[Pages S2333-S2338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Stuart Kyle Duncan, of 
Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                       Nomination of Mike Pompeo

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today our colleagues on the Foreign 
Relations Committee will vote to report the President's choice for the 
next Secretary of State.
  It is really hard to imagine someone more thoroughly qualified than 
Mike Pompeo. His career is a success story on every single level. He 
graduated first in his class from West Point, served as a U.S. Army 
officer, and attended Harvard Law School. Then came success in 
business, and then Mike's neighbors elected him to Congress in 2010.
  That impressive resume explains why, a little more than a year ago, a 
large bipartisan majority of Senators confirmed Mike as CIA Director. 
His qualifications were perfectly obvious, and, by all accounts, his 
track record at the CIA shows that vote of confidence was exactly the 
right decision. He has demonstrated mastery of the daily briefings he 
both receives and delivers. His high-quality counsel on sensitive 
matters has won the confidence not only of our national clandestine 
service but also of the Commander in Chief, and he has returned our CIA 
to the aggressive gathering of foreign intelligence. Along the way, he 
has built a reputation for listening to all points of view, trusting 
career staff, treating everyone fairly, and acting decisively.
  In Mike Pompeo, the United States will have a chief diplomat who will 
enjoy the total confidence of the President and is uniquely qualified 
to reinvigorate our Foreign Service and represent our interests abroad. 
It is hard to imagine a better nominee for this mission, at this 
moment, than Mike Pompeo. I look forward to upholding the tradition of 
this body and voting to confirm him this week.
  The Senate will also vote later this afternoon to advance the 
nomination of Kyle Duncan of Louisiana to serve on the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals. Mr. Duncan's legal credentials show that the 
President has made another outstanding choice.
  With degrees from LSU and Columbia under his belt, he built an 
impressive record in litigation, rising to serve as appellate chief in 
the Louisiana office of attorney general.
  His accomplishments also extend to private practice, where his work 
earned the respect of his colleagues and peers, including his opponents 
in court.
  A few weeks ago, a law professor and litigator who sparred with Kyle 
Duncan in a high-profile case wrote:

       Kyle Duncan is a magnificent nominee for the Fifth Circuit. 
     . . . His confirmation should be supported by all who value 
     judges committed to fairness and scrupulous application of 
     the law.

  A bipartisan group of current and former State solicitors general 
wrote to our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to praise his 
nomination. Here is what they said:

       As frequent advocates in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, we are 
     well-acquainted with the qualifications and characteristics 
     that make good judges, including intellect, integrity, legal 
     experience, and temperament, all of which Mr. Duncan 
     possesses in ample quantities.

  They went on to say:

       We came to know him as a highly skilled lawyer with an 
     easygoing demeanor, and as someone we could routinely turn to 
     for advice and interest on issues of mutual interest. Even 
     though we have worked for state Attorneys General of 
     different political stripes, we all agree that Kyle Duncan 
     has the personal and professional qualities that should 
     typify the federal judiciary.

  No wonder the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the

[[Page S2334]]

Federal Judiciary awarded Mr. Duncan its highest rating of ``well 
qualified.''
  I urge every one of our colleagues to take his credentials, 
experience, and bipartisan support into account. Let's vote to advance 
the Duncan nomination this afternoon.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. President, on another matter, in the last several weeks, we have 
focused on the contrast between the economic policies that my 
Democratic colleagues favor and the policies this Republican President 
and Republican Congress have put into effect.
  Under nearly a decade of Democratic leadership, the American people 
saw slow and insufficient growth. For most workers in most industries, 
significant wage growth was nearly nonexistent; new opportunities were 
few and far between; and the new prosperity that was created was spread 
unevenly across the country.
  Metropolitan areas with more than 1 million residents did OK under 
Democratic policies. Big cities captured nearly three-quarters of the 
limited job growth and more than 90 percent of population growth 
between 2010 and 2016. The rest of America fell further and further 
behind. Year after year, rural America, suburban America, smalltown 
America, and small cities across the country saw almost no progress. 
That is not a record to be proud of, and it is not one that Republicans 
would stand for. That is why we are implementing an inclusive 
opportunity agenda to get wages, opportunities, and prosperity growing 
again for all Americans.

  We have cut job-killing redtape and passed historic tax relief for 
middle-class families, workers, and job creators. It is delivering 
results for Americans whom the Obama economy left behind. I hear 
frequently from workers and small business owners in my State about how 
lifting these burdens is changing their lives.
  I recently heard from Senator Grassley about the good things tax 
reform is doing in the State of Iowa. In Cushing, IA--population 220--
the Anfinson Farm Store is using the new Tax Code to raise worker wages 
and give employees bonuses. Across the State, the 162 full-time 
manufacturing workers at Dyersville Die Cast are receiving their own 
tax reform bonuses. Iowa families will see lower heating and cooling 
bills, since tax reform is letting the State's utility companies 
deliver $147 million in consumer savings. Iowans should be proud that 
both of their U.S. Senators voted for the historic reform that made all 
of this possible.
  South of the border, in Missouri, it is a different story. There, 
too, tax reform is a big win for working families and small businesses. 
From big employers like Walmart to local businesses like Mid-Am Metal 
Forming, Missouri workers are reaping the benefits, but, unfortunately, 
only one of Missouri's Senators voted for it. The State's senior 
Senator voted on strict party lines to block these historic tax cuts 
from reaching workers and families.
  Maybe my Democratic colleagues still prefer the leftwing policy 
playbook that funnels jobs and prosperity into the biggest and richest 
cities but does very little for States like Missouri and Iowa. I am 
proud of Republicans who are taking things in a different direction, 
and all kinds of Americans are doing better because of it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           National Park Week

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, today marks the start of National Park 
Week.
  As a fifth-generation Montanan and as someone who grew up in 
Bozeman--in fact, Mom and Dad moved there in 1964, just a short drive 
from America's first national park, Yellowstone--I am very excited to 
take this opportunity to celebrate the parks that are so very special 
to so many because, in Montana, hiking, backpacking, fishing, and white 
water rafting are a way of life.
  I grew up spending as much time outdoors as possible, and I continue 
that tradition with my children today. In fact, my idea of a great time 
in August is to take our dogs, as many of our kids as we can get 
together--according to their schedules anymore--and take our backpacks 
and spend several days together in enjoying Montana's outdoors. As a 
father, I am grateful to share these experiences with our four children 
and instill in them a love for the outdoors. Frankly, what better place 
to do that and enjoy the outdoors than in our national parks.

  While Montana is privileged to have two world-famous national parks 
in Glacier and Yellowstone, national parks are the pride of so many 
States from Florida to Colorado, to Maine.
  Speaking of Maine, I am very glad to have partnered with my colleague 
from Maine in leading this week, as well as with an additional 26 of 
our colleagues around the country, supporting this resolution. I am 
pleased we will have the opportunity to recognize the tremendous value 
our national parks bring to so many.
  As this week begins, I have one challenge for everyone. I challenge 
you to find time in your schedules and visit a national park. Our 
national parks are what make us distinctly American. In fact, you can 
go to findyourpark.com and find the closest park to you. I hope to see 
all of you out there sometime this year.
  With that, I would like to turn it over to my colleague and my 
friend, the former Governor of Maine and now the Senator of Maine, 
Angus King, who joins me in leading National Park Week.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I want 
to join with the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Daines, to support 
this resolution which was adopted unanimously last week recognizing 
this week as National Park Week in this country.
  When I left office as Governor of Maine in January of 2003, my family 
and I the next day took off in a 40-foot RV to see the country. My 
children were 12 and 9 at the time, and we basically circumnavigated 
America over the next 5\1/2\ months.
  Just before coming to the floor, I went down the list of the parks we 
went to. The point I want to make is--and I get a bit emotional about 
this. This was the greatest experience of my life, to have taken my 
children to these parks with my wife, Mary; and to have seen and 
experienced them and experienced the people at the parks was just an 
unbelievable life-changing experience.
  We went to Arches--I am doing them in alphabetical order, not 
geographically--Bad Lands; Big Bend in Texas, which, by the way, is one 
of the most beautiful places in the country and one of the least 
visited national parks; Bryce Canyon; Canyonlands; Capitol Reef; 
Carlsbad; the Grand Canyon--of course, every American should see the 
Grand Canyon. No picture, no movie, no helicopter movie, nothing can 
prepare you for the Grand Canyon; Mesa Verde; Olympic National Park in 
the State of Washington; the redwoods and sequoias in California; 
Shenandoah, just a few hours from here; St. John in the Virgin Islands; 
Yellowstone; Yosemite; and Zion. These are gems.
  It has become commonplace to reference Ken Burns' statement that the 
national parks are ``America's best idea,'' starting with Yellowstone 
but spreading across the country. They mark our history, they mark our 
tremendous natural resources, and they are just pure inspiration.
  I hope our colleagues can go, if only for 1 day. If you have 1 day, 
you can leave Washington and be in Front Royal, VA, in about an hour 
and a half and go down the Skyline Drive of Shenandoah National Park, 
one of the most beautiful places in the country and within a couple of 
hours of Washington. These parks are near every place. There are so 
many gorgeous and extraordinary places among this system.
  In Maine, we have two--one is a national park and one is a national 
monument. We have Acadia National Park, which is the fifth most visited 
national park in the country, and it is enormously important. These 
parks are not only important to our spiritual well-being and the 
ability of our people

[[Page S2335]]

to enjoy the wonders of this country, but they are also economically 
important. Acadia, for example, has about 3.5 million visitors a year. 
To put that in perspective, Maine has a population of 1.3 million. So 
almost three times the population of Maine visits Acadia every year. 
The estimate is $386 million of direct economic benefit to our State, 
with 4,200 jobs. It is a magnet. It is a national park that draws 
people into our State, and it is, indeed, one of the most spectacular 
places in America. I have been there many times. From the top of 
Cadillac Mountain to the place they call Thunder Hole, it is a gem of a 
place that is on the ocean. Acadia is on an island just off the coast 
of Maine. We just had a monument established about 3 years ago called 
Katahdin Woods and Waters, which is the other side of the coin in terms 
of attractive places that are important for visitors and are symbolic 
of the places all over the country. Katahdin Woods and Waters is 
inland. It is on a river. It has mountain views and forests, it is 
inland Maine, which represents so much of what our country looked like 
many years ago.
  These places are deeply important to our country. I want to join my 
colleague in challenging all of our colleagues to visit the national 
parks. It is not only the physical nature, the physical attraction of a 
place like the Grand Canyon, but it is also about the people.
  I will never forget taking our children to Kitty Hawk on that RV 
trip. We had a guide who knew everything there was to know about the 
Wright brothers, and he engaged our kids in a way I hadn't seen. This 
was education of the highest sort. The people in these parks are 
dedicated, they know their stuff, and they make the experience so 
dramatic and real for all the members of the family.
  We have work to do in this body. We have a backlog of maintenance on 
our parks that the Senator from Montana and I are working on, along 
with Senators Alexander, Heinrich, and others, to try to find a 
solution to this maintenance backlog. We do have work to do. We are 
working with the parks to bring their admissions system into the 21st 
century in terms of online access for park passes. There is plenty of 
work to be done.
  The underlying assets are so magnificent and are so important to our 
country economically, culturally, socially, and spiritually. I am proud 
to have joined my colleagues in sponsoring this resolution which was 
adopted unanimously. I join my colleague and invite all of my 
colleagues and all Americans to make it a point this year, as the 
weather gets warmer, to visit one of these magnificent places. You will 
be rewarded richly and the rewards will stay with you every day of your 
life.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Nomination of Mike Pompeo

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, article II, section 2 of our Nation's 
founding document grants the Senate the prerogative to confirm the 
President's Cabinet nominees. One of those nominees--the current 
administration's most important nominee, at least today and this week--
is Mike Pompeo, the current Director of the Central Intelligence 
Agency.
  Director Pompeo has been asked to become the Nation's chief diplomat, 
the Secretary of State, and now filling this post is entirely up to the 
Senate. The relevant questions couldn't be graver or more obvious.
  Do we as a country, with so many longstanding relationships around 
the world, really feel the need for, the utter necessity of a Secretary 
of State or not? Do we believe in furthering international diplomacy by 
filling this post expeditiously or not? Do peace talks--for example, in 
North Korea--rank among our highest national priorities? Do we want to 
demonstrate as much by confirming Mr. Pompeo so that those talks can 
proceed, or is this Chamber too self-absorbed in partisan divides to 
see the much bigger, global picture?
  It is time to be serious about Director Pompeo and what this 
nomination represents. The stakes are high, and the time is short. So 
why is it, then, that some of our colleagues, all of a sudden, seem to 
have suffered from sort of a situational amnesia?
  Take this, for example. Our colleague from New Hampshire said last 
year that Mike Pompeo's nomination for CIA Director demonstrated his 
``strong condemnation of Russian aggression'' and ``gives [her] 
confidence'' that he can step into this role and effectively lead the 
CIA. Now she seems to have forgotten those previous positive 
statements. Frankly, it is hard to reconcile what she is saying now 
about her vote on the nominee for Secretary of State and her vote on 
the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
  Now our friend from New Hampshire says she has deep concerns and 
cannot support Director Pompeo's nomination to the State Department. 
How is it that you support a nomination to be Director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency--the leader of the intelligence community and an 
Agency so important to our national security interests--and then turn 
around and say you cannot support the nomination for Secretary of State 
of the same person whom you have just spoken so highly about?
  Well, like I said, it is hard for me to reconcile the differences. 
Perhaps that would make sense if there were some allegation that 
Director Pompeo had done a bad job leading the CIA, but no one thinks 
that. Indeed, we have learned--from leaks, unfortunately--that he 
traveled to meet with Kim Jong Un, the leader of North Korea, to lay 
the foundation for the talks that will now occur between Kim Jong Un 
and President Trump on denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. I can't 
imagine a more urgent, a more dangerous, and a more necessary 
negotiation than the negotiation between President Trump and Kim Jong 
Un.
  Having been in Seoul last September and seeing how close North and 
South Korea are, it is not just the nuclear weapons that could be put 
on intercontinental ballistic missiles that we have to be concerned 
about but the conventional weapons that are laid right there along the 
demilitarized zone that could literally cause enormous loss of life and 
bloodshed just across the border in South Korea.
  So I applaud Director Pompeo going, at President Trump's request, on 
that clandestine mission to try to pave the way to denuclearize North 
Korea. If anything, my confidence in Director Pompeo's fitness to serve 
as Secretary of State is enhanced by his role as a diplomat, even 
during his current role as Director of the CIA.
  Well, people are practically unanimous in their praise for Mike 
Pompeo's conduct as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. It is 
public knowledge that he has great rapport with the President. When you 
are representing the U.S. Government to foreign governments, the 
knowledge that the Secretary of State has a close working relationship 
with the President of the United States is the coin of the realm. That 
is why foreign leaders talk to the Secretary of State and take the 
Secretary of State seriously.
  Mike Pompeo has earned the President's trust through his hard work 
and mastery of the intelligence work done at the CIA, and that has been 
the reason why the President now seeks to elevate him to the office of 
Secretary of State.
  The objections of our colleague from New Hampshire, and by extension 
her party, are not about anything substantive. Nobody is pointing to 
something he did wrong or something they wish he would have done 
differently as a reason to vote no. They think Director Pompeo is too 
close to the President and asked whether and to what extent the 
Director will be able to exercise independent judgment. This is the 
chief diplomat of the United States, the chief representative of the 
President of the United States, and our colleagues are asking: How can 
he exercise independent judgment and separate himself from the person 
who appoints him and at whose pleasure he serves?
  It just doesn't make any sense.
  Our other colleague, the senior Senator from California, has come 
close to saying this very thing. She has said

[[Page S2336]]

about Director Pompeo that he is smart and he is hard-working and 
devoted to protecting our country. This is our colleague from 
California, Senator Feinstein, who voted to confirm him as Director of 
the Central Intelligence Agency. She knows a lot about it, having been 
chair of the Committee on Intelligence here in the Senate, but now she 
says she senses a certain disdain for diplomacy in Mike Pompeo that she 
believes disqualifies him to be our senior diplomat--the same person 
who over Easter flew over to see Kim Jong Un to lay the groundwork for 
this negotiation, which could well save hundreds of thousands and maybe 
millions of lives that would be lost in the event there were military 
conflict between North and South Korea and the United States and our 
other allies.
  Now, like our friend from New Hampshire, I admire the Senator from 
California and enjoy working with her, but frankly I don't understand 
her turnabout.
  Mike Pompeo is thoughtful, careful, and has a remarkable ability to 
see the world through multiple lenses at once. That is because of his 
time at West Point, his service in the U.S. Army, and his experience 
practicing as a lawyer. It is because he has worked as a leader in 
business and he has represented the men and women of Kansas in 
Congress. He knows the intelligence community inside and out, not only 
from his service as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency but 
also as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence. He is indisputably smart, and he sees all the angles. 
That is precisely what will serve him so well when the State Department 
and others work tirelessly to untangle and resolve some of the most 
intractable of issues--arms control, international security, human 
rights violations, and religious freedom, just to name a few.
  Well, what has happened since our friend from California said Mike 
Pompeo is smart, hard-working, and devoted to protecting our country? 
What has changed since then? Well, nothing has changed, except for 
perhaps the political calculation that it is perhaps in the Democratic 
Party's best political interest to oppose every one of President 
Trump's policies and nominees because that way they stay out of trouble 
with their political base. One reason Senators are elected for 6 years 
from a whole State is, presumably, that we can get beyond those sorts 
of parochial political concerns, particularly on matters of such 
national and international import.
  Our Democratic colleagues have made it no secret that they are not 
fond of the President and some of his instincts and decisions, but 
isn't that all the more reason for them to not sacrifice rational 
judgment in the case of this highly qualified and widely revered 
nominee? After all, defeating a Secretary of State nominee would be 
extraordinary, historically speaking, and it would send a terrible 
message to our friends and allies around the world. This is nothing to 
be trifled with. President George W. Bush's first nominee, Colin 
Powell, was confirmed by a unanimous voice vote. And his second, 
Condoleezza Rice, had 85 Senators vote in her favor. Hillary Clinton 
received only two no votes, and John Kerry only three. Every Secretary 
of State nominee since 1925 has been reported out of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee favorably. That may change today.
  This body and this institution should not forget its own history and 
traditions, and we should not give up on the tradition of 
bipartisanship, goodwill, and fairness to the opposition.
  I am proud to support Mike Pompeo as our next Secretary of State and 
hope that all of our colleagues across the aisle will have the 
political courage to join those of us voting yes.
  I note that there have been some press releases, some announcements, 
and a number of our colleagues have stepped forward and said they will 
vote yes for Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. I applaud them in their 
political courage for standing against the tide.
  For those who refuse--especially for the ones who have flip-flopped 
in the matter of a year--Mike Pompeo is a human being, a public 
servant, and somebody well trained and well prepared to be the Nation's 
top diplomat. I just simply don't understand how they can reconcile 
those two polar opposite positions, or perhaps they can explain it to 
the American people. I cannot.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, the preamble of our Constitution lays 
out a vision that includes establishing justice and promoting the 
general welfare. Certainly we have the challenge in America of making 
sure the doors of opportunity are wide open and not slammed shut.
  For centuries, we have been working to try to make sure that vision 
comes into full realization, but today we are considering the 
nomination of Stuart Kyle Duncan to a lifetime appointment on the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. This individual is not supportive of our 
constitutional vision of open doors; he is intent on slamming them 
shut--slamming them shut on all LGBTQ communities; slamming them shut 
on women seeking reproductive rights and healthcare; slamming 
opportunity shut on those who simply wish to vote in America in 
fulfillment of the vision of our constitutional democratic Republic; 
slamming the doors shut on those who are here and have been here 
legally, who are seeking to become citizens.
  Mr. Duncan is probably best known for his work on Burwell v. Hobby 
Lobby, a landmark case opposing the ACA's requirement that employers 
provide insurance coverage opportunity for contraception and for 
undermining the healthcare of countless women across America.
  You might say: Didn't his side of this case win in the courts? Well, 
not for the reasons that this individual put forward. The Court 
rejected the arguments Kyle Duncan made. He refused to acknowledge the 
importance of birth control in women's lives, arguing that the 
government does not have a compelling interest in ensuring access to 
birth control without cost-sharing. The Court said that is wrong and 
that the government does have a compelling interest. Mr. Duncan argued 
that the Court was not required to consider the impact of this law--or 
the possibility of overturning it--on employees under the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act. Every single member of the Court, whether in 
the majority or in the minority on the opinion, threw out that 
argument, reaffirming that burdens on third parties must be considered. 
Although the verdict came down on the side Mr. Duncan advocated for, 
the Court soundly rejected his arguments and his reasoning.
  After Hobby Lobby, he wrote an amicus brief in Zubik v. Burwell on 
behalf of Eternal World Television Network, a nonprofit seeking an 
exception from the ACA birth control benefit. He made some of those 
same arguments again, and again the Court rejected his reasoning and 
directed the government and all parties involved to arrive at an 
approach that ensures that affected women ``receive full and equal 
health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.''
  It is certainly a concern to have a nominee who wants to slam the 
door shut on the freedom of women to access the reproductive healthcare 
that they desire, but there is more door-slamming here than that. He is 
an ardent opponent to equality and opportunity for the LGBTQ community 
here in the United States of America. He is recognized as one of our 
Nation's leading opponents of opportunity for the LGBTQ community.
  He authored legal briefs opposing marriage equality in Obergefell v. 
Hodges, going so far as to question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court 
when the Court came down saying that ``love is love'' and that marriage 
equality is the law of the land under the Constitution of the United 
States of America. He called that decision ``an abject failure.''
  I ask you, what kind of fairness do you anticipate from a judge who 
is ardently opposed to the freedom of opportunity for LGBTQ Americans, 
who condemns a previous decision of the Supreme Court as ``an abject 
failure,'' and

[[Page S2337]]

who said that this decision would ``imperil civic peace''? He said:

       No one can possibly predict with any degree of confidence 
     what are all the possible ramifications for our society that 
     are going to take place. No one could have predicted all of 
     the social pathologies from no-fault divorce. This is a far 
     more radical change than no-fault divorce.

  He said that ``harms'' to our democracy from marriage equality 
``would be severe, unavoidable, and irreversible.''
  Certainly, he wanted to slam the door on marriage opportunity for 
LGBTQ Americans, but he made an outrageous argument that the concern of 
others should enable his court, as he envisioned it, to deprive 
Americans of the opportunity to marry the individual they love--no 
concern for the Constitution, just that some folks might find it 
uncomfortable. He made an extensive, hyperbolic, hysterical argument 
that it would completely debase society for people to be with the 
person they love.
  His attacks against the LGBTQ community go on and on, from 
introducing expert declarations in one case that characterized 
transgender Americans as ``delusional.'' If you have been characterized 
as delusional based on who you are and whom you love, what fairness can 
you expect from the judgment of this individual? He fought to deny 
parental rights to the woman who adopted the children of her same-sex 
partner--the same children she had helped raise for 8 years.
  Clearly, this individual is interested in rightwing, opportunity-
denying legislating from the bench, not protecting the vision of 
opportunity embedded in our Constitution.
  All that doesn't even touch on his other efforts, such as his effort 
to make it difficult for communities of color or communities of modest 
economic means to be able to vote in the United States of America. If 
you believe in the Constitution of the United States, you should be a 
fierce advocate for voter empowerment and participation, not voter 
suppression, but this individual is a fierce advocate for voter 
suppression. Isn't it right to have people confirmed to the bench for a 
lifetime appointment who actually admire the vision of our Constitution 
for opportunity and for citizen engagement, not one who wants to tear 
down opportunities and slam doors on opportunities and stop people from 
voting.
  That is not all. There is more. There are his attacks on deferred 
action for parents of Americans in which he spreads false and 
frightening stereotypes about immigrants, echoing his previous 
hysterical comments, saying that ``[m]any violent criminals would 
likely be eligible to receive deferred action under DAPA's inadequate 
standards.'' It is kind of the last refuge of a scoundrel, an 
individual who proceeds to attack our immigrants, saying: Oh, they 
might all end up being criminals--completely contrary to the facts, 
where immigrants are far more law-abiding than the vast average among 
Americans born here in the United States.
  Isn't it the case that we are a nation of immigrants? Unless you are 
100 percent Native American Indian, then you are here because you 
immigrated or your parents immigrated or your ancestors at some level 
immigrated generations ago. So basically descending to attack 
immigrants as all criminals is simply another example of this 
individuals's unsuitability to serve on the bench.
  We are a ``we the people'' nation, founded on equality, justice, and 
opportunity for all. Our Nation is about opening doors for each 
individual to participate to the full degree of their talent, not to 
have the prejudices of some allow them to slam doors on others. That is 
why this individual, Stuart Kyle Duncan, should never be on the floor 
of the Senate to be confirmed as a judge in the United States of 
America. Let him carry on his advocacy outside the hallowed halls of 
the courtroom but not inside, sitting on the bench. That is why 
everyone here tonight should vote against confirming this nomination.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the nomination of and 
the vote we are about to have on Kyle Duncan. Kyle Duncan is from 
Louisiana. He has been nominated to be on the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Let me speak a little bit about his qualifications and why I 
think we should support his nomination and vote yes.
  First, I have a little bit of pride in this; he is a graduate of LSU, 
my alma mater, and graduated from LSU's law school, the Paul M. Hebert 
Law School. He graduated in the Order of the Coif and subsequently got 
a master of law degree from Columbia University. He has the training, 
experience, and institutional knowledge to be a successful judge.
  I have discussed his academics; let's speak about his experience. His 
breadth of experience makes him a great choice. He was certified as 
``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association. He has extensive 
courtroom experience on the Tenth and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals, 
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Texas and Louisiana Supreme 
Courts, and he has twice argued in the U.S. Supreme Court. He has 
experience working in the public and private sectors and in academia. 
He pulls from diverse legal backgrounds, including criminal law, 
American Disabilities Act regulations, section 1983 claims, healthcare 
law, adoptions, and contract law. He understands the Fifth Circuit.
  After law school, Mr. Duncan clerked on the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals under the Honorable John M. Duhe, Jr. He was the assistant 
solicitor general at the Texas attorney general's office and a 
professor at the University of Mississippi Law School. He is the 
appellate chief of the Louisiana Department of Justice. All of these 
are States included in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Again, this 
is the experience and background we should look for when selecting a 
judicial nominee.
  I will also add that he is of high character. Even those who are 
going to vote no have been impressed once they have met him. They 
consider him a genuinely nice man whose body of work is reflective of 
someone who is decent. His body of work also demonstrates his high 
respect for legal precedent. He understands that a judge is not an 
advocate for a particular case but, instead, an adjudicator upholding 
the law, applying the law to the facts. He is a man of high integrity, 
high character--something sorely needed in this world but especially to 
be demonstrable in the Federal judiciary.
  Clearly, Mr. Duncan is a qualified nominee, having that which it 
takes to be a successful judge. I recommend Mr. Duncan without 
reservation, and I urge my colleagues to join in supporting his 
nomination.


                       Nomination of Mike Pompeo

  Mr. President, this relates to Mike Pompeo, who is the nominee for 
Secretary of State. If there is one thing everyone in Washington seems 
to agree on these days--indeed, in our country--it is that we face very 
serious threats around the globe. From Russian aggression in Eastern 
Europe and Syria to China's expansion in the South China Sea, to Iran's 
increased threats against Israel, to a North Korean dictator who likes 
to fire off missiles and test nuclear weapons, to the collapse of 
Venezuela, to transnational criminal organizations contributing to the 
opioid epidemic at home, to trade issues, our country is facing big 
challenges. As we face these global threats, we need a well-qualified 
Secretary of State who understands diplomacy and is working to keep our 
country safe.
  It is hard to think of someone more qualified than Mike Pompeo. As 
Director of the CIA, a former Member of Congress, a top graduate of 
West Point, and editor of the Harvard Law Review, there are zero--I say 
zero--questions about his ability. That is what is troubling about our 
colleagues across the aisle who appear ready to oppose his nomination 
en masse for no other reason than that he is a Republican nominated by 
President Trump. It seems to be the latest example of Washington 
Democrats kowtowing to the so-called resistance movement, opposing 
anything and everything because they can't accept that Donald Trump was 
elected President of the United States.
  It used to be said that our partisan differences ended at the 
shoreline; that we presented a united face to the rest of the world. An 
extension of that is whom we select as Secretary of State. It is worth 
noting that the previous Secretaries of State appointed under President 
Obama had overwhelming

[[Page S2338]]

support, both from Democrats and Republicans, precisely because of the 
importance of having a Secretary of State in place in this challenging 
world but also, again, because partisan differences should not be 
reflected to the outside. In this case, that has been lost in the name 
of the resistance.
  When it comes to the critical position of Secretary of State, Mike 
Pompeo, in particular, would be the man for the job as we deal with 
Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and other challenges. I urge my 
Democratic colleagues to do the right thing for our country instead of 
catering to the most extreme elements of their party.
  Most of my Senate colleagues supported Mike Pompeo when he was 
nominated to serve as CIA Director. They should support him now as 
Secretary of State so we can show the world that while we may have our 
political differences at home about any number of issues, we stand 
united as Americans when it comes to facing threats to our security 
abroad.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative 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 Stuart Kyle Duncan, of Louisiana, to be United States 
     Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.
         Mitch McConnell, Thom Tillis, John Cornyn, John Kennedy, 
           Richard Burr, Mike Lee, David Perdue, Steve Daines, 
           James Lankford, Pat Roberts, Johnny Isakson, Jeff 
           Flake, Lindsey Graham, Patrick J. Toomey, Marco Rubio, 
           Tom Cotton, James E. Risch.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By 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 Stuart Kyle Duncan, of Louisiana, to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. 
Duckworth), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator 
from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 44, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--44

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Duckworth
     Feinstein
     Hirono
     Isakson
     McCain
     Nelson
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
44.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________