[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 15, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1811-S1813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the

[[Page S1812]]

     Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a 
     close debate on the nomination of Daniel Coats, of Indiana, 
     to be Director of National Intelligence.
         Mitch McConnell, Michael B. Enzi, David Perdue, Bob 
           Corker, John Hoeven, Lamar Alexander, Bill Cassidy, 
           John Barrasso, Dan Sullivan, Tim Scott, James Lankford, 
           Tom Cotton, Mike Rounds, James M. Inhofe, Chuck 
           Grassley, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Daniel Coats, of Indiana, to be Director of National 
Intelligence, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 88, nays 11, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 88 Ex.]

                                YEAS--88

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--11

     Baldwin
     Booker
     Duckworth
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Markey
     Merkley
     Paul
     Sanders
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Isakson
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 88, the nays are 
11.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my friend the 
Senator from Texas for giving me the courtesy of letting me get in my 
comments about the nomination of former Senator Dan Coats to serve as 
the fifth Director of National Intelligence, a position recommended by 
the 9/11 Commission and established by the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
  Dan Coats is a friend of mine and many in this body. He represented 
Indiana in both the U.S. House and for separate terms in the U.S. 
Senate. He was also U.S. Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005. As 
mentioned, for 6 years I served with the nominee on the Senate Select 
Committee on Intelligence. I have always found Dan to be fairminded and 
know him to be an advocate for strong oversight of the intelligence 
community. He believes in the need for intelligence that is timely, 
relevant, and free of political interference.
  During my private meeting with him, as well as during his 
confirmation hearing, Senator Coats committed to find and follow the 
truth, regardless of where it leads, agreeing that his primary job will 
be ``to speak truth to power,'' to the President, to policy and 
military leaders, and to Members of Congress. I know these are traits 
he will continue to employ if confirmed as the next Director of 
National Intelligence.
  During James Clapper's most recent tenure as the DNI, in 6 years he 
put in place some fundamental changes in how the Intelligence community 
operates. He reoriented the Office of the DNI to focus on intelligence 
integration with an emphasis on mission. He often was willing to roll 
up his sleeves and take on the hard challenges of trying to get the 
intel community to operate on the same IT backbone systems. If 
confirmed, I have encouraged Senator Coats to build upon former 
Director Clapper's efforts, which are critical to ensuring that 
policymakers, warfighters, law enforcement, and national security 
officers receive intelligence products that are timely, relevant, and 
objective.
  Of course, if confirmed, Director Coats will take on the job as the 
Nation's chief intelligence officer, leading the intelligence community 
during a very difficult time because unfortunately this President, 
along with his closest advisers, has repeatedly and unfairly disparaged 
the professionalism and actions of the Nation's intelligence 
professionals. These are men and women who maintain the highest 
standards of professionalism and integrity. They anonymously sacrifice 
for the country, often in the face of grave personal danger.
  As DNI, Senator Coats is committed to defending the values and 
integrity of the men and women of the intelligence community, even when 
the White House may not like to hear it.
  Another challenge Senator Coats will face on his first day on the job 
is to effectively support the Senate Intelligence Committee's ongoing 
investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential 
election. Last week, I went to CIA headquarters in Langley, along with 
a number of other Members of the committee, to review the beginnings of 
the raw intelligence that led the community to conclude that Russia 
massively interfered in our last Presidential election. Both in public 
and in private, Senator Coats has promised he will support the 
committee's investigation to the fullest. We will hold him to that 
commitment.
  On this topic, I want to reiterate on the Senate floor what I have 
already said numerous times. This investigation is not about being a 
Democrat or Republican nor about relitigating the 2016 election. The 
investigation is about upholding the core values and sanctity of 
democracy that all Americans hold dear. It is also about holding Russia 
accountable for their improper interference in our elections and arming 
our allies--one of which has an election today--with information about 
the means employed by Russia in our elections so they can use that 
information to protect the integrity of their own electoral process.
  We will work to ensure that this critical investigation is done 
right, done in a bipartisan manner, free of any political interference, 
and as the chairman and I have both reiterated, that it follows the 
facts wherever they may lead.
  I have every reason to believe Senator Coats will be forthcoming in 
supporting this investigation. If at any point it becomes clear to me 
that the Senate Intelligence Committee is unable to keep up these 
commitments, I am prepared to support another process.
  Finally, let me acknowledge two other things.
  During Senator Coats' confirmation hearing, he was asked about his 
role on the National Security Council, including the Principals 
Committee. He assured us that he will be attending these meetings and 
participating in them despite the confusion created by an Executive 
order that appeared to disinvite the DNI from these meetings. If he is 
not included in these meetings, I will expect to know about it and the 
reason why.
  Senator Coats has also committed to me personally and to the 
committee that he will not support the return of waterboarding and 
other so-called enhanced interrogation practices, nor will he support 
reestablishing secret detention sites into the activities of the 
intelligence community. He reassured the committee that he will follow 
the law as it now stands and that he will not advocate for changes to 
the law or recommend a reinterpretation of the law based on any 
personal beliefs. The law is clear: No interrogation techniques outside 
the Army Field Manual are allowed.
  Finally, Senator Coats has also reassured me and all of the members 
of the committee that if confirmed, he will always present to the 
President, to his Cabinet advisers, and to those of us in Congress the 
unvarnished facts as represented by the best judgments of the 
intelligence community whether or not that analysis is in agreement 
with the views of the President, with ours in Congress, or with anyone 
else's who might receive them.

[[Page S1813]]

  For these reasons, I support the movement. I was glad to see 88 
Members of this body support Dan's movement forward. I believe he will 
be a great fifth Director of National Intelligence.
  I thank my friend the Senator from Texas for giving me time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the Senator from 
Virginia, who is the vice chair of the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence, for his remarks.
  I, too, support the nomination of Dan Coats to serve as the next 
Director of National Intelligence and succeed James Clapper, who has 
been in the intelligence business for 50-plus years. He has big shoes 
to fill, but I have every confidence Dan Coats can do that.
  One of the things I hope he looks at is that post-9/11, when the 
Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created, we 
basically created another layer in the intelligence community. As the 
Presiding Officer and other Members know, the DNI--the Office of the 
Director of National Intelligence--has grown by leaps and bounds. I 
just hope he takes a good, hard look at the layers we have created, 
perhaps at the duplicative functions that do not necessarily make our 
intelligence any better but that do create more problems in managing 
what is a very important office to our national security and certainly 
to the intelligence community.