. >> thomas jefferson questioned the need for a senate. >> our founders envisioned-- >> the framers, let's follow the confusion. >> the framers stearned the senate to perspective them from their rulers and as a check on the house. >> the fate of the country and maybe even the world lies in the hands of congress and united states senate. >> the senate, conflict and compromise, a c-span original production, exploring the history, traditions, and role of this uniquely american institution. >> please raise your right hand. wednesday, january 2nd at 8 p.m. eastern and pacific on span. >> and the u.s. senate is about to gavel in on this wednesday morning ahead. the debate continues on the nomination of joseph mcguire to be the director of national counterterrorism center. we're expecting a vote to advance the nomination at about 11:00 eastern today.

this week, lawmakers in the house and the senate continue negotiations to fund the government past this friday's deadline. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, who rules the raging of the sea, we praise you that we continue to be sustained

by your goodness and mercies. we are grateful for each heartbeat we receive as a gift from your bounty. help us to so live that we will never forget our accountability to you. bless our senators, enlighten and illuminate them that they may cultivate an experiential relationship with you, delighting to follow your precepts. touch their lips that they may speak words that unite and bring hope. give them hearts that are willing to serve.

strengthen them when tempted and guide them when they are perplexed. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: first, for the information of all of our colleagues, later this morning i'll introduce a continuing resolution that will ensure continuous funding for the federal government. the measure will provide the

resources necessary to continue normal operations through february 8. let's review why this step was necessary. even if the -- even in the face of a great need to secure the border and following good-faith efforts by the president's team, our democratic colleagues rejected an extremely reasonable offer yesterday. it would have cleared the remaining appropriation bills which had received bipartisan support in committee and provided an additional $1 billion to tackle a variety of urgent border security priorities. i'm sorry that my democratic colleagues couldn't put the partisanship aside and show the same good-faith flexibility that the president has shown in order to provide the resources our nation needs to secure the integrity of our borders as well as the safety of american

families. but this seems to be the reality of our political moment, mr. president. it seems like political spite for the president may be winning out over sensible policy. even sensible policies that will are -- that are more modest than border security allocations which many democrats themselves have supported in the very recent past. but faced with this with democrats' failure to take our borders seriously, republicans will continue to fulfill our cuter to govern. that's why we'll soon take up a simple measure that will continue government funding into february so we can continue this vital debate after the new congress has convened. because make no mistake, mr. president, there will be important unfinished business in front of us and we'll owe it to the american people to finally tackle it. just last week u.s. customs an

border protection commissioner kevin maclvene said that there is a border security and humanitarian crisis. a border security and human tairn crisis. these are some of the facts in the past year alone. we saw a 30% increase in apprehensions by c.b.p., including nearly 6,700 apprehensions of individuals with criminal histories and a 50% increase in apprehensions of known gang members. we've seen a 75% spike in methamphetamine seizures since 2015. so it's quite obvious that shoring up our borders is an urgent need of our national

security. no question about it. secure borders are what the american people expect and they deserve. that's it continues to be a major focus of president trump and his administration. already the president's approach to border security is yielding undeniable results. in each of four c.b.p. sectors were physical barriers have been improved or expanded, el paso, humana, tucson, and san diego, illegal traffic has dropped by at least, listen to this, 90% -- 90%. and while you wouldn't know it from listening to the far-left special interest, this administration's focus on border security follows similar commonsense efforts that used to be a bipartisan consensus. it used to be a bipartisan consensus. in 2006, for example, the secure fence act, which was designed to

strengthen physical security measures at the border received the support of no fewer -- no fewer than 26 of our democratic colleagues, including the current democratic leader, along with senators feinstein, carper, nelson, stabenow, wyden, and obama. in 2010, president obama signed a bill to increase the c.b.p.'s physical presence down by the border. it passed the senate by unanimous consent, by the way. let's not pretend there's some bright line of principle that separates the billions of dollars that our democrats and colleagues were willing to spend on border security in the recent past and the resources now requested by the president and his team. there's no big difference of principle. there's just been a shift in the political winds out on the far

left. this is knee-jerk partisan opposition to the administration's reasonable and flexible request. this is making political obstruction a higher goal than the integrity of our nation's borders. frankly, it's just political spite -- political spite, and the american people know it when they see it. so the senate will continue our work on the remaining bills, the result of bipartisan work and collaboration, and in the meantime we will turn to a clean continuing resolution later today so we can make sure we don't end this year the way we began it, with another government shut down because of democrats' allergy to sensible policies. that's what they did at the beginning of the year. we need the government to remain

open for the american people. we need to wrap-up our work for this year, and i hope that my democratic friends return next year ready to join the president this senate majority and the american people in our desire to secure our border. now, mr. president, on a completely different matter. from time to time each of us has indulged the jokes and finger pointing that sustain a friendly rivalry between the house and the senate. the founders metaphor cal tea cup and saucer. and make no mistake, i'm thankful every day that former representatives see the light and come over here and join us in the upper chamber. but for the past three years there's no one outside the senate with whom i partnered more closely than the speaker of the house, paul ryan. as history will remember, the speakership was far from the

destination that the contented ways and means chairman in mine when our friend john boehner announced his retirement in 2015. but to the great fortune of the entire republican party, paul had demonstrated over the years in the house the very qualities his conference needed most. everyone knew he had uncompromising integrity, seemingly inexhaustible energy, the trust and admiration of his fellow members, and he understood what we stood for as republicans. he reminded our party as clearly and forcefully as any leader of his generation about all that our party can and should aspire to be, not pale pastels in ronald reagan's timeless words, but bold closer.

his colleagues knew he had all of these qualities and we knew it in the senate. while i was far from the most crucial member of the campaign, what roped in the archbishop of new york, i called paul and told him what he didn't want to hear. he was the right man at right moment. conveniently, i was about to get on a plane to iraq at the time so paul didn't have much of an opportunity to push back. and over the past three years i've had more opportunities than most to see the right man in action. we met weekly to coordinate the efforts of our majorities an present a united front on behalf of the american people. at times, the cohesion between our teams made it feel like we shared one large staff. so i've seen firsthand how much of what we've been able to accomplish this congress has been due in part to paul's

serious approach to his principles and his pragmatism alike. he helped lead the way on last year's comprehensive reform of our tax code, turning his decade's long personal mission into a brighter future for millions of american workers and job creators. he navigated tense funding negotiations with deep understanding of his member's concerns and stood firm in support of america's military, helping to deliver the largest year-on-year defense funding in 15 years. he stayed true to his heart, putting catholic social teaching into practice and fighting for policies of all shapes and sizes to lift up the most vulnerable among us from the working poor to the victims of human trafficking. his tenure as speaker has proved

a perfect capstone to a remarkable career in congress. every step of the way paul's shattered myths and stereotypes about what conservative leaders are like. through his long list of accomplishments and personal wit, he demonstrated that faith in america free enterprise and liberty are not quaint, outdated ideas but essential and timeless principles. he's help prove that right of center values are not only the basis of protest movements, as some like to suggest, they are also the foundation for governing majorities. he has shown that our party's ideals to principles do not clash whatsoever with the moral priority that we should place on those at the margins of society. but rather that those ideas are often the best means to honor that commitment. talk about a product of the jack kemp coaching tree.

it's safe to say the speaker's cherished mentor would be mighty proud. paul's time at the center stage of our nation's policies has inspired countless americans, including a new generation of leaders, but speaking personally, more than any one of the accomplishments that i have been proud to work with paul to help to secure, i think i will most remember how he has done that job. how energetically and happily the speaker has poured himself into each task at hand, every one of them. no matter if some said it couldn't be done, no matter that he hadn't sought the job in the first place. the happy warrior has been undeterred. for all this says about paul ryan, the speaker, it says even more about paul ryan the man. he has got a big heart, a razor-sharp mind. it doesn't take long to notice either one. and he knows how to lead with

both. a man of profound faith and abiding patriotism, and even after 20 years in washington, he remains a staunch optimist. paul is quick to insist that america's brightest days are yet to come and even quicker to back up the sentiment with action. so, mr. president, working with speaker ryan has been among the great joys of my career here in the senate. the nation is so much better for his leadership, and i am better for his friendship. i'm so grateful to paul for everything. i wish him, jenna, and their lovely family great happiness in whatever adventures lie ahead. now i'm down to my very last end of the year tribute to a member of this body. i offer this one with the very greatest reluctance. this one isn't occasioned by any

retirement. fortunately for all of us, senator john cornyn isn't going anywhere. he will be right here with us when the 116th congress convenes in january. but he will no longer be serving as republican whip. his tenure in this key leadership role is almost complete. so i could not let the week pass without saying for the official record and with all of our colleagues a small slice of the tremendous gratitude and respect and admiration that i feel for the senior senator from texas. of course, john and i were already well acquainted when he took over the whip role six years ago in relief of jon kyl, but still i wasn't sure exactly what our relationship would look like. you never quite know in advance. everybody's different. but just a few weeks into our partnership as leader and whip, john presented me with birthday gift and told me at least three things about him.

he had framed and autographed a picture of ourselves, just an ordinary, not particularly glamorous shot of the two of us, plus john barrasso, probably talking with the press there in the ohio clock corridor. a somewhat unusual gift, i thought. lesson number one, this guy has a sense of humor and good cheer. now, in this photo, i am kind of standing front and center, 6'1" john is standing right behind me, a little out of focus and halfway in the shadow. so there is number two, humility. and then there was his handwritten message -- happy birthday, mitch. i've got your back. that was lesson number three. it spoke for itself. and how fortunate i have been to be reminded every single day since that john cornyn meant exactly what he said. john has proven to be stunningly

effective as whip. for the republican conference these past years. he has also been more than a solid friend and a wiser, more loyal counselor than i had any right to expect. the whip is a powerful position. your confidence trusts you to help lead them, your peers trust you with their candor, and their concerns as each piece of legislation progresses. different groups of their colleagues are trusting you to help secure accomplishments that are huge priorities for them and their own constituents. so it's easy to imagine ways this critical role could go off the rails. you could wear out your welcome with some of your colleagues. you could become too focused on notching today's win at the expense of tomorrow's relationships and good feelings. you could let personal disagreement threaten the unity of your leadership team and your conference. but as those who know him well can attest, these aren't worries

that keep john up at night. that's because he's the quintessential team player. not focused on personal gain, dedicated to the causes that matter to texas and his members, and willing to roll up his sleeves and do the heavy lifting himself to advance those goals. you know, they say everything's bigger in texas, and sure enough, big john has been known to ride across the screen in campaign spots from time to time, but somewhere along the way, john's ego didn't get the message. john doesn't twist arms or get angry. he doesn't play-act at being the bad cop. instead, he listens, he learns, he pours his time and energy into learning all about his colleagues, their concerns, their states' priorities. people outside the senate might think someone in john's position would need to act like a bully. the term whip certainly sends that message.

but john knows that scare tactics don't do many favors in the long run. the winning strategy on team cornyn has been less like the mafia and more like savvy and heartfelt customer service. and they sure have a lot to show for it. the more i have been reflecting on why john has had so much success, i kept coming back to the fact that this man was a judge, a texas supreme court justice, to be exact. and in a courtroom, the judge has the power but their job isn't to wheedle or persuade. it's to listen fairly to all parties, all theories, and all ideas. give everyone a hearing, take it all in, and then chart the best course possible. so how lucky we've all been to have somebody like that whipping votes for the last six years.

so, mr. president, it's a privilege to see john at work. it's been an honor to work in the trenches with him day after day these past six years. to be more accurate, it's been a pleasure to stand shoulder to shoulder with him here in the well. we've had our fair share of quality time. at the end of any congress, you would expect the majority leader and the whip might have a small handful of close shaves and dramatic moments to reflect on, but john's help steer the ship with the slimmest possible margins. week after week, 51-49, then 50- 49 in many cases. well, we have seen this play out in the confirmation of a historic number of well-qualified nominees to the federal judiciary and in passage of major legislation with delicate moving parts, from comprehensive tax reform to a landmark opioids package.

and the truth is even a comprehensive catalog of all the big floor votes would only capture a fraction of john's excellent work. more key nominees and important pieces of legislation have traveled quietly through the senate because john has been there diligent and patient and respectful working through challenges and addressing concerns literally around the clock. and as if this wasn't enough to fill john's plate, let's remember while serving as whip, he has also been a vital member of the intelligence committee, the judiciary committee, and the finance committee and been an outstanding senior senator from texas, all statement. in fact, in each of the past two congresses, no senator has been the lead sponsor of more bills that have become law than john cornyn. he led on fix nics, he led on

the fight against human trafficking, all in a couple year's work. of course he doesn't do it alone. joan has assembled a whip staff that are as much a testament to his talent as they are a tremendous asset for the entire conference. at the helm of the operation is chief of staff in his whip office, monica popp. in so many ways, john and monica seem to be cut from the same cloth. like her boss, monica has a sixth sense when it comes to reading a room and getting people what they need. she relishes the chance to tackle tough problems. as far as she is concerned, a troublesome situation is really just an opportunity. and just like john, monica is an attentive listener. this has made her an encyclopedic authority on what makes each member of the conference tick. -- tic. when monica makes a recommendation, you know it is based on the best possible information. on so many occasions, i have relied on her sharp counsel out here on the floor. i am not sure i have ever worked

with somebody who has such a warm heart and such ice in her veins at the very same time. she operates with calm and confidence precisely because she has built so many genuine and solid friendships that she knows just where things stand. outside observers get congress wrong when they say it's all about the math. it's really all about the relationships. and ironically enough, this former math teacher turned all-star hill staffer has just -- is just about the ultimate living proof of that. we may not be losing senator cornyn this month, but i'm sorry to say we are saying goodbye to monica. i will miss her, and i know the entire conference will miss her. it's all about relationships with john, too, even as he was constantly tasked with talking a tightrope through a pressure cooker. he's also managed to be one of the kindest, most down to earth human beings around. in no place is this more evident than in the way he treats the unelected members of this senate

family. gets to know everyone. he wants to earn your trust. he wants to know how you're doing. after all, before he was the senate's majority whip or a justice on the texas supreme court or the state's attorney general, he was a husband and father. and i know his wife sandy and their family are hoping that the end of john's service as whip will bring at least a nominal relaxing of his schedule. i doubt that, by the way. ordinarily, i might guess that john might be able to spend more time on his hobbies, but somehow as his prolific twitter and instagram pages regularly notify the whole world, he has kept right at them all along. for all the different hats john wears in the senate, he has managed to hang onto his chef's cap, too. marching through the rustica cookbook and whipping up feasts for the family. and he dove hunts. the dove hunts certainly haven't gone anywhere either. so, really, whatever his title happens to say, what i'm looking

forward to from john is more of the same. more invaluable guidance, more exemplary legislating. i know the press corps is certainly hoping for more of his informative one liners. like i said, mr. president, i'm so happy we aren't, aren't saying goodbye to john today. but i am saying with complete personal sincerity and also for the entire conference is thank you, thank you for your friendship and partnership. thank you for making all of us look better than any of us deserve. thank you for helping the senate deliver for the country. thank you for always having all of our backs. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks by the ranking member that i be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand the senate has received a message from the house to accompany h.r. 695. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair lay before the senate the message to accompany h.r. 695. the presiding officer: the chair lays before the senate a message from the house. the clerk: resolved that the house agree to the amendment of the senate to the title of the bill h.r. 695 entitled an act to amend the national child protection act of 1993 and so forth and for other purposes, the house agree to the amendment of the senate with an amendment. mr. mcconnell: i move to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 695 with a further amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, moves to concur in the house amendment to the senate amendment with an

amendment numbered 4163. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to concur with the amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 4164 for amendment numbered 4163. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator leader. mr. schumer: well, we have a short time left. i yield to the leader, to the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to refer the house message on h.r. 695 to the committee on appropriations

with instructions to report back forthwith. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell moves to refer the house message on h.r. 695 to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report back forthwith an amendment numbered 4165. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have an amendment to the instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 4166 to the instructions of the motion to refer. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell proposes an amendment numbered 4167 to amendment numbered 4166. mr. mcconnell: i ask the

reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, we have a short time left before appropriations expire on friday. yesterday we made some progress. thankfully, president trump appears to have backed down from his position for billions in direct appropriations for a border wall. for the past several weeks, the president's insistence on $5 billion for a wall has been the biggest obstacle to keeping the government open past friday. the president's spokesperson has claimed that the administration can reprogram funds given to other areas of the government to build the full wall. let me be very clear. the administration cannot reprogram funds appropriated by congress for the full wall

without our assent. to do so would violate congress' article one powers. they cannot do it on their own and the house and senate will not approve a wall. from reprogrammed funds or anything else, it won't happen. now, we democrats have opposed massive appropriations for a border wall for five reasons. it's not effective compared to other border security measures, expert after expert has said that. there's no plan to build it. the president asked for $5 billion. there's no plans where it would be, how much it would cost, each part, what it would be made of. there's no plan to deal with eminent domain. there are lots of people on the texas border and other borders who don't want to give up their land. they said they'll fight it in court. that will take years. we've not heard a peep out of the administration how to deal with that. and above all, the president

promised mexico would pay for it, not the american taxpayer. was it a campaign issue? yes, but throughout the president said mexico would pay for it. he never campaigned on americans paying for a massive border wall. ineffective as it would. -- as it would be. so democrats have been perfectly clear we want smart, effective border security but that's not a wall. the president and just this morning the republican leader have called out repeatedly for suggesting democrats are against all border security. of course we're not. every expert has looked at that and said it's a total lie. but, frankly, that -- the reason our colleagues, the president, leader mcconnell and others do it, they have no defense of the wall. so instead of defending the wall, they say democrats are not for border security. nothing could be further from the truth. as shown by what we have

supported in the past and today. this morning the president also tweeted that mexico could somehow pay for the wall through a new trade deal. this is a huge turnaround for a president who once insisted, quote, mark my words, mexico will pay for the wall a hundred percent. of course, there have been multiple fact checks that show a new nafta could not possibly fund a wall directly or indirectly. there's nothing in the new dreamt that -- agreement that stipulated mexico should devote any resources to the united states and any savings from a trade deal if there are any savings don't go to the treasury. they go to american businesses and american taxpayers. ultimately, the president would have to tax the american people to fund his wall. mexico ain't footing the bill. now, all that said, it is good news that the president has retreated from his demand that

congress fund the wall. now we democrats in the senate and in the house, we have made two reasonable offers that i believe would glide through the house and senate. one, pass the six bipartisan appropriation bills and a one-year c.r. for d.h.s. or to, a one-year c.r. for all seven remaining appropriations bills. now, leader mcconnell has proposed a short-term c.r. just a few minutes ago. we would prefer one of our two options but i'm glad the leader thinks the government should not shut down over the president's demand for a wall and democrats will support this c.r. the president and the house should follow that lead because shutting down the government over christmas is a terrible idea, one of the worst to come down the pike in a very long time.

now, on c.j.r., criminal justice reform. i really deeply and really from the heartfelt, i want to thank everyone who is involved in criminal justice reform legislation. senator durbin for whom this issue was a years' long passion. when senator durbin gets his teeth into an issue, he doesn't let go until he achieves it and he's great at getting it done. it's a real victory for him. senator booker who really felt this issue so passionately from his residence in newark and seeing what has happened to friends of his, people he's known. and he was really, really a brilliant legislative tactician knowing just how far to push, getting the most he could in a congress that was not from our side of the aisle. senator whitehouse who carried the mantle of making sure that while people are in prison, they're given adequate

preparation so when they come out, they don't become recidivists again, free from drugs with job training so they can become useful and productive members of society, and senator harris who added her passion and experience as attorney general to the great arguments for this bill. and i don't want to leave out colleagues on the other side of the aisle. senator grassley played a real role as a statesman. senator lee did tremendous work on this bill and again like senator booker from an opposite point of view, they knew when to hold and knew when to fold. so i thank all of them because this bill will make an extraordinary difference in countless lives by making our sentences fairer and smarter, by giving judges more discretion so low-level, nonviolent drug offenses aren't always subject to arbitrary mandatory minimums. by giving prisoners with good

behavior who work hard, to rehabilitate themselves, better opportunities to prepare for integration back into society as productive citizens who can contribute to their communities. and by ending the most abusive practices of our criminal justice system like juvenile solitary confinement and shackling of pregnant prisoners. the bill got 87 votes. those 87 votes are in treaty to the new congress to do more. it's called first step for a lot of reasons but one of which is many of us have felt we have to go further and do more. next year hopefully we can and the resounding support from both sides of the aisle that this bill got should help us -- should importune us to not just let this be the last proposal but the first. on this area. the law will bring more justice to our justice system. i was proud to vote for it and

so grateful for the work of my colleagues who pulled a diverse coalition together to get it across the line. on china, negotiations are ongoing between the trump administration and chinese officials about a potential detente in our trading relationship, of import to the chinese is the reason to rest of acfo on charges of violating u.s. sanctions law which is only one area of concern when it comes to huawei's technology. let me be very clear, the united states should not make any concessions until and unless china makes credible and enforceable commitments to end all forms of theft and extortion of american intellectual property. as ambassador lighthizer recently pointed out, and i can't commend him enough, during

the obama administration alone china made ten or less commitments to get rid of forced technology transfers and cybertheft. china's espionage continues unabated. china was behind the data breach of marriott hotels. we know that they done require any company to sell things and so many companies that sell things in china to transfer their technology. if we continue on this path that we have for the last 10 or 15 years, we will no longer be the leading economy in the world. all the great ideas that americans have because of their free, open, and entrepreneurial system will be stolen, and china will dominate. we're good -- we're there for fair competition. china doesn't compete fairly.

and i have to say, neither the bush nor obama administration stood up strongly to china. this administration shows signs of doing it. my message to president trump, don't back off. follow mr. lighthizer, not those in your administration, as reported mr. mnuchin and others, mr. ross, who want to settle for next to nothing. that would be a disgrace. president trump has tried the conciliatory approach. he let z.t.e. off the hook in hopes of gaining concessions from china on north korea and got none. north korea continues to expand its nuclear capabilities. so, mr. president, do not make the same mistake again by interfering in the case of

huawei's c.f.o. and do not capitulate on u.s. trade policy without meaningful ironclad commitments from china to end its predatory trade practices, its theft of our intellectual property, and until china allows u.s. companies to compete freerl in our -- freely in our markets without technology transfers or other coercions. to do so otherwise would put the future of this great nation at great risk. now, finally, mr. president, i've come here to speak about a dear friend and a wonderful colleague, the senior senator from florida, bill nelson. a floridian born and bred, he did not grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth. everything he achieved in life he achieved. in high school bill raised cattle in his spare time. not every teenager's idea of a

good time and something we never did in brooklyn. but it led to a lifetime association with florida's 4h program which continues to support florida's agricultural community today. just as important, bill's extra curricular allowed him toe save up the money -- allowed him to save ip the money to attend the university of florida. he gave his first political speech as a candidate for junior high school president, a race he won. in college he interned for florida senator george smathers whose son bruce happened to be his roommate. but that intern ship turned out to be the lesser contribution of bill's friendships with bruce. because a few years after law school, bruce would introduce bill to grace who became grace

nelson, the love of bill's life. for those of us who know bill, we know he loves grace more than anything in the world and they are truly a dream team. just to watch them together caring about each other so brings joy to anyone's heart, certainly mine. many of my colleagues, of course, know grace as well, and have worked closely with her. not the least reason being that she's the authority in that household today. with grace by his side, senator nelson embarked on what would be a distinguished career in public service in florida as congressman, tax commissioner, and eventually senator. of course along the way, senator nelson would also earn the title of payload specialist aboard the space shuttle columbia. as most folks know, then-congressman nelson participated in a week-long

space flight on the columbia, what most folks don't know, however, was that the launch for the mission was aborted not once, not twice, but three times. eventually, though, the liftoff was achieved and bill became only the second sitting member of congress to leave earth's atmosphere. in his words, he saw, quote, the blue brilliance of the earth from the edge of the heffens. -- heffens. there is a name given to the ship seeing the earth from the window of a space shuttle. that pale blue marble in the vast emptiness of space makes you realize how fragile and how beautiful our planet truly is. senator nelson experienced something of an overview effect. though he already cared about the environment, he became a life-long champion for the

environment. he protected the everglades, florida's beaches and offshore drilling. there's none in florida, and i have to say the reason is hitting to my left, bill nelson. time and time again when rapacious companies and others wanted to drill and risk the beauty of florida's coastline and economic vitality, there was bill nelson preventing it from happening. after the oil -- after the bp oil spill, bill nelson made sure that florida's gulf communities got the restitution they deserved from b.p.'s settlement. senator nelson has always been a loud voice speaking about the need for action on climate change as his beloved state of florida gets hit by ever-more powerful storms and the low-lying areas like miami get

flooded regularly. of course, seeing the earth from space didn't just focus bill's eyes downward. this man is capable of doing many good things at once. he kept them firmly fixed on the horizons as well. mr. president, it will be a long time before the senate sees a champion for nasa and space exploration like bill nelson. it may never see one as committed again. the senate, the state of florida, and the country will miss bill nelson as will my wife and i. he was even tempered in tough times, he was civil in the midst of incivility, when some of us are prone to looking backward trying to figure out what we did wrong or what we could have done differently, bill was always looking forward and upward. i have had just the pleasure, not only of being bill's

colleague but being his friend, what a fine human being. one of my greatest regrets here is that some fine human beings are not going to be with us next time, and this chamber and the country will show they are missed. there's nothing bill is now looking forward to more than spending time with his beloved grace and visiting his children bill jr. and nan ellen. every one of us salutes the great senior senator from florida, everything he's accomplished in his distinguished career in the senate and just the great man that he is. i yield the floor.

mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask consent that no with withstanding previous house message today's motions and amendments remain in status quo and the earlier motion to concur in the motion to refer with instructions and amendments 1923 and 1924 be withdrawn. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, office of the director of national intelligence, joseph macguire of

florida to be director of the national intelligence terrorism center. mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i further ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i ask also that at the conclusion of my remarks senator paul be recognized for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i was -- i have a message to deliver this morning, but after sitting here and listening through and enjoying the comments that were made, i wanted to at least make one comment about the senator from texas. it happens that in my real life i was a builder and developer for a number of years in south texas. i know south texas very well. i know the border well, and that's why i've been down there so much and so interested in, of

course, the bored wall, which we're going -- border wall, which we're going to have, but the fact that we have a wonderful friend and a person who has been a good friend. you'd think he's dead, but he's not. he's very much alive and he's back doing his full-time job, but i want to say that the time i've spent with him down there in texas long before he was even in -- in the position he's in today. he's been a great hero down there to not just the people in texas but people all over the country. now, as far as the comments made by the minority leader from new york, you know, it's -- it's easy to stand here and talk about this thing. i know the democrats they've all gotten together and they don't want to have a wall, but they are going to have a wall and walls work. look at the record of having walls. san diego, they built their wall

in 1992, illegal traffic dropped 92% after that. 92%. el paso, they built their wall, and i remember when that was built, illegal traffic dropped 92%, tucson built theirs and illegal traffic dropped 90%, humana, arizona, built theirs and illegal traffic dropped. it's happened everywhere. it's something -- just look at israel and the successes that they've had and how many israelis would be dead today if it weren't for the wall that they had and we are one of the future countries without a wall and we will have a wall and it is going to be funded. if anyone's listening to what's going on down here, be assured we're going to have our wall. now, i want to make one comment on something that happened two or three weeks ago when we lost an american hero and everyone talked about george h.w. bush

and they talked about their experiences. the reason i wanted to wait a while before making any comments on that is because we've known george h.w. bush for many, many years before we were actually in politics. my wife kay and i are praying for the entire bush family as america honors and mourns one of its great sons. george h.w. bush was one of the only men i knew who could love someone into changing their mind. he loved god, his country and his family. listen to all the things he has done. a naval aviator, a an ambassador, director of the c.i.a., president of the united states, vice president of the united states. he has done it all. george put service to his nation and love to his family above all else. kay and i have known the bush family for a long time, dating back to their time in the texas

oil fields he'd go back and forth to what he referred to as his second home which was tulsa, oklahoma. and we were friends before we were in politician, and i'm grateful of that prip. i will always -- friendship. i will always remember and this portrays him very well. back when i was mayor of tulsa and george bush was vice president, he came to oklahoma, to tulsa, oklahoma, to do a fundraiser. it was a fundraising event. now, my wife, in spite of her reputation to the contrary, is a pretty shy person. at these events, she always insists -- if we are going to be at the head table, she insists she is going to be seated next to me at the head table. not insecure, none of that stuff. nonetheless, this is something she got in her head a long time ago and has always wanted that. anyway, she looked at the head table at this occasion that we had. this is when george bush came to

tulsa, oklahoma, to participate in a fundraiser. she snuck up there and she looked at the head table, the nametags, and came back to me and said you can't do that. you're not seated next to me. i have got to be seated next to you. and i said well, who are you seated next to? she said george bush. well, apparently some one of the security guys went back and told george bush about that, so he came up to her, behind her, and he -- i always remember he put his arm around her and he said i don't bite. she said he said further i will take care of you. don't worry about a thing. now, during their conversation up there -- she conceded, of course, to sit next to him. he said you don't happen to know someone named marian bogard, do you? she said of course, she is a good friend. he said well, i haven't seen her in a long time. kay said she is sitting right over there. you can see her from here. so he sent one of his secret service people over there to

bring marion bovard, an old friend, over to visit, and they visited. it turned out that my wife and george h.w. bush found out that they both had many mutual friends. every time he would bring somebody up, it happened had a that that person was there. so he would come over and remind her -- she became george bush's, i think, social director for the remainder of the fundraiser. i think she even ate his broccoli for him. now, before i got to congress, i was a builder and developer in south texas for many years. of course bush was from texas. we knew each other at that time. he came to see me a few times when -- when i was working down there. somehow it always happened to be on days when i was fishing because i fish every day down there. i mean, that's one of the many problems i had, and i enjoy doing that. one day he said to me. this is after he was president. he said, you know, i envy you.

now, this is kind of strange to have the president of the united states say i envy you. and it's -- there is -- the reason he said that is because he always enjoyed fishing. he knows i have a whole bunch of kids and grandkids that all like to fish, and he doesn't. he envies me. and there is a fishing guide that my old chief of staff, richard sudrette. richard, incidentally, was one who is very similar to george bush in that he had a -- i have never heard him be mad at anyone or dislike anyone or talk in a profane way about anyone. that's the same as you have heard so many people say about george bush. so richard sudrette -- he is a lousy fisherman, but he likes to go fishing with me. he -- he knew this fishing guide. not many people are aware of

this, bush had this fishing guide here in washington that would sneak in early in the morning, and they would go fishing. his name is angus. he went to the white house early one morning to go fishing. with the president. he was there so early that the secret service escorted him up to the residence where he had coffee with the bushes who were still in their pajamas. now, this is a good story. you should read the whole thing. it was in "the washington post." it was put up on my website. president bush was restless, sometimes impatient, which are not characteristics that make you a really good fisherman. but because he was steady and dedicated to the task at hand, he did okay and even caught a few fish in the potomac on that day. when he was running for president, he came to tulsa for a fundraiser luncheon at the mayo hotel. he knew ever in tulsa. he did the normal routine you always do. we have all done it.

you greet the supporters, you give your remarks, and then you open it up for questions. then i will never forget this. ella mcgwire is a person who is kind of a party regular in the republican party. she stood up and she said are you part of the international communist conspiracy? and george bush didn't even blink. he looked over at the organizer and he said where do you find these nuts? what's the next question? well, he was -- he was vice president, he and barbara came to tulsa another time, went with a group who was in charge of picking them up at the airport. now, i was mayor at that time, so we had a guy on my staff named charlie burris who was also a security guy. we thought he would be the perfect person to pick up barbara and george bush. and take them into town. so we get to the airport and charlie goes and picks up the luggage and hands it to the person behind him, thinking it

was me. he said now take this to the hotel room. he turned around, instead of being me, it was barbara bush. she looked a little stunned but she grabbed the bags and off she went. now, the cars we came to pick him up in were the cars we always used when we had somebody come into tulsa. why invest in limousines down there? they were funeral home limousines. vice president bush took one look at them, looked in the bag which i think still had a wreath that said "rest in peace" on it and said you must have a cheap mayor. well, that mayor was me, and i told him i preferred the word frugal. but george bush knew oklahoma better than any president in history. he was before that date even telling reporters that he wanted this to be his turf, his state, frequently called tulsa, oklahoma, his second home. but regularly held up oklahoma as examples of points of light,

a state who knew how to use public-private partnership and do all the right things and thrive and be successful. these were just a few more of the stories about a man who strived to make every man, every woman, every child that he met feel valuable in his eyes. george bush saw life as a series of missions, and he completed those missions with fervor and grace. he never wasted a minute, and for that i'm grateful. as the nation continues to mourn one of the most loyal sons, let us find solace in the fact that he is holding hands, reunited with barbara again. president bush, you are a true american hero. mission complete. god bless you. oh, one more thing. today, december 19, kay and i are celebrating our 59th wedding anniversary. i just want to say, kay, i still love you. and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: do drone attacks work? you might say of course they work. they still their intended target. but do drone attacks really work? do drone killings make us safer? do drone killings bring victory nearer? do drone killings kill more terrorists than they create? i think these are valid questions and questions that should be debated and discussed. there are those who have been involved in the drone killings who actually believe that they aren't helping our country. this is a letter from four american servicemen in the air force to president obama from a year or two ago, and it reads we are former air force service members who have been involved in the drone program. we joined the air force to protect american lives and to

protect our constitution. we came to realize, though, we came to the realization that innocent civilians we were killing only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism in groups like isis while also serving as a fundamental recruit ment tool. this administration, then referring to the obama administration, and its predecessors have built a drone program that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world. the question is do drone killings actually kill more terrorists than they create? as the brothers, sisters, and cousins from the village gather around the mangled bodies, do they say oh, well, i guess we are now going to put down our arms and make peace, or are they excited, are they engendered, are they somehow motivated to become suicide bombers themselves?

do the drone killings simply steel their resolve? do the drone killings cause surviving members to strap on suicide vests? there a limit, there an end to how many we will kill with drones? the power to kill anyone anywhere any time is an ominous power. i think most of the people involved in the program, including president obama, had motives to kill our enemies, to kill those who they thought might come someday and kill us. but the program has become so extensive and extended across so many different countries that there is concern, one, about the civilians, women and children that are being killed in these strikes as collateral damage, but there is also some concern whether or not that kind of omnibus power, the power to kill anyone anywhere any time in the entire world, whether or not that power is so ominous that

there should be checks and balances. in our country, no one is killed without not only checks and balances but without the due process of the law. people say well, you can't have due process in far-flung battlefields around the world. shouldn't we at least consider, though, whether or not there should be checks and balances and whether or not byrne can make the decision to kill? i think that this is something that should be debated, discussed, and should have oversight from congress. you will recall that in obama's administration, the drone attacks really hit a new peak. you will recall that he made his decisions on who to approve the killing of on terrorism tuesdays. there were reports that flash cards were used in the discussion of who was to be killed. there were also reports that john brennan had complete authority to kill on his own in certain places.

john brennan also responded and said when asked about the drone program that there are no geographical limitations to where we can kill. that's a little bit worrisome, particularly since congress has never authorized war in the seven different countries where president obama utilized drones and where drones continue to be used. people say this isn't really war or this has something to do with 9/11. this has nothing to do with 9/11. none of these people had anything to do with 9/11. people say well, they are associated forces. that's not in the 9/11 authorization. congress voted after 9/11 and said you can go after those who organized it, aided, abetted, those who helped to plan, those who helped the attackers of 9/11. it didn't say you could go after any far-flung religious radical or ideologue throughout the world and kill them, but that's what we do. it's an ominous power to kill

anyone anywhere any time. i had this debate with the obama administration, and i asked them directly can you kill an american with a drone? interestingly, they hesitated to answer that question. they finally did say we're not going to kill an american not involved in combat in the united states with a drone. it took 13 hours to get that answer from them. there are questions about what happens to an american accused and put on the kill list. can we kill an american overseas? often the killings aren't people marching around with muskets. they aren't people marching around and shooting at each other in a war where it's like you have a war zone and you're dropping a bomb on the other side of the war. these are often people sitting in a hut somewhere, eating dinner. these are often people we kill them where we find them. we often don't know the names of those who are killed. we often have no idea in the end who is killed in these attacks. sometimes we do it just simply

because it looks like a bunch of bad people all lined up. so we have what are called signature strikes where we just kill people whose cars are lined up and we presume to be bad people, and i think that their motives are well intended, but sometimes we end up killing the wrong people. we killed about 12 people in yemen in 2013 for which we paid a million dollars, saying whoops, we got the wrong people. it's an ominous power that should have more oversight and more checks and balances. one of the statements that particularly bothered me was when the former head of the n.s.a. said -- this is michael hayden -- he says well, we kill people based on metadata. that is an alarming statement to me. metadata is who you call and how long you talk to them. remember they said it was no big deal, your metadata is not that private, you should just give it all up, and for a while, they were vacuuming up all of your metadata, every american's

metadata, who you call and how long you talk. but it turns out that they are so confident in metadata that they actually are making kills based on metadata. that's what hayden said. so we have before us a nominee for the national counterterrorism center which has some involvement with developing these kill lists. so we asked him that question. i said, do we kill people based on metadata? the nonanswer was very interesting. he said, well, i can't tell you because i'm not in government. well, my guess is he's been in government and he's been in the military, he probably knows the answer but he's saying he won't tell the answer because he's not in government. so we said, ask the people who are in government do we kill people based on metadata. you know what every one of them said? none of my business. so i was elected to the u.s. senate to represent an entire state and the people of the administration had the audacity to say if you want to know that, won't you join the intelligence committee.

see, a democratic republic is where all the elected officials have oversight, not where only a select few. often a select few who actually are always in agreement with more power for the intelligence committee and become rubber stamps simply for more power. so those of us who are skeptical of power, those of us who think that we need to have more oversight are typically not on those committees. but the question is whether or not we should allow a select few to be the overseers and often these oversears -- these overseers aren't a check and balance. the overseers are people who say we want to be consulted. well, when the president comes to you or the c.i.a. comes to you and says we're going to kill this person, oh, you've been consulted -- often consulted after the fact -- but you've been consulted, to me that's not a check and a balance. that is you being a rubber stamp for the policy. so the question has come up time ndz again in the -- and again

and the media looks, oh, this is a conspiracy theory and it's a deep state. there is a deep state and it's been around for decades and decades. the church commission in the 1970's was set up to investigate the deep state. who was the deep state in those days? it was hoover. hoover was using this enormous power of the intelligence agencies to investigate people he didn't like, civil rights leaders and for -- and protesters of the vietnam war. he illegally used his power of intelligence gathering to spot americans. americans were rightly upset. the church commission tried to rein in the intelligence committees and the intelligence community. the interesting thing is in those days, the power to do intelligence was some guy sneaking in your house and placing a little magnet on your phone. it's not done that way. they can scoop every phone in america like that. they can scoop up every international phone call, every phone call to a country. we can listen to what anybody is

saying anywhere around the globe any time we want and then we can kill anyone any time anywhere in the world. these are ominous powers and deserve more oversight. so when people refer to deep -- the deep state, that's what we're talking about, more oversight. what happens now is there are eight people in congress who are consulted about intelligence, consulted about targeted killings, eight people. but they are not given a check and a balance. they are consulted. they are told often after the fact. so really there are no checks and balances. this is an enormous, ominous power, and it is not checked. those eight people are the leader of the senate, the minority leader of the senate, and the chairman and the ranking member of the intelligence committee. it's the same on the house side. so eight people know anything. and you say, well, this certainly can't be true. certainly though must brief all of you. remember when they were collecting all ever your phone data and storing it in utah?

everybody's phone data, every phone call you were making was being stored in utah. one of the authors of the patriot act that had been involved and actually been supportive of this said he was unaware of it and said that he didn't believe the legislation they wrote, the patriot act, actually authorized that. there's not enough check and balance. there's not enough oversight. we've seen it recently with the killing of "the washington post" journalist and dissident khashoggi. the c.i.a. concluded with high probability that the crown prince of saudi arabia was response with a high degree of probability was responsible for the killing. was everybody told that? no, the public was not told that. most of congress, most of the senate, i was not told that because the briefings are only for a select few. what happens is you get imperfect and not very good oversight. the checks and balances are not

working because the only people being told about what the intelligence community is doing are the people who are rubber stamps for what they are doing. the skeptics, those who believe there is too much power, are not being told. so my point in bringing that up with this nominee today is not the individual being nominated but that the deep state has circled its wagons and they're preventing me from finding out do we kill people around the world based on metadata. it's a very simple question. it's a very specific question. and they're refusing to answer it. so i've been holding this nominee and we'll -- and will vote against this nominee because i believe that the deep state needs more oversight. i believe that we shouldn't kill anyone anywhere any time around the world without some checks and balances. i also believe that our drone program, our targeted killing, actually makes the country less safe and makes it more -- makes us more at risk for terrorism. so i think we should reevaluate this. look, we've had a top 20 kill list for 20 years.

we just keep replenishing it with more and more and more. it's a never ending top 20 list. i think we should reevaluate it. i think we should talk about is there a way we can declare victory. i'm proud of the president today to hear that he is declaring victory in syria. most of the voices around here like to stay everywhere for all time and they believe that it doesn't work unless you go somewhere and stay forever. the president has the courage to say we want -- we're coming home. first president in my lifetime really to do that. that's why president trump is different and that's why i think president trump is one that we should all look to for some changes and for some reform of the deep state. thank you and i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we

the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of the standing rules of the senate do hereby debate on the close of the nomination of joseph maguire of florida to be director of the national counterterrorism center, office of the director of national intelligence signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: under unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of joseph maguire of florida to be director, national counterterrorism center, office of the director of national intelligence shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 95. the nays are 1. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that -- the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations outside the senate. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that following the remarks of the senior senator from texas, all postcloture time be considered expired and the senate vote on the maguire nomination, that if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, just for the information of our colleagues, i expect -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order.

mr. mcconnell: i expect the maguire nomination to go by voice vote. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, could i rise to speak for the last time on the senate floor as the majority whip. but the -- with the swearing in of our colleagues in january will come the changing of the guard in our elected leadership of which i've been proud to serve since 2006. as we all know, the whip is also known as the assistant majority leader, and i've been proud to assist our majority leader and all that we've worked together to accomplish in the senate. i often tell people that whip sounds a lot more coercive than it really is because in the senate you really can't make somebody do something that they don't want to do. we understand the term com