John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I had a chance to listen to our friend, the Democratic leader, and it is becoming clearer exactly what his strategy is for dealing with the aftermath of the November 8 election, in which Republicans retained the majority in both Houses of Congress and picked up the White House to boot. I realize it was a shock to our Democratic friends--the election that occurred on November 8 and the verdict of the American people, given the choices they were presented. What is becoming increasingly clear is that the Democratic leader, the Senator from New York, believes that Democrats and the country are better served by being an opposition party--in other words, opposed to everything that is proposed by either the President or anybody on this side of the aisle. Rather than working together with us to try to build consensus, to try to address the challenges that face the country, what they are going to do is to sit back and enjoy the failure--which is what they are hoping and praying for--when we try to do this alone. We know our system is built on bipartisan cooperation and consensus building, and I have to tell my friend, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, that I doubt his party's political prospects are going to improve as long as people see them as a restoration of the status quo at a time when they voted for change. Rather than working together to find solutions to the challenges that face our country, they have decided to sit back, drag their heels, oppose, and say no to each and every constructive solution offered by either the White House or this side of the aisle. I really do hope they decide that this is a recipe for political failure, continuing to wander in the political wilderness. At a time when the voters voted for change, they are arguing for a restoration of the status quo--the direction that the country, the majority of voters, and certainly those whose votes are reflected in the Electoral College felt was a wrong direction for our country. So I believe that most Americans greeted the peaceful transfer of power as reflected by the inaugural ceremonies of last Friday with relief and welcomed a new day in the country. My wife and I had the chance to attend those inauguration ceremonies. Let me first say to President Trump, the First Lady, and his family, as they start this journey leading the Nation, that I wish you well and offer my help, because I believe if President Trump succeeds and if his administration succeeds, then there is a better chance that the country will succeed, and it is not going to happen by opposing each and every idea of the administration, which our Democratic colleagues seem bound and determined to do, being seen as merely obstructionist and being naysayers rather than constructive solution finders for the problems that confront the country. I am very hopeful about what the future holds, and I look forward to working with the new President in the years ahead to strengthen our country. One obvious way all of us can support this peaceful transition of power, which is the hallmark of our democracy, is by making sure that President Trump has the counsel and advice of the men and women he has chosen to serve with him in his Cabinet. Our Democratic colleagues at one point want to criticize the President for not making a smoother transition, while enjoying every difficulty encountered, at the same time by denying him the Cabinet that he has chosen to serve with him to lead the country. We have said it before, but it bears repetition. On January 20, 2009, when President Obama was sworn into office, people on this side of the aisle weren't necessarily happy with the electoral outcome. Our preferred candidate did not win, but that didn't mean we obstructed President Obama's choice for his Cabinet. Indeed, we agreed to seven Cabinet members being approved on the first day that President Obama took office, on January 20, 2009. Well, all of these positions are important and are necessary to make the transition of power in our democracy as smooth as possible. Posts such as Secretary of Defense and Homeland Security and the CIA Director, which we will be voting on later today, are particularly critical, given the national security responsibilities associated with them. While I am glad we confirmed General Mattis and General Kelly on Friday, we should have voted on the nomination of Congressman Mike Pompeo to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Mike Pompeo is well qualified for this position as CIA Director, but unfortunately some of our colleagues want to slow-walk his nomination. How is it that 89 Members could vote to proceed to confirm his nomination for today last Friday but still they denied us the opportunity for an up-or-down vote last Friday, which we should have had? Our colleague from Oregon said that he wanted some debate during the light of day. Well, we were willing to stay as late, or into the weekend, as we needed to in order to get Congressman Pompeo confirmed, but, no, he wanted to delay it until today, so presumably there would be less competition for airtime on the evening news. I can't think of another reason he would have delayed that confirmation. I just want to remind our colleagues that our country continues to face incredible threats, and they are not hitting the pause button. Instead, it is possible that some of our foes could try to test the resolve of President Trump and his new Cabinet during this period of transition, where everybody recognizes this is a period of vulnerability for the United States. I am reminded of a sobering quote from the Director of National Intelligence during a hearing in 2016. Former Director Clapper, who served our intelligence community for more than half a century, testified: ``In my 50-plus years in the intelligence business,'' he said, ``I cannot recall a more diverse array of challenges and crises than we confront today.'' That is the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who spent more than half a century in the intelligence community. So with that in mind, you would think that we could all agree that the President needs his national security Cabinet at his side, particularly his CIA Director, a Cabinet position integral to keeping our country safe. That is why, in my view, we must confirm Congressman Pompeo as the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency as soon as possible. For those who don't know Mike well, he served in Congress for several years, including as a member of the House Intelligence Committee. And I have no doubt, as Director, he will do all he can to make sure that those serving in the intelligence community have the tools and the respect they need and deserve to keep America safe. So we need to get this done and to get this done without further delay. Let's not keep the President of the United States from his team, a team that could help him better serve and better protect the people of this country. And, even more, we need to have our Democratic colleagues recognize that the election is over. The votes have been counted. President Trump has been sworn into office. So we need to end the electioneering that has succeeded all of their activities since November 8. They haven't stopped the campaign. The campaign is over. The voters have spoken. And we need to get busy governing on behalf of all the American people. Some of the comments that were made on the floor last week by Senator Wyden from Oregon--when he objected to voting on the nomination of Congressman Pompeo, he raised the issue of surveillance programs and referred to the so-called 215 program that was designed to collect metadata, but not content, of foreign nationals. He referred to the USA FREEDOM Act, which Congress passed and which replaced the old 215 program with a new approach. But one thing he overlooked is that both the Senator from Oregon and I voted for final passage of the USA FREEDOM Act, as did Congressman Pompeo. They voted for the same piece of legislation, yet the Senator from Oregon wants to take the new CIA Director to task for apparently having some divergent views from his own, when they both voted for the same reforms in the USA FREEDOM Act. That is why it seems so disingenuous when he suggests on the floor, as he has done, that Congressman Pompeo does not believe that there are any legal boundaries for surveillance programs. Indeed, in the Intelligence Committee last week, Congressman Pompeo, during his open hearing, said he would abide by the law of the land, as I am sure he will, and as we all must. Surely the Senator from Oregon does not think that support for expanding access to certain metadata is grounds for opposing the nominee. In fact, 59 Members of the Senate and a majority of the Senate's Intelligence Committee last year voted to make clear that the government should be able to access Internet metadata with the use of national security letters. Just to be clear, we are not talking about content. We are not talking about private information that is subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. When the government wants access to private information, subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy, it requires a search warrant, along with establishing probable cause to believe that a crime or threat is present. So it is a little disingenuous to be arguing about metadata, which is not content, which is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, which doesn't require a search warrant, as a reason to object to Congressman Pompeo's nomination as CIA Director. Indeed, as I pointed out, the Senator from Oregon and Congressman Pompeo and I all voted for legislation that he believes addressed the concerns he had with the previous metadata collection program. Then there is the detention and interrogation policies of the U.S. Government post-9/11. It is time to turn the page on this chapter of the CIA's history. We need to focus now on how to defeat the threats of today and tomorrow, not relitigate the battles of yesterday. But, to be clear, Senator Jeff Sessions, the President's choice for Attorney General, has made clear that the enhanced interrogation policies that were used with the approval of the Office of Legal Counsel and the authorities during the Bush administration no longer would be permissible because the Army Field Manual is now the law of the land. Congressman Pompeo voted for the legislation that made that change to Federal law, and he has pledged to follow it. So I am not sure what more we can ask of a nominee. Finally, later today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on the nomination of Rex Tillerson, President Trump's nominee to serve as the next Secretary of State. I have known Mr. Tillerson for a number of years now. Over time, I have come to admire and respect him for many reasons. He has proven over a decades-long career in the top echelons of a large, global company that he has what it takes to represent not the shareholders that he has been representing but the American people throughout the world in the most sensitive diplomatic and international matters you can imagine. And, most of all, he has proved time and again that he is a man of strong conviction and character. I have confidence that Mr. Tillerson will help the United States regain our leadership role in the world by unapologetically supporting our allies and our friends while keeping a check on our adversaries. He is, simply stated, the right man to lead our State Department, and I hope that the committee supports his nomination and that the full Senate votes to confirm him soon. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my Army fellow, CPT David Judson, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this legislative session.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee whether a period of transition from one administration to another is a time of particular vulnerability to the United States, at a time when we are transitioning not only to a new administration but also to a new national security Cabinet. Isn't this a time of particular vulnerability for the United States?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am responding to the Senator from Arizona. I am not confident that he will get a unanimous vote here, but he will certainly be confirmed resoundingly under the rules established by the Democratic majority in the last Congress, which allow 51 votes for confirmation.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me talk just a minute about the nominations process. In 2009, when President Obama was sworn into office, there were seven Cabinet members sworn in on his first day in office. That is a demonstration of the good faith and civility that ordinarily extends in the peaceful transition of power from one President to another. That doesn't mean we were excited on this side of the aisle about the fact that President Obama won as opposed to our preferred candidate, but we believed it was our responsibility to carry on this tradition of peaceful transition of power. The President, having won the election, was entitled to surround himself with his team, subject to the vetting and the confirmation process and the process known as advise and consent. I believe we need to see some cooperation from our colleagues across the aisle, including the confirmation of the next Attorney General of the United States, Senator Jeff Sessions. Our Senate colleagues know Jeff Sessions. They have worked alongside him. They don't need to read his resume, they don't need to know more about his record because they know his heart. They know Jeff to be an honorable and decent man who believes fervently in the rule of law and who will drain that swamp known as the Department of Justice, which has become an outpost of the political operation in the White House, and restore it to its rightful reputation as a Department of Justice that believes in equal justice under the law and doesn't play politics. I would also state that our colleagues across the aisle ought to work with us to confirm the next Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. Mr. Tillerson, I believe, is an inspired choice for Secretary of State. Some have wanted to say that the relationships he has developed around the world working on behalf of the shareholders of ExxonMobil are a liability. I actually view it as a spring. When you are talking to somebody, you are less likely to get involved in a fight or get involved in a misunderstanding that might lead to some unnecessary conflict. I don't have any doubts about his willingness and commitment to work on behalf of the United States and all of our people, just like he has worked on behalf of the shareholders of the business he has run for all these years. Finally, let me just say a word about the Secretary of Defense nominee, Gen. James Mattis. We overwhelmingly passed a waiver that would reduce the number of years a uniformed military officer had to be out of the military before they would be eligible for Secretary of Defense. I think the reason it passed by such a wide bipartisan majority is people realize there aren't many men or women in the world like Gen. James Mattis with the qualities that he brings to this important job. He is a real warrior statesman. Someone who has walked the walk and seen live combat during a 40-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps. During his hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, all of us had a chance, along with our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, to ask him how he would handle a host of foreign policy and national security issues. During the question-and-answer period, he mentioned the importance of preserving our country's military power, but he also noted that our Nation has historically held the power of inspiration by our example, inspiring others around the world with our democracy. That extends well beyond our uniformed military and the threat of military might. That is something that should be cultivated well beyond our military preparedness. The point is, with General Mattis, we have a strategic thinker who sees the big picture, and I am confident he will lead our military in a way that advances our interests around the world, and what I am particularly looking for are leaders in the Trump administration who will restore America's leadership role around the world wherever we go and wherever we look because I believe, in my heart of hearts, that one reason the world has become more dangerous and less stable is because many people around the world who are adversaries have viewed the Obama administration as retreating from America's traditional leadership role in the world, and believe me, there are plenty of countries--plenty of bad actors--that are willing to take advantage of that void when America retreats and doesn't demonstrate its historic leadership role. I hope all of our colleagues will join us in supporting not only General Mattis's confirmation but Secretary of State Tillerson's and all of the others, including the Attorney General nominee, Jeff Sessions, and all of the other nominees of President-Elect Trump. They have every right to a thorough vetting. They have every right to ask hard questions to get information to help them vet these nominees. That is our job. In the end, they should not delay for just delay's sake, which unfortunately some of them have threatened to do. That will not help anybody. It will not help this new administration, it will not make America a safer place, and it will make us more vulnerable to those around the world who want to disrupt the peaceful transition of power from one Presidency to the next. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his courtesy, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Rhode Island for his courtesy. Last week, the Senate took the first step in providing needed relief for the American people from a health care plan, the Affordable Care Act, that overpromised and underdelivered. Many people are hurting now as a result of the failed promises of ObamaCare. They were told their premiums would go down, that they would be able to keep the policy they had if they liked it, and that if they liked their doctor, they could keep their doctor, none of which has proved to be true. So it is important that we keep our commitment to the American people. I believe we have gotten a mandate as a result of the election on November 8 that we keep our promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act and to deliver health care that is affordable and is a matter of individual choice and freedom of choice. The basic problem with ObamaCare is that it was command and control right out of Washington, DC, where people didn't have sufficient humility when it comes to rearranging one-sixth of our national economy and believed that they could, in the process of writing a 2,700-page bill--that I doubt many of them read--take over and improve our health care delivery system. It was sold on the basis of providing people access to affordable care, and in many instances, according to my constituents, they have seen their premiums skyrocket and deductibles skyrocket, effectively being insured but giving them no benefit of insurance coverage at all. I realize there were some things that people liked to talk about when they talk about ObamaCare that were positive; for example, dealing with people with preexisting conditions. I agree that people should not lose their health insurance coverage when they change employers and be caught in a trap where your insurance company doesn't cover your preexisting condition, but you don't need ObamaCare in order to deal with that problem. People also like the idea that single adults living at home can continue to be listed on their parents' health insurance up to age 26. That is enormously popular on a bipartisan basis. Again, we don't need a 2,700-page takeover of the health care system in order to deliver some of these consensus items of reform. I believe, and we believe, that there are certain principles that ought to govern the replacement of ObamaCare that we will see unfold in the coming weeks; first and foremost, moving the health care decisions outside of Washington and back to where they belong--to patients, families, and their doctor. We also believe patients ought to have more tools, such as health savings accounts which they can use to pay for their regular health care along with perhaps a catastrophic coverage which would help them in the event of an unexpected health care condition that would require hospitalization. If you are young and healthy and don't need all the money you set aside in health savings accounts, you can keep that money and use it for your eventual retirement. We also believe we ought to break down barriers that restrict choice and permit Americans to pick an insurance plan that is best for them and their family. One of the worst aspects of ObamaCare is that Washington, DC, said: Here is your health care coverage, and we are going to punish you with a penalty if you don't buy it, forcing people to buy coverage that they didn't want and didn't need--for example, a single male being forced, in essence, to buy maternity coverage. That is just 1 of the 10 essential health benefits that was mandated in ObamaCare that drove the cost of insurance through the roof, not to mention the fact that the pools of people who were insured tended to be older and less well, thus driving premiums again through the roof. Another principle that is really important to our health care reform replacement is empowering small businesses to provide employees with the kind of health care coverage that meets their needs through association health plans so they can pool their risks together to bring costs down and to increase their choices. We believe there ought to be flexibility on the part of the States when it comes to Medicaid spending. We ought to, in my book, give the States the money and the block grant and say: Come up with a health care delivery system for Medicaid's low-income citizens that best suits their needs. We haven't done that under ObamaCare. We have had a mandate and tied the hands of the States when it comes to coming up with alternatives to health care delivery. Finally, when it comes to employers that provide 61 percent of the health care coverage for Americans, rather than tying their hands and driving up costs, what we ought to do is allow for increased flexibility for employer-sponsored plans that will help bring down the costs. We hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talking about ObamaCare like it was the gold standard: There is nothing wrong with it. It is just perfect as it is. Well, I don't have to tell our Democratic friends about the unintended consequences of this partisan exercise. ObamaCare was passed without a single Republican vote so the problems that have developed from it are problems that were created by our Democratic colleagues. Having said that, we hope they will work with us to come up with an alternative which we believe would be an improvement on the status quo, to make health care more available, at a price people can afford, with choices that would be theirs, not a mandate out of Washington, DC.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).