[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 1, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S545-S549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Madam President, what I want to talk about as well is the 
announcement that President Trump made last night about his choice to 
fill the Supreme Court vacancy left open by the tragic death of Justice 
Antonin Scalia. I couldn't be more pleased with his nomination of Judge 
Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. I 
can't imagine that the President could have chosen a more qualified, 
more principled, or more mainstream pick for the job of Justice of the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  We have all heard some of the details of his personal background, 
including that he is a Colorado native and that he served in the 
Denver-based Tenth Circuit Court for a decade, and he is well known and 
respected in legal circles for his intellect, his brilliant writing, 
and his faithful interpretation of the Constitution and laws passed by 
Congress. In short, he is a tremendous jurist with an impeccable legal 
and academic record. He went to schools like Columbia University, 
Harvard Law School, and Oxford as a Marshall scholar.
  In addition to his decade on the bench, his professional experience 
includes many years practicing law. As a recovering lawyer myself and 
recovering judge, I can say that one of the things I think the Supreme 
Court needs is more people with practical experience, serving as 
lawyers for clients in court. We have some people with great academic 
credentials but very few people with any practical experience as 
practicing lawyers. It is important because once they get on the U.S. 
Supreme Court, Justices are totally isolated from the rest of the world 
by the nature of their job. So people need to come to that job with the 
experience of working with individuals, understanding the strengths and 
the weaknesses of the legal system and what their role should be.
  He not only practiced law at a top law firm as a partner, he had 
prestigious clerkships, including on the Supreme Court of the United 
States. He actually clerked for two Supreme Court Justices--Justice 
Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy--as well as served in the 
Department of Justice.
  There is absolutely no question that Judge Gorsuch is a qualified, 
high-caliber nominee, and I have no doubt that he will serve the Nation 
well. The reason I say he is a qualified, high-caliber nominee is 
because when he was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, he 
was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote. In other words, he was 
essentially voted for unanimously, including by people like Senator 
Schumer, the Democratic leader, who was here at the time, and others of 
our colleagues across the aisle. So I think it is going to be very 
important for the American people, as they hear the inevitable 
criticism of this nomination, to remember the Senators who were here at 
the time Judge Gorsuch was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit, and they 
expressed none of those concerns or reservations then.
  I think, most importantly, Judge Gorsuch will honor the legacy of 
Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, but even more 
importantly, he will honor the U.S. Constitution and the unique role of 
our judiciary and our system of government. I think one of the things 
Justice Scalia made a point of during his professional lifetime was to 
point out how judges had unfortunately become policymakers rather than 
interpreters and appliers of the Constitution and the written law. Of 
course, the problem with that is that judges in the Federal system 
don't stand for election, so we have lifetime-tenured, unelected 
Federal judges becoming, in effect, a trump card or super-legislature 
for our system of government. That certainly isn't what James Madison 
and the Founding Fathers contemplated. Justice Scalia was a tribute to 
that traditional role of interpreter of a written Constitution and 
written laws and respecting the limited, albeit important, role judges 
play in our system of government.
  Put another way, Judge Gorsuch meets every test, and he passes all of 
them with flying colors.
  We have heard from the Democratic leader that President Trump needed 
to appoint a mainstream nominee. Well, there is no doubt that if that 
is the litmus test for our friends on the other side of the aisle, 
Judge Gorsuch meets that test. He has the respect of even people who 
served on the other side of him in litigation and people whose 
ideological views differ quite a bit.
  Here is what a former Solicitor General under President Obama had to 
say about Judge Gorsuch:

       Judge Gorsuch is one of the most thoughtful and brilliant 
     judges to have served our nation over the last century. As a 
     judge, he has always put aside his personal views to serve 
     the rule of law.

  He goes on to say:

       I strongly support his nomination to the Supreme Court.

  This is the sort of respect Judge Gorsuch, in his tenure as a judge, 
has generated. He has gained respect even from people who are on the 
opposite end of the ideological spectrum because they realize that 
Judge Gorsuch will be, first and foremost, somebody who applies the 
written Constitution and enforces the rule of law--laws passed by the 
political branches of government--and does not attempt to supplant his 
own personal agenda for that of the chosen representatives of the 
American people. As I said, that is why 11 years ago Democrats joined 
with Republicans to confirm him unanimously to the Tenth Circuit. I 
mentioned Senator Schumer, who was here at the time, as well as Senator 
Durbin and several members of the Judiciary Committee still serving in 
the Senate, including the ranking member, Senator Feinstein from 
California, and the senior Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy. All of 
them were here at the time. Because of the voice vote, they didn't note 
any dissent or disagreement, so we would say that essentially is a 
unanimous vote of the U.S. Senate. So it will be interesting to hear 
from them about any reservations or concerns they now voice. I hope 
that at least they will allow us to have an up-or-down vote on the 
nomination of this outstanding nominee.
  To hear Judge Gorsuch last night and to look at his biography, to 
read his extensive record and appreciate his scholarship and his 
commitment to the rule of law--all of this is to see precisely the kind 
of person who should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. I believe the 
American people will see that as clear as day.
  I hope our colleagues across the aisle will resist the temptation to 
obstruct and drag their feet when it comes to this important 
nomination. I hope they will not kowtow to some of the extreme factions 
in their own party.
  They have repeatedly argued for the importance of having nine 
Justices on the Supreme Court. Now that the American people have spoken 
by electing President Trump, and he has now announced his pick, they 
should honor that selection. That pick is superb, the kind of nominee 
who was supported unanimously by Democrats in the past and is endorsed 
by President Obama's own Solicitor General.
  Let's move forward with an undeniably qualified nominee.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining quorum 
calls during consideration of the Tillerson nomination be equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am coming back to the floor to 
correct the record on my earlier comments, where I said Republicans 
``insisted'' on 60 votes for each of President Obama's nominees. Sixty 
votes is a bar that was met by each of President Obama's nominees, but 
at the time, there was no need for a cloture vote because we knew each 
of them would garner 60.
  This is important to clarify because I believe 60 votes is the right 
standard

[[Page S546]]

for this nominee--not because they did it to us or we did it to them 
but because 60 votes, as I mentioned in my remarks, produces a 
mainstream candidate and, as I laid out earlier, the Supreme Court 
requires a mainstream candidate now more than ever.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEINRICH. 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. HEINRICH. Madam President, since President Trump was inaugurated, 
he has unveiled a series of damaging and truly un-American Executive 
orders--in particular, the Executive order banning refugees and 
individuals from Muslim-majority countries from entering our country.
  For President Trump and his team, it is a projection of an inward-
looking, isolationist vision for America. For many New Mexicans, myself 
included, it is also seen as an attempt to fundamentally change our 
American values. We are not a country that discriminates based on how 
you pray. We are not a nation that turns our back on the innocent 
victims of terrorism or the allies who have risked their own lives so 
that American soldiers might live.
  President Trump's actions seek to turn us into the kind of 
authoritarian Nation that we have always stood against. He has promoted 
this dark vision instead of asserting America's longstanding role as a 
voice for democracy, for freedom, human rights, the environment, 
tolerance, and respect for women--values which extend far beyond our 
shores.
  In essence, this selfish and bully-like mentality abandon the values 
that we hold dear and which have defined our great Nation as a global 
power.
  It should come as no surprise that President Trump's nominees to be 
our Nation's top diplomats--Nikki Haley, Rex Tillerson--have no 
diplomatic experience. On Nikki Haley's first day on the job, President 
Trump announced that he would be cutting funding for the United Nations 
by 40 percent, and Ambassador Haley announced to the world that the 
United States is now ``taking names'' of those who disagree with us.
  In an attempt to show strength, the Trump administration is actually 
creating weakness. By stepping away from multinational organizations 
that we helped establish--organizations like the U.N. and NATO--and by 
presenting a hostile attitude to other countries and allies, the United 
States is walking away from its role as the indispensable Nation.
  This morning, former CIA Director and retired GEN David Petraeus 
warned that the global alliances of the United States are at risk, 
stating:

       Americans should not take the current international order 
     for granted. It did not will itself into existence. We 
     created it.
       Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have 
     sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, 
     eventually, collapse.

  Just as I am not confident in President Trump's nominee for 
Ambassador to the United Nations, I am equally concerned, if not more 
so, about his choice for Secretary of State. During his Senate 
confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, 
demonstrated that he is blatantly unaware of global affairs. He failed 
to recognize and condemn human rights violations around the world, 
including in Saudi Arabia and the Philippines, and declared dangerous 
policy positions without knowing what those policies would actually 
mean.
  In his hearing, Mr. Tillerson repeatedly avoided answering the most 
rudimentary questions about foreign policy by stating things like ``I'd 
need more information on that issue.''
  For as long as I can remember, throughout grade school and college, 
women in Saudi Arabia have lacked basic freedoms. Yet Mr. Tillerson 
either had no knowledge of women's issues in Saudi Arabia or fails to 
value the importance of that issue, which I believe to be an American 
value.
  The United States faces an increasing number of global threats, 
including North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, and terrorist organizations 
across multiple continents. We face evolving threats from nonstate 
actors and terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Islamic 
State. Instability and civil war in the Middle East have led to the 
greatest global refugee crisis since World War II. Russia and China are 
acting aggressively to assert their influence and challenge and provoke 
American interests and allies. Global threats such as pandemic disease, 
nuclear proliferation, and climate change require international 
cooperation and responses.
  The next Secretary of State will be diving headfirst into all of 
these incredibly daunting and gravely important foreign policy 
challenges. Mr. Tillerson's lack of foreign policy experience, combined 
with a President who promotes an isolationist world view, leaves me 
deeply concerned for the future of American foreign policy.
  The world looks to America to uphold human rights, to promote 
democratic values, and to take the lead on many challenges we face as 
an international community. The American people look to the White House 
and to the State Department to represent our fundamental American 
values on that international stage. The American people expect their 
leaders to show that their only interest is in representing the 
public's best interest.
  Americans have reason to doubt where Rex Tillerson's interests rest. 
His world view has been shaped through the lens of looking out for what 
is best for his company's profits, not what is best for the American 
people, not what is best to address complex international challenges. 
Just like negotiating a real estate deal does not prepare one to lead 
the Nation, negotiating oil deals does not prepare you to be a diplomat 
whose primary interest is in advocating for American values.
  When Mr. Tillerson has worked with foreign governments to pursue 
lucrative oil deals and profits, he has been agnostic to human rights 
and to America's diplomatic and security interests as well. As Exxon's 
CEO during the Iraq war, Mr. Tillerson undermined the State 
Department's efforts to keep Iraq cohesive as a nation and instead 
served the interest of his company's financial gain, in direct conflict 
to the American interest.
  Under Mr. Tillerson's guidance, ExxonMobil signed a deal directly 
with the Kurdish administration in the country's northern region, a 
move that fueled Kurdish secessionist ambitions and undercut the 
legitimacy of Iraq's central government. This deal was drawn despite 
the State Department's recommendation that they wait until national 
legislation was passed because a law governing nationwide oil 
investments was being reviewed by Parliament.
  In Russia, Mr. Tillerson worked closely with Vladimir Putin's 
government to forge deals to drill for oil in the Arctic, the Black 
Sea, and Siberia. Mr. Tillerson developed such a cozy relationship with 
the Kremlin that in 2013 he was awarded the Order of Friendship by 
Vladimir Putin, the highest honor awarded to non-Russians.
  After Russia unlawfully invaded the Ukraine and took Crimea, the 
United States and the European Union enacted sanctions against Russia 
that Mr. Tillerson would be partly responsible for overseeing as 
Secretary of State. Right now, when we are trying to hold Russia 
accountable for its illegal aggression in Eastern Europe, for its war 
crimes in Aleppo, and for its interference in our own Nation's 
election, how on Earth can we trust someone with such a cozy 
relationship with the Putin government to be our Secretary of State?
  Mr. Tillerson's record also leads one to wonder how he will address 
the imperative to implement the Paris climate agreement, especially 
since President Trump is now exploring how to withdraw from it. At the 
height of the debate on climate change legislation in Congress, Mr. 
Tillerson spent tens of millions of dollars to kill a bill that would 
have reduced our carbon emissions sooner. It has also been reported 
that his scientists at Exxon have known about the relationship between 
carbon emissions and climate since the 1980s and that Exxon even made 
business decisions about what resources to develop and how based on 
that knowledge. Yet, under Mr. Tillerson's leadership, they chose to 
withhold those findings and fund

[[Page S547]]

groups determined to sow confusion and doubt. How can we be confident 
that Mr. Tillerson will help America address the impacts of climate 
change and put America's security and values first as our top diplomat?
  Those conflicts of interest are troubling enough, but the most 
troubling reason I cannot support Mr. Tillerson's nomination is this: 
In just the first week and a half of the Trump White House, we have 
seen numerous cases of Trump nominees saying one thing during their 
confirmation hearings before this body and then the administration 
turning around and doing something entirely different. After Secretary 
Mattis told us that he opposed the Muslim travel ban and Director 
Pompeo stated his opposition in hearings to torture, we saw this 
administration move forward with both.
  I have seen nothing that shows me that Rex Tillerson will stand up to 
President Trump's dangerous vision for American foreign policy. What 
will he do to stand up for NATO? What indication do we have that he 
will call on the President to act in the interests of the American 
people and not the interests of President Trump's business holdings in 
numerous nations around the world?

  The Secretary of State sits on the National Security Council. Will 
Mr. Tillerson stand up to Steve Bannon, President Trump's political 
strategist who has been outrageously placed on the National Security 
Council, while, I would add, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the 
Director of National Intelligence were demoted? President Trump has 
shown that he trusts the former leader of the far-right Web site 
Breitbart News more than our leading generals and his appointed leader 
of the intelligence community. You can already see the influence of Mr. 
Bannon, who has made a career out of selling hateful and divisive 
propaganda aimed at women, Hispanics, African Americans, Jews, and 
other minorities in the actions President Trump has taken in his first 
days in office.
  During his first week in office, President Trump floated the idea of 
bringing back the CIA's use of ``black site'' prisons and torture 
techniques, imposed a gag order on our Federal agencies, and renewed 
talk of a wall on our southern border.
  All of this culminated with an Executive order blocking refugees from 
around the world from entering the United States. This is not 
greatness. In fact, this is un-American. I will not stand aside as the 
values that created the greatest Nation on Earth are trampled upon.
  This dangerous Executive action has already had a clear human impact. 
In New Mexico, the Albuquerque Journal reports that our universities 
have issued an advisory to foreign students and faculty: ``Don't leave 
the country if you want to come back.'' Think about that.
  My office has already heard from New Mexicans who fear for their 
safety and the safety of their families abroad as a direct result of 
this order. A man who moved to the United States as a refugee from Iraq 
and settled in my hometown told me that his wife and two kids went to 
Baghdad to attend his mother-in-law's funeral. They are currently in 
Iraq and scheduled to return in February. They are all green card 
holders. They are part of our community. President Trump's Executive 
order has left him and his family feeling in limbo. He said: ``I am 
afraid about our destiny as a family, I am afraid I will lose them.''
  The heartbreaking human impact we have already seen is only part of 
why the Muslim travel ban was such an appalling action for the 
President to take.
  George Washington once said: ``I had always hoped that this land 
might become a safe & agreeable Asylum to the virtuous & persecuted 
part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.'' It is very 
clear that President Trump is clearly no George Washington. This 
Executive order flies in the face of that sentiment and, I believe, the 
sentiment we share as Americans.
  I joined my colleagues in sending a letter to President Trump about 
this order. I am particularly outraged about the absurd and careless 
nature of the order, which will have a profound effect on many Iraqi 
men and women who risked their lives and the lives of their families on 
behalf of our soldiers, on behalf of American soldiers.
  Late last summer, I traveled to Iraq, to Kuwait, to the heart of 
Africa, and I met with top military officials to discuss operations 
against ISIL, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations. In order to 
find a lasting solution in that volatile region, we must take a smart 
approach that provides training, resources, and support to our regional 
allies, like the Iraqi security forces, rather than putting tens of 
thousands of U.S. troops on the frontlines there ourselves. Alienating 
our regional allies, alienating Muslims as a whole puts all of that at 
risk.
  Former Cabinet Secretaries, senior government officials, diplomats, 
military servicemembers, and intelligence community professionals who 
have served in the Bush administration and the Obama administration 
together have expressed their deep concern this week with President 
Trump's Executive order. In a letter, they warned:

       This Order not only jeopardizes tens of thousands of lives, 
     it has caused a crisis right here in America and will do 
     long-term damage to our national security.
       In the middle of the night, just as we were beginning our 
     nation's commemoration of the Holocaust, dozens of refugees 
     onboard flights to the United States and thousands of 
     visitors were swept up in an Order of unprecedented scope, 
     apparently with little to no oversight or input from national 
     security professionals.

  Also this week, the Iraqi Parliament, in direct response to President 
Trump's Muslim travel ban, voted to implement an identical visa ban on 
Americans.
  How can we possibly think this is in our national security interests?
  Rex Tillerson has not answered questions about President Trump's 
Muslim travel ban. Mr. Tillerson needs to tell us where he stands on 
this un-American policy. If we are going to move forward on his 
nomination, Mr. Tillerson needs to reassure the American people and he 
needs to reassure this body that he understands the repercussions of 
these kinds of appalling actions. He needs to show us that he will 
stand up for American values and against the President's dangerous 
impulses that will isolate our Nation, alienate our allies, and 
abdicate our role as leader of the free world. Mr. Tillerson has not 
shown any of that to me, to this body, or to the American public.
  Thousands of New Mexicans have flooded my office with letters, 
emails, and phone calls urging me to oppose his nomination. I share New 
Mexicans' well-founded concerns about Mr. Tillerson's qualifications to 
lead the State Department and to stand up for our Nation's interests.
  I will not support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to stop and think carefully about this vote we are 
about to take. Our Nation's future role in the world is at stake.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to Rex 
Tillerson's nomination to be our next Secretary of State. I don't 
believe Mr. Tillerson is an appropriate selection to be our Nation's 
chief diplomat.
  During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson repeatedly evaded 
questions related to transparency and corporate responsibility. For 
instance, on multiple occasions Mr. Tillerson stated that he was 
unaware of Exxon's history of lobbying Congress; yet, according to 
lobbying disclosure forms, Exxon lobbied against a variety of Iran and 
Russia-related sanctions since at least 2010. When pressed on the 
matter, Mr. Tillerson even claimed he didn't know if Exxon lobbied for 
or against these energy-related sanctions bills.
  Additionally, I am troubled by Mr. Tillerson's response to questions 
about Exxon's dealings with Iran, Syria, and Sudan. According to public 
documents, Exxon established a joint venture with Shell to conduct 
business with state sponsors of terror. That joint venture--Infineum--
sold petroleum products to Iran, Sudan, and Syria, when those nations 
were being sanctioned by the United States.
  During that time, Mr. Tillerson rose from senior vice president to 
president and director and eventually to chairman and CEO of Exxon; 
yet, during his testimony, Mr. Tillerson claimed to be unaware of 
Infineum's purposeful evasion of sanctions. Instead of recognizing the 
larger national interest, Mr. Tillerson suggested that American 
companies could legally avoid sanctions by setting up shell companies 
outside of the United States.

[[Page S548]]

  Infineum is not the only example of Exxon's history of undermining 
American policy. Under Mr. Tillerson's leadership, Exxon signed oil 
exploration contracts with the Kurds in Iraq. Doing so undermined the 
United States ``one Iraq'' policy and exacerbated the long-simmering 
conflict between the central government and the Kurds. That is because 
Exxon signed contracts to explore oil at six sites. Three of those 
sites were on disputed land claimed by both the Kurds and the Iraqi 
central government.
  By agreeing to explore in disputed territory on behalf of the Kurds, 
Exxon changed the facts on the ground in favor of the Kurds. Exxon's 
decision may have been good for Exxon, but it certainly did not benefit 
a stable, unified Iraq.
  I am also concerned by Mr. Tillerson's response to questions about 
Russia. Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, intervened in 
Syria, and meddled in our own elections; yet Mr. Tillerson refuses to 
offer support for international sanctions against Russia.
  He refuses to describe Russia's bombing of Syrian hospitals and 
schools--and a U.N. humanitarian aid convoy--as war crimes.
  Russia remains in violation of the Minsk agreement and continues to 
occupy Crimea, indiscriminately bomb in Syria, and hack American think 
tanks.
  Now is not the time to remove sanctions against Russia, and I have 
little confidence Mr. Tillerson is committed to pushing back against 
Russian aggression.
  Finally, Mr. Tillerson's indifference to the two-state solution 
between Israel and the Palestinians is unacceptable. Specifically, Mr. 
Tillerson said that a two-state solution is a ``dream'' and openly 
questioned whether or not it could ever become a reality. The reality 
is that, without a two-state solution, Israel cannot be both a 
democracy and a majority-Jewish state.
  Today Israel is constructing settlements throughout the West Bank. 
Palestinian terror and incitement continue. Mr. Tillerson's almost 
casual dismissal of the two-state solution is disqualifying for a 
Secretary of State. Our chief diplomat must understand the urgency of 
the situation and must be willing to engage both sides in the pursuit 
of peace.
  I simply do not believe Mr. Tillerson is interested in doing so.
  Mr. Tillerson's lack of transparency, history of working against our 
national interests, close ties to Russia, and indifference to Israel's 
future make him unfit to serve as the Secretary of State.
  I intend to oppose Mr. Tillerson, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, my father served in the Foreign 
Service at the Department of State, so I spent some of my early years 
overseas. I was proud to be part of a family that represented our great 
country. I learned firsthand the critical role of our Nation's 
diplomats, the risks that they take to serve our country, and the part 
that they play in spreading American ideals of freedom and democracy 
around the world.
  The cabinet position of Secretary of State is as old as our Nation. 
Thomas Jefferson served as President Washington's Secretary of State. 
The Secretary is the President's top foreign policy adviser and our 
Nation's chief representative abroad. Today the State Department 
reaches across the world, advancing our interests, shaping our 
relationships, advocating for human rights, and working to advance 
peace.
  In addition, the Secretary of State will encounter a department of 
employees who are deeply concerned about the role that they will play 
and the actions that they may be expected to take in service to the new 
President. Last week, the Washington Post reported that the State 
Department's entire senior management resigned, including officials who 
had worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations. This was 
an unprecedented loss of institutional knowledge.
  And by yesterday afternoon, a dissent letter by State Department 
staff saying that President Trump's executive order to temporarily bar 
citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries would not make the Nation 
safer had attracted around 1,000 signatures, far more than any dissent 
cable in recent years.
  President Trump's campaign rhetoric has shaken our allies--wavering 
on our commitment to NATO, gratuitously escalating arguments with China 
and Mexico, and empowering an increasingly aggressive Russia. Mr. Trump 
has made fawning statements about Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 
October 2007, Mr. Trump said of Putin, ``he's doing a great job.'' In 
December 2011, Mr. Trump praised Putin's ``intelligence'' and ``no-
nonsense way.'' In June 2013, Mr. Trump wondered if Putin would be his 
``new best friend.'' And in July 2015, Mr. Trump said, ``I think I'd 
get along very well with Vladimir Putin.''
  And Mr. Trump has questioned the reality of climate change. He 
tweeted, ``The concept of global warming was created by and for the 
Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.''
  The Secretary of State thus must play a crucial role in maintaining 
relationships between the United States and our allies around the 
world. In the face of Mr. Trump's statements and actions, the need for 
a strong Secretary of State is all the more important.
  President Trump has nominated Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of 
ExxonMobil, to take on this critical role. Mr. Tillerson, who has never 
served in government, has spent many years building business 
relationships with Russia and Vladimir Putin, and in 2013, even 
received the Russian Order of Friendship, an award given to foreigners 
who work to improve relations with Russia.
  Mr. Tillerson has had particularly close dealings with Igor Sechin, 
the head of a state-owned Russian oil company whom the United States 
has sanctioned and banned from entering the United States.
  In 2014, Mr. Tillerson opposed sanctioning Russia for its actions in 
Ukraine and reportedly lobbied the government against those sanctions. 
According to Reuters, ``[Tillerson] added that Exxon does not 
`generally' support sanctions and has made that view known to the U.S. 
Government. . . . `We're having conversations such that our views are 
being heard at the highest levels.' Tillerson told reporters.'' And 
yet, in his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson denied that he or Exxon 
directly lobbied against the sanctions.
  Given Russia's interference with U.S. elections and Russia's 
increased provocation of our allies, we need to be able to rely on our 
Secretary of State to advance U.S. interests above all. Mr. Tillerson's 
long and close relationship with Russia casts doubt on his ability and 
inclination to pursue additional sanctions as necessary and on the 
quality of advice that he will give the President. And despite the 
active national conversation about Russia, Mr. Tillerson said in his 
hearing that he and President Trump had not even discussed Russian 
policy with any specificity.
  I am also concerned that Mr. Tillerson does not seem to view human 
rights as a critical issue for the State Department. In addition to 
refusing to condemn Russian and Syrian atrocities as war crimes, he did 
not condemn Philippine President Duterte's extrajudicial killings. This 
is particularly disturbing, as President Duterte has alleged that 
President Trump approves of his actions. Mr. Tillerson appeared 
hesitant to weigh in on human rights abuses. But the State Department 
cannot be silent and must be an outspoken voice for human rights, even 
to our allies.
  Mr. Tillerson appears not to appreciate America's role as a beacon of 
light around the world that stands up for the rule of law and human 
rights. This is especially troubling, as President Trump's order last 
Friday to suspend America's refugee programs is an attack on everything 
for which our country stands. President Trump's order has made us less 
safe by playing into ISIS's propaganda, casting our fight against 
terrorism as a fight against an entire religion. That is not who we are 
as a nation. We must remain vigilant and resolute against efforts to 
sow fear and division, and we must fight together to protect the rights 
and freedoms of all people.
  President Trump's executive order highlights the need for a Secretary 
of State who will push back against President Trump's worst impulses. 
Mr. Tillerson, however, seems ready to do

[[Page S549]]

the opposite and reinforce many of President Trump's worst instincts. 
Mr. Tillerson's lack of focus on human rights and the rule of law 
indicate that he seems not to appreciate the role of American in the 
world--particularly dangerous traits when President Trump is retreating 
from America's 70-year special role in the world, retreating--in the 
words of a recent article in The Atlantic--to a pre-1941 world of 
``closed borders, limited trade, intolerance to diversity, arms races, 
and a go-it-alone national race to the bottom.''
  Finally, I seriously question Mr. Tillerson's commitment to working 
with our allies and cosigners of the Paris Climate Agreement to 
confront one of our greatest global challenges. While at certain 
points, he has acknowledged the dangers of climate change, he has more 
recently questioned the science and the human contribution. In his 
hearing, he acknowledged that climate change does exist and that the 
United States needed to have a seat at the table, but he failed to 
express any urgency to respond or a clear commitment to the Paris 
Agreement.
  While Mr. Tillerson may be a skilled business dealmaker, the job of 
the Secretary of State and the leader of our State Department requires 
the experience and determination to meet our current challenges. Given 
his extensive ties to Russia and questionable commitment to advancing 
human rights and combatting climate change, I do not believe that Mr. 
Tillerson is the right person for this job, and I will vote against his 
confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.