handful of front-office personnel are leaving Federal employment, which
is not at all uncommon when a senior leader leaves an Agency or one
comes into an Agency. But a small handful--maybe counted on one hand,
maybe two hands. He also said that a few dozen--around 45 or 50--career
officers are, in fact, returning to their home Agencies. I think that
is a step in the right direction. It is less than 5 percent of the
DNI's personnel. I might put a zero after that 5. I might put a 7 in
front of that 5 in terms of how many personnel need to go back to their
home Agencies.
  A second point, if Director Pulte can, in fact, take these steps in
the right direction, I think that can benefit Jay Clayton, once he is
confirmed. Mr. Clayton will be able to inherit an organization that has
already been downsized, and he can hit the ground running on day one to
continue that work and to ensure that the DNI is promoting our
intelligence community's important work, not hindering it.
  A third point, as President Trump has said, Jay Clayton is a patriot,
and he will make a great DNI once confirmed. I intend to hold a hearing
for Mr. Clayton in the weeks ahead. As the vice chairman knows, it is
not just our committee that moved at a very rapid pace to confirm Mr.
Clayton to this new post. I want to thank President Trump and the Trump
administration for moving at lightning speed as well. The FBI finished
its background check in record time. The intelligence community and the
Department of Justice helped Mr. Clayton through hundreds of advanced
policy questions in record time. Even the President's own White House
Counsel's Office completed Mr. Clayton's work in record time.
  Of course, the backdrop here is the lapse in authorization for
section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The vice
chairman and I have worked well together to craft a bill that can get
60 votes in the Senate, 218 or more votes in the House. I wish we could
simply pass that bill. I think it is regrettable that Minority Leader
Schumer and Minority Leader Jeffries have linked together
reauthorization of section 702 with the confirmation of an official to
a position that really has very little to do with section 702 or, for
that matter, with operational activities of the intelligence community
at large.
  So with those observations, I do, in fact, object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, just a few closing comments.
  The chairman and I are working very well together. I know he has
probably taken some heat, so I don't want to say too many good things
about him on the floor for working so well together.
  I would simply point out the part he left out about Mr. Clayton, when
we were trying to move fast and the White House was moving fast and
everything--all the paperwork--was done. We had a scheduled hearing for
Mr. Clayton. I was even getting some of our most ferocious opponents to
702 to probably waive some of their objections.
  And at the last minute, with no notice to our committee or even to
Mr. Clayton, the President pulled his nomination. I have never heard of
a President complaining about moving too quickly on one of his
nominees.
  On the size of the DNI, the chairman and I, we are working together.
I even am open to the notion that the office could be obliterated or
removed or potentially repurposed somewhere else. Again, that makes
sense. But it ought to be done in an orderly fashion. It ought to be
done by somebody with national security experience. It ought to be done
not in a way where he comes in on the first day--how did he even know
whom to fire?
  So, again, we will agree to disagree on that, but--boy oh boy--let's
do it the right way.
  And, again, I do hope--I look forward to asking Mr. Clayton
questions. But I know him, and I think he is--I know he respects the
Constitution, which is my first question to anybody. And I would point
out--and I am absolutely in favor of renewing 702 quickly--the good
news, though, is that the communication providers are still working
with us; we have not gone dark.
  But I agree with the chairman that we need to move as quickly as
possible. But everybody has been pretty clear on this: We have to get a
real DNI in that office before we get that reauthorization.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak for 1 minute on the upcoming vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                 Nomination of John George Edward Marck

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I am a proud member of the Delaware bar. I clerked for a Federal court.
And in a recent confirmation hearing, I asked four different nominees
to serve as Federal district court judges a simple question: What does
the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provide?
  None of them could answer, so I helped them. In summary, it says you
can't serve three terms as President. Once elected twice, you may not
serve a third term--adopted after Franklin Delano Roosevelt served four
terms. Its text and intent are simple and clear.
  I questioned all four: Can you tell me whether President Trump can
serve a third term, given the language of the 22nd Amendment?
  All four refused. They could not find the courage to say: Yes, as a
simple matter of fact and constitutional law, on the plain text,
President Trump is in his second term; he cannot serve a third.
  Why? Why would anyone fail to answer this simple question? I believe
it is because they were terrified, if they did, President Trump would
pull their nomination.
  No one should be confirmed--no one should be confirmed--to a lifetime
judicial appointment who cannot summon the most simple courage to apply
the text of the Constitution.
  I will vote against all the nominees before us today because of their
failure to answer simple textual questions about the meaning and
purpose of our Constitution. If you are too afraid of the President to
answer whether the 22nd Amendment, by its plain text, means he can't
run and win a third time, how will you be an independent judge, and how
could you possibly deserve a lifetime appointment?
  I urge my colleagues to stand up to this and to insist on an
independent Federal judiciary.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination
     of, Executive Calendar No. 780, John George Edward Marck, of
     Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Southern
     District of Texas.
         John Thune, Tim Sheehy, John Barrasso, Ashley B. Moody,
           James Lankford, Todd Young, Ted Budd, Pete Ricketts,
           Jon A. Husted, Mike Crapo, Mike Rounds, Tim Scott of
           South Carolina, Bernie Moreno, John Cornyn, Chuck
           Grassley, James C. Justice, Eric Schmitt.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum
call under rule XXII has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of John George Edward Marck, of Texas, to be United States
District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, shall be brought to
a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet)
and the Senator from California (Mr. Schiff) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 45, as follows: