Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his support and for his very indepth analysis of how this works and why it is constitutional. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner and I be permitted to conclude our remarks prior to the cloture vote.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I yield to the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank the vice chairman of the committee, and I say to those who are opposed to this, I have great affection for all of you. They have passion which really displays their belief that the American people need to be protected from government. Let me just say from the start, this is the single most reviewed program that exists in the Federal Government. This is reviewed congressionally--it is reviewed by the courts, it is reviewed by the DNI, it is reviewed by the inspector general and the Department of Justice--because, on the committee, we realize this requires not just the stamp of approval from Congress but the assurance by the Intelligence Committee and by every branch of government that it lives within the parameters we set. I am not sure everybody could have heard a more thorough description than what Senator Warner just gave and a more overwhelming voice of support than what the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, gave, but let me take head-on a couple of issues that have come up and claims that have been made on this floor this afternoon. One is, this is unconstitutional. Well, let me just be clear. This has been tested in the courts, and the courts have ruled this program is lawful, and it is constitutional. So any claim outside of that is not a claim from the Judiciary, which we trust, it is a claim from an individual, and I believe we should, in this case, trust the courts. Let me say, Congress recognized the constitutionality of section 702 when it reauthorized the bill in 2012. Further, Federal courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of 702. For example, in the United States v. Mohamud, the Ninth Circuit, December 5, 2016, the court unanimously held that no warrant is required for a search targeted at a foreign person abroad who lacks Fourth Amendment rights, even though some U.S. persons' communications are incidentally acquired in that collection. The court found that section 702 collection was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the reasonableness balancing test, and the targeting and minimization of procedures sufficiently protected the defendant's privacy issues. It is contrary to things you heard on this floor in the last hour, but this is the Ninth Circuit, December 5, 2016, making a ruling based upon this incidental collection that applies to U.S. citizens. What the vice chairman just shared with you is, we went a step further. We didn't leave it just with the court to determine constitutionality and the lack of a Fourth Amendment protection. We put into the bill that if it didn't have a national security implication-- if it was a criminal act, and it was going to be prosecuted in the courts that way, before they could look at the content of that communication, it required them to go to the court and seek and get a warrant before, in fact, they could look at content. So not only do we have the courts on our side saying there is no Fourth Amendment protection, we have gone a step further and said: In the case of U.S. citizens, if, in fact, they were incidentally collected and if, in fact, the information that was in the database is going to be used for a criminal case--Senator Paul talked about marijuana--they would have to actually go to a court and get a warrant from a judge to look at that content, which means you are going to have an FBI agent who is going to make a determination whether the content of that message is valuable enough to go to the courts and seek a warrant. This is a protection for the American people. It is not a requirement for the Fourth Amendment or for the constitutionality of 702. Now, let me just say to my colleagues, if there are any on the fence post, the Director of National Intelligence is off the floor in the Vice President's Room. If you need one of the guys who has to oversee this program, who understands the importance of it, he is here. He is ready to talk to any Member. Why? Because 702 is the single most important national security tool we have in the United States. If you ask me to sum up what is this bill for, this is to allow government to keep the American people safe. This bill does more to allow law enforcement, intelligence, the Congress of the United States, and the executive branch to assure the American people of their safety. That is at the heart of what Congress is established for. Spending and all these things come after that, but the defense of the country, defense of each individual American is what is at the root of our responsibilities, and 702, as it relates to this age of terrorism, is the single most effective tool we have to assure the American people we are doing everything we can to provide for their safety. I might add to that, from a standpoint of the international collection and the international cadre of terrorists, we are able to share with other countries in a way nobody else can when their country is in jeopardy of a terrorist attack, and we have multiple examples where we have shared with our partners around the world--and, I might add, we don't necessarily require them to be a partner of ours to share this with them. We take countries we have no relationship with, maybe that we don't like too much--but America is unique. If we see a terrorist attack that is imminent, we will share that with any country in the world, even our hardest enemies. So let me put aside for any question that section 702 is lawful and it is constitutional. Let me go to the rigorous oversight that I think the vice chairman described: It is overseen by the Foreign Intelligence Service Court. It is overseen by the Department of Justice and the IG. It is overseen by the Congressional Intelligence Committee. It is required to be evaluated on an annual basis by the Justice Department and by the Bureau for procedures they have to follow. I can't stress enough that the committee--your committee--your colleagues in Congress are the ones who you should feel most confident after reviewing and providing proper oversight for this program. You see, it is those individuals who reach the clarity that is needed for this body and for the Congress to look at the American people and say: We haven't crossed the line. We have stayed within the legal box that was created. Don't leave it to me. Let's use the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board or, as we like to refer to it, the PCLOB. In 2014, following an extensive review, PCLOB specifically noted in that review, to date, there are no known instances in which government personnel deliberately violated the statute, targeting procedures, or minimization procedures. Let me say that again. The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board--which many here created--came out and in their report said: To date, there are no known instances in which government personnel deliberately violated the statute targeting procedures or minimization. At the same time, in that report, PCLOB made a number of recommendations to the government intended to enhance the safeguards for privacy and civil liberties in section 702. In February 2016, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board reported that all of its recommendations had been implemented, in full or in part, by the government. Let me say that again. In February 2016, every recommendation that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board made about this program, the PCLOB certified that those had, in full or in part, been adopted by the Federal Government. If you only go on what you heard over the last half an hour or an hour, you would think this is riddled with questions of constitutionality and that there are massive abuses. The fact is, there have not been any, and the courts have ruled that it is constitutional, it is legal, and it does not infringe on the Fourth Amendment at all. Let me say to my colleagues, I expected we would be here. We had a heated debate in the committee. The Presiding Officer remembers that well because he is on the committee. We considered a lot of amendments, and at the end of the day, we came out with a bill that is very similar to what we have today. A 12-to-3 vote shows tremendous bipartisan support. Now, if Senator Warner had written it by himself, it would probably look different. If I had written it by myself, it would probably look different. What we are asked to vote on today is a bill that looks different than what we passed out. It is a little bit stronger from the standpoint of the protection of privacy because it does institute this warrant requirement if, in fact, you want to see the content of any collection out of 702 dealing with a criminal process. If it is national security, we are doing exactly what I think the American people want us to do. We are using the data we have to find the people who want to commit these acts and stop them before they do. If that is not the intent of this, then this probably shouldn't exist. If anybody believes terrorists have quit, and we are no longer a target, then eliminate this. I am closer to the line than I ever thought I would be before I got to the U.S. Senate and certainly before I became chairman of the Intelligence Committee, but I do understand responsibilities. Responsibilities make sure those individuals whom we charge with protecting the American people have the tools they need to accomplish it. It is the reason we are debating, on this floor and at the other end of the Capitol, the funding of our military. It is to make sure our military has the tools they need to go out and do the mission they have been asked to do. Well, from the Bureau to the intelligence community, we have asked them to do everything they can to make sure Americans stay safe, and this has been the most effective tool, with no abuses to date--and that is the determination of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, not a right-leaning institution--and the fact is, the government has lived exactly within the letters of the law that we have described. So I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. Let's move on to the 30 hours on this bill, if that is what, in fact, everybody demands. We have already extended it temporarily. That is not a sign of confidence to those who work in the trenches and we ask to keep us safe. Let's do the bold thing. Let's finish this. This is a bicameral, bipartisan, negotiated bill--both sides of the aisle and both ends of the Capitol. It is time we do our business. I urge my colleagues to vote yes for cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to begin the series of votes.

Mr. BURR. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the significance of this historic legislation to all Americans. It has been more than 31 years since comprehensive tax reform was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan, and it has been nearly two decades since the United States has experienced a period of sustained economic growth of 3 percent or more. Similar to the Tax Code prior to the last major overhaul, today's Tax Code is overly complex and burdensome on American families and businesses. The current code is riddled with nearly 200 tax deductions, credits, exclusions, and tax breaks that ``cost'' the government nearly $1.5 trillion in lost revenue each year. These costs unnecessarily burden hard-working Americans, who spend more than 6 billion hours each year to understand their tax liability and comply with filing requirements. The Finance Committee began to lay the groundwork for tax reform years ago, during which time the committee held over 70 hearings on how to reform the Tax Code and promote economic growth. In the 113th Congress, the committee also formed five bipartisan working groups to examine options for reform. This years-long process has enabled us to produce the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and I am confident this legislation, based on ideas from both parties, will benefit all Americans by ensuring our Nation remains competitive in the global economy. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will make American businesses competitive again by permanently lowering the corporate rate to roughly the average rate that our competitors have already adopted. This legislation will also end the lock-out affect many American businesses face today by adopting a territorial system. This will encourage American companies to invest their profits here at home and hire more people. On the individual side, this legislation will lower individual income tax rates for all Americans and greatly simplify the code by roughly doubling the standard deduction. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this will result in fewer than 10 percent of Americans itemizing deductions, meaning the vast majority of Americans will benefit from tax simplification. I am especially pleased the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act preserves the child and dependent care tax credit and dependent care flexible spending accounts, enhances the ABLE Act, and sharply reduces the number of Americans who are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax, a parallel tax system that adds layers of complexity. This is historic legislation that hard-working Americans across the country have long deserved, and I look forward to passing this legislation tonight to ensure all Americans have more economic opportunity and prosperity for years to come.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we start the scheduled 11 a.m. vote now.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have 10 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., in 216 Hart Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing to consider the nominations of Ted McKinney and Stephen Censky to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2017, at 10 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on recent United States Navy incidents at sea. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a Business Meeting on Tuesday, September 19, 2017, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to hold a hearing on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 10 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Business Tax Reform.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 10 a.m., to hold a business meeting.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 10:15 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Nominations.'' Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations'' on Tuesday, September 19, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Select Committee on Intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. in room SH-219 of the Hart Senate Office Building to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the issue of international religious freedom. Sadly, in recent months, the nightly news has reported far too many stories of innocent people around the world who have been intentionally targeted in acts of horrible violence simply because of their desire to worship in a way their consciences dictate. Recently, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association held the first ``World Summit in Defense of Persecuted Christians'' in Washington, where participants from 130 countries gathered together, many of whom have faced brutal persecution in their home country because of their faith. As I am sure my colleagues and most Americans know, Rev. Billy Graham has touched the lives of millions of people in the United States and around the world. He has counseled Presidents and Prime Ministers and has been called America's pastor. As a fellow North Carolinian, I am proud call both Billy Graham and his son Franklin my friends. As the son of a Presbyterian minister, these recent events reminded me of a letter written by my late father, David Burr, to my grandparents. On Thanksgiving Day 1964, writing from South Korea as a soldier in the Army, my dad wrote a letter about a special worship service held for troops in a tiny chapel on the side of a hill, just within sight of the 38th Parallel dividing North and South Korea. With rifles in tow, my father and his fellow soldiers made their way through the snow and into the chapel. To their surprise, the man standing up front to conduct the worship was not their usual Protestant or Catholic chaplain, but a young Jewish rabbi and a veteran of the previous war. In his letter, my father wrote about the beautiful lesson he had heard that day where the scripture reading was from Hosea chapter 6, which says, ``The voice of God cried unto His people, What shall I do with you? For your goodness is as the morning cloud, and as the dew that goes early away. For I desire goodness, not promises; I desire acknowledgement and not your bargains.'' My father, deeply moved by the message, then went on to write about the rabbi's powerful benediction prayer that closed the worship: ``He that enjoys anything without thanksgiving is as though he robbed God.'' Every July Fourth, our country gives thanks for the freedoms we are privileged to have as Americans and celebrates the birth of our Nation. Indeed, the freedoms we enjoy are immortalized in our Declaration of Independence: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' The Founding Fathers understood that these unalienable rights, including the freedom to worship, was a fundamental human right endowed by our Creator. As I read from my father's letter, I can see he realized this, too. ``All the way back to the barracks,'' he wrote, ``I knew that I was one who was stealing from God, for every day I am enjoying the times that were so full and wonderful there at home. Every day, though we are cold and discouraged, my heart is warm with your prayers and thoughts of you, and I have not been thanking God. I have not been fair, for God has walked with me all these years and I have never thought to say thank you to Him.'' I share this story today because I believe that, if we as Americans are thankful for these unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, we should also stand up for the millions across the world who are robbed of these same fundamental human rights--and sometimes lose their lives because of it. As Members of the U.S. Senate, we especially should not forget this. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I think about North Korea, I think about Iran, and Ithink about all the different regions around the world where terrorist activity poses a real threat to our national security. Today I also think about places like North Korea, Iran, and so many other countries not just in a national security capacity alone, but about the people who are suffering under political systems that deny their fundamental right to freely worship as they choose. The rabbi's lesson of Hosea chapter 6 that day was about a passage where strength, courage, and hope by the great Hand above were poured into those who were lonesome, afraid, and discouraged. At the end of my dad's letter, he asked my grandfather, ``Please, dad, put the benediction of the rabbi over your desk for that is the quickest way you can bring me home.'' If so, by keeping international religious freedom as a foreign policy priority, I believe that is the quickest way we can bring persecuted people hope. As my father did in his letter, I close by repeating the rabbi's benediction: ``He that enjoys anything without thanksgiving is as though he robbed God.'' I urge my colleagues: Let's remember to be thankful for the God-given freedoms we enjoy in the United States and to shine a light on the dark corners of the world. Let's not forget in this Congress how we can help the millions who are robbed of these fundamental rights. Thank you.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I rise in strong support of William B. ``Brock'' Long as the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and I might add that supposedly, in 12 minutes, we were going to vote on his confirmation, and unfortunately because of this unbelievable weather throughout the country, we have Members who can't make it back in so this will roll until 11 a.m. tomorrow. Brock is a fellow North Carolinian, alumnus of Appalachian State University, and currently lives with his family in Hickory, NC. I believe he is an exceptional nominee to lead FEMA, and he is well prepared to lead the Agency as it responds to disasters, regardless of where they are in this country. When we met in my office a few weeks ago, we discussed the ongoing efforts in North Carolina to recover from Hurricane Matthew. Many might remember that. That was last year. It affected millions of people from Florida to Virginia. The storm caused historic flooding in cities and towns across the eastern half of my State. FEMA was in North Carolina before the storm, and Agency personnel have been in the State ever since that storm happened. As many in this Chamber know, once the camera crews leave, there is a perception by the American people the disaster is over. The truth is, Brock and I both know that isn't the case. Even 8 months after Matthew, there are still over 50 families being housed in local hotels utilizing FEMA assistance. It will take years for my State to fully recover. Even as the recovery from Matthew continues, another hurricane season has already begun. If not a hurricane on the east coast, there will be fires, tornadoes, and other natural and manmade disasters that FEMA will be called to respond to. A key facet in responding to these disasters is the cooperation among local and State emergency management officials, as well as the Federal stakeholders led by FEMA. Brock understands why this cooperation is imperative. He is bringing his own deep knowledge and experience of emergency management to FEMA. He began his career with the Georgia Emergency Management Agency before moving on to FEMA region IV in Atlanta. While at FEMA, Brock was a regional hurricane program manager and hurricane and evacuation liaison team leader. After leaving FEMA, Brock was selected by my good friend Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama to serve as the director of Alabama's Emergency Management Agency. Brock served in that position from 2007 to 2011, where he led the State's efforts to respond to 14 disasters, including eight presidentially declared events. Specifically, Brock was charged with leading the State's response to the Deepwater Horizon oilspill in 2009. He is a man of immense qualifications and experience. More recently, Brock has worked in the private sector, where he provided emergency management advice and expertise to his firm's clients. Brock has also served as the private sector chairman for the National Emergency Management Association. I believe we must take advantage of assets in and out of government when preparing for disasters. Leveraging the private sector can supplement State emergency management agencies with knowledge and expertise that is difficult to build independently when State budgets are tight. Brock agrees with this approach and will build on these important partnerships at FEMA. The combination of his work for FEMA, State emergency management, and the private sector makes Brock Long well suited for this nomination by the President. Because of his experience, Brock understands it is the work done before a storm that saves lives. Helping States and cities establish emergency management plans allows funding and assistance to flow almost immediately after the storm has passed. If public officials are developing plans after the storm, it is already too late. In closing, let me say to my colleagues again, reiterate my strong support for Brock Long, and urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation--especially now that we have entered the 2017 hurricane season. It is my hope the Senate will confirm him tomorrow at 11 a.m. with broad bipartisan support, allowing him to quickly begin the work of strengthening FEMA and helping the Agency to respond to the disasters yet to happen. I thank my colleagues. I yield back the balance of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5 (a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate office building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Hearing on the Nominations of Kristine Svinicki (Reappointment), Annie Caputo and David Wright to be Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Nominations of Susan Bodine to be Assistant Administrator of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Review of the FY 2018 State Department Budget Request.'' Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Cost of Prescription Drugs: How the Drug Delivery System Affects What Patients Pay'' on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a legislative hearing. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting. Committee on Intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, June 13, 2017 from 2:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., in room SH-216 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold an open hearing entitled ``Open Hearing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions.'' Subcommittee on Seapower The Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs. Subcommittee on East Asia The Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``State-Sponsored Cyberspace Threats: Recent Incidents and U.S. Policy Response.''

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, this explanation reflects the status of negotiations and disposition of issues reached between the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The explanation shall have the same effect with respect to the implementation of this act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a conference committee. The explanation comprises three parts: an overview of the application of the annex to accompany this statement, unclassified congressional direction, and a section-by-section analysis of the legislative text. I ask unanimous consent that the joint explanatory statement for the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017 be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I want to honor the work of the Honorable James C. Fox, who retired last month after over 35 years of service on the Federal bench. Judge Fox was born in Kansas but has spent most of his life in North Carolina, graudating from the University of North Carolina with both his undergraduate and law degrees. Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Don Gilliam in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. After time in private practice and as the county attorney for New Hanover County, Judge Fox was nominated by President Reagan to serve where he had previously clerked: the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Judge Fox served chief judge from 1990-1997, and while he took senior status in 2001, he maintained a significant caseload until his retirement last week. His dedication to the law is to be commended and is exceeded only by his dedication to his family. I wish him all the best in retirement as he spends time with his wife, Kate, and his children and grandchildren, and I am grateful for his service.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Dan Coats, our former colleague and a friend, as the President's nominee to be the next Director of National Intelligence. Dan Coats has been asked to lead our Nation's intelligence community of over 100,000 individuals during, I think, the most profound period of threats and change. Let me say to my colleagues, it is a job that Dan Coats is well prepared to do. After graduating from Wheaton College, Dan served honorably in the U.S. Army before serving the State of Indiana as a House Member, as a Senator, and for not only Indiana but this country as Ambassador to Germany. While in the Senate, Dan was engaged and was a valuable member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He dedicated countless hours to understanding and overseeing the intelligence community--in essence, one of 15 people who certified for 85 others and for the American people that we do everything we can to keep America safe but we do it within the parameters of the rule of law. He is well versed in the operational capabilities and authorities. He understands the threat we are facing at home and abroad. He understands that we need to improve our ability to collect against our adversaries, and Dan will be a forceful advocate for intelligence collection but, again, never jeopardizing that line of what is legal and what is not. Dan's legislative experience also translates to his understanding and his appreciation of the need for transparency with the appropriate oversight committees and, more importantly, with the Congress and the American people. Dan's intellect, his judgment, his honorable service, and his commitment to the workforce make him a natural fit as Director of National Intelligence. I have absolute trust that he will lead the community with integrity, and he will ensure that the intelligence enterprise operates lawfully, ethically, and morally. So today I rise in this austere body to urge my colleagues to support the President's nominee for Director of National Intelligence. We are now in March. We have gone from January until March with one of the most important posts of this administration unfilled. Congress must act quickly, and it is my hope that Members, before the end of this day, will make sure we have a Director of National Intelligence in place. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's Rules of Procedure be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise today to support Mike Pompeo as the next Director of the CIA. And I thank my good friend, the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Warner, for his comments. I will vary slightly from Senator Warner in that I think the committee process provided every member of the committee a sufficient amount of time and opportunity to ask and to have answered every question that one can query a four-term Member of the U.S. Congress, a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Representative Pompeo made himself available to every member on the committee for a private meeting in their office, to the best of my knowledge, with no time limit. Representative Pompeo came to an open hearing--which is unusual for our committee, but we do that with nominees--with no time limit. He made himself available to a closed committee hearing with no time limits. He answered over 150 questions for the record. Every member of the committee was given a tremendous opportunity to ask everything and to have it sufficiently answered by the nominee. Maybe we won't explain what went through the mind of my colleague from Oregon to claim that he hadn't had sufficient time, that there were more questions that needed to be asked, and he made the statement in the light of day. Trust me, most all of the hearings we had and the meetings the members had were in the light of day--it was before 5 p.m. and after 8 a.m. in the morning. In fact, there is a little game going on with Representative Pompeo, and I think it is similar to what we are going to see with other nominees. But let me tell you why this ought to be different. This ought to be different because of what is at stake. The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency should be somebody who is above reproach, somebody who understands that integrity is everything--not just with the Congress of the United States but with the employees of the CIA. This is an agency that operates in the shadows. The President gave a speech there on Saturday, and behind him as a backdrop were the stars of individuals who have no names, who have sacrificed their lives without recognition on behalf of the future of this country and the security of the United States. So it is absolutely crucial that we put somebody there who understands the value of the individuals but more importantly, the value of what they do for the security of America. Representative Pompeo has been asked to lead what I believe is our Nation's most treasured asset. It is an agency that works in the shadows and requires a leader to be unwavering in integrity, who will ensure that the organization operates lawfully, ethically, and morally. Just look at Mike Pompeo's background. He went to West Point. He graduated No. 1 in his class. He left West Point and went to Harvard, where he became a lawyer, God bless him. He headed the Law Review at Harvard. But he didn't pursue a legal career; he started an aerospace business and became the CEO of an aerospace business. He has had multiple successes in life, yet he ended up in public service. He ended up in the House of Representatives. When asked by the President on behalf of the security of the American people to serve at the Central Intelligence Agency, Mike Pompeo said: Yes, sir, I will do it--only to come up here with a biography like I have read, with the trust and the integrity needed to fill the slot. For Members of Congress to question whether this is the right fit, not because of the content of what he has accomplished but because they wanted to claim they hadn't had enough time--if we don't change this-- and I say this in a bipartisan way--if we don't change this, good people will not respond ``yes'' when asked. If we continue to berate people who come here, because of things in their background that have no real, rational reason for exploration as to whether they can sufficiently do the job, then America stands a chance to lose the best and the brightest, regardless of where they grew up, regardless of the color of their skin, and regardless of their or their family's success. I say that to my colleagues in the hope that we will back off before we have done everlasting damage to our possibilities to get the right people here. Representative Pompeo has honorably and energetically represented the people of the Fourth District in Kansas for three terms. He is on the House Intelligence Committee. House or Senate, I can't think of a Member of Congress who has traveled more around the world and spent more time at the CIA understanding the ins and outs of what they do, how they do it, and why it is important to the American people and to the security of this country, than Mike Pompeo. He is well versed on intelligence community operations, capabilities, and their authorities. He understands the nature of the threat we face here at home and abroad. Some are going to question whether, in fact, his personal views that maybe there are events that will happen that will challenge Congress to change the laws are important. That is fine for him or me or for the President to question. The important thing is, How would he answer it if you applied it today? And his answer: I would follow the law. I wouldn't circumvent the law, I would follow the law, and the law says this today. Short of Congress changing the law, I will follow the law as it is today. I am not sure you can have more clarity in an answer than that. Mike Pompeo's intellectual rigor, honorable service, and outstanding judgment make him a natural fit for the CIA. As I said earlier, he is one of the most active, most engaged, and most charismatic individuals I have seen nominated in quite a while. I ask my colleagues to support the nomination of Mike Pompeo as next Director of the CIA. Do it expeditiously. Treat him fairly. Don't paint him as for something he is not. He is a colleague of ours who worked hard to be here. He has a background of proof as to why the Fourth District of Kansas made an incredibly wise decision, but more importantly, Mike Pompeo is somebody who can contribute in a significant way to the security of the American people, the security of this country, and can, in fact, manage and lead at the CIA without concerns as to whether there is the integrity of the institution, without concerns as to whether he might step across the legal line of what is appropriate, that every day he is there following the rule of law in this country, someone whose primary focus is to make sure that we as policymakers and the President as Commander in Chief have the best intelligence possible to make decisions about America's future and about America's security. I hope it won't take 6 hours today, but we are in the first hour of debate. I urge my colleagues to be brief but be thorough, but at the end of the day, make sure that tomorrow morning the CIA has permanent leadership and not acting leadership. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I am not sure if we need to yield back the time or not. Let me state that the committee had an open hearing that was unlimited. We didn't cut off questions. We had a closed session that was unlimited. We didn't cut off questions. The nominee asked to see every Member and didn't cut off the length of time he was willing to answer any questions. He handled more than 150 questions for the record and answered them honestly. At the end of the day, when it came to those questions that were of most interest to most Members, he said: I am going to follow the law. That is exactly how we would expect or hope a nominee would, in fact, respond. But I ask you to look at Mike Pompeo, Representative Pompeo, Congressman Pompeo's record: West Point grad, first in his class, served his country with distinction, went to Harvard, opened up an aerospace business, became the CEO, ran a successful business, decided that his life needed to have community service in it, ran for Congress, served four terms representing Kansas's Fourth District. This is an individual who, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, committed to do the things that--as the Presiding Officer knows because he is on the Senate select committee--are tough to do. He traveled around the world to see firsthand the men and women who operate in the shadows; the ones who we, on behalf of our other Members of the Senate, certify are living within the letter of the law, that they do things that only they can do because of the positions they hold, but they do it with the laws of the United States in place. And the 15 of--those of us who serve on the committee certified that for our colleagues because in many cases they can't see behind the curtain with the clarity we can. Mike Pompeo did that. He traveled around the world. He saw firsthand what these men and women do. They are invaluable to the security of this country, and, I might add, they are invaluable to the policies we as legislators put in place because they provide us with the intelligence we need to make the right decisions. That is Mike Pompeo. That is the person whom the President has nominated to be CIA Director. I am not sure you can find a glove that fits any better for the Agency, for the Congress of the United States, and for the administration, but more importantly, for the American people. This glove fits perfectly to make sure they are performing to keep America safe. I hope all of my colleagues will vote for Mike Pompeo's confirmation. I yield the floor.