Mr. President, before my friend, the Senator from Texas, leaves, I am sure he understands that I am rising now in support of the nomination of Congressman Mike Pompeo to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. But before I speak on…

I believe it is very important that we do not go backwards on these issues.

It seems like there is at the same time a rush to eliminate all of the things that pay for the ability of Americans to have those kind of services.

I believe in your testimony last week you saw great promise in it.

On Friday, January 20th, President Trump issued an executive order that says Federal agencies, especially HHS, should do everything they can to, quote, 'eliminate any fiscal burden on any State or any cost, fee, tax penalty, or regulatory…

orderly liquidation authority under title II should continue to be available, even if the bankruptcy code is amended.

The absolutist approach, which never looks at revenues, leads us to the place where we are right now.

Clearly, if you get this role, words that you say and the President-elect will say will have consequences.

But do you then expect the President-elect, and then President, would continue to break all precedent and be willing to weigh in on these matters, unlike any prior President?

I have been very troubled by even some folks in elective office who have somehow said we can ignore the debt ceiling without consequences.

I want you to again affirm to this body that on a going-forward basis it will be your policy, as much as you can influence the President-elect, that we would never again question America's willingness to stand by its debt obligations.

I think both of us would perhaps from our business standpoint say that was high-risk capital and we ought to get a better return.

Many people come to the political process and get hired into this process by taking absolutist pledges on things like revenues.

I think that is extraordinarily important. And those who somehow argue for prioritization--it would wreak havoc in the financial markets.

the law is not working, and we have to do something to meet that obligation.

Shouldn't that be our goal?

We shouldn't harm people by reducing the number of people who have health coverage or reducing the quality of the insurance coverage they have.

They are just dead wrong on that issue.