[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2418-S2424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Tax Reform

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to follow my friend and 
neighbor to the south and east from the great State of Delaware.
  Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee had a hearing on tax reform. 
I had a chance to introduce one of the witnesses, a fellow named David 
Cranston from Robinson Township in Western Pennsylvania.
  David is the president of Cranston Material Handling Equipment Corp. 
It is a third-generation small business founded in 1957 by David's 
grandfather. Today, David leads that company--a company he has worked 
at since 1983. So for 35 years he has been there. Today he leads a team 
of seven full-time employees and two part-time employees, truly a small 
family-owned business.
  Cranston Material sells and installs material handling and storage 
equipment to manufacturing companies, including very large 
manufacturing companies, and their products and services help these 
manufacturers to store and lift products in the storage process--items 
like cabinets, containers, conveyors, cranes, and dock equipment.
  As I know the Presiding Officer understands very well, it is small 
businesses like this that really make up the backbone of our economy 
and the backbone of our communities.
  What is it that David Cranston had to share with us as a witness 
before our committee? He shared the story of how our tax reform from 
late last year is already working and helping his small business.
  How is that happening? Well, in a variety of ways. The two most 
direct ways are, No. 1, Cranston Material is organized as a subchapter 
S corporation. That is a long way of saying they are not taxed at the 
level of the corporation itself but, rather, the income that is earned 
by the business flows through to the owners of the business and is then 
taxed on the individual returns of the owners.

  How has our tax reform helped the owners of this business? We built 
into the Tax Code an automatic 20 percent discount on the amount of 
their income that is taxed. So 20 percent of their income from this 
business is not taxed at all. That is true for all small businesses in 
America. The 80 percent that is taxed is taxed at lower rates.
  The total tax burden for these small businesses is much lower than it 
used to be. Why is that important? It is important for a lot of 
reasons. David Cranston told us that this is how they are able to 
accumulate capital. This is how his business is better able to 
accumulate the capital that he describes as the lifeblood of his small 
business. It is, in fact, capital that allows these small businesses 
like Cranston to take advantage of new growth opportunities. 
Specifically, he shared with us an example. The tax savings that he is 
already enjoying have helped him expand into a new product line this 
year--a product line that he did not carry before, couldn't afford to, 
but now he can. In order to launch this product line, he needed to 
purchase new equipment, invest in employee training, and build a new 
website--all of which are well underway.
  He also touched on something else, another way in which our tax 
reform is helping his business; that is, the business optimism that he 
is seeing, which is encouraging his customers--primarily larger 
companies--to increase their own capital spending. That includes, in 
some cases, the purchasing of his products. As Mr. Cranston put it, the 
tax reform is ``spurring business investment and therefore has set the 
stage for economic growth for years to come.''
  This increased investment activity that is helping workers and 
businesses and small businesses and our economy is exactly what we 
envisioned, exactly what we had hoped for, and exactly what we designed 
our tax reform to accomplish.
  I have to say, the story that David Cranston told us at the Senate 
Finance Committee yesterday is not an isolated story. It is completely 
consistent with stories I have heard all across the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania from small businesses; that is, tax reform is working. It 
is working for them.
  Businesses are, in fact, increasing their investments, exactly as we 
predicted they would if we lowered the after-tax cost of making those 
investments. For example, just last month, the March 2018 research 
report by Morgan Stanley--they surveyed their clients--concluded that 
its capital expenditure plans index--it is an index they keep track of 
that monitors the amount of capital being put to work in America, being 
spent on new equipment--according to them, in March, just last month, 
it reached an alltime high. Their characterization: ``Strength in our 
index indicates continued momentum in equipment investment through the 
second quarter of 2018.'' It is already happening, and they believe it 
is likely to continue.

[[Page S2419]]

  Some of our friends on the other side who are very critical of our 
tax reform were very critical of the idea that business should benefit 
from this. They didn't want business to benefit from this at all. I 
have to point out the multiple ways they are wrong in their analysis.
  First of all, when businesses--especially small businesses but all 
kinds of businesses--benefit from a lower tax regime, much of that 
benefit flows right to workers. We have seen that in a very direct 
fashion. In fact, over 500 known, large companies--big enough that 
their press releases get picked up and noticed--have given employees 
bonuses, pay raises, increased contributions to their pension plans, or 
some combination. There are now millions of American workers who work 
for these 500-plus companies who have directly benefited personally, in 
their pockets, because of the tax reform. I think this is fantastic, 
and it has been immediate. It is already happening.
  Over the long term, I think there is an even bigger benefit that will 
be accruing to American workers as a result of our tax reform, and that 
is the medium-, long-term upward pressure on wages for the people who 
work for a living to earn those wages. Why do I say that? The fact is, 
the more capital that gets spent, the more productive workers are able 
to become, and the more they are able to earn.
  Let me give an example that I like. If you go to any construction 
site when they are at the stage of doing the site development--when 
they are moving the dirt and maybe they are digging a hole for the 
foundation--at that stage of the process, you very typically will see 
somebody operating a backhoe. There is a guy operating a backhoe. He is 
digging the hole for the foundation. You will very often see somebody 
with a shovel. He is doing the tidy-up work around the edges. The guy 
with the shovel is working very hard. He is probably working up more of 
a sweat. He probably goes home with his muscles and his back aching 
more than the guy operating the backhoe. But who do you think gets paid 
more? It is not a close call; the guy operating the backhoe is always 
paid more. There is one reason for that. The reason is that he has a 
more advanced set of skills. Because he has those skills and because he 
has a major piece of equipment to operate, he is much more productive 
than any human being can ever be with a shovel. The more productive 
worker is able to earn more.
  That is why I am so excited about a reform that encourages businesses 
to invest in capital. It is already making workers more productive, and 
that means they are going to earn more income. But it doesn't stop 
there. All of that capital expenditure, whether it is with David 
Cranston's company or whether it is a backhoe--when companies want to 
buy that, someone has to build it. There is more demand for workers to 
build more of this equipment that is getting put to use. Then after it 
is built and it is purchased by the business that can afford it now 
because of tax reform, somebody has to operate it. There is still more 
demand for workers.
  So what happens in an economy when you are close to full employment--
the unemployment rate is around 4 percent, which is unusually low for 
the American economy--and you introduce a significant new demand for 
workers--well, I would say there are two things that happen. You create 
opportunities for people who left the workforce to return, and you put 
upward pressure on wages because all the businesses have to compete for 
whatever workers are available.
  So we have the direct benefit that people have seen in the form of 
lower withholdings and more take-home pay. We have the direct benefit 
that workers have seen when the companies they work for have decided to 
give them a raise or a bonus because they can better afford it. And we 
have this indirect benefit that might very well be the biggest of them 
all, as workers become more productive because they get to use the 
equipment that is put to work when their companies invest the capital 
that we have made more available to them.
  I am very bullish, as apparently the respondents to the Morgan 
Stanley survey were, and I am grateful to David Cranston for telling 
his story about how much his small business is already benefiting from 
our tax reform.
  Mr. President, I would like to make a completely unrelated point, and 
that is, I would like to mention that I had an opportunity to have a 
long conversation today with CIA Director Mike Pompeo, to discuss his 
vision for his role as Secretary of State, should he be confirmed, and 
his vision for America's role in the world, the leadership role we have 
historically played and how he sees that going forward. I will tell 
you, I was extremely impressed. He is a very thoughtful, very 
knowledgeable, wise individual. I think he will give great counsel to 
our President. I think he will be an outstanding diplomat. I think the 
fact that he comes from the intelligence community will inform his 
judgment in a very constructive way. I think we are all very, very 
fortunate that Mike Pompeo is willing to serve in this capacity. I am 
looking forward to his confirmation later this week.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak on the 
pending nomination of Mike Pompeo to be the Secretary of State. As a 
member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I opposed the nomination in 
committee, and I will oppose it on the floor.
  I have said publicly that this was not an open-and-shut case for me. 
Frankly, I would submit that I have probably voted for more of the 
President's nominees who have come before the Senate than have many of 
my colleagues. I do believe in giving a substantial amount of deference 
to the President in the choices that he makes of those who are to serve 
him in his administration. There have been a number of applicants for 
Cabinet posts whom I have supported even though I have had grave 
misgivings about the policies that they were going to be articulating 
and that they were going to be carrying out.
  I also believe Director Pompeo when he talks about the morale crisis 
at the Department of State and his sincere desire to try to remedy that 
and address it. There was a morale crisis at the Department of State 
after Secretary Tillerson waged an assault on diplomats in his trying 
to push out as many as he could for over a year, changing work 
requirements to make it harder for people to live in very difficult 
places around the world and continuing a hiring freeze well past the 
point at which it was justified. There are a lot of people who serve in 
this country here in Washington and abroad who need to be told that 
their work is valuable again, and I believe Mike Pompeo when he talks 
about the need to try to engage in that morale-building project.
  I think there are check marks on the side of the ledger that would 
argue for Mike Pompeo's confirmation, but I am going to vote no 
because, unfortunately, I think there are far more check marks on the 
other side of the ledger.
  I want to talk today about the issue of qualifications. I don't argue 
with the fact that our choices, as those in the Senate, when it comes 
to those who are picked for the Cabinet, shouldn't really be about 
policy differences. Sometimes the policy differences will be so serious 
that Members of the President's opposing party may have to cast a 
``no'' vote. By and large, I do think that we should be evaluating 
candidates based on their qualifications and based on whether their 
views are at least between the 20-yard lines, within the mainstream 
conversation about the portfolio of issues that they are going to 
undertake to oversee.
  So I want to talk today about my belief that Director Pompeo is not 
qualified to be our next Secretary of State. I think that is the 
appropriate conversation for us to be having, and I want to talk about 
it through the prism of three qualifications that I would argue any 
Secretary of State has to meet.
  One is that a Secretary of State who is going to be advising the 
President on matters of war and peace and on questions of military 
operations overseas has to believe in his heart or in her heart in the 
Constitution--in the separation of powers between the executive and the 
legislative branches--when it comes to war-making.
  The second is that a Secretary of State has to believe in the value 
of diplomacy. The Secretary of State is in

[[Page S2420]]

the national security cabinet in order to represent diplomatic pathways 
out of very complicated, vexing, and dangerous problems around the 
globe. You need a Secretary of State who truly believes that diplomacy 
can be a viable path out of very complicated problems.
  Third, you need a Secretary of State who is free of prejudice or who 
is free of a substantial association with prejudice. This is our 
Nation's chief diplomat, who is going to be representing the United 
States all over the world, who is going to try to build bridges between 
our country and those countries with different cultures, different 
faiths, different backgrounds, and different ways of viewing the world.
  On these three tests, I don't believe that Director Pompeo measures 
up. Let me talk about each one of them very briefly.
  The first is this belief in the separation of powers. If we aren't 
standing up for article I powers, no one else will. The Founding 
Fathers were very clear that when it came to military engagement 
outside of the United States, it was the Congress and only the Congress 
that had the ability to declare war. Now, admittedly, war is a much 
fuzzier concept today than it was when armies were marching against 
each other in open fields and when neat, tidy peace treaties were 
wrapping up those hostilities. So I will grant my colleagues that 
declarations of war are a little bit harder today when the enemies 
never seem to go away and the definition of ``hostilities'' is a little 
different than it used to be.
  Yet, at the hearing, I asked a series of questions of Director 
Pompeo, whose answers did not leave me with any confidence that he 
understood that there still must be some places in which only the 
Congress can declare hostilities. Now, I don't believe the President 
has the ability to take military action against the Syrian regime 
without having the authorization of Congress. Apparently, there are 
members of the President's Cabinet who believe the same thing. Media 
reports suggest that Secretary Mattis counseled the President to go to 
Congress first before attacking the Syrian regime.
  So I queried Director Pompeo about this topic. I asked him whether 
there was any attack that had been launched against the United States 
from the Syrian regime. His answer was no.
  I asked him whether there was any threat of imminent attack from the 
Syrian regime against the United States. His answer was no.
  I then asked him what the authorization was that allowed the 
President to take this action. His answer was ``article II authority,'' 
which is kind of a blanket answer for anybody in an administration who 
doesn't have an answer.
  I submit that the Obama administration occasionally relied on article 
II authority as well, but I tried to give Director Pompeo a way out of 
that overly broad answer.
  I asked: Would you identify for me one limiting factor on this broad 
claim of article II authority. He could not. He could not articulate 
one definable, articulated restraint on article II military authority 
before the Foreign Relations Committee.
  It speaks to what, I think, is a belief inside this administration, 
which is now being buoyed by people like Director Pompeo and John 
Bolton, that the President has virtually unlimited authority to begin 
military operations overseas. If you can attack the Syrian regime 
without having any authorization from Congress, then why couldn't the 
President launch a military attack against North Korea without going to 
Congress in the way that John Bolton had recommended in some of his 
writings before joining the administration?
  If a Secretary of State is not prepared to argue that the 
Constitution requires that authority and cannot even articulate a 
single restraint on a seemingly limitless power under article II to 
launch attacks overseas without going to Congress, then who is making 
that argument?
  I think a Secretary of State has to have an understanding of the 
limits of executive power overseas. I don't think Director Pompeo has 
that belief. Otherwise, he would have answered very differently the 
questions that he was given in his confirmation hearing.
  Secondly, I believe that a baseline qualification to be the Secretary 
of State, to be the Nation's chief diplomat, is to believe in the 
fundamental power of diplomacy. Over and over, primarily when he was a 
Congressman, Director Pompeo showed us that he didn't think much of 
American diplomatic power. He opposed the JCPOA, which is, of course, a 
mainstream opinion within the Republican Party, but he did so because 
he thought that military action would involve just a few thousand 
sorties--American planes flying over Iran, bombing the country into 
submission. I think that is a pretty naive, uneducated view of how a 
war with Iran would go down, but it demonstrates an enthusiasm for 
military options ahead of diplomatic options, the kind that may be 
better suited for the Department of Defense than for the Department of 
State.

  He has further cheered on this President as he has pulled out of the 
Paris climate accords, as he has attacked multilateral alliances that 
the United States has long been a part of. This is a candidate for 
Secretary of State who has a long history of critiquing and criticizing 
diplomatic paths to solving complicated problems around the world.
  I want a cheerleader for diplomacy at the Department of State. We 
have been missing that for the last 1\1/2\ years with Secretary 
Tillerson. It doesn't seem we are going to remedy that. I think a 
qualification for Secretary of State is to be a cheerleader for 
diplomacy. That has not been the reputation or the record of Mike 
Pompeo.
  Lastly, I think you need to be free of prejudice or free of 
substantial association with prejudice, and the reason for this 
qualification is self-evident. This is the member of the administration 
who is going to be most often overseas meeting with leaders that come 
from very different backgrounds, who believe different things than 
Americans do, who practice different religions than the majority of 
Americans do, who have different traditions than the majority of 
Americans do. So one has to have a respect, right? One has to have a 
love of other people who come from different faiths and different 
traditions if you are going to take this job.
  This may be the blackest mark on Director Pompeo's record because 
there is a vast network all across this country that engages in a kind 
of Islamophobia, a hatred and bigotry toward the Muslim faith that is 
completely un-American but is also deeply antithetical to American 
national security interests because if we really want to make this 
country safe, then we have to be building constant active bridges to 
Muslim communities in the United States and to our Muslim partners 
around the world. When you trade in Islamophobia, a fear of Muslims, 
you are adding bulletin board material to recruiters who want to write 
a story about how America is at war with the East, how America is at 
war with the Islamic faith.
  For much of his congressional career, Mike Pompeo was deeply 
intertwined with this network of anti-Muslim organizations. There is a 
really interesting study that I hope some of you will take a look at 
that details this network of organizations. They have fairly innocuous-
sounding names, like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, the 
Middle East Forum, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jihad Watch, 
ACT for America, the Center for Security Policy, the Society of 
Americans for National Existence. Those sound like things I might be 
for, but if you really take a look at what they do, they preach 
intolerance. They try to tell Americans that all Muslims are out to get 
them and that we are better off if we just shelter ourselves from 
people of the Muslim faith. That makes us less safe, and it morally 
weakens us as a nation. It is not coincidental that all of these groups 
sprang up or began to receive substantial funding after Barack Obama 
became President of the United States. It wasn't coincidental that as 
Donald Trump was going on cable news casting doubt on whether the 
President of the United States was really an American citizen or 
whether he was a secret Kenyan citizen planted in the United States 
that all of these organizations started to take root. They gained 
legitimacy because American political leaders associated themselves 
with their cause because they were able to lure Members of Congress 
like Mike Pompeo into their web.
  Mike Pompeo went on these radio shows that traded in these conspiracy

[[Page S2421]]

theories about Muslims. He allowed for his name and his office to be 
associated with their causes. At one point, he actually accepted an 
award from a group called ACT for America, which is arguably the 
largest anti-Muslim group in America. They gave him an award saying 
that ``Representative Mike Pompeo has been a steadfast ally of ours 
since the day he was elected to Congress.'' This is an organization 
that the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center 
classify as a hate group. Their founder said practicing Muslims 
``cannot be loyal citizens of the United States.''
  Let me say that again. The founder of the group that gave Mike Pompeo 
an award for being a steadfast ally of their cause said that practicing 
Muslims cannot be loyal citizens of the United States. These anti-
Muslim groups became stronger, became more deeply intertwined into the 
mainstream because they have allies like Mike Pompeo. It wasn't a 
coincidence when a Presidential candidate stood up and said: If you 
elect me, I will ban all Muslims from the United States, that he wasn't 
laughed off the debate stage. He wasn't laughed off the debate stage 
because this conspiracy of Islamophobia had penetrated the mainstream 
because of its access to people like the nominee to be Secretary of 
State. That is disqualifying to me. That is not about Mike Pompeo's 
views. It is not about my differences with the policies he is going to 
espouse as a Secretary of State. That speaks to his qualifications.
  This is one of the most important debates we are going to have. These 
are exceptional times for both Republicans and Democrats, dealing with 
an administration that conducts itself very differently from others. 
When it comes down to it, I don't think that by casting a ``no'' vote I 
am violating the traditions of this body, which have admittedly given 
deference to the President in some of these choices for Cabinet 
positions.
  I don't think Mike Pompeo really understands the importance of the 
separation of powers between the Congress and the Executive when it 
comes to war-making. I don't think this is a Secretary of State who is 
going to walk into the room when big decisions are being made on 
foreign policy and argue the diplomacy portfolio. By virtue of his 
longstanding association with groups that argued values antithetical to 
a diverse America, arguing that Muslims have no place in this country, 
I don't think he passes the test when it comes to a Secretary of State 
who doesn't have an association with prejudice. That would disqualify 
him from being an effective advocate for us in parts of the world that 
practice faiths different than ours. So, for those reasons, I am going 
to be voting no on Mike Pompeo's nomination. At the same time, as I 
said at the outset, I acknowledge there are arguments for his 
nomination, and I will hope my fears are unfounded. I will hope that 
he, if he gets confirmation from this body--which it looks like he 
will--is an advocate for diplomacy, that he understands the proper role 
of Congress, and that he represents all Americans when he serves us 
overseas. I certainly hope that to be the case. I hope I am wrong about 
my reservations, but I will still cast a ``no'' vote when his 
nomination comes before the Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, as with many of my colleagues here today, 
I stand before you to voice my deep concern over the nomination of Mike 
Pompeo to be our next Secretary of State.
  President Trump has tweeted about Senate Democrats that it is ``hard 
to believe obstructionists may vote against Mike Pompeo for Secretary 
of State.'' Others have accused Democrats of playing politics, pointing 
to past Secretary of State confirmation votes that have faced less 
opposition in the Foreign Relations Committee and on the Senate floor, 
but this inference that we simply should rubberstamp Secretary of State 
nominees is misplaced.
  Like all of my colleagues, I take my article II advice and consent 
responsibility very seriously, so I would like to state why I oppose 
Mr. Pompeo's nomination to be Secretary of State.
  My opposition is not about politics. It really isn't about policy 
either. While I disagree vehemently with many of Mr. Pompeo's positions 
on issues such as human rights, climate change, and the Iran nuclear 
deal, these differences alone are not enough to disqualify him or any 
nominee, for that matter. Fundamentally, my opposition to Mr. Pompeo's 
nomination is about whether he can credibly fulfill his duties as our 
Nation's chief diplomat. Can he effectively and faithfully advocate for 
American diplomacy at home and abroad?
  In this regard, as one of my esteemed colleagues said while 
introducing Mr. Pompeo before the Foreign Relations Committee, ``Your 
background does matter.''
  So this is what concerns me about Mr. Pompeo's past. Mr. Pompeo was 
OK characterizing an Indian-American political opponent as ``just 
another `turban topper' we don't need in Congress or any political 
office that deals with the U.S. Constitution, Christianity and the 
United States of America.'' With a viewpoint like that, how can he 
credibly represent the millions of Indian Americans in the United 
States? Equally important, how can the United States be viewed credibly 
by India's 1.3 billion people, the world's largest democracy and a 
critical American partner in promoting American values and ideals in 
Asia in the face of a rising and ever more aggressive China? Sadly, 
that display of intolerance wasn't Mr. Pompeo's only past offense.
  Mr. Pompeo has suggested homosexuality is ``perversion,'' an 
insinuation Mr. Pompeo ever so cleverly did not address when questioned 
by my colleague Senator Booker. At the CIA, he also canceled a Pride 
Month event which featured a discussion on the importance of diversity 
and an appearance by the parents of Matthew Shepard, a young man 
beaten, tortured, and left to die in Wyoming on account of his sexual 
orientation. How can the United States stand with the LGBTQ people of 
Chechnya who have been the victims of violence simply because of whom 
they love if our Nation's top diplomat has disparaged who they are?
  The offenses continue. Following the horrific Patriots Day marathon 
in Boston, Mr. Pompeo falsely alleged that American Muslim leaders were 
``potentially complicit'' in violent acts for failing to speak out. 
Under my questioning at the confirmation hearings, he refused to 
apologize for these comments. Why was I concerned? It happened in 
Boston. Why was I concerned? Because the Muslim leaders in Boston had 
spoken out against that attack on our Nation on Patriots Day, on 
marathon day in Boston.
  Mr. Pompeo has said he disagrees with the characterization of his 
comment, but there is nothing to characterize on the floor of the House 
of Representatives. His comments disparaging Muslim leaders are part of 
the public record.
  How can Mr. Pompeo effectively represent America to Muslim leaders 
around the world who are just as interested as we are in preventing 
religiously motivated violence?
  Mr. Pompeo now claims these statements were meant to demonstrate that 
tackling extremism requires those who are the most credible voices to 
take an unambiguous stand against violence. Well, as the Secretary of 
State, Mr. Pompeo would be considered our most credible diplomatic 
voice around the world. How could Muslim nations ever feel respected 
when our top diplomat has voiced such unambiguous hate?
  Mr. Pompeo cowrote an article on migrants that blamed Sweden's 
``radical'' immigration policy on ``political correctness.'' America 
must be a leader in finding pathways to protect Syrians, Afghanis, and 
Iraqis fleeing the death and destruction of war, in sheltering the 
Rohingya seeking shelter from oppression in Burma, and in addressing 
the countless other refugee crises roiling the globe and threatening 
our collective security. That is not political correctness; that is our 
moral responsibility.

  America is a nation built by immigrants and refugees. Some 40 percent 
of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or the children of 
immigrants. Google, Tesla, Yahoo, Intel, and eBay are all companies 
that were founded by immigrants. Given these past statements, could Mr. 
Pompeo truly represent the interests of a nation made up of and built 
by immigrants? I do not believe that he can.

[[Page S2422]]

  In the fight against violent extremism, there is no more divisive 
issue that erodes our ability to effectively cooperate with other 
governments than the use of torture. Mr. Pompeo has said that he won't 
rule out bringing back the abhorrent practice of waterboarding. A man 
who has said that those who carried out such actions were ``not 
torturers, they are patriots'' will not be able to credibly convey to 
governments with histories of human rights abuses that these actions 
are reprehensible with any semblance of moral authority.
  Today, French President Emmanuel Macron addressed Congress and urged 
us to rejoin the international community in the commitment to combating 
climate change. He rightfully said that there is no planet B. But Mr. 
Pompeo characterized the Paris negotiations as an ``elitist effort to 
reduce the power of the United States economy,'' when, in fact, it was 
a historic effort by almost every country in the world to tackle a 
global challenge that will be an existential threat to every single 
person on the planet.
  I believe in American ingenuity, American enterprise, and American 
leadership. I believe America must lead the world in solutions to this 
generational challenge. But how can we expect Mr. Pompeo to lead the 
Department of State in bringing greater peace, security, and prosperity 
to the American people through international engagement if he does not 
believe in U.S. leadership, if he does not believe that the United 
States is necessary for solving global problems, especially global 
warming?
  Mr. Pompeo has too much to apologize for, too many statements to 
retract or explain, and too many controversial positions to defend.
  Of most concern are Mr. Pompeo's past statements suggesting that he 
values military force over diplomacy even when diplomacy is a real 
option.
  While negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program were underway, 
he argued that military strikes on Iran were preferable to diplomacy 
and that ``it is under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear 
capacity. This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition 
forces.''
  Just a few weeks ago, under my questioning during his confirmation 
hearing, he did not rule out a military solution in North Korea, which 
would be disastrous for the 230,000 Americans who live on the Korean 
Peninsula. There is no military solution to the North Korean nuclear 
threat. Only through sustained diplomacy and economic pressure, in 
close coordination with our allies, will we be able to negotiate 
peaceful denuclearization of North Korea.
  America's top diplomat should embody the best of America's values and 
diplomatic traditions, not attack people's race, defend torture, 
promote division, ignore human rights, propose military force as the 
primary solution to our problems around the world, or reject solutions 
to the climate change that is threatening our planet.
  The President can choose his own Cabinet, yes, but the Senate must 
advise and consent. No one wants to see the United States without a top 
diplomat, especially at such an important time in world affairs, but 
having a Secretary of State who has so thoroughly disqualified himself 
from credibly doing the job is no better.
  Yes, I see and respect the former soldier and Member of Congress, the 
strong intellect who graduated first in his West Point class and edited 
the Harvard Law Review, but I also see and hear Mr. Pompeo's past 
comments and his more recent comments and positions that many who 
support him are conveniently choosing to disregard. But we cannot do 
that.
  So I advise President Trump to choose a Secretary of State who 
embodies the best of America's values and diplomatic traditions and 
communicates them to the rest of the world, and I do not consent to the 
nomination of Mr. Pompeo, who is not the person for this important 
task.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at a time when we are facing serious 
international challenges, from Russian meddling, to North Korean sabre-
rattling, to an increasingly assertive China, it is very essential that 
the President have a qualified Secretary of State whom he trusts to be 
on the job.
  Mike Pompeo unquestionably understands the international challenges 
we face and is more than capable of being a very effective Secretary of 
State. When I talk to our allies, they are anxious to see him on the 
job.
  Unfortunately, some on the other side of the aisle are now claiming 
that he is not suited for the post of Secretary of State because of 
positions he took as a Member of Congress or his holding to traditional 
Christian teachings, as if a person's religion ought to have something 
to say about their being in public office or public service. Others 
have spoken about that, and I don't have a whole lot more to add on 
that point. I would note the irony, though, that many of the Senators 
who are most likely to vote against Cabinet nominees are also rumored 
to have Presidential ambitions. They should ask themselves if they 
truly want to live with the precedent they are setting.
  You don't have to like the President personally or support the 
President's policies, but as an American, it is in all of our interests 
to have a fully functioning executive branch, especially when it comes 
to foreign policy.
  If a mainstream Republican former Member of Congress is deemed 
unacceptable because of his beliefs, how should mainstream Republicans 
vote when faced with future nominees who do not share the beliefs that 
Republicans hold? Should Republicans just willy-nilly vote against any 
future nominee who does not share our political or religious views?
  That said, I would like to focus on other attributes of Director 
Pompeo's which some have criticized but which I see as assets.
  By all accounts, this nominee's tenure at the CIA has been a success. 
However, some Senators who supported him then are now arguing that he 
should not be Secretary of State because he is not diplomatic enough.
  First, let's dismiss the more radical talking points about his being 
a warmonger. The theory is that President Trump is liable to start a 
war at any moment, so we need to force him, as President, to have 
Cabinet officials surrounding him who will counteract his impulses. We 
could have a hypothetical debate about whether, if the American people 
elect a warmonger as President, he should be allowed to appoint a 
warmonger Cabinet, but suffice it to say that I don't think that label 
applies to Mike Pompeo or Donald Trump, and I view such accusations as 
simply cheap partisan talking points.
  On the other hand, it is fair to say that Mike Pompeo doesn't always 
couch his words in diplomatic niceties. He doesn't mince words about 
the threats that we face. And his time at the CIA has surely enhanced 
his strategic thinking. That is good, and that is exactly what we need 
at the State Department. We need less diplomatic double-talk and more 
clear-eyed, strategic thinking about international threats.
  Real diplomacy isn't always about sweet talk. Sometimes it requires 
taking a firm stand, and to be effective, it should be part of a 
strategic vision that incorporates all the elements of statecraft. For 
instance, I hope we have finally discarded once and for all the 
diplomatic impulse to make unilateral concessions to President Putin in 
hopes they will be reciprocated, as exemplified by the Obama-Clinton 
reset. We all know it didn't really reset. If you understand Russian 
history and Russian political culture, you know that Russians, 
especially from a KGB pedigree, are likely to see this as a sign of 
weakness to be exploited. Diplomatic overtures to the Russians without 
a corresponding demonstration of strength are simply an invitation to 
further aggression and misbehavior.
  I think we are finally arriving at a bipartisan consensus that Russia 
is a major geopolitical foe. Mike Pompeo has made clear that he has no 
doubts about the threat from Russia. He understands the need to push 
back and push back hard against Russia's attempt to dominate its 
neighbors and sow discord in the West. The threat from Russia will need 
a strategic plan that integrates all the elements of statecraft, 
including government-to-government diplomacy alongside military 
deterrence, intelligence and counterintelligence, cyber security, and

[[Page S2423]]

public diplomacy, just to name a few, and there are a lot of others.
  Another area where some clear-eyed strategic thinking is even more 
crucial is our approach to the People's Republic of China. So I just 
stated: Consider China a bigger threat than Russia. I just returned 
from a trip to China with several colleagues at the beginning of this 
month. It was an eye-opener. We hear a lot about how China is embracing 
capitalism and becoming more and more like us. Just don't believe it. 
The Chinese Communist Party has modified its economic policy to allow 
for economic growth, but it still serves the interests of the state, 
not the interests of the people. It is not a free market, clearly, 
because they admit that their economic system is what they would call 
authoritative capitalism, aka mercantilism.
  I visited with government officials at the national and local level, 
Chinese and American businesses, and American diplomats. The Chinese 
officials and the Chinese businesses had their talking points down 
almost too well. However, the impression that I took away from the 
visit is that the Chinese Government will do anything--legal or 
illegal, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical--to get ahead of the 
United States, and when they get ahead, to stay ahead.
  China coined the term ``peaceful rise'' to describe its drive to 
become a great power, which is designed to sound very benign. In fact, 
China later changed this slogan ``peaceful rise'' to ``peaceful 
development'' out of concern that the word ``rise'' sounds threatening. 
Just to be clear, I am not threatened by Chinese economic growth.
  The development of a truly peaceful, free market democracy, no matter 
how large, would not be threatening because democracies generally do 
not threaten each other, and free enterprise is mutually beneficial. 
The fact that so many Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty 
and into the middle class is a good news story for humanity. It is also 
good for the United States. The more Chinese people who can afford to 
buy our pork and soybeans, our John Deere tractors, and our advanced 
manufacturing, the better for Iowa and our national economy.
  Free trade on a level playing field enriches both participants. 
Unfortunately, China is not interested in a level playing field. It 
seeks dominance economically, militarily, and politically. Confucius 
said: ``Heaven does not have two suns and the people do not have two 
kings.'' By the same token, the Chinese leadership does not think there 
is room for two great powers in the world.
  China seeks the advantage of trade with the United States but not 
mutually beneficial free trade in the spirit of the WTO. Despite having 
a middle class that is bigger than ours in the United States in 
absolute numbers, China still claims to need special preferences 
extended to developing countries. China erects nontariff barriers in 
ways that just very barely skirt triggering WTO compliance in violation 
of the spirit of the level playing field the WTO seeks to create.
  The Chinese military is 60 percent larger than the U.S. military, and 
its efforts to claim exclusive control over the South China Sea, in 
violation of international law by creating artificial islands, reveals 
an expansionist impulse. You can't hide those islands. You know it 
implies dominance.
  However, the threat from China is not mainly military. The 
influential ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu focused on the 
role of deception over combat. He famously said: ``To subdue the enemy 
without fighting is the acme of skill.''
  Now, get this. The problem we face is, we are being treated like an 
enemy to be subdued without realizing it. I say all of this not to be 
an alarmist but to point out that China sees itself in a long-term 
strategic struggle with the United States. We don't need to overreact 
to this fact, but we do need to be aware and to apply some clear-eyed 
strategic thinking of our own. In that respect, Mike Pompeo's unique 
background seems perfectly aligned with the task ahead to develop a 
strategic foreign policy toward China incorporating all the elements of 
statecraft.
  Because I have mentioned aspects of Chinese culture to illuminate the 
strategic thinking on the part of the People's Republic of China, I 
don't want to give the impression that this is a clash of 
civilizations. On the contrary, it is not traditional Chinese culture 
that is the problem; it is the unreconstructed Leninist nature of the 
state system that is the problem.
  It is sometimes claimed that Chinese culture is not compatible with 
democracy, but that is hogwash. The proof to the contrary is the 
Republic of China on Taiwan. Taiwan is a fully functioning, prosperous 
democracy with the same Chinese culture and traditions.
  This same democracy is what mainland China could have also if it is 
able to shed its one-party dictatorship, and I hope it will shed that 
someday.
  In the meantime, we need leaders in our government who see China 
clearly and have the ability to think strategically. Mike Pompeo seems 
to me to be just that kind of a person, so I am happy to support his 
confirmation as Secretary of State.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you.
  Mr. President, as the Senate considers the nomination of Mike Pompeo 
to be Secretary of State, we have to ask ourselves many questions. 
Among them are these: Will Mr. Pompeo offer the kind of independent 
judgment that is necessary to help restrain President Trump's worst 
impulses, or will he be somebody who becomes a ``yes'' man to the 
President of the United States? Will Mr. Pompeo continue in his past 
attitude, which reflects a ``shoot first, ask questions later'' 
approach to foreign policy? And can somebody like Mr. Pompeo, who has 
made very divisive, polarizing, and, in fact, hateful remarks here in 
the United States be able to reflect American values abroad?
  I regret to conclude that I do not think Mr. Pompeo can pass these 
tests, and I will oppose his nomination for Secretary of State.
  We all know that our country is facing formidable challenges. Armed 
conflicts are raging in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, creating 
refugee crises across borders. Russia's campaign to undermine Western 
democracies continues at pace and has sharpened divisions in our 
society. It has bolstered populous movements at home and abroad, and we 
have seen terrorist networks continue to expand their reach into 
information space. Changes in our climate have resulted in drought, 
natural disaster, and famine, and as the President of France reminded a 
joint session of Congress today, there is no planet B.
  Of the many crises we are confronting, at least one of them is 
entirely of President Trump's own making, and that is the potential 
unraveling of the Iran nuclear agreement. Let me say that I agree with 
all of those who believe that we should never allow Iran to have a 
nuclear weapon. That is exactly why it is so important to keep that 
agreement in place.
  In just a few weeks, President Trump will make a decision. He will 
decide whether to waive the nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in order 
to keep the Iran agreement intact or whether to blow up that agreement.
  As the President of France reminded us today, that agreement was 
forged with our European allies, Russia and China, and yet it has cut 
off Iran's pathways to nuclear bombs, it has imposed very tough 
constraints on their nuclear program, and it has subjected Iran to the 
most comprehensive inspection and monitoring regime ever negotiated--an 
inspection regime that would disappear if we backed out of that 
agreement, leaving us blind to exactly what the Iranians were doing 
with respect to their nuclear program.
  Our State Department, our Defense Department, and our intelligence 
community have all assessed time and again that Iran is in compliance 
with the nuclear agreement. Secretary of Defense Mattis testified 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee just last fall that the Iran 
deal was in the national security interest of the United States. 
Despite that consensus even

[[Page S2424]]

among the President's current team, the President is talking about 
recklessly shredding the agreement.
  As President Macron of France warned us today, such a move would be 
very reckless and it would be reckless to replace what we have today 
without having something to substitute for it.
  Mr. Pompeo has weighed in on this issue over the years. It is not 
only that he has been a fierce opponent of the Iran deal, but he has 
proposed military strikes against Iran. In 2014, he said that it would 
take ``under 2,000 sorties to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity. 
This is not an insurmountable task for the coalition forces.''
  That is a dangerous illusion--the notion that there would be 
absolutely no response to an American attack on Iran's nuclear 
facilities.
  Iran, of course, is right next door to Iraq, where the United States 
spent an ill-fated number of years, at a great loss of lives both to 
Americans and Iraqis and at great cost to the public. To just talk 
offhand about bombing Iran as the solution is not the kind of sentiment 
or mindset that we want in the Secretary of State for the United States 
of America.
  The idea that he somehow had a conversion to diplomacy is difficult 
to believe, given the testimony that he has provided and the statements 
that he has made.
  We also know that we are at an inflection point when it comes to the 
situation in North Korea. In a span of just a few months, President 
Trump has veered from taunting Kim Jong Un over Twitter to recently 
calling him ``very honorable.'' We are all rooting for diplomacy to 
succeed in North Korea, but we all know that the opening rounds are, in 
fact, the easiest legs, and that reaching a credible and lasting accord 
with North Korea will take significant time, hard bargaining, and the 
support of our partners and allies in the region.
  When it comes to Russia, President Trump's affection for President 
Putin continues unabated. Two weeks ago, he rejected the sanctions on 
Russian companies found to be assisting Syria's chemical weapons 
program, contradicting his own U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. 
Then, he earlier congratulated Putin on winning the election--an 
election that we all know was a sham election and that the outcome was 
never in doubt. It was marred by ballot stuffing and forced voting, and 
it was hardly what you would call a fair and free election.
  When it comes to Russia, despite appeals from Republicans and 
Democrats in this body and in other parts of the country, the President 
has decided not to take action to address the threat of Russian cyber 
attacks in our upcoming elections. In fact, Admiral Rogers, the former 
head of the U.S. Cyber Command, testified just in February that 
President Trump had not directed him to confront Russian cyber 
operations at their source.
  So while Mr. Pompeo has said that Russia will meddle again in our 
midterm elections, he has been much quieter and softer since his 
nomination was presented by the President with respect to President 
Trump's soft approach to Russia and Putin.
  It is also a fact that our next Secretary of State will be 
responsible for managing tens of thousands of Foreign Service officers, 
civil servants, and locally employed staff of the State Department at 
our embassies and consulates overseas.
  We all know that at the State Department today, we are witnessing 
historically low morale. In his budget, President Trump has tried to 
gut the State Department of its personnel and resources, issuing two 
budgets in a row that cut the State Department's budget by over 30 
percent. You cannot conduct the diplomacy of the greatest country on 
Earth with two hands tied behind your back. Yet I heard nothing from 
Mr. Pompeo about challenging the President with respect to the deep 
cuts to the State Department and the resources that he will have 
available to him to conduct American diplomacy.
  There is also the very long history of really awful remarks that Mike 
Pompeo has made toward various minority groups here in the United 
States, including Muslims and the LGBT community. You have to wonder 
how somebody who has made these comments is going to be able to oversee 
a State Department that has patriotic Americans who are Muslim 
Americans, who are LGBT, and who come from other minority groups. How 
do you lead an agency when you have made those kinds of comments about 
people in your workforce? And how do you represent American values 
overseas when you have disregarded those important values here at home?
  Mr. Pompeo has said that Muslims ``abhor Christians.'' He has said 
that all Muslim leaders were ``potentially complicit'' in acts of 
terrorism. He has made other statements and has not condemned 
statements made by groups that were supporting him.
  We have heard today from the President of France, Mr. Macron, a 
speech that uplifted the best of American values and French values. It 
was a speech that could have been given by earlier American Presidents, 
Republican or Democrat. He called upon America, France, the NATO 
allies, and other freedom-loving democracies and countries that respect 
the rule of law to seize the mantle of leadership.
  He said:

       We can actively contribute together to building the 21st-
     century world order for our people, for all people. The 
     United States and Europe have a historical role in this 
     respect, because it is the only way to defend what we believe 
     in, to promote our universal values, to express strongly that 
     human rights, the rights of minorities, and shared liberty 
     are the true answer to the disorders of the world.

  He warned against using anger and fear to divide us. He said:

       We are living in a time of anger and fear because of the 
     global threats, but these feelings did not build anything. 
     You can play with fear and anger for a time, but they do not 
     construct anything.

  What we have heard from President Trump is exactly the stirring of 
anger and division that the President of France warned about in his 
talk today to the Congress. It is those fears that President Trump has 
sought to exploit rather than to rise above and to lead.
  As I look at the record of Mr. Pompeo and as I listen to the 
statements he has made, including many repulsive statements about 
different groups within the United States, I have to conclude that he 
does not reflect the great tradition in American foreign policy of 
standing up for those universal values that the President of France 
talked about today. It is a sad moment in our history when it requires 
a President from France to remind us of those universal values.
  France has been a leader in the world, but the United States has been 
the chief organizer of the post-World War II era. And our friends in 
France, in England, in Germany, and other allies not just in Europe but 
around the world have stood with us. Yet, in this administration, we 
see a full retreat from that kind of American leadership around the 
world.
  I regret to conclude that, looking at Mr. Pompeo's record and 
statements, he is part of the retreat and not part of the leadership 
that we need in the 21st century. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this 
nomination. We can do better. We need to remind every Member of this 
body that the United States has always stood up for those values that 
are in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution, and we 
need to uphold those values in the conduct of our foreign policy.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.