[Pages S275-S276]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, unfortunately, we were at the point of 
almost having a consent agreement to have a vote on the confirmation of 
John Ratcliffe to be CIA Director tomorrow--not today, not yesterday 
when it should have happened, but tomorrow--but the Senator from 
Connecticut has decided to object at the last minute.
  I don't really understand the objection to Mr. Ratcliffe. He was 
confirmed by this Senate to be the Director of National Intelligence. 
He was fully vetted through the bipartisan process in the Senate 
Intelligence Committee. We voted him out yesterday on a 14-to-3 vote.
  Senator Schumer stood here yesterday and talked about how we are 
going to cooperate on highly qualified, capable nominees with 
integrity, which John Ratcliffe is, but the only vote we got yesterday 
was Senator Rubio.
  Now we are not going to have a vote today, and apparently we are not 
going to have a vote tomorrow, which means I hope nobody is making any 
plans for the weekend or the evenings because

[[Page S276]]

we are going to get these nominees confirmed--starting with Mr. 
Ratcliffe and then moving on to Mr. Hegseth and moving on to Ms. Noem--
the easy way or the hard way.
  We tried to cooperate with the Democrats. The cooperation has not 
been forthcoming, so I guess it is going to be the hard way starting on 
Thursday.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic 
leader, on January 22, the Senate proceed to executive session to 
consider Executive Calendar No. 1, John Ratcliffe to be the Director of 
the CIA; that there be up to 2 hours of debate equally divided between 
the two leaders or their designees on the nomination; that following 
the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the 
nomination; that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that 
no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related 
statements be printed in the Record; and that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the 
Senator knows, there are serious concerns that many of us have about 
John Ratcliffe's ability to distance himself from the political 
interests of President Trump in his work as CIA Director.
  During his short 8 months as DNI in 2020, he repeatedly politicized 
intelligence in a way that does raise for many of us real questions 
about whether he is going to spin highly sensitive intelligence his 
Agency will gather for political purposes.
  I don't think it is too much to ask to make sure that we have a full, 
real debate that lasts 2 days on the Senate floor given the serious 
questions that have arisen about his qualifications to do this job in 
an apolitical manner. I understand that we have differences about the 
qualifications of this nominee, but it is important for the American 
public to hear us have a debate here about the qualifications of folks 
who are going to be leading the most sensitive national security 
Agencies. If he has the votes, he can be on the job this weekend.
  For that reason, I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. It is fine if the Democrats have legitimate concerns with 
this nominee or any other nominee. We had legitimate concerns with 
President Biden's nominees. Come down to the floor. Get it off your 
chest.
  You talk about a full and real debate for 2 days. I hate to 
disappoint the people watching here. You are probably seeing more 
debate than we will have on John Ratcliffe's nomination for the next 48 
hours before we confirm him. That is what I predict.
  We could have debated this anytime today. We debated it for 2 months 
in the Intelligence Committee. The Senator from Virginia, the vice 
chair of the committee, worked diligently and promptly with me--his 
team with my team--to process this nomination so it would be ready for 
confirmation yesterday. On a bipartisan basis, 14 to 3--not many other 
nominees are going to come out of committee with that kind of vote.
  So I understand the Democrats are opposed to some of President 
Trump's nominees, and I understand they want to vote no, and I respect 
that. But should we be denying the country a Senate-confirmed CIA 
Director in such dangerous times for no good reason?
  Again, maybe Senator Murphy has more to say. I invite him to come 
down to the floor and speak again if there is a lot more to say. I 
predict, though, that once again this will be the longest debate we 
have about John Ratcliffe's nomination over the next 2 days.
  What this is really about is trying to drag out all of these 
nominations, to play procedural games, as we are about to with Pete 
Hegseth's nomination, to try to deny President Trump his Cabinet in a 
prompt and timely fashion, just like the Democrats did in 2017. Yep, it 
happened in 2021 as well because around here, the shoe gets on the 
other foot pretty quickly. But it didn't happen in 2009. It didn't 
happen in 2001 and before that. We should get back to that practice. We 
should especially get back to that practice when it is a highly 
accomplished, well-qualified nominee of integrity like John Ratcliffe 
is.
  So I regret that now we are going to spin our wheels for 2 days, but, 
as I said, don't make plans for the weekend, and don't have any dinner 
dates scheduled starting on Thursday night because we are going to get 
these nominees done the easy, collegial way or apparently the hard way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I was listening to the chair of the 
Intelligence Committee just a moment ago talking about this nominee, 
and I was curious.
  I ask the Senator from Arkansas, the chairman of the Intelligence 
Committee, what was the vote coming out of committee for Mr. Ratcliffe?
  Mr. COTTON. The vote was 14 to 3.
  Mr. THUNE. OK. So 14 to 3 coming out of committee, and we have now 
wasted a whole day where we could have been acting on that nomination.
  So, really, I think the question before the Senate is, Do we want to 
vote on these folks on Tuesday or vote on them on Friday, Saturday, and 
Sunday? Because that is what we are going to do. This can be easy or 
this can be hard.
  This is a nominee that came out of the Intelligence Committee 14 to 
3. It is a bipartisan nomination to the Central Intelligence Agency. 
This is about America's national security interests, and we are 
stalling.
  So that is not going to happen. We are going to file cloture on him. 
You can force us to hang around here, and we can vote on these things 
Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. But we are going to vote on 
him.

  This one shouldn't be hard, folks. I understand there are some that 
are going to draw some opposition from the other side of the aisle. But 
Democrats and Republicans, in a very big bipartisan fashion, agree that 
he is very qualified for this job that is an important job to America's 
national security interests. And, frankly, I believe, we ought to fill 
it as soon as we possibly can. So it is going to be a big vote here on 
the floor.
  Everything we are doing right now is just stalling. I don't know what 
that accomplishes for you, but we are going to be here voting on it.

                          ____________________