[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1279-1280]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      NOMINATION OF REX TILLERSON

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, shortly we are going to be taking up the 
cloture motion in regard to the confirmation process of Mr. Tillerson 
to be the Secretary of State for our country. I had the opportunity, as 
the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to meet 
with Mr. Tillerson. I had a chance to talk with him concerning his 
vision for America. I participated in a lengthy committee hearing, 
where not only I had a chance to ask him questions but every member of 
the committee had a chance to ask questions and then had the 
opportunity to present questions for the record and look at his 
responses to questions for the record.
  I wish to say, at the outset of this debate before the U.S. Senate, 
Mr. Tillerson is a successful businessperson. I am certain he has great 
negotiating skills, as he has shown as the CEO of ExxonMobil, and I 
think that is an important ability to have if he were confirmed as 
Secretary of State.
  I do think he wants to serve our Nation, and he has put forward his 
ability to serve as Secretary of State for the right reasons. However, 
I have serious reservations, as a result of this process, this 
confirmation process, that leads me to the conclusion that I cannot 
support his nomination, and I will be voting against his nomination. I 
wanted to at least start this debate by giving some of the reasons I 
will not be supporting Mr. Tillerson to be the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Tillerson's business orientation and his lack of moral clarity to 
questions that were asked during the confirmation hearing, to me, 
compromises his ability to forcefully promote the values and ideals 
that defined America's leading role in the world for more than 200 
years. When I am referring to the values, they are the values of good 
governance, the values of standing up for human rights, the values of 
speaking up for a free press, the values of recognizing the importance 
of civil societies, which is lacking in so many places around the 
world.
  When Mr. Tillerson was asked the question as to how he would 
characterize what Russia is doing in Syria in supporting a regime that 
has attacked humanitarian convoys, whether that should be considered as 
war crimes, Mr. Tillerson was less than clear as to how he would 
characterize Russia's conduct in Syria.
  When I asked Mr. Tillerson how he would characterize Philippine 
President Duterte's extrajudicial killings--this is a President who has 
authorized individuals to be killed on site without judicial process, 
which has been well-documented--whether that was a gross violation of 
human rights, Mr. Tillerson was less than clear as to whether that in 
fact would elevate to a serious human rights violation.
  When I asked the question, whether under any circumstances we could 
have a national registry for any group of religious or ethnic 
minorities in America, his answer was not as clear as I would have 
hoped it to be. The answer should have been a simple ``no,'' but he did 
not give that answer in that moral clarity.
  For all those reasons, I have serious concern as to whether he will 
speak with a strong voice on American values or whether that will be 
compromised for narrow business interests or for other considerations 
that should not take priority to the values that have made America the 
great Nation it is.
  I was concerned about this before what has happened in recent days, 
but when I take a look at President Trump's first 10 days in office and 
I look at the Executive orders he has issued as President of the United 
States, it is even more critical that the next Secretary of State speak 
with moral clarity as to the values of America.
  The gag order that was reimposed by President Trump wasn't the same 
gag order that other administrations have imposed. It is far broader 
and could prevent U.S. participation with health workers around the 
world to stop the spread of HIV-AIDS or to deal with the Zika virus or 
to deal with issues concerning global health issues, maternal health. I 
want someone, as Secretary of State, to say that America stands for 
providing the leadership we need on global health issues.
  More recently, when President Trump announced his Mexican policy; 
that it would build a wall, he not only asked the taxpayers to pay for 
it once but to pay for it twice, to build the wall, which almost anyone 
will tell you will not work. We do have tunnels that we already know 
could go under walls. It will be expensive, but he is also asking 
Americans to pay for it twice because he is going to impose a tariff, 
at least that is under consideration, that middle-income families will 
end up paying--starting a trade war with Mexico. And why? Why would you 
start this? Mexico is working with us to stop illegal immigration. They 
are working with us to stop the illegal trafficking of drugs. They are 
working with us to build a regional, natural economy that benefits both 
countries. Why would we pick a fight with our neighbor? It makes no 
sense whatsoever.
  The last thing that was done over this weekend points out even more 
clearly why we need a Secretary of State who will speak with moral 
clarity, and that was this outrageous, reckless, and dangerous 
Executive order that would ban certain individuals from coming to 
America. It would put a hold on our refugee program and would establish 
a religious test for people coming to America--a Muslim ban. That is 
not what America stands for.
  I believe that Executive order is illegal. I know that Executive 
order will put Americans at risk. I would like to know from our 
Secretary of State how he, if he is confirmed, would respond when other 
countries ask: Why should we help you when you will not allow people 
from Muslim countries the right to visit your country? Why should we 
give you that information? How will Americans, who are traveling 
abroad, be treated? It puts all at risk. Our next Secretary of State 
has to have that credibility to deal with other countries with moral 
clarity. Time and time again, when confronted with questions, Mr. 
Tillerson was not clear.
  Let me give you one example that may sum up my concern on his moral 
clarity issues, and that is with Russia. We had asked several times 
whether he would support the existing sanctions, would he support 
stronger sanctions. After all, the sanctions were put on because Russia 
invaded Ukraine. They are still there. They are still in Crimea. They 
are still interfering with eastern Ukraine. Unless they comply with the 
Minsk agreement, our European allies are looking for America to say no 
way would we ever weaken our sanctions as long as Russia is violating 
its commitment in Ukraine.
  Since that, they have been doing other things. I already mentioned 
the war crimes they are committing in Syria, but they also attacked 
America. They attacked us through cyber, trying to bring down our 
democratic system of government, free elections. I would certainly have 
hoped Mr. Tillerson would have shown some compassion for increasing 
sanctions

[[Page 1280]]

against Russia. Instead, we asked him a question about Cuba, and Mr. 
Tillerson was very clear when he talked about Cuba. He said: Look, if 
we do business with Cuba, we are allowing a repressive regime to have 
greater resources. Why would we want to support a repressive regime?
  Mr. Tillerson didn't show the same concern about Russia. He has no 
compulsion at all about doing business with Russia, even though that 
business is allowing the Putin repressive regime to carry out their 
activities of attacks against our allies, attacks against us, interfere 
with what is going on in Syria, and to do all the activities they are 
doing. I would have hoped that we were seeing a greater sense of moral 
clarity from our Secretary of State nominee.
  There are other issues I am concerned about. I know we will have a 
chance to talk about it if this issue is still on the floor tomorrow, 
as I expect it will be. We will have a chance to talk about issues 
regarding his quick use of military power versus diplomacy. We asked 
him several times about external events and how he will respond to 
them. His answer was too quick about using our military and not quick 
enough about using our diplomacy. The use of military must be a matter 
of last resort. I want to make sure our next Secretary of State is very 
sensitive to that particular issue.
  Then we get to the concern about the ethical issues. I need to 
mention this because when we asked him questions about his knowledge of 
ExxonMobil, he was less than forthcoming to the committee, not aware of 
ExxonMobil's lobbying on certain issues, and very unclear about how its 
activities were in Sudan, Syria, Iran, and other countries that have 
horrible human rights records. And his willingness to recuse himself 
from anything affecting Exxon for 1 year, not for the entire length of 
term that he would be Secretary of State if confirmed by the Senate--he 
should not deal with ExxonMobil for the entire length of his time as 
Secretary of State. He is a person who has substantial wealth as a 
result of his working at ExxonMobil. None of us criticize him for that, 
but it disqualifies him from dealing with ExxonMobil.
  We are going to be involved in a lengthy debate on the next Secretary 
of State, as we should, but I just wanted to share with my colleagues 
my concern about Mr. Tillerson and why I am opposing his nomination. 
And I would just indicate that I think the events particularly over the 
weekend with this immigration policy really point out the need for the 
next Secretary of State to be willing to stand strong for American 
values, and I have serious questions in that regard on Mr. Tillerson.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
nomination of Rex Tillerson to serve as our next Secretary of State. 
The proceedings in the Foreign Relations Committee for his nomination 
were fair, exhaustive, and in the best traditions of our committee and 
the Senate. Mr. Tillerson completed all of his required paperwork 
expeditiously, having met or exceeded the pace set by former Secretary 
Hillary Clinton after she was nominated in 2008. He testified in a 
public hearing for more than 8 hours and afterward responded to over 
1,000 additional questions for the record from committee members.
  Opinions and votes today on Mr. Tillerson may differ, but there is no 
question that the committee and the Senate have fulfilled their 
constitutional responsibility in carefully reviewing his nomination.
  As we proceed in ensuring that the new administration has the leaders 
it needs to implement our Nation's foreign policy going forward, I have 
great confidence that Rex Tillerson will serve the United States well.
  In both my private meetings with him and in the hours of public 
testimony he offered before the Foreign Relations Committee, it has 
become clear that he will be an effective leader at the State 
Department. Mr. Tillerson has led an exemplary and honorable life. He 
has been at the same company for over 40 years. As an Eagle Scout, he 
served as the national president of the Boy Scouts of America.
  Furthermore, the nonpartisan Director of the Office of Government 
Ethics recently stated that Mr. Tillerson is making a clean break from 
Exxon and has even gone so far as to say that Tillerson's ethics 
agreement serves as a sterling model for what we would like to see with 
other nominees.
  Having managed one of the world's largest companies by revenue, with 
over 75,000 employees, there is no doubt in my mind that Rex Tillerson 
is well qualified to lead the State Department. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support his confirmation and look forward to his service 
as our next Secretary of State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________