[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 995-1001]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                              NOMINATIONS

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nominations, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nominations of James 
Mattis, of Washington, to be Secretary of Defense; and John F. Kelly, 
of Virginia, to be Secretary of Homeland Security.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me just, for the information of all 
Members, point out that after we vote on Mattis and Kelly, we will turn 
to the Pompeo nomination, begin that debate, and hopefully finish it at 
some point tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is not a lot of benefit in being 
around here for a long period of time, but I remember very well in 
January of 2009, when the new President of the United States and, in a 
spirit of enthusiasm and bipartisanship, the Senate, on the first day 
of the inauguration, approved of seven Cabinet members, seven--not two, 
as we are presently contemplating, but seven. All of those individuals, 
as I recall, had some degree of concern about them, had some degree of 
controversy--some more, some less. But the fact is, we moved forward 
and almost unanimously voted in favor of these Cabinet members for the 
simple reason that the American people had spoken, and we had a new 
President of a different party, and we ought to give that President the 
team that he needed in order to get his job done.
  Now, the one difference between what I have seen here in 2017, since 
2009, is that the world is on fire. Look at the world today, and look 
at a map of it in 2009. There weren't 6 million refugees out of Syria. 
There weren't 400,000 people murdered by Bashar al-Assad with the 
assistance of Vladimir Putin and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. We 
didn't have Russians using precision-guided weapons, striking hospitals 
in Aleppo, slaughtering innocent men, women, and children. We didn't 
have the Chinese acting in the most belligerent fashion in the South 
China Sea, asserting their sovereignty over an international waterway 
through which about 60 percent of the world's economy moves, as they 
are now.
  We didn't have Vladimir Putin invading Crimea in a violation of the 
Budapest agreement, in which Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons 
arsenal in exchange for a guarantee of the territorial integrity of 
Ukraine that included Crimea. We didn't have Vladimir Putin invading 
the land of Ukraine and partitioning it and slaughtering some 10,000 
brave Ukrainians who stood up against that invasion while, by the way, 
we wouldn't even give them lethal weapons to defend themselves.
  We have a world on fire. And we have a nominee to be the Director of 
the CIA. I happen to know Congressman Pompeo very well. I happen to 
admire his work. I happened to notice in the hearing that there was 
really relatively no controversy associated with his candidacy, with 
his nomination to be the Director of the CIA.
  So my question to my dear friends on the other side of the aisle is: 
Why the hell won't we just go ahead and give the President his national 
security team when we need it more than at any time in recent history?
  The American people have spoken about who they want to be Commander 
in Chief. Now let's give the Commander in Chief his Secretary of 
Defense, his

[[Page 996]]

Secretary of Homeland Security, and let's give him a leader of our 
intelligence community, the CIA. And, by God, when you look at the 
controversy surrounding our intelligence agencies--which is gigantic--
we need a new Director of the CIA more than ever.
  The American people made a decision, but they also voiced--at least 
in my campaign, and I can only speak, frankly, for my own--a great 
dissatisfaction about the fact that we don't work together, the fact 
that we don't sit down and talk about these things and get some kind of 
working arrangement. Well, how do you do that when we won't even allow 
a noncontroversial nominee for the Director of the CIA to be confirmed? 
I don't get it.
  What is the point here? Is the point that we are just going to show 
the Republicans by slow-walking their nominees? Is that what the point 
of this is? If it is, then in my view, you are contradicting the will 
of the American people and the verdict of the American people.
  I know there is controversy about the fact that Secretary Clinton got 
a larger number of the popular vote. I know the controversy that there 
were narrow victories in some of the States. But the fact is that no 
one in their right mind has challenged the fact that the President of 
the United States, whose inauguration took place today, is the 
President of the United States.
  So why would we want to--right out of the box, right out of the box, 
right immediately, at an incredibly controversial time--block a member 
of his Cabinet who needs to take charge with the confidence of the U.S. 
Senate that he will do a job and, frankly, restore--whether you happen 
to like the outgoing team or not. And if you want to praise them, fine; 
if you want to support them, fine. But the fact is, there is a huge 
controversy about our intelligence community. In fact, some of that, in 
my view, has been contributed to by the now-President of the United 
States with his comments about the intelligence community.
  But on both sides of the aisle, we respect and admire Congressman 
Pompeo, who is well qualified. Is there anyone who has said he is not 
qualified? Is there anyone on the other side who said that Pompeo is 
not qualified; we haven't examined his record enough? I don't think so. 
If so, I haven't heard it.
  But is the message now: We are just going to slow-walk the 
Republicans because we don't like the outcome of the election? I don't 
think that is the message that I would like to send from our side.
  Have we, on our side, slow-walked from time to time? Have we done 
everything right? I am not defending everything that we have done on 
this side. But I do argue that, in January of 2009, we confirmed seven 
members of the President's team on the first day.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. CORNYN. I ask the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee whether a period of transition from one administration to 
another is a time of particular vulnerability to the United States, at 
a time when we are transitioning not only to a new administration but 
also to a new national security Cabinet.
  Isn't this a time of particular vulnerability for the United States?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 
an additional 2 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would just like to say to my friend from 
Texas, our leader, that there is enormous controversy about our 
intelligence community overall. Questions have been raised going all 
the way back to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, questions about 
what we know or don't know about Russian involvement in the last 
election.
  It seems to me that all of the things that the Senator from Texas 
just said argue for a rapid transition to a person we all trust.
  I would ask the Senator from Texas very quickly: Has he heard someone 
who objects to Congressman Pompeo assuming the role of Director of the 
CIA?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am responding to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  I am not confident that he will get a unanimous vote here, but he 
will certainly be confirmed resoundingly under the rules established by 
the Democratic majority in the last Congress, which allow 51 votes for 
confirmation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Respectfully and with high regard, I would just ask my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--let's get this intelligence 
team to work. Let's put them together. We will have outstanding 
individuals in a time when, in the view of most observers, this Nation 
is in greater peril than it has been in 70 years.
  This is a very, very serious situation we find ourselves in. The 
people have spoken. Let's confirm them today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have the privilege of being the ranking 
member of the Armed Services Committee, working with Senator McCain 
with respect to the nomination of General Mattis.
  I am strongly in favor of the general's confirmation for many 
reasons. He possesses three distinct qualities that are absolutely 
critical: confidence, courage, and character. And he will eminently 
demonstrate those virtues as Secretary of Defense, in my view.
  I would like to also inform the body and everyone else that we just 
did this in a very thorough, careful, thoughtful way.
  General Mattis was subject to a 60-vote procedural vote because we 
had to waive his time from retirement to his ability to serve as 
Secretary of Defense.
  We had a hearing under the auspices of the chairman about the policy 
with two noted historians and policy experts. Then we had a hearing 
with General Mattis. We have collectively--and the chairman's 
leadership is invaluable--moved to ensure that today we can confirm 
General Mattis.
  This has been an opportunity that we have not used to delay, defer, 
or deflect the Mattis nomination. In fact, it was the one that we all 
recognized that would have been subject to a 60-vote point of order. So 
this represents the demonstrated good faith of our focus to ensure that 
we can get people in place for the President.
  With that, I yield to the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief, just to respond to my 
good friend from Arizona who said that the Senate not taking up Pompeo 
would be contradicting the will of the people. That is not the case at 
all. This is about whether the Senate is going to be a rubberstamp and 
whether the Senate is in effect going to abdicate its responsibility to 
do oversight.
  Let me just mention four points real quickly.
  No. 1, this nomination has not been considered in the Intelligence 
Committee. It could have been. It was not. No. 2, we have not been able 
to get answers to our questions. A major question in particular, this 
body voted to sideline a law that collected phone records on law-
abiding Americans. Congressman Pompeo has proposed something that makes 
the law we sidelined look like small potatoes. He is talking about 
collecting lifestyle information on all Americans. We are trying to get 
an answer about whether there are any legal boundaries at all. We have 
not been able to get them. That is argument No. 2.
  Argument No. 3 is that we have never confirmed on inauguration day a 
CIA Director. That is the history of this particular nomination. No. 4, 
I want to talk about the realities of national security because I share 
the view of the chairman of the committee that this is a dangerous 
time. That is not up for debate. There are lots of people out there who 
do not wish our country well. If we were to have a tragedy tonight or 
tomorrow--heaven forbid that

[[Page 997]]

happens to our great country--if it did, we would have the talented 
senior people at the CIA there to protect our country, and I would 
submit, however you feel about Mr. Pompeo, the reality is that if he 
got confirmed tonight or tomorrow, and heaven forbid there was that 
tragedy, we would still be relying on those trained, talented 
professionals at the CIA who have been there, in some cases for 
decades, to protect our country when we are vulnerable.
  That is what this is all about, ensuring that we actually have some 
discussion here when there are outstanding questions. Senator Leahy, 
Senator Blumenthal, and I have all said we just believe there ought to 
be some debate. There hasn't been any in the Intelligence Committee. 
There hasn't been any on the floor. I have gone through the history of 
this nomination and explained what would happen if a tragedy were to 
befall our great country. That is why I think we ought to have a debate 
in broad daylight, not when Senators are trying to figure out if their 
tux is going to fit and we can't get people into a real discussion.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, let me just say to my colleagues that I 
have had the great honor in my life of knowing some outstanding 
military leaders. I consider it one of the highlights of my life being 
around one of these great leaders.
  I want to share with my colleagues that I haven't seen a finer 
leader, a more outstanding and respected leader, and a more beloved 
leader than the man we are going to be voting on to be the Secretary of 
Defense, James Mattis.
  My friends, I am very confident that when we finish this vote, the 
morale all over the U.S. military will go up because they will know 
they have a leader and a leader they can not only respect but they 
admire and in many cases have great affection for. So I urge my 
colleagues to vote aye on the Mattis nomination.
  Mr. President, today on the steps of this Capitol, our Nation 
completed another peaceful transition of power and inaugurated a new 
President. This is a sacred rite of our democracy, one that so many 
have given their lives to make possible. And as free citizens, we 
should count ourselves fortunate to have witnessed it.
  As our new Commander In Chief assumes the awesome responsibilities of 
his office and with threats to our national security growing in scope 
and severity, it is imperative that the Senate act quickly to provide 
advice and consent for the new cabinet, especially for the new 
Secretary of Defense.
  Have no doubt: our adversaries will test us in the coming days and 
weeks. And when they do, I want our Commander In Chief to have Gen. 
James Mattis at his side.
  I have had the privilege of knowing General Mattis for many years. He 
is, without a doubt, one of the finest military officers of his 
generation and an extraordinary leader who inspires a rare and special 
admiration of his troops. In fact, since his selection to be our next 
Secretary of Defense, I have received countless messages of support 
from those who had the honor of serving with him.
  At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, General Mattis demonstrated exceptional command of the 
issues confronting the United States, the Department of Defense, and 
our military servicemembers. He also showed that his understanding of 
civil-military relations is deep and that his commitment to civilian 
control of the Armed Forces is ironclad.
  Over more than four decades of service, General Mattis's character, 
judgment, and commitment to defending our Nation and our Constitution 
have earned him the trust of Presidents, Members of Congress on both 
sides of the aisle, and so many serving in our Armed Forces.
  That is why the Senate Armed Services Committee approved General 
Mattis's nomination this Wednesday with an overwhelming bipartisan vote 
of 26 to 1. I hope the Senate will follow suit with a strong vote to 
put General Mattis to work at the Pentagon. America will be fortunate 
to have General Mattis at her service once again.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I will vote for James Mattis to be 
the next Secretary of Defense. General Mattis stands out as a top 
practitioner in his field. He has earned--and rightly deserves--near-
universal respect. While I opposed the hurried waiving of a carefully 
considered statutory cooling off period for members of the military 
before they can become eligible for this civilian position, I made 
clear then, and restate now, that my opposition to this waiver was 
never about General Mattis himself.
  I was grateful when General Mattis said in his confirmation hearing 
that, even from his first days as a marine, he has observed that, in 
the photographs on the walls of Department of Defense establishments, 
the civilians in suits were above those of the men and women in 
uniforms. I was pleased that he vowed to uphold that meaningful 
tradition. I am confident that, as the President's top adviser on 
matters of defense, as Secretary, General Mattis will carefully provide 
considered defense advice, maximizing the wisdom of not only the 
Active, Reserve, and National Guard, but the whole of the Department of 
Defense, including Department civilians.
  Donald Trump will sorely need that experience and advice. Last 
weekend, President Trump again denigrated our NATO allies, a 
partnership that President Kennedy very much had in mind when he vowed 
at his own inauguration to ``pay any price, bear any burden, meet any 
hardship, support any friend, and oppose any foe to assure the survival 
and success of liberty.'' General Mattis clearly understands the value 
of our NATO alliance. His condemnation of Russia's efforts to ``break'' 
NATO stands in stark contrast to the position of the man who has 
nominated him and, to me, demonstrates the sound, experienced reasoning 
that will provide a necessary balance to President Trump.
  I do harbor reservations about General Mattis's past statements as a 
private citizen related to equality within the ranks of our 
servicemembers. I would have much preferred to hear General Mattis 
renounced those past statements, but I do appreciate that, in his 
confirmation hearings, he said that there is nothing innate about 
gender or orientation that makes someone a better soldier than another. 
I believe the results of the progress made under President Obama will 
show clearly that the Nation succeeds when it has the best individuals 
serving to their fullest potential in the position that best matches 
his or her abilities.
  The Secretary of Defense is, of course, a critically important 
position. There are countless difficult choices General Mattis will 
have to make in steering the Department in a direction that more 
effectively utilizes its budget to respond to today's rapidly evolving 
challenges. And whether it is the persistent, shockingly high rates of 
sexual assault within the Armed Forces and of suicide among young 
veterans, or the need for far more rigorous oversight of Defense 
resources to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, the next Secretary will 
need to demonstrate that the Department is capable of effectively 
addressing its own internal problems, in addition to defending the 
Nation.
  In these unsettling times, General Mattis will provide a voice of 
experience and reason to what, by all accounts, looks to be an 
undisciplined, impulsive, and inexperienced Commander in Chief. On the 
Appropriations Committee and in other ways, I look forward to working 
closely with General Mattis in this new role.
  Mr. President, the Senate today considers the nomination of John 
Kelly to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. A retired marine, 
General Kelly is no stranger to security efforts. Over more than four 
decades of service in the Marines, General Kelly distinguished himself 
through multiple commands and tours of duty. He is well respected by 
elected officials, military officers, the Marines under his command, 
and the law enforcement and intelligence communities. I have no reason 
to doubt that he is a man of integrity.

[[Page 998]]

  But General Kelly is nominated to a far different post than those he 
occupied during his distinguished military career. The Department of 
Homeland Security--a civilian agency within our government--is charged 
with a far-reaching mission. From protecting national security to 
implementing immigration policies, from our emergency response to 
domestic crises, to assisting in the unending fight against drugs in 
our communities that today features opioids and heroin as its most 
prevalent threat, the Department of Homeland Security faces challenges 
as unique as they are numerous. While I am confident that General Kelly 
is well equipped to exert leadership on many of these challenges, his 
nomination has also raised concerns.
  As we look ahead to the policies and practices this new 
administration will seek to implement, we cannot forget the work left 
unfinished in the Obama administration due to the obstruction of 
congressional Republicans. In 2013, after a strong bipartisan vote in 
the Senate, truly comprehensive immigration reform legislation was sent 
to the House of Representatives, where Republican leaders there refused 
to even bring it to a vote. That legislation addressed a litany of 
issues facing our broken immigration system, from securing our borders 
to reforming visa programs, from bringing the undocumented out of the 
shadows to reuniting families.
  After House Republicans failed to bring that bill to a vote, 
President Obama took executive action to expand the Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and establish the Deferred Action for Parents 
of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, DAPA, programs. These 
actions would have offered a reprieve for young people and parents so 
that they could remain in the country, with their families, and without 
fear of deportation. It is fundamentally unfair for the new 
administration to revoke a policy designed to bring vulnerable 
immigrants out of the shadows and then to use information gained from 
that policy to punish them.
  I was disheartened when a Federal court issued an injunction 
preventing implementation of these policies. I was more disheartened 
when the Supreme Court was unable to resolve this court challenge, 
again, due to obstruction from congressional Republicans in the 
consideration of President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. Now, 
this new administration is poised to withdraw these executive orders.
  General Kelly is no stranger to the problems we face along the 
southern border. As the commander of U.S. Southern Command, he is 
familiar not only with immigration challenges, but with drug 
trafficking. While I am grateful that he has not subscribed to the 
singular approach that President Trump has thus far proposed with 
respect to constructing a wall along our southern border, I am deeply 
concerned that he has admonished so-called sanctuary cities and has 
testified that accelerating the deportation of undocumented immigrants 
will provide the solution to our broken immigration system. These views 
are not supported by the facts, and they are contrary to the work 
undertaken by the Senate just 4 years ago to comprehensively address 
these problems. I am also concerned about his tenure as the military 
officer in charge of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, given 
reports that he opposed its closure and limited press access to the 
facility.
  Vermonters know that the explosion of heroin and opioid abuse across 
the country can, in many ways, be attributed to the cross-border 
trafficking of illegal drugs. General Kelly has been a strong defender 
of a U.S. counternarcotics strategy which, in my view and the view of 
many others, has been a costly failure. Since President Reagan's first 
Andean Counter Drug Program, the interrelated problems of drugs, 
corruption, and violence that have plagued countries in South and 
Central America, and spilled over into our own country, have gotten 
progressively worse.
  I do not doubt that General Kelly will be confirmed to this post. 
Knowing that, I do want to work with him to build on successful 
policies such as preclearance operations, TSA Precheck, and the visa 
waiver program. I look forward to partnering with him to ensure the 
continuation of efforts to keep our northern border secure, while 
remaining open to the trade and commerce we conduct with Canada, our 
largest trading partner. I look forward to working with General Kelly 
to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is fully 
supported and able to respond to domestic disasters. And I look forward 
to working with General Kelly to address vulnerabilities in our cyber 
infrastructure.
  There are many challenges ahead. The Department of Homeland Security 
was hastily created in the wake of the September 11 attacks and, in my 
view, has become an unwieldly bureaucracy that suffers from inadequate 
transparency and accountability. This has resulted in adverse, 
sometimes severe consequences for many vulnerable people and their 
families who deserved better from this country. The Department needs 
significant reform in order to effectively confront these challenges, 
and I urge General Kelly to seek the input of a wide range of experts, 
as well as Congress, in identifying and implementing long overdue 
reforms. And above all, I hope General Kelly, as the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, will provide a thoughtful and reasoned balance to 
the extreme proposals thus far put forward by President Trump.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of 
Gen. John F. Kelly to be Secretary of Homeland Security. This is a 
tremendously important position, especially in these dangerous and 
uncertain times, and it requires a highly qualified nominee who will be 
able to handle one of the most complex positions here in Washington, 
DC. After his impressive career and nomination hearing, few would 
question that he has the knowledge and the skill to lead the agency.
  He has years of experience working with our neighbors in Latin 
America as former commander of U.S. Southern Command, where he saw 
firsthand the drivers of the unaccompanied minors crisis. In his 
testimony, he outlined what he saw as the root causes of migration, 
including people fleeing violence and seeking asylum within the United 
States.
  Yet the position requires more than experience, it requires a true 
understanding of the issues and how they affect the men and women we 
are all sworn to serve. It is in this aspect that I have lingering 
concerns.
  Anyone running DHS must be able to prioritize their resources in the 
apprehension, detention, and removal of undocumented immigrants. On 
November 20, 2014, the Department of Homeland Security outlined how 
scarce Federal resources would be allocated in enforcing our Nation's 
immigration laws. The memo focused resources on threats to national 
security, threats to national safety, and threats to border security, 
while deemphasizing law-abiding immigrants who have integrated 
themselves into society. I have been generally supportive of this 
prioritization, as I believe that Federal resources should be spent on 
enforcement actions against serious criminals.
  On day one as Secretary of Homeland Security, General Kelly will have 
to address this. I hope he will recognize the wisdom of keeping 
families together, protecting children and the Deferred Action for 
Childhood Arrivals DACA Program and focus on deporting serious 
criminals and those who truly pose a threat to our national security. 
This focus isn't about being liberal or conservative but is a smart and 
humane approach to enforcement of our immigration laws.
  General Kelly will have to grapple with the realities of our 
immigration system. As Secretary of Homeland Security, General Kelly 
will be tasked with the critical duty of maintaining our southwest 
borders. We have heard promises by the President-elect to build a wall 
that would cost taxpayers $25 billion; yet a wall will not secure the 
border or stop the flow of illegal drugs into the country. General 
Kelly himself noted that a wall alone is not enough. I hope that 
General Kelly will

[[Page 999]]

recognize that $25 billion is better spent trying to reduce factors 
that drive people to the United States.
  After speaking to General Kelly and listening to his testimony, I am 
cautiously optimistic that this is a nominee who understands the issues 
that will be in front of a Homeland Security Secretary. Ultimately, to 
truly understand the issues, General Kelly will need an ongoing dialog 
with those such as myself who care deeply about fixing our immigration 
system. As my colleagues are aware, my record of standing up for 
immigrants is clear from years of work on comprehensive immigration 
reform. General Kelly should hear the stories about those with loved 
ones who have been torn from their homes and sent back to a country 
they no longer have a connection with. He should talk to those young 
immigrants who are American in every way except for a piece of paper 
who have come out of the shadows, registered with the government, and 
applied for DACA and fear being deported under this new administration. 
He should hear from parents who have U.S. citizen children and have 
lived in this country for over a decade and live with the constant 
threat of being separated from their children.
  I will support the nomination of General Kelly to be the Secretary of 
Homeland Security. However, I plan on using every procedural and 
legislative tool to push back against any deportation force or policies 
that indiscriminately separate families, targets DREAMers, and generate 
fear in our immigrant communities.
  Mr, JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am honored to speak today in support of 
Gen. John Kelly's nomination to be America's fifth Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  We would be hard pressed to find an individual who is better suited 
to this challenge, in these perilous times.
  General Kelly served this Nation for 45 years as a proud marine. He 
commanded the finest among us during three tours in Iraq. He rose to 
the rank of four-star general. And tragically, he became the most 
senior military officer to lose a child in combat when his son, Marine 
2nd. Lt. Robert Kelly, was killed in November of 2010 in Afghanistan.
  As a four star general and a Gold Star parent, General Kelly has 
served and sacrificed--he knows the price of freedom.
  Perhaps the best way to describe the man we should confirm today is 
to use his own words given in testimony before our committee:
  ``I am humbled to once again be called to serve, this time with the 
men and women of the Department of Homeland Security.
  As I solemnly swore before God when I entered the Marine Corps, if 
confirmed, I will faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States against all enemies foreign and domestic--every second of 
every day.
  I believe in America and the principles upon which our country and 
way of life are guaranteed. I believe in respect, tolerance, and 
diversity of opinion. I have a profound respect for the rule of law and 
will always strive to uphold it. I have never had a problem speaking 
truth to power, and I firmly believe that those in power deserve full 
candor and my honest assessment and recommendations.
  I love my country, and I will do everything within my power to 
preserve our liberty, enforce our laws, and protect our citizens. I 
recognize the many challenges facing the Department of Homeland 
Security--and should I be confirmed--I look forward to partnering with 
you all to protect the homeland.''
  Colleagues, we are fortunate to have a man of such high caliber who 
is willing to once again answer the call of duty. I urge all of you to 
support his confirmation today.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I support the nomination of General 
James Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense.
  I voted against enacting an exception to the National Security Act 
for a recently retired general to serve as Secretary of Defense, but 
that vote was in support of our Nation's tradition of civilian 
leadership of the military. Now that General Mattis's nomination is 
before the Senate on the merits, I believe that he will provide the 
experience and steady hand that will serve this administration well.
  General Mattis has served as a commander of NATO coalition troops. He 
commanded troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he was commander of the 
U.S. Central Command, responsible for American military operations in 
the Middle East, Northeast Africa, and Central Asia. General Mattis has 
served as a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford 
University, and Members of both parties who have worked with him have 
testified to his breadth of knowledge and understanding of key threats 
and America's role in the world.
  I was heartened to hear in the course of General Mattis's hearing and 
the Senate's consideration of his nomination that he has many views 
that are more reasoned than those expressed by President-Elect Trump. 
His testimony made clear that he recognizes the very real challenges 
posed by Russia, and the importance of reassuring our NATO allies of 
America's commitment to our common defense and mutual obligations. I am 
pleased to hear that General Mattis opposes the use of torture and has 
no intention to reverse Department of Defense policies on women and the 
LGBT community. I hope that General Mattis's counsel will persuade 
President Trump on these matters.
  I believe that General Mattis's knowledge of and familiarity with 
international affairs will be of help to the incoming President and the 
Nation and thus I support his nomination.
  Mr. President, President Trump ran a divisive campaign that engaged 
in fear-mongering against many immigrants and scapegoated Muslim 
Americans. To the extent that he attempts to act on that irresponsible 
rhetoric, I will strongly oppose him.
  Thus, I appreciated many of General Kelly's comments in his 
confirmation hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs, including his opposition to a registry based on 
ethnicity or religion and his skepticism of the utility of an expensive 
massive border wall. I hope that General Kelly will use his voice to 
advocate for those views in the new administration.
  General Kelly has an admirable record of public service, including 
leadership of the U.S. Southern Command, which is responsible for 
Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. He has a strong 
relationship with current Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, 
which will help support a smooth transition of the $40 billion agency 
with its 240,000 employees.
  I am concerned, however, that at General Kelly's confirmation 
hearing, Senator Harris repeatedly asked him whether he would honor the 
commitment made to DACA children and DREAMers not to share their 
personal information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to 
protect them from deportation. General Kelly repeatedly declined to say 
that he would. DACA recipients submitted their personal information to 
the government on the assurance from the Department of Homeland 
Security that their information would not be used against them. These 
families now live in fear that the new administration will tear them 
apart.
  I hope that these concerns prove to be unwarranted, and, should 
General Kelly be confirmed, I look forward to working with him to both 
protect our homeland and the values we hold dear. However, his failure 
to provide assurances that he will meet the commitment we have made to 
these individuals who came to the United States as children means I 
cannot support his nomination today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes on each side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the statement of 
the Senator from Oregon. As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, let 
me just tell Members that Congressman

[[Page 1000]]

Pompeo has made himself available to every Member on the Committee for 
private meetings in their office. For everyone who would take a 
meeting, he met with them.
  He came before the committee in open session and in closed session. 
In open session, he stayed for as long as Members had questions, and 
all questions were answered. Congressman Pompeo received from the 
committee over 150--may have been over 200--questions for the record. 
Today all questions are answered.
  I can't address whether there was ever a CIA Director who was 
confirmed on inauguration day, but I can't think of a time where the 
country has been more challenged with threats around the world and at 
home than we are right now. We carried out military acts last night and 
the night before. We have just gotten through with one of the highest 
security events in the history of this country in Washington, DC.
  Why aren't we taking up Representative Pompeo today? It is not 
because there is disagreement, it is not because we haven't had an 
opportunity to ask enough questions or talk to him face-to-face and get 
answers. It is because some people don't want to vote on it today. They 
want to wait until Monday.
  I am willing to debate this as long as it needs to be debated. I 
don't want to cut off anybody's debate, but I think we owe it to the 
country to have a vote today. That can be in an hour, it can be in 5 
hours, but I think we ought to provide this President with a CIA 
Director who is in charge.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BURR. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object. It is time for the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there were 2 minutes extended to each 
side, if I am not mistaken.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator cannot object. There is 
2 minutes on both sides.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, let me conclude and then the Senator can 
claim his own time.
  We ought to do this. We ought to do it for the country, not for 
ourselves. It is not about us. This is about doing something for the 
country. An Acting Director of the CIA is just not sufficient, whether 
it is for a day or whether it is for a week. Right now they need 
leadership that is permanent. They need to know tomorrow who is heading 
that Agency. I would urge my colleagues, let's confirm him today. We 
have had enough time to ask every question possible, and now is the 
time to vote on confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I only want to ask my friend from North 
Carolina, the chairman of the committee, two questions.
  Is it traditional for the Senate Intelligence Committee that you 
chair to report out a nominee like Congressman Pompeo, and have you 
reported him out of your committee to the floor?
  Mr. BURR. The Senator's question is a very good one.
  It is normal for us to report out. We thought we had a deal with the 
Democratic leader. That is why we didn't discharge him. That is why we 
didn't have a business meeting this week. I regret that I didn't 
schedule that, but it certainly could have been, and I will not make 
that mistake again.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time for the majority has 
expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Democratic side yields back all time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.


                       Vote on Mattis Nomination

  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Mattis 
nomination?
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 29 Ex.]

                                YEAS--98

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

                                NAYS--1

       
     Gillibrand
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sessions
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I think under the circumstances the 
Democratic leader and I have come up with a solution that I think at 
least moves the ball in the right direction. First, I want to implore 
our colleagues on the other side to give us a vote on Pompeo today.


           Unanimous Consent Request--Presidential Nomination

  Therefore, following disposition of the Kelly nomination, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Intelligence Committee be discharged and the 
Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination 
received today: Mike Pompeo to be Director of the Central Intelligence 
Agency. I ask that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President be notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. WYDEN. I object, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, it is pretty obvious the Senator from 
Oregon is not interested in approving this CIA nomination today. I 
would remind everyone the previous Director is gone. The Deputy, the 
No. 2 person, is gone. I don't think it is a great idea for Senate 
Democrats to be holding this vacant over the weekend.


          Unanimous Consent Agreement--Presidential Nomination

  Mr. President, given what we have heard, following disposition of the 
Kelly nomination, I ask unanimous consent that the Intelligence 
Committee be discharged and the Senate vote on the motion to proceed to 
the consideration of the following nomination received today: Mike 
Pompeo to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency--the motion to 
proceed. I further ask consent that following leader remarks on Monday, 
January 23, there be 6 hours of debate on the nomination, equally 
divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back 
of time, the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action 
or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; 
and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the 
Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?

[[Page 1001]]


  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, this would ensure that there would be a 
debate about the CIA and its future Director in the light of day. I am 
not going to object, and I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question now occurs on the Kelly nomination.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for 1 minute on the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I know it is unnecessary, but I urge an 
``aye'' vote on General Kelly. He is experienced. He is talented. He 
understands borders. He understands the challenges we face for our 
national security throughout the world. I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote 
for General Kelly.


                        Vote on Kelly Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Kelly nomination?
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 11, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 30 Ex.]

                                YEAS--88

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

                                NAYS--11

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cortez Masto
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Merkley
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Sessions
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. With respect to the Mattis and Kelly 
nominations, under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________