of the United States of America, but he is 
certainly wrong on both counts. All the nations singled out are Muslim-
majority countries. Not a single immigrant from any of those countries 
has killed an American in a terrorist attack, and the President

[[Page S520]]

made a very specific point, saying there would be exceptions for 
Christians, meaning there would not be exceptions for Muslims.
  One of his advisers, Rudy Giuliani, even said explicitly that the 
President had wanted to do a Muslim ban and asked him how to do it 
legally. So the intent is crystal clear that this is a ban founded in 
religious discrimination, and a policy based on religious 
discrimination has no place in our Nation. It is completely 
incompatible with our traditions and our principles of religious 
liberty.
  We are a nation built by immigrants, founded by men and women seeking 
safety from religious persecution, adding to the sense that this 
position is wrong and abhorrent. It goes against the fundamental 
building blocks of our Nation and everything we stand for.
  If our history and our fundamental values aren't enough, then we need 
to consider the danger this ban represents for our national security. 
Much of our efforts in the Middle East involve close partnership, close 
teamwork with the leaders of Muslim nations.
  Taking on ISIS involves close coordination and close teamwork with 
the leadership of Muslim nations. In fact, we should be very aware that 
ISIS uses as its recruiting tool that the United States is conducting a 
war on Islam, and the President's actions feed directly in and serve 
the ISIS recruiting strategy.
  The world has reacted with furor. Over the weekend, more than 4,000 
Oregonians attended a pair of my townhall meetings. The first meeting 
was in a room about this size, and I was astounded to see 600 people 
just jammed in, just crowding it. It was the largest townhall I had 
ever had. I do 36 townhalls a year, open forum. People can come and ask 
anything they want.
  Then I went to my second townhall, and it wasn't 600 folks. It was 
3,700 people who turned out just because they heard that a Senator was 
holding a townhall, and they wanted to make their voices heard about 
how wrong they thought it was, the direction that President Trump is 
headed. A key piece of that was certainly his ban on Muslims entering 
our Nation.
  Protests erupted at airports all across our country. I went out on 
Sunday to the Portland Airport. It had been informally organized, the 
protest at 2 o'clock, and I got out there about 2:15. People were 
pouring in. There may have been somewhere around 1,000 people by the 
time I could get out onto the upper level deck of the two levels of the 
airport--the level at which people are arriving for their flights--to 
be able to speak to people.
  The condemnation and opposition didn't just come from the grassroots 
across America. It didn't just come from the spontaneous voices of 
American citizens who value religious liberty, value our traditions, 
value their understanding of our Constitution and wanting to send a 
message to President Trump that he was violating each and every one of 
those things, that opposition came loud and clear from international 
leaders as well.
  Our Canadian neighbors made sure the world knew they welcomed the 
immigrants and refugees that America had slammed the door on.
  German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the President to remind him of 
our Nation's responsibilities, as signatories to the Geneva Convention, 
to take in refugees. It is quite embarrassing that a European leader 
has to call an American President to educate him about the Geneva 
Convention.
  France's President Francois Hollande has called for a firm European 
response to this ban; the United Kingdom, whose Prime Minister Theresa 
May just met with President Trump last week, came out against the 
order; and more than a million Britons signed a petition to have the 
British Government rescind its invitation to President Trump to travel 
to London for a state visit.
  Iraq, Iran, Brussels, Scotland, Norway, nation after nation have come 
out to protest this terrible, dangerous policy.
  It is going to be up to our next Secretary of State to repair and 
rebuild these relationships and the reputation of the United States of 
America. So much damage has been done in just 12 days.
  My colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Graham said in a statement 
this weekend: ``This Executive order sends a signal, intended or not, 
that America does not want Muslims coming into our country,'' and 
indeed it does.
  So is Rex Tillerson the right individual to set our Nation back on a 
firm and steady course? Is he the right person to guide us through this 
volatile international landscape, where we need to rebuild alliances 
and restore leadership?
  In short, the answer is that Rex Tillerson is not the right man to do 
it.
  Forty years in the oil and gas market, 40 years in an oil company are 
good preparations for leading an oil company but not good preparation 
for leading the United States of America in international relations, 
not good preparation for serving as our top diplomat, putting out 
fires, calming fears, communicating our policies to the world in this 
volatile moment in history.
  During the hearing, there were a series of questions really related 
to one's moral compass in leading the foreign policy of the United 
States of America. One of the questions I asked about was Exxon's 
effort to set up a subsidiary to evade American sanctions on Iran and 
what did he feel about that as a leader of Exxon. He responded by 
saying: I don't have any memory of this. Really? The top management of 
Exxon decides to set up a subsidiary to circumvent American sanctions 
on Iran with a great deal of national security at stake, and he has no 
memory? Well, that was certainly a disappointing comment and an 
unbelievable statement.

  How about when we asked him about Exxon lobbying against U.S. 
sanctions on Russia because of its annexation of Crimea and the holding 
of territory in the eastern part of Ukraine? He said: Oh, Exxon didn't 
lobby on this. Yet the lobbying reports were right there. We have 
transparency on this. Millions of dollars were spent lobbying on this 
issue, and they certainly weren't lobbying for U.S. sanctions. This was 
a second extraordinary statement by the nominee.
  I then asked the nominee about Exxon's pattern of working with 
dictators to take the royalties for oil and funnel them to the 
dictator's family rather than to the treasury. This is particularly 
true in Equatorial Guinea where President Obiang has declared himself 
President for life. His response was simply: But Senator, we weren't 
successfully prosecuted for violating the law. That is not a statement 
related to moral compass and understanding. Certainly, when a company 
takes a nation's treasure and diverts it into the pockets of a 
dictator, you are affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of 
people. Certainly, the people of Equatorial Guinea are a poor people 
who could use those resources for health care, for transportation 
systems. The President of Equatorial Guinea is famous for filling a 
plane with fancy sports cars from Europe and flying them to Equatorial 
Guinea. And how does he do that? Because Exxon steered the royalties 
for that nation's oil into the pockets of the dictator, but we didn't 
get any sense that there was any concern about the impact that it had 
on the people of that nation.
  Members of the committee asked him about the extrajudicial killings 
by police officers in the Philippines--the extrajudicial killings 
ordered by President Duterte. Young men were shot down in the street. I 
think at last count an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 young men were 
assassinated in the street, and he simply said: I need to get more 
information. This is not something that has been hidden on the back 
pages of the newspaper; this is something fundamentally contrary to the 
principles of due process and justice that our Nation stands for. 
Couldn't the nominee have expressed that this is completely in 
violation of our core principles? But he had no ability to do so.
  We come then to global warming, an impact that is occurring right now 
on the ground in my State. The burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, 
causing an accumulation of carbon dioxide and an accumulation of 
methane, is resulting in the acidification of the ocean. That is 
causing oysters to have difficulty reproducing because it affects the 
formation of their shells at the beginning of their life. The higher 
acidity makes it harder to form shells.
  We see global warming in Oregon in terms of a longer fire season with 
more

[[Page S521]]

intense fires. It is burning more forest there than ever before. We see 
it in terms of a lower average snowpack on the Cascades that is causing 
significant drought and smaller and warmer trout streams. This isn't 
some strange phenomenon that we imagine might happen in the future; it 
is happening at this moment. We have high tides that are now covering 
the sidewalks of cities on sunny days. We have moose dying of ticks 
because it is not cold enough to kill the ticks in the winter. We have 
lobsters off Maine traveling further into Canada while they start to 
get fish from the Carolinas. It is everywhere we look. It impacts the 
economy of our country, particularly our rural economy of fishing, 
forestry, and farming. His response was simply: We need to keep talking 
to people about it. He says it is an issue, not particularly urgent, 
not necessitating American leadership, but just something we should be 
at the table for--not at the table to urge others, just be at the 
table. That certainly misses the size of this challenge to our planet.
  Here we are, 12 days into the Presidency with major international 
problems occurring, and we have a nominee who, on issue after issue 
after issue, lacked a moral compass or insight about the complexity of 
issues, about the principles of our Nation. So for these reasons, I am 
voting against the nominee.
  I may well be back to extend my remarks at another moment, but I am 
delighted to yield to my colleague from New Mexico who is standing by 
to make his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition, and I thank 
Senator Merkley very much for yielding.
  I have been here on the floor, listening to Senators Kaine and 
Merkley, and I saw Senator Cardin speaking earlier from my office. We 
can see that for many of us who sat through these hearings and heard 
the answers, it didn't give us a lot of confidence that Rex Tillerson 
was going to be able to step in and be the top diplomat for the United 
States of America. So I join in all the comments that have been made 
earlier.
  I want to talk about one of the issues that has developed over the 
last couple of days and that really has bearing on this. For the last 
century, the United States has led the world stage. We are the 
inspiration for countless nations as they nurture hopeful democracies--
democracies that respect human rights and individual liberties. We are 
a nation of freedom, where men and women can work hard, build a happy, 
healthy life, and live the American dream. That is what makes President 
Trump's anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant actions last week so repugnant.
  I believe his actions violate the Constitution. They also violate 
everything we stand for as a country. Turning our backs on refugees and 
those seeking a better life doesn't project strength. It shows 
weakness. It fuels anti-American rage around the world. Our Nation 
doesn't punish innocent people because of what they believe and who 
they pray to. We don't slam the door in the faces of those who need 
help the most.
  I call on all of us, especially my colleagues across the aisle, to 
denounce this action and the people behind it. I am relieved that 
Federal judges around the nation are blocking the President's 
unconstitutional order, and I am also very proud of our strong 
constitutional system of checks and balances.
  I can't express adequately how proud I am of Sally Yates, the Acting 
Attorney General who was fired by President Trump. Now you have to know 
something about her. This is a very courageous person who stood up and 
did the right thing. Sally Yates is a career prosecutor. She has served 
as a U.S. attorney in the U.S. attorney's office under Democrats and 
Republicans--a career prosecutor. When she was put up for a vote in the 
Senate, she got 84 votes when she was approved for Deputy Attorney 
General of the United States. This is someone who understands what is 
going on, understands the Constitution, and understands her legal 
obligations. She stood up and said that she wasn't going to represent 
in court the President on this Muslim ban, and he fired her. He fired 
her.
  These kinds of actions are disturbing. They are un-American acts, and 
they are the most urgent reason I rise today to state that I cannot 
support confirming Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.
  There is no doubt that Mr. Tillerson was qualified to run ExxonMobil. 
Exxon was his first job out of college, and the only company he worked 
for during his 40-year career in the oil and gas industry. There is no 
doubt that Mr. Tillerson, as CEO and chairman of ExxonMobil, was 100 
percent committed to making sure the best interests of the company's 
shareholders were served. But with no diplomatic experience or history 
of public service, I am not confident that Mr. Tillerson is qualified 
to serve as the United States' chief diplomat.
  After studying his work and studying the history and his responses at 
the confirmation hearing and looking at his answers in writing, I do 
not believe that Mr. Tillerson is able to commit 100 percent to serving 
the best interests of the American people. Negotiating the complexities 
of oil and gas deals is not the same as negotiating the complexities of 
treaties and agreements with foreign governments.
  ExxonMobil's top priority is profit. That is its reason for 
existence. Leaders negotiate business deals over money and access to 
resources. The United States and the American people have different 
priorities--sometimes conflicting priorities.
  Our Nation is economically successful, for sure, and we value 
business and we value making money, but our core values go way beyond 
economics. We value representative government, we value human rights, 
and we value freedom of speech. We value the four freedoms that 
President Roosevelt talked about when we entered into international 
agreements to spread the four freedoms around the world.
  An incoming Secretary of State should not be learning on the job. He 
or she should already have substantial relevant experience. He or she 
should already have proven experience fighting for our Nation's core 
values, for human rights. Mr. Tillerson made it clear during his 
hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he lacks 
substantive foreign policy experience and knowledge. He told the 
committee many times that he was not familiar with the issues at hand 
or needed briefing. He must have said that a number of times. As just 
one example, Mr. Tillerson was unfamiliar with Russia's role in the 
indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in Syria. He had no opinion of 
the legality of the slaughter under international law. These are some 
of the most important, most urgent foreign policy matters we face, but 
he was unprepared to answer them.
  Like Senators on both sides of the aisle, I am concerned about Mr. 
Tillerson's close personal business ties to the Russian Government. I 
am concerned about those. They may color his view of Russia. He has 
been long friends with Vladimir Putin. He has a highly profitable 
relationship with Igor Sechin, the head of the state-owned oil company 
Rosneft. I worry that these ties make it difficult or maybe even 
impossible for him to objectively evaluate Russia's actions and to act 
in America's best interests.
  Are his close ties to Russia why he does not condemn Russia's actions 
in Syria? We cannot be sure. Mr. Tillerson also will not confirm 
whether he will advocate maintaining sanctions against Russia for 
invading Crimea. We know that the sanctions also continue to cost 
ExxonMobil because it is not able to drill for oil in Russia's Arctic.
  Will Mr. Tillerson not commit to maintaining sanctions because of his 
ties to Russia? We cannot be sure.
  In a third example, Mr. Tillerson would not commit to sanctions 
against Russia for its interference in our Presidential election. He 
said he didn't have enough information. Well, every U.S. security 
agency--all 17 of them--has concluded that the Russian Government 
hacked the Democratic National Committee, disclosed email from the hack 
from getting in there, and tried to influence our election. They agreed 
that these actions were authorized at the highest levels of the Russian 
Government, with fingers pointing right at Vladimir Putin. The 
intelligence community's public reports stated it this way:

       We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an 
     influence campaign in 2016

[[Page S522]]

     aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goals were 
     to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, 
     denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and 
     potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian 
     Government developed a clear preference for President-elect 
     Trump--

  Now President Trump--

       We have high confidence in these judgments.

  So 17 of our intelligence agencies pooled together all of their 
information, and they had high confidence in what they concluded there.
  Mr. Tillerson had adequate information to make a strong statement 
against this attack, against this hacking, and in favor of American 
democracy. He did not make such a statement.
  We must have a Secretary of State whose allegiance is 100 percent 
committed to U.S. interests. Mr. Tillerson's equivocating testimony on 
Russia did not convince me that he can be counted on to serve America's 
interests and America's interests only. Mr. Tillerson's equivocations 
mirror the Republicans' record on Russian interference in our 
democracy.
  While the President has plans to dismantle the post-World War II 
international order, Republicans have done nothing to address Russia's 
attempt to dismantle our democracy.
  I was also unsatisfied by Mr. Tillerson's answers on climate change. 
While he acknowledges the existence of climate change, he testified 
that ``our ability to predict that effect is very limited'' and that 
what action to take ``seems to be the largest area of debate existing 
in the public discourse.'' That is not what the overwhelming majority 
of scientists tell us. Our ability to predict what is happening to the 
planet's climate is not ``very limited,'' and there is international 
consensus written into the Paris Agreement as to what actions nations 
agree they must take. Scientists from all over the world have joined 
together through the United Nations and said that climate change is 
real and we have to take specific actions.
  I appreciated that Rex Tillerson at least said that he believes the 
United States should remain at the table, but he questioned a key part 
of the Paris Agreement: the nationally determined contribution, or what 
is called the NDC. Without the NDC from the United States, the 
agreement is likely to fall apart, and his claimed support for the 
Paris Agreement becomes meaningless.
  I cannot be clearer: Ignoring the threat of climate change is a 
direct threat to the United States. We have heard other Senators talk 
about the threat to their States, and it is a direct threat to my home 
State of New Mexico.
  While President Trump may be trying to quiet our climate scientists, 
the science is clear. Climate change is real. We just finished the 
hottest year in recorded history. We know we must act, and we know 
there will be devastating impacts if the United States does not lead on 
this issue.
  No matter what one believes about science or foreign policy, we 
should all be alarmed at the lack of transparency in the new 
administration, especially the unwillingness of our President and key 
Cabinet members to be open and honest with taxpayers about their 
finances and potential conflicts.
  While Mr. Tillerson has divested from ExxonMobil, we still don't have 
copies of his tax returns. Mr. Tillerson's ties to ExxonMobil are 
decades old. Yet he has said he will recuse himself from matters 
related to ExxonMobil for only 1 year. For only 1 year will he recuse 
himself. He has worked for this company his entire life. He should 
refrain from taking calls from his old company for as long as he serves 
as Secretary of State. He is serving the country. He is serving in a 
taxpayer-funded job. I don't understand why he cannot agree to this 
simple standard to avoid the appearance of any conflict. If he deals 
favorably with ExxonMobil, how can the American people know he is 
working for us or for his former employer, which made him an extremely 
wealthy man?
  But most concerning to me is whether Mr. Tillerson will be able to 
speak truth to power. We have just seen this weekend how vital that 
will be in this administration, where it appears that there is no 
unifying vision, and different factions of President Trump's Cabinet 
are competing for his attention. We need a leader with a clear vision 
for America's role in the world, someone who will put American values 
ahead of everything else.
  Too many times, when pressed during his confirmation hearing about 
U.S. interests and values, Mr. Tillerson did not give straight answers. 
On questions such as human rights violations in the Philippines and 
Syria, he did not call out these offenses for what they were. On 
questions about whether we should maintain sanctions against Russia for 
illegally invading Crimea or for interfering with our electoral 
process, he deferred; he wavered; he said he would decide at a later 
date when he can be briefed or meet with the President. If Mr. 
Tillerson can't give straight answers, from the heart, about the most 
pressing human rights issues, on violations of international law, on a 
foreign power's interference with our Presidential election, how can we 
expect him to speak up and temper the worst angels in the Trump 
administration?
  If Mr. Tillerson were the nominee for a more conventional Republican 
President, these concerns would not be as serious. But I think every 
Senator can agree that Donald Trump is not a conventional President. He 
is offending allies and upending alliances on a nearly daily basis. He 
has made negative statements about the German Chancellor's domestic 
policies. He is threatening to extort the Mexican Government to pay for 
an offensive and ineffective wall on America's southern border. He has 
repeatedly questioned NATO, the fundamental alliance that has secured 
peace between major powers since World War II. He is threatening to 
slash funding for the United Nations, including the World Health 
Organization, which fights global pandemics.
  While addressing employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, 
standing in front of a wall honoring professionals who have made the 
ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, President Trump threatened to take 
Iraq's oil--that he wanted to take another look at taking Iraq's oil--
and he said: ``To the victor go the spoils.'' This is a line attributed 
to Julius Caesar, who decreed himself Emperor. He began rattling the 
saber with China before he was sworn in.
  The President has done all of this while repeatedly praising Vladimir 
Putin as a strong leader and proposing to improve relations there, 
while making them worse nearly everywhere else.
  This weekend, he closed America's doors to Muslim refugees trying to 
escape the very evil our government is fighting against. He not only 
closed the doors to people who believe in our democratic institutions 
and the freedoms we enjoy, he closed the doors to people who have 
risked their lives in service of our ideals.
  These are not normal changes in foreign policy between 
administrations. I would change many aspects of U.S. foreign policy if 
I could. But President Trump's approach to foreign policy so far is one 
of reckless change that is frankly scaring the American public and our 
allies around the world. In such a foreign policy environment, we need 
experienced, skilled hands, people who understand these allies and who 
understand our longstanding alliances and why we have them. But the 
President has fired all U.S. Ambassadors, and most high-level State 
Department employees have resigned or been forced out.
  Mr. Tillerson, there is no doubt, is a talented businessman. He loves 
his country. He has devoted himself to other worthy causes, like the 
Boy Scouts. It is no exaggeration to say that the post-World War II 
international order is under attack by the President, endangering U.S. 
leadership in the world. As a result, our national security and place 
in the world are threatened like never before. During such tenuous 
times, we need a leader as our chief diplomat who is prepared to take 
the reins and calm the waters. But I do not have confidence that Mr. 
Tillerson has the experience, knowledge, values, or temperament to 
stand up to the President, to be a voice of reason, or to moderate the 
President's extreme views and actions. For these reasons, I oppose Mr. 
Tillerson's confirmation as Secretary of State, and I urge my fellow 
Members, including those who claimed the mantle of President Reagan, to 
do the same.

[[Page S523]]

  I know my good friend Senator Markey, a member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, is here on the floor, as well as Senator Coons, 
another member of the committee, and I think both of them will speak on 
the Tillerson nomination.
  I yield to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, after two long one-on-one meetings with Mr. 
Rex Tillerson, after a thorough confirmation hearing in the Foreign 
Relations Committee that stretched over some 9 hours, and after 
extensive additional research and reading and digging into his record, 
his public statements, and his views, I announced last week that I 
would oppose the nomination of Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State 
of the United States.
  I will say that over our meetings, our conversations, and my review 
of his record, I have come to respect Mr. Tillerson as a thoughtful and 
seasoned and capable professional in his line of work, with impressive 
international business experience. And I will say that his quick action 
to sever financial ties with ExxonMobil is a strong example that I wish 
President Trump had followed with regard to his own private business 
interests.
  I found encouraging some of Mr. Tillerson's statements in the 
confirmation hearing and his public stances, including his commitment 
to NATO, his respect for U.S. leadership in multilateral initiatives, 
from the Paris climate change agreement to the Iran deal, and his 
support for development programs throughout the world but especially in 
Africa, a continent where I have been engaged in my 6 years on the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  His nomination has the support of highly respected former officials, 
from Brent Scowcroft and Bob Gates to James Baker and Condoleezza Rice, 
former Secretaries and National Security Advisors.
  But Mr. Tillerson and I disagree strongly on key issues. I believe, 
for example, that climate change is a pressing national security threat 
that must be addressed. Mr. Tillerson saw it somewhat differently. I 
believe in advocating for human rights, for a free press, and for 
democracy around the world because these principles advance our 
security and our economic interests here at home. I don't believe that 
human rights, press freedom, and democracy are add-ons, are things that 
we can address and deal with after national security is addressed. 
These are core to who we are as a nation and to the advocacy and 
engagement that I hope for and expect from our State Department and our 
next Secretary of State.
  These are just a few of the reasons why I ultimately decided to 
oppose Mr. Tillerson's confirmation, but that is not why I have come to 
the floor today. I am here today principally because the challenge we 
face is not whether a single nominee is the perfect person for this 
particular role; the challenge we and the American people now face is 
to determine the future we seek for our country and the world stage and 
whether we will choose to continue to lead the free world.
  Do we envision the United States leading by example through actions 
that show we will stand by our values, especially when it is 
challenging or difficult? Do we envision the United States leading a 
coalition of democratic allies and Muslim partners around the world in 
the global fight on terrorism, defending each other and promoting 
values of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy? Or do we accept 
a dark and dystopian vision that sees the world in strict zero-sum 
terms whereby any win for our allies or partners is automatically a 
loss for America; a vision in which we could abandon our values for 
political gain; a vision that distances us from the world both by a 
literal wall and a growing gulf in priorities?
  For decades, Republicans and Democrats have agreed on foundational 
principles of U.S. leadership in the world. We engage with the world. 
We consistently and reliably support our allies. We lead by example, 
especially on our core values. We fight for the rule of law, for human 
rights, and for democratic institutions because doing so makes us safer 
and more secure.
  Consider our alliances. The Heritage Foundation accurately pointed 
out that supporting our allies overseas and in particular our treasured 
and enduring alliance with our NATO partners in Western Europe isn't 
charity but, rather, a proven method for keeping the United States safe 
and secure. As Heritage puts it, alliances prevent wars by driving up 
the cost of aggression. Alliances deter our rivals and adversaries. 
Alliances promote stability, help us project power, and enhance our 
legitimacy.

  Why does this matter? Why is this a current matter of debate? Why is 
this a pressing concern in the context of this nomination and in the 
work of this body? Take, for example, Russia under Vladimir Putin. It 
is the unanimous view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia 
conducted and organized an intentional campaign of interfering in our 
2016 Presidential election and that Russia conducted a cyber attack, 
authorized at the highest level, with the intention to influence the 
outcome of our election.
  I cannot imagine a more direct frontal assault on who we are as a 
nation than to seek to influence our democratic election. But on top of 
that unprecedented attack on who we are as a nation, Vladimir Putin's 
Russia illegally annexed the Crimean Peninsula and continues to support 
the murderous Assad regime in Syria. Today, Russia is preparing--even 
threatening--to intervene in upcoming elections across Central and 
Western Europe, including elections in our longtime close allies, 
France and Germany. It has been amassing troops on the borders of our 
NATO partners, such as Estonia and the other Baltic States, and 
conducting snap exercises up and down the border with NATO. It is 
precisely because of these acts of aggression that the NATO alliance is 
more relevant and more important than ever.
  These aren't groundbreaking or controversial conclusions that I am 
reaching today. Yet President Trump's rhetoric as a candidate, his 
early actions as President, his compliments to Vladimir Putin, his 
claims that NATO is obsolete, and his intimation that he may not honor 
our article 5 mutual defense commitment to our NATO allies all call 
into question the President's understanding of the role that our 
alliances play. It also calls into question whether his administration 
understands the consequences of weakening or abandoning these alliance.
  More than perhaps any nation on Earth, the United States has deeply 
benefited from the stable world order that we helped shape following 
the Second World War. After Americans went throughout the world to 
fight the forces of fascism and imperialism in the Pacific and the 
European theater in the Second World War, we sat astride the world as 
the most powerful country on Earth, with weapons possessed by no other, 
with the greatest manufacturing and military might on the planet, and 
we set about establishing an inclusive, rules-based, democratically 
oriented world order, from which we have benefited more than any other 
nation. NATO has become a key part of the alliances that we have relied 
on for that peace and stability in the seven decades since.
  Let's not forget that the only time NATO invoked its mutual defense 
provision article 5 clause was when our allies came to our defense 
after 9/11. So to suggest that NATO is obsolete or outdated because it 
wasn't developed in a time where terrorism was a central threat gives a 
lie to the reality that our NATO allies have stood shoulder to shoulder 
with us and have fought alongside American service men and women in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 1,000 have given their lives, and our NATO 
allies have poured their blood and treasure into our defense and into 
our joint conduct against our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Interpreters from Iraq and Afghanistan have kept our troops safe, and 
yet today those espousing ``America First'' would break our promises to 
these vital partners. I have to ask: To what end? When we turn our 
backs on our allies and friends, there are consequences. They may be 
prompted to seek to help themselves in new or unexpected or dangerous 
ways, such as developing their own nuclear capability or seeking 
armaments from Russia rather than working in partnership with us for 
their own security. They may seek to find new allies who do not,

[[Page S524]]

in fact, share our values. In all these cases, ``America First'' may 
gradually, tragically, become instead ``America Alone.'' That leaves us 
less safe and closes off economic opportunities around the world. So in 
seeking out a strategy that is purported to make us safer and stronger, 
President Trump may, in fact, accomplish neither.
  A policy of ``America First'' doesn't just mean turning our backs on 
our allies and partners. It may also mean turning our backs on some of 
the world's most vulnerable people, with real consequences here at 
home. The Executive order signed by President Trump just on Friday, 
banning all refugees from the United States for 120 days, banning 
refugees for 90 days from seven countries and indefinitely from Syria, 
caused chaos and confusion at our airports and instilled concern--even 
fear--in American families across our country.
  I have a key question today, introduced earlier by Senator Cardin, 
the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, but not yet 
answered: Where does Rex Tillerson stand on this Executive order? How 
does he see it in our place in the world? How does he understand the 
centrality of the example that we show to the world in how we embrace 
human rights?
  Sadly, I think this Executive order has validated the claims of 
jihadist groups like ISIS that recruit young men on the false claim 
that the West is at war with Islam, which is why these very terrorist 
groups are today cheering this Executive order. I think it has made us 
less safe by alienating Muslims in the United States and around the 
world. Why would we want to alienate the very Iraqis with whom we are 
training, serving, and fighting in the war against ISIS when they are a 
critical part of the ground forces that we are counting on to liberate 
Mosul from the tyranny of ISIS?
  Most significantly, this Executive order may violate our Constitution 
and values by banning people based not on security concerns but on the 
basis of their religion, and by turning our backs on a decades-long 
commitment to welcome those fleeing credible fears of persecution, 
fleeing violence and chaos in their home countries. These may be the 
consequences of ``America First.''
  It is well known but bears repeating that in 1939, a ship called the 
St. Louis approached American shores bearing nearly 1,000 mostly Jewish 
refugees fleeing the horrors of the Nazi regime and the impending 
Holocaust. In one of our Nation's most shameful chapters, the United 
States turned away these refugees seeking our shores. One passenger on 
board the St. Louis received a telegram from the U.S. Government 
instructing him that passengers must ``await their turns on the waiting 
list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be 
admissible.'' Most of these refugees were forced to return to Europe, 
where they were murdered by the Nazis.
  This tragic episode from 1939, born of isolationism and, tragically, 
anti-Semitism and a mistaken sense that we could isolate ourselves from 
the challenges and the violence of the world was also part of a period 
when a group whose name was the America First Committee mobilized to 
try to prevent our entry into the Second World War.
  I will say that these are the consequences of ``America First.'' The 
United States ultimately is less safe. Our allies may be made to feel 
uncertain or even betrayed. Americans will find themselves more 
fearful, and, our values, with which we have sought to lead the world, 
are cast aside.
  That is why I believe this debate today is about far more than a 
single nominee for an important post in our State Department. American 
leadership on the world stage is not as simple as ``America First,'' 
and the consequences of truly embracing the dystopian vision of 
``America First,'' I think, will be tragic.
  If Mr. Tillerson is confirmed, it is my sincere and earnest hope that 
he will challenge President Trump to rethink the dark and dystopian 
view of the world that he laid out in his inaugural address, and that 
he will instead bend his skills, character, and qualities to the hard 
work of realigning our role in the world to the course that Republicans 
and Democrats together have steered from this floor and from this body 
for seven decades.
  As the world saw last weekend, the new Trump administration 
desperately needs someone in the room to speak truth to power and to 
temper its worst impulses.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield?
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the Senate's advise and consent role is 
one of our most important duties as Senators, and the Secretary of 
State is one of the most important nominations we will consider. The 
Secretary of State is America's chief diplomat, and he should project 
America's values to the world.
  Yesterday, I joined Senator Schumer in calling for a delay on Mr. 
Tillerson's vote on the Senate floor until we hear from him about 
President Trump's Muslim ban.
  Turning away refugees based on their nationality and religion is un-
American, it is illegal, and it is immoral. This Muslim ban is 
propaganda for ISIS. It is a recruiting gift to terrorist groups around 
the world and in our own country. It will increase the risk of harm to 
Americans everywhere, including here at home. Donald Trump is sending a 
message to Muslims around the world that they are all suspects. This 
has profound implications for our ability to work with governments in 
the Middle East in the fight against terrorism. One of the countries 
named in this Executive order is Iraq, our closest ally in the fight 
against ISIS. Conflict and war is forcing millions around the world 
from their homeland. Donald Trump's Muslim ban directly undermines our 
historic commitment to international cooperation and international 
refugee aid. That is why world leaders have joined the chorus of 
millions of Americans who do not support the Muslim ban.
  America has always been a beacon to those fleeing persecution and 
violence. We are a refuge for those seeking a better life. The poetic 
inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty does not say: Send 
back ``your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe 
free.'' As our top diplomat, Mr. Tillerson will be in a position to 
work directly with the nations named in this Executive order, and we 
need to hear how he believes it will impact our standing around the 
world.
  With respect to Mr. Tillerson's nomination, I have very serious 
concerns. Rex Tillerson could have enjoyed his retirement after 
spending more than 40 years at ExxonMobil. Instead, he answered the 
call to enter public service, and I commend him for that. His record at 
ExxonMobil is one that clearly has received accolades. He did a good 
job for ExxonMobil. He is highly respected in the oil industry. But 
public service requires the public's trust, and Mr. Tillerson will not 
have that trust unless he agrees to recuse himself from participating 
in decisions that would affect ExxonMobil for the entirety of his term. 
So far, he has refused to do so.
  Our laws require Federal officials to recuse themselves when a 
reasonable person could question their impartiality. Before President 
Trump nominated him to be Secretary of State, Mr. Tillerson worked for 
one company--ExxonMobil--for virtually his entire adult life. As he 
rose to become a senior manager and then CEO, Mr. Tillerson was 
personally involved in getting lucrative oil deals in a number of 
countries, including Russia. In fact, during Mr. Tillerson's time as 
CEO of ExxonMobil, the company expanded its drilling rights in Russia 
to 63 million acres. That is an area the size of Wyoming and nearly 
five times the size of Exxon's holdings in the United States.
  But Mr. Tillerson didn't just deepen the relationship between his 
company and Russia. He also tried to protect that relationship by 
speaking out against sanctions on Russia. As a reward for personally 
cementing Exxon's relationship with Russia, President Vladimir Putin 
awarded Mr. Tillerson the Russian Order of Friendship.
  The stakes with U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher. Russia has 
invaded the Ukraine, annexed Crimea, bombed innocent civilians in 
Aleppo, and attacked our elections with cyber weapons. Our next 
Secretary of State will be negotiating with Russia on

[[Page S525]]

some of the most critical foreign policy issues facing the world.
  Mr. Tillerson's decades-long history at ExxonMobil and Exxon's vast 
holdings in Russia clearly create a conflict of interest. How can the 
American people be sure Mr. Tillerson will be objective when he 
participates in matters relating to sanctions on Russia or in any 
matters that could affect Exxon in the dozens of other countries in the 
world where Exxon operates?
  As the top ethics lawyers for Presidents Bush and Obama have said, 
these conflicts could require Mr. Tillerson to recuse himself from any 
matters affecting ExxonMobil, irrespective of his financial 
divestitures. When I asked Mr. Tillerson during his confirmation 
hearing whether he would commit to recuse himself without waiver or 
exception from matters affecting Exxon for the duration of his tenure 
as Secretary of State, he refused. That is unacceptable. The American 
people and the national security of the United States demand a 
Secretary of State whose impartiality is unambiguous.
  Make no mistake, the stockholders of ExxonMobil would have serious 
questions about hiring the leader of the Sierra Club to be the new CEO 
of Exxon. We, too, should have questions about hiring ExxonMobil's 
former CEO to be America's chief diplomat.
  If he agreed to recuse himself, Mr. Tillerson would be following a 
tradition that is longstanding and bipartisan. Secretary of State James 
Baker recused himself from participating in any matter that could 
affect the price of oil and gas. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson 
promised not to participate in any matter where Goldman Sachs was a 
party. And all of President Obama's appointees recused themselves from 
any matters related to their former employers or clients. Mr. 
Tillerson's refusal to follow their example will call into question his 
impartiality, and it could undermine his effectiveness as Secretary.
  During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson displayed an alarming 
lack of understanding of oil's role in geopolitics--clearly a 
consequence of having worked solely at Exxon--that disqualifies him 
from being Secretary of State.
  When I questioned him, Mr. Tillerson told me that he never had 
supported U.S. energy independence. He told me that he didn't agree 
that reducing America's demand for oil and our reliance on foreign oil 
imported from the Middle East would strengthen our negotiating position 
with oil-producing nations.
  We as a nation still import 5 million barrels of oil every single day 
into the United States. Three million of those barrels a day come from 
OPEC members, such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Nigeria. ExxonMobil has 
energy interests in each one of those countries. And we are still 
exporting our own young men and women in uniform overseas to defend 
those energy interests every single day.
  Mr. Tillerson is looking at the world through oil-coated glasses. He 
may have gotten rid of Exxon's stock, but he hasn't gotten rid of 
Exxon's mindset.
  Mr. Tillerson's answers to questions about climate change--the global 
generational challenge of our time--are a cause for extreme concern. 
Although he recognized that climate change is real and human activities 
influenced it, he would not commit to continuing action on it as a 
foreign policy priority. Throughout his hearing, Mr. Tillerson would 
only say that he wanted to keep a seat at the table of climate 
negotiations. The United States needs to have more than a seat at the 
table; we need to be at the head of the table.
  In December 2015, 150 heads of state gathered in support of 
finalizing the Paris climate accord. It represents a global solution to 
the problem of global warming in which all countries commit to doing 
their fair share. Instead of strengthening this historic accord, Mr. 
Tillerson indicated that all treaties and agreements to which the 
United States is a party would be up for review by President Trump.
  America needs a Secretary of State who will lead the world to fully 
realize the clean energy revolution that will help us avoid the 
catastrophic impacts of climate change while creating millions of jobs. 
To abandon the Paris climate accord would be to abandon our clean 
energy future. We cannot roll back years of progress cutting dangerous 
carbon emissions or deploying clean energy solutions.
  For 41 years, Rex Tillerson's world view has been to advance the 
interests of one place and one place only--ExxonMobil. Confirming Mr. 
Tillerson as Secretary of State would be turning over the keys of U.S. 
foreign policy to Big Oil. Big Oil's interests are not America's 
interest. If Mr. Tillerson were to negotiate with Russia and President 
Putin, whose interests will he represent--those of Big Oil or those of 
the American people? I still do not have satisfactory answers to that 
critical question. For those reasons, I cannot vote for his 
confirmation.
  I thank you for allowing me to speak at this time on the Senate 
floor.
  I yield to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, since assuming office on January 20, which 
is just 11 days ago--I don't know, it kind of feels to me like it was 
11 months ago; this is going on in a horrible, nightmarish slow 
motion--the Trump administration has assumed responsibility for our 
Nation's national security. There are a lot of jobs the President has, 
this new administration has, but that is at the top of the list--
guaranteeing this country's security and, frankly, being the guarantor 
of global security.
  Leaving aside some of the broader systemic challenges that we face in 
the world, let's just look at what has happened since the inauguration.
  Yesterday, Iran reportedly conducted another ballistic missile test. 
President Trump criticized President Obama on Iran for being too soft. 
Now it is his turn to get China and Russia to agree to a Security 
Council resolution condemning this test and taking punitive action.
  On Sunday, extremist groups all around the world celebrated the Trump 
administration's ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries. 
Comments that were posted to pro-Islamic State's social media accounts 
predicted that the Executive order would serve as a recruiting tool for 
ISIS. One posting said that Trump's actions ``clearly revealed the 
truth and harsh reality behind the American government's hatred towards 
Muslims.'' Another posting hailed Trump as ``the best caller to 
Islam.'' Another one talked about the ban being a blessed ban, which is 
a reference to what militant leaders called the invasion of Iraq, which 
was hailed then as the blessed invasion, becoming the cause celebre, as 
the intelligence community called it, for the global jihadist movement.
  Immediately following the first phone conversation between Trump and 
Putin, the conflict in Ukraine flared up. Likely not coincidentally, 8 
Ukrainian soldiers were killed and 26 were wounded just since Saturday.
  In the Balkans, where Russia has been just recently again steadily 
increasing in influence, as Europe is pulling up the doors on its new 
perspective members, Serbia sent a train emblazoned with the motto 
``Kosovo is Serbia'' up to the border of Kosovo. It turned around, but 
as a result, troops and security forces reportedly scrambled to the 
border from both sides.
  I am not suggesting that all of these bad things happened because 
Donald Trump was inaugurated. I listened to my colleagues explain all 
of the world's troubles for 8 years through the lens of responsibility 
to the Obama administration. But this is all an advertisement for a 
very simple idea--that this is probably the absolute worst time to have 
the first American President with no government experience and no 
diplomatic experience pick the first Secretary of State with no 
government experience and no diplomatic experience. This is not the 
moment for on-the-job learning. Yet that is what we have so far.
  Granted Mr. Tillerson is not in place, but President Trump's foreign 
policy up to this point has been tragically amateurish. Witness the 
invitation for the Mexican leader to come to the White House, worked 
out in painstaking detail, an opportunity to show, despite the furor 
and rhetoric of the campaign, solidarity between the American and 
Mexican people, and then Donald Trump sends out a tweet daring the 
Mexican leader to cancel the meeting, which he promptly does, erupting 
threats of a trade war.

[[Page S526]]

  Witness Friday's Muslim ban, which now has Muslim nations all around 
the world rethinking their relationship with the United States, sending 
this dangerous message to people all around the world that you have no 
home in the United States if you practice one particular faith.
  It begs the question as to whether Mr. Tillerson is going to be able 
to right this ship, having no experience working on almost every single 
one of these issues that confront us around the world. It is not the 
same thing to run a global business and run the State Department.
  Frankly, I would argue that Mr. Tillerson's experience--even if you 
believe he did a good job for Exxon, it doesn't advertise him as a good 
candidate for Secretary of State. In fact, we have reason to fear that 
Mr. Tillerson would run the State Department like he ran Exxon, where 
he repeatedly worked against U.S. national interests.
  Mr. Tillerson opposed sanctions levied against Russia in the wake of 
their invasion of Ukraine. He tried to pull one over on the committee, 
telling the committee this ridiculous story of first not lobbying 
Congress on sanctions, then not knowing if Exxon was lobbying for or 
against sanctions. That just doesn't pass the smell test. He called the 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to express his misgivings 
about sanctions. He personally lobbied Congress against the sanctions. 
His company spent millions of dollars lobbying against the sanctions.
  When asked by President Obama and his administration to refrain from 
attending a major economic development conference hosted by Vladimir 
Putin in the middle of the Ukraine crisis, Tillerson thumbed his nose 
at America. He intentionally embarrassed his own country and our allies 
by sending his top deputy to that conference--and it gets worse--and 
standing next to Russian officials to announce major new contracts with 
Russia. Think about that. We begged Exxon to stay away from that 
conference. Not only did they go, but Tillerson had his No. 2 guy 
announce new contracts in the middle of the sanctions, in the middle of 
the worst of the crisis with Ukraine. It is not surprising that he was 
awarded the Order of Friendship by Vladimir Putin 3 years ago.
  Just an aside, I have listened to my colleagues castigate President 
Obama for being weak on Russia for years. Frankly, the only thing that 
has been consistent about Candidate Trump and President Trump's foreign 
policy has been a marshmallow-like softness on Russia. At every turn, 
Trump has previewed for you that he is going to be easy on Vladimir 
Putin. Tillerson's testimony cemented that. He was asked over and over 
whether he would commit to holding the line on existing sanctions, 
whether he would commit to imposing new sanctions based on Russian 
interference in the U.S. elections. He was asked by the Presiding 
Officer if he would, at the very least, commit to holding in place the 
sanctions on the individuals who were named as those interfering with 
the U.S. election. He wouldn't commit to any of it, and so it is hard 
for me to understand how all of the Republicans who have been 
eviscerating President Obama for 8 years for being soft on Russia are 
now supporting the nomination of Rex Tillerson, who has basically 
advertised that they are going to withdraw the line the Obama 
administration had taken and enter into a new relationship with Russia, 
in which they likely get everything they want. I hope that is not true, 
but we have asked over and over again for this nominee to give us some 
signal that they are going to at least maintain the policies we have 
today, and we have gotten no satisfactory answer.

  Lastly, maybe most concerning about this nominee, is the potential 
for him to carry with him from Exxon a total lack of concern for 
ethics. I understand business ethics. That sounds really harsh, right? 
I understand there is a difference between business ethics and 
government ethics, and human rights is not something you are going to 
care about in a business to the extent that we care about it as those 
who run and advocate for American foreign policy. But I asked Mr. 
Tillerson if there was any country in the world he wasn't willing to do 
business with as the leader of Exxon. He danced around the answer a 
little bit, but the simple response was no, and that is plain as day. 
We can look at the countries they did business with, including Syria 
through subsidiaries, including Iran. There was no human rights record 
that was bad enough for Exxon to say: Hey, no. This isn't something we 
want to touch.
  We have been told by those who are supporting his nomination that we 
really shouldn't pay attention to everything he did at Exxon because he 
is going to be a new man when he comes to State. I guess you can 
understand that. Plenty of people take on new priorities when they come 
into new jobs. Plenty of people argue for something they argued against 
once they have a new boss, but he had a chance before the Foreign 
Relations Committee to tell us how serious he was about human rights. 
He got asked over and over again what he thought about human rights 
violations by some of the worst offenders around the world. His answers 
to those questions were, boy, they were disturbing and troubling. He 
wouldn't name Saudi Arabia as a human rights violator. Saudi Arabia is 
locking up political dissidents left and right. They don't allow women 
to drive. I understand they are an ally, but they are also a human 
rights violator. Everybody knows that. He wouldn't commit that 
President Duterte in the Philippines, who has been openly bragging 
about murdering thousands of civilians with no due process--wouldn't 
name him as a human rights violator, wouldn't say that what Russia has 
done in Aleppo is a war crime. I understand that maybe you don't know 
all the facts when you are just coming through the process, but you 
just have to pick up a newspaper to figure out what is going on in 
Manila or what is happening in Aleppo. It doesn't take a lot of 
research to know that Saudi Arabia is violating people's human rights. 
He knows that country very well.
  It suggests that this lack of concern for ethics and human rights is 
going to carry over to the State Department, and of course he is 
working for a President who is never going to tell him to care about 
human rights. The President has openly talked about his affection for 
torture; how he thinks that strong leaders are the ones who kill 
journalists who oppose them.
  So it looks as if we are seeing a preview of an abdication of 
America's historic role in promoting and pushing human rights around 
the world. We have a President who has openly mocked human rights, who 
has supported vicious dictators, and a Secretary of State who has made 
a career of doing business with some of the worst human rights 
violators in the world and who couldn't name human rights violators 
when he appeared before the committee.
  Senator Markey is right. Mr. Tillerson is an accomplished 
businessman. He is smart. He is savvy. I don't say any of this to 
impugn his character. He had a job to do at Exxon, and he did it well 
on behalf of those shareholders. Frankly, he didn't have to take this 
job. He didn't have to subject himself to this spotlight, to the 
constant second-guessing that awaits him as the next American Secretary 
of State. So I give him credit for making this decision to step up to 
the plate and do this job. I think his motives are pure. I guess I 
can't assume anything else. I know there are people who question those 
motives, but I am going to assume that he is doing this because he 
wants to help his country, and I look forward to working with him.
  He needs to be an advocate for the State Department. He needs to be 
an advocate for the nonmilitary tools that have not historically been 
available to the President. We have had a ``military first'' mentality 
as a country. We think every problem in the world can be solved through 
military intervention. Even under President Obama, there was a bent 
toward military solutions. A Secretary of State can be the chief 
spokesman here for the ways in which you solve problems that don't 
involve attacking and invading, but I don't think somebody who has done 
one thing with one set of priorities and values for 40 years just 
suddenly does an about-face, and adopts a totally different set of 
priorities and values for his career's capstone job. If that were the 
case, he could have previewed that for us in the committee hearing. Yet

[[Page S527]]

over and over again, when we asked for evidence that his priorities and 
his values were changed, his answers didn't measure up.
  As I said, in addition to those concerns, this is just not the time 
for a Secretary of State with no diplomatic experience whatsoever. It 
is not a time for our new Secretary of State to learn on the job.
  I will oppose his nomination and I hope others will join me.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes under my control to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Warren.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nomination of 
Rex Tillerson to serve as Secretary of State. Shortly after President 
Trump's election, I wrote to him about what I thought was a mutual 
interest, taking on a rigged system in Washington where powerful 
interests call the shots. For too long, I have heard from Wisconsinites 
who feel that Washington's economic and political system is broken. 
People are angry because they feel that our government institutions 
seem to work for Big Banks or Big Oil but not for them.
  President Trump clearly tapped into this widely held dissatisfaction 
when he announced his plan to reduce the influence of special interests 
in government by draining the swamp. Yet with appointment after 
appointment, it has been made clear that President Trump is not 
interested in ridding the government of powerful interests. In fact, he 
continues to appoint and nominate foxes to guard the henhouse.
  We don't need to look back very far to know what can happen when we 
let industry insiders run our government. The 2008 financial crisis was 
a result of years of deregulation pushed by Wall Street from both 
inside and outside the government. Last Congress, I introduced 
legislation to slow the revolving door and ensure that our public 
servants are working for the public interest, not their former--or 
future, for that matter--employers. I was inspired to introduce this 
legislation when I saw several Obama administration appointees receive 
multimillion-dollar bonuses for leaving their private sector jobs to 
join the government. These government service golden parachutes, as 
they are known, demonstrate how valuable some companies believe it is 
to have friends in high places.
  Rex Tillerson, the President's nominee to serve as Secretary of 
State, received a $180 million payout from ExxonMobil that he would 
have to forfeit had he taken a job elsewhere. What is more, reports 
indicate that the deal he struck allows him to defer paying 71 million 
in taxes. It is hard to imagine that our Nation's top diplomat will 
forget such an incredible favor, but Rex Tillerson isn't the only Trump 
appointee who will be rewarded with a golden parachute as he enters 
government. Gary Cohn, the President's pick to run the National 
Economic Council, will receive over 100 million from his former 
employer, Goldman Sachs, before he starts to coordinate an 
administration-wide economic policy.
  I remain as opposed to this practice under the Trump administration 
as I was during the Obama administration. Wisconsin families cannot 
afford to have corporate insiders running our government to rig the 
rules on behalf of their former corporations. That is why I am 
reintroducing the Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act, to 
ensure that our government is truly of the people, by the people, and 
for the people of the United States, to ensure that President Trump's 
Cabinet officials are working in the national interests instead of 
their own interests, to ensure that they are working for their current 
employers, the American people, instead of their former bosses.
  In the case of Mr. Tillerson, whose nomination the Senate is voting 
on this week, these questions of influence, of favoritism and 
priorities are particularly troubling, troubling because during his 
tenure leading Exxon, Mr. Tillerson showed a disregard, if not outright 
contempt at times, for putting U.S. policy first. Whether in the Middle 
East, Africa or Russia, Exxon's bottom line was his overriding 
priority. Now, with 180 million of Exxon's money in his pocket--and 
after 40 years with the company--should we take it on faith that his 
priorities will suddenly change? Should we blindly accept that the 180 
million will not ever influence his decisionmaking or should we 
continue to ask questions, questions that Rex Tillerson has yet to 
answer?
  For example, how will Exxon and Big Business influence U.S. policy in 
strategically important but democratically fragile oil-producing 
African states? How about U.S. international commitments to combatting 
climate change, one of our greatest national security challenges but 
also a challenge that Big Oil has dismissed as a hoax. Perhaps most 
concerning, what influence will Exxon have in matters relating to 
Russia, where its long record of doing business at the expense of U.S. 
national security interests seems to be right at home in the Trump 
administration?
  We also need to hear what Rex Tillerson thinks about President 
Trump's actions this weekend. On Friday, President Trump issued anti-
refugee and anti-immigrant Executive orders. I am outraged by the way 
these orders were hastily thrown together late Friday. The President's 
sloppy actions created chaos, disorder, and confusion at our airports, 
and it left families, including permanent legal residents, wondering 
what it meant for them. There have been media reports that relevant 
agencies, including the State Department, were not consulted before 
this order was signed by President Trump. President Trump says we need 
extreme vetting of refugees fleeing war-torn nations. The refugees--the 
vast majority of whom are women and children--already go through an 
extremely strict screening process before they are allowed to enter the 
country.
  What we really need extreme vetting of is President Trump's Executive 
orders before he signs them. With the stroke of a pen, President 
Trump's orders will make ISIS stronger, weaken America's 
counterterrorism efforts, and likely cost lives. It is wrong to turn 
our back on our American values and the rest of the world. We are 
better than this.
  President Trump and Republicans in Congress should reverse these 
shameful actions immediately. I am proud to be cosponsoring legislation 
that would do just that. We need to know where Rex Tillerson stands on 
those very same issues. Does he oppose welcoming refugees into the 
country, which strengthens America's connection with freedom, the 
foundation of who we are as a people? Was Mr. Tillerson consulted by 
the President before these orders were issued? Mr. Tillerson owes it to 
the American people to answer those questions before the Senate votes 
on his confirmation.
  What happened the day after President Trump issued these Executive 
orders? On Saturday, President Trump called Vladimir Putin to discuss a 
more cozy relationship with Russia. What does Mr. Tillerson think about 
this call? According to reports, it was a warm conversation and 
resulted in preparations for a meeting between President Trump and 
Vladimir Putin, the same Vladimir Putin who illegally invaded Ukraine 
and actively seeks to divide and destroy NATO, our most important 
security alliance; the same Vladimir Putin who is responsible for 
directing cyber attacks meant to influence and undermine our elections 
and our Democratic process; the same Vladimir Putin who fights 
alongside the murderous Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, and is 
responsible for war crimes, indiscriminately bombing innocent civilians 
in Aleppo; the same Vladimir Putin who gave Rex Tillerson the Order of 
Friendship following his business dealings in Russia.
  We need a Secretary of State who understands the threats posed by 
nations like Russia, not someone who is cozy with Vladimir Putin. We 
need a nominee with experience in foreign affairs and foreign policy, 
not a billionaire oil tycoon who has spent his career fighting to 
ensure that government policies help the oil industry. Rex Tillerson is 
not this nominee.
  For all these reasons, I oppose the nomination of Rex Tillerson to 
serve as U.S. Secretary of State. I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to do the same.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

[[Page S528]]