Bob Corker

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for his comments and for his leadership on issues relative to free trade and other important issues to our Nation. I just want to reiterate for a minute, before I ask for this amendment to be called up, the fact that this particular amendment, No. 1, is cosponsored by 14 people of various ideologies, on both sides of the aisle. Senator Flake, who is here on the floor, is a cosponsor of this amendment. It is probably one of the most supported amendments we are going to vote on as it relates to the farm bill. Is the farm bill the right place? Absolutely. Farmers around our country are being hurt by this administration's trade policies, and more than 20 farm bills could help them. So it is very important for us to address this issue now. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle--by the way, we have many people on the other side of the aisle supporting this legislation, this amendment--have said: Well, we don't want to hurt our ability to impose tariffs on China. This has nothing to do with that. As the Senator from Pennsylvania mentioned, the President has used section 201 of the Trade Act to put in place tariffs on solar panels and on washing machines. He did that in January. The additional tariffs that he is putting in place on China are under section 301. What this amendment narrowly focuses on is the abuse of authority that the administration is utilizing to put tariffs in place on Canada, Mexico, and on many of our allies, especially in Europe, and what he is doing is citing national security. It is dubious. All of us know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with national security, but the reason the President is using this is that he doesn't have to prove anything to use it. Under the other sections, you have to deal with the WTO or the ITC, and you have to actually make a case for what it is you are doing. When you use section 232, no case has to be made. He can just do it. Therefore, because of this abuse of authority, that is the reason we believe the President ought to be free to negotiate these. Sure, he is the leader of our Nation, but once he completes those negotiations, if he is going to use section 232 of the Trade Act, we believe he should come to Congress, as was laid out by the Senator from Pennsylvania. With that, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 3091.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I don't even know where to start. The Senator from Ohio is a friend of mine. We came in together at the same time. He has written books on labor and trade, and I respect the fact that he knows a great deal about the topic. We serve together on the Banking Committee, and I respect him. Much of what he just said was focused on China. I have never heard of a trade policy where you have a country like China, which is, in fact, dumping steel around the world because it is in their interest--I have never heard of a trade policy where you punish your friends in order to get at someone who is doing something to you. So we are punishing Canada and Mexico. We are fortunate to live in the neighborhood we live in, to have the neighbors we have. We are punishing our European allies, who have been with us for centuries, in order to get at China. It makes no sense. As a matter of fact, I haven't heard a person who has gone to the White House to talk about what they are putting in place--a trade policy--come back over here and be able to articulate anything coherent about that policy. I haven't heard a single soul be able to explain to me why we would punish our allies in Europe and our neighbors next door in order to get at China. Section 232 has nothing to do with China. That is absolutely not true; it has nothing to do with China. China is being punished by 201 and 301, and we are punishing our allies by abusing a national security section called 232. So I don't know what to say.

Mr. CORKER. Let me finish one more thing before I yield, and I will gladly yield. People in our Nation are being hurt today. People are being hurt. We saw the Harley-Davidson issue, where they are going to move some of the jobs overseas to avoid these tariffs. Other companies are going to be doing the same. Right now, farmers are being hurt around our country. On July 1, a whole other set of countermeasures is coming in from other countries. On July 6, there will be a whole other set of countermeasures coming in. I just want the record to be clear. The Senator from Ohio, my friend, will not even allow us to vote. If he disagrees with this policy, he can vote against it. He is not even allowing us to vote on something that could ease and stop the pain that is being inflicted on our country by a trade policy that is not coherent, that is being made up on a daily basis, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with what China is doing with steel and aluminum. I don't know what this body has become when you can't even vote on an issue that is current, that is damaging farmers more than 20 farm bills could make up for. With that, I yield the floor to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I will be very brief. I know the Senator from Ohio wants to speak, and the Senator from Wyoming has been waiting. People in our Nation are being hurt today. Americans are being taxed heavily. A tariff is a tax on the American people. What the Senator from Ohio is doing is saying that the Senate should not even vote on a measure to alleviate the pain that Americans are going to feel and the jobs that are going to be lost over the next couple of months as this trade war continues. I am just disappointed. I cannot believe it. With the zeal with which we both came to the Senate 11\1/2\ years ago to debate and deal with the big issues of our Nation and to have an amendment that is supported in a bipartisan way when people know that the trade policy being put forth by this administration is being made up on a daily basis and they know that jobs are going to be lost and farmers are already hurt, we cannot even vote, even though we may disagree, on an amendment. So on this day, June 27, let it be known that on a bill that is very relevant because of the pain that farmers are going through, we were kept from voting on a measure that would have alleviated an incoherent policy from continuing as it relates to trade. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, this amendment has nothing to do with China. This amendment deals with Canada, Mexico, our European allies, and other countries. I guess when we go back home this week and we talk to our constituents and they talk to us--I had a member of the UAW write a letter to the editor thanking me for these efforts that are underway to stop these tariffs that are killing the automobile industry or will kill the automobile industry that exists in Ohio and Tennessee. But I guess what I will tell him is, well, we couldn't vote on a simple measure that would allow Congress to vote up or down on tariffs the President negotiates. But what we are going to do, while you lose your jobs, while you pay 25 percent more for steel and aluminum, while these industries go away, I will tell them: Well, we are going to have hearings. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the abuse of authority that is taking place with the administration's use of section 232 of the Trade Act to implement taxes on the American people. Let me say this one more time. The President, and the administration, abusing section 232 of the Trade Act, have decided on their own accord to tax the American people. They have put in place a 25-percent tariff on steel and aluminum and are getting ready to do so on some other products. Yet, this is Congress's responsibility--Congress's responsibility--to generate tariffs or deal with taxes. The administration, by citing section 232--a national security issue--is taxing goods coming into America from Canada, from Europe, and our allies on a national security basis. Today I wrote a letter to Secretary Ross, our Secretary of Commerce, because it is my understanding--actually, today, in a hearing with the Finance Committee, he said there were 22,506 requests from companies in the United States asking for exclusions--exclusions--from being taxed for goods that come in to support their companies. I will say to my friends here, on what basis do we think these exclusions might be granted? We have already had an abuse of authority in using 232. I guess my question to Secretary Ross is, on what basis is he going to be granting these exclusions? Are they going to be friends of the administration who get exclusions? Are they going to deny exclusions to opponents of the administration or are they going to use the national security reason, if you will, to grant exclusions? I want to say, again, I think this is our responsibility. I realize that when additional tariffs go in place in July--when these other countries retaliate, which is their plan on July 1--my guess is this issue may become more ripe for action, not unlike what is happening at the border right now where people are seeing what is occurring and action is being promoted to solve the problem. I think, once the tariffs by these other companies kick in against us on July 1--because we, in a most unusual way, the administration citing national security against Canada, Mexico, many of our NATO allies and the European Union--I think this issue is going to become ripe. I think it is going to become ripe for Senate action and House action. Again, I will ask people in this room, knowing they cited 232, which again is an abuse of that authority, are we comfortable with the criteria that the administration is going to be using on the 22,000-- actually, let me see here. Maybe that is a low number. It is 26,977 issues that have been dealt with, but 22,506 exclusions have been asked for. In other words, we have companies that are coming to the administration which is abusing its authority. We have companies that are going to the administration, asking that they not be impacted by the taxes that are being placed on their companies, unilaterally by this administration, with no congressional input. I say to my colleagues, do we not want to know on what basis they unilaterally are going to decide not to tax certain companies? In other words, most companies are being taxed 25 percent. They just decided to do that themselves. Yet they are going to grant exclusions. I think this issue is going to wreak havoc on our country. It already is wreaking havoc on our relationships with friends that have been with us for many years in defense that have to come our aid, and we have come to their aid. We have had alliances. Again, I challenge the Senate to take action on this. There is an amendment that is broadly supported by people on both sides of the aisle, with a wide range of ideology, that would say, if we are going to invoke 232, a national security section, we would vote on that. My sense is, as this moves along, people are going to want to vote on that, and I look forward to that day occurring. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

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

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I plan to speak more fully tomorrow on this topic, but the Constitution, as I know the Presiding Officer knows and I know others in the Chamber know, gives the U.S. Congress the authority to deal with revenues and tariffs. I know we are dealing with some regular order business during this week, and I am glad we are able to do so. I congratulate my colleague-- the other Senator from Tennessee, our senior Senator--for the way he is conducting himself as it relates to dealing with appropriations and the members of the Appropriations Committee for the work they have done to make sure we can move through this in a timely fashion. From time to time, moments arise in U.S. history where Congress should assert its authority and play a calming role at a time when the world is roiling from a President who wakes up each morning and decides the next steps he is going to take against other countries, as it relates to tariffs, with no seeming strategy nor reasoning for much of what he is doing. We have an amendment we are seeking to make even better to hopefully cause the Congress--the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives-- to take its rightful role as it relates to this tariff situation. Today, we had a number of small businesses from Tennessee--I am sure there are many from Indiana and Alaska--that are wondering what in the world they are waking up to as tariffs just seem to be rolling off at the White House--again, with no seeming strategy or thought, but just waking up and putting in place taxes on the American people, changing the relationships that have been built since World War II between our Nation and others, in some cases, appearing to take place over personal tiffs the President may have against an individual or another company. That is not the way the United States has led the world. We have a responsibility as a Congress over these matters. Section 232 of the Trade Act has never been used like it is being used today, where we, in essence, are claiming, under the guise of national security, tariffs being put in place against our neighbors and against our allies. I don't think there is a person in this body who believes the national security waiver being utilized in the manner it is being utilized is even appropriate. I can't imagine there is anybody in this body who even believes that to be the case. Yet our President wakes up on a daily basis and decides he is going to put in place policies that are going to affect our Nation and others and the citizens we represent, affecting them in major ways. So I am here today to say that I know pressure is going to build. I know other countries are going to retaliate. They have no choice but to retaliate. The citizens they represent would push them--are pushing them--to retaliate. They have no choice. We as a body have a responsibility at this time to reclaim our responsibilities as they relate to tariffs and revenues. Allow the President to continue to negotiate--allow him to do so--but when he completes his work, he should bring whatever it is he would like to impose on other countries--especially since he is using section 232 in ways that it was never intended--he should bring that to the Senate and to the House of Representatives, and we should decide. If section 232 is being abused in the way that it is, we should decide what tariffs should be put in place. I plan to come back and speak on this matter tomorrow. I hope that at some point--as pressure builds, as chaos is created in other countries and around the world, as our leadership role in the world continues to take a hit and be challenged, I hope the Senate will rise to the occasion. I thank those many people on both sides of the aisle who have sponsored legislation to deal with this. I hope the leader and the minority leader of the Senate will decide that this is an important issue we need to take up and that we will take action. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the NDAA bill that is before us today. I think most people know that we have been engaged in some tariff discussions with other countries through the administration. We have a trade act of 1974 and one of 1962 that have laid out provisions as to how we would go about dealing with tariffs. In section 232 there is a place which states that the President of the United States can declare something a national security issue. When he does that, it keeps him from having to go through the normal process that one goes through in dealing with tariffs. Typically, when the President chooses a section of the trade act, he has to go through a process. When he decides that he wants to put a tariff in place on another country, he has to go to the ITC or some other entity to show that, somehow or another, the United States has been harmed as the reason that he would be putting tariffs in place. What our President has chosen to do in recent times is to declare that almost everything that he is dealing with relative to tariffs is a national security issue. When he does that, it means that he does not have to lay down grounds for having done that. He can just determine that it is in our national security interests to put in place tariffs on other countries, whether it is automobiles, whether it is steel, whether it is aluminum, or whether it is some other issue. He can just wake up one morning, without going through any of those processes, and decide that, on national security grounds, he is going to put tariffs in place. Article I of the Constitution declares that Congress is the determiner on tariffs. Congress, per the Constitution, has been charged with the ability--actually, the responsibility--to deal with tariffs and to deal with revenues. It is the responsibility of the Congress. Because I have been somewhat concerned that we are using this national security issue just as an ordinary course of business, I have offered an amendment to deal with that, since this is a national security bill, which says that the President can continue to deal with these other countries and he can continue to try to work through trade agreements, but, at the end of the day, if he actually decides to put tariffs in place, he would have to come to Congress to get an up-or- down vote. Because we don't want to slow the administration's ability down too much in this regard, we have actually put in this amendment an expedited process so the President would know that we are not going to drag this out forever, so that when he comes to a conclusion, we will have acted on it in a timely fashion. I have done this for another reason; that is, if we as a country begin claiming that every single item is a national security issue, other countries will do the same. What they can then do is to avoid the processes that take place generally in international organizations to have to prove that, somehow or another, their country has been damaged. If we use the national security issue to put tariffs on automobiles, for instance, then, all of a sudden, another country can do the same. My amendment, by the way, is supported by 17 Senators. It is supported by Senators on both sides of the aisle. Taking myself out of it, these are Senators who are very well respected, with a wide range of ideologies. As a matter of fact, this probably is the most cosponsored amendment that has been put forward. I have been really proud to be able to work with Senators who care deeply about the Nation. They care about us economically. They just want to make sure that we as a Congress perform our appropriate roles, making sure that if a tariff is going to be put in place under this very unusual waiver--which has never in the history of our country been used as it is now being used by this current President--then we have the ability to at least have a say in this. It is not unlike the President going to Singapore and meeting with Kim Jong Un. What they have told us is that they are going to negotiate through a process that, hopefully, will cause them to be denuclearized. But when they complete that process, they plan to bring that to the U.S. Senate to have us ratify a treaty. They have been very clear about it. So it is exactly that same kind of process, except in this case it is even more our responsibility to make sure that if we are going to tariff people under this unusual section, we vote up or down. So I am going to call up this amendment. I appreciate the way the chairman of the committee has worked with me. I know there has been a lot of resistance to our having a vote on this amendment. I don't know why that is the case. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2372 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 301, H.R. 2372; that the text of H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, be offered as an amendment, considered, and agreed to; that H.R. 2372, as amended, be considered original text for the purpose of further amendment; that the text of Inhofe-McCain No. 2282, as modified, be made pending as a substitute to the text of H.R. 2372, as amended; that McConnell-Toomey No. 2700 be made pending to Inhofe- McCain No. 2282, as modified; that Reed-Warren No. 2756 be made pending as an amendment to Toomey No. 2700 and that Toomey No. 2700 be set aside; that Corker amendment No. 2381, as modified with changes at the desk, be made pending to amendment No. 2282; that Lee No. 2366 be made pending as an amendment to the language proposed to be stricken by Inhofe-McCain No. 2282; and that the Senate vote on the Corker amendment at 4 p.m. today.

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am going to make a few comments here. I thank Senator Inhofe through the Presiding Officer for working with me. I realize there is a lot happening here, and I know he is conducting to the best of his ability the progression of this bill. I will just leave it at that. Mr. President, I was asked to find a solution to this blue-slip issue, and I found one that is used as customarily as waking up in the morning and drinking a cup of coffee. It happens all the time. This in no way has any effect on our ability to pass the NDAA in a timely fashion, but I am in no way countering the person who just spoke. I am not, and he knows I am not. I am going to speak to a larger issue, but before I do, I want to point out that the NDAA usually passes each year in November or December. It usually doesn't pass in June. So even if there were something that needed to be worked out, we would be way ahead of schedule in dealing with this as we are between now and August. But if I could, the germaneness of these bills has nothing whatsoever to do with our ability to offer amendments--nothing. That is something that happens postcloture. For the last year and a half, under Leader McConnell, we have had one amendment vote--one amendment vote--and that amendment wasn't even really an amendment. It was a chairman who was controlling his own bill and asking if he could substitute his own amendment. So it really wasn't even a real amendment vote. We have been here a year and a half, and because Senators--U.S. Senators who are elected by the people in their States--don't want to cast a tough vote, they block everybody from voting. I have no idea why Rand Paul cannot get a vote on his amendment. It is ridiculous. He has been trying to get a vote on it for years--years--and we have blocked it. Why is that? For the record, I want to say that I have held amendments this morning until we could work out the solution. I am not holding any amendments--none, zero. I am holding no one's amendment. But we, as Senators, are worried somehow that, gosh almighty--I heard the senior Senator from Texas saying the other day: Gosh, we might upset the President. We might upset the President of the United States before the midterms. Gosh, we can't vote on the Corker amendment because we are taking--rightly so--the responsibilities that we have to deal with tariffs and revenues; we can't do that because we would be upsetting the President of the United States. I can't believe it. I would bet that 95 percent of the people on this side of the aisle intellectually support this amendment. I would bet that. I would bet it is higher than 95 percent, and a lot of them would vote for it if it came to a vote. But, no, no, no, gosh, we might poke the bear. That is the language I have been hearing in the hallways. We might poke the bear. The President might get upset with us, as U.S. Senators, if we vote on the Corker amendment, so we are going to do everything we can to block it. If people don't like it, they can vote up or down. But, no, the U.S. Senate right now, on June 12, is becoming a body that says: Well, we will do what we can do, but, my gosh, if the President gets upset with us, then we might not be in the majority. So let's not do anything that might upset the President. Look, I am in no way upset with my friend from Oklahoma. I am not. I understand he is doing his job, and he is actually filling in, in a wonderful way, for Senator McCain, who happens to be ill at home-- someone we all love. Look, I know there is not going to be a vote on this amendment. I know it. I am not about to hold up somebody else's amendment from being voted on. I know every ounce of power possible is going to be used to keep from voting on this amendment because, well, my gosh, the President might not like it; therefore, we as Senators might be offending someone, by the way, just by voting on an amendment--voting on an amendment, up or down, and deciding whether we, in fact, want to assert some responsibility over a process of tariffing, where we wake up, ready, fire, aim. Well, let's change this. Ready, fire, aim--that is the process that is under way on these tariffs. I haven't heard of a single Senator on our side who hasn't expressed concern to the President directly about what is happening with tariffs. Our farm folks are worried about NAFTA. Our auto manufacturers are worried about Canada and Mexico and what is happening in Europe. Our steel and aluminum folks are concerned. I haven't heard of a person who hasn't had some degree of concern. All my amendment would do is say: Look, Mr. President, you go negotiate, but when you are finished, come back, and as Senators and as House Members, let us vote up or down. I understand what is happening. If I came up with another solution, there would be some objection, and my friend knows that. There is going to be an objection. Hell, if we named this--no matter what, there is going to be an objection to this vote because people are concerned on this side of the aisle--some people, not everybody. We have some great cosponsors who want to assume our responsibilities. We have a lot of great cosponsors who understand that we are abdicating our responsibilities if we let the President of the United States use a national security section 232 on every single tariff he is putting in place and not have to think about why he is doing it and not have to justify why he is doing it. They know that is a problem, and some of the most respected Senators we have on both sides of the aisle have signed on, but I know there is a minority of people here who do not want us to take up issues of debate and responsibility in the U.S. Senate. I know that no matter what I do, this is going to be objected to. I am not going to object to Rand Paul having an amendment, Mike Lee having an amendment, Toomey having an amendment, or people on the other side of the aisle. I am disappointed at where we are in the U.S. Senate today. We have had one amendment vote in a year and a half because this same cycle occurs every time someone wants to bring something up. I in no way take this out on my friend from Oklahoma. I realize he is doing a job; I realize he has been asked to block this. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I don't see anybody else on the floor who wishes to speak. So I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 12; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. I further ask that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 5515. Finally, I ask that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, through the Presiding Officer, I would like to talk to both of our leaders and thank them for the work they have done. I, too, look forward to having numbers of amendments. I think many people here are aware that I have an amendment that deals with the 232 tariff issue, and I know there is a lot of interest in that amendment. We actually have strong bipartisan support from a range of very respected Senators. There has been a blue slip issued that has been erased. I was asked by Senator Inhofe, as well as by Senator McConnell, to solve the blue- slip issue. I just wanted Members to know we have talked to the Parliamentarian, and I plan to ask unanimous consent, after we vote to move to the bill, for a very short paragraph to be consented to that would then solve the blue-slip issue and then cause my amendment to be able to be heard without, in any way, tainting the bill should it move across the Senate floor to the House. I have given that language to the well. I know they are going to talk to Laura Dove and Gary a little bit about it. I just wanted to make you aware, as a courtesy, that I do plan, after we move to the bill, to ask unanimous consent on something that should be totally unobjectionable and that in no way prejudices my amendment in a favorable way; it just allows us to move to it without having the blue-slip issue that has been raised.

Mr. CORKER. Thank you.

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

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

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I had a conversation with Senator Inhofe and Senator Reed earlier. I talked a little bit about resolving a blue- slip issue. I think many Members here are aware that I want to offer an amendment that deals with our ability to weigh in on the tariffs that were put in place under section 232 of the trade act--national security issues. I think we may have found a resolution to that, but I don't want to offer it right now. I know that Senator Inhofe, not knowing whether it works yet for him and the committee, would have to object, and I don't want that to be the case. I want us to continue to work on this. So I am not going to offer an amendment and statement thereof relative to this.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. 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. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications which have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.

Mr. CORKER

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for, as he mentioned, allowing this process to go forward and for our being able to vote on this nominee today. I think all of us are aware that there is a NATO summit where foreign ministers are going to be present. Our passing him out today will allow Director Pompeo, Secretary of State Pompeo, to be a participant in a meeting that needs to take place. So I thank him for his cooperation and, certainly, for his point of view. Let me offer a different point of view, though, as it relates to this nominee. I think he is one of the most outstanding nominees we could have for this position. I did not know him well when the process began. I knew he had done a very good job as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Yet I have to tell you that through the process of his going through the confirmation hearings and the conversations we have had and the meetings we have had, I think he is going to be exemplary. Let me just go through his resume briefly as I know people are here, ready to vote. He graduated first in his class at West Point. He served our Nation in uniform and patrolled the Iron Curtain. It was there that he learned about diplomacy and the effect that diplomacy can have on the world. What I have found from those individuals who have worn the uniform, from those people we hold on a pedestal like our Presiding Officer, is that they respect diplomacy more than most anyone else because they know it is the thing that keeps our men and women from being in harm's way. I know this nominee believes strongly in the role of diplomacy and has seen it in action firsthand on the ground. After serving in the military, he graduated from Harvard Law School, where he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He then founded his own company, acting as the CEO. He became the president of another company after that. So he has served in the private sector. He was elected four times in Kansas to represent the Fourth District in the U.S. House of Representatives. Let me just say this. Sometimes people say things when they are in public office and when they are running campaigns, and I know something has been said about that. I will say we confirmed Secretary Kerry and Secretary Clinton by 94 votes, and I can assure you that during their campaigns, they may have said some things that Republicans didn't particularly care for. Yet we went ahead and confirmed them with 94 votes on the floor. For the last 15 months, he has served our Nation as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I think everyone knows how he has run that Agency, and I think everyone knows the culture that he has built there. Right now, the State Department has a terrible culture. The morale is terrible. As my friend the ranking member mentioned, a lot of positions have not been filled, but they also feel like they have not had a leader in some time who has really stood behind them and raised them up in order to leverage our diplomatic efforts around the world. I believe this particular nominee will be excellently suited for that. He has demonstrated that at the CIA. I strongly support his nomination. With that, I look forward to the vote. I look forward to his serving our Nation. I don't know of a person in the United States of America who could have more current knowledge about what is happening around the world in his current role. As we know, he has already met with the North Koreans. We have known for some time that the CIA has been our contact, our back channel, with the North Koreans. He is the perfect person to come in at this time and lead those efforts diplomatically. I yield the floor. I also yield back any remaining time.