[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1553-1566]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will report the 
unfinished business.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Rex W. 
Tillerson, of Texas, to be Secretary of State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the remaining 
postcloture time will be equally divided between the two leaders or 
their designees.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The majority leader is recognized.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, last night President Trump announced 
an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch of 
Colorado. While Judge Gorsuch has a significant legacy to live up to as 
the nominee for the seat left vacant by the loss of Justice Scalia, I 
am confident his impressive background and long record of service will 
prepare him well for the task ahead.
  Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch understands the constitutional 
limits of his authority. He understands that a judge's duty is to apply 
the law evenhandedly, without bias toward one party or another. He 
understands that his role as a judge is to interpret the law, not 
impose his own viewpoint or political leanings.
  He has also been recognized from people on both sides of the aisle as 
a consistent, principled, and fair jurist. Judge Gorsuch has a stellar 
reputation and a resume to match, with degrees from Harvard and 
Columbia, a Ph.D. in legal philosophy from Oxford, and just about every 
honor, award, and scholarship you can possibly imagine.
  When he graduated from law school, Judge Gorsuch did not just clerk 
for one Supreme Court Justice, he clerked for two. They were Justices 
nominated by Presidents of different political parties--Anthony 
Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, and Byron White, who was nominated by JFK.
  Judge Gorsuch received a unanimously ``well qualified'' rating by the 
American Bar Association when he was nominated to his current position 
on the court of appeals. He was confirmed without any votes in 
opposition. That is right--not a single Democrat opposed Judge 
Gorsuch's confirmation, not Senator Barack Obama, not Senator Hillary 
Clinton, not Senators Joe Biden or Ted Kennedy. In fact, not a single 
one of the Democrats who still serve with us opposed him, including the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, and the 
Democratic leader himself, Senator Schumer. In the coming days, I hope 
and expect that all Senate colleagues will again give him fair 
consideration, just as we did for the nominees of newly elected 
Presidents Clinton and Obama.
  This is a judge who is known for deciding cases based on how the law 
is actually written, not how he wishes it were written, even when it 
leads to results that conflict with his own political beliefs. He 
understands that his role as a judge is to interpret the law, not 
impose his own viewpoint. Here is how Judge Gorsuch himself put it: ``A 
judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, 
reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels.''
  Some of our colleagues and some others on the left see the role of a 
judge very differently. In last year's Presidential debate, our former 
colleague, Secretary Clinton, stated her view that a Supreme Court 
Justice--now listen to this--ought to look more favorably on certain 
political constituencies than others; that it was the job of the 
Supreme Court to ``stand on the side'' of this group or another over 
that one. Some of our current colleagues seem to share this view. The 
assistant Democratic leader said that what is important to him are the 
political views of a Supreme Court nominee, what or perhaps whom they 
are going to stand for.
  The problem with that approach is that it is great if you happen to 
be the party in the case whom the judge likes; it is not so great if 
you are the other guy. Justice Scalia believed this to his very core. 
He was an eloquent champion of the Constitution who was guided by 
important principles like applying the law equally to all, giving every 
litigant a fair shake, and rulings based on the actual meaning of the 
Constitution and our laws, not what you or your preferred political 
constituency wished they meant. These principles helped guide Justice 
Scalia for many years. The record of Judge Gorsuch indicates that he 
will continue this legacy of fair and impartial justice.
  Now, of course, that does not much matter to some over here on the 
far left. Despite his sterling credentials and bipartisan support, some 
on the far left decided to oppose Judge Gorsuch before he was even 
nominated. We already know what they will say about him as well. It is 
the same thing they have been saying about every Republican nominee for 
more than four decades. They said Gerald Ford's nominee, John Paul 
Stevens, ``revealed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to the 
problems women face.'' They said Reagan's nominee, Anthony Kennedy, was 
a ``sexist'' who would ``be a disaster for women.'' They said George 
H.W. Bush's nominee, David Souter, was a threat to women, minorities, 
dissenters, and other disadvantaged groups. So it is not terribly 
surprising that they would say it again this time. What is 
disappointing is that leading Democrats in the Senate would adopt the 
same rhetoric. The ink was not even dry on Judge Gorsuch's nomination 
when the Democratic leader proclaimed that Judge Gorsuch had--you 
guessed it--demonstrated a hostility toward women's rights. I hope our 
colleagues will stick to the facts this time around.
  We know that Justice Scalia's seat on the Court does not belong to 
any President or any political party; it belongs to the American 
people. When it became vacant in the middle of a contentious 
Presidential election, we followed the rule set down by Vice President 
Joe Biden and Democratic Leader Senator Schumer, which said that 
Supreme Court vacancies arising in the midst of a Presidential election 
should not be considered until the campaign

[[Page 1554]]

ends. It is the same rule, by the way, that President Obama's own legal 
counsel admitted she would have recommended had the shoe been on the 
other foot.
  I have been consistent all along that the next President, Democrat or 
Republican, should select the next nominee for the Supreme Court. I 
maintained that view even when many thought that particular President 
would be Hillary Clinton. But now the election season is over and we 
have a new President who has nominated a superbly qualified candidate 
to fill that ninth seat. So I would invite Democrats who spent many 
months insisting we need nine to join us in following through on that 
advice by giving the new President's nominee a fair consideration and 
an up-or-down vote, just as we did for past Presidents of both parties.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


      Unanimous Consent Agreement--Authority for Committee to Meet

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
Select Committee on Intelligence have leave to meet after 2 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today on a matter of great 
importance to everyone in this body and everyone in America: the future 
of the Supreme Court. Last night, the President nominated Judge Neil 
Gorsuch. We in the Senate have a constitutional duty to examine his 
record robustly, exhaustively, and comprehensively, and then advise and 
consent if we see fit. We have a responsibility to reject if we do not. 
We Democrats will insist on a rigorous but fair process. There will be 
60 votes for confirmation. Any one Member can require it. Many 
Democrats already have.
  And it is the right thing to do.
  On a subject as important as a Supreme Court nomination, bipartisan 
support should be a prerequisite; it should be essential. That is what 
60 votes does.
  This is nothing new. It was a bar met by each of President Obama's 
nominations. In my mind, 60 votes is the appropriate way to go, whether 
there is a Democratic President or a Republican President, Democratic 
Senate or a Republican Senate.
  Because a 60-vote threshold is essential, those who say that at the 
end of this process, there are only two possible results--that the 
Senate will confirm this nominee or the Republicans will use the 
nuclear option to change the rules of the Senate--are dead wrong. That 
is a false choice.
  If this nominee cannot meet the same standard that Republicans 
insisted upon for President Obama's Supreme Court nominees--60 votes in 
the Senate--then the problem lies not with the Senate but with the 
nominee.
  The answer should not be to change the rules of the Senate but to 
change the nominee to someone who can earn 60 votes. Sixty votes 
produces a mainstream candidate, and the need for a mainstream, 
consensus candidate is greater now than ever before because we are in 
new territory in two ways; first, because the Court, under Chief 
Justice Roberts, has shown increasing drift to become a more and more 
pro-business, pro-special interest Court, siding more with corporations 
and employers and special interests over working and average Americans. 
This in an environment where starkly unequal concentrations of wealth 
and ever-increasing corporate power--aided and abetted by the Citizens 
United decision--has skewed the playing field even more decisively 
toward special interests and away from the American citizen. A 
mainstream nominee would help reverse that trend, not exacerbate it; 
and, second, another important reason we are in a new world here, 
making a 60-vote margin even more important than it was before--as 
important as it was before--is this: This administration, at least 
since its outset, seems to have less respect for the rule of law than 
any in recent memory and is challenging the Constitution in an 
unprecedented fashion. So there is a special burden on this nominee to 
be an independent jurist.
  Let's go over each point. First, we have a special responsibility to 
judge whether this nominee will further tip the scales on the Court in 
favor of Big Business and powerful special interests instead of the 
average American because over two decades this Court has shifted 
dangerously in the direction of Big Business and powerful special 
interests.
  According to a study by the Minnesota Law Review, the Roberts Court 
has been the most business-friendly Supreme Court since World War II. 
It is the most corporate Court in over 70 years. It was pro-corporate 
when it frequently favored forced arbitration as a way to settle 
disputes, a process that limits the ability for individuals to form a 
class and collectively go after large corporate interests; it was pro-
corporate when it repeatedly refused to hear legitimate cases where 
individuals have been harmed by faulty products, discriminatory 
practices, or fraud; and it was pro-corporate when it came down with 
one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court: Citizens 
United. By equating money with speech, the Citizens United decision cut 
right at the heart of the most sacred power in our democracy: the 
franchise of our citizens. It has poisoned our politics by allowing 
dark money to cascade into the system, entirely undisclosed.
  With absolutely no precedent, the Roberts Court came up with the 
theory that money necessarily equals speech, and under the First 
Amendment, you are allowed to put your ad on TV 11,000 times to drown 
out all others, especially average Americans. That dampens the power of 
their voices, dilutes the power of their votes. The Citizens United 
decision was the worst decision in 100 years, and it is the embodiment 
of this new era of the corporate special interests Court.
  At a time when massive inequality plagues our economy, dark money 
floods our politics, and faith in institutions is low, this rightward 
shift in the Court is an existential threat to our democracy.
  Now, more than ever, we require a Justice who will move the Court 
back in the direction of the people, not only because that is what the 
law requires but because that is what our system of government 
requires--summed up, of course, by President Lincoln's declaration that 
it is ``a government of, by, and for the people.''
  Second, we must insist upon a strong, mainstream, consensus candidate 
because this Supreme Court will be tried in ways that few Courts have 
been tested since the earliest days of the Republic, when 
constitutional questions abounded, because, again, this administration 
seems to have little regard for the rule of law and is likely to test 
the Constitution in ways it hasn't been challenged for decades.
  Just 2 weeks in, the new administration has violated our core values, 
challenged the separation of powers, stretched the bounds of statute, 
and tested the very fabric of our Constitution in an unprecedented 
fashion. The President has questioned the integrity of our elections 
without evidence, issued legally and constitutionally dubious Executive 
actions, such as the one on immigration and refugees, and fired his 
Acting Attorney General for maintaining her fidelity to the law, rather 
than pledging obedience to the President. For that, the White House 
accused her of betrayal.
  Acting Attorney General Sally Yates offered her professional legal 
opinion, but because it contradicted the administration's position, she 
was fired, even though the very purpose of the Department of Justice is 
to be an independent check on any administration.
  We are just 13 days into this new administration. How many more of 
these dismissals will take place over the next 4 years?
  This is not even close to normal. Many of us have lived through the 
first few weeks of several administrations of both parties. This is not 
even close to normal.
  Now, more than ever, we need a Supreme Court Justice who is 
independent, who eschews ideology, who will preserve our democracy, 
protect

[[Page 1555]]

fundamental rights, and will stand up to a President who has already 
shown a willingness to bend the Constitution.
  The Supreme Court is now the bulwark standing between a President 
who, in too many instances, has little regard for the law, for the 
separation of powers, for American ideals, for the power of the 
legislative branch, and for the sanctity of the Nation.
  Now, more than ever, we require a Justice who will fulfill the 
Supreme Court's role in our democracy as a check and balance on the 
other branches of government.
  Because this President has started out in such a fundamentally 
undemocratic way, we have to examine this nominee closely. As to the 
nominee himself, I have serious concerns about how he measures up on 
these two great issues I just described.
  First, Judge Gorsuch has consistently favored corporate interests 
over the rights of working people. He repeatedly sided with insurance 
companies which wanted to deny disability benefits to employees. In 
employment discrimination cases, Bloomberg found he has sided with 
employers a great majority of the time. In one of the few cases he 
sided with an employee, it was a Republican woman who alleged she was 
fired for being a conservative.
  He wrote in an article in 2005 that securities class actions were 
just tools for plaintiffs' lawyers to get ``free ride[s] to fast 
riches,'' ignoring the fact that these lawsuits often bring justice to 
thousands and thousands of people who have no power without the class 
action suit.
  On money and politics, he seems to be in the same company as Justices 
Thomas and Scalia, willing to restrict the most commonsense 
contribution limits.
  It seems President Trump, who has said he would be for the working 
man and woman, has not chosen someone who routinely sides with the 
average American. Instead, it seems he has selected a nominee to the 
Supreme Court who sides with CEOs over citizens.
  Second, Judge Gorsuch lacks a record demonstrating the kind of 
independence the Court desperately needs right now. He has shown a 
tendency to let ideology influence his decisions, criticizing 
``liberals'' for turning to the courts to advance policy. The irony is 
this: Those who blame liberals for legislating through the courts are 
usually activist judges themselves. In recent years, conservative 
judges have proven to be the true activists, completely reimagining the 
scope of the First Amendment through Citizens United, gutting key 
provision of the Voting Rights Act that had lasted for decades and 
decades, and attempting to roll back the established law of the land, 
Roe v. Wade.
  Judge Gorsuch has shown disdain for the use of the courtroom to 
vindicate fundamental rights, a viewpoint that should be anathema to 
anyone in the legal system but is particularly inappropriate for 
somebody who seeks a seat on the highest Court in the land. Because of 
this, women are duly worried about the preservation of their rights and 
equality, as is the LGBT community. With an administration that has 
already challenged fundamental American rights and will do so again, 
the courtroom must be a place where those rights can be vindicated.
  As Senators, we are endowed with an awesome power to judge whether 
this man, Judge Gorsuch, has the right to a title that is higher than 
all the others in our judicial system, the title of ``Justice.''
  Therefore, we must be absolutely certain that this person is a 
strong, mainstream candidate who has respect for the rule of law and 
the application of basic constitutional rights to all Americans, a 
deference to precedent, a nonideological approach to the Court, and the 
resolve to be a bulwark against the constitutional encroaches of this 
administration.
  Judge Neil Gorsuch, throughout his career, has repeatedly sided with 
corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward 
women's rights, and, most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach 
to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, 
independent Justice on the Court. Given that record, I have very 
serious doubts that Judge Neil Gorsuch is up to the job.
  The Supreme Court now rests in a delicate balance. We cannot allow it 
to be further captured by corporate influence or bullied by Executive 
overreach.
  The Senate has a responsibility to weigh this nominee with the 
highest level of scrutiny, to have an exhaustive, robust, and 
comprehensive debate on Judge Gorsuch's fitness to be a Supreme Court 
Justice. We Democrats will ensure that it does.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.


                Authority for Committee to Meet Vitiated

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
request in relation to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence be 
vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, last evening, I had the pleasure of 
being at the White House when President Trump introduced his nominee to 
be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who 
happens to be serving on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. It 
shouldn't surprise anybody that President Trump delivered on a promise 
made during the campaign, when he listed 21 people he would choose 
from. Everybody knew ahead of time what sort of a judge he would put on 
for this vacancy or any future vacancy.
  Judge Gorsuch's decade of service on the Tenth Circuit has earned him 
a reputation as a brilliant, principled, and mainstream judge, just 
exactly the sort of mainstream that Senator Schumer must have been 
thinking about when he said he wants a mainstream judge.
  It has already been widely reported that he was unanimously confirmed 
by a voice vote to the Tenth Circuit in 2006.
  There are still 31 Senators in this body who voted for the judge at 
that particular time; 12 of them are Democrats, and one of them is 
Senator Schumer. Judge Gorsuch was supported, of course, by both of his 
home State Senators for the Tenth Circuit. One happened to be a 
Republican, and one a Democrat. He has been recognized as a great 
jurist by Members from both parties. For instance, when he was sworn 
into the Tenth Circuit, Senator Salazar, then a Democratic Senator from 
Colorado, remarked that the judge ``has a sense of fairness and 
impartiality that is a keystone of being a judge.''
  The judge happens to be fourth generation Coloradan. He is eminently 
qualified to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. His 
decades of experience span many facets of our legal system. A graduate 
of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, the judge was also a 
prestigious Marshall scholar at Oxford. He served as Principal Deputy 
Attorney General at the Department of Justice.
  Judge Gorsuch also knows the Supreme Court well, having clerked for 
Supreme Court Justices Byron White and also Anthony Kennedy, who is 
still on the Court.
  He currently serves with distinction on the Tenth Circuit, where he 
has established himself as a mainstream judge with a reputation as a 
fair and brilliant jurist. As a mainstream jurist, Judge Gorsuch enjoys 
broad respect across the ideological spectrum. At the confirmation 
hearing for his current judgeship on the Tenth Circuit, he was 
introduced by Republican Senator Allard from Colorado and Democratic 
Senator Salazar from Colorado. Senator Salazar, of course, isn't 
exactly a conservative firebrand, having most recently served as head 
of the transition team of Secretary Clinton.
  At his hearing in 2006, William Hughes, Jr., a Democratic candidate 
for the House of Representatives, authored a strong letter of 
recommendation for Judge Gorsuch stating:

       I have never found, nor thought, Neil's views or opinions 
     to be tainted or swayed by any partisan leanings. Quite to 
     the contrary, his approach to all things professional and 
     personal has always been moderate and practical.


[[Page 1556]]


  There are plenty of other examples of strong bipartisan support for 
Judge Gorsuch. Even observers in the press recognize his reputation for 
fairness. Just last week the Denver Post endorsed the judge, saying: He 
``has applied the law fairly and consistently.''
  Judge John Kane, a colleague on the District Court of Colorado, 
appointed by President Carter, says this about Judge Gorsuch:

       [He] listens well and decides justly. His dissents are 
     instructive rather than vitriolic. In sum, I think he is an 
     excellent judicial craftsman.

  After his nomination was announced last evening, the highest praise 
so far came from President Obama's former Solicitor General, Neal 
Katyal, who described the nominee this way:

       Judge Gorsuch is one of the most thoughtful and brilliant 
     judges to have served our nation over the last century. As a 
     judge, he has always put aside his personal views to serve 
     the rule of law. To boot, as those of us who have worked with 
     him can attest, he is a wonderfully decent and humane person. 
     I strongly support his nomination to the Supreme Court.

  To me, following the law wherever that law and case may lead is 
perhaps the most important attribute for a Supreme Court Justice to 
possess. That principle guided Justice Scalia's decisionmaking and it 
is also how Judge Gorsuch has said judges should approach the law.
  The judge once wrote, quoting Justice Scalia:

       If you are going to be a good and faithful judge, you have 
     to resign yourself to the fact that you are not always going 
     to like the conclusion you reach. If you like them all the 
     time, you are probably doing something wrong.

  That gets back to something very basic. A judge is supposed to be 
dispassionate. A judge is supposed to leave their personal views out of 
it. A judge looks at the law on the one hand and the facts of the case 
on the other and makes the decision based on just those two things. So 
from what I have learned so far, the judge's judicial record reflects 
this philosophy of being dispassionate, following the Constitution and 
the laws passed by Congress. I think he said last night something like 
this: A judge is supposed to judge and a legislature is supposed to 
legislate, and a judge should not be legislating.
  Judge Gorsuch doesn't legislate from the bench, nor does he impose 
his own beliefs on others. To quote from a speech at Case Western, he 
said that judges should strive ``to apply the law as it is, focusing 
backward, not forward, and looking to the text, structure, and history 
to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in 
question would have understood the law to be--not to decide cases based 
on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe 
might serve society best.''
  I believe it is this fundamental sense of fairness and sense of duty 
in upholding the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress that has 
led Judge Gorsuch to be a highly regarded jurist.
  After the tragic passing of Justice Scalia, we made it clear that the 
Senate would wait for the American people to have a say in the future 
of the Court. I said even before the election that no matter who won 
the Presidential election, we would move forward with the new 
President's nominee. I maintained this position even on the eve of the 
election, and I maintained that position even when everyone seemed to 
believe that our next President would be Secretary Clinton. I have been 
consistent.
  Unfortunately, some of my Democratic colleagues--the very Senators 
who held all those rallies chanting ``we need nine''--have already said 
they intend to do everything they can to stop this eminently qualified 
judge. That is very, very unfortunate. I hope and trust that approach 
won't be uniform on their side.
  So I look forward to moving forward with a hearing, when we will 
learn a great deal more about Judge Gorsuch, and I look forward to an 
up-or-down vote on his nomination.
  I thank the Senate, and 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. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN. Madam President, finally, on Monday, the Senate moved 
forward with the nomination of Rex Tillerson to be the next Secretary 
of State. His confirmation before this Chamber to serve as our top 
diplomat should have been a no-brainer, but we know that our Democratic 
colleagues are still trying to relitigate the election of November 8, 
and because their preferred candidate lost, they are now trying to do 
everything they can to slow-walk and to hamper the ability of the 
winner, President Trump, to get his Cabinet up and running to govern 
the country. While they think they may be hurting the President and his 
administration, what they are really doing is hurting the American 
people whom the government serves. I hope they will reconsider.
  It is really sad it has taken this long due to the foot-dragging of 
our colleagues across the aisle who are sort of in a resistance mode. I 
really do believe it is like the stages of grief, like the Kubler-Ross 
stages, where the first one, of course, is denial, the second is anger, 
and then ultimately you get to acceptance. But they are a long way to 
acceptance, and they are still in the anger phase of their grieving the 
outcome of the November 8 election.
  When the shoe was on the other foot, we confirmed seven of President 
Obama's Cabinet nominees on the day he was inaugurated--January 20, 
2009--but apparently this is the new normal.
  I just hope our Democratic colleagues realize that this is not 
serving the public interest, and it is not, frankly, good politics, it 
strikes me, to be so angry and throw a temper tantrum--or, as I said 
yesterday to some folks, growing up, people used to talk about throwing 
a hissy fit, and this really strikes me as throwing a hissy fit.
  Much has been made of Rex Tillerson's incredible leadership role in a 
major corporation. Obviously, he has done a tremendous job for one of 
the largest businesses in the world. He was working for the 
shareholders of that corporation in that capacity. Now his enormous 
experience and aptitude and talent are going to be put to work for the 
American Nation and for the American people.
  I believe that not only is he a person of conviction and competence, 
he is also a man of character. He believes in putting this country 
first, and I have no doubt he will serve the United States with great 
integrity and care.
  It is none too early for us to transition to somebody of his great 
qualifications and experience. Our country is no longer respected by 
many of our friends around the world because we have withdrawn from 
international leadership. We are no longer feared by our adversaries, 
who are all too quick to fill the leadership vacuum around the world--
Russia being perhaps the most obvious example not only in Crimea and in 
Ukraine but obviously in Syria and now in Libya. It is dangerous. It is 
destabilizing. So I am very pleased that we will have a new Secretary 
of State and a new national security leadership team.
  If there is one thing that I think President Trump has done right, it 
is select good people, from Mike Pence as the Vice President, Gen. Jim 
Mattis as Secretary of Defense, Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, 
and Gen. John Kelly of the Department of Homeland Security. I think he 
has chosen very well. I could go on and on with his Cabinet members and 
say the same thing about each one of them.
  We will vote on the confirmation of Mr. Tillerson shortly, between 2 
and 2:30 p.m. or in that time frame.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Madam President, what I want to talk about as well is the 
announcement that President Trump made last night about his choice to 
fill the Supreme Court vacancy left open by the tragic death of Justice 
Antonin Scalia. I couldn't be more pleased with his nomination of Judge 
Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth

[[Page 1557]]

Circuit. I can't imagine that the President could have chosen a more 
qualified, more principled, or more mainstream pick for the job of 
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  We have all heard some of the details of his personal background, 
including that he is a Colorado native and that he served in the 
Denver-based Tenth Circuit Court for a decade, and he is well known and 
respected in legal circles for his intellect, his brilliant writing, 
and his faithful interpretation of the Constitution and laws passed by 
Congress. In short, he is a tremendous jurist with an impeccable legal 
and academic record. He went to schools like Columbia University, 
Harvard Law School, and Oxford as a Marshall scholar.
  In addition to his decade on the bench, his professional experience 
includes many years practicing law. As a recovering lawyer myself and 
recovering judge, I can say that one of the things I think the Supreme 
Court needs is more people with practical experience, serving as 
lawyers for clients in court. We have some people with great academic 
credentials but very few people with any practical experience as 
practicing lawyers. It is important because once they get on the U.S. 
Supreme Court, Justices are totally isolated from the rest of the world 
by the nature of their job. So people need to come to that job with the 
experience of working with individuals, understanding the strengths and 
the weaknesses of the legal system and what their role should be.
  He not only practiced law at a top law firm as a partner, he had 
prestigious clerkships, including on the Supreme Court of the United 
States. He actually clerked for two Supreme Court Justices--Justice 
Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy--as well as served in the 
Department of Justice.
  There is absolutely no question that Judge Gorsuch is a qualified, 
high-caliber nominee, and I have no doubt that he will serve the Nation 
well. The reason I say he is a qualified, high-caliber nominee is 
because when he was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, he 
was confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote. In other words, he was 
essentially voted for unanimously, including by people like Senator 
Schumer, the Democratic leader, who was here at the time, and others of 
our colleagues across the aisle. So I think it is going to be very 
important for the American people, as they hear the inevitable 
criticism of this nomination, to remember the Senators who were here at 
the time Judge Gorsuch was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit, and they 
expressed none of those concerns or reservations then.
  I think, most importantly, Judge Gorsuch will honor the legacy of 
Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, but even more 
importantly, he will honor the U.S. Constitution and the unique role of 
our judiciary and our system of government. I think one of the things 
Justice Scalia made a point of during his professional lifetime was to 
point out how judges had unfortunately become policymakers rather than 
interpreters and appliers of the Constitution and the written law. Of 
course, the problem with that is that judges in the Federal system 
don't stand for election, so we have lifetime-tenured, unelected 
Federal judges becoming, in effect, a trump card or super-legislature 
for our system of government. That certainly isn't what James Madison 
and the Founding Fathers contemplated. Justice Scalia was a tribute to 
that traditional role of interpreter of a written Constitution and 
written laws and respecting the limited, albeit important, role judges 
play in our system of government.
  Put another way, Judge Gorsuch meets every test, and he passes all of 
them with flying colors.
  We have heard from the Democratic leader that President Trump needed 
to appoint a mainstream nominee. Well, there is no doubt that if that 
is the litmus test for our friends on the other side of the aisle, 
Judge Gorsuch meets that test. He has the respect of even people who 
served on the other side of him in litigation and people whose 
ideological views differ quite a bit.
  Here is what a former Solicitor General under President Obama had to 
say about Judge Gorsuch:

       Judge Gorsuch is one of the most thoughtful and brilliant 
     judges to have served our nation over the last century. As a 
     judge, he has always put aside his personal views to serve 
     the rule of law.

  He goes on to say:

       I strongly support his nomination to the Supreme Court.

  This is the sort of respect Judge Gorsuch, in his tenure as a judge, 
has generated. He has gained respect even from people who are on the 
opposite end of the ideological spectrum because they realize that 
Judge Gorsuch will be, first and foremost, somebody who applies the 
written Constitution and enforces the rule of law--laws passed by the 
political branches of government--and does not attempt to supplant his 
own personal agenda for that of the chosen representatives of the 
American people. As I said, that is why 11 years ago Democrats joined 
with Republicans to confirm him unanimously to the Tenth Circuit. I 
mentioned Senator Schumer, who was here at the time, as well as Senator 
Durbin and several members of the Judiciary Committee still serving in 
the Senate, including the ranking member, Senator Feinstein from 
California, and the senior Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy. All of 
them were here at the time. Because of the voice vote, they didn't note 
any dissent or disagreement, so we would say that essentially is a 
unanimous vote of the U.S. Senate. So it will be interesting to hear 
from them about any reservations or concerns they now voice. I hope 
that at least they will allow us to have an up-or-down vote on the 
nomination of this outstanding nominee.
  To hear Judge Gorsuch last night and to look at his biography, to 
read his extensive record and appreciate his scholarship and his 
commitment to the rule of law--all of this is to see precisely the kind 
of person who should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. I believe the 
American people will see that as clear as day.
  I hope our colleagues across the aisle will resist the temptation to 
obstruct and drag their feet when it comes to this important 
nomination. I hope they will not kowtow to some of the extreme factions 
in their own party.
  They have repeatedly argued for the importance of having nine 
Justices on the Supreme Court. Now that the American people have spoken 
by electing President Trump, and he has now announced his pick, they 
should honor that selection. That pick is superb, the kind of nominee 
who was supported unanimously by Democrats in the past and is endorsed 
by President Obama's own Solicitor General.
  Let's move forward with an undeniably qualified nominee.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining quorum 
calls during consideration of the Tillerson nomination be equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam 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. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am coming back to the floor to 
correct the record on my earlier comments, where I said Republicans 
``insisted'' on 60 votes for each of President Obama's nominees. Sixty 
votes is a bar that was met by each of President Obama's nominees, but 
at the time, there was no need for a cloture vote because we knew each 
of them would garner 60.
  This is important to clarify because I believe 60 votes is the right 
standard for this nominee--not because they did it to us or we did it 
to them but because 60 votes, as I mentioned in my remarks, produces a 
mainstream candidate and, as I laid out earlier, the Supreme Court 
requires a mainstream candidate now more than ever.

[[Page 1558]]

  Madam President, 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. HEINRICH. 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. HEINRICH. Madam President, since President Trump was inaugurated, 
he has unveiled a series of damaging and truly un-American Executive 
orders--in particular, the Executive order banning refugees and 
individuals from Muslim-majority countries from entering our country.
  For President Trump and his team, it is a projection of an inward-
looking, isolationist vision for America. For many New Mexicans, myself 
included, it is also seen as an attempt to fundamentally change our 
American values. We are not a country that discriminates based on how 
you pray. We are not a nation that turns our back on the innocent 
victims of terrorism or the allies who have risked their own lives so 
that American soldiers might live.
  President Trump's actions seek to turn us into the kind of 
authoritarian Nation that we have always stood against. He has promoted 
this dark vision instead of asserting America's longstanding role as a 
voice for democracy, for freedom, human rights, the environment, 
tolerance, and respect for women--values which extend far beyond our 
shores.
  In essence, this selfish and bully-like mentality abandon the values 
that we hold dear and which have defined our great Nation as a global 
power.
  It should come as no surprise that President Trump's nominees to be 
our Nation's top diplomats--Nikki Haley, Rex Tillerson--have no 
diplomatic experience. On Nikki Haley's first day on the job, President 
Trump announced that he would be cutting funding for the United Nations 
by 40 percent, and Ambassador Haley announced to the world that the 
United States is now ``taking names'' of those who disagree with us.
  In an attempt to show strength, the Trump administration is actually 
creating weakness. By stepping away from multinational organizations 
that we helped establish--organizations like the U.N. and NATO--and by 
presenting a hostile attitude to other countries and allies, the United 
States is walking away from its role as the indispensable Nation.
  This morning, former CIA Director and retired GEN David Petraeus 
warned that the global alliances of the United States are at risk, 
stating:

       Americans should not take the current international order 
     for granted. It did not will itself into existence. We 
     created it.
       Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have 
     sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, 
     eventually, collapse.

  Just as I am not confident in President Trump's nominee for 
Ambassador to the United Nations, I am equally concerned, if not more 
so, about his choice for Secretary of State. During his Senate 
confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, 
demonstrated that he is blatantly unaware of global affairs. He failed 
to recognize and condemn human rights violations around the world, 
including in Saudi Arabia and the Philippines, and declared dangerous 
policy positions without knowing what those policies would actually 
mean.
  In his hearing, Mr. Tillerson repeatedly avoided answering the most 
rudimentary questions about foreign policy by stating things like ``I'd 
need more information on that issue.''
  For as long as I can remember, throughout grade school and college, 
women in Saudi Arabia have lacked basic freedoms. Yet Mr. Tillerson 
either had no knowledge of women's issues in Saudi Arabia or fails to 
value the importance of that issue, which I believe to be an American 
value.
  The United States faces an increasing number of global threats, 
including North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, and terrorist organizations 
across multiple continents. We face evolving threats from nonstate 
actors and terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Islamic 
State. Instability and civil war in the Middle East have led to the 
greatest global refugee crisis since World War II. Russia and China are 
acting aggressively to assert their influence and challenge and provoke 
American interests and allies. Global threats such as pandemic disease, 
nuclear proliferation, and climate change require international 
cooperation and responses.
  The next Secretary of State will be diving headfirst into all of 
these incredibly daunting and gravely important foreign policy 
challenges. Mr. Tillerson's lack of foreign policy experience, combined 
with a President who promotes an isolationist world view, leaves me 
deeply concerned for the future of American foreign policy.
  The world looks to America to uphold human rights, to promote 
democratic values, and to take the lead on many challenges we face as 
an international community. The American people look to the White House 
and to the State Department to represent our fundamental American 
values on that international stage. The American people expect their 
leaders to show that their only interest is in representing the 
public's best interest.
  Americans have reason to doubt where Rex Tillerson's interests rest. 
His world view has been shaped through the lens of looking out for what 
is best for his company's profits, not what is best for the American 
people, not what is best to address complex international challenges. 
Just like negotiating a real estate deal does not prepare one to lead 
the Nation, negotiating oil deals does not prepare you to be a diplomat 
whose primary interest is in advocating for American values.
  When Mr. Tillerson has worked with foreign governments to pursue 
lucrative oil deals and profits, he has been agnostic to human rights 
and to America's diplomatic and security interests as well. As Exxon's 
CEO during the Iraq war, Mr. Tillerson undermined the State 
Department's efforts to keep Iraq cohesive as a nation and instead 
served the interest of his company's financial gain, in direct conflict 
to the American interest.
  Under Mr. Tillerson's guidance, ExxonMobil signed a deal directly 
with the Kurdish administration in the country's northern region, a 
move that fueled Kurdish secessionist ambitions and undercut the 
legitimacy of Iraq's central government. This deal was drawn despite 
the State Department's recommendation that they wait until national 
legislation was passed because a law governing nationwide oil 
investments was being reviewed by Parliament.
  In Russia, Mr. Tillerson worked closely with Vladimir Putin's 
government to forge deals to drill for oil in the Arctic, the Black 
Sea, and Siberia. Mr. Tillerson developed such a cozy relationship with 
the Kremlin that in 2013 he was awarded the Order of Friendship by 
Vladimir Putin, the highest honor awarded to non-Russians.
  After Russia unlawfully invaded the Ukraine and took Crimea, the 
United States and the European Union enacted sanctions against Russia 
that Mr. Tillerson would be partly responsible for overseeing as 
Secretary of State. Right now, when we are trying to hold Russia 
accountable for its illegal aggression in Eastern Europe, for its war 
crimes in Aleppo, and for its interference in our own Nation's 
election, how on Earth can we trust someone with such a cozy 
relationship with the Putin government to be our Secretary of State?
  Mr. Tillerson's record also leads one to wonder how he will address 
the imperative to implement the Paris climate agreement, especially 
since President Trump is now exploring how to withdraw from it. At the 
height of the debate on climate change legislation in Congress, Mr. 
Tillerson spent tens of millions of dollars to kill a bill that would 
have reduced our carbon emissions sooner. It has also been reported 
that his scientists at Exxon have known about the relationship between 
carbon emissions and climate since the 1980s and that Exxon even made 
business decisions about what resources to develop and how based on

[[Page 1559]]

that knowledge. Yet, under Mr. Tillerson's leadership, they chose to 
withhold those findings and fund groups determined to sow confusion and 
doubt. How can we be confident that Mr. Tillerson will help America 
address the impacts of climate change and put America's security and 
values first as our top diplomat?
  Those conflicts of interest are troubling enough, but the most 
troubling reason I cannot support Mr. Tillerson's nomination is this: 
In just the first week and a half of the Trump White House, we have 
seen numerous cases of Trump nominees saying one thing during their 
confirmation hearings before this body and then the administration 
turning around and doing something entirely different. After Secretary 
Mattis told us that he opposed the Muslim travel ban and Director 
Pompeo stated his opposition in hearings to torture, we saw this 
administration move forward with both.
  I have seen nothing that shows me that Rex Tillerson will stand up to 
President Trump's dangerous vision for American foreign policy. What 
will he do to stand up for NATO? What indication do we have that he 
will call on the President to act in the interests of the American 
people and not the interests of President Trump's business holdings in 
numerous nations around the world?
  The Secretary of State sits on the National Security Council. Will 
Mr. Tillerson stand up to Steve Bannon, President Trump's political 
strategist who has been outrageously placed on the National Security 
Council, while, I would add, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the 
Director of National Intelligence were demoted? President Trump has 
shown that he trusts the former leader of the far-right Web site 
Breitbart News more than our leading generals and his appointed leader 
of the intelligence community. You can already see the influence of Mr. 
Bannon, who has made a career out of selling hateful and divisive 
propaganda aimed at women, Hispanics, African Americans, Jews, and 
other minorities in the actions President Trump has taken in his first 
days in office.
  During his first week in office, President Trump floated the idea of 
bringing back the CIA's use of ``black site'' prisons and torture 
techniques, imposed a gag order on our Federal agencies, and renewed 
talk of a wall on our southern border.
  All of this culminated with an Executive order blocking refugees from 
around the world from entering the United States. This is not 
greatness. In fact, this is un-American. I will not stand aside as the 
values that created the greatest Nation on Earth are trampled upon.
  This dangerous Executive action has already had a clear human impact. 
In New Mexico, the Albuquerque Journal reports that our universities 
have issued an advisory to foreign students and faculty: ``Don't leave 
the country if you want to come back.'' Think about that.
  My office has already heard from New Mexicans who fear for their 
safety and the safety of their families abroad as a direct result of 
this order. A man who moved to the United States as a refugee from Iraq 
and settled in my hometown told me that his wife and two kids went to 
Baghdad to attend his mother-in-law's funeral. They are currently in 
Iraq and scheduled to return in February. They are all green card 
holders. They are part of our community. President Trump's Executive 
order has left him and his family feeling in limbo. He said: ``I am 
afraid about our destiny as a family, I am afraid I will lose them.''
  The heartbreaking human impact we have already seen is only part of 
why the Muslim travel ban was such an appalling action for the 
President to take.
  George Washington once said: ``I had always hoped that this land 
might become a safe & agreeable Asylum to the virtuous & persecuted 
part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.'' It is very 
clear that President Trump is clearly no George Washington. This 
Executive order flies in the face of that sentiment and, I believe, the 
sentiment we share as Americans.
  I joined my colleagues in sending a letter to President Trump about 
this order. I am particularly outraged about the absurd and careless 
nature of the order, which will have a profound effect on many Iraqi 
men and women who risked their lives and the lives of their families on 
behalf of our soldiers, on behalf of American soldiers.
  Late last summer, I traveled to Iraq, to Kuwait, to the heart of 
Africa, and I met with top military officials to discuss operations 
against ISIL, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations. In order to 
find a lasting solution in that volatile region, we must take a smart 
approach that provides training, resources, and support to our regional 
allies, like the Iraqi security forces, rather than putting tens of 
thousands of U.S. troops on the frontlines there ourselves. Alienating 
our regional allies, alienating Muslims as a whole puts all of that at 
risk.
  Former Cabinet Secretaries, senior government officials, diplomats, 
military servicemembers, and intelligence community professionals who 
have served in the Bush administration and the Obama administration 
together have expressed their deep concern this week with President 
Trump's Executive order. In a letter, they warned:

       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.

  Also this week, the Iraqi Parliament, in direct response to President 
Trump's Muslim travel ban, voted to implement an identical visa ban on 
Americans.
  How can we possibly think this is in our national security interests?
  Rex Tillerson has not answered questions about President Trump's 
Muslim travel ban. Mr. Tillerson needs to tell us where he stands on 
this un-American policy. If we are going to move forward on his 
nomination, Mr. Tillerson needs to reassure the American people and he 
needs to reassure this body that he understands the repercussions of 
these kinds of appalling actions. He needs to show us that he will 
stand up for American values and against the President's dangerous 
impulses that will isolate our Nation, alienate our allies, and 
abdicate our role as leader of the free world. Mr. Tillerson has not 
shown any of that to me, to this body, or to the American public.
  Thousands of New Mexicans have flooded my office with letters, 
emails, and phone calls urging me to oppose his nomination. I share New 
Mexicans' well-founded concerns about Mr. Tillerson's qualifications to 
lead the State Department and to stand up for our Nation's interests.
  I will not support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to stop and think carefully about this vote we are 
about to take. Our Nation's future role in the world is at stake.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to Rex 
Tillerson's nomination to be our next Secretary of State. I don't 
believe Mr. Tillerson is an appropriate selection to be our Nation's 
chief diplomat.
  During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson repeatedly evaded 
questions related to transparency and corporate responsibility. For 
instance, on multiple occasions Mr. Tillerson stated that he was 
unaware of Exxon's history of lobbying Congress; yet, according to 
lobbying disclosure forms, Exxon lobbied against a variety of Iran and 
Russia-related sanctions since at least 2010. When pressed on the 
matter, Mr. Tillerson even claimed he didn't know if Exxon lobbied for 
or against these energy-related sanctions bills.
  Additionally, I am troubled by Mr. Tillerson's response to questions 
about Exxon's dealings with Iran, Syria, and Sudan. According to public 
documents, Exxon established a joint venture with Shell to conduct 
business with state sponsors of terror. That joint venture--Infineum--
sold petroleum products to Iran, Sudan, and Syria, when those nations 
were being sanctioned by the United States.

[[Page 1560]]

  During that time, Mr. Tillerson rose from senior vice president to 
president and director and eventually to chairman and CEO of Exxon; 
yet, during his testimony, Mr. Tillerson claimed to be unaware of 
Infineum's purposeful evasion of sanctions. Instead of recognizing the 
larger national interest, Mr. Tillerson suggested that American 
companies could legally avoid sanctions by setting up shell companies 
outside of the United States.
  Infineum is not the only example of Exxon's history of undermining 
American policy. Under Mr. Tillerson's leadership, Exxon signed oil 
exploration contracts with the Kurds in Iraq. Doing so undermined the 
United States ``one Iraq'' policy and exacerbated the long-simmering 
conflict between the central government and the Kurds. That is because 
Exxon signed contracts to explore oil at six sites. Three of those 
sites were on disputed land claimed by both the Kurds and the Iraqi 
central government.
  By agreeing to explore in disputed territory on behalf of the Kurds, 
Exxon changed the facts on the ground in favor of the Kurds. Exxon's 
decision may have been good for Exxon, but it certainly did not benefit 
a stable, unified Iraq.
  I am also concerned by Mr. Tillerson's response to questions about 
Russia. Russia has invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, intervened in 
Syria, and meddled in our own elections; yet Mr. Tillerson refuses to 
offer support for international sanctions against Russia.
  He refuses to describe Russia's bombing of Syrian hospitals and 
schools--and a U.N. humanitarian aid convoy--as war crimes.
  Russia remains in violation of the Minsk agreement and continues to 
occupy Crimea, indiscriminately bomb in Syria, and hack American think 
tanks.
  Now is not the time to remove sanctions against Russia, and I have 
little confidence Mr. Tillerson is committed to pushing back against 
Russian aggression.
  Finally, Mr. Tillerson's indifference to the two-state solution 
between Israel and the Palestinians is unacceptable. Specifically, Mr. 
Tillerson said that a two-state solution is a ``dream'' and openly 
questioned whether or not it could ever become a reality. The reality 
is that, without a two-state solution, Israel cannot be both a 
democracy and a majority-Jewish state.
  Today Israel is constructing settlements throughout the West Bank. 
Palestinian terror and incitement continue. Mr. Tillerson's almost 
casual dismissal of the two-state solution is disqualifying for a 
Secretary of State. Our chief diplomat must understand the urgency of 
the situation and must be willing to engage both sides in the pursuit 
of peace.
  I simply do not believe Mr. Tillerson is interested in doing so.
  Mr. Tillerson's lack of transparency, history of working against our 
national interests, close ties to Russia, and indifference to Israel's 
future make him unfit to serve as the Secretary of State.
  I intend to oppose Mr. Tillerson, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, my father served in the Foreign 
Service at the Department of State, so I spent some of my early years 
overseas. I was proud to be part of a family that represented our great 
country. I learned firsthand the critical role of our Nation's 
diplomats, the risks that they take to serve our country, and the part 
that they play in spreading American ideals of freedom and democracy 
around the world.
  The cabinet position of Secretary of State is as old as our Nation. 
Thomas Jefferson served as President Washington's Secretary of State. 
The Secretary is the President's top foreign policy adviser and our 
Nation's chief representative abroad. Today the State Department 
reaches across the world, advancing our interests, shaping our 
relationships, advocating for human rights, and working to advance 
peace.
  In addition, the Secretary of State will encounter a department of 
employees who are deeply concerned about the role that they will play 
and the actions that they may be expected to take in service to the new 
President. Last week, the Washington Post reported that the State 
Department's entire senior management resigned, including officials who 
had worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations. This was 
an unprecedented loss of institutional knowledge.
  And by yesterday afternoon, a dissent letter by State Department 
staff saying that President Trump's executive order to temporarily bar 
citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries would not make the Nation 
safer had attracted around 1,000 signatures, far more than any dissent 
cable in recent years.
  President Trump's campaign rhetoric has shaken our allies--wavering 
on our commitment to NATO, gratuitously escalating arguments with China 
and Mexico, and empowering an increasingly aggressive Russia. Mr. Trump 
has made fawning statements about Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 
October 2007, Mr. Trump said of Putin, ``he's doing a great job.'' In 
December 2011, Mr. Trump praised Putin's ``intelligence'' and ``no-
nonsense way.'' In June 2013, Mr. Trump wondered if Putin would be his 
``new best friend.'' And in July 2015, Mr. Trump said, ``I think I'd 
get along very well with Vladimir Putin.''
  And Mr. Trump has questioned the reality of climate change. He 
tweeted, ``The concept of global warming was created by and for the 
Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.''
  The Secretary of State thus must play a crucial role in maintaining 
relationships between the United States and our allies around the 
world. In the face of Mr. Trump's statements and actions, the need for 
a strong Secretary of State is all the more important.
  President Trump has nominated Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of 
ExxonMobil, to take on this critical role. Mr. Tillerson, who has never 
served in government, has spent many years building business 
relationships with Russia and Vladimir Putin, and in 2013, even 
received the Russian Order of Friendship, an award given to foreigners 
who work to improve relations with Russia.
  Mr. Tillerson has had particularly close dealings with Igor Sechin, 
the head of a state-owned Russian oil company whom the United States 
has sanctioned and banned from entering the United States.
  In 2014, Mr. Tillerson opposed sanctioning Russia for its actions in 
Ukraine and reportedly lobbied the government against those sanctions. 
According to Reuters, ``[Tillerson] added that Exxon does not 
`generally' support sanctions and has made that view known to the U.S. 
Government. . . . `We're having conversations such that our views are 
being heard at the highest levels.' Tillerson told reporters.'' And 
yet, in his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson denied that he or Exxon 
directly lobbied against the sanctions.
  Given Russia's interference with U.S. elections and Russia's 
increased provocation of our allies, we need to be able to rely on our 
Secretary of State to advance U.S. interests above all. Mr. Tillerson's 
long and close relationship with Russia casts doubt on his ability and 
inclination to pursue additional sanctions as necessary and on the 
quality of advice that he will give the President. And despite the 
active national conversation about Russia, Mr. Tillerson said in his 
hearing that he and President Trump had not even discussed Russian 
policy with any specificity.
  I am also concerned that Mr. Tillerson does not seem to view human 
rights as a critical issue for the State Department. In addition to 
refusing to condemn Russian and Syrian atrocities as war crimes, he did 
not condemn Philippine President Duterte's extrajudicial killings. This 
is particularly disturbing, as President Duterte has alleged that 
President Trump approves of his actions. Mr. Tillerson appeared 
hesitant to weigh in on human rights abuses. But the State Department 
cannot be silent and must be an outspoken voice for human rights, even 
to our allies.
  Mr. Tillerson appears not to appreciate America's role as a beacon of 
light around the world that stands up for the rule of law and human 
rights.

[[Page 1561]]

This is especially troubling, as President Trump's order last Friday to 
suspend America's refugee programs is an attack on everything for which 
our country stands. President Trump's order has made us less safe by 
playing into ISIS's propaganda, casting our fight against terrorism as 
a fight against an entire religion. That is not who we are as a nation. 
We must remain vigilant and resolute against efforts to sow fear and 
division, and we must fight together to protect the rights and freedoms 
of all people.
  President Trump's executive order highlights the need for a Secretary 
of State who will push back against President Trump's worst impulses. 
Mr. Tillerson, however, seems ready to do the opposite and reinforce 
many of President Trump's worst instincts. Mr. Tillerson's lack of 
focus on human rights and the rule of law indicate that he seems not to 
appreciate the role of American in the world--particularly dangerous 
traits when President Trump is retreating from America's 70-year 
special role in the world, retreating--in the words of a recent article 
in The Atlantic--to a pre-1941 world of ``closed borders, limited 
trade, intolerance to diversity, arms races, and a go-it-alone national 
race to the bottom.''
  Finally, I seriously question Mr. Tillerson's commitment to working 
with our allies and cosigners of the Paris Climate Agreement to 
confront one of our greatest global challenges. While at certain 
points, he has acknowledged the dangers of climate change, he has more 
recently questioned the science and the human contribution. In his 
hearing, he acknowledged that climate change does exist and that the 
United States needed to have a seat at the table, but he failed to 
express any urgency to respond or a clear commitment to the Paris 
Agreement.
  While Mr. Tillerson may be a skilled business dealmaker, the job of 
the Secretary of State and the leader of our State Department requires 
the experience and determination to meet our current challenges. Given 
his extensive ties to Russia and questionable commitment to advancing 
human rights and combatting climate change, I do not believe that Mr. 
Tillerson is the right person for this job, and I will vote against his 
confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                       NOMINATION OF NEIL GORSUCH

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last night President Trump announced the 
nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. He will fill the 
spot left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
  Justice Scalia left a profound mark on our judicial history. He had a 
brilliant mind, a ready wit, and a vivid and colorful writing style 
that made reading his decisions not only illuminating but enjoyable. 
But most importantly, Antonin Scalia had a profound respect for the 
rule of law and the Constitution. He knew that he was a judge, not a 
legislator, and his job was not to make the law but to interpret the 
law. That is exactly what he did.
  For 30 years, Justice Scalia ruled on the plain meaning of the laws 
and the Constitution. His politics, his personal opinions, his own 
feelings about a case--none of those was allowed to play a role in his 
decision. He asked what the law said, what the Constitution said, and 
he ruled accordingly, even when he didn't like the result. Justice 
Scalia once said:

       If you are going to be a good and faithful judge, you have 
     to resign yourself to the fact that you're not always going 
     to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the 
     time, you are probably doing something wrong.

  Needless to say, Justice Scalia left some big shoes to fill. But 
after learning a little about Judge Gorsuch, I have to say that if 
anyone can come to fill them, I think Judge Gorsuch can. Like Justice 
Scalia, Judge Gorsuch has a brilliant mind. He shares Justice Scalia's 
gift for the written word. The Washington Post noted the many people 
``who have praised Gorsuch's lucid and occasionally lyrical writing 
style.'' Slate called Judge Gorsuch's writing ``superb, incisive, 
witty, and accessible.''
  But most importantly, like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch understands 
the role of a Supreme Court Justice. He knows that a Justice's job is 
to interpret the law, not write it. In a speech last year, Judge 
Gorsuch said the following: ``Perhaps the greatest project of Justice 
Scalia's career was to remind us of the differences between judges and 
legislators.''
  Understanding those differences is indispensable. Brilliance, 
eloquence, learning, compassion--none of those things matter if you 
don't understand the proper role of the Supreme Court. That role is to 
interpret the law, not make the law--to judge, not legislate; to call 
balls and strikes, not to try and rewrite the rules of the game.
  It is great to have strong opinions. It is great to have sympathy for 
causes or organizations. It is great to have plans for fixing society's 
problems. But none of those things has any business influencing your 
ruling when you sit on the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch understands 
this. That is why I trust him to sit on the Supreme Court.
  When Judge Gorsuch was nominated to the Tenth Circuit Court of 
Appeals 10 years ago, he was confirmed by a unanimous vote here in the 
Senate. You can't really get a more bipartisan confirmation than that. 
At the time, then-Senator Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat who later 
became Interior Secretary under Obama, noted that Judge Gorsuch ``has a 
sense of fairness and impartiality that is a keystone of being a 
judge.''
  Given the wide respect in which Judge Gorsuch is held, his 
outstanding record, and his previous overwhelmingly bipartisan 
confirmation, I am hopeful that his nomination will move quickly 
through the Senate. Senate Democrats have spoken a lot about the need 
to fill the ninth seat on the Supreme Court. Now is the chance.
  I congratulate Judge Gorsuch on his nomination, and I look forward to 
seeing him confirmed to the Supreme Court.
  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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of Betsy DeVos

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I come to the floor to announce a very 
difficult decision that I have made; that is, to vote against the 
confirmation of Betsy DeVos to be our Nation's next Secretary of 
Education. This is not a decision that I have made lightly. I have a 
great deal of respect for Mrs. DeVos. I believe she is a good person. I 
know she cares deeply about the children of this Nation. But for the 
reasons that I will explain, I simply cannot support her confirmation.
  Later today, the Senate will vote on a motion to proceed to the DeVos 
nomination. I will vote to proceed to the nomination because I believe 
that Presidents are entitled to considerable deference for the 
selection of Cabinet members, regardless of which political party is in 
power, and that each and every Senator should have the right to cast 
his or her vote on nominees for the Cabinet. That is why, during 
President Obama's administration, I voted for procedural motions, 
including cloture, to allow the President's nominees for Secretary of 
Defense and for Secretary of Labor to receive up-or-down votes by the 
full Senate, even though I ultimately voted against those two nominees 
on the Senate floor. At the time, I stated that it is appropriate for 
every Senator to have an opportunity to vote for or against an 
individual Cabinet member, and I still believe that is the right 
approach.
  Let me again make clear what I said at the beginning of my remarks, 
which explains why this has been a decision that I have not made 
lightly. I know that Mrs. DeVos cares deeply about children. I 
recognize that she has devoted much time and resources to try to 
improve the education of at-risk children in cities whose public 
schools have failed them. I commend her for those efforts.

[[Page 1562]]

  I wrote to Mrs. DeVos, seeking her assurances in writing that she 
would not support any Federal legislation mandating that States adopt 
vouchers nor would she condition Federal funding on the presence of 
voucher programs in States. She has provided that commitment, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the exchange of correspondence with Mrs. DeVos 
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  Nevertheless, like all of us, Mrs. DeVos is the product of her 
experience. She appears to view education through the lens of her 
experience in promoting alternatives to public education in Detroit and 
other cities where she has, no doubt, done valuable work. Her 
concentration on charter schools and vouchers, however, raises the 
question about whether she fully appreciates that the Secretary of 
Education's primary focus must be on helping States and communities, 
parents, teachers, school board members, and administrators strengthen 
our public schools.
  While it is unrealistic and unfair to expect a nominee to know the 
details of all the programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
Education, I am troubled and surprised by Mrs. DeVos's apparent lack of 
familiarity with the landmark 1975 law, the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act--known as the IDEA--that guarantees a free 
and appropriate education to children with special needs.
  The mission of the Department of Education is broad, but supporting 
public education is at its core. I am concerned that Mrs. DeVos's lack 
of experience with public schools will make it difficult for her to 
fully understand, identify, and assist with those challenges, 
particularly for our rural schools in States like Maine.
  In keeping with my past practice, I will vote today to proceed to 
debate on Mrs. DeVos's nomination. But I will not, I cannot, vote to 
confirm her as our Nation's next Secretary of Education.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 24, 2017.
     Mrs. Betsy DeVos,
     Education Secretary-Designate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mrs. DeVos: I am writing to follow up on the questions 
     posed to you in your confirmation hearing regarding your 
     position on school vouchers should you be confirmed as 
     Secretary of Education. I have concerns about the impact of 
     such a voucher program, especially on rural school districts 
     with limited budgets and numbers of students.
       The needs of public schools in Maine are very different 
     from those in large urban areas, where some schools have 
     failed our children. The majority of Maine's schools and 
     school districts are small and rural, and the constraints on 
     resources and the realities of distance greatly influence the 
     policies and practices for delivering high-quality education 
     in those settings. The concern I hear in Maine from teachers, 
     administrators, and parents is that school vouchers will 
     divert scarce resources from public schools.
       During my time as a U.S. Senator, I have visited more than 
     200 schools in Maine. At each visit, I have seen repeatedly 
     the skilled and dedicated teachers, administrators, and staff 
     working closely with parents to deliver the best possible 
     education for their students. Likewise, I have spoken with 
     students who are vibrant members of their communities and 
     excited about learning. Our public schools have a tremendous 
     impact on students and communities, and the U.S. Department 
     of Education is an important partner in fulfilling the 
     promise of high-quality public education for all students.
       Please respond in writing to the following question: Would 
     you oppose a federal mandate that would require states to 
     adopt private school vouchers? I ask that you respond prior 
     to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
     Committee mark-up on January 31.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Susan M. Collins,
     United States Senator.
                                  ____

                                                 January 25, 2017.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: Thank you for the opportunity to 
     answer your question about my position on federal education 
     mandates regarding private school vouchers.
       As a strong proponent of local control, I believe the 
     decision of whether to provide vouchers, scholarships, or 
     other public support for students who choose to attend a 
     nonpublic school should not be mandated by the federal 
     government. Rather, this is a state and school district 
     matter.
       The Every Student Succeeds Act made great strides in 
     returning control over education decisions to states and 
     local communities, and I applaud your efforts in passing that 
     important law. Decisions about whether to provide parental 
     choice will vary from state to state and district to 
     district, reflecting local needs.
       As I stated during my confirmation hearing before the U.S. 
     Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on 
     January 17, while I am a strong supporter of school choice, I 
     am also respectful of state and local decisions on this 
     issue. Therefore, if confirmed, I will not impose a school 
     choice program on any state or school district.
       Senator Collins, I look forward to working with you to 
     support Maine's teachers, schools and districts as they work 
     to provide a high quality education to every student.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Betsy DeVos.

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam 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.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
upcoming motion to proceed to the DeVos nomination for a period of 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to share my thoughts with 
my colleagues today about the President's nominee to be Secretary of 
Education. I shared many of these thoughts yesterday with my colleagues 
on the Senate HELP Committee.
  Like my colleague from Maine, this nomination has been a very 
difficult one for me. It has been very personal. As I mentioned in 
committee, I take very personally the education of the children in my 
State. I take very personally the contributions that our educators, our 
administrators in the schools--all that they provide and the importance 
that we should all place on the education of America's children.
  I don't think it is an overstatement to say that I have struggled 
with how I will cast my vote on the nomination of Mrs. DeVos. Again, I 
take very personally the success of Alaska's schools and the success of 
Alaska's schoolchildren. We have a lot of schools in Alaska, as we all 
do around the country. My schools, I would challenge you all, are a 
little bit more diverse than perhaps in other parts of America just 
because of our geography. We are isolated. Eighty-two percent of the 
communities are not attached by a road. The communities are small. The 
schools are smaller.
  In our urban centers, what some find unusual is we have more 
diversity in our populations than most people could understand or even 
imagine. One of the neighborhoods in my hometown of Anchorage hosts the 
most ethnically diverse schools in the United States of America. So I 
have urban schools that have rich diversity, and I have very rural, 
very remote, extremely remote schools that face challenges when it 
comes to how we deliver education. So knowing that we have the 
strongest public school system is a priority for me.
  I have spent considerable time one-on-one with Mrs. DeVos before and 
after the committee hearing. I spent the entirety of the Senate HELP 
Committee listening carefully to the questions that colleagues put to 
her. Afterward, I reviewed not only her written responses to me but 
those that she had responded to other colleagues. I requested further 
that she provide certain commitments in writing. After speaking with 
her at length and considering everything that I have learned, I have 
the following comments to share:
  First, I must state that I absolutely believe Betsy DeVos cares 
deeply for all children. I think we all acknowledge that she could have 
spent her time, her energy, and her considerable

[[Page 1563]]

resources on almost anything else that she chose to do. I admire her 
for choosing to help children to access a better education because she 
could have chosen to do many other things, but she chose to work for 
children, and I appreciate that.
  Now, as Senators, we are in the position to provide advice and 
consent on the President's nominee. My view has been--and has been 
since I came to the U.S. Senate--that under almost all circumstances, a 
President has the right to have their nominees considered and to 
receive a full vote by the entire Senate.
  So I have gone back, and I have looked at how I, as a Senator, have 
handled confirmations under President Bush and President Obama. When 
cloture votes have been called on Cabinet nominees, my practice has 
been to vote aye. I voted aye twice for Secretary of Defense Hagel. I 
voted aye for Secretary of Labor Perez, even though I voted against his 
confirmation in the final vote.
  So, Mrs. DeVos.
  She has answered thousands of questions that have been put to her. 
Neither the Office of Government Ethics, the Senate HELP Committee, nor 
I have found any substantive reason to question Mrs. DeVos's name or 
reputation, but yet I have heard from thousands--truly thousands of 
Alaskans who share their concerns about Mrs. DeVos as Secretary of 
Education. They have contacted me by phone, by email, in person, and 
their concerns center--as mine do--on Mrs. DeVos's lack of experience 
with public education and the lack of knowledge she portrayed in her 
confirmation hearing.
  Alaskans are not satisfied that she would uphold Federal civil rights 
laws in schools that receive Federal funds. They question her 
commitment to students with disabilities' rights under IDEA. They fear 
that the voucher programs that are intended to serve them may actually 
rob them of the opportunity to benefit from an education in an 
inclusive environment with their nondisabled peers.
  After 8 years of the micromanagement that we have seen from this 
previous administration, quite honestly, they are very concerned that 
Mrs. DeVos will force vouchers on Alaska. Now, she has said that she 
has not. She has committed publicly and to me personally that she will 
not seek to impose vouchers on our States. She has committed to 
implementing Federal education laws as they are written and intended, 
and this is a welcome departure from what we had seen with the two 
previous Secretaries of Education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 1\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President.
  She has committed that the focus she will give, not only to Alaska 
but to all States will not undermine, erode, or ignore public schools 
and that she will, in fact, work to support our public schools. She has 
committed to me that she will come to Alaska in order to learn from 
Alaska's educators, our parents, school board members, and our tribal 
representatives to see for herself the challenges we face.
  I still continue to have concerns. I think Mrs. DeVos has much to 
learn about our Nation's public schools, how they work and the 
challenges they face.
  I have serious concerns about a nominee to be Secretary of Education 
who has been so involved in one side of the equation--so immersed in 
the push for vouchers--that she may be unaware of what actually is 
successful within the public schools and also what is broken and how to 
fix them.
  Betsy DeVos must show us that she truly understands the children of 
Alaska and across America, both urban and rural, who are not able to 
access an alternative choice in education, as in so many of my 
communities. She must show us that she will work to help the struggling 
public schools that strive to educate children whose parents are unable 
to drive them across town to get to a better school. That she will not 
ignore the homeless students whose main worry is finding somewhere safe 
to sleep and for whom their public school is truly a refuge. And that 
she will fight for the children whose parents don't even know how to 
navigate these educational options.
  I believe that my colleagues here in the Senate and the many, many 
they represent have the right to debate these questions, to air their 
thoughts and concerns and perspectives about this nomination, and again 
I believe that any President has the right to expect that we do so.
  I conclude my remarks to make clear that my colleagues know firmly 
that I do not intend to vote, on final passage, to support Mrs. DeVos 
to be Secretary of Education. I thank the chairman of the committee for 
working with me and with my colleagues on this matter, but I cannot 
support this nominee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to thank the 
Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Maine for this reason: They 
are following a long and venerable tradition in the United States 
Senate that too many Senators do not follow. They are allowing--despite 
their final view on the substance of an issue--the full Senate to make 
a decision on an important issue.
  It used to be that a motion to proceed to an issue was routine. It 
used to be that after a certain period of time, we would cut off the 
vote so we could have an up-or-down vote, 51, on an important issue.
  We have gotten away from that, but Senator Collins and Senator 
Murkowski have been among the most consistent Senators who would say, 
absent extraordinary circumstances, ``I am going to vote to allow the 
vote to come to the floor so the full Senate can make its decision,'' 
and I thank them for that.
  Madam President, as to Mrs. DeVos, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record, following my remarks, an article about why the 
Senate should promptly confirm Betsy DeVos as U.S. Education Secretary, 
which I believe it will do so.
  Mrs. DeVos will be an excellent Education Secretary. She has 
commitment to public education. She has said that. There is no better 
example of that than her work on the most important reform of public 
schools in the last 30 years, which is charter schools.
  Charter public schools are the fastest growing form of public 
education to give teachers more freedom and parents more choices, and 
she has been at the forefront of that public school activity. Second, 
she has spent her time truly helping to give low-income parents more 
choices and better schools for their children, but is that a reason not 
to support her? I would be surprised if any President supported an 
Education Secretary who didn't support charter schools. I would be 
surprised if a Republican President nominated an Education Secretary 
who didn't believe in school choice.
  What I especially like about Mrs. DeVos is that she believes in the 
local school board, instead of the national school board. She has made 
it clear that there will be no mandates from Washington to adopt Common 
Core in Arkansas or Tennessee if she is the Education Secretary, there 
will be no mandate in Washington to evaluate teachers in Washington 
State this way or that way if she is the Secretary, and there will be 
no mandate from Washington to have vouchers in Maine or Alaska if she 
is the Secretary.
  She believes in the bill we passed in December of 2015, with 85 
votes, that restores to States and classroom teachers and local school 
boards the responsibility for making decisions about standards, about 
tests, about how to help improve schools, about how to evaluate 
teachers. That passed because people were so sick and tired of 
Washington telling local schools so much about what to do.
  She will be that kind of Education Secretary. She will be an 
excellent

[[Page 1564]]

Education Secretary. The two Senators have followed a venerable and 
honorable tradition in the Senate by saying they will vote to allow the 
full Senate to consider her nomination, and when we do, I am confident 
she will be confirmed.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            [Jan. 24, 2017]

               Senate Should Promptly Confirm Betsy DeVos

                       (By Sen. Lamar Alexander)

       Democrats desperately are searching for a valid reason to 
     oppose Betsy DeVos for U.S. Education Secretary because they 
     don't want Americans to know the real reason for their 
     opposition.
       That real reason? She has spent more than three decades 
     helping children from low-income families choose a better 
     school. Specifically, Democrats resent her support for 
     allowing tax dollars to follow children to schools their low-
     income parents' choose--although wealthy families choose 
     their children's schools every day.
       Tax dollars supporting school choice is hardly subversive 
     or new. In 2016, $121 billion in federal Pell Grants and new 
     student loans followed 11 million college students to 
     accredited public, private or religious schools of their 
     choice, whether Notre Dame, Yeshiva, the University of 
     Tennessee or Nashville's auto diesel college. These aid 
     payments are, according to Webster's--``vouchers''--exactly 
     the same form of payments that Mrs. DeVos supports for 
     schools.
       America's experience with education vouchers began in 1944 
     with the GI Bill. As veterans returned from World War II, 
     federal tax dollars followed them to the college of their 
     choice.
       Why, then, is an idea that helped produce the Greatest 
     Generation and the world's best colleges such a dangerous 
     idea for our children?
       Mrs. DeVos testified that she opposes Washington, D.C., 
     requiring states to adopt vouchers, unlike her critics who 
     delight in a National School Board imposing their mandates on 
     states, for example, Common Core academic standards.
       So, who is in the mainstream here? The GI Bill, Pell 
     Grants, student loans, both Presidents Bush, President Trump, 
     the 25 states that allow parents to choose among public and 
     private schools, Congress with its passage of the Washington, 
     D.C. voucher program, 45 U.S. senators who voted in 2015 to 
     allow states to use existing federal dollars for vouchers, 
     Betsy DeVos--or her senate critics?
       The second reason Democrats oppose Mrs. DeVos is that she 
     supports charter schools--public schools with fewer 
     government and union rules so that teachers have more freedom 
     to teach and parents have more freedom to choose the schools. 
     In 1992, Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor party created a 
     dozen charter schools. Today there are 6,800 in 43 states and 
     the District of Columbia. President Obama's last Education 
     Secretary was a charter school founder. Again, who is in the 
     mainstream? Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, 
     Presidents Bush, Clinton and Obama; the last six U.S. 
     Education Secretaries, the U.S. Congress, 43 states and the 
     District of Columbia, Betsy DeVos--or her senate critics?
       Her critics dislike that she is wealthy. Would they be 
     happier if she had spent her money denying children from low-
     income families choices of schools?
       Mrs. DeVos' senate opponents are grasping for straws. We 
     didn't have time to question her, they say, even though she 
     met with each one of them in their offices, and her hearing 
     lasted nearly an hour and a half longer than either of 
     President Obama's education secretaries.
       Now she is answering 837 written follow up questions from 
     Democratic committee members--1,397 if you include all the 
     questions within a question. By comparison, Republicans asked 
     President Obama's first education secretary 53 written 
     follow-up questions and his second education secretary 56 
     written follow-up questions, including questions within a 
     question. In other words, Democrats have asked Mrs. DeVos 25 
     times as many follow-up questions as Republicans asked of 
     either of President Obama's education secretaries.
       Finally, Democrats are throwing around conflict of interest 
     accusations. But Betsy DeVos has signed an agreement with the 
     independent Office of Government Ethics to divest, within 90 
     days of her confirmation, possible conflicts of interest 
     identified by the ethics office, as every cabinet secretary 
     is required to do. That agreement is on the internet.
       Tax returns? Federal law does not require disclosure of tax 
     returns for cabinet members, or for U.S. Senators. Both 
     cabinet members and senators are already required to publish 
     extensive disclosures of their holdings, income and debts. 
     Cabinet members must also sign an agreement with the Office 
     of Government Ethics to eliminate potential conflicts of 
     interest.
       One year ago, because I believe presidents should have 
     their cabinet in place in order to govern, I worked to 
     confirm promptly President Obama's nomination of John King to 
     be Education Secretary, even though I disagreed with him.
       Even though they disagree with her, Democrats should also 
     promptly confirm Betsy DeVos. Few Americans have done as much 
     to help low-income students have a choice of better schools. 
     She is on the side of our children. Her critics may resent 
     that, but this says more about them than it does about her.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                               Travel Ban

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to join with 
Senators and people across this country in speaking out against the 
President's misguided and, I believe, destructive Executive order that 
has abruptly closed our borders to all refugees as well as citizens 
from seven Muslim-majority countries.
  During the campaign, Candidate Trump called for a ``total and 
complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.'' I had 
certainly hoped that once in office, he would receive wise and prudent 
counsel and he would realize that elevating such a Muslim ban to the 
status of official U.S. policy would have very negative consequences.
  Instead, what we have seen is that a small group in the White House 
acting in secret produced this Executive order. They did so without 
legal review and even without the knowledge of the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, or the nominee to be 
Secretary of State. As a result, as we all know, we saw a weekend of 
chaos and confusion--a self-inflicted wound to our national security 
and to our reputation in the world.
  The consequences go far beyond the scenes of disorder that we 
witnessed in recent days. By singling out Muslim-majority countries and 
banning their citizens from entry into the United States and by denying 
entry to all refugees, the President has greatly damaged America's 
image across the world and, perhaps, worst of all, this Executive order 
is a gift to ISIS, Al Qaeda, and to every other radical jihadist group. 
On social media they celebrated the travel ban as a confirmation to 
their narrative that the United States is at war with Islam and that 
they are engaged in a clash of civilizations. One ISIS sympathizer 
praised the Executive order as a ``blessed ban,'' comparing it to what 
he called ``the blessed invasion'' of Iraq, which inflamed anti-
American anger across the Islamic world. This is dangerous because this 
is a powerful recruitment tool for our enemies.
  I am also deeply concerned that this Executive order endangers our 
troops and our diplomats who are in the field. Today, more than 5,000 
American troops are supporting Iraqi troops in the fight to reclaim 
Mosul and drive ISIS out of Iraq. By discriminating based on religion 
and nationality, the President's order undermines the local alliances 
and the trust established by our troops and diplomats in the field. 
This order is so ill-considered that, as originally drafted, it even 
barred Iraqi civilians, including translators who provided essential 
assistance to the U.S. mission.
  Just to be clear, this Muslim ban is un-American. It is offensive to 
our Nation's core values and ideals. The right way forward is not to 
carve out small exceptions to the Muslim ban. It is to repeal the ban 
entirely. The President has called for what he has termed ``extreme 
vetting,'' but the truth is that our vetting procedures are already 
thorough and rigorous. It takes as long as 24 months for a refugee to 
make it through the process and come to the United States. The entire 
screening process takes place outside the United States. So it doesn't 
pose a threat to people here in America.
  In my home State of New Hampshire, the President's Executive order 
has caused shock and profound concern, especially in our business and 
academic communities, as well as in our immigrant communities. T.J. 
Parker is the CEO of PillPack, a company that employs nearly 400 people 
in Manchester, which is the largest city in New Hampshire. He said on 
Monday: ``This ban is

[[Page 1565]]

wrong and goes against our values as a company and as Americans.''
  He continued: ``I'm also deeply concerned about any measures that 
could discourage talented individuals from studying and working in the 
U.S.''
  The Union Leader newspaper reported yesterday that more than 700 
refugees who settled in New Hampshire over the past decade are from the 
seven countries singled out in the Executive order and would have been 
banned from entry. These immigrants are not Iraqis, Somalis, Sudanese 
or Syrians. They are proud loyal members of our diverse American 
family. Many of them have spouses or children still in refugee camps, 
and they hope to be united with their families. The President's order 
has now slammed the door on these hopes.
  Yesterday the Associated Press in New Hampshire reported on Dr. Omid 
Moghimi, an internist at New Hampshire Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical 
Center. An American citizen, he fell in love with a childhood friend in 
Iran and married her in Tehran in 2015. Here is the picture of the two 
of them on their wedding day. After months of vetting for entry to the 
United States, his wife had an appointment for her visa interview. That 
appointment was abruptly canceled after the President's Executive 
order, and Dr. Moghimi worries that this could become permanent. He is 
now in his first year of a 3-year residency, and he fears he will have 
to leave the United States in order to live with his wife, who 
volunteers at daycare centers and an orphanage. Dr. Moghimi told the 
AP: ``There's no evidence that she is in any way even a miniscule 
threat, security risk, and there are many, many cases like her out 
there.''
  If this Executive order stays in effect, we lose the opportunity to 
have Dr. Moghimi practice in the United States and maybe serve a 
community in New Hampshire, and it has a real impact on their lives. 
The ill-advised words and actions, including this Executive order, have 
damaged America's standing in the world and harmed our national 
security. But the Senate has an opportunity to send a very different 
message to our allies and to our enemies across the globe. We can make 
clear that America's democracy is founded on a system of checks and 
balances, and that the President doesn't speak for America or make 
policy all by himself. I urge my Senate colleagues to join with us in 
supporting legislation to repeal the President's order. We need to send 
a clear message to the world that America does not support 
discrimination based on religion. We welcome appropriately vetted 
refugees from wars and violence, and we respect our Muslim allies, 
including our friends in Iraq who have sacrificed so much in the fight 
against ISIS.
  In recent days we have seen what happens when America betrays its 
ideals and its allies. The Senate has a responsibility to reassert 
those ideals and to reassure our allies. I urge my colleagues to 
support legislation that Senator Feinstein put forward to repeal the 
President's Executive order.
  Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nominee 
for Secretary of State. I will be brief and to the point.
  Mr. Rex Tillerson led his last organization in a lobbying campaign to 
undermine the national security interests of the United States in favor 
of Russia, Iran, and corporate profit. Putting narrow corporate 
interests ahead of America's national security interests is inexcusable 
for a CEO and disqualifying for a nominee to be our Nation's chief 
diplomat.
  I will vote against Rex Tillerson's nomination for Secretary of 
State, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  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. ISAKSON. 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. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All postcloture time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Tillerson 
nomination?
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 36 Ex.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--43

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coons
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on 
confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to reconsider.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to table the motion to 
reconsider, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the motion to 
reconsider the vote on confirmation.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Ex.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

[[Page 1566]]



                                NAYS--43

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Coons
     Sessions
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________