[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1372-1407]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


      Unanimous Consent Request--Authority for Committees to Meet

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have nine unanimous consent requests 
for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. I ask 
unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to en bloc.

[[Page 1373]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 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. BROWN. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Nominations of Steven Mnuchin and Tom Price

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss what happened in the 
Finance Committee today--or what didn't happen in the Finance Committee 
today. Two newspapers--one, the Columbus Dispatch, one of Ohio's best 
and most conservative newspapers, and the Wall Street Journal, one of 
this country's most conservative newspapers--reported that the two 
nominees in front of the Senate Finance Committee had lied to the 
committee. Treasury Secretary-Designee Mnuchin had lied when asked if 
his bank, OneWest, had done robo signings; he said no.
  The Columbus Dispatch investigative reporters found, in fact, that 
they had done robo signings, and they found that dozens--probably 
hundreds, maybe thousands--of Ohioans lost their homes. A woman named 
Miss Duncan, who had paid her mortgage month after month, was doing 
everything right. She was foreclosed on--not anything of her doing--and 
her financial life was turned upside down.
  The Wall Street Journal reported that Congressman Price, the designee 
for Health and Human Services, had lied about insider information he 
had. He had advantages that other investors didn't have in buying 
health care stocks as he sat on the health care committee in the House, 
as he voted, as he wrote amendments and bills dealing with health care.
  These are nominees for agencies--the two most important economic 
agencies in the Federal Government, probably, at least in the Cabinet--
who have lied about things that affect people's lives. It is hundreds 
of people--thousands, maybe, in my State. We are not even the largest 
State on foreclosures caused by OneWest. Thousands, hundreds of 
thousands--who knows how many around the country, as he will not tell 
us yet--have lost homes because of his and his bank's actions, making 
him wealthier, to be sure, but upending people's lives in the cruelest 
kind of way when their homes are foreclosed on.
  We are saying to Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Finance 
Committee: Get some answers here. Find out why these two nominees lied, 
and find out what they are going to do to fix it. Find out what they 
have in their backgrounds that they haven't disclosed to this 
committee.
  We have no business voting on nominees before we have that kind of 
information. That is the reason that Democratic Senators of the Finance 
Committee, led by Ranking Member Wyden, decided not to come to the 
committee to vote today--because it is the only way we can get Senator 
Hatch to bring those two forward to give us the information and to give 
the American public the information they need.
  I might add that we probably did President Trump a favor today, 
because if these two nominees had been brought forward--and I assume 
confirmed, because Republicans are voting for every nominee, it seems, 
no matter what; I haven't seen a break from that yet--they may have 
come to the floor and have been confirmed, and there likely would have 
been a scandal early in the Trump Administration and in the Treasury 
Department and Health and Human Services Department--two incredibly 
important agencies.
  I think that we, perhaps, in some sense, saved President Trump from 
himself and the damage that his nominees could do. I don't expect 
appreciation or thanks from the White House on this, but I do think 
this is an issue that should be taken care of before they head two of 
the most important and largest--if not largest, two of the most 
important--Federal agencies.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss why I intend to oppose the 
nomination of Rex Tillerson as the Secretary of State. This is not a 
decision that I make lightly. I have no doubt that Mr. Tillerson has 
been a successful businessman, managing one of America's largest 
corporations at ExxonMobil. Many have attested to his being a man of 
character who has given back to his community and, particularly, 
through his work with the Boy Scouts of America.
  I have no reason to doubt that he does have the character and decency 
that we would applaud in any person. However, when the United States 
faces some of the most complex global challenges in a generation, this 
is not the time to appoint as our Nation's top diplomat someone who has 
no demonstrated experience articulating and advocating for America's 
interests, values, and commitment to our allies and partners.
  As the events of this past week make clear, we need a Secretary of 
State who will speak up and candidly tell the truth to the President 
when he acts contrary to who we are as a nation and harms our relations 
with our partners and our standing in the world. Without an effective 
voice at the State Department for America's best interests, both within 
the executive branch and outside our borders, we will continue to see 
this administration, I fear, take steps that undermine cooperation with 
our closest allies and neighbors, violate our values, and ultimately 
make our troops and citizens less safe. I am concerned that Mr. 
Tillerson will not be such a voice for the American people.
  Throughout the confirmation process, Mr. Tillerson has repeatedly 
demonstrated either his lack of preparation or his unwillingness, 
perhaps, to specifically declare himself on key issues. In particular, 
I am concerned about his views on Russia, climate change, and 
immigration, and how he will influence a White House that already seems 
determined to pursue campaign promises regardless of the impact on 
American foreign policy.
  On Russia, Mr. Tillerson has demonstrated a familiarity with Putin 
and the Russian Government that is deeply concerning. Mr. Tillerson has 
spent his professional life advancing the interests of ExxonMobil--
indeed, almost to the exclusivity of any other purpose. That is of 
concern, and should be of concern to all of us.
  Even as the United States was reevaluating its relationship with 
Russia in recent years, Mr. Tillerson has deepened his personal 
relationship with Putin, to the point that the Russian President 
awarded Mr. Tillerson the Russian Order of Friendship in 2013, 
supposedly a very high honor for a non-Russian. It appears that Mr. 
Tillerson opposed U.S. sanctions against Russia after Russia's illegal 
annexation of Crimea in 2014 because his multinational corporation 
stood to lose very lucrative oil contracts if sanctions were put in 
place.
  International sanctions against Russia, imposed by the United States 
and the European Union, have sent a clear and effective message to 
Russia that their invasion of Ukraine is unacceptable. These sanctions 
are absolutely critical to multilateral efforts to hold Russia to its 
commitments to end the violence in Ukraine and restore its sovereignty, 
consistent with the Minsk agreements. The Russians claimed that these 
are separatists, that these are Ukrainians rising up, but the truth is 
that this is Russian-inspired, Russian-directed, and at the behest of 
Putin.
  Mr. Tillerson's wavering on Russian sanctions, however, could weaken 
the resolve of our European allies in maintaining these sanctions. It 
could encourage Putin in his efforts to cut a deal for sanctions relief 
and cause our allies in the Baltics and elsewhere to

[[Page 1374]]

question the U.S. and NATO commitment to their security. This 
ultimately will make us less safe.
  On climate change, Mr. Tillerson's career up to this point has been 
marked by a disregard for the environment. Strong environmental 
policies, including coordinating global efforts to address climate 
change, are in the best interest of the American people and help 
fulfill our moral responsibility as stewards of the Earth for the next 
generation. That is why I have consistently supported limits on oil and 
gas exploration, bans on drilling in pristine areas, eliminating oil 
and gas tax subsidies and giveaways, increases in research into new 
sustainable energy technologies, and the negotiation of international 
climate treaties. Mr. Tillerson's time at ExxonMobil stands in stark 
contrast to these policy goals and makes me doubt whether, if approved, 
he would effectively protect our environment and work with our partners 
around the world to uphold our commitments as Secretary of State.
  On immigration, I am concerned about whether Mr. Tillerson can be an 
effective advocate for policies that keep the American people safe 
while preserving our ties with key partners and upholding our values 
internationally.
  President Trump's Executive order blocking immigrants from certain 
Muslim-majority nations is, in my view, unconstitutional, un-American, 
cruel to those fleeing danger and injustice, and ultimately makes us 
less secure. It ignores the horrific circumstances refugees are fleeing 
in numerous war-torn regions. It suggests the insertion of arbitrary 
religious and ethnic considerations and fails to account for the strict 
vetting procedures already in place for refugees, particularly from 
Syria and areas of conflict. It is also contrary to our history as a 
nation that, from its birth, has benefited from the contributions of 
hard-working and successful immigrants.
  In particular, this Executive order is a betrayal of our commitment 
to those who risk their lives to serve as translators for our troops 
fighting in Iraq. Through the Special Immigrant Visa Program, we 
promised these brave Iraqis the opportunity to resettle in the United 
States in recognition of their invaluable contributions to our wartime 
missions. Yet this administration has effectively blocked these SIV 
Program recipients without a second thought.
  In addition, the President's actions on immigration are making 
America less safe by undermining key relationships with allies and 
partners. The President's Executive order on immigration hands ISIS a 
self-inflicted propaganda victory that reinforces their claim that the 
United States is at war with all of Islam. It damages our diplomatic 
relationships with Muslim-majority nations, whether on the list or not, 
by undermining their willingness and ability to cooperate with U.S. law 
enforcement and intelligence agencies in sharing information on 
potential terrorist attackers. It may also compel these countries to 
reciprocate by prohibiting Americans from entering their borders.
  Just this morning in the Armed Services Committee, we heard from an 
eminent expert. She indicated to us that the Iraqi Parliament has 
already had a meeting and has essentially resolved to reciprocate by 
banning Americans from Iraq.
  We have examples today of Iraqi pilots training in the United States 
so that they can go back and work with our military personnel to attack 
ISIS. Had their training been scheduled--
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REED. Yes, I will.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. It is my understanding that not only are we fighting 
shoulder to shoulder with Iraqis against ISIL, on the day these orders 
were signed, we had Iraqi pilots in the United States of America 
training to bomb ISIS. If they had come days after the signing of this 
order instead of days before, they would not have been allowed to enter 
the country for this important training; is that correct?
  Mr. REED. The Senator from Missouri is absolutely correct. That is 
the point I was going to make, and she made it more distinctly and more 
decisively.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Sorry. I heard you talking about Iraqis, and I wanted 
to make sure everyone in America understood that they were here 
training with our military to fight ISIS, and the President of the 
United States told them they were no longer welcome.
  Mr. REED. This is something that has been ongoing for many years. I 
can recall visiting a training facility in Rhode Island--formerly 
Quonset Point Naval Air Station; now it is a National Guard station--
where they were training Iraqi Air Force pilots to fly C-130J aircraft. 
Again, had this order been in effect, those pilots would not have been 
allowed in for the training that not only helps them but helps the 
thousands of American military personnel in Iraq, shoulder to shoulder, 
fighting together, depending on not just the presence but the 
confidence of the Iraqi military in the United States and that 
reciprocal mutual relationship. This measure sends a terrible signal to 
them saying: Go ahead and fight, but you won't get to the United 
States.
  It is particularly the case I make with respect to these people who 
feel threatened because they helped us. We have a special visa program, 
but right now that is in limbo because we essentially said they can't 
come in, even though they risked their lives to protect our interests 
and the interests of their own country.
  We are creating huge problems, and, again, I haven't heard the 
nominee speak out decisively and clearly about the problems this policy 
is engendering, and that is incumbent upon the individual.
  We have traditionally granted nominees broad deference out of respect 
for the President, and I don't think this is an issue of simply 
stopping a nominee for the sake of stopping a nominee. But we are not a 
rubberstamp either. We have to come here and make the case. When we see 
examples of behaviors that demonstrably threaten the security of the 
United States, our ability to cooperate with others, our image in the 
world, and we are not confident that our Secretary of State will not 
only reject those but effectively argue within and without that we have 
a higher purpose, a better goal, a better policy, then it is our 
obligation to stand and to render a vote of no, and I intend to do 
that.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                               Travel Ban

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am going to make a couple of brief 
comments and then yield my hour of postcloture debate.
  Let me just say that nothing the President did made us safer. And one 
of the most outrageous claims the President made was that we don't have 
extreme vetting.
  The Presiding Officer and I both serve on the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, and after we realized that we needed to 
take a closer look at refugees and making sure bad guys weren't getting 
into this country, we instituted an amazing array of vetting processes.
  Let me first start with this important principle. Nobody applies to 
the United States for refugee status; they apply to the United Nations. 
Less than 1 percent of the people who apply for refugee status with the 
United Nations are granted the opportunity to go forward. So we start 
out with 99-plus percent of the people who apply to be a refugee turned 
down at the United Nations, so the less than 1 percent who come to us, 
come to us for another aggressive screening process. I went to Jordan 
and watched it. There are multiple interviews. It takes 18 months to 2 
years. They are vetted through every possible intelligence agency, 
every possible database. And by the way, we check what they are saying 
even if they don't have papers. There are iris scans. It is the most 
extreme vet you can imagine. Of course, because it was so extreme, we 
realized that the hole in our system was not the refugees; it was, in 
fact, the Visa Waiver Program, which is why we passed a law after Paris 
to make sure that anybody who

[[Page 1375]]

was in certain countries had to get a visa. Obama didn't do a travel 
ban. Obama never identified countries for a travel ban. All President 
Obama did was say: If you have been in these countries, you have to 
have a visa so we have information on you.
  I wanted to clarify that because the misinformation that is coming 
out of the White House about what we currently have and what is in 
place is an insult. I wish they understood the vetting processes we 
have in place now for refugees; then maybe we could get back to really 
joining arms and trying to figure out what we can do for national 
security. One thing we need to do for national security is not give the 
back of our hand to the pilots and the other soldiers who are fighting 
shoulder to shoulder with us in Iraq against ISIS.
  I yield the remainder of my hour of postclosure debate time under 
rule XXII to Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                         REMEMBERING SARAH ROOT

  Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today on the 1-year anniversary of 
the tragic death of a fellow Iowan, Sarah Root. On January 31, 2016--
the very same day as her college graduation--Sarah was killed by an 
illegal immigrant named Edwin Mejia, who was allegedly drag racing with 
a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. Sadly, 
despite requests by local law enforcement, ICE failed to detain Mejia. 
He then posted bond, was released, and now a year later remains a 
fugitive, denying Sarah's loved ones any sense of closure or Justice.
  As a mother and grandmother, I cannot fathom the grief her family and 
friends continue to feel after such a devastating loss. Just 21 years 
old, Sarah was bright, gifted, full of life, and ready to take on the 
world. Having just graduated from Bellevue University with a 4.0 grade 
point average, she was dedicated to her community and wanted to pursue 
a career in criminal justice. Sarah had a remarkably bright future 
ahead of her, but her opportunity to make a mark on the world was 
tragically cut short 1 year ago today. Yet, even in death, she touched 
the lives of others, saving six different individuals through organ 
donation. Although nothing can bring Sarah back to her family, we can 
ensure that ICE never makes that same mistake again.
  I was encouraged to see the Trump administration take action toward 
addressing this issue last week by implementing parts of Sarah's Law--
legislation I introduced with my Iowa and Nebraska colleagues in honor 
of Sarah. I remain committed to continuing to work with my colleagues 
to fulfill the promise I made to Sarah's loving parents: that I will do 
everything I can to ensure that no other parents have to go through 
what the Root family has faced.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Ms. HARRIS. I yield my hour of postcloture debate time under rule 
XXII to Senator Cardin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I yield my hour of postcloture 
debate time under rule XXII to Senator Cardin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I yield my hour of postcloture debate time 
under rule XXII to Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Ms. HASSAN. 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate begins 
consideration of the nomination of Mr. Rex Tillerson to serve as the 
69th Secretary of State of the United States of America. I thank Mr. 
Tillerson for his willingness to serve our Nation and for his 
participation in a lengthy, wide-ranging hearing before the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, where I have the honor of being the senior 
Democrat, the ranking Democrat on the committee.
  Earlier today, I thanked Chairman Corker for the courtesies he showed 
during the hearing process. However, as I stated yesterday, I remain 
concerned that Mr. Tillerson's demonstrated business orientation in his 
responses to questions during the confirmation hearing would prevent 
him from being a Secretary of State who forcefully promotes the values 
and ideals that have defined our country and our leading role in the 
world for more than 200 years. I, therefore, will not be supporting his 
nomination.
  Given the events over the weekend, I believe it is important that I 
begin today's debate by painting a picture for the American people of 
the unstable, reckless foreign policy that Mr. Tillerson is going to be 
asked to carry out under President Trump. It is painfully obvious that 
when the President says ``America first,'' the cumulative result of his 
vision would actually lead to America alone and America at risk.
  From time to time, in our Nation's history, we have heard the calls 
of isolationism, but isolationism did not work then and it will not 
work now. It is an approach that our history has taught us, time and 
time again, undermines our interests, makes us vulnerable to those who 
wish us harm, betrays our values, and leaves us less secure and less 
prosperous.
  America's leadership, rooted in our values, makes the world a better 
place for all, but the first 10 days of the Trump administration shows 
that the President is intent on compromising our values, abandoning our 
allies, and using a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel to conduct the 
detailed, careful work of safeguarding our Nation. Some of his 
supporters chalk it up to inexperience. My own chairman has said on 
numerous occasions that he wishes the President had more flushed-out 
ideas on foreign policy space.
  What the American people witnessed in the last 10 days goes beyond 
inexperience. There is a willful, dangerous campaign underway by forces 
in this administration to bend or potentially even break the law. More 
than ever, we need to reaffirm and adhere to the values that make our 
country so strong and so stable, the city on the hill that others look 
to for leadership.
  In order to do that, we need leaders who will not shy away from our 
values, who will sound a certain trumpet for human rights, the rule of 
law, and bedrock American values.
  Mr. Tillerson's timid equivocation on American values throughout his 
confirmation process, his trumpet's uncertain sound was alarming 
because he will be working for a President clearly willing to 
compromise America's values at every turn. There are many individuals 
who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations who 
recognize this Executive order for what it is.
  I have in my hand a letter from over 100 former Cabinet Secretaries, 
senior government officials, diplomats, military servicemembers, and 
intelligence community professionals who have served in the Bush and 
Obama administrations. The letter, to the heads of the Departments of 
Homeland Security, Justice, and State, expresses deep concern that the 
Executive order issued over the weekend jeopardizes tens of thousands 
of lives, has caused a crisis here in America, and will do long-term 
damage to our national security.
  It strongly recommends the President rescind this order. I ask 
unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. There 
being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page 1376]]


                                                 January 30, 2017.
     Hon. John F. Kelly,
     Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sally Yates,
     Acting Attorney General,
     Department of Justice,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas A. Shannon,
     Acting Secretary, Department of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Secretary Kelly, Acting Attorney General Yates, Acting 
     Secretary Shannon: As former cabinet Secretaries, senior 
     government officials, diplomats, military service members and 
     intelligence community professionals who have served in the 
     Bush and Obama administrations, we, the undersigned, have 
     worked for many years to make America strong and our homeland 
     secure. Therefore, we are writing to you to express our deep 
     concern with President Trump's recent Executive Order 
     directed at the immigration system, refugees and visitors to 
     this country. 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.
       Individuals, who have passed through multiple rounds of 
     robust security vetting, including just before their 
     departure, were detained, some reportedly without access to 
     lawyers, right here in U.S. airports. They include not only 
     women and children whose lives have been upended by actual 
     radical terrorists, but brave individuals who put their own 
     lives on the line and worked side-by-side with our men and 
     women in uniform in Iraq now fighting against ISIL. Now, 
     because of actions taken by this White House, their lives 
     have been disrupted and they may even be in greater danger if 
     they are sent home. Many more thousands going through the 
     process will now be left behind. More broadly, tens of 
     thousands of other travelers, including dual citizens and, at 
     one point, legal U.S. residents face deep uncertainty about 
     whether they may even travel to the United States or risk 
     leaving and being barred reentry.
       Many of us have worked for years to keep America safe from 
     terrorists. Many of us were on the job working for our 
     country on 9/11 and need no reminder just how vital it is to 
     destroy terrorist networks and bring partners to our side in 
     that global effort. Simply put, this Order will harm our 
     national security. Partner countries in Europe and the Middle 
     East, on whom we rely for vital counterterrorism cooperation, 
     are already objecting to this action and distancing 
     themselves from the United States, shredding years of effort 
     to bring them closer to us. Moreover, because the Order 
     discriminates against Muslim travelers and immigrants, it has 
     already sent exactly the wrong message to the Muslim 
     community here at home and all over the world: that the U.S. 
     government is at war with them based on their religion. We 
     may even endanger Christian communities, by handing ISIL a 
     recruiting tool and propaganda victory that spreads their 
     horrific message that the United States is engaged in a 
     religious war. We need to take every step we can to counter 
     violent extremism, not to feed into it by fueling ISIL 
     propaganda.
       Perhaps the most tragic irony of this episode is that it is 
     unnecessary. We do not need to turn America into a fortress 
     to keep it secure. Since the 9/11 attacks, the United States 
     has developed a rigorous system of security vetting, 
     leveraging the full capabilities of the law enforcement and 
     intelligence communities. This vetting is applied to 
     travelers not once, but multiple times. Refugees receive even 
     further scrutiny. In fact, successive administrations have 
     worked to improve this vetting on a near continuous basis, 
     through robust information sharing and data integration to 
     identify potential terrorists. Since 9/11 not a single major 
     terrorist attack has been perpetrated by travelers from the 
     countries named in the Order.
       The suddenness of this Order is also troubling. The fact 
     that individuals cleared for admission were literally in the 
     air as the Order went into effect speaks to the haste with 
     which it was developed and implemented. We are concerned that 
     this Order received little, if any scrutiny by the 
     Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security or the 
     Intelligence Community. Now that some of these individuals 
     are here in the United States, and thousands of others are 
     stranded, our government's response has appeared disorganized 
     and chaotic. As lawyers take steps to protect their clients 
     who have been detained here or stranded at many other 
     airports, the U.S. government will continue to face a flurry 
     of legal challenges, which could have been avoided. 
     Additionally, by banning travel by individuals cooperating 
     against ISIL, we risk placing our military and diplomatic 
     efforts at risk by sending a clear message to those citizens 
     and all Muslims that the United States does not have their 
     backs. Already, the international push-back has been immense, 
     and threatens to jeopardize critical counterterrorism 
     cooperation.
       Fortunately, there is a way out of this self-made crisis. 
     We know that your agencies did not create this situation and 
     we particularly respect that many of you are working to 
     mitigate its damage. Effective immediately, you can apply the 
     discretion given to you under the President's Order to admit 
     into the country the men, women and children who are 
     currently still stranded in airports. The process for doing 
     this is well known to the security professionals within your 
     departments. We urge you to execute it. While it is good to 
     see the withdrawal of the application of the Order to legal 
     permanent residents of the United States, your Departments 
     can immediately work to allow other classes of people into 
     the country, and remove the discriminatory prioritization 
     implicit within the Order. Most critically, we urge you to 
     draw on the insight of the professionals in your departments 
     to recommend that the President revisit and rescind this 
     Order. Blanket bans of certain countries or classes of people 
     is inhumane, unnecessary and counterproductive from a 
     security standpoint, and beneath the dignity of our great 
     nation.
       Dr. Madeleine K. Albright, Former Secretary of State; Janet 
     Napolitano, Former Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
     Security; Susan Rice, Former National Security Advisor to the 
     President of the United States; Dennis Blair, Former Director 
     of National Intelligence, Admiral, USN, Retired; Michael 
     Hayden, Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency; 
     Samantha Power, Former United States Ambassador to the United 
     Nations; Bill Richardson, Former Governor of New Mexico and 
     United States Ambassador to the United Nations; Tony Blinken, 
     Former Deputy Secretary of State; William Burns, Former 
     Deputy Secretary of State; Bruce Andrews, Former Deputy 
     Secretary of Commerce; Richard Clarke, Former National 
     Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and 
     Counterterrorism for the United States; Rudy DeLeon, Former 
     Deputy Secretary of Defense.
       Heather Higginbottom, Former Deputy Secretary of State for 
     Management and Resources; Thomas Nides, Former Deputy 
     Secretary of State for Management and Resources; James 
     Steinberg, Former Deputy Secretary of State; Michael Morrell, 
     Former Acting Director, Central Intelligence Agency; Matthew 
     Olsen, Former Director of the National Counterterrorism 
     Center; Rand Beers, Former Acting Secretary of the Department 
     of Homeland Security; John B. Bellinger III, Former Legal 
     Advisor to the Department of State.
       Ambassador (ret.) Nicholas Burns, Former Under Secretary of 
     State for Political Affairs; Eliott Cohen, Former Counselor, 
     Department of State; Michele Flournoy, Former Undersecretary 
     of Defense for Policy; Marcel Lettre, Former Undersecretary 
     of Defense for Intelligence; James Miller, Former 
     Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; Wendy Sherman, Former 
     Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Suzanne 
     Spaulding, Former Undersecretary for National Protection and 
     Programs, Department of Homeland Security; Michael G. 
     Vickers, Former Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence; 
     Tara Sonenshine, Former Under Secretary of State for Public 
     Diplomacy and Public Affairs.
       Clara Adams-Ender, Brigadier General, USA, Retired; Ricardo 
     Aponte, Brigadier General, USAF, Retired; Alyssa Ayres, 
     Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia; 
     Donna Barbisch, Major General, USA, Retired; Jamie Barnett, 
     Rear Admiral, USN, Retired; Jeremy Bash, Former Chief of 
     Staff, Department of Defense; Daniel Benjamin, Former 
     Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Department of State; 
     Charles Blanchard, Former General Counsel, United States Air 
     Force; Janet Blanc Former Deputy Special Representative to 
     Afghanistan and Pakistan; Barbara Bodine, Former United 
     States Ambassador to Yemen; Richard Boucher, Former Assistant 
     Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Mike 
     Breen, Retired United States Army Officer; John G. Castellaw, 
     Lieutenant General, USMC, Retired; Wendy Chamberlin, Former 
     United States Ambassador to Pakistan.
       Derek Chollet, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
     International Security Affairs; Christopher Cole, Rear 
     Admiral, USN, Retired; Bathsheba Crocker, Former Assistant 
     Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs; 
     Abe Denmark, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East 
     Asia; Paul Eaton, Major General, USA, Retired; Mari K. Eder, 
     Major General, Retired, USA; Dwayne Edwards, Brigadier 
     General, USA, Retired; Robert Einhom, Former Assistant 
     Secretary of State for Nonproliferation; Evelyn Farkas, 
     Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, 
     Ukraine, Eurasia; Gerald M. Feierstein, Former United States 
     Ambassador to Yemen; Daniel Feldman, Former Special 
     Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
       Jose W. Fernandez, Former Assistant Secretary of State for 
     Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs; Jonathan Finer, 
     Former Director of Policy Planning, Department of State; 
     Robert Glace, Brigadier General, USA, Retired; Philip Gordon, 
     Former Special Assistant to the President and White House 
     Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa,

[[Page 1377]]

     and the Persian Gulf Region; Kevin P. Green, Vice Admiral, 
     USN, Retired; Caitlin Hayden, Former National Security 
     Council Spokesperson; Richard S. Haddad, Major General, USAF, 
     Retired; Gretchen Herbert, Rear Admiral, USN, Retired; Mark 
     Hertling, Lieutenant General, USA, Retired; Christopher P. 
     Hill, Former United States Ambassador to Iraq; David Irvine, 
     Brigadier General, USA, Retired; Arlee D. Jameson, Lieutenant 
     General, USAF, Retired; Deborah Jones, Former United States 
     Ambassador to Libya; Colin Kahl, Former National Security 
     Advisor to the Vice President of the United States; Claudia 
     Kennedy, Lieutenant General, USA, Retired.
       Gil Kerlikowske, Former Commissioner, United States Customs 
     and Border Protection; Charles Kupchan, Former Special 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs; 
     Jonathan Lee, Former Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of 
     Homeland Security; George Little, Former Assistant Secretary 
     of Defense for Public Affairs; Donald E. Loranger Jr., Major 
     General, USAF, Retired; Kelly Magsamen, Former Principal 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific 
     Security Affairs; Randy Manner, Major General, USA, Retired; 
     Thomas Malinowski, Former Assistant Secretary of State for 
     Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; Brian McKeon, Former 
     Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.
       Philip McNamara, Former Assistant Secretary for 
     Partnerships and Engagement, Department of Homeland Security; 
     John G. Morgan, Lieutenant General, USA, Retired; Suzanne 
     Nossel, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for 
     International Organizations Affairs; James C. O'Brien, Former 
     Special Envoy for Hostage Recovery; Eric Olson, Major 
     General, USA, Retired; Rick Olson, Former Special 
     Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan; W. Robert 
     Pearson, Former United States Ambassador to Turkey; Glenn 
     Phillips, Rear Admiral, USN, Retired; Gale Pollock, Major 
     General, USA, Retired; Amy Pope, Former Deputy Assistant to 
     the President for National Security Affairs; Steve Pomper, 
     Former Special Assistant to the President for National 
     Security Affairs.
       Michael Posner, Former Assistant Secretary of State for 
     Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; Anne C. Richard, Former 
     Assistant Secretary of State, Population, Refugees & 
     Migration; Leon Rodriguez, Former Director, U.S. Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services; Laura Rosenberger, Former Chief of 
     Staff to the Deputy Secretary of State; Tommy Ross, Former 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Security 
     Cooperation; John M. Schuster, Brigadier General, USA, 
     Retired; Eric Schwartz, Former Assistant Secretary of State 
     for Population, Refugees, and Migration; Stephen A. Seche, 
     Former United States Ambassador to Yemen; Robert Silvers, 
     Former Assistant Secretary for Cyber Policy, Department of 
     Homeland Security, Vikram Singh, Former Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia; Elissa 
     Slotkin, Former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
     International Security Affairs; Jeffrey Smith, Former General 
     Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency; Julianne ``Julie'' 
     Smith, Former Deputy National Security Advisor to the Vice 
     President of the United States; Michael Smith, Rear Admiral, 
     USN, Retired.
       Matthew Spence, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense for Middle East Policy; Andrew W. Steinfeld, Former 
     Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff; Seth M.M. Stodder, Former Assistant 
     Secretary of Homeland Security for Border, Immigration & 
     Trade Policy; Jake Sullivan, Former National Security Advisor 
     to the Vice President of the United States; Loree Sutton, 
     Brigadier General, USA, Retired; Antonio Taguba, Major 
     General, USA, Retired; Jim Townsend, Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy; David 
     Wade, Former Chief of Staff, Department of State; George H. 
     Walls, Brigadier General, USMC, Retired; William Wechsler, 
     Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
     Counterterrorism and Special Operations.
       Catherine Wiesner, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary, 
     Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration; Willie 
     Williams, Lieutenant General, USMC, Retired; Johnnie E. 
     Wilson, General, USA, Retired; Tamara Cofman Wittes, Former 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary of State; Moira Whelan, Former 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs; Jon 
     Brook Wolfsthal, Former Special Assistant to the President 
     for National Security Affairs; Lee Wolosky, Former Special 
     Envoy for Guantanamo Closure; Stephen N. Xenakis, M.D., 
     Brigadier General, USA, Retired.

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Tillerson needs to answer whether he supports Mr. 
Trump's decision this weekend to ban Muslims, to keep green card 
holders out of the country, and state his view on the chaos that ensued 
from the terrible implementation of this terrible policy. We asked Mr. 
Tillerson during the confirmation hearing whether he supported a Muslim 
ban. He would not give us a clear answer, and he did not speak out 
against an unconstitutional Muslim ban.
  Just today, I have sent a letter, as the ranking Democrat on the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to Mr. Tillerson asking his 
specific views on the President's Executive order, what impacts that 
will have on America's credibility, what impact that will have on 
America's ability to work with our strategic partners around the world. 
I hope he will respond to us so we know his views on the President's 
Executive order before we are called upon to vote on his nomination.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             United States Senate,


                               Committee on Foreign Relations,

                                 Washington, DC, January 31, 2017.
     Mr. Rex Tillerson,
     CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation,
     Irving, TX.
       Dear Mr. Tillerson: As the Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee and the full Senate consider your nomination to 
     serve as Secretary of State, I write to seek your views about 
     the Executive Order, ``Protecting the Nation from Foreign 
     Terrorist Entry into the United States,'' signed by President 
     Trump on January 27, 2017. I am concerned that the text of 
     the Executive Order and its haphazard implementation over the 
     weekend run counter to our American values and the U.S. 
     Constitution, as well as our national security and economic 
     interests.
       Do you support the Executive Order's indefinite denial of 
     entry to Syrian refugees and the 120-day suspension of the 
     entire U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program, which impacts 
     20,000 refugees and will, in practice, grind all refugee 
     processing to a halt for many months?
       Do you agree with President Trump's assertion that our 
     country should give preference to Christians seeking to 
     obtain visas or admission to the U.S? If so, do you think 
     this action is consistent with our nation's bedrock 
     principles of liberty and religious freedom?
       What process would you support to identify an individual's 
     religion prior to receiving a visa, admission, or other 
     immigration benefit?
       In your view, what message does barring individuals that 
     have served our military in Iraq send to our partners abroad? 
     Does that policy harm our national security and bilateral 
     relationships?
       Given this order's deliberate targeting of certain 
     countries and disproportionate impact on Muslims, what will 
     be the implications for our relationships with foreign 
     countries that are predominantly Muslim? Do you think this 
     order give fodder to ISIL's recruitment efforts in framing 
     the U.S. war against terrorism as really a war on Islam?
       I urge you to be forthright and thorough in your answers. 
     Many thanks for your cooperation on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                               Benjamin L. Cardin,
                                            United States Senator.

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, it remains to be seen whether Mr. 
Tillerson has the moral compass necessary to counsel the President 
toward a coherent U.S. foreign policy that advances our national 
security and embraces our values and ideals or if he will be another 
yes-man, enabling the risky, chaotic whims of a demagogue President, 
who is leading us on a march of folly.
  The American people deserve to know because if the last 10 days are 
any indication, the Trump administration is on a track to be the most 
dangerous and divisive in history. Nothing so painfully illustrates 
that point as Friday's Executive order banning refugees and certain 
Muslim immigrants from entering the United States. As a citizen of this 
great Nation, I am deeply offended by and ashamed of the President's 
Executive actions.
  When the news of this developed over the weekend, I happened to be 
attending a family wedding in the Miami area, a city rich in its 
immigrant character and its welcoming nature to people of many faiths 
and backgrounds.
  Miami was also the city where one of the most shameful episodes in 
our history transpired, where in 1993, the St. Louis, filled with 
Jewish refugees trying to flee the horrors of Nazi Germany waited for 
days, seeing the lights of the city ashore, seeking shelter and refuge. 
Shamefully, we turned the St. Louis away and condemned many of its 
passengers to death in the Holocaust.
  We say never again. Yet fear and uncertainty was palatable this 
weekend in Miami and across the country. I have heard from constituents 
who were

[[Page 1378]]

temporarily detained and arrested or whose loved ones had scheduled 
legal travel to the United States but were unsure if they should board 
their planes for fear of being arrested or turned around once they 
arrived.
  I am aware of students studying legally here in the United States who 
suddenly found their entire future in jeopardy because of their 
nationality. Maryland is proud to host world-class universities like 
Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland, colleges that are 
enriched by the contributions and perspectives of foreign citizens.
  Permanent legal residents who endured a lengthy process to acquire 
their green card and make the United States their home were suddenly 
unsure if they belonged. I was particularly troubled when two Iraqi 
citizens, who have played critical roles in supporting America's forces 
in Iraq, and were traveling on valid visas, were denied entry into New 
York. What do they get for helping our brave men and women with 
translation and security services? A big ugly ``Not Welcome'' sign at 
JFK Airport. Adding insult to injury, their immediate families were 
already here in the United States.
  The cumulative effect of this Executive order is enough to make your 
stomach churn because what President Trump tried to do was legalize 
discrimination based on religion and nationality. As President Trump 
said, giving preference to Christians is going to be OK. As Trump 
adviser Rudy Giuliani said, this is a way to legalize a Muslim ban.
  So I was relieved when Federal judge Ann Donnelly issued a stay on 
Saturday evening to stop the madness, at least temporarily. Other 
judges around the Nation acted accordingly as well, affirming certain 
rights of green card holders and legal permanent residents, but too 
many innocent people remain in limbo. My staff's communications with 
Cabinet agencies over the weekend were extremely troubling. The left 
hand did not know what the right hand was doing in the Trump 
administration. In the zeal to play politics and inflame the fears of 
Americans who feel threatened, the White House revealed how little they 
knew or cared about governing.
  It was reported that Secretary Kelly did not have a proper 
opportunity to view the Executive order before it was issued, a 
sobering lesson I hope Mr. Tillerson has paid close attention to. The 
Department of Homeland Security has now belatedly begun to engage on 
issuing guidance, but I fear the damage has been done.
  Clearly, the Department of Justice was not part of developing the 
Executive order, as Acting Attorney General Sally Yates said, boldly, 
that she was not convinced that the Executive order was lawful. As a 
result, President Trump fired her--the Monday night massacre. Our voice 
must be loud and clear. Mr. Trump, this is our country, a country that 
stands for the highest principles, supported by the rule of law.
  If Ms. Yates' firing is any indication as to how President Trump will 
handle different views, our Democratic institutions of checks and 
balances will indeed be challenged. The White House Press Secretary, 
Sean Spicer, said that foreign service officers using the dissent 
channel to express their views on the immigration Executive order 
should ``either get with the program or they can go.''
  The dissent channel was set up during the Vietnam war as a way for 
foreign service officers and civil servants to raise concerns with 
upper management about the direction of U.S. foreign policy without 
fear of retribution. It is for ``consideration of responsible, 
dissenting and alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues 
that cannot be communicated in a full and timely manner through regular 
operating channels or procedures.''
  This process for the use of dissent channels was codified in the 
Foreign Affairs Manual in 1971, which dictates that dissent cables are 
sent to the Departments' policy planning directors who distribute them 
to the Secretary of State and other top officials who must respond 
within 30 to 60 days. There are typically about four or five each year. 
Freedom from reprisal from dissent user channels is strictly enforced, 
but the President's Press Secretary said they can go.
  What type of free discussion do we want to have in this country? 
Where are the checks and balances? Where is the willingness to listen 
to different views?
  The President also put a 4-month freeze in place on all refugees 
entering the United States, singling out refugees from certain Muslim-
majority countries for extra screening, failing to acknowledge or speak 
about the thorough 18- to 24-month screening process that refugees from 
dangerous countries, such as Iraq and Syria, already endure before they 
come to our Nation. We have the toughest screening now. I am not sure 
what the President is talking about when he says additional screening. 
We already have the toughest screening. They already go through the 
United Nations. They are already interviewed. Their background is 
checked.
  Moving forward, the number of refugees entering the United States 
will fall by 50 percent. It is clear that the President of the United 
States has a fundamental misunderstanding of America's leading role on 
refugee resettlement. Today, I will meet with King Abdallah of Jordan, 
a nation that has accepted 650,000 Syrian refugees. And President Trump 
is holding our program to accept approximately 10,000 Syrian refugees, 
placing it on hold.
  Jordan is one of America's global partners in fighting extremism. It 
will be interesting to see the reactions we get from our partners.
  If we close our doors to refugees, we will not only close our doors 
to U.S. humanitarian values but also severely damage America's global 
credibility on universal values.
  The United States is a nation of immigrants and refugees from all and 
no faiths. We learned from our mistake with the St. Louis, and we are 
the Nation that received refugees from the Holocaust after the Second 
World War. We are the Nation that opened our doors to hundreds of 
thousands of citizens fleeing conflicts and political oppression in El 
Salvador, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia.
  The United States must continue to lead by example, but President 
Trump's cruel Executive order on immigrants and refugees undermines our 
core values and traditions, threatens our national security, and 
demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of our strict vetting 
process--the most thorough in the world. It is a dangerous and 
shortsighted policy that erodes our moral leadership and harms our 
national security as well as our alliances and partnerships worldwide.
  This is not the kind of America that Americans deserve.
  Also over the weekend, President Trump spoke with Russian President 
Vladimir Putin. There has been perhaps no other issue that has so 
pitted President Trump against the interests of the United States than 
Russia. Reflexively, the President will not utter basic truths about 
Mr. Putin's Russia, such as these: The annexation of Crimea, Ukraine, 
is illegal; they committed war crimes in Syria; and they sought to 
create doubt about and potentially influence the election that saw him 
elected President, as our intelligence community has now overwhelmingly 
confirmed.
  There is no more fundamental interest that we have as Americans than 
our democracy. Let's be clear: Just as with Pearl Harbor or September 
11, in this past election, the United States was attacked by a foreign 
power. President Trump does not even seem to care that we were attacked 
or, worse, does not seem to believe that we need to stand up and defend 
our democracy and our form of government. I find that unfathomable.
  The phone calls this weekend came against the backdrop of President 
Trump and his aides floating the idea of lifting our current sanctions 
on Russia. So Russia has invaded Ukraine, has committed war crimes in 
Syria, has attacked our free democratic system, and we are talking 
about easing sanctions on Russia? It is such a miscarriage of justice 
and accountability that they do not understand or won't acknowledge the 
gravity of what Russia seeks to do

[[Page 1379]]

here in our country and around the world.
  It is, therefore, incumbent on Congress to act. I am pleased to have 
bipartisan support for my effort to impose additional sanctions on 
Russia as well as require the President to seek congressional approval 
before he rolls back current sanctions. Sanction relief can only come 
when Russia has changed its behavior, and I see no indication that that 
will come any time soon.
  The unclassified reports released by the intelligence community 
earlier this month says that Russia's intelligence tried to access 
multiple State or local election boards. They also confirmed that 
Russia has researched U.S. electoral procedures and related technology 
and equipment, though they were clear in their assessment that there 
was no evidence at this time that Russia interfered in the actual vote 
tabulation.
  An America that becomes passive or willfully blind to a resurgent 
Russia is not the kind of America that the American people deserve, and 
it is imperative that the administration understand this and act 
accordingly. What the American people don't need is the White House 
focusing on a trial balloon last week that fell like a lead ball.
  Some in the administration thought it would be a good idea to bring 
back the notorious black sites--secret prisons--from a decade ago, 
where our intelligence picked up foreign nationals suspected of 
terrorism connections, hid them, and, in some cases, tortured them or 
allowed the prison's host country to torture them.
  Perhaps nothing did more harm to our credibility and boost terrorist 
recruitment during the early years of the Iraq war than the dangerous, 
amoral practice of rendition, secret detention, and interrogation by 
torture. We cannot go back to those practices if we value maintaining 
the perception and the reality of the United States of America as a 
beacon of justice, law, and human rights for the world.
  Make no mistake, this approach, like the immigration Executive order, 
endangers American citizens and personnel abroad and is a boon to ISIS 
and like-minded groups. It validates their propaganda, aids their 
recruitment and incitement of homegrown terrorism in the United States 
and the West, and encourages attacks against America abroad. General 
Mattis gets it; why can't the President?
  President Trump must never let this Executive order see the light of 
day. This is not the kind of America that the American people deserve.
  Let me turn now to our relationship with our neighbors, our most 
important international relationships.
  Since entering the political arena 18 months ago, candidate Trump was 
consistent in his treatment of Mexican immigrants and refugees, 
referring to them on day one of his Presidential campaign as drug 
users, criminals, and rapists.
  So Mr. Tillerson's job was shaping up to be difficult enough. It got 
even harder last week. In the last 5 days, President Trump has insulted 
the Mexican President and people with his Executive orders on border 
wall construction and the treatment of immigrants and refugees at our 
border, as well as stoked fear throughout sanctuary and welcoming 
cities in the United States that resources could be cut and innocent 
people could be apprehended, breaking up and devastating families.
  The President's new Secretary of Homeland Security said pointedly 
that a wall will not work, and Mr. Trump missed a real opportunity at 
the outset of his Presidency to advance both comprehensive immigration 
reform and border security, which go hand in hand.
  We did that a few years ago. That is what the President should have 
come in with and used his Presidency to pass comprehensive immigration 
reform, as we did. Instead, he wants to build a wall.
  Turning away legitimate asylum seekers at the border or requiring 
mandatory detention of families and children will do nothing to make 
America safer. Such cruel actions will inevitably bring harm and 
potential death to survivors of violence and torture, including many 
women and children, while undermining America's values and damaging our 
relationships with our allies.
  Why the President would deliberately pick a fight with the President 
of Mexico is truly puzzling.
  Not to be outdone after being embarrassed by the President of 
Mexico's cancellation of his visit to Washington, the President doubled 
down and had the audacity to suggest that the cost of constructing a 
border wall should be passed on to the hardworking American families, 
not once but twice. The first is by inserting it in the budget. That is 
taxpayer dollars paying to build a wall that won't work. The second is 
through a tax on Mexican imports which will, in turn, be paid for by 
American consumers. All the while, he continues to blow smoke and say 
that we will continue to find a way for Mexico to ultimately pay for 
this dream wall.
  It won't happen. This is not the kind of America that the American 
people deserve.
  Lastly, I want to point out that, in his third day of office, just 
one day after the 44th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme 
Court decision, President Trump reinstated the controversial global gag 
rule that would cut off U.S. family planning funding to any nonprofit 
group overseas that provides any information about abortion in their 
health care services for women and families in need.
  In other words, this is not about U.S. money supporting abortion 
services. It is about working with organizations.
  Now, Republican Presidents routinely reinstate this harmful rule, but 
President Trump's global gag order is even more extreme. It massively 
expands his already harmful policy to threaten all U.S. foreign aid 
assistance to nonprofit groups engaged in health in the developing 
world. That will significantly increase the jeopardy of cutting off 
U.S. funding to international health efforts.
  We are talking about millions of more women and families. Without 
funding these organizations, we will not be able to provide HIV 
prevention, care and treatment services to those in need, provide 
integrated maternal health care with contraceptive services, or counsel 
women on the potential risk of Zika infection, among many other 
activities. This is very counterproductive to U.S. goals and interests.
  This is not the kind of America the American people deserve. The 
American people deserve leadership that will make them safer and more 
secure, that will increase our prosperity, and that will advance our 
values and serve as an example to the world. That America, Mr. 
President, is also an America that can lead the world and that the 
world will want to work with.
  The state of world affairs has been precarious for some time now. 
Almost single-handedly, President Trump is inflaming previously 
simmering situations, while creating new problems where they previously 
did not exist.
  World leaders are chastising us. Innocent people are looking at us in 
fear. Terrorists are gearing up to use Trump's hate-mongering in their 
recruitment and anti-American propaganda. We will be less safe, not 
safer. He will be putting Americans at risk here at home and those 
traveling abroad.
  As we do debate Mr. Tillerson's nomination, we cannot lose sight of 
the fact that he will be carrying out the foreign policy of the most 
dangerous, unstable, thin-skinned, and inexperienced President we have 
seen on foreign policy issues and other issues.
  Is he up to the job? Will he be a voice of reason and stability when 
times call for reason and stability? Will he resist the forces of war 
that so easily call out, rather than engage in the hard but necessary 
work of diplomacy and negotiation?
  These are critical questions that we must ask and seek answers to as 
we debate and vote on the most important official in the President's 
Cabinet.
  It is clear to me that, unfortunately, Mr. Tillerson will not be that 
voice of stability, reason, and diplomatic experience that the United 
States so desperately needs at this time of uncertainty and 
instability.

[[Page 1380]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                          Patient Freedom Act

  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the big debate right now, as we all know 
in our country, is this: How do we repeal and replace ObamaCare?
  It is pretty clear that the American people want something done. They 
voted, ever since the bill was passed, for those who opposed ObamaCare 
and had a desire to both repeal and replace, culminating in the 
election of President Trump.
  Now, I and Susan Collins, as well as others, have introduced 
something called the Patient Freedom Act, which is our attempt to 
replace ObamaCare. But what I want to emphasize here is the bill's 
emphasis upon federalism. The key feature is that we take power from 
Washington, DC, and give it back to patients and back to State 
capitols.
  We think that we find plenty of examples where Washington has done 
that, allowing States to be the laboratories of democracy. It has 
worked out well for all.
  First, let's look at the parameters that President Trump has laid 
out. President Trump says he wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act 
but replace it with something which covers everyone, takes care of 
preexisting conditions, does not have mandates, and lowers cost. Those 
are the marching orders, as far as I am concerned. With the Patient 
Freedom Act, we attempt to achieve President Trump's goals.
  Now, how do we do that? Under our bill, Congress would pass 
legislation this year which next year would give States one of three 
options.
  The Patient Freedom Act has something we call the better choice. That 
would be one option that States could choose. But really, a State would 
have the choice to say nothing: We don't want anything from the Federal 
Government. Good-bye. Get out of here. That is one option the State 
has, and the last option the State has is to stay with the status quo--
or the Affordable Care Act.
  We have actually gotten a little bit of criticism for that from 
conservatives, and I am saying: Why? This is federalism.
  We are going to repeal the ObamaCare taxes and penalties. We are 
repealing that. But if a State and a State capitol wants to reinstitute 
taxes and penalties upon the people in its State and upon the 
businesses in that State, God bless them. I think it is a mistake, but 
they should have that choice. In fact, they have that choice now. All 
we are saying is that you can exercise the right that you currently 
possess.
  The States would choose in 2018. They would implement their choice in 
2019. By 2020, ObamaCare would be repealed and replaced. That is our 
goal: to repeal and replace while achieving President Trump's goals of 
insuring all, taking care of those with preexisting conditions, without 
mandates and at a lower cost.
  Now, by the way, let's talk a little bit about federalism. 
Conservatives have always thought the 10th Amendment, which grants the 
States every responsibility not delegated to the Federal Government, is 
an important consideration. That is what we are embracing here--to 
allow the State to choose.
  There are some States in which the Affordable Care Act, I am told, is 
working well. The folks in California and New York swear by it. It is 
not working in Louisiana.
  A friend of mine got his quote for the renewal of his and his wife's 
policy. They are 60 and 61, or thereabouts. It was $39,000 a year--
$39,000 a year for the renewal of a policy.
  Yes, Mr. President, it is $39,000 a year for the renewal of a policy. 
No one believes me. I put it on my Facebook page, holding up the quote 
sheet with their names darkened out, but you can see, it is $39,000 a 
year. That is the ``un-Affordable Care Act.''
  As you look around the country, you can see, for example, in Arizona, 
there was one county that for a while had no insurance company there, 
and when one came in, it raised the rates 116 percent in one year--more 
than doubled in one year, on top of the increases in all the previous 
years.
  If California and New York say that the Affordable Care Act is 
working for them, keep it. It is not working for Arizona. It is not 
working for Louisiana. It is not working for other States in the Union. 
Why not take power from our Nation's capital and give it to the State 
capital, and allow the State capital to come up with a solution that 
works for that State?
  I read an editorial today, and it was out of Rome, GA. It pointed to 
the Welfare Reform Act, in which a Republican Congress and President 
Clinton devolved to the States many of the reforms necessary for 
welfare. It has been considered a tremendous legislative success. They 
used that example as an endorsement of the approach to federalism we 
are taking now.
  It isn't just that we give power back to the States; we also give 
power back to the patients. We let them choose the benefits they wish 
to have. We put in measures such as price transparency so that someone 
knows how much something costs before she has the tests performed, as 
opposed to being surprised by a huge bill 6 months later. With that and 
other means, we give power to patients.
  We hope all those who wish to see President Trump's mandates 
fulfilled to cover everyone, take care of those with preexisting 
conditions, lower costs without mandates, in the process of repealing 
and replacing ObamaCare, will endorse the federalism of the Patient 
Freedom Act as well as those other provisions.
  Mr. President, I yield back.
  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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Priorities of the Republican-Led Congress

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, every year around this time, House and 
Senate Republicans get together for a joint conference to share ideas 
and develop our action plan for the year. Last week, we gathered in 
Philadelphia for this year's conference, and we had a very productive 
session. All of us came back energized and ready to achieve big things 
for the American people.
  In November, the American people elected Republican majorities in the 
House and Senate and a Republican President. That was a tremendous show 
of trust, and Republicans know it. We are committed to living up to 
that trust by delivering on the promises we have made.
  The last few years have been tough for American workers. Job creation 
has been sluggish. Wages have been stagnant. Economic growth has lagged 
far behind the pace of other recoveries, and opportunities for workers 
have been few and far between. It is no surprise that so many hard-
working Americans feel as if they have been left behind. For millions 
of American workers discouraged over the past 8 years, I want to say 
this: We hear you. Republicans hear you, and we are going to act.
  Republicans have outlined an agenda focused on growing our economy, 
creating jobs, increasing wages, and lifting the burdens that the Obama 
administration has placed on the American people.
  One big issue that we will tackle this year is repealing and 
replacing ObamaCare. Seven years ago, ObamaCare was sold to the 
American people with a lot of promises. The law was going to reduce 
premiums for families. It was going to fix problems with our health 
care system without hurting anyone who was happy with their health 
coverage. If you like your health plan, you will be able to keep it, 
people were told. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep 
your doctor, people were told. Well, as everyone knows, every one of 
these promises was broken.
  Premiums for families continue to rise. Millions of Americans lost 
the coverage that they liked. Americans regularly discovered they 
couldn't

[[Page 1381]]

keep their doctors, and their choice of replacement was often limited. 
These broken promises were just the tip of the iceberg. The law hasn't 
just failed to live up to its promises; it is actively collapsing, and 
the status quo is unsustainable. Premiums on the exchanges are soaring. 
Deductibles regularly run into the thousands of dollars. In fact, for 
2017, the average deductible for a bronze level ObamaCare plan is 
rising from $5,731 to $6,092. With deductibles like that, it is no 
wonder that some Americans can't actually afford to use their ObamaCare 
insurance.
  The problems on the exchanges are not limited to soaring costs. 
Insurers are pulling out of the exchanges right and left, and health 
care choices are rapidly dwindling. Narrow provider networks are the 
order of the day. One-third of American counties have just one choice 
of health insurer on the exchange. One-third of American counties have 
one option--one option. Tell me that is not a monopoly. This is not the 
health care reform that the American people were looking for.
  Republicans are committed to replacing ObamaCare with real health 
care reform that focuses on personalized patient-centered health care. 
One massive problem with ObamaCare is that it puts Washington in charge 
of health care decisions that should be made at a much lower level. Any 
ObamaCare reform that Republicans pass will focus on fixing this. We 
are going to move control from Washington and give it back to States 
and individuals. Health care issues don't have one-size-fits-all 
solutions. It is time to stop acting as if they do. States should have 
power to innovate and embrace health care solutions that work for the 
individual employers in their State, and individuals should be able to 
make health care decisions in consultation with their doctors, not 
Washington, DC.
  Another thing we are going to focus on is breaking down the ObamaCare 
barriers that have artificially restricted choice. As I said earlier, 
ObamaCare has defaulted to a one-size-fits-all solution when it comes 
to health care. That means many Americans have found themselves paying 
for health care that they don't need and don't want. We need much more 
flexibility in insurance plans. A thriving health care system would 
offer a wide variety of choices that would allow Americans to pick a 
plan that is tailored to their specific needs. We also need to give 
Americans tools to better manage their health care and to control 
costs. Of course, any reform plan has to make sure that employers have 
the tools they need to provide employees with affordable health care 
coverage.
  Mr. President, another priority of the Republican-led Congress will 
be regulatory reform. While some government regulations are necessary, 
every administration has to remember that regulations have 
consequences. The more resources individuals and businesses spend 
complying with regulations, the less they have available to focus on 
the growth and innovation that drive our economy and create new 
opportunities for American workers.
  Unfortunately, the Obama administration chose to spend the last 8 
years loading employers with burdensome regulations. According to the 
American Action Forum, the Obama administration was responsible for 
implementing more than 675 major regulations that cost the American 
economy more than $800 billion. Given those numbers, it is no surprise 
that the Obama economy left businesses with fewer resources to dedicate 
to growing and creating jobs. Repealing burdensome regulations is one 
of the most important things we can do to get our economy healthy 
again. That is going to be a Republican priority.
  Mr. President, another big thing we can do to make America 
competitive again is to reform our outdated Tax Code. That will also be 
a Republican priority this year.
  Right now, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that our 
economy will grow by an average of just 2 percent over the next 10 
years. If we can increase that growth by just 1 percent, we would see 
average incomes rise by $4,200. Just get the growth rate from an 
average of 2 percent, which is what the CBO is projecting for the next 
10 years, to 3 percent, and incomes go up by $4,200. We would see an 
additional 1.2 million jobs created in our economy, and we would see 
much faster increases in the standard of living.
  So many younger Americans today are finding that they are not able to 
enjoy the same standard of living that was enjoyed by their parents 
because of a sluggish economy that is growing in that 1-percent to 2-
percent range. One of the ways to achieve that kind of growth, to get 
back to a 3- to 4-percent growth in our economy, is to reform our 
broken Tax Code.
  The current Tax Code is costly, complex, and frequently unfair. Some 
corporations benefit from special rules, deductions, and credits, while 
others are forced to pay the highest corporate tax rates in the 
developed world. More and more American companies are focusing their 
business operations overseas because the tax situation is so much 
better abroad. That means American jobs are going overseas with them. 
Instead of pushing employees out of the country, we should bring our 
Nation's tax rates in line with those of other countries to keep more 
jobs here in the United States.
  We should make our whole Tax Code flatter, fairer, and less complex. 
Our Tax Code should work for all taxpayers, not just a privileged few. 
A simpler, flatter, and fairer Tax Code will make U.S. businesses more 
competitive in the global economy, and it will help businesses create 
new good-paying jobs for American workers. It will jump-start our 
economy and ensure long-term economic growth.
  Finally, Mr. President, Republicans in the Senate have another 
important trust to uphold this year, and that is confirming a new 
Supreme Court Justice. We are committed to confirming a well-qualified 
nominee with the right temperament to sit on the Court and have the 
proper understanding of the role of the Court in our country. Supreme 
Court Justices are umpires. They call balls and strikes; they don't 
write the rules of the game. The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to 
interpret the law and the Constitution, not rewrite the law based on 
his or her personal opinions.
  Democrats have spent a lot of time talking about the need for nine 
Justices on the Supreme Court. Republicans trust that they will follow 
through on their statements by working with us to confirm the 
President's nominee.
  To every American who voted for change in November, to every American 
frustrated with the sluggish economy and a lack of opportunity, I want 
to say again that we hear you. The Republicans hear you. We are not 
going to let you down. We will spend the 115th Congress fighting for 
your priorities, and we will not rest until every American has access 
to a future of security, hope, and opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what is the issue before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Tillerson nomination.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil has been nominated to be 
our Secretary of State. We are going through a procedural 30 hours of 
debate, moving to that issue. As we can tell, many speeches are being 
given on the floor on a lot of different topics, but the underlying 
order of business is the next Secretary of State of the United States 
of America. His nomination comes to us at a particularly challenging 
time. We live in a dangerous world. We know that. We learned it on 9/
11, and we learn it every day when men and women in uniform are risking 
and sometimes sacrificing their lives for this great Nation.
  We also live in a complicated moment in time with the changeover in 
Presidents and clearly a changeover in foreign policy. We note that in 
the first 12 days--the first 12 days of the Trump Presidency--how many 
serious foreign policy issues have arisen, some the creation of the new 
President of the United States.

[[Page 1382]]

  It is customary, it is traditional, for the President of the United 
States to make one of his first major visits to Mexico, or Mexico to 
the United States. The reason, of course, is they are our third largest 
trading partner, and in so many different areas, we work together 
closely with Mexico. We certainly work together with them on issues of 
security, issues of terrorism and narcotics and trade issues that go 
on, on a daily basis. Unfortunately, this new President Trump is off to 
a rocky start with the President of Mexico, to the point where the 
President of Mexico canceled his visit to the United States.
  Strong statements were made during the campaign by President Trump 
about building a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it. How many times 
did we hear that? Over and over again, the Mexican Government has said: 
We will never pay for it. So that standoff over a campaign threat or 
promise is at this moment inhibiting a relationship which traditionally 
has been strong for generations.
  Secondly, since being elected President of the United States, 
President Trump has said that NATO is obsolete. NATO is the alliance 
created after World War II to protect Europe against aggression from 
outside, particularly from the Soviet Union. Since the fall of the 
Soviet Union, NATO has expanded to include many other countries--the 
Baltics, for example, and Poland. As a result, these countries have 
become dependent on NATO for their security.
  The theory behind NATO is very basic. If one of our NATO allies is 
attacked, we will all defend. So we can understand why a small country 
like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, even Poland, realizing that they are 
vulnerable to Russian attack, count on NATO. When the President of the 
United States says that NATO is obsolete, people living in those 
countries wonder: What about tomorrow? What happens tomorrow if 
Vladimir Putin, who has been guilty of aggression in Georgia, as well 
as Ukraine, decides to pick a Baltic country next?
  So the uncertainty created by President Trump's statement on NATO is 
one that haunts us to this moment.
  But the one that is really overwhelming over the last few days is 
President Trump's Executive order when it came to refugees and 
immigration. The story of refugees in the United States does not have a 
good start. Going back to World War II, a man named Breckinridge Long 
was in charge of immigration into the United States during that war. He 
worked in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt. Sadly, his view on 
refugees was harsh, and as a result, the United States was caught up 
many times denying access to the safety of the United States to people 
who were vulnerable to persecution and genocide. The most noteworthy 
example was the SS St. Louis in 1939, which brought 900 people from 
Nazi Germany to the United States to escape the Holocaust. They were 
turned away. They were forced back into Europe, and hundreds died as a 
result of it. That was the policy of the day.
  When Robert Wagner, the Senator from New York, asked that we allow 
10,000 German children to come into the United States to escape the 
Holocaust, that measure was defeated in committee in the U.S. Senate--
children coming to the United States.
  After World War II, when we saw 6 million Jews killed in the 
Holocaust and so many others whose lives were compromised and lost, we 
decided to change the U.S. approach when it came to refugees. Instead 
of pushing back against them, we began to embrace them. And do you know 
what has happened since? We developed a reputation around the world as 
the safe place to be, the country that cared. Ask over 600,000 Cubans 
who came to the U.S. shores to escape Castro's regime. Remember, at 
that time, Castro had allied with the Soviet Union, our mortal enemy of 
the Cold War. Yet, without vetting--without extreme vetting--we said to 
these Cubans: You are welcome to be safe in the United States, and they 
came in the thousands. Are they an important part of America? You bet 
they are, and there are three Cuban-American U.S. Senators to prove it.
  Today, a question has been raised by the Trump regime as to what our 
view is going to be toward refugees in the future. Thank goodness we 
didn't raise it with Cuba, nor did we raise it when Jews in the Soviet 
Union were facing persecution. They asked for a chance to come to the 
United States. Synagogues and communities across the United States 
opened their arms and gave them a chance, and over 100,000 came to our 
shores. We are better for it. We really have demonstrated that our 
ideals and values as a nation apply to those who came to our shores.
  The list goes on and on, from Yugoslavia to Viet Nam, to Somalia, and 
many other places where the United States has shown that we are a 
caring nation. Now comes this new President who says: It is America 
first; we are going to redefine this refugee policy.
  Well, this redefinition of America around the world is something that 
many of us believe is just plain wrong. These Executive orders were 
issued by President Trump without consultation with even his own 
Cabinet members who have been appointed. Those in the area of national 
security, for example, weren't consulted before these Executive orders 
went into effect. When I talked to the Department of Homeland Security 
and Customs and Border Protection, it turns out they were given 
instructions at the last minute as to how to treat passengers coming 
into international terminals over the weekend.
  I know what happened at O'Hare. Over 130 people were stopped and 
detained and questioned, and some were never allowed to board planes in 
other countries, and some were returned to those countries. It was 
chaotic. It didn't show basic competency in running a government, and 
it was fundamentally unfair.
  Let me say it wasn't just a matter of an uncomfortable situation. It 
wasn't just a situation of people being inconvenienced. One of our 
priorities when it comes to refugees, even from those seven countries 
that President Trump noted, were those who were in desperate medical 
conditions. So when the President said: I just wanted a pause--a pause 
for these seven countries--let me ask what we think that pause means to 
that 9-year-old Somali child in an Ethiopian refugee camp with a 
congenital heart disease that can't be treated anymore in that camp and 
who was finally going to get to come for medical care in the United 
States. That pause by President Trump could be deadly. A 1-year-old 
Sudanese boy with cancer. A Somali boy with a severe intestinal 
disorder living in a camp that doesn't even have medical facilities. A 
pause. We will get it together. We will get back to you later. That is 
the kind of human condition that is being affected by these orders 
issued by our new President. Is it any wonder that so many people 
around the world have reacted?
  First, they should react when it comes to our security. Do we know 
how many terrorist refugees have come from these seven countries on the 
list? None. Not one. Not one Syrian refugee has engaged in terrorist 
activities in the United States. If you watched ``60 Minutes'' over the 
weekend, you will understand why.
  This is not an easy ask. You don't just hold up your hand and say: I 
am ready to go to the United States. You first submit your name to the 
U.N. Commission on Refugees. Then we cull the list to find the ones we 
might consider in the United States, and that is about 1 percent. Then 
we put them through a vetting process that can go on for 2 years--2 
years of being interrogated, investigated, examined, watched, and 
challenged. Then, finally, after those years, they may have a chance to 
come to the United States.
  So now we are going to move to extreme vetting? What is that going to 
be--trial by fire? What is left? We are doing the very best. The fact 
that there has not been one refugee from any of these countries engaged 
in terrorism is an indication that we have a good process that is 
stronger than any nation on Earth. Yet the President has said we are 
going to stop these refugees from coming indefinitely from Syria and 
for months from these other six countries.

[[Page 1383]]

  Then he made a statement on a Christian broadcasting show that he was 
on that really went far over the line. During the course of the 
campaign, he said repeatedly: This will be a Muslim ban. Then he said: 
They told me to stop saying ``Muslim ban,'' so he stopped for a while.
  It turns out that Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, said: 
Well, he called me in and said, How do I put together something legal 
that is a Muslim ban? I think Mayor Giuliani may have been speaking out 
of school, but it is an indication of what was really going on in the 
Trump campaign and this administration.
  On this Christian broadcasting show, the President was explicit that 
he would give priority to Christians because he believes they would be 
persecuted in those countries. That flies in the face of some 
fundamentals in this country--the fundamentals of our Constitution--
because we have said that when it comes to religion, this government 
shall not favor any religion. Here we have the President of the United 
States on a television show saying the opposite.
  It is being challenged in court, at least to some extent. It has been 
slowed down by retraining orders issued by Federal courts and judges 
around this country.
  Last night, the Acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, said that in 
good conscience, she could not defend President Trump's decisions in 
these Executive orders. For that act of courage, she was fired. I am 
sure she expected it. But I want to say that for a woman who has given 
her life--20 years of it, at least--as a prosecutor and who had an 
exemplary career at the Department of Justice, my hat goes off to her. 
I think she did what she thought was right and faced the consequences. 
History will prove her right and this decision by the administration 
wrong.
  So now we have Rex Tillerson, who wants to be Secretary of State of 
the United States of America. How would you like to take over that job 
tomorrow in light of what I have just mentioned--the Executive orders 
issued by the President without consultation with the Department of 
State; judging NATO to be obsolete in his Twitter; and then having a 
relationship with Mexico where the President is cancelling trips to the 
United States, not to mention other things said about China and other 
countries. It is an awesome challenge. It is a challenge that we have 
to ask whether Mr. Tillerson is prepared for. He has had 40 years of 
success with ExxonMobil, starting as a production engineer and going to 
the top of the company. Now the question is, Is he ready to give up his 
loyalty to a company and to have a loyalty to a country even if the 
decisions he has to make as Secretary of State may be inconsistent with 
the best business policy for that company?
  I am going to yield the floor. I see my colleague from the State of 
Wyoming is here. I believe this will be ongoing, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


               Nominations of Jeff Sessions and Tom Price

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the current 
Presiding Officer for his ascension to the chair of the Indian Affairs 
Committee in the U.S. Senate. It is a committee with a great history of 
bipartisan efforts working together. It is a committee on which I was 
privileged to serve and still serve and of which I have been the 
chairman in the past. I am looking forward to the distinguished Senator 
from North Dakota taking over the mantle of responsibility, and I know 
he will continue to work hard, as he has since joining the Senate, in 
the efforts on behalf of so many Americans.
  I also come to the floor about what is going on in the Senate with 
regard to confirming nominations in a Cabinet that I believe is truly 
an all-star Cabinet--truly an all-star Cabinet. I think it gets better 
as we keep confirming one nominee after another. Last week I spoke on 
the floor about what a great job I believe Scott Pruitt is going to do 
as head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Today I wish to talk 
about two more examples.
  First, there is the nomination of our friend and colleague, Senator 
Jeff Sessions from Alabama, to be Attorney General. Those of us who 
have served with Senator Sessions over the years know he is a man of 
uncommon decency, of fairness, and of integrity. We know his dedication 
to the law is absolute.
  In 1999, Senator Sessions came to the floor to speak in support of 
awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. In that speech, he 
said: ``Equal treatment under the law is a fundamental pillar upon 
which our republic rests.'' We saw Senator Sessions' devotion to this 
idea again and again and again. He introduced legislation to reduce the 
differences in the kinds of sentences that could be handed out to 
people convicted of similar drug crimes. He teamed up with Senator Ted 
Kennedy to pass legislation protecting prisoners from sexual assault 
behind bars.
  The job of Attorney General is to be America's top law enforcement 
officer and attorney. Jeff Sessions has shown himself to be an 
outstanding attorney. He worked as a frontline prosecutor. He spent 12 
years as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. He was 
attorney general of the State of Alabama, and he has spent 20 years 
here as a U.S. Senator.
  If confirmed as Attorney General, he will be one of the most 
qualified people ever to hold this job. These qualifications include an 
exceptional knowledge of how the Justice Department works and the 
priorities of the people who work there.
  The Attorney General oversees the work of more than 100,000 people. 
Most of them are law enforcement, working for agencies like the FBI and 
the Drug Enforcement Administration. I think these men and women are 
going to find that Jeff Sessions is their greatest champion, and I 
think they are going to greet his arrival at the Justice Department 
with a wonderful ovation. National law enforcement groups have already 
endorsed his nomination, and so have groups representing Federal and 
local prosecutors. He is going to enforce the laws passed by Congress 
in a fair and impartial manner. That is exactly what America needs in 
its Attorney General.
  The second person I want to talk about is Congressman Tom Price. Tom 
has been nominated to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 
Just as Jeff Sessions has devoted his life to the law, Tom Price has 
devoted his life to caring for the health of patients and the American 
people.
  Dr. Price practiced medicine for 20 years. He was medical director of 
the orthopedic clinic at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta. Grady 
Memorial Hospital is a public safety-net hospital in Atlanta, and many, 
many of its patients are low income. Dr. Price saw each and every day 
the challenges that people faced in America's broken health care 
system, both the patients and the people who are trying to provide the 
care. That is why he has taken health care reform so seriously as a 
Member of Congress. He did as well when he was in the Georgia State 
legislature. He understands and he understood immediately why so many 
parts of ObamaCare simply would not work when they were passed and 
signed into law some 6 years ago. Like a lot of us, he warned the 
health care law would actually make things worse for millions of 
Americans--and Tom Price has proven right.
  It is time for the Department of Health and Human Services to have 
leadership that understands that patients should not become a political 
tool. Congressman Price is actually the first medical doctor to be 
nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services since 
1989. That kind of knowledge and the background he has is essential for 
dealing with the challenges the Department faces today.
  The wheels are falling off of America's health care system. We need 
leaders--leaders who are more than just professional bureaucrats, which 
is what we have had. We need someone who understands health care 
deeply, and who cares about putting patients first, not politics.
  Tom Price has shown he can reach across the aisle to get things done. 
It is

[[Page 1384]]

what he did in the State legislature in Georgia, and it is what he has 
done in the House of Representatives here in Washington. Tom worked 
with Democrats to make sure that Medicare patients could continue to 
get access to medical equipment like blood sugar monitors and oxygen 
tanks. He did the same thing when he introduced a bipartisan measure to 
stop burdensome new regulations affecting patients who need a new hip 
or a new knee joint. As Secretary of Health and Human Services, he is 
going to listen--listen to the best arguments of both sides, and then 
he is going to do what is right for the health of the American people.
  ObamaCare has to go. It has failed miserably. We all know that. Even 
Democrats in Congress who wrote the law realize how flawed it really 
is. It is time for us now to focus on what can be done to replace 
ObamaCare and make American health care work once again.
  I have seen media reports that Democrats want to obstruct the 
nomination of Tom Price as well as that of Jeff Sessions. I expect 
Democrats will plan to grandstand for political purposes because they 
have no real objections to either person's qualifications or 
credentials.
  Democrats' complaint is that they lost the Presidential election. 
Well, the President deserves to have his Cabinet in place. That is why 
Republicans didn't object to President Obama getting seven of his 
Cabinet members on his very first day in office in 2009. By this point 
in time, President Obama had a significant number of his Cabinet--over 
20 members--confirmed in 2009, and we look at where we are today, with 
President Trump's Cabinet and the obstruction of the Democrats. It is 
unfortunate that Democrats have decided not to follow the example of 
Republicans when Barack Obama came to the White House.
  Political spite isn't a good enough reason for delay. Democrats need 
to get over it and get on with it. Attorney General of the United 
States and Secretary of Health and Human Services are big jobs. They 
are important jobs, and they are necessary jobs. It is time for the 
Senate to move as soon as possible to confirm both Jeff Sessions and 
Tom Price to the Cabinet.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant minority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Wyoming from the other 
side of the aisle is my friend. We spend time in the gym together; I go 
there regularly--for no apparent reason. But we are friends, and we 
disagree on some political issues. I just wish to clarify one or two 
things.
  When it comes to Congressman Price, I don't know him personally. He 
has been chosen by President Trump to head up the Department of Health 
and Human Services, one of the biggest and most important. He has 
stated, as a Member of Congress from Georgia, that he believes we 
should change the Social Security system as well as the Medicare system 
and privatize Medicare. That is a worrisome suggestion for 50 million 
or more Americans who count on Medicare and do not exactly look forward 
to being placed in the loving arms of an insurance company at some 
point late in their lives. So there are questions there.
  But the question at hand was brought to the attention of the American 
public today, not in some liberal newspaper, but in the Wall Street 
Journal. It turns out that Congressman Price has been engaged in the 
purchase of stock that has a direct impact on the medical profession. 
Whether he properly filed disclosures in buying that stock or whether 
he did something improper is still to be resolved.
  Part of the reason the nominees for President Trump are taking longer 
than others is that many, like Congressman Price, have extensive 
financial holdings. We found that when a billionaire from Chicago--
Penny Pritzker--was nominated for Secretary of Commerce under President 
Obama, it took literally 6 months for us to gather all the financial 
information about her and to divest her of any potential conflicts of 
interest. It turns out that many of these nominees did not have their 
ethics filings on file in time to be considered in a timely fashion, 
and, in some cases, information about them was found to be in conflict 
with reality, and now there is a further investigation necessary. It 
isn't just a matter of spite; it is a matter of doing our due 
diligence, as required by the Constitution and required in the U.S. 
Senate.


                          Affordable Care Act

  A word about ObamaCare: My friend from Wyoming, a medical doctor 
himself, has felt strongly against the Affordable Care Act since its 
passage. I view it a lot differently.
  There are currently 1.2 million Illinoisans--1 out of 10 in our 
State--who have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. 
Over half of them are now brought into the Medicaid system, the others 
are on insurance exchanges, and many of them have their premiums 
subsidized by our Federal Government.
  In addition, every person in America who has a health insurance plan 
has benefited by the Affordable Care Act. Why? Because we took some of 
the worst abuses in health insurance and said: You can no longer do 
that and sell health insurance in this country. One example is lifetime 
caps--caps on the amount of money that a policy will play. Now, 
$100,000 in coverage may sound like a lot, until you are diagnosed with 
cancer--and then it disappears in a matter of days and weeks. So we 
eliminated lifetime caps on coverage.
  The second most important thing we did was to say: You can't 
discriminate against someone because they have a preexisting condition. 
Is there anyone alive that doesn't have some preexisting condition? If 
it was bad enough in the bad old days before the Affordable Care Act, 
that was enough to either disqualify them from health insurance or to 
run the premiums up to the high heavens. Now you can no longer be 
discriminated against because your husband has diabetes, your wife 
survived breast cancer, or your child has survived a cancer scare 
themselves. We have eliminated that in all health insurance policies.
  The third thing we did was to say that every health insurance policy 
sold in the United States has to cover mental illness and substance 
abuse treatment. The people who pushed for that--Democratic Senator 
Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Republican Pete Domenici of New 
Mexico--both had family histories of mental illness, and they said 
health insurance ought to cover mental illness. They finally prevailed. 
It was included in the Affordable Care Act, so it means that, across 
the board, all of us who buy health insurance are buying care for 
mental illness.
  Is substance abuse treatment important? Think about the opioid and 
heroin epidemic across the United States--across my State of Illinois. 
Where would these families be, with a person in the family suffering 
from addiction, if the health insurance plan didn't provide some 
coverage? The Affordable Care Act requires that.
  When the Republicans say that they want to repeal it, the obvious 
question is: And then what? What happens next, when the insurance 
companies can stop covering these critical areas?
  There is another thing. My wife and I have raised some kids who have 
gone through college, and when they finished college they didn't quite 
go into their long, permanent career. They had a bunch of jobs, looking 
for the right place.
  I can recall calling my daughter, fresh out of the University of 
Wisconsin, and saying: Jen, do you have health insurance? I know you 
did as a student.
  She said: Dad, I'm fine. I'm strong and healthy. I don't need it.
  That is the last thing a father wants to hear.
  Do you know what the Affordable Care Act says? My daughter--anyone's 
daughter--up to the age of 26 can stay on my family plan. How about 
that for common sense? There are 90,000 young people in Illinois 
protected by the family plans because of that provision. Now we hear 
from the Senator from Wyoming that this is a big failure and we have to 
repeal it.
  The last thing we did is important to every senior citizen on 
Medicare across

[[Page 1385]]

the United States. There used to be something called the doughnut hole. 
It is even hard to describe, but it related to paying seniors for their 
prescription drugs. Here is what it said; try to follow this: We will 
cover you for the first few months of the year, with Medicare paying 
the prescription drug cost. Then you are on your own for 3 or 4 months. 
Once you have delved into your own personal savings up to a certain 
amount, we will come back and cover you again.
  Go figure. It would take a Congressman or a Senator to dream up 
something like that, and seniors across the country felt completely 
vulnerable. When they went into that period of no coverage, many of 
them stopped taking their drugs. That is not a good thing. So we closed 
that gap. We closed that doughnut hole.
  What does it mean to seniors in Illinois? On average, they save 
$1,000 a year because the Affordable Care Act brought this reform to 
Medicare. Now the Republicans say: Let's repeal that. Do they want to 
explain to the seniors in my State that they now have to turn for their 
savings for that gap period again? We don't want to see that happen.
  For 6 years, Republicans have said repeatedly that they want to 
repeal ObamaCare. Repeal ObamaCare. They say it in their sleep. They 
have vote after vote--I think 60 different votes in the House--to 
repeal it, knowing it would never happen with President Obama in the 
White House. Now, the dog done caught the bus. Here they are, in the 
majority in the House and the Senate with a Republican President, and 
their first order of business: Repeal ObamaCare.
  Do you know what they are learning? All across the United States, 
medical health care providers--hospitals, doctors, clinics, and 
others--are telling them that will be a disaster. If you eliminate the 
Affordable Care Act without a replacement as good or better, you are 
going to leave chaos in the system and a lot of people without the 
protection of health insurance.
  So after 6 years, you would think the Republicans would have a 
replacement plan. Right? A substitute. They have had all this time to 
think about it. No, not yet; they are still thinking about it, but they 
are determined to repeal.
  I met with hospital administrators around my State last weekend and 
will continue to in the future. They are worried. We estimate Illinois 
hospitals will lose over 90,000 jobs with the repeal of the Affordable 
Care Act. We know that downstate hospitals and hospitals in rural 
areas--in many States represented here--are going to be forced to 
close. What happens when you close that smalltown hospital in downstate 
Illinois? What used to be a 20-minute ride to the hospital becomes a 1-
hour drive. How important is that? Well, when you are in labor, it is 
important or if you just had a farm accident or you are responding to 
something that happened on the highway, it is critical, life-or-death 
important. So you would think Republicans would have a plan to keep 
these hospitals open. They don't. We haven't seen a substitute.
  They rail against ObamaCare; they rail against the Affordable Care 
Act. They don't criticize the individual components I have described 
because they are wildly popular with the American people.
  The irony of this is that we have spent 6 years trying to convince 
people that the Affordable Care Act, even with its flaws and faults--
and it has them, but even with that, it is good for America. We got 
nowhere. We were beating our heads against the wall.
  Then, when the Republicans took over and started talking about 
repeal, people were stepping back and saying: What am I going to lose 
if they repeal it? The approval rating for the Affordable Care Act 
since Donald Trump was elected is going up, as people come now to 
finally understand the value of it for their families and their 
businesses.
  So I say to my friends on the Republican side, as I have said over 
and over again: The Affordable Care Act is not a perfect law. The only 
perfect law was carried down the side of a mountain by Senator Moses on 
clay tablets. Everything else can be improved, and I am ready to sign 
up for that improvement. First, jettison this whole talk of repeal. It 
is totally irresponsible. If we want to have a constructive 
conversation about how to make the Affordable Care Act more affordable, 
covering more people, finally doing something about prescription drug 
costs, let's sit down and do it together on a bipartisan basis. 
Starting with repeal is a nonstarter.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I want to express my support for Rex 
Tillerson to be our next Secretary of State. Mr. Tillerson is one of 
the most distinguished businessmen in the world. His reputation 
precedes him. I don't have to recount for all of you his remarkable 
career--rising from an entry-level production engineer to CEO of 
ExxonMobil, the largest oil company in the world. Mr. Tillerson's story 
should be an inspiration to kids across this country: Through hard 
work, discipline, and striving, you can achieve your dreams, even if 
you weren't born into wealth, power, or privilege. Like the Boy Scouts 
he has mentored, like the Eagle Scout he was, Mr. Tillerson inspires by 
his example.
  No one can doubt Mr. Tillerson has acquired a wide range of skills 
throughout his notable life, as well as a gold-plated reputation. I 
think it goes without saying that a man of such varied experiences will 
bring a well-informed and shrewd perspective to the post. In fact, I 
would suggest that it is the very perspective which recommends him most 
for the job.
  I met with him in December, and we had a wide-ranging conversation 
about Russia, the Middle East, human rights, and the many other 
geopolitical challenges and opportunities facing our country. I was 
impressed by the breadth of his knowledge, his familiarity with so many 
world leaders, and his understanding of their peoples. The one thing 
that really stood out to me was his clear-eyed, hard-nosed prudence. It 
is little wonder that Mr. Tillerson comes highly recommended by Dick 
Cheney and Bob Gates, seasoned statesmen with no illusions about the 
world and no doubts about America's role in it. I am confident that as 
Secretary of State, he will protect the interests of the American 
people just as he protected the interests of ExxonMobil's shareholders 
as their CEO.
  I have heard some Senators wonder whether a businessman can really 
walk away from a company and its financial interests--as if it were the 
money that made the man, instead of the man who made the money. Their 
concern reminds me of similar questions raised about one of the best 
Secretaries of State in the modern era, George Shultz. When President 
Reagan nominated him, Secretary Shultz was president and director of 
the Bechtel Group, a large construction concern with business across 
the Arab world. People asked whether Secretary Shultz would therefore 
tilt U.S. policy toward those countries. I think anyone looking back 
today on his record would marvel at those fears.
  In 2015, the World Jewish Congress awarded Secretary Shultz its 
prestigious Theodor Herzl Award on behalf of his work with America's 
good friend Israel. Yes, Secretary Shultz went on to lead a very 
successful tenure, working with different countries all over the world 
and always putting America's interests front and center.
  If anything, Rex Tillerson's business experience will only enhance 
his ability to provide the President his sound, unbiased judgment. If 
you need any more evidence, just look at the way Mr. Tillerson has 
conducted himself throughout the confirmation process. He has answered 
every question and addressed every concern. He has been calm and steady 
under pressure. These are precisely the qualities we need in our next 
Secretary of State.
  Today, I offer my strong support for an outstanding businessman and 
an American patriot, our next Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the nomination.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page 1386]]


  Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, this afternoon I 
had an opportunity to meet with King Abdallah of Jordan. During that 
conversation with Members of the Senate, there was a good deal of 
discussion about foreign policy challenges that are very much a part of 
this debate on Mr. Tillerson.
  It was interesting to listen to King Abdallah of Jordan talk about 
his country's commitment to refugees. They have taken in refugees from 
many parts of that region--from Iraq, Yemen, and other countries. They 
have taken in over 600,000 refugees from Syria. I think King Abdallah 
used a number. If you wanted to use a comparable number of refugees 
coming into America, it would be equivalent to about 60 million 
refugees coming into our country. Let me remind you that in Syria, 
President Obama committed to 10,000. It is literally a drop in the 
bucket compared to what Jordan has done in accepting refugees. It just 
underscores even more how wrong President Trump's Executive order over 
the weekend was, which put a hold on our refugee program and restricted 
travel to the United States.
  The vetting that goes forward in Jordan in regard to refugees is 
under the auspices of the United Nations, and of those who are seeking 
refugee status, a very small percentage--I understand it is less than 
one percent--will actually ever get a chance to be considered for 
refugee status here in the United States. Let me remind you that we are 
talking about, generally, women and children who are fleeing 
persecution, who have established themselves as refugees. They go 
through several screening procedures. Their background is thoroughly 
checked. They check all of the different indices as far as different 
agencies are concerned to make sure that they have no concern. Then a 
small percentage of that number actually ever gets to the United 
States. It takes 18 to 24 months. To date, there hasn't been a single 
episode of terrorism from a Syrian refugee. We have a pretty strong 
vetting process--the strongest in the world--that very much puts 
American security first.
  It was disheartening for me to listen to King Abdallah talk about the 
sacrifices his country has made. Of the 650,000 refugees that Jordan 
has taken in from Syria, the King indicated that about 90 percent are 
integrated into the Jordanian society. They are not in camps. They are 
in their schools, in their communities. They have been able to make 
sure that the refugees are well cared for. It is a huge part of the 
budget. I think the King indicated that maybe 20 percent of the 
Jordanian budget deals with refugees. That is a country that 
understands their regional responsibilities and international 
responsibilities.
  The United States has been the leader in the global community, 
recognizing that the flight of people--the refugees--represents not 
only a humanitarian requirement for the global community but also 
security issues. We have to have an orderly process for those who are 
fleeing persecution, and the United States has always been in the 
leadership. We have been in the leadership in opening our borders. We 
are proud of the refugees that came to this country after World War II, 
from Cambodia, Vietnam, and Cuba. There is a long list of those who 
have escaped persecution coming here to the United States and helping 
to build this great country. We recognize that diversity is our 
strength. This made us the great Nation that we are.
  For all those reasons, it was very disheartening to hear President 
Trump's Executive order, where he really questions whether America is 
committed to its traditional values, whether we are going to maintain 
our international leadership, whether we are going to be credible when 
we deal with other countries around the world to take on the 
responsibilities of dealing with the flight of people who are escaping 
persecution.
  I mentioned all this because the Secretary of State is the key 
diplomat that we have for America and to use America's power of 
persuasion, of using diplomacy, of using the tools at our disposal 
under the Department of State, including development assistance for how 
we can, in fact, promote those values. We need someone who is going to 
be able to speak out about these policies that were announced over the 
weekend because they weaken America. They make us less safe. I brought 
this out: In reality what you are talking about is how do you engage 
other countries around the world to help us in our war against terror 
when we tell them that Muslims aren't really welcome here in America 
and it is a majority-Muslim country? How does that work? How do we 
protect Americans who are traveling abroad who may be subjected to 
physical danger because of the statements that have been made by our 
President? How do you protect this country from the concerns about 
homegrown terrorism, which might, in fact, be encouraged by the 
recruitment of terrorists as a result of what the President has done in 
his Executive order?
  For all those reasons, it is even more important for us to have as 
the next Secretary of State a person who is committed to the core 
values of this country--that it is part of their gut, and that they 
will be a strong advocate for those issues. I have already indicated 
during the questioning in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that 
we did not see that moral clarity in regard to Mr. Tillerson and in 
regard to those values.
  The second issue that came up in King Abdallah's meeting was very 
interesting. We had a long discussion about Russia and about Russia's 
influence. We know about Russia's influence in Ukraine. We had a little 
discussion about Russia's desires in regard to the Baltics and whether 
the Baltics could be the next Ukraine, as far as Russia's aggression. 
We know that Russia is already in Georgia. Russia is already in 
Moldova. Russia is in Ukraine. Do they have their sights now set for 
Lithuania or Latvia or Estonia or Poland, where there is a large 
Russian-speaking population?
  Interesting observations were made that if Russia sees that we don't 
have resolve, they will use that opportunity to expand their influence. 
We saw that in the Middle East. We saw how in the Middle East Russia, 
which a few years ago had very little influence in the Middle East, now 
has a growing influence in the Middle East--not only in Syria but in 
other countries in that region where you see Russia's active 
engagement. So this is not theoretical.
  Russia's interests are different than our interests. Make no mistake 
about that. They don't share our values. They are not our friends. They 
are trying to compromise our democratic institutions. We have seen that 
over and over--not only the attack on our election system here in the 
United States, not only the attack on the system in Montenegro in 
parliamentary elections, but the concern now in Western Europe, as they 
are entering into the election season. We see over and over what Russia 
has done in denying space for civil society, in compromising dissent in 
their own country, in the way that corruption has been established as 
part of government. All of that is just against the principles that we 
believe in, that we believe the global community has accepted, and that 
leads to the stability in nations and advances America's national 
security interests.
  I must tell you that there are Democrats and Republicans all talking 
about the fact that we have to stand up to Russia. We have to be 
stronger on Russia. Yes, we have been able--thanks to the leadership of 
the Obama Administration--to take the sanctions that were passed by 
Congress. We passed the sanctions. The leadership and Members of the 
Senate and the House have brought about the stronger sanctions regime 
here in the United States. I congratulate my colleague, Senator 
Menendez, who was one of the principal leaders to get stronger 
sanctions

[[Page 1387]]

here in regard to Russia, and other members of our committee who worked 
on that. We were able to get stronger sanctions. At the same time, we 
were able to get Europe to join us in these sanctions, and that helped 
us. But now there is a concern as to whether these sanctions will 
remain.
  President Trump at least has raised that question as to the 
continuation of sanctions. The question becomes this: Should we be 
maintaining those sanctions until Russia complies with the Minsk 
agreement that are relevant to its invasion into Ukraine? But we should 
also be strengthening those sanctions because of Russia's illegal 
activities in attacking our country and in what they are doing in Syria 
in perpetrating war crimes. We should be looking at stronger sanctions 
against Russia.
  I mention all of that because the person who can lead us in that 
effort is our next Secretary of State. We look at Mr. Tillerson and his 
record as the CEO of ExxonMobil, their relationships in Russia, and his 
answers to questions as to whether we should consider additional 
sanctions. Over and over he says: Well, there are multiple 
considerations. To me, that was a red flag that indicated that maybe 
there is some business interest here. Maybe, if there is a business 
interest, we shouldn't let that be more important than the human rights 
advancements and the other areas that we are concerned about.
  In reality, we saw that in the way ExxonMobil lobbied against the 
original sanctions that were imposed against Russia. They lobbied 
against it because they said it didn't create a level playing field for 
U.S. companies. The reason it didn't create a level playing field is 
that the United States is always the leader on sanctions. We always set 
the international bar as to what we need to do, and then the rest of 
the world follows us. But if we take the lowest bar, we will never have 
a tough enough stance against Russia.
  We need, as the next Secretary of State, a person who is going to be 
a leader in saying: We are going to use every one of our diplomatic 
tools to isolate Russia if they continue this activity of interfering 
with our elections, threatening to interfere with European elections, 
interfering with humanitarian assistance in Syria, or if they continue 
their illegal occupation of Crimea. We need that type of leadership. 
That is one of the reasons we have been so much engaged in this debate.
  There are many other issues about which we talked with King Abdallah 
that dealt with foreign policy challenges, including moving forward 
with broader coalitions against ISIS in the region. All of that 
requires the use of all the power we have. We know that our military is 
very strong. We are very proud of our Department of Defense and very 
proud of the men and women who serve in the military. They are the 
guardians of our freedom. We thank them every day for the sacrifices 
they make on behalf of our Nation. We owe it to them to make sure our 
military is only used as a matter of last resort, that we use all of 
our diplomatic skills in order to prevent the unnecessary use of our 
military, that we only use the military when it is absolutely essential 
and it is a matter of last resort.
  We must have as our chief diplomat a person who will carry out that 
strong commitment to our diplomatic skills and agenda in order to make 
sure that we only use the military when necessary.
  We have heard this before. But it was General Mattis who said: If you 
don't fund the Department of State, if you don't give them the 
resources they need for development assistance, you are going to have 
to give me a lot more soldiers.
  Our diplomats can very much keep us safe, and they can do it with 
less risk to our men and women who serve in the military and at less 
cost.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak concerning the nomination 
by President Trump of Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State. I believe 
I am going to be speaking a little bit this afternoon and possibly 
later. This will just be part of my remarks this afternoon.
  First, I am going to say some positive things about Mr. Tillerson's 
career and the importance of the position, but then I want to talk 
about the reason for my opposition, which has to do largely with my 
concern about whether he is capable of exercising truly independent 
judgment on behalf of the United States, particularly given his 41-year 
career with ExxonMobil.
  To begin, Mr. Tillerson has an exemplary record with ExxonMobil. I 
was impressed by it. I have been impressed by his business acumen. I 
think this one would, frankly, be relatively straightforward if he had 
been nominated for Secretary of Commerce. I think it would be 
relatively straightforward had he been nominated for Secretary of 
Energy.
  That is an interesting aspect of some of these nominations. I think 
there are some people who are up who--if they were in other positions, 
they might be easier, but because of the ones they have been nominated 
for, it has made it a little more difficult. I put Mr. Tillerson in 
that category.
  Secretary of State is an enormously important position. We all know 
that it is important, but we, even for the public, separate the 
Secretary of State position from others.
  There are four Cabinet Secretaries who by law are not allowed to be 
involved in political campaigns. They can't go out on the campaign 
trail during election season. They are designated as ``special,'' and I 
think they are special for a reason--Secretary of Defense, Secretary of 
State, Secretary of Treasury, and the Attorney General. The reason 
these four positions are made separate, in my view, is they are 
positions that are supposed to have a special gravity, positions that 
are supposed to be above politics. They are also positions that are 
supposed to have a degree of independence.
  An Attorney General needs to have a degree of independence from a 
President because that individual must weigh in on the legality of 
actions even of the administration in making decisions. I think the 
Secretary of State needs some independence and gravitas as well. That 
is why the Secretary of State position is such a special one.
  I want to focus on this area of independence and the independence I 
wanted to see in a Secretary of State Tillerson and that I did not feel 
comfortable enough after the research I have done and after the hearing 
itself. It fits into three basic categories--issues with respect to 
climate, issues with respect to Russia, and issues with respect to the 
development policy that the United States uses in nations around the 
world, including very poor nations that are resource rich but often 
find that their oil reserves or other natural resources put them into 
kind of a resource-cursed position where, resources notwithstanding, 
they actually trend toward authoritarianism and keeping their citizens 
in poverty.
  Let me start with climate. Climate is an enormously important issue 
in Virginia, as it is to all States, but to give you kind of the 
Virginia focus on climate issues, Virginia voters overwhelmingly 
believe that humans are affecting climate and that something should be 
done about it. We have 134 counties. The eastern part of Virginia--
Hamilton Roads, near the Atlantic--is the second most threatened area 
in the United States to sea level rise. So if you go to Hampton Roads, 
VA--1.6 million people, the center of naval power in the United States 
and the world--what you find is sea level rise accelerating to the 
extent that neighborhoods where you could once sell a house, you can't 
sell it anymore. Flooding that was once every few years is now regular.
  Even our Nation's military operations in Hampton Roads are 
jeopardized. There is a main road leading into the Norfolk Naval Base, 
which is the

[[Page 1388]]

largest naval base in the United States--the largest naval base in the 
world. That road is increasingly flooded just during normal tidal 
conditions. We are not talking about storms; we are talking about 
normal tidal conditions. The inability to get road access into 
America's center of naval power is highly challenging, highly 
problematic. In the future, it is going to be very expensive for us.
  So the climate change issues in Hampton Roads--whether it is 
affecting your ability to sell a house, the ability to conduct naval 
operations--and in many other areas is of deep concern to my State.
  There are climate issues in other parts of my State, from weather 
patterns to warming temperatures wiping out species in the Shenandoah 
National Park because as the temperature warms, the species need to 
move higher and higher, and at some point they can't move any higher. 
So there are endangered species in the Shenandoah National Park because 
of climate issues.
  The issue is not only important to my State, it is a critically 
important part of the job. The Secretary of State in the previous 
administration was involved in crafting the Paris climate accord. 
Nearly 200 nations agreed that climate change is a huge problem and 
that we have to do something about it, and each nation came forward 
voluntarily to craft its own plan so that the world could deal with 
this problem.
  The U.S. played a critical role--Secretary Kerry and others--in 
forging this global coalition around the overwhelming scientific 
consensus. The Secretary of State in this administration, along with 
others--the EPA Administrator--will play a key role in determining 
whether we continue to take seriously climate, whether we continue to 
take seriously the promises we made under the climate accord, or 
whether we go backward. I don't want to go backward because it would 
hurt my State and hurt our country and hurt the world.
  During my examination of Mr. Tillerson during his confirmation 
hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I was not happy 
with the answers with respect to climate issues. The overwhelming 
majority of scientists say that climate change is real and that it is 
caused significantly by the burning of fossil fuels and the release of 
CO2. This is not a controversial conclusion; it should not 
be partisan, either.
  The first climate bill that was introduced in this body was 
introduced by Senator McCain in 2004. Then, in 2007, a predecessor of 
mine, Senator Warner of Virginia, a Republican, and Senator Lieberman 
of Connecticut, a Democrat, introduced a bipartisan bill. Senator 
Warner, now retired--John Warner--still speaks regularly on the 
national security implications of climate change.
  During the hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I 
examined Rex Tillerson about the role of ExxonMobil in climate 
research. ExxonMobil is a company that is chock-full of engineers and 
scientists. It is one of the most accomplished companies in the world 
if you just measure it by the extent of engineering and science talent 
that it has.
  There has been a series of investigative articles in the last few 
years in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Review of Books, and 
Inside Climate News that get into the question of what ExxonMobil knew 
about climate science and what they told the public. I wanted to ask 
Mr. Tillerson about this. Some of the information that I put on the 
table during that examination: There was an internal letter in 
September of 1982 from Exxon's Theoretical and Mathematical Science 
Laboratory. This was during the time Mr. Tillerson was working for the 
company.
  I want to read a quote from this letter which I put into the Record 
as I was examining Mr. Tillerson:

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

  Doubling of atmospheric CO2--

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

  In other words, by 1982 the key scientific research organizations 
within ExxonMobil, which has a sterling cadre of scientists and 
researchers, said: Here is our view of the scientific research--and not 
just other scientific research, they did their own studies to replicate 
it. They concluded that the burning of fossil fuels was going to lead 
potentially to a significant increase in global temperature, with 
catastrophic climate effects.
  There is other information as well that ExxonMobil had within it 
during Mr. Tillerson's tenure with the company. But by 2000, ExxonMobil 
in its face to the public was saying something very different. Despite 
the internal recognition of climate science and the potential effects 
on the economy and on our atmosphere and despite scientists with 
ExxonMobil saying we have an ethical duty to share these facts with the 
scientific community, by 2000, ExxonMobil was publishing, in major 
publications in this country, op-eds--full-page op-eds in newspapers 
and magazines. I am going to read a quote from one, an ExxonMobil 
published op-ed in 2001:

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

  So, from 1982, there were scientists at ExxonMobil who were aware of 
it and were saying we have a duty to share this with the public and 
with our fellow scientists, but by 2000, in statements to the American 
public--all during Rex Tillerson's tenure at ExxonMobil--the company 
was taking a very different position.
  I summarized this material during my examination of Mr. Tillerson 
before the Foreign Relations Committee, and I asked him: What do you 
have to say about this evidence and about the numerous public reports 
that ExxonMobil knew about climate science but made a decision to tell 
the American public something different? A pretty straightforward 
question from a Senator whose State is experiencing climate change, a 
pretty important question for a nominee who will be in charge of, as 
Secretary of State, carrying out our obligations under agreements, such 
as the Paris climate agreement.
  Mr. Tillerson's answer to me was a little surprising. He said: Oh, I 
can't answer this. You are going to have to ask somebody at ExxonMobil.
  He had stepped away from ExxonMobil a few days before the hearing. I 
was puzzled by it. So I went back to him and I said: Well, wait a 
minute. I want to make sure I got this right. You were at ExxonMobil 
for 41 years.
  That is right.
  You were an executive at ExxonMobil for more than half of your tenure 
there; isn't that right?
  That is right.
  You were the CEO of ExxonMobil beginning, I believe, in 2006; am I 
right about that?
  You are right about that.
  I am not asking the company's position. You now are no longer at 
ExxonMobil. I am asking you, as somebody who is going to be in charge 
of carrying forward America's obligations under the Paris climate 
accord, whether the allegation that ExxonMobil knew about climate 
science but chose to say something different to the American public--I 
am going to ask you if you can answer that question.
  And he came back again and said: You are going to have to ask 
somebody at ExxonMobil.

[[Page 1389]]

  I then asked Mr. Tillerson a really important question. I said this: 
Do you lack the knowledge to answer my questions or are you refusing to 
answer my questions?
  And he said: A little bit of both. A little bit of both.
  And I said to him: You have been there 41 years. I have a hard time 
believing you don't know the answer to this question. I think you are 
refusing to answer my question, and he didn't comment on that.
  I then followed up with one more question to Mr. Tillerson that I 
also think was important because I am a lawyer, and I just wanted to 
make sure I understood this. I asked him: Are you sitting here today 
subject to any kind of a confidentiality agreement that would prohibit 
you from answering the question I just posed to you? And he said no, 
that he was not.
  I asked Mr. Tillerson these questions because I am deeply interested 
in climate change. It affects my State in a significant way, and it is 
directly relevant to his job, but I asked him for another reason as 
well. I am just going to talk for a minute about the reason, and I am 
going to yield to my colleague from Oregon and return later this 
evening on the other points.
  The reason I was asking Mr. Tillerson about this was not just his 
awareness of science, I was asking him to see whether at this point, as 
a nominee for Secretary of State of the United States, he could set 
aside a 41-year loyalty to his previous employer, ExxonMobil, and 
instead focus solely on his obligations to this country if he were to 
be confirmed as Secretary of State.
  I believe he knew the answer to the question I asked him, and he told 
me he was not under any legal agreement that would bar him from 
answering my question, but he, nevertheless, refused to answer my 
question. When I challenged him on it and said: You are refusing to 
answer my question, he basically agreed that was the case.
  I think we are entitled to a Secretary of State who can set aside any 
other loyalty, including an understandable loyalty to an employer of 41 
years, and exercise complete and independent judgment on behalf of the 
interests of this country. The refusal of Mr. Tillerson to answer my 
questions about a matter clearly within his knowledge, clearly within 
the job description of Secretary of State and deeply important to my 
Commonwealth, led me to have significant doubts about whether he could 
separate his previous employment from his independent obligation to 
this job, should he be confirmed.
  I am going to have more to say on a couple of other issues related to 
this independence point when I return later this evening.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's contributions 
and his insights, representing Virginia and representing the United 
States.
  I must say that all of us were quite frustrated by the hearing we 
held with Rex Tillerson. We know that America needs a strong and 
capable Secretary of State. We have many great power issues to wrestle 
with--certainly with Russia, certainly with China. We know we have many 
emerging powers around the globe that will raise issues relevant to the 
security of the United States and the economy of the United States. We 
know the Secretary of State plays a key role in shaping our policy 
toward impoverished nations and how we might facilitate their growth 
and enhance our Nation's relationship with them. Nuclear strategy is 
always an extremely important role.
  This position is perhaps the most important position in the 
administration, second to the Presidency, and it is for that reason 
that we are weighing with such intense attention.
  Already we have challenges that have been raised by the conduct of 
our President over the last 12 days. We have, in 12 days, seen actions 
by President Trump that have diminished our Nation's standing in the 
world, that have offended many of our international neighbors and 
allies, that have weakened the security of our country. So we need a 
capable Secretary of State. We need that person soon.
  Certainly one piece of the pattern we have seen is a new low in the 
relationship with the leadership of Mexico on our southern border, but 
we also have seen actions that have offended over a billion people in 
the world through the Friday night Executive order banning immigration 
from seven Muslim-majority nations along with an order affecting 
refugees fleeing the ravages and devastation of war in many places, but 
Syria is specifically singled out for a longer period of time.
  The President said, well, this is not, in fact, a Muslim ban and that 
it is about the security of the United States of America, but he is 
certainly wrong on both counts. All the nations singled out are Muslim-
majority countries. Not a single immigrant from any of those countries 
has killed an American in a terrorist attack, and the President made a 
very specific point, saying there would be exceptions for Christians, 
meaning there would not be exceptions for Muslims.
  One of his advisers, Rudy Giuliani, even said explicitly that the 
President had wanted to do a Muslim ban and asked him how to do it 
legally. So the intent is crystal clear that this is a ban founded in 
religious discrimination, and a policy based on religious 
discrimination has no place in our Nation. It is completely 
incompatible with our traditions and our principles of religious 
liberty.
  We are a nation built by immigrants, founded by men and women seeking 
safety from religious persecution, adding to the sense that this 
position is wrong and abhorrent. It goes against the fundamental 
building blocks of our Nation and everything we stand for.
  If our history and our fundamental values aren't enough, then we need 
to consider the danger this ban represents for our national security. 
Much of our efforts in the Middle East involve close partnership, close 
teamwork with the leaders of Muslim nations.
  Taking on ISIS involves close coordination and close teamwork with 
the leadership of Muslim nations. In fact, we should be very aware that 
ISIS uses as its recruiting tool that the United States is conducting a 
war on Islam, and the President's actions feed directly in and serve 
the ISIS recruiting strategy.
  The world has reacted with furor. Over the weekend, more than 4,000 
Oregonians attended a pair of my townhall meetings. The first meeting 
was in a room about this size, and I was astounded to see 600 people 
just jammed in, just crowding it. It was the largest townhall I had 
ever had. I do 36 townhalls a year, open forum. People can come and ask 
anything they want.
  Then I went to my second townhall, and it wasn't 600 folks. It was 
3,700 people who turned out just because they heard that a Senator was 
holding a townhall, and they wanted to make their voices heard about 
how wrong they thought it was, the direction that President Trump is 
headed. A key piece of that was certainly his ban on Muslims entering 
our Nation.
  Protests erupted at airports all across our country. I went out on 
Sunday to the Portland Airport. It had been informally organized, the 
protest at 2 o'clock, and I got out there about 2:15. People were 
pouring in. There may have been somewhere around 1,000 people by the 
time I could get out onto the upper level deck of the two levels of the 
airport--the level at which people are arriving for their flights--to 
be able to speak to people.
  The condemnation and opposition didn't just come from the grassroots 
across America. It didn't just come from the spontaneous voices of 
American citizens who value religious liberty, value our traditions, 
value their understanding of our Constitution and wanting to send a 
message to President Trump that he was violating each and every one of 
those things, that opposition came loud and clear from international 
leaders as well.
  Our Canadian neighbors made sure the world knew they welcomed the 
immigrants and refugees that America had slammed the door on.
  German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the President to remind him of 
our Nation's responsibilities, as signatories to the Geneva Convention, 
to

[[Page 1390]]

take in refugees. It is quite embarrassing that a European leader has 
to call an American President to educate him about the Geneva 
Convention.
  France's President Francois Hollande has called for a firm European 
response to this ban; the United Kingdom, whose Prime Minister Theresa 
May just met with President Trump last week, came out against the 
order; and more than a million Britons signed a petition to have the 
British Government rescind its invitation to President Trump to travel 
to London for a state visit.
  Iraq, Iran, Brussels, Scotland, Norway, nation after nation have come 
out to protest this terrible, dangerous policy.
  It is going to be up to our next Secretary of State to repair and 
rebuild these relationships and the reputation of the United States of 
America. So much damage has been done in just 12 days.
  My colleagues Senator McCain and Senator Graham said in a statement 
this weekend: ``This Executive order sends a signal, intended or not, 
that America does not want Muslims coming into our country,'' and 
indeed it does.
  So is Rex Tillerson the right individual to set our Nation back on a 
firm and steady course? Is he the right person to guide us through this 
volatile international landscape, where we need to rebuild alliances 
and restore leadership?
  In short, the answer is that Rex Tillerson is not the right man to do 
it.
  Forty years in the oil and gas market, 40 years in an oil company are 
good preparations for leading an oil company but not good preparation 
for leading the United States of America in international relations, 
not good preparation for serving as our top diplomat, putting out 
fires, calming fears, communicating our policies to the world in this 
volatile moment in history.
  During the hearing, there were a series of questions really related 
to one's moral compass in leading the foreign policy of the United 
States of America. One of the questions I asked about was Exxon's 
effort to set up a subsidiary to evade American sanctions on Iran and 
what did he feel about that as a leader of Exxon. He responded by 
saying: I don't have any memory of this. Really? The top management of 
Exxon decides to set up a subsidiary to circumvent American sanctions 
on Iran with a great deal of national security at stake, and he has no 
memory? Well, that was certainly a disappointing comment and an 
unbelievable statement.
  How about when we asked him about Exxon lobbying against U.S. 
sanctions on Russia because of its annexation of Crimea and the holding 
of territory in the eastern part of Ukraine? He said: Oh, Exxon didn't 
lobby on this. Yet the lobbying reports were right there. We have 
transparency on this. Millions of dollars were spent lobbying on this 
issue, and they certainly weren't lobbying for U.S. sanctions. This was 
a second extraordinary statement by the nominee.
  I then asked the nominee about Exxon's pattern of working with 
dictators to take the royalties for oil and funnel them to the 
dictator's family rather than to the treasury. This is particularly 
true in Equatorial Guinea where President Obiang has declared himself 
President for life. His response was simply: But Senator, we weren't 
successfully prosecuted for violating the law. That is not a statement 
related to moral compass and understanding. Certainly, when a company 
takes a nation's treasure and diverts it into the pockets of a 
dictator, you are affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of 
people. Certainly, the people of Equatorial Guinea are a poor people 
who could use those resources for health care, for transportation 
systems. The President of Equatorial Guinea is famous for filling a 
plane with fancy sports cars from Europe and flying them to Equatorial 
Guinea. And how does he do that? Because Exxon steered the royalties 
for that nation's oil into the pockets of the dictator, but we didn't 
get any sense that there was any concern about the impact that it had 
on the people of that nation.
  Members of the committee asked him about the extrajudicial killings 
by police officers in the Philippines--the extrajudicial killings 
ordered by President Duterte. Young men were shot down in the street. I 
think at last count an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 young men were 
assassinated in the street, and he simply said: I need to get more 
information. This is not something that has been hidden on the back 
pages of the newspaper; this is something fundamentally contrary to the 
principles of due process and justice that our Nation stands for. 
Couldn't the nominee have expressed that this is completely in 
violation of our core principles? But he had no ability to do so.
  We come then to global warming, an impact that is occurring right now 
on the ground in my State. The burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, 
causing an accumulation of carbon dioxide and an accumulation of 
methane, is resulting in the acidification of the ocean. That is 
causing oysters to have difficulty reproducing because it affects the 
formation of their shells at the beginning of their life. The higher 
acidity makes it harder to form shells.
  We see global warming in Oregon in terms of a longer fire season with 
more intense fires. It is burning more forest there than ever before. 
We see it in terms of a lower average snowpack on the Cascades that is 
causing significant drought and smaller and warmer trout streams. This 
isn't some strange phenomenon that we imagine might happen in the 
future; it is happening at this moment. We have high tides that are now 
covering the sidewalks of cities on sunny days. We have moose dying of 
ticks because it is not cold enough to kill the ticks in the winter. We 
have lobsters off Maine traveling further into Canada while they start 
to get fish from the Carolinas. It is everywhere we look. It impacts 
the economy of our country, particularly our rural economy of fishing, 
forestry, and farming. His response was simply: We need to keep talking 
to people about it. He says it is an issue, not particularly urgent, 
not necessitating American leadership, but just something we should be 
at the table for--not at the table to urge others, just be at the 
table. That certainly misses the size of this challenge to our planet.
  Here we are, 12 days into the Presidency with major international 
problems occurring, and we have a nominee who, on issue after issue 
after issue, lacked a moral compass or insight about the complexity of 
issues, about the principles of our Nation. So for these reasons, I am 
voting against the nominee.
  I may well be back to extend my remarks at another moment, but I am 
delighted to yield to my colleague from New Mexico who is standing by 
to make his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, thank you for the recognition, and I thank 
Senator Merkley very much for yielding.
  I have been here on the floor, listening to Senators Kaine and 
Merkley, and I saw Senator Cardin speaking earlier from my office. We 
can see that for many of us who sat through these hearings and heard 
the answers, it didn't give us a lot of confidence that Rex Tillerson 
was going to be able to step in and be the top diplomat for the United 
States of America. So I join in all the comments that have been made 
earlier.
  I want to talk about one of the issues that has developed over the 
last couple of days and that really has bearing on this. For the last 
century, the United States has led the world stage. We are the 
inspiration for countless nations as they nurture hopeful democracies--
democracies that respect human rights and individual liberties. We are 
a nation of freedom, where men and women can work hard, build a happy, 
healthy life, and live the American dream. That is what makes President 
Trump's anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant actions last week so repugnant.
  I believe his actions violate the Constitution. They also violate 
everything we stand for as a country. Turning our backs on refugees and 
those seeking a better life doesn't project strength. It

[[Page 1391]]

shows weakness. It fuels anti-American rage around the world. Our 
Nation doesn't punish innocent people because of what they believe and 
who they pray to. We don't slam the door in the faces of those who need 
help the most.
  I call on all of us, especially my colleagues across the aisle, to 
denounce this action and the people behind it. I am relieved that 
Federal judges around the nation are blocking the President's 
unconstitutional order, and I am also very proud of our strong 
constitutional system of checks and balances.
  I can't express adequately how proud I am of Sally Yates, the Acting 
Attorney General who was fired by President Trump. Now you have to know 
something about her. This is a very courageous person who stood up and 
did the right thing. Sally Yates is a career prosecutor. She has served 
as a U.S. attorney in the U.S. attorney's office under Democrats and 
Republicans--a career prosecutor. When she was put up for a vote in the 
Senate, she got 84 votes when she was approved for Deputy Attorney 
General of the United States. This is someone who understands what is 
going on, understands the Constitution, and understands her legal 
obligations. She stood up and said that she wasn't going to represent 
in court the President on this Muslim ban, and he fired her. He fired 
her.
  These kinds of actions are disturbing. They are un-American acts, and 
they are the most urgent reason I rise today to state that I cannot 
support confirming Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.
  There is no doubt that Mr. Tillerson was qualified to run ExxonMobil. 
Exxon was his first job out of college, and the only company he worked 
for during his 40-year career in the oil and gas industry. There is no 
doubt that Mr. Tillerson, as CEO and chairman of ExxonMobil, was 100 
percent committed to making sure the best interests of the company's 
shareholders were served. But with no diplomatic experience or history 
of public service, I am not confident that Mr. Tillerson is qualified 
to serve as the United States' chief diplomat.
  After studying his work and studying the history and his responses at 
the confirmation hearing and looking at his answers in writing, I do 
not believe that Mr. Tillerson is able to commit 100 percent to serving 
the best interests of the American people. Negotiating the complexities 
of oil and gas deals is not the same as negotiating the complexities of 
treaties and agreements with foreign governments.
  ExxonMobil's top priority is profit. That is its reason for 
existence. Leaders negotiate business deals over money and access to 
resources. The United States and the American people have different 
priorities--sometimes conflicting priorities.
  Our Nation is economically successful, for sure, and we value 
business and we value making money, but our core values go way beyond 
economics. We value representative government, we value human rights, 
and we value freedom of speech. We value the four freedoms that 
President Roosevelt talked about when we entered into international 
agreements to spread the four freedoms around the world.
  An incoming Secretary of State should not be learning on the job. He 
or she should already have substantial relevant experience. He or she 
should already have proven experience fighting for our Nation's core 
values, for human rights. Mr. Tillerson made it clear during his 
hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he lacks 
substantive foreign policy experience and knowledge. He told the 
committee many times that he was not familiar with the issues at hand 
or needed briefing. He must have said that a number of times. As just 
one example, Mr. Tillerson was unfamiliar with Russia's role in the 
indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in Syria. He had no opinion of 
the legality of the slaughter under international law. These are some 
of the most important, most urgent foreign policy matters we face, but 
he was unprepared to answer them.
  Like Senators on both sides of the aisle, I am concerned about Mr. 
Tillerson's close personal business ties to the Russian Government. I 
am concerned about those. They may color his view of Russia. He has 
been long friends with Vladimir Putin. He has a highly profitable 
relationship with Igor Sechin, the head of the state-owned oil company 
Rosneft. I worry that these ties make it difficult or maybe even 
impossible for him to objectively evaluate Russia's actions and to act 
in America's best interests.
  Are his close ties to Russia why he does not condemn Russia's actions 
in Syria? We cannot be sure. Mr. Tillerson also will not confirm 
whether he will advocate maintaining sanctions against Russia for 
invading Crimea. We know that the sanctions also continue to cost 
ExxonMobil because it is not able to drill for oil in Russia's Arctic.
  Will Mr. Tillerson not commit to maintaining sanctions because of his 
ties to Russia? We cannot be sure.
  In a third example, Mr. Tillerson would not commit to sanctions 
against Russia for its interference in our Presidential election. He 
said he didn't have enough information. Well, every U.S. security 
agency--all 17 of them--has concluded that the Russian Government 
hacked the Democratic National Committee, disclosed email from the hack 
from getting in there, and tried to influence our election. They agreed 
that these actions were authorized at the highest levels of the Russian 
Government, with fingers pointing right at Vladimir Putin. The 
intelligence community's public reports stated it this way:

       We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an 
     influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential 
     election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in 
     the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and 
     harm her electability and potential presidency. We further 
     assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear 
     preference for President-elect Trump--

  Now President Trump--

       We have high confidence in these judgments.

  So 17 of our intelligence agencies pooled together all of their 
information, and they had high confidence in what they concluded there.
  Mr. Tillerson had adequate information to make a strong statement 
against this attack, against this hacking, and in favor of American 
democracy. He did not make such a statement.
  We must have a Secretary of State whose allegiance is 100 percent 
committed to U.S. interests. Mr. Tillerson's equivocating testimony on 
Russia did not convince me that he can be counted on to serve America's 
interests and America's interests only. Mr. Tillerson's equivocations 
mirror the Republicans' record on Russian interference in our 
democracy.
  While the President has plans to dismantle the post-World War II 
international order, Republicans have done nothing to address Russia's 
attempt to dismantle our democracy.
  I was also unsatisfied by Mr. Tillerson's answers on climate change. 
While he acknowledges the existence of climate change, he testified 
that ``our ability to predict that effect is very limited'' and that 
what action to take ``seems to be the largest area of debate existing 
in the public discourse.'' That is not what the overwhelming majority 
of scientists tell us. Our ability to predict what is happening to the 
planet's climate is not ``very limited,'' and there is international 
consensus written into the Paris Agreement as to what actions nations 
agree they must take. Scientists from all over the world have joined 
together through the United Nations and said that climate change is 
real and we have to take specific actions.
  I appreciated that Rex Tillerson at least said that he believes the 
United States should remain at the table, but he questioned a key part 
of the Paris Agreement: the nationally determined contribution, or what 
is called the NDC. Without the NDC from the United States, the 
agreement is likely to fall apart, and his claimed support for the 
Paris Agreement becomes meaningless.
  I cannot be clearer: Ignoring the threat of climate change is a 
direct threat to the United States. We have heard other Senators talk 
about the threat to their States, and it is a direct threat to my home 
State of New Mexico.

[[Page 1392]]

  While President Trump may be trying to quiet our climate scientists, 
the science is clear. Climate change is real. We just finished the 
hottest year in recorded history. We know we must act, and we know 
there will be devastating impacts if the United States does not lead on 
this issue.
  No matter what one believes about science or foreign policy, we 
should all be alarmed at the lack of transparency in the new 
administration, especially the unwillingness of our President and key 
Cabinet members to be open and honest with taxpayers about their 
finances and potential conflicts.
  While Mr. Tillerson has divested from ExxonMobil, we still don't have 
copies of his tax returns. Mr. Tillerson's ties to ExxonMobil are 
decades old. Yet he has said he will recuse himself from matters 
related to ExxonMobil for only 1 year. For only 1 year will he recuse 
himself. He has worked for this company his entire life. He should 
refrain from taking calls from his old company for as long as he serves 
as Secretary of State. He is serving the country. He is serving in a 
taxpayer-funded job. I don't understand why he cannot agree to this 
simple standard to avoid the appearance of any conflict. If he deals 
favorably with ExxonMobil, how can the American people know he is 
working for us or for his former employer, which made him an extremely 
wealthy man?
  But most concerning to me is whether Mr. Tillerson will be able to 
speak truth to power. We have just seen this weekend how vital that 
will be in this administration, where it appears that there is no 
unifying vision, and different factions of President Trump's Cabinet 
are competing for his attention. We need a leader with a clear vision 
for America's role in the world, someone who will put American values 
ahead of everything else.
  Too many times, when pressed during his confirmation hearing about 
U.S. interests and values, Mr. Tillerson did not give straight answers. 
On questions such as human rights violations in the Philippines and 
Syria, he did not call out these offenses for what they were. On 
questions about whether we should maintain sanctions against Russia for 
illegally invading Crimea or for interfering with our electoral 
process, he deferred; he wavered; he said he would decide at a later 
date when he can be briefed or meet with the President. If Mr. 
Tillerson can't give straight answers, from the heart, about the most 
pressing human rights issues, on violations of international law, on a 
foreign power's interference with our Presidential election, how can we 
expect him to speak up and temper the worst angels in the Trump 
administration?
  If Mr. Tillerson were the nominee for a more conventional Republican 
President, these concerns would not be as serious. But I think every 
Senator can agree that Donald Trump is not a conventional President. He 
is offending allies and upending alliances on a nearly daily basis. He 
has made negative statements about the German Chancellor's domestic 
policies. He is threatening to extort the Mexican Government to pay for 
an offensive and ineffective wall on America's southern border. He has 
repeatedly questioned NATO, the fundamental alliance that has secured 
peace between major powers since World War II. He is threatening to 
slash funding for the United Nations, including the World Health 
Organization, which fights global pandemics.
  While addressing employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, 
standing in front of a wall honoring professionals who have made the 
ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, President Trump threatened to take 
Iraq's oil--that he wanted to take another look at taking Iraq's oil--
and he said: ``To the victor go the spoils.'' This is a line attributed 
to Julius Caesar, who decreed himself Emperor. He began rattling the 
saber with China before he was sworn in.
  The President has done all of this while repeatedly praising Vladimir 
Putin as a strong leader and proposing to improve relations there, 
while making them worse nearly everywhere else.
  This weekend, he closed America's doors to Muslim refugees trying to 
escape the very evil our government is fighting against. He not only 
closed the doors to people who believe in our democratic institutions 
and the freedoms we enjoy, he closed the doors to people who have 
risked their lives in service of our ideals.
  These are not normal changes in foreign policy between 
administrations. I would change many aspects of U.S. foreign policy if 
I could. But President Trump's approach to foreign policy so far is one 
of reckless change that is frankly scaring the American public and our 
allies around the world. In such a foreign policy environment, we need 
experienced, skilled hands, people who understand these allies and who 
understand our longstanding alliances and why we have them. But the 
President has fired all U.S. Ambassadors, and most high-level State 
Department employees have resigned or been forced out.
  Mr. Tillerson, there is no doubt, is a talented businessman. He loves 
his country. He has devoted himself to other worthy causes, like the 
Boy Scouts. It is no exaggeration to say that the post-World War II 
international order is under attack by the President, endangering U.S. 
leadership in the world. As a result, our national security and place 
in the world are threatened like never before. During such tenuous 
times, we need a leader as our chief diplomat who is prepared to take 
the reins and calm the waters. But I do not have confidence that Mr. 
Tillerson has the experience, knowledge, values, or temperament to 
stand up to the President, to be a voice of reason, or to moderate the 
President's extreme views and actions. For these reasons, I oppose Mr. 
Tillerson's confirmation as Secretary of State, and I urge my fellow 
Members, including those who claimed the mantle of President Reagan, to 
do the same.
  I know my good friend Senator Markey, a member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, is here on the floor, as well as Senator Coons, 
another member of the committee, and I think both of them will speak on 
the Tillerson nomination.
  I yield to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, after two long one-on-one meetings with Mr. 
Rex Tillerson, after a thorough confirmation hearing in the Foreign 
Relations Committee that stretched over some 9 hours, and after 
extensive additional research and reading and digging into his record, 
his public statements, and his views, I announced last week that I 
would oppose the nomination of Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State 
of the United States.
  I will say that over our meetings, our conversations, and my review 
of his record, I have come to respect Mr. Tillerson as a thoughtful and 
seasoned and capable professional in his line of work, with impressive 
international business experience. And I will say that his quick action 
to sever financial ties with ExxonMobil is a strong example that I wish 
President Trump had followed with regard to his own private business 
interests.
  I found encouraging some of Mr. Tillerson's statements in the 
confirmation hearing and his public stances, including his commitment 
to NATO, his respect for U.S. leadership in multilateral initiatives, 
from the Paris climate change agreement to the Iran deal, and his 
support for development programs throughout the world but especially in 
Africa, a continent where I have been engaged in my 6 years on the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  His nomination has the support of highly respected former officials, 
from Brent Scowcroft and Bob Gates to James Baker and Condoleezza Rice, 
former Secretaries and National Security Advisors.
  But Mr. Tillerson and I disagree strongly on key issues. I believe, 
for example, that climate change is a pressing national security threat 
that must be addressed. Mr. Tillerson saw it somewhat differently. I 
believe in advocating for human rights, for a free press, and for 
democracy around the world because these principles advance our 
security and our economic interests here at home. I don't believe that

[[Page 1393]]

human rights, press freedom, and democracy are add-ons, are things that 
we can address and deal with after national security is addressed. 
These are core to who we are as a nation and to the advocacy and 
engagement that I hope for and expect from our State Department and our 
next Secretary of State.
  These are just a few of the reasons why I ultimately decided to 
oppose Mr. Tillerson's confirmation, but that is not why I have come to 
the floor today. I am here today principally because the challenge we 
face is not whether a single nominee is the perfect person for this 
particular role; the challenge we and the American people now face is 
to determine the future we seek for our country and the world stage and 
whether we will choose to continue to lead the free world.
  Do we envision the United States leading by example through actions 
that show we will stand by our values, especially when it is 
challenging or difficult? Do we envision the United States leading a 
coalition of democratic allies and Muslim partners around the world in 
the global fight on terrorism, defending each other and promoting 
values of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy? Or do we accept 
a dark and dystopian vision that sees the world in strict zero-sum 
terms whereby any win for our allies or partners is automatically a 
loss for America; a vision in which we could abandon our values for 
political gain; a vision that distances us from the world both by a 
literal wall and a growing gulf in priorities?
  For decades, Republicans and Democrats have agreed on foundational 
principles of U.S. leadership in the world. We engage with the world. 
We consistently and reliably support our allies. We lead by example, 
especially on our core values. We fight for the rule of law, for human 
rights, and for democratic institutions because doing so makes us safer 
and more secure.
  Consider our alliances. The Heritage Foundation accurately pointed 
out that supporting our allies overseas and in particular our treasured 
and enduring alliance with our NATO partners in Western Europe isn't 
charity but, rather, a proven method for keeping the United States safe 
and secure. As Heritage puts it, alliances prevent wars by driving up 
the cost of aggression. Alliances deter our rivals and adversaries. 
Alliances promote stability, help us project power, and enhance our 
legitimacy.
  Why does this matter? Why is this a current matter of debate? Why is 
this a pressing concern in the context of this nomination and in the 
work of this body? Take, for example, Russia under Vladimir Putin. It 
is the unanimous view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia 
conducted and organized an intentional campaign of interfering in our 
2016 Presidential election and that Russia conducted a cyber attack, 
authorized at the highest level, with the intention to influence the 
outcome of our election.
  I cannot imagine a more direct frontal assault on who we are as a 
nation than to seek to influence our democratic election. But on top of 
that unprecedented attack on who we are as a nation, Vladimir Putin's 
Russia illegally annexed the Crimean Peninsula and continues to support 
the murderous Assad regime in Syria. Today, Russia is preparing--even 
threatening--to intervene in upcoming elections across Central and 
Western Europe, including elections in our longtime close allies, 
France and Germany. It has been amassing troops on the borders of our 
NATO partners, such as Estonia and the other Baltic States, and 
conducting snap exercises up and down the border with NATO. It is 
precisely because of these acts of aggression that the NATO alliance is 
more relevant and more important than ever.
  These aren't groundbreaking or controversial conclusions that I am 
reaching today. Yet President Trump's rhetoric as a candidate, his 
early actions as President, his compliments to Vladimir Putin, his 
claims that NATO is obsolete, and his intimation that he may not honor 
our article 5 mutual defense commitment to our NATO allies all call 
into question the President's understanding of the role that our 
alliances play. It also calls into question whether his administration 
understands the consequences of weakening or abandoning these alliance.
  More than perhaps any nation on Earth, the United States has deeply 
benefited from the stable world order that we helped shape following 
the Second World War. After Americans went throughout the world to 
fight the forces of fascism and imperialism in the Pacific and the 
European theater in the Second World War, we sat astride the world as 
the most powerful country on Earth, with weapons possessed by no other, 
with the greatest manufacturing and military might on the planet, and 
we set about establishing an inclusive, rules-based, democratically 
oriented world order, from which we have benefited more than any other 
nation. NATO has become a key part of the alliances that we have relied 
on for that peace and stability in the seven decades since.
  Let's not forget that the only time NATO invoked its mutual defense 
provision article 5 clause was when our allies came to our defense 
after 9/11. So to suggest that NATO is obsolete or outdated because it 
wasn't developed in a time where terrorism was a central threat gives a 
lie to the reality that our NATO allies have stood shoulder to shoulder 
with us and have fought alongside American service men and women in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly 1,000 have given their lives, and our NATO 
allies have poured their blood and treasure into our defense and into 
our joint conduct against our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Interpreters from Iraq and Afghanistan have kept our troops safe, and 
yet today those espousing ``America First'' would break our promises to 
these vital partners. I have to ask: To what end? When we turn our 
backs on our allies and friends, there are consequences. They may be 
prompted to seek to help themselves in new or unexpected or dangerous 
ways, such as developing their own nuclear capability or seeking 
armaments from Russia rather than working in partnership with us for 
their own security. They may seek to find new allies who do not, in 
fact, share our values. In all these cases, ``America First'' may 
gradually, tragically, become instead ``America Alone.'' That leaves us 
less safe and closes off economic opportunities around the world. So in 
seeking out a strategy that is purported to make us safer and stronger, 
President Trump may, in fact, accomplish neither.
  A policy of ``America First'' doesn't just mean turning our backs on 
our allies and partners. It may also mean turning our backs on some of 
the world's most vulnerable people, with real consequences here at 
home. The Executive order signed by President Trump just on Friday, 
banning all refugees from the United States for 120 days, banning 
refugees for 90 days from seven countries and indefinitely from Syria, 
caused chaos and confusion at our airports and instilled concern--even 
fear--in American families across our country.
  I have a key question today, introduced earlier by Senator Cardin, 
the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, but not yet 
answered: Where does Rex Tillerson stand on this Executive order? How 
does he see it in our place in the world? How does he understand the 
centrality of the example that we show to the world in how we embrace 
human rights?
  Sadly, I think this Executive order has validated the claims of 
jihadist groups like ISIS that recruit young men on the false claim 
that the West is at war with Islam, which is why these very terrorist 
groups are today cheering this Executive order. I think it has made us 
less safe by alienating Muslims in the United States and around the 
world. Why would we want to alienate the very Iraqis with whom we are 
training, serving, and fighting in the war against ISIS when they are a 
critical part of the ground forces that we are counting on to liberate 
Mosul from the tyranny of ISIS?
  Most significantly, this Executive order may violate our Constitution 
and values by banning people based not on security concerns but on the 
basis of their religion, and by turning our

[[Page 1394]]

backs on a decades-long commitment to welcome those fleeing credible 
fears of persecution, fleeing violence and chaos in their home 
countries. These may be the consequences of ``America First.''
  It is well known but bears repeating that in 1939, a ship called the 
St. Louis approached American shores bearing nearly 1,000 mostly Jewish 
refugees fleeing the horrors of the Nazi regime and the impending 
Holocaust. In one of our Nation's most shameful chapters, the United 
States turned away these refugees seeking our shores. One passenger on 
board the St. Louis received a telegram from the U.S. Government 
instructing him that passengers must ``await their turns on the waiting 
list and qualify for and obtain immigration visas before they may be 
admissible.'' Most of these refugees were forced to return to Europe, 
where they were murdered by the Nazis.
  This tragic episode from 1939, born of isolationism and, tragically, 
anti-Semitism and a mistaken sense that we could isolate ourselves from 
the challenges and the violence of the world was also part of a period 
when a group whose name was the America First Committee mobilized to 
try to prevent our entry into the Second World War.
  I will say that these are the consequences of ``America First.'' The 
United States ultimately is less safe. Our allies may be made to feel 
uncertain or even betrayed. Americans will find themselves more 
fearful, and, our values, with which we have sought to lead the world, 
are cast aside.
  That is why I believe this debate today is about far more than a 
single nominee for an important post in our State Department. American 
leadership on the world stage is not as simple as ``America First,'' 
and the consequences of truly embracing the dystopian vision of 
``America First,'' I think, will be tragic.
  If Mr. Tillerson is confirmed, it is my sincere and earnest hope that 
he will challenge President Trump to rethink the dark and dystopian 
view of the world that he laid out in his inaugural address, and that 
he will instead bend his skills, character, and qualities to the hard 
work of realigning our role in the world to the course that Republicans 
and Democrats together have steered from this floor and from this body 
for seven decades.
  As the world saw last weekend, the new Trump administration 
desperately needs someone in the room to speak truth to power and to 
temper its worst impulses.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield?
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, the Senate's advise and consent role is 
one of our most important duties as Senators, and the Secretary of 
State is one of the most important nominations we will consider. The 
Secretary of State is America's chief diplomat, and he should project 
America's values to the world.
  Yesterday, I joined Senator Schumer in calling for a delay on Mr. 
Tillerson's vote on the Senate floor until we hear from him about 
President Trump's Muslim ban.
  Turning away refugees based on their nationality and religion is un-
American, it is illegal, and it is immoral. This Muslim ban is 
propaganda for ISIS. It is a recruiting gift to terrorist groups around 
the world and in our own country. It will increase the risk of harm to 
Americans everywhere, including here at home. Donald Trump is sending a 
message to Muslims around the world that they are all suspects. This 
has profound implications for our ability to work with governments in 
the Middle East in the fight against terrorism. One of the countries 
named in this Executive order is Iraq, our closest ally in the fight 
against ISIS. Conflict and war is forcing millions around the world 
from their homeland. Donald Trump's Muslim ban directly undermines our 
historic commitment to international cooperation and international 
refugee aid. That is why world leaders have joined the chorus of 
millions of Americans who do not support the Muslim ban.
  America has always been a beacon to those fleeing persecution and 
violence. We are a refuge for those seeking a better life. The poetic 
inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty does not say: Send 
back ``your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe 
free.'' As our top diplomat, Mr. Tillerson will be in a position to 
work directly with the nations named in this Executive order, and we 
need to hear how he believes it will impact our standing around the 
world.
  With respect to Mr. Tillerson's nomination, I have very serious 
concerns. Rex Tillerson could have enjoyed his retirement after 
spending more than 40 years at ExxonMobil. Instead, he answered the 
call to enter public service, and I commend him for that. His record at 
ExxonMobil is one that clearly has received accolades. He did a good 
job for ExxonMobil. He is highly respected in the oil industry. But 
public service requires the public's trust, and Mr. Tillerson will not 
have that trust unless he agrees to recuse himself from participating 
in decisions that would affect ExxonMobil for the entirety of his term. 
So far, he has refused to do so.
  Our laws require Federal officials to recuse themselves when a 
reasonable person could question their impartiality. Before President 
Trump nominated him to be Secretary of State, Mr. Tillerson worked for 
one company--ExxonMobil--for virtually his entire adult life. As he 
rose to become a senior manager and then CEO, Mr. Tillerson was 
personally involved in getting lucrative oil deals in a number of 
countries, including Russia. In fact, during Mr. Tillerson's time as 
CEO of ExxonMobil, the company expanded its drilling rights in Russia 
to 63 million acres. That is an area the size of Wyoming and nearly 
five times the size of Exxon's holdings in the United States.
  But Mr. Tillerson didn't just deepen the relationship between his 
company and Russia. He also tried to protect that relationship by 
speaking out against sanctions on Russia. As a reward for personally 
cementing Exxon's relationship with Russia, President Vladimir Putin 
awarded Mr. Tillerson the Russian Order of Friendship.
  The stakes with U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher. Russia has 
invaded the Ukraine, annexed Crimea, bombed innocent civilians in 
Aleppo, and attacked our elections with cyber weapons. Our next 
Secretary of State will be negotiating with Russia on some of the most 
critical foreign policy issues facing the world.
  Mr. Tillerson's decades-long history at ExxonMobil and Exxon's vast 
holdings in Russia clearly create a conflict of interest. How can the 
American people be sure Mr. Tillerson will be objective when he 
participates in matters relating to sanctions on Russia or in any 
matters that could affect Exxon in the dozens of other countries in the 
world where Exxon operates?
  As the top ethics lawyers for Presidents Bush and Obama have said, 
these conflicts could require Mr. Tillerson to recuse himself from any 
matters affecting ExxonMobil, irrespective of his financial 
divestitures. When I asked Mr. Tillerson during his confirmation 
hearing whether he would commit to recuse himself without waiver or 
exception from matters affecting Exxon for the duration of his tenure 
as Secretary of State, he refused. That is unacceptable. The American 
people and the national security of the United States demand a 
Secretary of State whose impartiality is unambiguous.
  Make no mistake, the stockholders of ExxonMobil would have serious 
questions about hiring the leader of the Sierra Club to be the new CEO 
of Exxon. We, too, should have questions about hiring ExxonMobil's 
former CEO to be America's chief diplomat.
  If he agreed to recuse himself, Mr. Tillerson would be following a 
tradition that is longstanding and bipartisan. Secretary of State James 
Baker recused himself from participating in any matter that could 
affect the price of oil and gas. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson 
promised not to participate in any matter where Goldman Sachs was a 
party. And all of President

[[Page 1395]]

Obama's appointees recused themselves from any matters related to their 
former employers or clients. Mr. Tillerson's refusal to follow their 
example will call into question his impartiality, and it could 
undermine his effectiveness as Secretary.
  During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson displayed an alarming 
lack of understanding of oil's role in geopolitics--clearly a 
consequence of having worked solely at Exxon--that disqualifies him 
from being Secretary of State.
  When I questioned him, Mr. Tillerson told me that he never had 
supported U.S. energy independence. He told me that he didn't agree 
that reducing America's demand for oil and our reliance on foreign oil 
imported from the Middle East would strengthen our negotiating position 
with oil-producing nations.
  We as a nation still import 5 million barrels of oil every single day 
into the United States. Three million of those barrels a day come from 
OPEC members, such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Nigeria. ExxonMobil has 
energy interests in each one of those countries. And we are still 
exporting our own young men and women in uniform overseas to defend 
those energy interests every single day.
  Mr. Tillerson is looking at the world through oil-coated glasses. He 
may have gotten rid of Exxon's stock, but he hasn't gotten rid of 
Exxon's mindset.
  Mr. Tillerson's answers to questions about climate change--the global 
generational challenge of our time--are a cause for extreme concern. 
Although he recognized that climate change is real and human activities 
influenced it, he would not commit to continuing action on it as a 
foreign policy priority. Throughout his hearing, Mr. Tillerson would 
only say that he wanted to keep a seat at the table of climate 
negotiations. The United States needs to have more than a seat at the 
table; we need to be at the head of the table.
  In December 2015, 150 heads of state gathered in support of 
finalizing the Paris climate accord. It represents a global solution to 
the problem of global warming in which all countries commit to doing 
their fair share. Instead of strengthening this historic accord, Mr. 
Tillerson indicated that all treaties and agreements to which the 
United States is a party would be up for review by President Trump.
  America needs a Secretary of State who will lead the world to fully 
realize the clean energy revolution that will help us avoid the 
catastrophic impacts of climate change while creating millions of jobs. 
To abandon the Paris climate accord would be to abandon our clean 
energy future. We cannot roll back years of progress cutting dangerous 
carbon emissions or deploying clean energy solutions.
  For 41 years, Rex Tillerson's world view has been to advance the 
interests of one place and one place only--ExxonMobil. Confirming Mr. 
Tillerson as Secretary of State would be turning over the keys of U.S. 
foreign policy to Big Oil. Big Oil's interests are not America's 
interest. If Mr. Tillerson were to negotiate with Russia and President 
Putin, whose interests will he represent--those of Big Oil or those of 
the American people? I still do not have satisfactory answers to that 
critical question. For those reasons, I cannot vote for his 
confirmation.
  I thank you for allowing me to speak at this time on the Senate 
floor.
  I yield to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, since assuming office on January 20, which 
is just 11 days ago--I don't know, it kind of feels to me like it was 
11 months ago; this is going on in a horrible, nightmarish slow 
motion--the Trump administration has assumed responsibility for our 
Nation's national security. There are a lot of jobs the President has, 
this new administration has, but that is at the top of the list--
guaranteeing this country's security and, frankly, being the guarantor 
of global security.
  Leaving aside some of the broader systemic challenges that we face in 
the world, let's just look at what has happened since the inauguration.
  Yesterday, Iran reportedly conducted another ballistic missile test. 
President Trump criticized President Obama on Iran for being too soft. 
Now it is his turn to get China and Russia to agree to a Security 
Council resolution condemning this test and taking punitive action.
  On Sunday, extremist groups all around the world celebrated the Trump 
administration's ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries. 
Comments that were posted to pro-Islamic State's social media accounts 
predicted that the Executive order would serve as a recruiting tool for 
ISIS. One posting said that Trump's actions ``clearly revealed the 
truth and harsh reality behind the American government's hatred towards 
Muslims.'' Another posting hailed Trump as ``the best caller to 
Islam.'' Another one talked about the ban being a blessed ban, which is 
a reference to what militant leaders called the invasion of Iraq, which 
was hailed then as the blessed invasion, becoming the cause celebre, as 
the intelligence community called it, for the global jihadist movement.
  Immediately following the first phone conversation between Trump and 
Putin, the conflict in Ukraine flared up. Likely not coincidentally, 8 
Ukrainian soldiers were killed and 26 were wounded just since Saturday.
  In the Balkans, where Russia has been just recently again steadily 
increasing in influence, as Europe is pulling up the doors on its new 
perspective members, Serbia sent a train emblazoned with the motto 
``Kosovo is Serbia'' up to the border of Kosovo. It turned around, but 
as a result, troops and security forces reportedly scrambled to the 
border from both sides.
  I am not suggesting that all of these bad things happened because 
Donald Trump was inaugurated. I listened to my colleagues explain all 
of the world's troubles for 8 years through the lens of responsibility 
to the Obama administration. But this is all an advertisement for a 
very simple idea--that this is probably the absolute worst time to have 
the first American President with no government experience and no 
diplomatic experience pick the first Secretary of State with no 
government experience and no diplomatic experience. This is not the 
moment for on-the-job learning. Yet that is what we have so far.
  Granted Mr. Tillerson is not in place, but President Trump's foreign 
policy up to this point has been tragically amateurish. Witness the 
invitation for the Mexican leader to come to the White House, worked 
out in painstaking detail, an opportunity to show, despite the furor 
and rhetoric of the campaign, solidarity between the American and 
Mexican people, and then Donald Trump sends out a tweet daring the 
Mexican leader to cancel the meeting, which he promptly does, erupting 
threats of a trade war.
  Witness Friday's Muslim ban, which now has Muslim nations all around 
the world rethinking their relationship with the United States, sending 
this dangerous message to people all around the world that you have no 
home in the United States if you practice one particular faith.
  It begs the question as to whether Mr. Tillerson is going to be able 
to right this ship, having no experience working on almost every single 
one of these issues that confront us around the world. It is not the 
same thing to run a global business and run the State Department.
  Frankly, I would argue that Mr. Tillerson's experience--even if you 
believe he did a good job for Exxon, it doesn't advertise him as a good 
candidate for Secretary of State. In fact, we have reason to fear that 
Mr. Tillerson would run the State Department like he ran Exxon, where 
he repeatedly worked against U.S. national interests.
  Mr. Tillerson opposed sanctions levied against Russia in the wake of 
their invasion of Ukraine. He tried to pull one over on the committee, 
telling the committee this ridiculous story of first not lobbying 
Congress on sanctions, then not knowing if Exxon was lobbying for or 
against sanctions. That just doesn't pass the smell test. He

[[Page 1396]]

called the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to express his 
misgivings about sanctions. He personally lobbied Congress against the 
sanctions. His company spent millions of dollars lobbying against the 
sanctions.
  When asked by President Obama and his administration to refrain from 
attending a major economic development conference hosted by Vladimir 
Putin in the middle of the Ukraine crisis, Tillerson thumbed his nose 
at America. He intentionally embarrassed his own country and our allies 
by sending his top deputy to that conference--and it gets worse--and 
standing next to Russian officials to announce major new contracts with 
Russia. Think about that. We begged Exxon to stay away from that 
conference. Not only did they go, but Tillerson had his No. 2 guy 
announce new contracts in the middle of the sanctions, in the middle of 
the worst of the crisis with Ukraine. It is not surprising that he was 
awarded the Order of Friendship by Vladimir Putin 3 years ago.
  Just an aside, I have listened to my colleagues castigate President 
Obama for being weak on Russia for years. Frankly, the only thing that 
has been consistent about Candidate Trump and President Trump's foreign 
policy has been a marshmallow-like softness on Russia. At every turn, 
Trump has previewed for you that he is going to be easy on Vladimir 
Putin. Tillerson's testimony cemented that. He was asked over and over 
whether he would commit to holding the line on existing sanctions, 
whether he would commit to imposing new sanctions based on Russian 
interference in the U.S. elections. He was asked by the Presiding 
Officer if he would, at the very least, commit to holding in place the 
sanctions on the individuals who were named as those interfering with 
the U.S. election. He wouldn't commit to any of it, and so it is hard 
for me to understand how all of the Republicans who have been 
eviscerating President Obama for 8 years for being soft on Russia are 
now supporting the nomination of Rex Tillerson, who has basically 
advertised that they are going to withdraw the line the Obama 
administration had taken and enter into a new relationship with Russia, 
in which they likely get everything they want. I hope that is not true, 
but we have asked over and over again for this nominee to give us some 
signal that they are going to at least maintain the policies we have 
today, and we have gotten no satisfactory answer.
  Lastly, maybe most concerning about this nominee, is the potential 
for him to carry with him from Exxon a total lack of concern for 
ethics. I understand business ethics. That sounds really harsh, right? 
I understand there is a difference between business ethics and 
government ethics, and human rights is not something you are going to 
care about in a business to the extent that we care about it as those 
who run and advocate for American foreign policy. But I asked Mr. 
Tillerson if there was any country in the world he wasn't willing to do 
business with as the leader of Exxon. He danced around the answer a 
little bit, but the simple response was no, and that is plain as day. 
We can look at the countries they did business with, including Syria 
through subsidiaries, including Iran. There was no human rights record 
that was bad enough for Exxon to say: Hey, no. This isn't something we 
want to touch.
  We have been told by those who are supporting his nomination that we 
really shouldn't pay attention to everything he did at Exxon because he 
is going to be a new man when he comes to State. I guess you can 
understand that. Plenty of people take on new priorities when they come 
into new jobs. Plenty of people argue for something they argued against 
once they have a new boss, but he had a chance before the Foreign 
Relations Committee to tell us how serious he was about human rights. 
He got asked over and over again what he thought about human rights 
violations by some of the worst offenders around the world. His answers 
to those questions were, boy, they were disturbing and troubling. He 
wouldn't name Saudi Arabia as a human rights violator. Saudi Arabia is 
locking up political dissidents left and right. They don't allow women 
to drive. I understand they are an ally, but they are also a human 
rights violator. Everybody knows that. He wouldn't commit that 
President Duterte in the Philippines, who has been openly bragging 
about murdering thousands of civilians with no due process--wouldn't 
name him as a human rights violator, wouldn't say that what Russia has 
done in Aleppo is a war crime. I understand that maybe you don't know 
all the facts when you are just coming through the process, but you 
just have to pick up a newspaper to figure out what is going on in 
Manila or what is happening in Aleppo. It doesn't take a lot of 
research to know that Saudi Arabia is violating people's human rights. 
He knows that country very well.
  It suggests that this lack of concern for ethics and human rights is 
going to carry over to the State Department, and of course he is 
working for a President who is never going to tell him to care about 
human rights. The President has openly talked about his affection for 
torture; how he thinks that strong leaders are the ones who kill 
journalists who oppose them.
  So it looks as if we are seeing a preview of an abdication of 
America's historic role in promoting and pushing human rights around 
the world. We have a President who has openly mocked human rights, who 
has supported vicious dictators, and a Secretary of State who has made 
a career of doing business with some of the worst human rights 
violators in the world and who couldn't name human rights violators 
when he appeared before the committee.
  Senator Markey is right. Mr. Tillerson is an accomplished 
businessman. He is smart. He is savvy. I don't say any of this to 
impugn his character. He had a job to do at Exxon, and he did it well 
on behalf of those shareholders. Frankly, he didn't have to take this 
job. He didn't have to subject himself to this spotlight, to the 
constant second-guessing that awaits him as the next American Secretary 
of State. So I give him credit for making this decision to step up to 
the plate and do this job. I think his motives are pure. I guess I 
can't assume anything else. I know there are people who question those 
motives, but I am going to assume that he is doing this because he 
wants to help his country, and I look forward to working with him.
  He needs to be an advocate for the State Department. He needs to be 
an advocate for the nonmilitary tools that have not historically been 
available to the President. We have had a ``military first'' mentality 
as a country. We think every problem in the world can be solved through 
military intervention. Even under President Obama, there was a bent 
toward military solutions. A Secretary of State can be the chief 
spokesman here for the ways in which you solve problems that don't 
involve attacking and invading, but I don't think somebody who has done 
one thing with one set of priorities and values for 40 years just 
suddenly does an about-face, and adopts a totally different set of 
priorities and values for his career's capstone job. If that were the 
case, he could have previewed that for us in the committee hearing. Yet 
over and over again, when we asked for evidence that his priorities and 
his values were changed, his answers didn't measure up.
  As I said, in addition to those concerns, this is just not the time 
for a Secretary of State with no diplomatic experience whatsoever. It 
is not a time for our new Secretary of State to learn on the job.
  I will oppose his nomination and I hope others will join me.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes under my control to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, Ms. Warren.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nomination of 
Rex Tillerson to serve as Secretary of State. Shortly after President 
Trump's election, I wrote to him about what I thought was a mutual 
interest, taking

[[Page 1397]]

on a rigged system in Washington where powerful interests call the 
shots. For too long, I have heard from Wisconsinites who feel that 
Washington's economic and political system is broken. People are angry 
because they feel that our government institutions seem to work for Big 
Banks or Big Oil but not for them.
  President Trump clearly tapped into this widely held dissatisfaction 
when he announced his plan to reduce the influence of special interests 
in government by draining the swamp. Yet with appointment after 
appointment, it has been made clear that President Trump is not 
interested in ridding the government of powerful interests. In fact, he 
continues to appoint and nominate foxes to guard the henhouse.
  We don't need to look back very far to know what can happen when we 
let industry insiders run our government. The 2008 financial crisis was 
a result of years of deregulation pushed by Wall Street from both 
inside and outside the government. Last Congress, I introduced 
legislation to slow the revolving door and ensure that our public 
servants are working for the public interest, not their former--or 
future, for that matter--employers. I was inspired to introduce this 
legislation when I saw several Obama administration appointees receive 
multimillion-dollar bonuses for leaving their private sector jobs to 
join the government. These government service golden parachutes, as 
they are known, demonstrate how valuable some companies believe it is 
to have friends in high places.
  Rex Tillerson, the President's nominee to serve as Secretary of 
State, received a $180 million payout from ExxonMobil that he would 
have to forfeit had he taken a job elsewhere. What is more, reports 
indicate that the deal he struck allows him to defer paying 71 million 
in taxes. It is hard to imagine that our Nation's top diplomat will 
forget such an incredible favor, but Rex Tillerson isn't the only Trump 
appointee who will be rewarded with a golden parachute as he enters 
government. Gary Cohn, the President's pick to run the National 
Economic Council, will receive over 100 million from his former 
employer, Goldman Sachs, before he starts to coordinate an 
administration-wide economic policy.
  I remain as opposed to this practice under the Trump administration 
as I was during the Obama administration. Wisconsin families cannot 
afford to have corporate insiders running our government to rig the 
rules on behalf of their former corporations. That is why I am 
reintroducing the Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act, to 
ensure that our government is truly of the people, by the people, and 
for the people of the United States, to ensure that President Trump's 
Cabinet officials are working in the national interests instead of 
their own interests, to ensure that they are working for their current 
employers, the American people, instead of their former bosses.
  In the case of Mr. Tillerson, whose nomination the Senate is voting 
on this week, these questions of influence, of favoritism and 
priorities are particularly troubling, troubling because during his 
tenure leading Exxon, Mr. Tillerson showed a disregard, if not outright 
contempt at times, for putting U.S. policy first. Whether in the Middle 
East, Africa or Russia, Exxon's bottom line was his overriding 
priority. Now, with 180 million of Exxon's money in his pocket--and 
after 40 years with the company--should we take it on faith that his 
priorities will suddenly change? Should we blindly accept that the 180 
million will not ever influence his decisionmaking or should we 
continue to ask questions, questions that Rex Tillerson has yet to 
answer?
  For example, how will Exxon and Big Business influence U.S. policy in 
strategically important but democratically fragile oil-producing 
African states? How about U.S. international commitments to combatting 
climate change, one of our greatest national security challenges but 
also a challenge that Big Oil has dismissed as a hoax. Perhaps most 
concerning, what influence will Exxon have in matters relating to 
Russia, where its long record of doing business at the expense of U.S. 
national security interests seems to be right at home in the Trump 
administration?
  We also need to hear what Rex Tillerson thinks about President 
Trump's actions this weekend. On Friday, President Trump issued anti-
refugee and anti-immigrant Executive orders. I am outraged by the way 
these orders were hastily thrown together late Friday. The President's 
sloppy actions created chaos, disorder, and confusion at our airports, 
and it left families, including permanent legal residents, wondering 
what it meant for them. There have been media reports that relevant 
agencies, including the State Department, were not consulted before 
this order was signed by President Trump. President Trump says we need 
extreme vetting of refugees fleeing war-torn nations. The refugees--the 
vast majority of whom are women and children--already go through an 
extremely strict screening process before they are allowed to enter the 
country.
  What we really need extreme vetting of is President Trump's Executive 
orders before he signs them. With the stroke of a pen, President 
Trump's orders will make ISIS stronger, weaken America's 
counterterrorism efforts, and likely cost lives. It is wrong to turn 
our back on our American values and the rest of the world. We are 
better than this.
  President Trump and Republicans in Congress should reverse these 
shameful actions immediately. I am proud to be cosponsoring legislation 
that would do just that. We need to know where Rex Tillerson stands on 
those very same issues. Does he oppose welcoming refugees into the 
country, which strengthens America's connection with freedom, the 
foundation of who we are as a people? Was Mr. Tillerson consulted by 
the President before these orders were issued? Mr. Tillerson owes it to 
the American people to answer those questions before the Senate votes 
on his confirmation.
  What happened the day after President Trump issued these Executive 
orders? On Saturday, President Trump called Vladimir Putin to discuss a 
more cozy relationship with Russia. What does Mr. Tillerson think about 
this call? According to reports, it was a warm conversation and 
resulted in preparations for a meeting between President Trump and 
Vladimir Putin, the same Vladimir Putin who illegally invaded Ukraine 
and actively seeks to divide and destroy NATO, our most important 
security alliance; the same Vladimir Putin who is responsible for 
directing cyber attacks meant to influence and undermine our elections 
and our Democratic process; the same Vladimir Putin who fights 
alongside the murderous Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, and is 
responsible for war crimes, indiscriminately bombing innocent civilians 
in Aleppo; the same Vladimir Putin who gave Rex Tillerson the Order of 
Friendship following his business dealings in Russia.
  We need a Secretary of State who understands the threats posed by 
nations like Russia, not someone who is cozy with Vladimir Putin. We 
need a nominee with experience in foreign affairs and foreign policy, 
not a billionaire oil tycoon who has spent his career fighting to 
ensure that government policies help the oil industry. Rex Tillerson is 
not this nominee.
  For all these reasons, I oppose the nomination of Rex Tillerson to 
serve as U.S. Secretary of State. I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to do the same.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                               Travel Ban

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would like to address some of the very 
serious concerns posed by the nomination of Rex Tillerson for Secretary 
of State, along with several of President Trump's Cabinet nominees. But 
first I do want to briefly address what unfolded this weekend at 
airports across the country following President Trump's appalling and 
un-American ban on Muslims and refugees from entering the country.
  With the stroke of a pen, the Trump administration caused chaos and 
heartbreak for hundreds of families, many of whom are our friends, our 
neighbors,

[[Page 1398]]

and our coworkers. On Saturday night, Members of this Congress, 
including myself, were denied answers to even the most basic questions 
from border enforcement officers, questions that affect the people whom 
we represent.
  While I am glad that a Federal judge quickly issued a stay and that 
the Department of Homeland Security has since provided further guidance 
on the Executive orders, many questions remain and too many lives hang 
in the balance.
  I am going to keep fighting as hard as I can, and I encourage 
everyone who is listening and watching right now to continue making 
their voices heard because President Trump is already governing the way 
he campaigned, by dividing our country and pushing extreme policies 
that hurt families across the country. Again, we saw this so clearly in 
the Executive orders he signed this past week.
  But it is also something we have seen in the Cabinet nominees he has 
put forward since his election. As we all remember, President Trump 
said that he was going to drain the swamp, but he seems to think the 
way to do that is by filling it with even bigger swamp creatures. He 
said he was going to stand with the working class and fight Wall Street 
and Big Business. But he nominated a Cabinet full of Wall Street 
bankers and billionaires and millionaires and friends and insiders and 
campaign contributors.
  As many of my colleagues have discussed today, one clear example of 
President Trump's broken promise to drain the swamp is the nomination 
of Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil for Secretary of State. This is a 
nominee who is not only a known friend and business partner to Russia, 
but someone who publicly spoke against sanctions on Russia after the 
invasion of Ukraine and Crimea.
  People in my home State of Washington have significant concerns about 
who he plans to work for, and so do I--concerns that Mr. Tillerson 
failed to adequately address in his hearing. I have said before that 
reports of Russia meddling in our election should disturb and outrage 
every American, Democrat, Republican, or Independent who believes that 
the integrity of our elections is fundamental to the strength of this 
democracy. That is why it is so critical we have a Secretary of State 
who will stand up to protect those values.


        Nominations of Betsy DeVos, Tom Price, and Andrew Puzder

  Mr. President, along with Rex Tillerson, I have serious concerns with 
the nominees that are going through our Senate HELP Committee, as well 
as the vetting process that has taken place.
  My Republican colleagues rushed us into a hearing on President 
Trump's nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, for example. 
When we started the hearing, the Republican Chairman, the senior 
Senator from Tennessee, preemptively declared he would be limiting 
questions to just 5 minutes per Member, a shocking and disappointing 
breach of committee tradition, clearly intended to limit public 
scrutiny.
  When the questions began, it quickly became clear why Republicans 
felt the need to protect her. Ms. DeVos refused to rule out slashing 
investments in or privatizing public schools. She was confused about 
the need for Federal protections for students with disabilities. She 
argued that guns needed to be allowed in schools across the country to 
``protect from grizzlies.''
  Even though she was willing to say that President Trump's behavior 
toward women should be considered sexual assault, she would not commit 
to actually enforcing Federal law, protecting women and girls in our 
schools.
  I would say I was shocked at this candidate's lack of qualifications 
to serve, but at this point, you know what, nothing surprises me when 
it comes to President Trump's new administration.
  As was the case with Ms. DeVos, Democrats were also unable to 
thoroughly question President Trump's nominee for Health and Human 
Services, Congressman Tom Price. I can understand why Republicans would 
not want Congressman Tom Price to defend his policies, which would take 
health care coverage away from families, voucher Medicare, and 
undermine women's access to reproductive health services, despite 
President Trump's comments to make health care better for patients and 
even provide insurance for everybody. These are issues that families 
and communities do deserve to hear about, and they also deserve a 
thorough investigation into serious questions about whether Congressman 
Price had access to nonpublic information when he made certain medical 
stock trades while he was in the House.
  Lastly, I have to say, I have grown increasingly concerned that 
President Trump's nominee for Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder, 
represents yet another broken promise of his to put workers first. On 
issue after issue, Andrew Puzder has made clear that he will do what is 
best for big businesses, like his own, at the expense of workers and 
families.
  He has spoken out against a strong increase in the minimum wage. He 
has been one of the most vocal opponents of our efforts to update the 
rules so that millions more workers can earn their overtime pay.
  Puzder has even talked about replacing workers with robots because 
``they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there's never a 
slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case.'' That is a 
quote from Puzder.
  He has aggressively defended his company's offensive ads, leaving 
women across the country wondering whether he can be trusted in a role 
that is so critical to women's rights and safety in the workplace.
  All of that makes a lot of sense coming from a millionaire CEO who 
profits off of squeezing his own workers. But it is very concerning 
coming from a potential Secretary of Labor, someone who should be 
standing up for our workers and making sure they get treated fairly, 
rather than mistreated.
  So, now more than ever, people across the country want to know how 
the Trump administration will continue to impact their lives. We 
Democrats consider it our job to stand up when President Trump tries to 
hurt the families whom we represent. We are ready to stand with 
families we represent, to hold him and his administration accountable, 
and we refuse to back down and are prepared to fight back.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
opposition to President Trump's nomination of Rex Tillerson to be the 
next Secretary of State. There are many, many reasons to oppose this 
nomination, and my colleague from Washington has just listed several of 
them. But the main reason for me is as simple as it is disturbing: 
Tillerson's extensive and longstanding ties with Russia mean that the 
United States of America simply cannot trust him to be a strong 
advocate for the interests of our country.
  Here is what has been publicly reported. Our intelligence agencies 
have concluded that the Russian Government conducted a successful 
series of cyber attacks on the United States designed to help Donald 
Trump get elected President. Intelligence chiefs have briefed the 
President on a dossier alleging that the Russian Government has 
collected compromising information on him. And in response, the 
President has attacked the intelligence community.
  This week, he installed his political crony, Steve Bannon, a man with 
ties to White nationalists, on the National Security Council while 
marginalizing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 
Director of National Intelligence.
  Now, there is significant reason to believe that the President has 
extensive financial relationships with Russia, but nobody actually 
knows any of the details because he has refused to release his tax 
returns. And, apparently, the President's own national security adviser 
is currently under FBI investigation for his own interactions with the 
Russian Government.
  This is only the 12th day of the Trump Presidency, and this is what 
is

[[Page 1399]]

going on right now--12 days. I wish this weren't happening. I wish 
things were normal, but this is not normal. We cannot simply ignore all 
of this as we evaluate the President's nominees to critical foreign 
policy and national security jobs.
  I have heard some people say that Rex Tillerson doesn't know anything 
about diplomacy or have any experience with foreign policy. I actually 
think that is wrong.
  For the last decade, Tillerson has served as the CEO of ExxonMobil, a 
massive company that would have roughly the 42nd largest economy in the 
entire world if it were its own country. As the leader of that giant 
oil company, Tillerson was an expert at diplomacy; specifically, how to 
advance the interests of his own fabulously wealthy oil company and 
himself, no matter the consequences for American foreign policy toward 
Russia.
  Russia has vast oil resources, and Exxon is one of the world's 
largest oil companies. Getting at that oil is a critical priority for 
Exxon--such a high priority, in fact, that when it came time to pick a 
new CEO, Exxon chose Tillerson, who had spent years managing the 
company's Russia efforts. This isn't just a passing coincidence. 
Tillerson has worked closely with Putin's senior lieutenants, and, in 
2013, Tillerson received the highest honor that the Kremlin gives to 
foreigners.
  Tillerson's Russia projects ran into trouble the following year, 
however, because after Russia invaded Ukraine and started illegally 
annexing territory, Europe and the United States slapped sanctions on 
Russia. Those sanctions made life more difficult for Exxon, so 
Tillerson ignored them. He forged ahead despite the sanctions, signing 
more agreements with Russia, and then he used his army of well-funded 
lobbyists to undermine our sanctions with Russia.
  When confronted with the facts about this in his confirmation 
hearing, Tillerson first pretended that he didn't know if the company 
had lobbied at all. And then later, he said: Well, the company simply 
participated in discussions with lawmakers without actually taking a 
position.
  He is saying that they paid their lobbyists to show up and just talk 
generally, not to advance what the company wanted. You know, when you 
hear something that lame, you wonder just how dumb he thinks we are.
  Mr. Tillerson has argued that in his job at Exxon he was advocating 
for the interests of his giant oil company. And he understands that 
being Secretary of State is a different job.
  Really? At his hearing, Tillerson lamented that when sanctions are 
imposed, ``by their design, [they] are going to harm American 
businesses''--as though the principal question the Secretary of State 
should be asking when deciding whether to hold Russia accountable for 
hacking our elections or for annexing Crimea is whether it might dent 
the bottom line of a powerful oil company.
  And has Tillerson really separated himself from Exxon? Tillerson is 
receiving a massive $180 million golden parachute for becoming 
Secretary of State--$180 million. It is a special payout that he 
wouldn't get if he were taking some other job. He is getting it only 
because he is coming to work for the government.
  I have opposed these parachutes for many years now, and many of us 
have worked on legislation to make them criminally illegal--many of us. 
I have opposed nominees in my own party over them because if your 
employer offered you $180 million to go to work for the government, 
that looks an awful lot like a bribe for future services. This kind of 
payment raises questions about whether you work for the government, for 
a multinational oil company, or for both at the same time. America 
deserves a Secretary of State who works for the American people, 
period.
  Will Tillerson help Exxon while he is in office? Well, the law 
requires him to recuse himself from any matters involving this company 
for how long? For just 1 year.
  Common sense requires Tillerson, who, again, is receiving a $180 
million special payment from the company where he has worked his entire 
adult life--common sense requires him to recuse himself from all 
matters involving Exxon for the entirety of his time in government. But 
when pressed by my Massachusetts colleague, Senator Markey, Tillerson 
flatly refused to do it.
  Mr. Tillerson's views, experiences, relationships, and compromising 
arrangements with Russia aren't my only problem with this nomination, 
not by a long shot.
  Mr. Tillerson's company has spent years lying about climate change. 
In Massachusetts, we have laws about consumer fraud: telling people 
lies about your product, lies that could make a difference about 
whether or not customers want to buy it. The Massachusetts attorney 
general, Maura Healy, has been investigating whether Exxon deliberately 
misled people about the impact of climate change on our economy, on our 
environment, on our health, and on our future.
  Exxon didn't want to answer, so they bullied and stonewalled all the 
way. But it hadn't worked. In fact, our attorney general won a court 
ruling earlier this month, and Exxon is being forced to hand over 40 
years' worth of internal documents that will show what the company knew 
about climate change, when they knew it, and whether they lied to their 
customers, their investors, and the American public.
  Tillerson bobbed and weave on climate change at his confirmation 
hearing. I wonder if he is just trying to avoid accidentally saying 
anything that might help Massachusetts finally find out and hold his 
company accountable for massive fraud. Look, that may be OK for a CEO, 
but that is not good enough for someone who wants to be our Nation's 
Secretary of State.
  Climate change is a defining issue of our time, and the last thing we 
should do is hand our foreign policy over to someone who cares more 
about lining his own pockets than the survival of our planet.
  I could go on at length about the glaring problems with Mr. 
Tillerson's nomination. It is amazing how far we have fallen, to go 
from John Kerry, an accomplished statesman, combat veteran, 
Presidential candidate, long-time public servant, and son of 
Massachusetts, to a billionaire with a golden parachute and no record 
of public service or putting American foreign policy interests ahead of 
his own corporate interests.
  When we vote, Senators should understand this: Handing American 
foreign policy over to the leader of a giant oil company is not 
something we do in the United States; it is something Vladimir Putin 
would do in Russia.
  Donald Trump is building his Presidency in the image of Vladimir 
Putin, and that is good for Russia, but it is a real problem for 
America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
confirmation of Rex Tillerson, the President's nominee to be Secretary 
of State, and I will tell you why in two words: Vladimir Putin.
  Rex Tillerson's ties to Russia have been widely reported. The Senator 
from Massachusetts has outlined a number of them, specifically his ties 
to President Putin, who awarded him the Order of Friendship after 
signing deals with the state-owned oil company, Rosneft.
  Now isn't the time to cozy up to Russia. Now is the time to stand up 
to Russian aggression in Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, and Syria.
  Just yesterday, we heard reports of another outbreak of fighting 
between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists in war-torn 
eastern Ukraine. And all you have to do is speak to a Ukrainian and let 
them tell you--as I met with the former Prime Minister yesterday, and I 
will be meeting with a former Member of their Parliament, let them tell 
you what it is like to have the Russian Army march on your country and 
take part of it away, as they did with Crimea, and then come in under 
the disguise of little green men, as if they did not have ties to the 
Russian Army. That is going on in eastern Ukraine right now.

[[Page 1400]]

  Our own intelligence community has told us that the Russian President 
personally ordered a campaign to influence the 2016 Presidential 
election right here in the United States. That campaign--a mix of 
covert Russian operations, cyber attacks, cyber operations, and 
propaganda--was only the latest in a series of efforts to undermine 
American leadership and democracies around the world and what is coming 
next for the elections in Europe in the next few months.
  Russia is testing us, and I am concerned that Mr. Tillerson cannot 
stand up to the Russian President who, I am afraid, thinks of himself 
as the next Russian czar.
  In Mr. Tillerson's past, as Exxon's CEO, he lobbied against sanctions 
on Russia for invading and seizing Crimea--the very sanctions that we 
and our allies have put on Russia for taking over sovereign territory 
of another independent country. And now it is not clear, as our 
Nation's top diplomat, that Mr. Tillerson would fight to keep the 
sanctions in place, even as President Trump is now considering lifting 
them, despite the clear evidence of Russia's continued aggression.
  During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson refused to condemn the 
Russian and Syrian bombings in Aleppo as war crimes, a question that 
was proffered to him by the Senator, my colleague from Florida, who 
happens to sit in the Chair right now.
  I also have serious concerns that Mr. Tillerson doesn't understand 
the urgent need to combat climate change. You don't have to remind us 
about climate change in Florida. South Florida is ground zero for 
climate change. Miami Beach is awash at the seasonal high tides as the 
water flows over the curbs and over the streets, causing Miami Beach to 
spend hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to install pump 
stations, raise the roads, and address all kinds of flooding and 
saltwater intrusion. Other South Florida communities have had to move 
their water well locations farther west because of the intrusion of 
South Florida into the freshwater aquifer.
  Climate change is not a problem that we are going to face some day in 
the future; it is a daily struggle for communities along our coasts all 
over America. The U.S. State Department is responsible for engaging 
with other countries to confront both the cause of climate change and 
the devastating impact of drought, sea level rise, and severe weather.
  By the way, speaking of sea level rise, this Senator convened a 
meeting of the Senate Commerce Committee in Miami Beach a couple of 
years ago. We had testimony from a NASA scientist that measurements--
not forecasts, not projections, but measurements--in the last 40 years 
of sea level rise in South Florida were 5 to 8 inches higher. That is 
sea level rise. That is why even the Department of Defense is 
concerned. Climate change has the potential to destabilize nations. How 
about Bangladesh? It has the potential to drastically reduce potable 
water supplies and result in crop loss and food shortage and to create 
climate refugees.
  We simply cannot play fast and loose with the science that will help 
save our planet. The top diplomat of our country has to confront the 
reality of climate change today and to work on it immediately. Mr. 
Tillerson has not adequately laid out a plan to address that global 
climate crisis.
  For all the reasons I have outlined, including many more, I will vote 
no.
  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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer well knows, 
the Secretary of State is one of the most important positions in the 
President's Cabinet. He is the Nation's chief diplomat, and he 
champions American values. He is the symbol in a sense, the chief voice 
and advocate around the world of America. The Secretary of State is in 
a sense our representative to the world, embodying and promoting, 
hopefully, the best in America to billions of people around the globe, 
proving to the world yet again that America is exceptional, that we are 
the greatest country in the history of the world, and that we have a 
respect for the rule of law, for human dignity and rights for all, 
including the right to live in a safe and free environment.
  Past Secretaries of State have changed history, averted and navigated 
war, brokered peace, championed human rights, and fought to make the 
world a better place. In this time of immense uncertainty, we must 
demand nothing less of our next Secretary of State than that he be a 
great reflection and representative of the United States to the world.
  The likes of Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, 
George Marshall, and Charles Evan Hughes have all held this position. 
To join these titans or even to aspire to their position is no small 
challenge. We need a candidate who will continue to embody what is 
right even in the face of resistance from adversaries and foes who do 
not admire and, in fact, seek to do harm to our way of life.
  As ExxonMobil's CEO, the President's nominee, Rex Tillerson, has 
worked hard and successfully for his corporation. In fact, he has put 
that corporation's interests ahead of America's interests. That may 
have been his job, and I understand that was his job description, but 
doing that job well does not qualify him to be our Nation's chief 
diplomat and to assume the mantle of defending our national interests.
  Having worked for four decades for this oil giant, without any 
government experience, I am unconvinced that Mr. Tillerson has shown he 
is able to reverse this oil interest mind set and put America's needs 
before his former employer. I do not have faith that he can rise to the 
paramount challenge of representing us on the world stage.
  I share my colleagues' concerns. We have heard numerous of our 
colleagues express the same view--that his oil interests will harm the 
progress we have made to protect the environment and slow the impact of 
climate change. I say that reluctantly because I hope I am wrong. He is 
likely to be confirmed, but I hope my colleagues think hard and long 
and join me in opposing Rex Tillerson.
  I am also hopeful that a number of his other stances, such as 
enforcing sanctions that hold our adversaries accountable--notably, 
Russia and Iran--will change as well. These stances have been 
troubling. I have little confidence that Mr. Tillerson will vigorously 
enforce these sanctions and even less confidence that he will guide 
President Trump to provide the crucial advice our demonstrably rash and 
ill-advised President needs.
  I want to point particularly to some of the tactics ExxonMobil used 
in its litigation against legal challenges that were brought based on 
climate change information that allegedly was concealed by ExxonMobil. 
These tactics are deeply troubling, and I hope that maybe the toughness 
of ExxonMobil in those tactics will be replicated in the toughness that 
is brought to bear in enforcing the sanctions against Iran and Russia 
because he has shown a troublesome trend of opposing sanctions that 
have held Iran accountable--sanctions that pushed Iran to the table in 
negotiating the Iran nuclear agreement, which has made our world a 
safer place.
  Across decades and administrations, the Senate reached an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan consensus that the Iran regime should be 
aggressively sanctioned for its global missile program, state 
sponsorship of terrorism, and gross human rights violations. ExxonMobil 
directly and together with other global oil companies and through the 
financing of third-party advocacy organizations has persistently tried 
to stop Congress from passing sanctions legislation.
  ExxonMobil has been a board member of USA Engage since its founding 
in 1997 and from 2003 to 2007 held the chairmanship of that 
organization. For two decades it has actively lobbied

[[Page 1401]]

Congress to oppose Iran-related sanctions bills, including last year 
for at least four such pieces of legislation.
  ExxonMobil has worked to prevent the authorization and extension of 
the Iran sanctions act, which I am proud to say was renewed for another 
10 years by Congress, becoming law just a few weeks ago, and I was 
proud to support it. Yet, during Mr. Tillerson's hearing, he denied 
that ExxonMobil ever lobbied against Iran's sanctions, in the face of 
facts to the contrary. As Ronald Reagan said, ``Facts are stubborn 
things.''
  Foreign policy experts and military leadership have explicitly 
identified Russia as a growing threat and a violator of international 
law. Many of us in this body--in fact, I would say the majority--have 
recognized that fact. Yet Mr. Tillerson does not seem to treat Russia 
with the same gravity.
  We need a Secretary of State who is going to work with our NATO 
allies and stand up for us and not give Putin a pass. We are all aware 
of Mr. Tillerson's inappropriate stance toward relations with a country 
responsible for assaults on world order through cyber attacks, illegal 
land grabs, and war crimes. We are the victims of a cyber attack by 
Russia, an act of cyber war. The Secretary of State must be somebody 
who regards that kind of attack as intolerable and unacceptable.
  Mr. Tillerson's affinity for Russia is alarming because he adds to 
the growing list of Putin admirers in this administration, and that 
list unfortunately includes the President himself and National Security 
Advisor Michael Flynn.
  Mr. Tillerson's opposition to sanctions imposed on Russia for its 
illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 was not the result of national 
security concerns but, rather, because ExxonMobil stood to make 
millions, even billions of dollars from the business deal that 
corporation had recently made with Russia to develop its oil and gas 
interests. What is good for ExxonMobil is not necessarily good for the 
United States of America. These sanctions were put in place because 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unacceptable and now has led to at 
least 10,000 deaths, 20,000 wounded, and 2 million people displaced.
  These are hard numbers and hard facts--the result of Russian 
aggression that must be countered.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have fought to include 
and pass the NDAA's robust funding for Ukrainian assistance. I am proud 
to say that this initiative was successful. I also successfully urged a 
provision that terminated U.S. contracts with the Russian arms export 
agency.
  Mr. Tillerson made it clear during his nomination hearing that his 
stance was unchanged. He could not admit that Vladimir Putin is a war 
criminal, despite these deaths and the torture involved in this 
aggression and other similar acts, or to say that the sanctions against 
Putin's Russia are necessary and appropriate. His views are 
inconsistent with the interests of the United States of America.
  Given his troubling trend of dodging questions during his testimony, 
I cannot confidently say that he will follow the clear direction of 
Congress concerning sanctions policy. I will say bluntly and frankly to 
my colleagues that my particular concern is that sanctions laws contain 
waivers. Those waivers are provided to the President for the rare 
requirement that such sanctions may be waived when it is in the 
national interest or for national security. This exception must be used 
exceedingly sparingly and judiciously. Sanctions without enforcement 
are worse than no sanctions at all. They are meaningless, and they 
raise false expectations. My fear is that under Mr. Tillerson, if he is 
advising President Trump, those exemptions and exceptions will swallow 
the rule.
  Talking about rules, if confirmed, Mr. Tillerson will be responsible 
for executing President Trump's extremely misguided policy expanding 
the global gag rule, which prevents foreign aid from being provided to 
global health programs that discuss or provide abortion services. The 
result will be to obstruct programs that cover everything from HIV 
prevention to maternal and child care and epidemic disease responses, 
putting lives at risk. This is just the opposite of what we ought to be 
doing. It makes the world less safe, as does this weekend's Executive 
order that bans refugees and Muslims. We need someone willing and able 
to voice resistance and opposition to policies that flagrantly fly in 
the face of everything we value--our American values. We need a 
Secretary of State ready to stand up for the most vulnerable people and 
speak truth to power, even when that power is the President of the 
United States. The fact is, sadly, that Mr. Tillerson has never taken 
strong stances on these issues, leaving us guessing as to what he will 
do when and if he is in office.
  I cannot support anyone to be Secretary of State who fails to condemn 
the suspension of our Refugee Resettlement Program directly under his 
purview. When we target refugees, we target people who are victims of 
the same oppressors and tyrants and murderers that we call enemies. 
Refugees are not our enemies. Many are fleeing the murderous Syrian 
regime and ISIL, which are our enemies. We are at war with ISIL, and we 
must win that war. We are disadvantaged by a policy that excludes 
refugees on the basis of religion, because we alienate our allies with 
the sources of intelligence and troops on the ground, and we lead to 
the misimpression--and it is a misimpression--that we are at war 
against Islam or our Muslim neighbors when, in fact, our enemy is 
violent extremists.
  These refugees and immigrants see America as a beacon of hope, but 
they are now receiving the message that, whoever they are and however 
strong their claim to come here is, their religion will bar them, their 
religion denies them the right to come to this country, their religion 
will ban them.
  Mr. Tillerson has never denounced this strategy when it does so much 
to damage our international credibility, our values at home, and our 
Constitution. Four judges have stayed the President's Executive orders. 
My respectful opinion is that the President's orders are, in fact, 
illegal.
  The question is this: Will he defend career diplomats who have spoken 
out against these policies? Will he take a stand himself against them? 
Will he stand up for American values?
  One story in particular struck me because it involves my own State of 
Connecticut. Last Saturday, a Syrian refugee who settled in Milford, 
CT, 2 years ago, Fadi Kassar, anxiously awaited the arrival of his wife 
and two daughters, ages 5 and 8. He has not seen them since resettling 
in this country. His family was turned away before they could board a 
flight to the United States. They were told they were not going to be 
allowed to enter this country following the President's refugee ban. 
Despite having been granted refugee status--asylum--three days before 
the refugee ban, they would no longer be united with Mr. Kassar in the 
United States.
  I am working--and I hope the Secretary of Homeland Security may be 
listening, if not at this moment then at some point in the future, to 
my entreaty that he do the right thing, that he make their entry 
possible. They have gone through all of the necessary screenings, 
submitted all of the necessary forms. Yet, under the President's 
Executive action, they are denied refuge in the United States based 
only on their nationality and their religion.
  Mr. Kassar's family is now back in Jordan without luggage, without 
clothes, and without the new home they were so close to having. My 
office has offered assistance to Mr. Kassar's lawyers, and we are 
working to help in any way we can.
  The United States--Connecticut in particular--has a proud moral 
tradition and heritage of aiding refugees who need our help when their 
own homelands are in turmoil. President Trump's egregious acts 
contravene our values, contradict our Constitution, and should be 
rescinded immediately.
  Mr. Tillerson, join me in urging President Trump to rip up this 
order. It is the only solution.
  I am not confident, until I hear him say so, that he is ready to be 
the leader

[[Page 1402]]

we need in the Department of State to ensure that America's values of 
acceptance and assistance hold strong in an administration that 
directly challenges these most cherished traditions and values.
  Our Secretary of State must be clear-eyed about threats facing our 
Nation, both from adversaries abroad and others who would do us harm 
inside our borders. I regretfully conclude that Mr. Tillerson has 
failed to demonstrate that ability to do so, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in opposing his nomination.
  Mr. 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. SCHATZ. 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. SCHATZ. Mr. President, American history has been shaped by U.S. 
Secretaries of State. Secretary Dean Acheson guided the United States 
through the Cold War. Secretary Madeleine Albright proved that 
diplomacy does not depend on gender and that protecting refugees and 
human rights are core American principles. Secretary Henry Kissinger 
laid the groundwork for peace between Egypt and Israel. And forgive me 
for using such a recent example, but Secretary John Kerry helped to 
bring the international community together to tackle climate change.
  As our Nation's top diplomat, the Secretary of State is the highest 
ranking cabinet member and the President's top adviser on U.S. foreign 
policy.
  The Secretary balances relationships with some 180 countries and is 
responsible for tens of thousands of Americans working at more than 250 
posts around the world.
  In other words, it takes a remarkable knowledge base and skill set to 
be Secretary of State, particularly as the United States takes on a 
complex and complicated set of issues. At the top of the list is 
climate change. The global changes we have seen in the climate are 
affecting almost every part of the world, from droughts in Sub-Saharan 
Africa to rising sea levels in parts of Asia.
  We have also not seen this level of refugees and migrants since after 
World War II. The Rohingya, Syrians, Afghans, Guatemalans, and many 
others are fleeing war, violence, persecution, and instability. 
Globalization and technology have disrupted economies, leaving 
governments, companies, and workers trying to figure out how to keep up 
with the times without being left behind. Terrorism and violent 
extremism haunt parts of the globe, from the Middle East to Europe, and 
to our own borders.
  The Secretary of State has to take on all of these challenges and do 
it in a way that advances U.S. interests and values. After reviewing 
his record and his testimony before the Senate, I am not satisfied that 
Rex Tillerson is the right person to lead the State Department. On each 
of these criteria--views, knowledge base, and skills--I have concerns 
about his nomination at this point in the process.
  First, I am not satisfied with Mr. Tillerson's views. There has been 
a clear consensus among both parties on the foundation of U.S. foreign 
policy. Throughout the confirmation process, however, Mr. Tillerson 
indicated that his views did not necessarily align with that consensus. 
During discussions on international human rights, the hearing record 
shows that Mr. Tillerson was vague about oppressive governments, 
extrajudicial killings, and the bombing of hospitals. He demurred when 
given the opportunity to rule out a Muslim registry, a concept that is 
anathema to American values, and yet this administration is dangerously 
close to implementing one.
  Perhaps most concerning were Mr. Tillerson's views on Russia. I don't 
need to be the umpteenth person to list the many, many concerns we have 
about a country that is not America's ally. For decades, there has been 
bipartisan consensus about U.S. relations with Russia, and I am 
uncomfortable with confirming a Secretary of State who does not share 
that bipartisan view.
  Secondly, I am not satisfied that Mr. Tillerson has the knowledge 
base to lead U.S. diplomacy. His vision for the State Department seemed 
to confuse the roles of the Department of State and the Department of 
Defense. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson responded to a 
question on the South China Sea, but his answer focused on military 
solutions instead of the long list of diplomatic options which we 
should first explore.
  That is not to say a Secretary of State can't recommend military 
solutions. There is certainly a long history of the State Department 
doing just that, but it should always be as a last resort. It always 
comes after a long pursuit of peace through diplomacy.
  Finally, I am not satisfied that Mr. Tillerson will be able to 
translate the considerable skills he has from ExxonMobil to the State 
Department. His long career at Exxon is certainly impressive, but it is 
the only international job on his resume, and let's be clear, the 
company's record does not at all align with U.S. foreign policy, from 
accusations related to human rights abuses to Exxon's business 
operations in countries that are not friendly to the United States. I 
am not arguing that this makes Mr. Tillerson a bad person. As the CEO 
of a big company, he had his own imperatives and his own obligations, 
and I understand and respect that. But it is not enough to say that I 
used to care only about ExxonMobil's interests, but now I only care 
about the U.S. interests.
  The next leader of the State Department will have to argue for our 
values and our priorities with friends and adversaries alike. He or she 
will need to balance business interests with national security and with 
American values. I approach this nomination process with an open mind, 
but Mr. Tillerson's confirmation hearing left me with too many doubts 
about his views, his knowledge set, and his abilities. I will be voting 
no on his nomination.
  Mr. 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. PETERS. 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. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the 
nomination of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. The position of 
Secretary of State was one of the original four Cabinet positions 
created by President George Washington.
  Even after we declared, fought for, and won our independence as a new 
country, our Founders knew that this world is interconnected. They 
understood that what we needed was to engage with other countries and 
to manage our affairs all across the world.
  Our first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, had previously been 
our Minister to France, our closest ally at the time of our Nation's 
founding.
  Today, the role of Secretary of State is as important as ever. We 
need a Secretary who will reassure our allies, project strength and 
competence around the world, and push back against the President's 
worst impulses.
  Having reviewed his qualifications and testimony before the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, I am unfortunately convinced that Mr. 
Tillerson is not the right person to lead the State Department and to 
represent the United States abroad.
  Mr. Tillerson has spent decades at ExxonMobil, where he rose through 
the ranks from an engineer to chairman and CEO. We should value hard 
work and success in the private sector, but we should also ask what the 
President's nominees were working toward. Mr. Tillerson's success at 
Exxon in large part can be attributed to deals he struck and 
connections he made with Russian plutocrats and government officials, 
including Vladimir Putin.
  Over the years, Mr. Tillerson's views toward Vladimir Putin have 
been, in a

[[Page 1403]]

word, flexible. Mr. Tillerson has always put Exxon first, cloying up to 
Putin's authoritarian regime when it suited his own business interests.
  In 2008, he spoke out against the Russian Government's disrespect for 
the rule of law and its judicial system, but in 2011, after reaching a 
$500 billion deal with the Russian state-owned oil company, he changed 
his views.
  Under Vladimir Putin, the Russian Government silences dissent. They 
murder political rivals and journalists. Many of Putin's political 
opponents have been poisoned or shot. Since 2000, at least 34 
journalists have been murdered in Russia, many by government or 
military officials.
  Mr. Tillerson was awarded Russia's Order of Friendship by Putin in 
2012--one of the highest honors Russia conveys to foreigners.
  When Congress was working in a bipartisan manner to enact sanctions 
on Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, ExxonMobil was 
lobbying against the bill under the leadership of Mr. Tillerson.
  During his confirmation hearing, his answers demonstrated either a 
lack of understanding or a willful ignorance of the destabilizing role 
Russia plays around the world.
  Last year I traveled to Ukraine and Estonia, countries that are on 
the frontline of Russian aggression. They are genuinely concerned about 
President Trump's desire to embrace Russia. I heard firsthand how 
important the support and presence of the United States is to our 
allies in the Baltics.
  In recent years, Russia's belligerence has only grown. Russia has 
conducted a cyber attack against Estonia, seized territory in Georgia, 
kidnapped an Estonian border guard, and illegally annexed Crimea. 
Russian military patrols have approached NATO member territory and have 
come recklessly close to U.S. military vessels. These irresponsible 
actions can have severe, dangerous consequences.
  What should be most disturbing to any American is that last year 
Russia interfered with our election to undermine public faith in our 
democratic process. The intelligence community reported that Vladimir 
Putin himself ordered the interference--a significant escalation of 
Russian attempts to sow chaos in the West.
  I recognize the President's right to choose his appointments to the 
Cabinet, but, as the Senate provides its advice and consent, there are 
still too many unanswered questions for me to support this nomination. 
We still have not seen President Trump's tax returns, breaking a 40-
year tradition adhered to by nominees of both parties. This lack of 
transparency means that we don't know about the Trump family's possible 
past and current business ties to Russia. What message do we send to 
our allies if the Secretary of State and potentially even the President 
have a history of significant business dealings with a corrupt regime? 
How will this impact our moral authority as a country to take action 
against corruption worldwide?
  The Secretary of State is the U.S. Ambassador to the world. It is 
essential that the Secretary is someone who can provide unquestioned 
leadership and represent American values. There must be no question 
that the Secretary of State is acting in the best interest of the 
United States and is willing to take strong action to advance our 
interests. He must put the American people first and not his former 
shareholders and friends in the Exxon boardroom.
  I am concerned that Mr. Tillerson will prematurely lift the sanctions 
that have been put in place against Russia. Sanctions are not meant to 
be permanent, but they should never be removed until they have achieved 
their purpose.
  When our Secretary of State looks at a map of the Baltic region, we 
need a statesman who sees allies that contribute to NATO, not a new 
opportunity for offshore drilling.
  The Senate must ensure that we are a moderating voice and are 
approving moderating voices in the Trump administration.
  I supported the nominations of Secretary Mattis to lead the 
Department of Defense, Secretary Kelly to lead the Department of 
Homeland Security, and Ambassador Haley to serve as U.S. Ambassador to 
the United Nations, and I supported these individuals because I believe 
they will serve as a positive influence against the worst instincts and 
erratic tendencies of President Trump and his political advisers.
  America must stand by its allies and serve as a shining example of 
democracy. I cannot support a Secretary of State nominee if there is 
any doubt as to whether they will be a strong, independent voice within 
the Trump administration. The events of the past week have made the 
need for such leadership abundantly clear. That is why I will vote 
against the nomination of Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State, and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. 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.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the 
Secretary of State nominee, as well as President Trump's recent 
Executive order on refugees. I believe we need a Secretary of State who 
will clearly stand up to Russian aggression. I am concerned about the 
nominee's past statements and his relationship with Russia, and I am 
not going to be voting for him. If he is confirmed, I hope we can work 
with him. Some of his newer statements have been positive on taking 
that on, as well as some of the many issues confronting our world.
  The reason I am so focused on Russia is, first of all, we have a 
significant Ukrainian population in Minnesota. We are very proud of 
them. I was recently in Ukraine, Georgia, as well as Lithuania, Latvia, 
and Estonia with Senators McCain and Graham. I saw firsthand the 
meaning of Russian aggression on a daily basis. In these countries, the 
cyber attack is not a new movie. They have seen it many times before. 
It is a rerun. In Estonia, in 2007, they had the audacity to move a 
bronze statue of a Russian fighter from a town square where there had 
been protests to a cemetery. What did they get for that? They got their 
Internet service shut down. That is what they do. In Lithuania, they 
decided something you could imagine happening in our own country. On 
the 25th anniversary of the celebration of the independence of their 
country, they invited, as an act of solidarity, the members of the 
Ukrainian Parliament--who are in exile in Kiev from Crimea, which has 
been illegally annexed by Russia. They invited them to meet with them 
and celebrate in Lithuania. What happened to them; again, cyber attacks 
on members of the Parliament.
  This is not just about one political candidate. We saw in the last 
election in the United States--where now 17 intelligence agencies have 
collectively said there was an infringement--that there was an attempt 
to influence our elections in America. It is not just about one 
candidate. It is not just about one political party, as Senator Rubio 
so eloquently noted. It is not even just about one country. It is an 
assault on democracies across the world.
  I think we need to take this very seriously, not just from an 
intelligence standpoint but also from a foreign relations standpoint. 
That is why I introduced the bill, with Senators Feinstein, Cardin, 
Leahy, and Carper, to create an independent and nonpartisan commission 
to uncover all the facts. It is also why we have an expanded sanctions 
bill that is bipartisan, led by Senators McCain and Cardin.
  What we do matters. I think you see that, not only with regard to our 
relations with those countries in the Baltics but also with what we 
have seen in just the past few days because of this Executive order. I 
hope that having a Secretary of State in place would help, as well as 
more involvement from other agencies so something like this will never 
happen again.

[[Page 1404]]




                               Travel Ban

  As a former prosecutor, I have long advocated for thorough vetting. I 
have supported strong national security measures. I believe the No. 1 
purpose of government is to keep people safe, but I don't believe that 
is what this Executive order did. In fact, it created chaos. I am on 
the bill to reverse and rescind this order. I know they have taken some 
steps to respond to all of the problems we have seen in every State in 
this Nation, but what really happened was--with the stroke of a pen--
the administration excluded entire populations from seeking refuge.
  I do think it is a bit forgotten that it is not just the seven or so 
countries that were identified by the administration. The refugee 
program has been stopped all over the world, and on Sunday I met with, 
along with Senator Franken, a number of our refugee populations. To 
give you some background, we have the biggest population of Somalis in 
the Nation in Minnesota. We are proud of our Somali population. We have 
the second biggest Hmong population. We have the biggest Liberian 
population. We have the biggest Oromo population. We have a number of 
people from Burma. These are all legal workers. They come over as 
refugees. They are legal when they come over. Many of them get green 
cards. Many of them go on to become citizens. We have people who are on 
work visas, people who are on student visas.
  The faces I saw and the people I met, these were their stories: an 
engineer from 3M who doesn't think he can go back to visit his father; 
a former marine from one of the affected countries who doesn't believe 
his brother can now come and visit him; two little girls in bright pink 
jackets who stood with us because they had waited for years for the 
arrival of their sister; the mother, a Somali woman within a refugee 
camp in Uganda was pregnant. She finally had gotten her papers to be 
able to come to America, get out of the refugee camp with her two 
children, but because she was pregnant when the papers came through, 
she wasn't able to apply for what would be her third child. The baby 
was born and she had a ``Sophie's Choice.'' Was she going to stay in 
the refugee camp with the two older girls or was she going to bring 
them to safety in America, in Minnesota, with so many friends and 
relatives whom she knew, and then have to leave the baby behind?
  She decided to leave the baby with friends at that refugee camp, and 
for 4 years she worked to get that baby to Minnesota. She got it done, 
and that baby was supposed to get on a plane and come to Minnesota this 
week, courtesy of Lutheran Social Services in Minnesota that had worked 
with the family. Right now, the latest news our office has had, that is 
not happening. Why? This 4-year-old is not a green card holder. This 4-
year-old is a refugee, a refugee who is coming to finally be with her 
mom and her sisters. To explain to what looked like about an 8-year-old 
and a 10-year-old why this is happening is really--there are no words 
to explain why it is happening.
  I truly appreciate it that some of our Republican colleagues joined 
the chorus to say the vetting rule had not been vetted. Many of them 
pointed to the implementation problems with this rule, and others, such 
as Senator McCain and Senator Graham, also talked about the fact that 
this was simply a self-inflicted wound in our fight against terrorism. 
We heard much of that.
  I know, from my colleagues, what this means to moderates whom we are 
attempting to work with in these Muslim nations as well as our allies 
all across the world.
  I leave you with this. This is about our economy. I remind our 
friends, and I know--I see Senator Rubio here who understands the 
economic value of immigration--that over 70 of the Fortune 500 
companies in America are led by immigrants, including in my State, 3M, 
Best Buy, Mosaic; that 25 percent of our U.S. Nobel laureates were born 
in other countries; that at one point I had the figure that 200 of our 
Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or kids of immigrants. 
That is our economy.
  There is the moral argument, best reflected in the story I just told 
of those two little girls in their bright pink jackets in the middle of 
a Minnesota winter, but then there is also the security argument. So we 
plead with the administration to reverse this rule, to rescind it.
  Certainly, we can work on more vetting measures. As we know, the 
refugee vetting already takes 18 months, 2 years, 3 years, more work 
with biometrics, but there is no reason to do this on the backs of 
people who have followed the rules, who have followed the regulations 
and have done what is right and simply want to be part of our country 
or, in most cases, are already part of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, we are here in the Senate debating what I 
believe is the most important Cabinet position that the President has 
to nominate, the Secretary of State. It comes at an important point in 
American foreign policy history. There is so much uncertainty and 
debate about our role in the world these days. A lot of our allies have 
questions. Our adversaries are obviously watching very closely.
  I hope that all of us--and I mean the Executive Branch to the 
Congress--recognize that as people around the world are watching what 
is happening on television, they see an America that is deeply divided 
and fractured right now. I think this needs to be a moment of 
restraint, both in action and in words. As we work through our 
differences, these vibrant debates are important to our system of 
government.
  It is one of the reasons that led me to ultimately support the 
nomination of Mr. Tillerson. I believe that despite some of the 
concerns that I had and have about his answers to some of my questions, 
it is vitally important for this country to have a Secretary of State 
in place at this moment.
  I have never had any doubts about Mr. Tillerson's qualifications, his 
intellect, his background. I have had some concerns about his answers 
to some very important questions, at least important questions to me, 
and what I hope will be important questions for a lot of Americans. 
That is what I wanted to come to the floor and speak about in 
conjunction with this nomination, and that is the issue of human 
rights.
  To me, human rights is critical both to our national identity, but it 
is also important to our national Security. In America today, we have, 
as we have done now for the past few centuries, contentious debates all 
the time about policies and about what kind of country we want to be. 
If you have watched the proceedings on the Senate floor or in committee 
over the last few days, you have seen a lot of that.
  Even as we debate these things among ourselves, and even as the 
American political rhetoric has become so incredibly heated--and we 
will have more to say about that in the weeks to come--I don't know of 
any other time where we have gotten to the point that when we disagree 
with people, we don't just disagree with them, we question their 
motives and their character.
  In fact, it is almost automatic today in American political 
discourse. You don't just disagree with someone; you immediately jump 
to why they are a bad person. In the months and weeks to come, I will 
have examples about why that is a bad idea. But as we are having those 
contentious debates, I hope that we never take for granted, sometimes 
as I think we do, that we live in a place where losing an election, 
losing a vote, losing on an issue, does not mean you end up in jail or 
disappear or are executed because that is the kind of stuff that 
happens in other places all over the world, even now, in the 17th year 
of the 21st century.
  As we have seen in recent weeks, this political dissent is part of 
our way of life. It has come to define our country. We protect it in 
our Constitution. It has made us an example to the rest of the world. I 
was reminded of this just a couple of months ago, right here in 
Washington, DC. After our most recent election, I had to a chance to 
visit with my opponent, Congressman Patrick Murphy of Florida.

[[Page 1405]]

  When I was finished with that meeting, I walked into another meeting. 
That other meeting was with a Cuban dissident. He is an opponent of the 
Castro regime, an individual who risks his life in the pursuit of 
freedom, an individual who does not just get bad bog posts or a bad 
article or a bad editorial or a nasty campaign ad run against him. No, 
this is an individual who routinely gets thrown into jail, and he has 
the scars to prove the beatings he has taken from the Cuban state 
police over the last few years.
  I was a little bit late to this meeting. I apologized to him. I 
explained that I had just been in a meeting with my opposing candidate, 
the man I had just ran against in the election. I could see the look on 
his face. It kind of struck him. He immediately, I believe, appreciated 
what that represented. He said--and I am paraphrasing: That is what we 
want for our country too.
  This is the essence of what has been America's example to the world, 
the essence of how our principles and our values have inspired others 
to seek their own God-given rights and how we have a moral duty to 
support--in our words, in our foreign policy, and in our actions--those 
aspirations of people all over the world.
  In a way, dictators and tyrants have never had it worse than they do 
today because we live in this high-tech information age. We often get 
to see the images of repression within minutes of it happening, if not 
in real time. We can monitor it; we can catalog the status of human 
rights in every city, in every country, on every continent.
  But as Americans, we are called to do much more than observe and 
record these atrocities for history. With this knowledge, it is our 
duty to act and to do what we can to support the people demanding their 
rights. We must hold those who are violating their rights accountable. 
I believe this is more important than ever because of the totalitarian 
resurgence underway in many parts of the world as democracy in every 
continent is under attack.
  Even as I stand here now before you, there are political prisoners on 
this planet. They languish in Chinese prisons. Political dissidents and 
journalists are being silenced and targeted for murder in Russia. Those 
who seek democracy in Syria are being massacred. The United States has 
a unique responsibility to highlight, to expose, and to combat these 
grave human rights abuses around the world.
  Historically, we have been a compassionate country that has welcomed 
people seeking refuge from repression and atrocities. That is why I 
understand. I understand the concerns about refugees from certain 
failed states or governments who sponsor terror, places where very 
often it is difficult if not impossible to verify the identities of 
people seeking to come to the United States.
  I say this to people all the time. When you talk about changes in 
policies, there is a legitimate argument and a credible argument to be 
made that there are people we cannot allow into the United States, not 
because we don't have compassion for their plight but because we have 
no way of knowing who they are. You can't just call 1-800-Syria and get 
background information about the individuals who are trying to enter 
the United States. We know for a fact that there are terrorist groups 
around the world that have commandeered passport-making machinery and 
are producing passports that are real in every way, except for the 
identity of the person in the picture.
  So I do believe that we need to have very careful and rigorous 
screening, more than ever before, of all people entering the United 
States but especially those who are coming from areas that we know do 
not have reliable background information available to us.
  But at the same time, I cannot help, and I think we should not help, 
but to be worried about the impact of a 120-day moratorium on every 
single refugee from anywhere on the planet, refugees from places like 
the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ukraine, Colombia, El Salvador, 
Vietnam, Burma, and, of course, Cuba, just to name a few places. These 
are among the most vulnerable people on the planet, living often in the 
most difficult and dangerous circumstances imaginable.
  I remind everyone: This is a moratorium; it is not a permanent 
policy. I understand that there are provisions available for waivers, 
and I find that to be promising.
  But I also want to everyone to understand that 120 days, for someone 
who is trying to get out of a place where they might be killed, may be 
1 day too many for some of them. I hope that does not turn out to be 
the case. That is why I urge the administration, that is why I urge 
soon-to-be Secretary Tillerson, to exercise great caution in making 
sure that dissidents and others are not being turned away.
  By the way, I am pleased to see that the administration is heeding 
some of these calls already, early this week. We must understand that 
when tyrants and dictators oppress their people, we are all paying a 
price. It is happening all over the world. Vladimir Putin continues to 
institute Draconian laws targeting the freedom of expression and 
assembly.
  Earlier this year, my office and I highlighted the case of human 
rights activist Ildar Dadin, who was the first person imprisoned under 
Russia's new criminal provision that bars any form of public dissent.
  In China, rights lawyers are tortured. Labor activists are arrested. 
Tibetan Buddhist nuns are expelled from their homes, and churches are 
being demolished. Just earlier today, I met the wives of two Chinese 
rights advocates, who both pleaded for the United States to champion 
their husbands' cases in the hope that they can see their husbands 
again.
  In Iran, dissent, freedom of expression, and freedom of press is 
nonexistent, heavily restricted. Many continue to be jailed for simply 
exercising their fundamental human rights. The Government of Iran 
targets religious minorities, often jailing Christian pastors and those 
who gather to worship together in private homes. In Syria, one of the 
worst humanitarian catastrophes in modern history, the Assad regime, 
with the assistance of Vladimir Putin and the Iranian Government and 
military, is committing war crimes against innocent women, children, 
men, and civilians in Aleppo and beyond.
  In Iraq, we have seen ancient Christian and Yezidi communities on the 
verge of extinction, all because of ISIS.
  In Venezuela, the Maduro regime continues to imprison political 
opponents while the country descends further and further into economic 
chaos and has now become on the verge of a total humanitarian 
catastrophe in the Western Hemisphere. In one of the richest countries 
on the planet, we are at the point of people literally starving to 
death.
  Saudi Arabia is an ally of the United States on many key geopolitical 
issues, and we will have to continue working with them on those shared 
causes. But they also remain one of the most censored countries in the 
world. The government has intensified its repression of activists and 
journalists. In Saudi Arabia, women remain under the male guardianship 
system. They are banned from even driving.
  Globally, assaults against press freedom around the world are a major 
problem because, ultimately, the cause and champions of human rights 
need information to expose abuses and call for reforms. Without 
independent journalists, without information, tyrants and dictatorships 
can get away with so much more.
  According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, in 2016, 48 
journalists were killed and 259 journalists were jailed worldwide. In 
2016, Turkey, a NATO member, again, an important geopolitical alliance 
of the United States, but, sadly, they became the leading jailer of 
journalists on the planet, following a widespread crackdown on the 
press.
  The abuses and threats to human rights around the world are many. We 
could be here all night trying to break Senator Strom Thurmond's 
filibuster record, going country by country, case by case, and it still 
would not be enough time to do justice to all of the heroic figures 
around the world. But it is my hope that more of my colleagues will 
join me in doing so over time because it is important. Our voices here

[[Page 1406]]

in the Senate give people all over the world confidence and motivation 
to stay the course.
  As famed Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky has said of himself and 
fellow prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union: ``We never could 
survive even one day in the Soviet Union if our struggle was not the 
struggle of the free world.''
  In essence, what he is saying is that these tyrants and these 
dictators, when they jail these people, the first thing they tell them 
is that no one even remembers you anymore. No one talks about you 
anymore. You have been abandoned.
  Today, I want to highlight one particular human rights case as part 
of the weekly social media campaign my office has been doing for the 
last couple of years called Expression NOT Oppression.
  Here you see a picture of a gentleman named Dr. Eduardo Cardet of 
Cuba. He is a medical doctor and the national coordinator of the 
Christian Liberation Movement, a group which advocates for democracy 
and freedom.
  Cardet assumed the role of national coordinator after the suspicious 
death of Castro critic Oswaldo Paya Sardinas. After allegedly stating 
in an interview that Fidel Castro was hated by the Cuban people--that 
is what he said--he was savagely beaten in front of his two young 
children and wife by Cuban state security on November 30 of last year. 
He has been in jail ever since.
  He has been charged--get this. He has been charged with challenging 
authority. He faces a 3- to 5-year prison sentence. Let me repeat that. 
He is officially charged with challenging authority. That is a crime in 
Cuba. His father has written to Pope Francis begging for his 
intervention. By the way, this is a reminder that even though Fidel 
Castro is dead, his authoritarian system still lives on.
  Dr. Cardet's persecution and the overall increase in repression in 
Cuba over the past 2 years is a reminder that the policy of rewarding 
the Castro regime, under the guise of engagement, with cash and 
concessions has not worked and must be strategically reversed here in 
the coming months.
  So I come here today in the hope that our President and our State 
Department and especially Mr. Tillerson, in whom I am entrusting my 
vote for confirmation, and all Members of Congress, for that matter, 
will add their voices in solidarity with Dr. Cardet, with all the Cuban 
people yearning to be free, and with those around the world who look to 
our Nation--to America--for leadership and often for nothing more than 
for us to lend our voice to their cause.
  As we move forward here with our Nation's work, we must continue to 
highlight these cases and to raise awareness of them. We must never 
forget that there are people all over the world who are challenging 
authority because they want a better life for themselves and their 
families. They should be able to challenge authority peacefully and 
then go home to their families, not be thrown in jail, tortured, or 
killed.
  Today I ask all to pray for those who are victims of their own 
government. I pray for the release of prisoners of conscience and their 
families, and I pray that our own country at this moment of 
extraordinary division on so many key issues can reaffirm its founding 
principles in calling for the sacred right of every man, woman, and 
child to be free.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the 
nomination of Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State. Mr. Tillerson is 
an intelligent, hard-working, and successful businessman. He is also, 
in my view, the wrong choice to be our Nation's top diplomat.
  To effectively confront the many challenges our country faces in an 
increasingly globalize and volatile world, we need a Secretary of State 
who, with credibility and conviction, can clearly and effectively 
articulate our interests and values and who has experience advocating 
for them abroad.
  We need someone who will work with the international community to 
combat climate change, bring to justice war criminals like Bashar al-
Assad, and stand up to corrupt, abusive regimes that violate 
international humanitarian law and territorial integrity as Russia has 
done in Syria and Ukraine.
  We need someone who will advocate for fundamental human rights and 
democratic values when they are threatened by friend or foe.
  I am unconvinced that Mr. Tillerson is that person.
  As an accomplished businessman, Mr. Tillerson's lone qualification 
for Secretary of State seems to be his success in tirelessly 
circumnavigating the globe to negotiate oil deals. There is no doubt he 
has helped ExxonMobil expand its business and made a lot of money doing 
so. But contrary to the view being promoted by the Trump 
administration, running a for-profit business is fundamentally 
different from running a large Federal agency.
  As the CEO of ExxonMobil, Mr. Tillerson worked closely with corrupt 
autocrats like Vladimir Putin who were actively undermining U.S. 
interests and acting in ways that were counter to our values. In doing 
so, Mr. Tillerson served his shareholders, but he disregarded the 
national interests of the United States.
  Unlike some in this body, I believe we should have relations with 
governments we disagree with. But I also believe that, in doing so, we 
must act in accordance with our principles and values. And I don't 
believe that being the CEO of one of this country's wealthiest 
companies entitles you to ignore those values for the sake of making 
money.
  Mr. Tillerson's confirmation hearing provided him the opportunity to 
reconcile his track record of a lifetime in the oil business with the 
responsibilities he would have as Secretary of State.
  In his testimony, he stated that ``American leadership requires moral 
clarity.'' I agree. But he was challenged by Senators Rubio, Murphy, 
and others who observed that despite this statement, Mr. Tillerson was 
unwilling to label the relentless bombardment and destruction of Aleppo 
by Russian forces as a war crime or the extrajudicial killings of 
thousands of civilians in the Philippines as a blatant violation of 
human rights, to cite only two examples of well-documented cases of 
atrocities he refused to recognize as such.
  I worry that Mr. Tillerson will too often be inclined to subjugate 
fundamental human rights to what he perceives as overriding economic or 
security concerns. There is nothing in the record to suggest that he 
recognizes that the protection of human rights is itself a national 
security imperative or that he would differ from the President on these 
issues that have become even more important since January 20.
  We also have no idea what Mr. Tillerson thinks about the President's 
misguided, discriminatory, and probably illegal decision to ban entry 
to the United States of all citizens of Syria and half a dozen other 
Muslim countries because he has been conspicuously silent, even though 
the State Department will have a key role in enforcing it. Our 
diplomats posted overseas will bear the brunt of the retaliatory 
actions by outraged governments in countries targeted by this arbitrary 
and self-defeating Executive order.
  Nor do we know what he thinks of the President's draft Executive 
order that signals a drastic reduction in our support for and influence 
in the United Nations. Will the President consult with Mr. Tillerson 
before issuing that order? Does Mr. Tillerson think it is a smart way 
to protect our interests and reassure our allies? We don't know.
  ExxonMobil, while Mr. Tillerson was CEO, lobbied to overturn section 
1504 of the Dodd-Frank legislation which is designed to stop the 
illicit flow of revenues from oil and gas extraction to corrupt 
governments. Senator Lugar, who played a key role in that bipartisan 
legislation, said at the time that stopping such corruption is a 
national security and economic priority for the United States. Does Mr. 
Tillerson think that shrouding in secrecy corruption involving hundreds 
of billions of dollars by governments who steal from their own 
impoverished people is in our

[[Page 1407]]

national interest? We don't know because he doesn't say.
  My other abiding concern with this nominee is that we are being asked 
to confirm the head of the world's largest oil company to be the 
country's top diplomat, at a time when I believe the most challenging 
issue we and the world face is climate change resulting from the 
combustion of fossil fuels.
  Uniting the world to combat climate change will not be possible 
without unprecedented U.S. leadership. Leadership requires credibility, 
and on this issue, Mr. Tillerson has next to none. He has devoted his 
professional career--and become a billionaire in the process--to 
extracting and selling as much oil as possible. If, at his confirmation 
hearing, Mr. Tillerson had said that he recognizes the causal 
connection between burning fossil fuels and climate change, that he 
understands the grave threat it poses, and that he is determined to use 
the position of Secretary of State to build on the record of the Obama 
administration to combat climate change, I might feel differently. But 
he said nothing remotely like that.
  To the contrary, when asked at his confirmation hearing if ExxonMobil 
concealed what it knew about climate change while funding outside 
groups that raised doubts about the science, Mr. Tillerson said he was 
``in no position to speak'' for the company, even though he had been 
the CEO until only a few days before. When asked whether he lacked the 
knowledge to answer or was refusing to do so, he replied ``A little of 
both.'' That should concern each of us.
  Based on his professional record and his responses at the hearing, I 
do not believe Mr. Tillerson is the right person to be representing the 
United States in negotiations to reduce carbon emissions, one of the 
defining issues of our time.
  I was also disappointed by Mr. Tillerson's responses to a number of 
other questions submitted for the record, including regarding U.S. 
policy toward Cuba and the right of Americans to travel there. By 
simply repeating the Republican talking points that he would act 
consistent with the Helms-Burton Act, he appeared to embrace a law that 
has failed to achieve any of its objectives and has prevented Americans 
from traveling freely to Cuba or U.S. companies from doing business 
there.
  Does Mr. Tillerson believe that Cuba, an impoverished island of 11 
million people who overwhelmingly have a positive opinion of the United 
States, should remain the country with the most U.S. sanctions of any 
in the world? He didn't say.
  I hope that, if confirmed, Mr. Tillerson will evaluate our policy 
toward Cuba objectively and in a manner that favors diplomatic 
engagement--as the overwhelming majority of Cubans and Americans want--
over isolation.
  I understand that nominees are often unwilling to take hard positions 
or unable to discuss in detail at this early stage all of the issues 
they will be required to manage in their new job. But we should expect 
a nominee for Secretary of State to be willing and able to recognize 
and condemn horrific violations of human rights and to speak out 
against actions by foreign governments and our own that are obviously 
inconsistent with our interests and values.
  President Obama did not achieve every foreign policy goal he set out 
to achieve, nor did I always agree with President Obama's or Secretary 
of State Kerry's priorities. But we worked together, and with our 
international partners, we made notable progress over the past 8 years 
on human rights, climate change, reducing poverty, and many other 
issues--progress we must continue to build on. With nationalism and 
isolationism on the rise and democracy and fundamental freedoms under 
threat, we need a Secretary of State who has demonstrated a track 
record and commitment to more than economic enrichment.
  If Mr. Tillerson is confirmed, which I expect he will be, I will 
continue my longstanding support for the funding to enable the State 
Department to carry out its vital mission to protect and promote U.S. 
interests and values abroad. When he and I agree, I will support him. 
When we disagree, I will be vocal in my opposition as I was during the 
Obama administration.
  I hope Mr. Tillerson will also be a strong advocate for the State 
Department's budget and personnel, including by protecting the 
integrity of the Dissent Channel to ensure that alternative views on 
important policy decisions can be expressed and considered without fear 
of retribution. Even the best policies in the world are worth little 
more than the paper they are printed on without the funds and the 
people to implement them.
  We should always remember that the face of the United States is its 
people. Leadership is possible only through the hard work of the 
diplomats serving around the world to promote our values, defend our 
interests, and engage constructively with friends and adversaries. 
Their service, dedication, and expertise are the reason we are able to 
effectively confront an increasingly dangerous world. Our success at 
home is inextricably linked to their success abroad. That is why, just 
as we support the men and women of our military, so should we recognize 
and support the diplomats at the Department of State.
  The State Department's indispensable role, made possible by its 
outstanding workforce, is recognized by the many widely respected 
senior U.S. Armed Forces officials, current and retired, who have 
repeatedly called for increased funding for diplomacy and development. 
They know better than anyone that preventing wars is far less costly 
than fighting them and that wars rarely if ever turn out the way one 
predicts, as the past 50 years painfully illustrate.
  Regardless of whatever differences of opinion we may have, I hope Mr. 
Tillerson will consult regularly with Republicans and Democrats, as has 
been the custom with past successful Secretaries of State of both 
parties. I have been here a long time, and I would be the first to say 
that we have had outstanding top diplomats from both parties. I put 
James Baker in that category, and I sincerely hope that Mr. Tillerson 
proves me wrong and joins their ranks. We all want what is best for the 
American people and the Nation, and we are stronger when we work 
together and with other nations to find a common way forward.

                          ____________________