to these colleagues i say, enough. enough of the partisan games. enough of the political grandstanding and self-serving sank money. -- sanctimony. delaying this nomination undermines the esteem of this body and the very safety our nation. obstructing director pompeo's confirmation would be a significant break from the bipartisan process that has characterized these kind of nominations in the past -- over my past 42 years. for example, when president obama nominated hillary clinton to serve as secretary of state, republicans and democrats set aside their differences without delay, confirming her nomination almost unanimously with a vote of 94-2. just four years later the senate did so again when we confirmed john kerry with a vote of 94-3.

as republicans, did we disagree with secretary clinton and secretary kerry's views on a wide range of issues? absolutely. but did those disagreements prevent us from confirming two preeminently qualified nominees? absolutely not. as a case in point, when secretary kerry was confirmed in january of 2013, the syrian civil war was raging and many of us strongly disagreed with the obama administration's policies in the middle east. to my frustration and that of all my republican colleagues, it seemed that secretary kerry's syria policy differed little from his predecessor's. but rather than turning our dissenting votes into destructive votes, we voted against -- we voted almost unanimously for his confirmation. there was an understanding at the time that you paid deference

to the president's nominees, even if you disagreed with them on certain policies. today that custom is under siege. it's under threat. if we're not careful, in the future, partisanship will surely get the best of all of us. the partisan abandon with which some approach director pompeo's nomination is something that i fear the founding fathers would never have imagined, much less condoned. if we continue down this perilous path, a dangerous precedent will take root making any nomination under any president at any time all but impossible. our role as legislators is to challenge the views of our nominees and to hold them accountable. it is not, however, to discredit, defame, and destroy the reputation of a sitting cabinet official.

nor is it to prevent from serving a man who is so montana i festally qualified to serve. to engage in such political games at a time morning hour nation facing growing threats abroad, it is not only irresponsible, but it's dangerous. so, mr. president, i say to my colleagues one last time, confirm director pompeo. he has proven himself as director of the c.i.a. one of the most demanding, high pressure jobs in government. he knows the world and its secrets better than virtually anyone. moreover, he understands the scale of the threats facing the united states. i know that. i was -- i think i still been in the past the longest serving member of the senate intelligence committee. perhaps most importantly, he has earned the love and trust of the

people he serves boosting the morale of the agency and reinvigorating its sense of purpose and mission. we're in desperate need of someone who can do the same at the state department. already director pompeo has demonstrated that he has the diplomatic skill to lead the state department. setting the stage for negotiations between president trump and mr. kim by establishing a back channel line of negotiation with north korea, he's also helped foster good relations with our foreign partners, a necessary skill for someone serving as our nation's top diplomat. simply put, there is no reason under the sun that director pompeo should not receive every last vote in this chamber. mr. president, the way we treated director pompeo by nearly sending him to this floor

without a recommendation was shameful indeed. the reputation of the senate would have been tarnished were it not for the last-minute intervention of a few of my colleagues and in particular, senator chris coons for whom i have great admiration. he thinks for himself. i wanted to recognize senator coons today and thank him for his leadership. in a display of both compassion and bipartisanship, senator coons switched his no vote to present ultimately allowing director pompeo to secure a favorable recommendation. senator coons did so as a gesture to senator isakson who could not be present for the vote because he was delivering a eulogy at his best friend's funeral. mr. president, this simple act of bipartisanship reminds me of the senate i used to know. the institution that lived

worthy of its name and reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. senator coons' vote brought us back from the precipice overlooking a partisan abyss. it was a timely reminder that this body is at its best when we put comity and respect head of partisanship. senator coons' gesture was characteristic of the person i know him to be, a class act, a loyal friend, and a true gentleman of the senate. may we all take a cue from yesterday's bipartisan display. our treatment of director compay crow in committee was embarrassing to say the least but now we have a second chance. now we have the opportunity to set things right by voting unanimously for his confirmation. i really urge all of my colleagues to do what's best for the senate and the nation by voting in favor of director

pompeo's nomination. let's get rid of this total partisanship around here. and i think both sides are to blame in some respects so not me to just be picking on democrats here today. but when somebody of the quality of director pompeo is seeing this type of treatment on the floor of the united states senate, my gosh, what are we becoming? all i can say is it's not right. this is a chance to reform and make it right. i hope we'll do that. i hope we'll do that. but if we don't, we've got to find a way of getting together. we've got to find a way of supporting whoever is president fowho nominates people who are qualified and who are good people, regardless of whether we agree wit ideologically.

the fact of the matter is, this senate has become a very partisan body. there are times to be partisan. there's no question about that. all of us have felt those times from time to time. but my gosh, should we be this partisan on somebody like secretary pompeo who clearly is one of the finest nominees that i've seen in the whole time i've been in the united states sena senate. i hope my colleagues on both sides will vote for him and give him the respect, the support, and the help that he's going to need in this position. we all know he's going to be confirmed. the question is, will he be confirmed with the support of all of us senators who really think of these things and who really care for our country, who really believe in bipartisansh

bipartisanship, and really believe that regardless of differences of politics and opinion, the class acts like mr. pompeo should be supportive. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: mr. president, today the senate is considering a divisive nominee to sit on the fifth circuit court. mr. president, it completely baffles me that this administration continues to put forth nominees who are either clearly unqualified or intensely partisan and controversial. this body has historically worked together to confirm consensus nominees to serve on the appellate bench.

unfortunately, that has not been the case over this past year. we have seen contentious nominee after contentious nominee. unfortunately, the republican majority has abdicated its responsibility to instead choose a judicial person of integrity who is willing to find common ground. this afternoon's vote to confirm stuart kyle duncan to the fifth circuit court is a perfect example of a divisive candidate. mr. duncan is an extreme nominee. his nomination has been his senseless attack on health care for women, especially women in rural and underserved areas. his nomination is an attack on lgbt civil rights, an attack on free and open access to the ballot for all americans. one only needs to look at his record. mr. duncan served as lead

counsel in hobby lobby v. burwell in which the supreme court ruled that a for-profit corporation can have religious beliefs and, therefore, can deny contraceptive coverage as part of their employer-sponsored health insurance plans. i have said this before, mr. president, and i'll say it again. i have never sat next to a corporation in church. corporations do not have religious beliefs and a woman should have access to reproductive health services and the freedom to make cher own decisions about her own health care. in addition to his record of hostility to the self-determination of women, mr. duncan has been abysmal civil rights record. mr. duncan coauthored an amicus brief, an opposition to marriage equality when this important issue was before the supreme court. in that same vein of discrimination, he has repeatedly engaged in efforts to

suppress the votes of minority voters. he has defended north carolina voter suppression measures that were ultimately struck down by the fourth circuit. the court determined the discriminatory measures, and i quote -- this is a quote from the court -- targeted african americans with almost surgical precision. mr. president, mr. duncan's nomination is, frankly, unconscionable. our court system should be a level-playing field where no matter who you are or where you live, you receive fair and equal treatment. in contrast to that spirit, this nominee has spent a significant part of the past decade advocating for the denial of rights for women, minorities, and the lgbt community. i have absolutely no confidence that this nominee will stay true not only to the letter of the law but to the spirit of the law as well. our constituents sent us to

washington to look out for the best interest of all americans. that is what we need to move away from and that's from divisive nominees and instead focus on the confirmation of qualified consensus nominees. it is clear that mr. duncan is out of step with mainstream american values, and i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, are we in a quorum call?

the presiding officer: we are. ms. warren: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. it is no secret that powerful interests are working to undermine our government. giant companies and right-wing billionaires have been pouring unlimited sums of money into making sure our government works for those at the top and leaves everyone else behind. and a key part of their strategy is to capture our courts. during the obama administration, these powerful interests and their republican allies in congress executed an unprecedented campaign to stop fair minded, impartial nominees from filling judicial vacancies. nominees weren't blocked because they weren't qualified. they weren't blocked because they were inexperienced. they weren't blocked because they were out of the mainstream. they were blocked for one reason and one reason alone. because they didn't demonstrate a sufficient willingness to bend the law in favor of the rich and the powerful.

with donald trump as president, these same interests sense a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape our courts for years to come, and they're working to stack our courts with narrow-minded elitistses and right-wing radicallists. stuart kyle duncan is one of those nominees. mr.ing it up can has spent his career -- mr. duncan has spent his career working to restrict, not expand but to restrict civil rights in the united states over and over again. he sought to tilt the scales of justice against women, against lgbtq americans, against people of color and others. mr. duncan's record of supporting discrimination and injustice is quite lengthy, so i'll focus on just a few of the most disturbing examples. let's start with his record on women's rights. mr. duncan has worked to make it

harder for women to access contraceptive coverage and abortion services. he was the lead attorney to the arts and crafts company, hobby lobby, in the supreme court case hobby lobby v. burwell. in that case, he argued that business owners should be allowed to refuse to provide female employees access to contraceptive care based on those employers' religious views. mr. duncan also filed briefs in many other supreme court cases, petitioning the court to restrict women's access to birth control and abortion services, ignoring the fact that access to contraceptive care can help women lead better, healthier, or more financially secure lives. that is the man who is seeking a federal judgeship. let's take a look at his record on lgbtq rights. the mr. duncan has complained about what -- mr. duncan has complained about what you calls the, quote, general acceptance

of homosexuality and homosexual practices in america, and he's worked very hard to convince courts to adopt his narrow-minded view of the world. in the landmark supreme court cases legalizing same-sex marriages nationwide, mr. duncan filed briefs asking the court to reach the opposite result and after the supreme court handed down those historic decisions, mr. duncan, who today expects to be confirmed as a federal appellate judge, claimed that the decision would jeopardize civic peace and openly questioned the supreme court's legitimacy. mr. duncan also represented the gloucester county school board in its effort to deny gavin grim, a transgender high school boy, the ability to use the bo boy's bathroom and he represented the assembly in a lawsuit challenging the law

banning consistent with their gender identity and asking courts to allow government sanctioned discrimination in these cases, mr. duncan completely ignored scientific evidence, medical expertise. instead, asserting that transgender individual individue mentally ill. in one case he argued that there is no sound scientific evidence proving that individuals who identify as transgender are not delusional. in case after case, mr. duncan has defended discrimination and injustice. on voting rights, he defended north carolina's discriminatory voter i.d. law that a federal court concluded targeted african voters with almost, quote, surgical precision. on immigration he filed briefs opposing the deferred action for childhood arrivals, daca program, which allowed dreamers

to contribute to our schools, our communities, and our economy without constant fear of deportation. on criminal justice, he fought to block retroactive application of the supreme court decision ruling that it is unconstitutional to sentence kids to life without parole. time and again, mr. duncan has been on the wrong side of justice working to undermine civil rights of groups that have historically faced discrimination. federal judges have one job and one job only -- to dispense equal justice under law. and that means everyone -- man or woman, gay or straight, black or brown or white -- everyone should have confidence that the judges we hand lifetime appointments to will put fairness and fidelity to the law over personal feelings and political ideologies.

stuart kyle duncan has made it perfectly clear that he cannot and will not meet that standard and that's why i will be voting to reject mr. duncan's nomination, and i urge every senator who believes in the principle of equal justice under law to do the same. thank you, mr. president. i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president of. mr. president, i come to the floor today to oppose kyle duncan's nomination to serve on the fifth circuit court of appeals. a review of mr. duncan's record, his cases, his chosen causes, show he is a dangerous, ideological nominee who has consistently been on the wrong side of women's rights, lgbtq rights and civil rights. let's start with his record

arguing against women's rights and reproductive freedom. when he served as lead counsel in the infamous hobby lobby case, he argued that an employer can interfere with a woman's personal health care choices. in texas, he filed a brief in favor of abortion restrictions that would have shut down the vast majority of clinics in that state, restrictions the supreme court ultimately ruled an undue burden on women's constitutional right to safe, legal abortion. in my home state of washington, he filed a brief arguing pharmacies should be allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions for ideological reasons. fortunately, his views did not prevail. and then there's mr. duncan's long record of opposing lgbtq rights. when it comes to the right of same-sex couples, he argued against two loving parents who

wanted to change their baby's birth certificate so they could add him to their insurance plan. he argued for denying a same-sex spouse her parental visiting rights to the children she had raised for eight years. and he defended bans on same-sex marriage in louisiana and virginia. when the supreme court was considering whether to strike down bans on same-sex marriage nationwide, he said the harms of doing this would be -- and i quote -- severe, unavoidable, and irreversible, and filed an amicus brief against it. when the court then made its historic decision to recognize same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, mr. duncan said, it raises questions about the legitimacy of the court. he said it might imperil civic peace. when it comes to the rights of transgender people, he fought for the intolerant, harmful bathroom ban in north carolina and against gavin, a young boy in virginia who simply wanted

his school to allow him to use the men's restroom, and he did it using bigoted remarks that are nothing short of appalling. defending the outrageous ban in north carolina, he relied on bogus testimony from a sel self-proclaimed expert who suggested that transgender people are delusional. opposing gavin in virginia, mr. duncan advanced the theory that schools need to fear athletes pretending to be transgender for competitive advantage. he has repeatedly addressed an organization designated as a hate group by the southern poverty law center, an organization that calls religion an oxymoronic institution if ever that was one. and there are other red flags about his commitments defending civil rights. when the supreme court ruled that mandatory life sentences for minors were

unconstitutional, he ruled that the ruling should be applied retroactively. the supreme court disagreed noting the problem caused needless suffering and death. in case involving innocent man who spent 14 years on death row, an innocent man, mr. duncan argued that the district attorney's office wasn't at fault for failing to train a staff member who withheld evidence. when it comes to one of the fundamental rights in a democracy, the right to vote, the right of people to choose their government officials, mr. duncan defended a racially tailored voter i.d. law in north carolina which the courts ultimately struck down for targeting african americans with, quote, almost surgical precision. any one of these cases mr. duncan has take should raise alarm.

any one of the ideological arguments he has made should cause concern. but all of them together paint an unmistakable picture of a nominee who would not uphold women's rights, legitimate lgbtq -- lgbtq rights or civil rights. to paraphrase one of his own statements, if confirmed, i believe the damage mr. duncan will do to people by putting his ideology over their rights will be severe, unavoidable, and irreversible, so i oppose his nomination. i urge all of my colleagues to join me. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i ask that the quorum call be eviscerated.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that the senate go into recess until 2:15 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate stands in recess