Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment today to honor Father Ray Doherty, a fellow Michaelman and a pillar of the St. Michael's College community. Father Ray, as he is warmly known, exemplifies so many of the qualities we Vermonters hold dear. His compassion and leadership have contributed to a vibrant college campus and has inspired those beyond its borders. As a member of the Society of Saint Edmund, whose members founded the college in 1904, Father Ray has embodied a commitment to social justice throughout his lifetime of service.

Father Ray first came to St. Michael's as a 17-year-old freshman. He spent his college years as both a student and an athlete, gracing the baseball program with his talents as pitcher before graduating in 1951. Father

Ray then served as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Marine Corps during the Korean conflict. It was there that Father Ray saw the importance of loyalty and strong leadership, leading him to join another brotherhood following his discharge.

As an Edmundite priest for more than six decades, Father Ray had advised and supported countless students at Saint Michael's. His leadership on campus focuses on setting a good example through actions rather than words. Father Ray's commitment to social justice and involvement in campus service organizations has fostered peace and justice with in the college community. Though honored with an array of awards, including induction into the college's athletic hall of fame and the establishment of a scholarship in his name, Father Ray remains humble. His role as an administrator, leader, and friend is rooted in a sense of selflessness and an everlasting commitment to the community around him.

To my friend Ray, I say, ``Semper Fi.''

The St. Michael's College Magazine recently highlighted Father Ray's service, and I ask unanimous consent that that featurette be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, has the distinguished majority leader finished?

Mr. President, Republicans in both Chambers have introduced a resolution to permit oil, gas, and mining companies to continue making secret payments--involving billions of dollars--to corrupt foreign governments in exchange for access to their countries' natural resources.

This resolution would overturn legislation on which I worked closely with former Republican Senator Richard Lugar and Senator Cardin and was included as section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to provide greater transparency when such payments are made and help better inform investors and combat massive corruption in the process.

One would think that everyone here would support a commonsense rule that will protect investors and make it a lot harder to get away with the theft of billions of dollars in public funds in some of the poorest countries of the world. But apparently, that is not a concern, at least not to the sponsors of this resolution or those who intend to support its passage.

Some Republicans and their friends in the oil and gas industry say this rule creates unacceptable burdens. That is utterly without merit, as I will explain in a moment.

But even assuming there were a grain of truth to that, rather than proposing to amend the underlying legislation, which would require bipartisan support, this resolution is being advanced under the Congressional Review Act, to enable a simple majority vote to completely dismantle the rule with minimum debate.

Keep in mind that the rule is simply the product of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, implementing bipartisan congressional intent and would not take effect until the end of 2018. Despite what some have claimed, the SEC has not twisted the statute in any way when they developed this rule. But if this rule is overturned, the SEC will be prevented from issuing any substantially similar rule, potentially in our lifetimes.

In other words, what we are doing here is, for all practical purposes, the death knell for global efforts--involving most of our closest allies--to combat massive corruption resulting from the extraction of natural resources and help investors assess risk in the often murky and unstable oil, gas, and mining sectors. This is an issue on which the United States, until now, has been a global leader.

I mention this because the sponsors of this resolution have said that they support the goals of this rule, and all they want to do after overturning it is make some minor adjustments to it. That is the epitome of disingenuous. The rule does not take effect until the end of 2018. If that was what they really wanted to do, they would propose an amendment, and we could discuss it. Their real purpose, even if they are reluctant to say so, is to prevent disclosure.

This rule has two primary purposes. First, it is to protect investors. Investors whose combined net worth exceeds $10 trillion, support this rule and its equivalency with the rules adopted by some 30 other governments. And second, to protect the public.

The practical effect of overturning this rule is that U.S. and foreign companies will be able to continue to make secret payments to corrupt foreign autocrats like Vladimir Putin and kleptocracies in Africa like the governments of Angola and Equatorial Guinea. By doing so, these companies will be aiding and abetting those kleptocrats when they pocket the proceeds for their personal use. We have seen this for years. The people of those countries barely survive on $1 or $2 per day, while their leaders drive Mercedes, fly private jets to vacation homes on the French Riviera or in Santa Monica, and pay off the armed forces to keep themselves in power.

And where does the money come from that pays for that grotesque flaunting of wealth? From the royalties paid by U.S. and other foreign companies.

Do we really want to be complicit in that kind of thievery and immorality by shielding it from public scrutiny? Do we really think that the American people want to be tarred with it indirectly through the shady activities of American companies? Do we really want to hide important information from investors who are trying to assess risk in the companies they invest in? Of course not.

Anyone who reads this rule and pays the slightest attention to the estimated $1 trillion lost to crime, corruption, and tax evasion in these countries and the millions of deaths attributed to corrupt practices where these extractive companies operate will recognize the fallacy of the baseless attacks by those who oppose it.

The sponsors of this resolution claim that this rule puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage. What are they talking about? The rule applies to both U.S. and foreign companies and complements existing laws elsewhere in the world. In fact, Chinese state-owned companies, like PetroChina and Sinopect, are covered by the U.S. law. Great Britain, the EU, Canada, and Norway are just four examples of governments that have adopted similar rules, with Russian state-owned companies like Rosneft and Gazprom covered in the U.K.

I challenge the sponsors of this legislation to provide any objective facts to support the argument that U.S. companies are disadvantaged by this rule. That is a pernicious myth.

The sponsors have also repeated the self-serving claims of the petroleum industry that complying with this rule would unacceptably increase their cost of doing business. While that has become the predictable complaint of the business community whenever such a rule is promulgated, in this instance, they base it on an outdated and discredited analysis. The irony is that, even if one were to agree with their most farfetched, worst-case scenario, it pales compared to their immense profits.

If we overturn our rule, what prevents others from doing the same? And then we are right back where we started. Once again, we will have paved the way for secret payments and billions of dollars stolen from the public treasuries and squirreled away in Swiss bank accounts by the Robert Mugabes of the world.

There is another aspect to this that no one has talked about, and that is the connection between corruption and terrorism, particularly in Africa. Terrorist groups flourish where government corruption contributes to incompetent, corrupt military forces. Terrorists benefit when revenues from these

activities are kept in the dark, enabling them to radicalize and recruit an impoverished and resentful population. By overturning this rule, Senators should know that violent extremists, terrorists, and other criminal enterprises will be among the beneficiaries.

Corruption is among the most corrosive forces that breed instability and violence, and then countries like ours end up trying to feed and shelter the innocent people who bear the brunt of it.

It not only wreaks havoc on the people of those countries; it hurts American companies trying to do business there, and it hurts Americans who invest in these risky companies. If the norm is nondisclosure, then bribery becomes an unavoidable and accepted way of doing business.

That is what companies from countries like Russia and China that compete with American companies would prefer because corruption is what they are best at. But this rule requires those foreign companies and others to similarly disclose their profits. Are the sponsors of this resolution even aware of this? This rule will enhance U.S. competitiveness. This rule protects investors and the public.

When it was first passed, section 1504 put the United States at the forefront of transparency and government accountability efforts. And as I have already said, that leadership paid off. Other countries have followed our example. This resolution will jettison a decade of work here and abroad. There is no excuse for it. There is no need for it. If there are legitimate concerns about section 1504, then let's talk about ways to amend it and improve it.

But let's not, by overturning this rule, tell the world that we don't believe in transparency and good governance, that we will turn our backs on the theft and misuse of payments made by U.S. companies, that we do not care about the people of those countries who suffer the consequences, and that we do not care about American investors who deserve this critical information so they can have confidence in the companies they invest their hard-earned money in. This resolution is an affront to the values and to the citizens of our great and good Nation.

Mr. President, we began public hearings on the Supreme Court nominees in 1916. Since we began those, the Senate has never denied a hearing or a vote to a pending Supreme Court nominee--never, since 1916 until last year.

Last year Senate Republicans waged an unprecedented blockade against the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland, a fine judge with impeccable credentials and with strong support from both Republicans and Democrats, a man who should be on the Supreme Court today. This is the first time since 1916 that had ever been done. Instead, bowing to the extreme right of their party, Republicans who knew him and who even had said publicly before how much they respected him and how he should be on the Supreme Court refused even to meet with him, let alone accord him the respect of a confirmation hearing--even though the Constitution says that we shall advise and consent and even though each one of us has raised our hand in a solemn oath saying we will uphold the Constitution.

So this is exactly what happened. The Republicans held hostage a vacancy on the Supreme Court for a year so that their candidate for President could choose a nominee. The blockade of the Merrick Garland nomination was shameful, but I think it is also corrosive for our system of government. Candidate Donald Trump, who verbally attacked a sitting Federal judge in what Speaker Ryan called ``a textbook example of a racist comment,'' encouraged Senate Republicans to ``delay, delay, delay.'' Candidate Trump then went further. He said he would

outsource the vetting of potential nominees to far-right organizations, many of them lobbying organizations, that want to stack the judiciary with ideological conservatives who are outside the mainstream. He promised a nominee who would overturn 40 years of jurisprudence established in Roe v. Wade. With the selection of Judge Gorsuch, it appears as though he is trying to make good on that promise.

When we confirmed Judge Gorsuch for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals--and I was a Member of the Senate at the time--I knew he was conservative, but I did not do anything to block him because I hoped he would not impose his personal beliefs from the bench. In fact, at his confirmation hearing in 2006, Judge Gorsuch stated that ``precedent is to be respected and honored.'' He said it is ``unacceptable'' for a judge to try to impose ``his own personal views, his politics, [or] his personal preferences.'' Yet, just last year, he tried to do that. He called for important precedent to be overturned because it did not align with his personal philosophy.

From my initial review of his record, that I have just begun, I question whether Judge Gorsuch meets the high standard set by Merrick Garland, whose decisions everybody would agree were squarely within the mainstream. And with the ideological litmus test that President Trump has applied in making this selection, the American people are justified to wonder whether Judge Gorsuch can truly be an independent Justice. So I intend to ask him about these and other important issues in the coming months.

Republicans rolled the dice last year. They subjected the Supreme Court and the American people to a purely political gamble. They ignored the Constitution and did something that had never been done before in this country.

I know President Trump likes to boast that he won the election in a massive landslide. Well, of course he didn't. Secretary Clinton received more than 2.8 million more votes from the American people than President Trump. But more importantly, due to Senate Republicans' political gambit, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly lost in this election. This is really no way to treat a coequal branch of government, and it is certainly not the way to protect the independence of our Federal judiciary--something that is the bedrock of our Constitution.-

The President's electoral college victory--which was far narrower than either of President Obama's victories--is hardly a mandate for any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on the rights of women, LGBT Americans, or minorities; or a nominee who would use theories last seen in the 1930s to undermine all we have accomplished in the last 80 years. If he follows these right-wing lobbying groups who helped vet him for the President, if he follows what they want, then critical programs, like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, key statutes, including the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Clean Air Act, could well be at risk.

So after nearly a year of obstruction--unconstitutional, unprecedented obstruction--I really don't want to hear Republicans say we now must rush to confirm Judge Gorsuch. I know the President thinks they should, but I also wonder how seriously even he takes this. His announcement yesterday was like he was announcing the winner of a game show: I brought in these two people, and now here is the winner. We are talking about the U.S. Supreme Court; treat it with the respect it deserves.

For all of the Republican talk of Democrats setting the standard with the confirmations of Justice Sotomayor and Kagan, they ignored the standard they set in the shameful treatment of Chief Judge Garland. In fact, I remember when--and I was chairman at the time--when we set the schedule for the hearings and the vote on Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and I remember the Republican leader rushing to the floor and saying: Oh, this is terrible. You are rushing it. You are moving it so fast.

I pointed out that we were setting the schedule to the day--to the day--the same as we set for Chief Justice John Roberts. So I asked the obvious question: Are you telling me the schedule was OK for him but not OK for her? We followed the schedule.

We need time to look at all of these nominees.

I would note, as one who has tried cases in Federal courts, as a lawyer, and as one who has chaired the Judiciary Committee, I would say the courts are a vital check on any administration, especially one that, like this one, has found itself on the losing side of an argument in Federal court in only its first week--they lost on something that a first-year law student could have told them they were going to lose. But with great political fanfare, the President issued an order. Fortunately, the order was seen for what it was: No Muslims need show up in our country.

Judge Gorsuch, to be confirmed, has to show that he is willing to uphold the Constitution even against President Trump, even against the lobbying groups the President had vetting him.

His record includes a decade on the Federal bench. The Judiciary Committee must now carefully review his decisions. We have to conduct a thorough and unsparing examination of his nomination. That is what I will do, just as I have done for every nominee--everybody currently on the Supreme Court and many before them. Whether nominated by a Republican or a Democrat, I did a thorough and unsparing examination of their nomination. The Senate deserves nothing less. More importantly, the American people deserve nothing less.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate considers the nomination of Elaine Chao to be the Secretary of Transportation. Ms. Chao has served in a number of roles in both the public and private sectors throughout her career, ultimately serving as the Secretary of Labor during the administration of George W. Bush. I look forward to working with Secretary Chao as we find solutions to modernize and grow our country's crumbling infrastructure.

We can all agree that investment in our country's transportation infrastructure means safe bridges, paved roads, completed railways, and expanded airports. We can also all support innovative approaches to meeting these needs while guarding public health and environmental protections. With a long-term vision, Congress is not only repaving roads, but it is investing in the future of our vibrant communities. In a rural State like Vermont, it is essential that rural communities have the transportation options they need to access basic things like grocery stores, doctors' offices, schools and churches, and banks. These investments are essential to connecting rural America to the economic opportunities they need for success.

The importance of this connection was made clear in Vermont after the devastation of Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. Entire communities were isolated for days and weeks after the storm until temporary bridges and roads were able to reconnect us. It was because of substantial Federal and State commitments that Vermont rebuilt and improved our dams, roads, wastewater facilities, and rail lines across our State. As disruptive as the storm was to the rhythm of our everyday lives, it provided Vermont an opportunity to assess our State's vulnerabilities and to invest in upgrades. But it should not take a category 4 storm to allow a State the opportunity to improve its transportation services.

That is why I was encouraged by the Obama administration's continued investment in programs that were formed as a response to the financial crisis of 2008. The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, TIGER, grant program is providing funding to States for multimodal programs not considered under traditional transportation programs. Vermont has received several grants through this program. Under Secretary Foxx's leadership, there has also been a renewed focus on transit investment, not only in facilities, but in technology. Vermont has relied on these programs to enhance our services for the elderly and disabled, as well as to launch new programs like Green Mountain Transit's mobile phone application that delivers bus arrival times and schedule information. Finally, Vermont has 12 State-owned airports that continue to contribute to Vermont's economic engine. If not for the commitment to rural airport investment, Vermont would not have been able to fund our airports' expansions and improvements necessary to grow and add to our State's commerce and tourism.

America is starving for infrastructure investment. I hope that Secretary Chao will work with Congress to establish a long-term investment plan that propels our transportation infrastructure and technology in both urban and rural areas into the 21 Century.

Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the nomination of Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State. Mr. Tillerson is an intelligent, hard-working, and successful businessman. He is also, in my view, the wrong choice to be our Nation's top diplomat.

To effectively confront the many challenges our country faces in an increasingly globalized and volatile world, we need a Secretary of State who, with credibility and conviction, can clearly and effectively articulate our interests and values and who has experience advocating for them abroad.

We need someone who will work with the international community to combat climate change, bring to justice war criminals like Bashar al- Assad, and stand up to corrupt, abusive regimes that violate international humanitarian law and territorial integrity as Russia has done in Syria and Ukraine.

We need someone who will advocate for fundamental human rights and democratic values when they are threatened by friend or foe.

I am unconvinced that Mr. Tillerson is that person.

As an accomplished businessman, Mr. Tillerson's lone qualification for Secretary of State seems to be his success in tirelessly circumnavigating the globe to negotiate oil deals. There is no doubt he has helped ExxonMobil expand its business and made a lot of money doing so. But contrary to the view being promoted by the Trump administration, running a for-profit business is fundamentally different from running a large Federal agency.

As the CEO of ExxonMobil, Mr. Tillerson worked closely with corrupt autocrats like Vladimir Putin who were actively undermining U.S. interests and acting in ways that were counter to our values. In doing so, Mr. Tillerson served his shareholders, but he disregarded the national interests of the United States.

Unlike some in this body, I believe we should have relations with governments we disagree with. But I also believe that, in doing so, we must act in accordance with our principles and values. And I don't believe that being the CEO of one of this country's wealthiest companies entitles you to ignore those values for the sake of making money.

Mr. Tillerson's confirmation hearing provided him the opportunity to reconcile his track record of a lifetime in the oil business with the responsibilities he would have as Secretary of State.

In his testimony, he stated that ``American leadership requires moral clarity.'' I agree. But he was challenged by Senators Rubio, Murphy, and others who observed that despite this statement, Mr. Tillerson was unwilling to label the relentless bombardment and destruction of Aleppo by Russian forces as a war crime or the extrajudicial killings of thousands of civilians in the Philippines as a blatant violation of human rights, to cite only two examples of well-documented cases of atrocities he refused to recognize as such.

I worry that Mr. Tillerson will too often be inclined to subjugate fundamental human rights to what he perceives as overriding economic or security concerns. There is nothing in the record to suggest that he recognizes that the protection of human rights is itself a national security imperative or that he would differ from the President on these issues that have become even more important since January 20.

We also have no idea what Mr. Tillerson thinks about the President's misguided, discriminatory, and probably illegal decision to ban entry to the United States of all citizens of Syria and half a dozen other Muslim countries because he has been conspicuously silent, even though the State Department will have a key role in enforcing it. Our diplomats posted overseas will bear the brunt of the retaliatory actions by outraged governments in countries targeted by this arbitrary and self-defeating Executive order.

Nor do we know what he thinks of the President's draft Executive order that signals a drastic reduction in our support for and influence in the United Nations. Will the President consult with Mr. Tillerson before issuing that order? Does Mr. Tillerson think it is a smart way to protect our interests and reassure our allies? We don't know.

ExxonMobil, while Mr. Tillerson was CEO, lobbied to overturn section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank legislation which is designed to stop the illicit flow of revenues from oil and gas extraction to corrupt governments. Senator Lugar, who played a key role in that bipartisan legislation, said at the time that stopping such corruption is a national security and economic priority for the United States. Does Mr. Tillerson think that shrouding in secrecy corruption involving hundreds of billions of dollars by governments who steal from their own impoverished people is in our national interest? We don't know because he doesn't say.

My other abiding concern with this nominee is that we are being asked to confirm the head of the world's largest oil company to be the country's top diplomat, at a time when I believe the most challenging issue we and the world face is climate change resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels.

Uniting the world to combat climate change will not be possible without unprecedented U.S. leadership. Leadership requires credibility, and on this issue, Mr. Tillerson has next to none. He has devoted his professional career--and become a billionaire in the process--to extracting and selling as much oil as possible. If, at his confirmation hearing, Mr. Tillerson had said that he recognizes the causal connection between burning fossil fuels and climate change, that he understands the grave threat it poses, and that he is determined to use the position of Secretary of State to build on the record of the Obama administration to combat climate change, I might feel differently. But he said nothing remotely like that.

To the contrary, when asked at his confirmation hearing if ExxonMobil concealed what it knew about climate change while funding outside groups that raised doubts about the science, Mr. Tillerson said he was ``in no position to speak'' for the company, even though he had been the CEO until only a few days before. When asked whether he lacked the knowledge to answer or was refusing to do so, he replied ``A little of both.'' That should concern each of us.

Based on his professional record and his responses at the hearing, I do not believe Mr. Tillerson is the right person to be representing the United States in negotiations to reduce carbon emissions, one of the defining issues of our time.

I was also disappointed by Mr. Tillerson's responses to a number of other questions submitted for the record, including regarding U.S. policy toward Cuba and the right of Americans to travel there. By simply repeating the Republican talking points that he would act consistent with the Helms-Burton Act, he appeared to embrace a law that has failed to achieve any of its objectives and has prevented Americans from traveling freely to Cuba or U.S. companies from doing business there.

Does Mr. Tillerson believe that Cuba, an impoverished island of 11 million people who overwhelmingly have a positive opinion of the United States, should remain the country with the most U.S. sanctions of any in the world? He didn't say.

I hope that, if confirmed, Mr. Tillerson will evaluate our policy toward Cuba objectively and in a manner that favors diplomatic engagement--as the overwhelming majority of Cubans and Americans want-- over isolation.

I understand that nominees are often unwilling to take hard positions or unable to discuss in detail at this early stage all of the issues they will be required to manage in their new job. But we should expect a nominee for Secretary of State to be willing and able to recognize and condemn horrific violations of human rights and to speak out against actions by foreign governments and our own that are obviously inconsistent with our interests and values.

President Obama did not achieve every foreign policy goal he set out to achieve, nor did I always agree with President Obama's or Secretary of State Kerry's priorities. But we worked together, and with our international partners, we made notable progress over the past 8 years on human rights, climate change, reducing poverty, and many other issues--progress we must continue to build on. With nationalism and isolationism on the rise and democracy and fundamental freedoms under threat, we need a Secretary of State who has demonstrated a track record and commitment to more than economic enrichment.

If Mr. Tillerson is confirmed, which I expect he will be, I will continue my longstanding support for the funding to enable the State Department to carry out its vital mission to protect and promote U.S. interests and values abroad. When he and I agree, I will support him. When we disagree, I will be vocal in my opposition as I was during the Obama administration.

I hope Mr. Tillerson will also be a strong advocate for the State Department's budget and personnel, including by protecting the integrity of the Dissent Channel to ensure that alternative views on important policy decisions can be expressed and considered without fear of retribution. Even the best policies in the world are worth little more than the paper they are printed on without the funds and the people to implement them.

We should always remember that the face of the United States is its people. Leadership is possible only through the hard work of the diplomats serving around the world to promote our values, defend our interests, and engage constructively with friends and adversaries. Their service, dedication, and expertise are the reason we are able to effectively confront an increasingly dangerous world. Our success at home is inextricably linked to their success abroad. That is why, just as we support the men and women of our military, so should we recognize and support the diplomats at the Department of State.

The State Department's indispensable role, made possible by its outstanding workforce, is recognized by the many widely respected senior U.S. Armed Forces officials, current and retired, who have repeatedly called for increased funding for diplomacy and development. They know better than anyone that preventing wars is far less costly than fighting them and that wars rarely if ever turn out the way one predicts, as the past 50 years painfully illustrate.

Regardless of whatever differences of opinion we may have, I hope Mr. Tillerson will consult regularly with Republicans and Democrats, as has been the custom with past successful Secretaries of State of both parties. I have been here a long time, and I would be the first to say that we have had outstanding top diplomats from both parties. I put James Baker in that category, and I sincerely hope that Mr. Tillerson proves me wrong and joins their ranks. We all want what is best for the American people and the Nation, and we are stronger when we work together and with other nations to find a common way forward.

Madam President, Trump's Executive order banning Muslims from seven countries, none of which was a source of terrorists who have carried out attacks in this country, was un-American, arbitrary, inhumane, and it will likely spur an increase in violence targeting Americans. I will have plenty more to say about it and other reckless actions by this White House in the days and weeks ahead.

In the meantime, I want to say a few words about the bizarre back and forth between the Trump administration and the news media regarding attendance at the inauguration and who is telling the truth and who is not.

One might think that with all that is happening in the country and the world and the rush by the President to sign Executive orders that would dramatically affect the rights, and the priorities, of millions of Americans, the question of how many people were at the inauguration would not generate such controversy. But it turns out that this is about much more than that, as it goes to the heart of the role of a free press in this country and whether the American people can have confidence that the President is telling the truth.

We already knew that candidate and now President Trump is prone to bragging and making wildly unrealistic promises and inaccurate claims, many of which he later disavows. He frequently ignores or misstates basic facts and refuses to correct those falsehoods. So it was no surprise when he predicted that the crowd at his inauguration would be ``an unbelievable, perhaps record-setting turnout.''

It was also no surprise, as usually happens at inaugurations and large public demonstrations, that high-elevation photographs were used to estimate the number of participants. To anyone who attended both the Obama and Trump inaugurations, it was obvious that the number of people at President Obama's inauguration was far larger than at President Trump's inauguration, as photographs clearly showed.

President Trump, however, insisted the photographs were fabricated. The morning after the inauguration, he said he could see from the stage on the West Front of the Capitol that there were ``a million'' or ``a million and a half'' people on the Mall.

When reports clearly showed only a fraction of that, he accused news organizations of lying, calling them ``among the most dishonest human beings on Earth,'' and warned that they would regret it.

Later that day, the President's spokesman, Sean Spicer, also accused the press of lying. He said the photographs were deceptive, and he insisted that President Trump's inauguration was ``the most watched ever.'' That, of course, was a clever distortion of what the President actually said.

President Trump was unmistakably talking about the number of people who were actually present on the Mall when he was sworn in, which seems to matter more to him than it does to anyone else.

Mr. Spicer expanded that number by an indeterminable amount to include anyone who had watched anywhere in the world on a cell phone, television, or other electronic device.

A day later, Mr. Spicer berated the press for being unfair by reporting on this. Perhaps he had forgotten that it was President Trump who initiated the whole thing by publicly promising something that did not happen and then falsely accusing the press of lying, as did Mr. Spicer, after being proven wrong.

Mr. Spicer also may have forgotten that, shortly after President Obama was inaugurated, the Senate majority leader announced that the Republicans' No. 1 priority was to prevent him from being elected to a second term. Failing that, they spent 8 years trying to obstruct, sabotage, and discredit everything President Obama tried to do.

During much of that time, Donald Trump carried on an utterly false campaign accusing President Obama of lying about his birthplace.

Two days later and without citing any evidence--because no evidence exists--President Trump resurrected his false claim that that he lost the popular vote because 3 to 5 million ``illegal immigrants'' voted. Mr. Spicer echoed this same claim, citing unnamed ``studies.''

This, of course, is patently false and absurd, but one can assume that it will be repeated by Republicans to justify more onerous, discriminatory voter suppression voting requirements which have been a crusade of theirs, particularly in areas with large minority populations that traditionally vote Democratic.

To add insult to injury, Kellyanne Conway, the President's counselor, announced that President Trump will not be releasing his tax returns. This after candidate Trump repeatedly promised to do so once a routine audit is completed, and he even said he looked forward to doing that. Ms. Conway--who also came up with the phrase ``alternative facts''-- claimed that the fact that Mr. Trump won the election is proof that no one cared about his tax returns.

There are at least two problems with that. First, it is the only way the American people can know what President Trump's assets are, what conflicts of interest may exist, whether he has been telling the truth about what he owns, and whether he is working for the American people or to enrich himself and his family. The polls indicate that today between 60 and 74 percent of the American people want President Trump to release his tax returns, including 49 percent of his own supporters.

A few days later, Stephen Bannon, the White House strategist, said the media should ``keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while.'' Ignoring that democracy is impossible without a free press, Bannon called the media the ``opposition party . . . that [does not] understand this country.''

There is an even more disturbing aspect to this. Besides denigrating the press, candidate and now President Trump has attacked Muslims, the CIA, Mexico, Meryl Streep, the cast of ``Hamilton,'' Congressman John Lewis, politicians, undocumented migrants, or whoever else he thinks of at any particular moment, for meddling in the election or for any other reason, with one glaring exception: Vladimir Putin, one of the world's worst gangsters.

Despite credible evidence that the Russian Government, at Putin's direction, actively sought to sway the outcome of the U.S. election in favor of Donald Trump, candidate and now President Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for Mr. Putin.

Think about what this means. The unanimous conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies is that Vladimir Putin, a former KGB agent, ordered a cyber attack on our electoral system in favor of one candidate over another. Russia's goals ``were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.''

Can you imagine what the response would be from the Republican leadership if the tables were turned? They would have threatened to shut down the government until a new election was held. And if that failed they would have demanded that an independent commission be established to investigate Russia's cyber attacks. Such a commission is, in fact, what Senator Durbin, I and others have called for and what the Republican leaders, who should care no less about the integrity of our democracy, have summarily rejected.

What was candidate and President Trump's response to Russia's acts to undermine our democracy? He continued to praise Vladimir Putin.

This should concern every American because, for years, Vladimir Putin has engaged in a systematic campaign to weaken the alliances and norms that the United States and our democratic allies have painstakingly built over the course of more than seven decades, for our national security and for global stability.

Putin would like nothing more than to discredit our democracy, weaken NATO, fracture the European Union, and in doing so deflect criticism at home and abroad of the repression and rampant corruption that have become the hallmarks of his iron-fisted rule.

While Mr. Spicer blithely spoke of the United States and Russia teaming up against ISIS, Russia has used its military power in Syria for one overriding purpose: to ensure the survival of Bashar al Assad's government, one of Russia's staunchest and most brutal allies.

We have learned that President Trump is also an admirer of Egyptian President al-Sisi and Philippine President Duterte, two populist leaders who have abused their authority to silence their critics and trample on the rights of their citizens.

If allying ourselves with the likes of Presidents Putin, al Sisi, and Duterte, bringing back black CIA detention sites and so-called ``enhanced interrogation''--commonly known as torture--and declaring entire nationalities of men, women, and children fleeing war and devastation as ineligible for resettlement in this country is what the future looks like, we should think long and hard about what it will mean for our reputation as the oldest democracy and leader of the free world.

I have made a career of working across the aisle and with Republican and Democratic Presidents on legislation to help solve the country's problems. I hope to be able to continue doing so, as I learned early on that bipartisanship is the only way the Congress can succeed. I have voted to confirm several of President Trump's Cabinet nominees. I expect to vote for others, and there are several I expect to vote against.

I have never believed that we should keep doing things a certain way just because it is the way we have always done them or that the government cannot be made more efficient and more accountable to the people. Of course it can be.

But in times like this, each of us should rededicate ourselves to defending the things that made this country great in the first place because ours is a great country and a good country. I believe that above all it was, and must continue to be, the integrity of our democratic system, our free, fair, and transparent elections and the checks and balances of our three equal branches of government bolstered by a free press, and our commitment to uphold the fundamental rights of all Americans.

Donald Trump was not elected President to weaken any of that, and we in Congress have a responsibility to do our best to prevent it from happening.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in morning business.

Mr. President, I understand the majority leader may be coming to the floor to make a request. If he does, I certainly would be willing to yield to him, and I hope I won't lose my right to the floor.

Mr. President, a lot has happened here in Washington in the last few days. Marcelle and I knew that a number of Vermonters were coming down for the Women's March on Washington. We said to them, ``Look, if any Vermonters are coming down, why don't you join us for coffee?'' We arranged it right here on Capitol Hill, so they could.

At first, we didn't know how many would show up until we started getting the responses. Marcelle and I were there, along with members of my staff, shortly after 6 in the morning, and people started pouring in. Eventually, we had 500 or 600 from the little State of Vermont who joined us. I had a chance to speak to them.

My wife, Marcelle, gave one of the most powerful speeches, totally ad-libbed, that I have heard, pointing out the stakes of what is happening in this country. Of course, she pointed to the Supreme Court just next door.

What got me is that these people came from all walks of life in Vermont. Some I knew, and a lot I didn't. Some are Republicans. Some are Democrats. Some are Independents. All were very concerned. Most came down in buses and drove all through the night, a little over 500 miles, to show that our brave little State says no to hate. We had thousands more who marched in my State capital, Montpelier. Let me put this in perspective. Our State capital--I was born there, and I know it very well--is home to only 8,500 people, but 15,000 Vermonters stood on our statehouse lawn to show the President that they are paying attention, they want their voices to be heard, and the American people will hold him accountable.

I got some of the most enthusiastic emails and tweets. My 14-year-old granddaughter, Francesca, told me how thrilled she was to be there. One Vermonter who took part in the enormous Women's March in Montpelier told a member of my staff, ``This is the first time I have been able to smile since Election Day.''

In Washington, Marcelle and I were proud to march with our daughter, Alicia, and 12-year-old granddaughter, Sophia. I was proud to see this 12-year-old holding her head high, knowing the respect that was being shown to her and her mother, as well as to Marcelle and me. She knew that respect went to her in a way that reflected everybody--Black, White, no matter what you might be. People cared.

We have heard disrespectful, offensive and dangerous comments seep into

our national discourse. The millions of men and women who participated in marches across the country this weekend offered a powerful statement that they will not tolerate policies that restrict the rights of women or treat women like second-class citizens. They will not treat my wife as one, they will not treat my daughter as one, they will not treat my three wonderful granddaughters as one, and all five of our grandchildren will be treated the same.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration ignored the voices of millions of Americans and is already undermining the rights of women. Two of the President's first Executive Orders targeted women. His first Executive Order attempts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which throws into limbo the health insurance arrangements of millions of American women who have been guaranteed maternity coverage as part of their health care plans, who have been able to have affordable birth control for the first time, who have been able to tell insurance companies that no, pregnancy is not a preexisting condition. In other words, women can be treated the same as men when they seek insurance.

President Trump also reinstated the so-called Mexico City policy, a policy that would be illegal and unconstitutional in this country--that will only result in more abortions and more pregnancy related deaths in developing countries. A former Republican Senator whom I respected highly, when he was chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee--he was strongly against abortion, but he said this kind of a policy is only going to result in more abortions and more pregnancy-related deaths in developing countries, and he is right. He is right. Affordable health care, affordable birth control, and the availability of these services would bring down abortion and pregnancy-related deaths, whether in the United States or the countries we help.

Mr. President, Americans are watching. From what I heard and saw from Vermonters on Saturday, I could tell you that they are fired up and ready to go. We need a President who is committed to equality and opportunity for all people, no matter their sex, gender, or race. We will not stand for policies that turn back the clock on so much progress we have made. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, we have to accept finite disappointment, but we must not give up infinite hope. Only light can crowd out the darkness.

I was proud to see so many Vermonters speaking up. They are not going away, and, as I pledged to them on Saturday, I am not going away. I am going to speak. I am going to speak the same way I did when Marcelle and I walked with our daughter and our granddaughter in the million women march. I will continue to speak up, as the people in my office in Vermont did, in Montpelier. I will speak up for all five of our grandchildren, for Francesca and Sophia and Fiona, but also for Patrick and Roan. I will speak up for all Americans. I will speak up for all Vermonters. They expect nothing less and they deserve nothing less.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has become fashionable, particularly among supporters of the Trump administration, to accuse the United Nations of just about everything. This is, however, nothing new. The U.N has been an easy target, especially for some Republicans, for a long time, because like any unwieldy international organization comprised of member states with very different priorities and interests it will probably never be as efficient or effective as we would like.

But there is simply no question that the U.N. serves many vital functions that are fully consistent with key U.S. interests and values. For that reason, it is essential that the U.S. continues to play a leadership role in the U.N., which we were instrumental in creating seven decades ago, in a manner that strengthens the institution.

At times, I have expressed my own frustrations with the U.N. It wastes inordinate amounts of time debating and adopting redundant resolutions that accomplish next to nothing. It has suffered from personnel policies that make it difficult if not impossible to fire underperforming employees. It pays its officials at rates that dwarf what many could earn in their own countries. It has been too slow to implement procedures to ensure transparency and accountability, including for whistleblowers who have suffered retaliation for exposing corruption and other misconduct.

So there is no dispute that the U.N. needs to do better. The new Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, knows this as well as anyone and he has made clear that he is going to do his best to put the institution on a road to real reform.

But, of course, he cannot do that by himself. He is empowered only to the extent that the U.N. member states, and particularly the permanent members of the Security Council, support him.

Attempts by past the Secretary Generals to implement reforms have been partly stymied by resistance from governments that prefer the status quo. While I believe the prospects for U.N.reform have never been better, that will not be possible without the active leadership and skillful diplomacy of the United States.

And that is where our U.N. Ambassador comes in.

I have known many of them, although I was only 7 years old in 1947 when Warren Austin of Vermont, nominated by President Truman, became our third U.N. Ambassador.

The position of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. has also been held by such accomplished people as Henry Cabot Lodge, Adlai Stevenson, George H.W. Bush, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Thomas Pickering, and Madeleine Albright. Each was recognized and widely admired across the political spectrum for his or her depth of foreign policy experience and wisdom.

Today we are considering the nomination of Nikki Haley to be the next U.S. Ambassador. Governor Haley's record as Governor of South Carolina was decidedly mixed, and I will not take time today to discuss that record. What is most relevant here, however, is her dearth of experience for the job she has been selected for. That is not so much a criticism of Governor Haley as it is of President Trump, as there are certainly well qualified, seasoned diplomats in the Republican Party who would be well received by members of both parties.

Instead, we are asked to support a nominee who will no doubt be confirmed but will be starting from square one. If there ever were a case of having to learn on the job, this will be it. That might not concern me if it were not for the indispensable role of the United Nations in an increasingly dangerous and polarized world, the importance of this position, and the complex challenges the next U.S. Ambassador will face on her first day on the job.

It was painfully apparent during her confirmation hearing that virtually everything Governor Haley said in her opening remarks and in her responses to questions of Senators, she had learned in the previous 2 months since she was chosen for the job. Her answers largely parroted popular Republican talking points with little substance to back up her response and revealed only an elementary understanding of how the U.N. functions. Her stated interest in U.N. reform is well placed, but it did not appear that she grasps what U.N. reform entails or what it takes to build the necessary support for reform.

Again, I do not blame her for that. Her career has focused entirely on issues relevant to the State of South Carolina. But that does not make her qualified to be our Ambassador to the U.N.

As Governor, she jumped on the politically expedient bandwagon and opposed the resettlement of any Syrian refugees in her State over ``security concerns,'' although it being a Federal decision some Syrians have been resettled there. In other words, she supported a blanket prohibition against an entire nationality of people--men, women, and children--regardless of the merits of their individual status as refugees fleeing war.

She stated, in spite of the fact that all of our major European allies supported the nuclear agreement with Iran, that Russia's and China's support was a ``red flag,'' without acknowledging the reality that without their support it would be impossible to achieve an agreement to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program or any of our other key objectives at the U.N.

She condemned the U.S. abstention on U.N. Security Council Resolution

2334 regarding Israeli settlements and incorrectly implied that it is inconsistent with longstanding U.S. policy and interests. In fact, she insisted that the resolution, not settlements themselves, makes peace negotiations more difficult--a view with which I disagree. She seemed to acknowledge that the U.S. does not support settlement construction, but stated that the U.S. should have vetoed the resolution anyway.

She mischaracterized U.S. law regarding our share of dues in support of U.N. peacekeeping missions that the U.S.--Republican and Democratic administrations--voted for, failing to acknowledge that we have a treaty obligation to pay 28.5 percent of U.N. peacekeeping costs. She made little mention of and gave little if any credit to the troop- contributing countries themselves, other than to highlight incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse. This is a critical issue that I and others here have been working with the U.S. Mission to the U.N. to address, and progress is being made in developing meaningful accountability procedures.

She stated that the cut-off of U.S. funding for UNESCO as a result of the vote of a majority of its members to accept Palestine as a member state, which led to our loss of influence, is a ``good thing'' and that she would continue to support the cut-off of funding. She and I disagree about that and what it could mean for the future. I think even the Israeli Government has come to recognize that it is better for the U.S. to be at the table, using our influence to deflect attempts to unfairly target Israel, than on the sidelines.

Governor Haley suggested that the U.S. may want to reconsider participation in and funding for the U.N. Human Rights Council, despite overwhelming evidence that our role serves to protect our interests and has reduced substantially the council's disproportionate and wasteful focus on Israel. At no time did she acknowledge the many council resolutions that are fully consistent with U.S. interests or that the influence lost by the U.S. is simply ceded to the very governments she opposes having a say in the council.

On the other hand, Governor Haley did repeatedly reject what she described as ``slash and burn'' tactics when it comes to budget cutting, and on that, I fully agree with her.

She said she supports moving our embassy to Jerusalem, although there is no compelling need to do so, it is strongly opposed by our ally Jordan, would likely incite a violent reaction in Arab countries, and could do more to drive a nail in the coffin of what little remains of the Middle East peace process than anything else.

In responses to written questions she betrayed a serious lack of understanding about Cuba, its economy, and the failures of the 55-year- old U.S. embargo. Indeed, if she were to apply her answers regarding Cuba to other countries with repressive governments, we would have to close dozens of U.S. Embassies, end diplomatic relations, and impose ineffective, unilateral sanctions against each of them.

I urge Governor Haley, as our U.N. Ambassador, to listen to the overwhelming majority of Americans and Cubans, including many Republican Members of Congress, who support a policy of engagement. I urge her to travel to Cuba and see and hear for herself, unlike those who continue to favor a Cold War embargo that has been exploited by the Cuban Government to justify its repressive policies and that has hurt the Cuban people.

I have been a congressional delegate to the United Nations three times, after being nominated by Presidents of both Republican and Democratic parties. I appreciated that opportunity because I have long believed that it is in the strong interest of the United States to play an active, leadership role in the U.N.

That is only possible if we, by far the world's wealthiest country, meet our financial commitments. And it is only possible if we build coalitions through skillful diplomacy and refrain from the tactics that some critics of the U.N. advocate, such as bullying and ultimatums, which are often self-defeating.

I recognize that Governor Haley will be confirmed, and I wish her the best. I hope she becomes a great U.S. Ambassador. I urge her to seek out and listens to a wide range of views, particularly on controversial issues like the Middle East, Iran, and how the U.S. can best help make the U.N. work better for everyone.

I will do everything I can to support Secretary General Guterres, the budget of the U.S. Mission to the U.N., and funding for U.N. agencies like the World Food Program, the U.N. Development Program, UNICEF, the U.N. Environment Program, the U.N. Population Fund, U.N. Women, the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, and so many others that carry out lifesaving humanitarian and development programs around the world.

And if there are other ways that I can help soon-to-be Ambassador Haley to defend the values and effectively advance the interests of the United States at the U.N. and to bring about needed reforms I will gladly do so.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize two exceptional members of the Smithsonian Institution's board of regents: John W. McCarter, who has served as chair of the board, and Shirley Ann Jackson, who has served as the vice chair. I have had the honor of serving with both of them and believe that their dedication and leadership have greatly benefitted the Smithsonian. Both are stepping down from their roles, and while John will continue to serve on the board, Shirley will be moving on to dedicate her considerable talents to other initiatives.

John W. McCarter, Jr., of Illinois has had a long and distinguished career. He was first appointed as a regent in 2009 and was elected chair in 2013. In addition, John has lent his expertise and wisdom to a number of the regents' other committees.

During his tenure, John has overseen a number of important strategic initiatives, including the search for the Smithsonian's 13th secretary; the development of the Institution's relationship with the Victoria & Albert Museum in London; the reopening of the Arts and Industries Building to the American public; and most recently, the opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture. These opportunities will help to ensure the Smithsonian's continued success.

John also led the charge in reopening the historic Arts and Industries Building on the National Mall to the public. The building, shuttered since 2004, was reopened to the public for the secretary's installation ceremony in October 2015 and was the site of a very successful pop-up cultural exhibition over Memorial Day weekend in May 2016. John's vision and leadership have made this national treasure available to the American people once more.

A tireless advocate for the Smithsonian in his home State of Illinois, John has raised the institution's profile across the Nation and around the world. Thanks to his recruitment efforts, the Smithsonian advisory boards are more diverse, more dynamic, and more engaged than ever before. Through all of these initiatives, John has pushed the Smithsonian to be more ambitious and to renew its commitment to ``the increase and diffusion of knowledge.''

I want to thank John for his exceptional leadership as chairman of the board of regents, and I look forward to working with him through the remainder of his term as a regent.

Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson of New York is the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She was appointed as a regent in 2005 and has served as board and executive committee vice chair since 2013.

Shirley was the regents' representative for the successful events that opened the Smithsonian's 19th museum, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, in September 2016. Alongside other notable guests, Shirley helped inaugurate the newest Smithsonian museum by delivering remarks at the museum's dedication ceremony. As she noted during her speech, the museum furthers ``the Smithsonian's founding mission, to promote `the increase and diffusion of knowledge,' by opening a museum dedicated to the African-American experience in the United States, and its crucial place in the American experience.''

Shirley has a remarkable life story: She was the first African- American woman to earn a doctorate from MIT, and since 1999, she has served as the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--marking the first time an African-American woman has led a top research university. She was also the first woman and the first African-American to serve as chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Shirley is emblematic of everything the Museum was founded to celebrate about the African-American experience, and we were proud to have her serve as the board's representative at all of the opening ceremonies.

The Smithsonian has also benefitted from Shirley's demonstrated commitment to the sciences. As a trained physicist, she is particularly passionate about inspiring the next generation of scientists and conservationists. As vice chair, she has been a staunch advocate for the Smithsonian's scientific researchers, trumpeting their successes and inviting them to speak at Rensselaer. She has made a point of going beyond the brick and mortar of the Smithsonian museums to visit the Smithsonian's many research centers, including the Smithsonian Tropical Research Center in Panama.

This past year, Secretary David Skorton tapped into Shirley's extensive leadership and management experience, asking her to cochair the institution's initiative to create a new strategic plan for 2017- 2022. Shirley has

rolled up her sleeves, asking tough questions and meeting with a variety of stakeholders regarding the institution's priorities for the next 5 years. As a chief architect of this plan, Shirley will be instrumental in charting the future of the institution long after she has left the board of regents.

As a member of the board of regents, it has been my honor to serve alongside Shirley. I believe her contributions to the Smithsonian community will be witnessed and appreciated by generations to come.

Madam President, I understand the order was for the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon to be recognized next.

Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Oregon on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 minutes and then yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Tonight, the Senate will vote on the President's nominee to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. As I said on Friday, I do not believe the Senate should rush to confirm such a critical position, without the opportunity for debate or discussion. We are having that debate today, and that is why on Friday, I supported a motion to proceed to this nomination.

Our intelligence agencies have an enormous task ahead. The challenges they face range from state-sponsored information warfare to countering violent extremists around the world. Among those who will lead these efforts will be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The importance of the CIA cannot be overstated. Now, perhaps more than ever, we need a Director who will manage the Agency with the full confidence of the American people.

This confidence is based not only on a future Director's ability to comprehend security challenges, but on his or her ability to safeguard the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans and to uphold and advance United States leadership in protecting human rights.

I have serious concerns with President Trump's nominee to lead the CIA. Congressman Pompeo has called for the re-establishment of the bulk collection of Americans' phone records, and has even argued that the intelligence community should combine that metadata ``with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.'' He went on to say that ``[l]egal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed.''

But Congress outright rejected the bulk collection of Americans' records when it passed the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis--the very program that Congressman Pompeo said that he wants to bring back.

During his testimony last week, Congressman Pompeo attempted to diffuse this and other questions about his more alarming positions by affirming his appreciation of the supremacy of law. It sounded to me, like the tried and true confirmation conversion. I appreciate that he testified that he understands the responsibility of a Director to uphold the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.

But I remain deeply concerned that he advocated for such dangerous measures in the first place. And I am concerned that he will push to remove ``legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance''--just as he said last year.

We face grave threats from around the world, whether from Russia, from ISIS, or other adversaries. The Director of the CIA must be trusted by all Americans to protect us from these threats, but also to protect our nation's core values.

I don't question Congressman Pompeo's loyalty to our nation. I do question his stated beliefs that immediate security concerns can be used as a justification for eroding the fundamental rights of all Americans. For

these reasons, I cannot support his nomination.

I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon for letting me take this time.

Mr. President, today I will vote for James Mattis to be the next Secretary of Defense. General Mattis stands out as a top practitioner in his field. He has earned--and rightly deserves--near- universal respect. While I opposed the hurried waiving of a carefully considered statutory cooling off period for members of the military before they can become eligible for this civilian position, I made clear then, and restate now, that my opposition to this waiver was never about General Mattis himself.

I was grateful when General Mattis said in his confirmation hearing that, even from his first days as a marine, he has observed that, in the photographs on the walls of Department of Defense establishments, the civilians in suits were above those of the men and women in uniforms. I was pleased that he vowed to uphold that meaningful tradition. I am confident that, as the President's top adviser on matters of defense, as Secretary, General Mattis will carefully provide considered defense advice, maximizing the wisdom of not only the Active, Reserve, and National Guard, but the whole of the Department of Defense, including Department civilians.

Donald Trump will sorely need that experience and advice. Last weekend, President Trump again denigrated our NATO allies, a partnership that President Kennedy very much had in mind when he vowed at his own inauguration to ``pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, and oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.'' General Mattis clearly understands the value of our NATO alliance. His condemnation of Russia's efforts to ``break'' NATO stands in stark contrast to the position of the man who has nominated him and, to me, demonstrates the sound, experienced reasoning that will provide a necessary balance to President Trump.

I do harbor reservations about General Mattis's past statements as a private citizen related to equality within the ranks of our servicemembers. I would have much preferred to hear General Mattis renounced those past statements, but I do appreciate that, in his confirmation hearings, he said that there is nothing innate about gender or orientation that makes someone a better soldier than another. I believe the results of the progress made under President Obama will show clearly that the Nation succeeds when it has the best individuals serving to their fullest potential in the position that best matches his or her abilities.

The Secretary of Defense is, of course, a critically important position. There are countless difficult choices General Mattis will have to make in steering the Department in a direction that more effectively utilizes its budget to respond to today's rapidly evolving challenges. And whether it is the persistent, shockingly high rates of sexual assault within the Armed Forces and of suicide among young veterans, or the need for far more rigorous oversight of Defense resources to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, the next Secretary will need to demonstrate that the Department is capable of effectively addressing its own internal problems, in addition to defending the Nation.

In these unsettling times, General Mattis will provide a voice of experience and reason to what, by all accounts, looks to be an undisciplined, impulsive, and inexperienced Commander in Chief. On the Appropriations Committee and in other ways, I look

forward to working closely with General Mattis in this new role.

Mr. President, the Senate today considers the nomination of John Kelly to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. A retired marine, General Kelly is no stranger to security efforts. Over more than four decades of service in the Marines, General Kelly distinguished himself through multiple commands and tours of duty. He is well respected by elected officials, military officers, the Marines under his command, and the law enforcement and intelligence communities. I have no reason to doubt that he is a man of integrity.

But General Kelly is nominated to a far different post than those he occupied during his distinguished military career. The Department of Homeland Security--a civilian agency within our government--is charged with a far-reaching mission. From protecting national security to implementing immigration policies, from our emergency response to domestic crises, to assisting in the unending fight against drugs in our communities that today features opioids and heroin as its most prevalent threat, the Department of Homeland Security faces challenges as unique as they are numerous. While I am confident that General Kelly is well equipped to exert leadership on many of these challenges, his nomination has also raised concerns.

As we look ahead to the policies and practices this new administration will seek to implement, we cannot forget the work left unfinished in the Obama administration due to the obstruction of congressional Republicans. In 2013, after a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate, truly comprehensive immigration reform legislation was sent to the House of Representatives, where Republican leaders there refused to even bring it to a vote. That legislation addressed a litany of issues facing our broken immigration system, from securing our borders to reforming visa programs, from bringing the undocumented out of the shadows to reuniting families.

After House Republicans failed to bring that bill to a vote, President Obama took executive action to expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and establish the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, DAPA, programs. These actions would have offered a reprieve for young people and parents so that they could remain in the country, with their families, and without fear of deportation. It is fundamentally unfair for the new administration to revoke a policy designed to bring vulnerable immigrants out of the shadows and then to use information gained from that policy to punish them.

I was disheartened when a Federal court issued an injunction preventing implementation of these policies. I was more disheartened when the Supreme Court was unable to resolve this court challenge, again, due to obstruction from congressional Republicans in the consideration of President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court. Now, this new administration is poised to withdraw these executive orders.

General Kelly is no stranger to the problems we face along the southern border. As the commander of U.S. Southern Command, he is familiar not only with immigration challenges, but with drug trafficking. While I am grateful that he has not subscribed to the singular approach that President Trump has thus far proposed with respect to constructing a wall along our southern border, I am deeply concerned that he has admonished so-called sanctuary cities and has testified that accelerating the deportation of undocumented immigrants will provide the solution to our broken immigration system. These views are not supported by the facts, and they are contrary to the work undertaken by the Senate just 4 years ago to comprehensively address these problems. I am also concerned about his tenure as the military officer in charge of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, given reports that he opposed its closure and limited press access to the facility.

Vermonters know that the explosion of heroin and opioid abuse across the country can, in many ways, be attributed to the cross-border trafficking of illegal drugs. General Kelly has been a strong defender of a U.S. counternarcotics strategy which, in my view and the view of many others, has been a costly failure. Since President Reagan's first Andean Counter Drug Program, the interrelated problems of drugs, corruption, and violence that have plagued countries in South and Central America, and spilled over into our own country, have gotten progressively worse.

I do not doubt that General Kelly will be confirmed to this post. Knowing that, I do want to work with him to build on successful policies such as preclearance operations, TSA Precheck, and the visa waiver program. I look forward to partnering with him to ensure the continuation of efforts to keep our northern border secure, while remaining open to the trade and commerce we conduct with Canada, our largest trading partner. I look forward to working with General Kelly to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is fully supported and able to respond to domestic disasters. And I look forward to working with General Kelly to address vulnerabilities in our cyber infrastructure.

There are many challenges ahead. The Department of Homeland Security was hastily created in the wake of the September 11 attacks and, in my view, has become an unwieldly bureaucracy that suffers from inadequate transparency and accountability. This has resulted in adverse, sometimes severe consequences for many vulnerable people and their families who deserved better from this country. The Department needs significant reform in order to effectively confront these challenges, and I urge General Kelly to seek the input of a wide range of experts, as well as Congress, in identifying and implementing long overdue reforms. And above all, I hope General Kelly, as the Secretary of Homeland Security, will provide a thoughtful and reasoned balance to the extreme proposals thus far put forward by President Trump.

Mr. President, I want to associate myself with what the distinguished Senator from Oregon has said. My concerns--and they will be in my full statement about Mr. Pompeo--are his suggestions in the past of sweeping authority for the government to collect bulk information on all Americans; that is, every American in this room, every American in this city, and every American in this country. We have strong bipartisan legislation that we have worked for years on, trying to

get Republicans and Democrats across the political spectrum to set into law what the rules should be. His statements show that he wants to throw it all overboard. So I have concerns.

Mr. President, our intelligence agencies have an enormous task ahead. The challenges they face range from state-sponsored information warfare to countering violent extremists around the world. Among those who will lead these efforts will be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The importance of the CIA cannot be overstated, and now, perhaps more than ever, we need a Director who will manage the agency with the full confidence of the American people. This confidence is based not only on a future Director's ability to comprehend security challenges, but on his or her ability to safeguard the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans and to uphold and advance United States leadership in protecting human rights.

I have serious concerns with President Trump's nominee to lead the CIA. Congressman Pompeo has called for the reestablishment of the bulk collection of Americans' phone records, and has even argued that the intelligence community should combine that metadata ``with publicly available financial and lifestyle information into a comprehensive, searchable database.'' He went on to say that ``[l]egal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed.'' But Congress outright rejected the bulk collection of Americans' records when it passed the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 on an overwhelming bipartisan basis--the very program that Congressman Pompeo said that he wants to bring back.

During his testimony last week, Congressman Pompeo attempted to diffuse this and other questions about his more alarming positions by affirming his appreciation of the supremacy of law. It sounded to me like the tried and true confirmation conversion. I appreciate that he testified that he understands the responsibility of a Director to uphold the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. But I remain deeply concerned that he advocated for such dangerous measures in the first place. And I am concerned that he will push to remove ``legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance''--just as he said last year.

We face grave threats from around the world, whether from Russia, from ISIS, or other adversaries. The director of the CIA must be trusted by all Americans to protect us from these threats, but also to protect our Nation's core values. I don't question Congressman Pompeo's loyalty to our Nation. I do question his stated beliefs that immediate security concerns can be used as a justification for eroding the fundamental rights of Americans. For these reasons, I cannot support Congressman Pompeo's nomination.

Mr. President, the Senate is faced with a clear but complicated choice: support this expedited legislation that will pave the way for the confirmation of the next nominee to be Secretary of Defense or embroil one of the most consequential Cabinet positions--and with it the lives of thousands of men and women, as well as our national defense--in what would surely become a legal and legislative morass.

The Framers of the Constitution established that the Senate should provide advice and consent in the appointment of such Cabinet nominees. Congress subsequently, in the aftermath of World War II, sought to implement limitations on who could serve as Secretary of Defense, specifically, a cooling off period for members of the military nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense. The goal? To ensure that America's military would remain under civilian control. Circumventing these limitations requires an act of Congress. It has been done just once before, ironically almost immediately after Congress first enacted those limitations.

In Gen. Mattis, the President-elect--who is inexperienced in the world of military affairs and has sometimes proven rash in his public comments--has identified an able leader, who is tremendously popular and who has time and again shown himself worthy of the respect he has earned. I believe he will be a voice of reason in the Department of Defense and was encouraged to hear at his confirmation hearing this morning that he understands the importance of civilian control of our Defense Department and intends to preserve that tradition.

As Senator Reed said earlier today in the Armed Services Committee, this is a once-in-a-generation waiver. Chairman McCain similarly emphasized that he supports the law that this legislation would temporarily waive. I do not support efforts to change the law to permanently eliminate this statutory cooling off period. I am disappointed that the Senate majority has insisted on creating an expedited debate on such a critical question. I cannot support such an abrupt and accelerated revision of the law, even in the form of a one- time-only exemption. I couldn't support such a haphazard process, regardless of who the President, President-elect, or the nominee is.

As I said in December when the Senate considered the legislation that paved the way for this rushed process today, my vote on this bill does not foreshadow my vote on Gen. Mattis's nomination. I do believe that Gen. Mattis can respect the boundaries that

make our Armed Forces the strongest in the world. I believe Gen. Mattis will offer a critical perspective to an inexperienced and sometimes volatile incoming Commander in Chief. And those are reasons why I believe he may receive my support when the Senate considers his nomination.

Mr. President, how am I recorded?

I join my colleague from Vermont, and I vote no.