kim by establishing a back channel line up medication with north korea and he has also helped foster good relationships with our foreign partners. it's a necessary skill for someone serving as our nation's top diplomat. simply put, there's a reason under the sun that director pompeo did not receive -- >> you can find all the coverage from the house and senate on c-span .org. the senate coming back into session now at 2:15 p.m. eastern considering the nomination of kyle duncan to serve on the federal appeals court based in new orleans. ms. hassan: mr. president, i rise today to oppose the nomination of kyle duncan to serve on the fifth circuit court of appeals. mr. president, our founders established our court system to serve as an independent arbiter

that would protect the rights of every american and ensure equal justice under the law. and for us to move forward, our democracy requires an independent and impartial judiciary. unfortunately, the trump administration has focused on nominating individuals to our courts who have extreme partisan agendas that would move us backward. this latest nomination is no different. mr. duncan has spent his career working to undermine the progress we've made toward building a more inclusive, more equal united states, rather than working to include more people in our democracy, mr. duncan's law practice has seemingly been devoted to restricting people's rights and make life more challenging for some of the most marginalized among us. and his dangerous record raises

serious doubts about his ability to act impartially on the bench with regard to a number of key issues. mr. president, in recent years our nation has made significant progress in advancing the rights of our lgbtq family and friends, building on the principle that all people deserve the right to fully participate in the social, civic, and economic life of our communities. and at every turn mr. duncan has been on the wrong side of history, working at the forefront of the fight against lgbtq equality. he's been vehemently opposed to marriage equality, filing a legal brief to the supreme court arguing stkpwepbs the decision that was -- against the decision reached in the 2015ogerberfeld versus hodges kaeurbgs and later claiming -- case, and later

claiming that decision raises a question about the legitimacy of the court. he's even go so far as to repeatedly claim that nationwide marriage equality, again this is his quote, imperils civic peace, a statement that is both ridiculous and defensive. mr. duncan has fought against adoption rights for same-sex parents and has dismissed the real necessity for lgbtq antidiscrimination laws. and he has been unyielding in his attempts to undermine the rights of transgender individuals. in two major cases involving transgender rights, including the now infamous so-called bathroom bill in north carolina, mr. duncan has been the go-to attorney, demeaning the transgender people and even describing them as delusional. given his history, i am deeply

concerned that mr. duncan would be unable to act impartially if a case involving lgbtq americans were to come before the fifth circuit. mr. president, i also have real concerns with mr. duncan's record when it comes to women's health care and their constitutionally protected rights because his record shows that he's been a consistent opponent of reproductive freedom. mr. duncan was the lead counsel in the backward supreme court hobby lobby decision which allows employers to deny contraceptive coverage to women. he has long supported efforts to diminish women's access to their constitutionally protected right to an abortion, arguing in favor of a texas law in whole women's health versus hellerstat that shut down abortion providers and was eventually rejected by the court. and he's even contested the fact that contraceptives can be

necessary to protect a woman's health and has challenged the importance of contraception to a woman's capacity to compete economically. mr. president, medical professionals describe contraceptives for women for a variety of health conditions including conditions such as ovarian cysts which can be debilitating and threaten a woman's fertility. women who use contraceptives to engage in family planning often have better health outcomes as do their children. mr. president, to compete economically on a level playing field women muck able to make -- must be able to make their own decisions about if or when to start a family. studies have shown women who have coverage are better able to support themselves and their families and to be full participants not just in our economy, but also in our

democracy. women must be recognized for their capacity to make their own health care decisions, just as men are. they must also have the full independence to do so. but it is clear that mr. duncan has a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of reproductive freedom and ensuring that women are treated equally. mr. president, on these key issues mr. duncan lacks the impartiality and commitment to equal justice for every american that is needed to serve a lifetime judicial appointment. this is particularly critical on the fifth circuit court of appeals which covers states that lack critical protections for lgbtq americans and have a history of passing dangerous laws that have blocked women's access to health care. marginalized individuals in the states in the fifth circuit and all americans deserve judges who

will always use sound judgment and objectivity, not operate with extreme ideological agendas. i will oppose mr. duncan's nomination to the fifth circuit court of appeals, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president, i rise today to speak in opposition to the nomination of kyle duncan to the fifth circuit court of appeals. mr. duncan has spent large portions of his legal career seeking to suppress the rights of immigrants, minorities, women, and the lgbtq community. in short, his values are grossly out of touch with a modern and inclusive america. i can't say i'm surprised that mr. duncan, who has been nominated by a president who has called mexicans racist and drug dealers, president trump and mre extreme political ideology, especially regarding their view of immigrants. mr. dunn van, in an amicus brief challenging the -- in duncan, in an amicus brief, wrote that permitting dapa to go into effect would exacerbate the problem of violent crime by

unauthorized immigrants. this position advances the faults and offensive narrative that a majority of immigrants are violent criminals. in fact, dapa was a program that would have allowed the parent of a u.s. citizen, a lawful, permanent resident who had lived in the united states continuously for years and passed a criminal background check to remain in the united states with legal status and a work permit. this program was never implemented, but it would have kept families together, and to suggest that it would have benefited criminals and threatened public safety is just plain wrong. it fits with the republican party's misleading and racist attacks on immigrants in this country. mr. duncan makes these arguments despite overwhelming evidence that immigrants commit less crime than native-born americans. numerous law enforcement entities have voiced their support for dapa because the

program actually advances public safety by encouraging cooperation and trust between immigrant communities and the police. a year after voicing his opposition to dapa, mr. duncan submitted another amicus brief. this time he argued against the deferred action for childhood arrivals, known as daca, climbing -- claiming that it was unconstitutional. we know where mr. duncan stands in stereotyping immigrants. but mr. duncan is not just hostile to immigrants. he represented north carolina in its defense of a discriminatory voting law, urging the supreme court to hear the case. in the brief, duncan wrote, quote, the constitution does not allow the sins of civil rights-era legislators to be visited on their grandchildren and great grandchildren, close quote. yet, the fourth circuit court of appeals had found that the law was enacted with discriminatory intent and, quote, targeted

african americans with almost surgical precision. mr. duncan appeared to have clearly missed the point as to who the real victims were. in another voting rights case, duncan argued that texas' restrictive voter i.d. law helped to, quote, prevent voter fraud. although this myth has been debunked over and over and over again, the republican party, president trump, and mr. duncan continued to perpetuate this lie to the american people in an effort to suppress the voting rights of others. i would be remiss if i ended these remarks without noting mrg record on reproductive rights and his hostility towards the lgbtq community. he has continuously fought to restrict women's access to contraceptives. in 2013, he criticized the affordable care act's inclusion of contraceptives as an

essential benefit for the health and economic success of society, particularly women. given that he holds these views, it seems fitting that mr. duncan would serve as the lead counsel in hobby lobby versus burwell in which he argued that corporations have the right to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees. i'm sure he was pleased when the supreme court agreed with him, yet when the supreme court handed down its decision in overgethel versus hodges which recognizes same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, duncan said that such a decision, quote, raises a question about the legitimacy of the court. this comment cuts to the core of my opposition to mr. duncan. his disregard and contempt for judicial precedent he disagrees with. even before the supreme court considered same-sex marriage, duncan warned that if a court grants the right to a same-sex

marriage, they might have to grant the right to marry a first cousin or a 13-year-old. to clarify, this is a man who believes that the rights of a corporation to deny employees health benefits is perfectly constitution, if granting the right to same-sex marriage will lead us down the road to child marriage. mr. president, i know my colleagues are on a furious quest to pack the federal bench with conservative judges, judges some of them will hold outrageous views, views out of step with the american public. i do not trust nor does his record suggest that once mr. duncan puts on the judicial robe that he will uphold the rule of law for all americans and not those who just share his ideological views. i do not believe that he can be an unbiased jurist, and that's exactly why the president nominated him and his supporters will vote for him. i urge my colleagues to oppose

the nomination of mr. duncan. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i'm here to oppose the nomination of kyle duncan -- the presiding officer: senator, we are still in a quorum call. mr. blumenthal: i apologize. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i'm here to oppose the nomination of kyle duncan to be a judge on the united states circuit court for the fifth circuit, the court of appeals for that are circuit and every other in our country is supremely important to people, not only who live within its direct jurisdiction but all the people of our country. courts of appeals make decisions that are binding on the district

courts in that jurisdiction but also have impact on other judges and courts throughout the country at every level. the trump administration, from day one, has made attacking basic civil liberties a guiding principle of the policies it supports, including its judicial nominees. it is inexcusably seeking to turn back the clock on the progress that we've made and we fought back hard against these arcane and irrational policies but president trump's attempts to stack courts with extremist judges may, in the end, have the most long-lasting and

devastating impact on our nation. that's why i'm here today with many of my creation -- many of my colleagues to sound the alarm on kyle duncan. he has been nominated to this court, but he's made a career of seeking to turn back policies that protect the most vulnerable members of our country. he is out of the mainstream. in fact, he is out of the stream entirely. his views are stream and fringed and collectively make him unfit to be a judge on this court that i greatly respect. and out of respect to those members of the court, we should

confirm someone only if they meet those high standards. kyle duncan has attacked voting rights of minority groups, in one case defending a law that a federal circuit court said targeted african american voters with almost surgical precision. that's a quote, almost surgical precision. he's attacked the rights of same-sex couples. he's attacked the rights of the transgender community to be safe in their communities and schools. he's attacked protection of dreamers, making it harder for them to obtain documentation, like simple drivers licenses, and over and over he's attacked women rights and women's health in a way that i think disqualifies him for this court.

kyle duncan is an antichoice zealot who is more concerned about his own ideology that on r- -- than the issues. women's rights, to him, are not only morally repugnant but dangerous. kyle duncan has led the charge on unnecessary and unnecessary laws on abortion with little regard for the women who will be harmed as a result. these laws, which have spread around the country at an alarming rate serve no medical purpose. they putiers between -- they put barriers between the women and those who need care. twice duncan has falsely argued

that these restrictions targeting abortion in louisiana and texas, and i quote him here, were medley reasonable, end quote, and based on, and i quote him again, solid medical ground. both times the laws were struck down -- rightly struck down. indeed, these laws are the opposite of medically reasonable. they are based in no way on medical ground. with this nominee's enthusiastic support, these unconstitutional state-level issues have proliferated, shutting down women's health providers and putting women's health at risk. his peddling of misinformation as a lawyer, fighting for these unnecessary and unconstitutional abortion laws is frightening

enough now. imagine what he could do on the bench. he has fought to undo historic health victories provided by the affordable care act birth control mandate as we know in this chamber, i think we need to acknowledge this mandate has made a difference in the lives of an astonishing 64.2 million women who now are able to access birth control with no out-of-pocket costs last year alone. this has given women greater power over their health, well-being, their futures, their reproductive decisions, and their finances, and, yet, mr. duncan attacked the birth control mandate repeatedly. he sought to leave a woman's right to access affordable

health care to the whims of her employer. worse, he has absurdly denied that contraception is health care at all and has said the idea of contraception as a right is, quote, disturbing. it's a constitutional right. to him it's disturbing. what kind of a judge will he be? whatever kyle duncan believes, birth control is health care, her access to it is a right, and his ideologically driven salts are wrong. i will oppose kyle duncan's nomination to the fifth circuit court of appeals and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. kennedy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to complete my brief remarks before we vote on the nomination of mr. duncan. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. in a few minutes we're going to vote on the nomination of mr. kyle duncan for a position on the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. mr. duncan was nominated by president trump. he's been vetted, examined if you will, extensively by the white house. he has been vetted, examined if you will, by the department of justice. he has been vetted by the f.b.i.

he's been vetted by the american bar association. and he has been vetted by the senate's judiciary committee. and all of those entities have found that he is qualified. indeed, more than qualified, to sit on the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. if you look at his resume and his experience, mr. president, you will understand why. mr. duncan clerked for the honorable john dewey on the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. this is highly coveted, but judges usually pick the top students or members of their class. he has an l.m.n. from the columbia school of law, one of

the finest law schools. he is a graduate of l.u. law school and has a b.a. degree from louisiana state university as well. he has argued over 30 cases in federal and state appellate courts. some never argue a single one. he's briefed, prepared, and argued some 30 cases. he served in the office of attorney general in the state of louisiana as appellate chief. he's represented my state, many high-profile cases, and he also has experience as an assistant attorney general in the attorney general's office in texas. those who know kyle and those who have participated in the vetting process know that he is articulate, he's a careful thinker, he has a deep understanding of the importance

of separation of powers. and for that reason he's been supported by a bipartisan group of -- of both current and former lawyers. i do not recognize, mr. president, the -- kyle duncan being -- the kyle duncan being described by some of my colleagues. and i say this with all due respect. i think some of my colleagues, in criticizing mr. duncan, are confusing the role of the lawyer and the client. i used to practice law, mr. president. when a client came to me and said, canada, i -- canada, i -- kennedy, i need you to represent me. if his position was lawful, i would say, okay, tell me what your problem is and what your arguments are and i will look at it from my standpoint and maybe apply some additional arguments under the law.

but when my client described to me his problem and his analysis of it, i can't remember a single time when i said, oh, jeez, i don't agree with you. i don't like your publics. i just -- politics. i just don't agree with your position. but that's not my role as a lawyer. my role as a lawyer, so long as my client is legal, it is to represent my client. and my role is not to substitute my judgment for his. i listened to my colleagues' scrivment of mr. duncan -- criticism of mr. duncan. they said in this case he said that, in this case over here he said that. they say it like it's his point of view. it's his client's point of view.

mr. duncan is a senior partner in a boutique firm, which, of course, is a smaller firm that has a specialty here in be washington, d.c., and clients from all over the country and all over the world come to him with constitutional law problems and they ask him to litigate it. they ask him to espouse their point of you, not mr. duncan's point of you, the client's point of you. and it's just not fair, mr. president, and it seems to me to criticize a lawyer for doing what he is bound by our code of ethics and indeed the law to do. if i didn't think kyle duncan wouldn't call the balls and the strikes based on the rule of law that we cherish in america, i wouldn't be standing here today. but he will. and i would respectfully suggest

all my colleagues to put aside the politics, put aside whether they like president trump or not, and look at this man for himself and what they'll see is a very qualified, very successful lawyer who worships the rule of law and will apply the law as this congress and the united states supreme court has dictated. thank you, mr. president. with that i suggest the absence of a quorum. i withdraw that request, mr. president. the presiding officer: i thank the senator from louisiana. under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the question occurs on the duncan nomination. mr. kennedy: i would ask for the yeas and nays, mr. president.

the presiding officer: is there sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

.

the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to

vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 50. the nays are 47. the nomination is confirmed. the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 788, mike pompeo. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of state. mike pompeo of kansas to be secretary.

mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of mike pompeo of kansas to be secretary of state7 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar 619, richard grenell. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the

nomination. the clerk: nomination. department of state. richard grenell of california to be ambassador of the united states of america to the federal republic of germany. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of richard grenell of california to be ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the united states of america of the federal republic of germany -- mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call for the cloture motion be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that with respect to the duncan nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be h immediately

notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i was reading a piece in the wall street journal by the chairman of the white house economic advisors. his piece made an important point. that is when american businesses

benefit, american workers benefit. my friends on the other side of the aisle like to obfuscate that point. presumably they think they can gain political points by pitting workers and businesses against each other as if benefits for businesses and benefits for workers are somehow opposed. as somehow workers could thrive while businesses are strugglingi pointed out and i quote nrks a modern competitive economy, workers do well when their employers do well. end quote. and really, it's just common sense if you think about it, mr. president. the vast majority of working americans work for businesses. whether they're self-employed, an employee of a small business or an employee of a large corporation. and for those employees to thrive, the businesses that they're working for have to thrive as well. struggling businesses do not

invest in workers. they can't. they don't hire new employees. they don't raise wages. they don't improve benefits. thriving bigs, on the other hand -- thriving businesses, on the other hand, do invest in workers. they do hire new employees. they do raise wages. and they do improve benefits. leaving aside the fact that most business owners want to invest in their workers, successful business owners have to invest in their workers if they want their businesses to keep thriving. for starters, successful businesses tend to need new workers. and the way to attract new workers is with good wages, good opportunities, and good benefits. and once a successful business has good employees, it tends to want to keep them so that the business can keep prospering and thriving. and how do businesses keep

employees? the same way that they track them in the first place, with good wages, good opportunities, and good benefits. or, as mr. hassett notes and i quote, research shows that more profitable employers pay higher wages. any company that attempts to pay a worker less than he is worth will quickly lose that worker to a competitor. thus, firms that want to thrive must invest in their plants and their workers. that's end quote. mr. president, ask any business owner in the country and he or she will tell you it's a competitive labor market. unemployment is at a 17-year low and in a tight, competitive labor market, employers have to work to keep their employees. mr. president, our focus with

last fall's tax reform was on making life better for ordinary americans. so we set out to put more money in their pockets right away by cutting tax rates across the board nearly doubling the standard deduction, and doubling the child tax credit. as a result, for 2018, a family of four making $73,000 will see a tax cut of more than $2,000. but we knew that tax cuts, as helpful as they are, weren't enough. americans also needed access to profitable careers, to the good jobs, the good wages, and the good opportunities. and we knew that the only way to guarantee access to good jobs, wages and opportunities, was to make sure that businesses were prosperous enough to create and maintain them. so when it came time for tax reform, we set out to improve the playing field for american workers by improving the playing

field for businesses as well. and it's working. companies are putting tax reform to work. they're investing in new equipment, expanding their facilities, and growing their lines of business, all of which means more jobs and opportunities for americans. and most importantly, companies are passing along the benefits of tax reform. company after company has announced pay raises, bonuses, 401(k) match increases, and other benefits for their workers. others are passing tax savings on to their customers in the form of things like utility rate cuts and the tax reform law has boldly been in place for four months. as businesses continue to see the benefits of tax reform, we can expect to see the playing field for workers continue to improve. ultimately, by helping american businesses thrive, tax reform will help give more americans access to the kinds of jobs,

wages, and opportunities that will not only benefit them right now but will give them access to security and prosperity for the long term. mr. president, before i close, i'd like to take a couple of minutes to discuss the nomination of mike pompeo to be secretary of state. i don't need to tell anyone how incredibly qualified he is for this job. first in his class at west point, five years of active duty service in the army achieving the rank of captain. editor of the harvard law review, elected to congress four times by kansas' fourth congressional district and serving on the house intelligence committee. and finally, director of the central intelligence agency. clearly he has proven his dedication as a public servant and is an outstanding candidate for secretary of state. his nomination should be sailing through the senate and normally

it would be. prior to this presidency, we were on a pretty bipartisan track for secretary of state confirmations. members of both parties believed that it was important that a president have a national security team to support him. and they voted accordingly. john kerry was confirmed as secretary of state by a vote of 94-3. hillary clinton was confirmed as secretary of state by a vote of 94-2. condoleezza rice was confirmed as secretary of state by a vote of 85-13 and colin powell was confirmed as secretary of state unanimously. now, this doesn't mean that republicans agreed with all of john kerry's or hillary clinton's policy positions or the democrats agreed with all of condoleezza rice's or colin powell's. but members of both parties recognize that these nominees were qualified and they believed

that partisanship shouldn't play a role when it came to making sure the president had a national security team to support him. fast forward to today, mr. president. gone is the bipartisanship of the past. today democrats are obstructing an entirely and eminently qualified candidate for secretary of state for the sole reason that they don't like this president. they didn't get their way in the last election and in response they've spent the last year and more obstructing one qualified nominee after another. mr. president, i get that the democrats don't like president trump, but when you're a member of the united states senate, you have to think beyond your own preferences and accept the fact that in a free country with free elections, sometimes you don't get your way. obstructing nominees has consequence, mr. president. -- consequences, mr. president. at the very least delaying a president es ability to staff his administration diminishes his ability to serve the

american people effectively. but that's not all. obstructing certain nominees, like a nominee for secretary of state, can have consequences for our national security and diplomacy. an incomplete national system is detriment to the safety and security of our country. right now, mr. president, the united states and our allies are currently facing a number of serious challenges from north korea and increasingly an emboldened iran to chemical attacks in syria and the ever present threat of terrorism. it is vital that the president have a fully equipped national security team to monitor and address these dangers. and it is beyond irresponsible that senate democrats are compromising the president's ability to respond to threats simply because they would prefer not to confirm anyone that he's nominated. mr. president, democrats should immediately drop their obstruction of mike pompeo and

confirm him as secretary of state, and they should stop from blocking other qualified nominees like a native from my home state of south dakota who has been nominated for under secretary. mr. president, you think democrats would be content with their unpressed obstruction of the president's nominees but unfortunately there's another thing democrats are obstructing right now and that's the coast guard authorization bill. once again, it's clear that democrats are obstructing not because they have serious objections to the bill but because obstruction has become their default response to legislation in the republican-led congress. democrats claim that the coast guard reauthorization bill has not received sufficient input or debate, and that could not be further from the truth. the portion of the bill they're ostensibly concerned about, vida, has been introduced in the last five congresses, more than

one of those times by democrats. the current version of the bill is the product of not just months but years of hearings, meetings, and negotiations. and despite the fact that this year's original version of vida had bipartisan support, we made a number of further concessions to address concerns that have been raised by democrat senators. but they just keep moving the goal post. and it's become pretty clear that democrats' real objection is not to the bill itself but to working with republicans or to seeing the president accomplish anything. mr. president, i hardly need to say that the coast guard authorization bill is an important bill. it authorizes the coast guard's funding as well as pay and benefits for coast guard personnel who play a vital role in maintaining national security and law and order in the waters around the united states. mr. president, it will be nice if democrats would consider dropping their partisan objections and working with republicans to pass this

essential piece of legislation. and to work with us on helping get confirmed, particularly critical national security nominees at a time when we face an array of threats across the entire planet. nominees like secretary of state, particularly well qualified ones, are not to be tripled with. it's not a time to play politics when you're dealing with america's vital national security interests. so i would hope that this chamber, this body would return to the tradition that we have had in past administrations where we've approved secretaries of state, as i said earlier, by votes of 94-3, 94-2, 85-13, and unanimously. those are the last four secretaries of state. this has turned into a partisan game, if you will, at a time when our country really can't afford to have us playing

partisan games. so i hope that when this vote comes up later this week, we'll have a big bipartisan vote consistent with our history, consistent with the fact when you have a qualified nominee for an important position like this, that this senate comes together, takes very seriously its constitutional role in the confirmation process and has that vote and hopefully a big bipartisan vote in support of mike pompeo. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: mr. president, i've been pleased to hear about the progress and the planned negotiations with north korea over their nuclear program. i was glad to hear director pompeo's successful visit to north korea, and i as much as anyone in this body wishes the

administration success in these talks and negotiations. given the history of broken promises, i have my doubts as to whether or not the north korean regime has any genuine interest or willingness to denuclearize, but even a freeze would be welcomed. however, i am concerned by the language used by the president today when discussing the north korean regime. to say that kim jong-un has been very open or very honorable, as the president did, surpasses understanding. if this description of one of the world's strong man dictators was a singular event, a one-off statement, it could perhaps be excused as an aberration but unfortunately it's not. it's part of a larger pattern of

excusing dictatorial behavior that we should not countenance. mr. president, we need not sacrifice the truth and reject objective reality in pursuit of our goals. we cannot pretend that kim jong-un of today is somehow different from the authoritarian dictator who has ruled over one of the most violent and repressive regimes on earth. i'm happy to here that the north korean government is apparently engaged as an honest broker in the process of arranging for these talks, but i believe that how the president of the united states describes world leaders matters. and for the president to describe a leader who stands incredibly accused of starving his own people, vie lefntsly -- violently executing his political opponents and murdering members of his own family as very open and very honorable is beyond comprehension.

furthermore, it undermines the moral authority we have long possessed on the world stage. the president himself has previously declared kim jong-un as, quote, obviously a madman who doesn't mind starving or killing his own people. the president has also repeatedly and correctly referred to the north korean regime's violent torture of ototote warmbier as horrible. the pursuit of these negotiations does not require that we surrender the values we stand for as a nation. we cannot pretend the atrocities of the north korean regime are a thing of the past. we need to enter these negotiations with our eyes wide open. we must understand and recognize who it is we are sitting across the table from. only then do i believe that we will actually succeed in these

negotiations and emerge from this planned summit with the result that we all seek -- a safer world. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cortez masto: thank you. there's a saying that there's no such thing as a free lunch. but what about other things? what about free language spanish

ed classes or free classes and notebooks in the months before school starts? free turkeys on the week before thanksgiving? these things are all given away by a self-described grassroots organization dedicated to a free and open society. the events were held in latino communities across the country including las vegas, miami, and orlando. people attending these events are asked to fill out a questionnaire. questions included, are you more likely to voter a republican or a -- to vote for a republican or a democrat in the 2018 election? do you feel the government should increase or decrease federal funding in order to improve the federal economy and what is your name, e-mail address and telephone number? people actually had to hand over their personal data in exchange for free stuff. so the stuff wasn't really free after all but close enough, right?

well, in a career spent as a prosecutor, i've learned one thing -- always follow the money. if you follow the money just one step back, you learn that lee wray is a shell organization funded by charles and david koch, two of the most powerful men in american politics. charles and david koch are the owners of koch industries, a massive energy company that manufactures, distributes, and refines petroleum. koch industry is one of the largest privately held companies in the nation with estimated annual revenues of over $100 billion. what does all this mean? it means that the koch brothers are two very, very rich men, and there's nothing wrong with that. but what is wrong is the way the koch brothers use their money -- to hijack our democracy for their own benefit. they are self-described radicals that believe that the government should play no role in americans' lives. the koch brothers leave in a

world with no medicare, no social security, no federal minimum wage, no public programs that support families when they fall on hard times, and no rules preventing koch industries from polluting our air, drinking water, or our public lands. the koch brothers hate environmental regulations because koch industries is one of the top ten worst polluters in the united states. fewer environmental regulations means the koch brothers can obtain bigger financial gains. to keep their empire afloat, the koch brothers are not just polluting our environment, they're polluting our political system and they're polluting our airwaves with false advertising. the kochs want americans to believe that climate change is a conspiracy despite the global scientific consensus that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels. why would they want to cast doubt on scientific fact? because the koch brothers sell

and burn fossil fuels for a living and they believe protecting our environment is -- is bad for their bottom line. they funnel money through a network of nonprofit organizations, foundations, and shell companies. these companies lobby the government, produce fake research reports, and run ad campaigns to manipulate and deceive the american people. buying a democracy does not come cheap, but the koch brothers are not stingy. in 23010, the year citizens united opened the floodgates, the kochs spent $125 million to support republican candidates who pledged to role back environmental and consumer protections. since 20910 elections, their influence has grown. they've spent hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars supporting candidates who spread lies that climate change is a conspiracy, that immigrants cause crime, that more money in the koch brothers' pocket means

more money in yours. and now the koch brothers have big plans for the upcoming 2018 election. they have announced that they will spend $400 million in the upcoming election cycle, their largest midterm election investment yet. much of that money will be spent directly targeting latinos through advertisements, events, and workshops. the koch brothers think they can buy the latino vote, just like they bought the votes of the house freedom caucus and so many republican politicians. but despite what their ads say, the koch brothers are not advocates for the latino community. they are advocates for more money in their own pockets, nothing more. the koch brothers have supported some of the most anti-immigrant politicians in america, including lou we gomer, mom -- mike pompeo and chris co-bash. these are the men responsible

for policies like trump's muslim ban and arizona's anti-immigrant law s.v.10700. the koch brothers support politicians who want to end government funding for planned parenthood. if they get their way, latinos would be hurt the most. more than 23% of planned parenthood patients are latinas. latinas are more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than women in any other racial or ethnic group. planned parenthood gives them access to annual screenings so they can stay healthy and cancer-free. and the koch brothers support school choice, which they say gives latino families more freedom in how they educate their kids. but school choice vouchers take money out of the public school system, causing many latino kids whose parents can't afford private schools to fall behind. and the koch brothers are close allies of betsy devos, our current education secretary. her claim to fame is her role in

dragging michigan's public education system to the bottom of national rankings and leaving thousands of students without access to a quality education. to make matters worse, the kochs are working to undermine access to health insurance for working people. latinos are less likely to have health insurance than any other racial or ethnic group. without health insurance, a trip to the e.r. can result in a bill so expensive that a family can't pay their month -- their rent fort months. organizations will tell you that their agenda is to promote self-sufficiency. they put out propaganda that democrats don't believe in freedom because we believe that government has a role in protecting access to affordable health care, clean water, air, and quality schools. the koch brothers love freedom, but their freedom is to pollute our rivers, administration, and air. democrats -- rivers, streams, and air. democrats believe in the freedom

to breathe clean air and drink clean water. the freedom to walk away from a trip to the e.r. without a medical bill that costs more than what you make in a overwhelm the freedom to walk into planned parenthood and walk out with information you need to make your own reproductive choices. we don't believe in the kind of freedom that allows charles and david koch to pull the strings of our democracy. how can anyone call that freedom at all? what the koch brothers and their web of dark money organizations like lee wray are really doing is deceiving latinos and supporting the very same politicians are working against latino families. so this year as the koch brothers are pulling out their checkbooks to fund their disinformation campaign, follow the money. follow the money to find out who's paying for that glossy ad you see on tv. follow the money that flows through lee ray and other koch-backed organizations to

politicians who vote against immigrants, dreamers and refugees. the koch brothers have spent millions of dollars funding tea party candidates in congress, the main obstacles to immigration reform. what good are school supplies and driver education classes and free health checkups if parents of american citizens are getting deported? if schools in our communities are being gutted? and if community health clinics are closing their doors? the latino community in nevada and communities of color across america are strong, resilient, and diverse. we will not be fooled by false advertising. so many of our family members came to this country because they knew what it was like to live under the rule of oligarchs and elites. they came here because they wanted to have the freedom to pursue their dreams. charles and david koch want to

buy latino votes, buy our voices, to buy our democracy which folks like my dad, manny cortez, worked all their lives to protect. but i believe in the wisdom of the american people, mr. president. i believe in the wisdom of our voters who will fight the lies, just like they did in nevada two years ago. i've seen the kochs' power and influence firsthand. they spent $10 million trying to defeat me in 2016. they threw millions to buy off latino voters in nevada but they failed because democrats in congress continue to beat the drum and make voters aware of the lies. and i'll keep fighting to do the same in the senate. so thank you, mr. president, and i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

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

we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we, we are. ms. warren: i -- yes, we are. ms. warren: i ask that it be limited. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: thank you. i would like to take a moment to thank senator whitehouse for his bold leadership and to continue the fight to rid our system of dark money. all across our country teachers are taking to the streets to demand what no teacher should ever have to ask for, fair pay and decent benefits. in state after state, education has been cut to the bone. they have even cut the bone. kids are crammed into overcrowded classrooms. they are handedded tattered textbooks, and their teachers are paid so little, that some qualify for food stamps. in fact, salaries are so low in some states that teachers are working two, three, and sometimes four jobs just to make ends meet. now, many people don't know this but teachers have always had a very special place in my heart.

as a little girl growing up in oklahoma, there was one person i admired more than anyone else in the world, my second grade teach her -- teacher, ms. lee. i will never forget the day that mrs. lee took me aside and explained that if i worked hard, i could become a teacher, too. those words changed my life. today i am the daughter of a maintenance man who became a teacher, a professor, and a united states senator, because america invested in teachers like mrs. lee, and that meant investing in thousands of students that she reached through the years. i am grateful to that america. i believe in that america. but i'll be honest. i am scared to death that our children and grandchildren may never know that america. right now in one of the richest nations on the planet, american teachers are getting crushed. i want to tell you about one of those teachers.

jonathan moy or mr. moy as his students call him, his teacher in oklahoma. now, every week mr. moy juggles six jobs in addition to teaching. he coaches two sports teams, drives for uber and lyft, drives a school bus and umpires a little legal team so -- little league team so he can provide for his two daughters. sadly, mr. moy's story is becoming all too common. according to one estimate, teachers are five times more likely than other workers to have a second job. no wonder teachers are taking to the streets in west virginia and oklahoma and kentucky and arizona. they have had enough. i'm standing shoulder to shoulder with teachers across the country because they deserve better, because our children deserve better, and because investment in teachers is an investment in our kids and ultimately an investment in our

future. so like many of my colleagues in this chamber and fellow democrats across the country, i'm in this fight for the long haul. but if we are to be successful, if we are ever to hope that we can prevail, we should be clear-eyed about what it is that we're up against. the perilous state of affairs for education funding in our states is not the simple result of a bunch of legislators who after listening to their constituents decided against supporting public education. no. the movement of teacher protests sweeping the country has revealed corruption, corruption that republican-control states have been sweeping under the rug for decades. the steep cuts to education are the product of an all-out assault on our teachers and our schools that has been launched by a handful of billionaires. one of the principle tools rich

and powerful people use is dark money. they have created an evasive enemy that slithers out of sight with only a glimpse here or there, but make no mistake. this dark money has helped shape the antiteacher, antiworker agenda that undermines our democracy. for decades billionaires have been pouring unlimited secret money into the hands of carefully picked candidates who will do their bidding. we often talk about the influence of dark money, and what it has right here in washington. but the truth is, the real battle is being fought out on the state and local level. consider the state policy network, s.p.n. it's an umbrella alliance of over 60-member organizations covering nearly every state in the united states. their member organizations hide

behind deceptively a-political names like the platt institute for economic research or the thomas jefferson institute for public policy. but these organizations, they are anything but a-political. these groups are the propaganda arm of right-wing billionaires. the state policy network, for example, is bankrolled by the koch brothers through organizations like donors trust, one of the kochs' favorite investment arms. in 2016 alone, donors trust made $20.3 million in grants to state policy network members. in addition to affiliates, the state policy network has over 80 associate members. it's a who's who of right-wing koch-funded groups like americans for prosperity foundation, the americans for tax reform foundation, the kato

-- the kite toe institute and the heritage -- kato institution and the heritage foundation. they're among the biggest corporations including tobacco giant philip morris, food giant kraft and glaxo cline. the myriad affiliates is to trick the public into thinking they are genuine, unbiased think tanks researching public policy issues. think that instead of right-wing billionaire-funded groups dedicated to hijacking every legislature in america and passing laws that work for their corporations while they leave everyone else behind. with friends like the aggressively antiunion koch brothers, it should come as no surprise that one of the state policy network's top priorities is dismantling public sector unions. in a 2016 fund raising letter, the state policy network stated

that its goal was to, quote, defund and defang government unions. and it bragged about the work of its affiliates to supply -- and i'm quoting here again -- quote, intellectual ammunition to weaken unions in states across the country. it touted its work in west virginia, indiana, michigan, and wisconsin, in shepherding passage of laws that made it harder for unions to collect union dues that cover the costs of collective bargaining. although it focuses on state policy, the state policy network's agenda could have nationwide effects. just look at the supreme court case janis v. asfme which will determine if public sector unions which represents teachers, nurses, firefighters, police officers in states and cities around this country will actually be able to collect fees from workplaces they represent, fees that allow them to

negotiate for better pay, better wages, and better working conditions. the illinois policy institute, an affiliate of the state policy network, works closely with the groups pushing the court to cut off unions' funding and force them to represent workers who do not pay dues. the state policy network's attack on workers is just one prong of a much larger campaign to hand government over to the rich and powerful. as one of the many tentacles of the koch network, the state policy network also works to gut environmental protections that prevent big corporations from poisoning our water, our food, and our air. it works to dismantle medicaid and other health care protections that provide vulnerable low-income individuals with basic health care. it works to slash income and other state taxes that provide critical funds for basic

government services. and it works to weaken public pensions that provide government workers with financial security and retirement. billionaires and special interests are conspiring to buy our political system. we cannot allow this to happen. that's why i'm proud to join my colleagues in support of bills like the disclosed act to shine a light on the dark web of billionaires who have their hands tightly gripped around the neck of our democracy. our government should belong to the people, not to wealthy special interests. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. president, i would ask for a vitiation of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you, mr. president, very much. borrowing from a phrase from senator whitehouse of rhode island, it is time to wake up to the threat of climate change. we must open our eyes to the insidious web of deceit that the koch brothers, in alliance with the trump administration, are weaving to promote an antiscience, anti-consumer, anti-renewable energy agenda.

this web of deceit is something which the koch brothers are proud of. just last week they bragged to donors in a report that they were responsible for president trump's policy. repealing the clean power plan, check. attacking public lands, check. attempting to gut bedrock environmental laws for infrastructure projects, check. leaving the paris climate accord, check. tax giveaways to big oil and other fossil fuel corporations, check. -- check plus. the first year of the trump administration has been a koch brothers' wish list and they are popping their champagne bottles all the way to the bank. in fact, the various front groups and trade organizations that pushed president trump to

exit the paris climate accord accepted almost $7 million from these koch brothers directly. those groups took millions more from other anti-climate groups which were also funded by the koch brothers. it is a tangled web they weave with their money. and that's what the koch brothers have bought, a network of individuals, shady front -- shady front groups whose sole purpose is to undermine the planet from climate change. like a real spiderweb, it's hard to see this web of deceit unless the light catches it just the right way. i'm going to shine a light on a few threads of this web tonight. the threads that make up the effort to undermine the scientific consensus on climate

change. the koch brothers and their co2 coalition. one of these threads is the co2 coalition because this group founded in 2015 with the remains of the defunct george c. incity ought to -- a nutrient vital for lifetime the co2 coalition started with the george marshal institute, another koch-backed front group left off, disseminating information, particularly around global warming. total funding from the koch-related foundations for the co2 coalition is more than $650,000 since 2004. in addition to the kochs, the billionaire conservative mercer family also gave the co2 coalition $150,000 in 2016, and

that's just what we know of. for those not familiar, the board of the co2 coalition includes the controversial physicist william happer, who has testified in front of congress multiple times to push climate denialism and the self-serving interests of the fossil fuel industry and the koch brothers. when i was chairman of the haas select committee on energy independence and global warming, dr. happer advocated in testimony for the government to support a, quote, alternative hypothesis, which amounted to denial of climate change. this alternative hypothesis was the grandfather of another familiar term the trump administration's so-called alternative facts. alternative hypothesis.

and so during those years that i was the chairman of the select committee on energy independence and global warming and over the subcommittee on energy and environment of the energy and commerce committee, i conducted nearly i 100 hearings. they went on hours and hours. we're talking 200, 300 hours of hearings where we were able to hear these crack pot theories that were enunciated and debunked at that time. but despite his views on climate science being routinely debunked, including what happened in my hearing back then, dr. happer continues to be called as an expert witness by republicans in congress and from this platform he spreads doubt and misinformation about climate

change. he has called carbon, quote, a benefit to the earth. an absurd raiseable assertion that is in complete contrast to the findings of the e.p.a. in the vast majority of climate -- and the vast majority of climate scientists. but that is because of its materials. the co2 coalition states it has the express purpose of educating thought leaders, policymakers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy. in reality, the co2 coalition writes articles, produces videos, and uses this content to spread lies about climate change through social media. they seek not to inform but to deform consensus, scientific views at the bidding of their fossil fuel funders, the koch brothers.

here's some information about carbon dioxide that the co2 coalition fails to mention in its love letter to fossil fuels. every ton of carbon we emit costs us $36. that's the social cost of carbon. the cost to all of us of emitting an extra ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. that carbon pollution is endangering human health, and it costs us money as a society to treat the damage it does to the health of our planet and the people who live on the planet. carbon pollution is not a vital nutrient for life, as the co2 coalition asserts. it is a dangerous pollutant for our society when it is inside of our atmosphere at dangerous levels. at dangerous levels. but the co2 coalition is

southernly not the only fossil fuel-supported group that is weaving this web of deceit, especially when it comes to talking about the importance of, quote, the free market. fossil fuel-funded climate deniers often have selective memory loss. the lexington institute, which has received funding from fossil fuel companies like exxonmobil, insist that renewables can't compete in the free market with fossil fuels without federal subsidies. but that assumes that the fossil fuel industry has succeeded in the free market all on its own. it has not. adam smith is spinning in his grave wondering how the fossil fuel industry gets such subsidies. in factst as a matter of fact, he's spinning so fast, he would qualify for a a subsidy under the tax policies which republicans put in place. federal subsidies for the fossil fuel industry are more than a

hundred years old and account for nearly $15 billion each ye year, subsidizing an oil company to drill oil or a coal company to mine is like paying a fish to swim or a bird to fly. you don't have to do it. and the tax breaks for the oil and gas industries are permanent pieces of the tax code. these payouts automatically continue year after year forever into infinity. they never decrease. they never go away. but that is certainly not the case for renewable energy industries like solar and wind. these industries have had to endure the uncertainty of not knowing if their tax breaks will expire. and now tax breaks for wind are scheduled to end completely next year. that will never happen to a fossil fuel tax break. the tax breaks for solar will

end in 2021. but for the fossil fuel industry, those tax breaks never come off the books. because they fight against special tax breaks for wind and solar. oh, my goodness, who would want to help them. well, in fact taking $15 billion a year and every year for 100 years distorting the free market. with the support of companies like skphoeubl -- exxonmobil the company is spinning a web of deceit. the koch brothers and their allies aren't doing this alone. they have found their most ardent ally in their campaign to attack climate science in president donald trump. throughout the trump administration there is a

concerted effort to deny, to delay and defund the science of climate change in an unprecedented way. just look at the president's big oil all-star cabinet. at one point we had former exxon c.e.o. rex tillerson as secretary of state. we still have rick perry at the department of energy oklahoma's oil oligarch scott pruitt is heading the environmental protection agency. all of these oil allies have voiced doubts about the existence of climate change and the role of humans in causing it. but no one is doing more to help anchor the various strains of the web of deceit on climate science in the trump administration more than the e.p.a.'s scott pruitt. mr. pruitt announced today a new proposed rule purr porting to -- purporting to, quote, strengthen trarpbs paeurpbs and valid --

transparency and validity in regulatory science. what exactly did this new secret science rule really mean? well, the proposal would actually do the opposite of what its name suggests. this proposal would actually restrict the use of scientific research that e.p.a. officials can use in crafting new regulations. under the guise of so-called transparency, the trump administration would allow the e.p.a. to consider research studies for which the underlying data are publicly available. what this proposed change would really do is effectively block the agency from relying on long-standing important studies like those that link lead exposure to devastating neurological damage. scott pruitt, at the behest of big oil and interests like the koch brothers, want to deny e.p.a. scientists access to

critical information in order to shield polluters such as coal and chemical companies. and today as pruitt ceremoniously announced his new rule he was accompanied by william happer of the co2 coalition. the web of deceit is very real. no matter what scott pruitt tries to undo at the e.p.a., no matter what groups the koch brothers try and fund the truth is all too clear. climate change is happening now. last year we experienced a record $16 billion storms, extreme weather events, and climate-related disasters more than any year in recorded history. hurricanes ravaged texas, florida, puerto rico. the recovery from hurricane harvey alone is projected to

cost $180 billion. that's the damage. even as republicans fight to take the wind and solar tax breaks off the books. this year in massachusetts, we have already experienced four nor easters before the end of march. three of those storms cost more than $1 billion, that is the earliest in any year recorded that we have have had three storms of this devastation. the cost of these storms speak for themselves. we simply can't afford to deny the impacts and reality of climate change any more. our greatest weapon in fighting deceit, in tearing down this web is sunlight. the sunlight of truth and the sunlight that is fueling the solar revolution. it's a clean energy revolution that is fueling blue-collar jock creation in our -- job creation in our kpwheu and it is

happening all around this country and around the globe. renewable energy is the greatest force for blue-collar job creation in the history of the united states. right now wind and solar are generating 7% to 8% of the electricity we consume every day in the united states. right now we have more than 90,000 megawatts of wind. we have more than 50,000 megawatts of solar installed in the united states. by 2020, we are projected to have 120,000 megawatts of wind. we will have more than 90,000 megawatts of solar. solar is projected to add an additional 35,000 combined megawatts in 2021 and 2022. that means that by the end of 2022, we could have over 250,000 megawatts of wind and solar installed in the united states. so you can see what is happening now with wind and solar after it

had been essentially stopped by the fossil fuel industry for 100 years. this could have happened 50 years ago. this could have happened 100 years ago. but now finally because of democratic policies, we have been able to finally unleash this revolution. and what is accompanying that wind and solar revolution? jobs. blue-collar jobs. we now have 350,000 americans working in wind and solar. by 2020, we are going to have 500,000 workers in wind and solar. the majority of our solar jobs, 137,000, are electricians. they're roofers doing the installation. 38,000 jobs are in manufacturing. these are good blue-collar jobs. 25,000 of our wind jobs are in manufacturing. 35,000 are in construction, development, and transportation. these are good-paying

blue-collar jabs. and why is this renewable revolution unstoppable? why is this job creation that is good for all of creation unstoppable? it is because the cost of renewables is plummeting. the cost of solar has fallen 50% to 60% over the last five to six years. the cost of wind has fallen 66% since 2009. in fact, wind and solar are generally cheaper than coal and nuclear energy are right now. coal is losing the war against wind and solar in the free market. it's not a conspiracy against coal. it's competition for coal that has finally emerged. that is what is happening. coal is losing in the marketplace. and that's not just happening here in the united states.

it's happening around the entire world. mexico had a power auction at the end of november where the average price for solar was1.9 cents per kilowatt hour. in 2017, solar in saudi arabia came in at 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. in dubai it's 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour. half all tr-rs installed around -- electricity installed around the world was renewable. this is a global clean energy race. it is a global job creation race. and the koch brothers and their fossil fuel hraepls -- allies want to take the united states of america out of this revolution. but global temperatures are rising, but the cost of renewables is plummeting. there is no denying the science

of climate change or the mathematics behind the renewable revolution. for decades the koch brothers have perpetrated a fraud on the american people about climate change. they have worked to discredit science in order to sow doubt. they are funding a web of deceit that spreads misinformation and undermines the urgency needed to address the generational challenge of climate change. we must fight back with education, with urgency, and with facts, and ultimately with action. and that's why this week i have introduced with my colleagues here in the senate and in the house the climate change education act. this legislation would promote climate literacy by broadening students' understanding of climate change, the consequences of climate change, and the potential solutions. this bill would give students, teachers, and families the tools they need to protect our planet for future generations. we must take the climate deniers

and the fossil fuel funders to task while their opposition to the clean energy opportunities that could win the battle against climate change. we have a chance to unleash a clean energy revolution that creates jobs as it cuts dangerous carbon pollution. we are here on the floor today to cut down this tangled web of deceit, to shine a light on the lies that emanate from this koch brother-funded web of deceit that has tried its best to stop this clean energy revolution. but as you can see, this revolution has taken off in the united states as it has taken off around the rest of the planet. and it will not be denied. the green generation, the young generation in our country will not be denied. they want to see a wind and solar and all electric vehicle

revolution take place which changed the course of history. that's why we're out here today to let the rest of the world know that we're in this fight, and we are going to win it. mr. president, with that, i yield back the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president, for the recognition. i'm going to focus, as senator markey has, and several of my colleagues before me on this web of deceit that we have been talking about here today.

the koch brothers' web of dark money, lobbyists and infiltration into the trump administration that truly, truly threatens our democracy. the influence of their hundreds of millions of dollars is pervasive, pernicious, and hidden. i applaud senator whitehouse's work to focus public attention on this threat. and thank you to my colleagues for shining a spotlight on the murky tentacles of the koch influence empire here in washington, especially their influence on the swamp that is the trump administration. and we must keep fighting for comprehensive campaign finance and electoral reform to get dark money like the koch brothers out of our politics. the colm family business start -- the koch family business started in oil, and koch industries is still heavily invested in petroleum and petroleum products. its subsidiary flint hill

resources owns three oil refineries. koch pipeline company owns and operates 4,000 miles of pipeline that transport oil, refined petroleum, and natural gas through six states. koch industries is the largest foreign and american lease holder in canada's oil sands, possibly leasing up to two million acres. as well, each year koch industries markets, trades, and manages logistics for tons of coal and petroleum koch. koch industries makes billions from oil and gas and coal, and it's no secret they're willing to spend millions to keep it that way. two organizations formed through the koch brothers' vast wealth are the institute for energy research and its lobbying arm and the american energy alliance. both koch-funded groups are

antirenewable, profossil fuel and climate change deniers. the institute is a 501-c-3 organization formed in 1989 from a predecessor directed by charles koch and robert bradley jr. mr. bradley led public policy for enron before its scandal and bankruptcy. he founded the institute and remains its c.e.o. he is also affiliated with a koch-funded cato institute and competitive enterprise institute. the alliance is the institute's political arm, a 501-c-4 organization founded in 2008. the 501-c-4's are political organizations. they don't have to disclose their donors. they can engage in all sorts of politicking and lobbying, and they can spend unlimited amounts of money. the alliance share's office

space and staff, including the president with the institute. their joint president is thomas pile who had previously lobbied for koch industries. they receive funding directly and not so directly from the koch brothers. since 2008, one or the other has received funding from the charles koch institute and antigovernment group formed from the charles g. koch charitable foundation, freedom partners called the koch brothers secret bank, a 501-c-6 organization that gives tens of millions of dollars to extreme causes. the wellspring committee, inc, funded with koch brothers' help, donors trust, a pass-through organization for the koch brothers and other ultrawealthy donors trying to hide contributions and many other like-minded, antirenewable pro-

fossil fuel groups that the koch brothers fund or are tied to. between 2010 and 2014, the institute for alliance received more than $5 million in koch-related funding. the institute and alliance are in the business of discrediting renewable energy, promoting fossil fuels, and denying climate change under the guise of providing independent analysis. their staffs have appeared before state regulatory commissions, giving expert testimony, claiming the renewable energy is too expensive and unreliable, that states should not increase their renewable portfolio requirements, and that fossil fuels, even coal, are more economical. in 2013, for example, their director of regulatory and state affairs, daniel simmons, claimed in a michigan regulatory hearing that the electricity rates of

states with renewable requirements is 27% higher than states without a renewable standard. but that same year, lawrence berkeley national laboratory found that the incremental rate of renewable portfolio standards was 2%, and a report by the michigan public service commission found that the cost of renewable sources is declining and is cheaper than the new coal-fired generation. also in 2013, mr. simmons attacked a federal clean energy standard bill introduced by my fellow new mexican, senator bingaman that i cosponsored, mro claim that carbon dioxide emissions from power plants should not be counted as pollutants, arguing that -- and i quote here, that carbon dioxide itself is not dirty, end quote. mr. simmons' cynical attack on

climate science is frightening. in 2015, the alliance called on congress to eliminate the department of energy's office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. the office's mission is to support transitioning to a global clean energy economy, something that we know is supported by many, many people. that year, both koch brothers' organizations received $3 million from the web of koch donors. although the institute and alliance were fringe, the trump administration placed their staff in key energy positions, beginning with appointing their president to lead the energy transition team. before that appointment, mr. pyle had sent a fundraising letter touting the new administration's positions. he predicted the trump administration would withdraw from the paris agreement, repeal

the clean power plan, move forward with the keystone x.l. pipeline, increase oil and gas leasing on federal lands, lift the moratorium on coal leasing on federal lands, and turn back protection of our rivers and streams, among other initiatives. mr. pyle's policy predictions have sadly come to pass. my home state of new mexico is right in the bull's-eye of climate change. snow pack was at a low point this year. parts of the rio grande are dry. we have a methane cloud in the four corners area the size of delaware. pressing stop on tackling climate change hurts new mexicans. meanwhile, institute alliance staff landed three plum positions with the department of energy. last may, mr. simmons, who we have already heard about, it was

actually placed to lead d.o.e.'s office of energy efficiency and renewable energy, the same office the alliance advocated to eliminate. talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop. institute alliance policy analyst alex fitzsimmons was also placed in the same office as a senior advisor. he has steadily beat the koch brothers' drum against wind and solar energy, writing numerous articles about their alleged, unreliable, and high costs. how can he possibly contribute to the office's mission of transitioning toward a clean energy economy? predictably, the president proposed clashing the office's budget for 2018 by 69%. congress did not do his bidding. he now seeks to cut over 70% of his budget for 2019, including fully eliminating the

weatherization assistance program and the state energy program. according to d.o.e., since 2014, new mexico has received $10.4 million from these two programs. these investments resulted in weatherizing 1,300 homes, creating or retaining 340 jobs, training 19,500 new mexicans in energy efficiency, retrofitting 240,000 square feet of building space. these two programs aid my state in the global battle against climate change and should not be on the chopping block. another institute alliance policy analyst, travis fisher, was tapped by d.o.e. to oversee an evaluation on whether renewables are hurting coal and nuclear power and increasing grid unreliability. mr. fisher had also authored many pieces on the evils of renewables, even calling clean

energy policies, quote, the single greatest emerging threat, end quote, to the power grid. there was wide concern the report would be politically secured. however, the draft of the report prepared by a d.o.e. contractor and staff got out. the contract said renewable energy had not decreased grid reliability. the final report concluded the same. mr. fisher has since left d.o.e. the good news is the american people continue to support renewable energy. a pew research center poll found 83% of americans think expanding renewables is a top or important national priority. wind and solar are expanding exponentially and their costs have decreased dramatically. 29 states, washington, d.c., and

three territories have renewable portfolio standards, and eight states and one territory have renewable goals. a clean energy economy is the future. but the trurvels is fighting against the tide. before the trurvels, the institute and alliance were small. fringe organizations promoted by the koch brothers' web of secret organizations unveiled allies. they now sit at the center of our government. at the bottom of the koch labyrinth of 501-c-3's, 4's, 6's, and their vast network of ultrawealthy accomplices is their ability to hide their contributions and actions from public view. the supreme court's citizens united decision cloaks these networks under the guise of the first amendment. citizens united has damaged our

democracy by allowing unlimited campaign contributions, pac's, and nonprofit organizations to secretly influence government decisions at the highest levels. i had been fighting to overturn citizens united and for congress to enact campaign finance reform for years now. my constitutional amendment would not only overturn citizens united but all the previous bad decisions going back to buckley versus vallejo. it would end the misguided belief that spending money to elect politicians is the same thing as free speech. a belief that gives the koch brothers a lot more speech than the average american. and last fall, i reintroduced the we the people democracy reform act that would enact comprehensive electoral reform. the dark influence of the koch brothers and this administration only underscores the pressing

need for this legislation to right our democracy and restore integrity, accountability, and transparency to our political system. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. portman: mr. president, i come before the senate this evening to talk about two nominees who will be up for a confirmation vote in the next couple of days. the first of those is rick grenell. rick is being nominated to serve as our ambassador to germany during a really important time, not just with the danger and volatility we see around the world but with our relationship with germany. rick is well qualified. i think it's urgent that we growth him confirmed. by the way, rick grenell was actually nominated last fall. he was reported out of the foreign relations committee with

a positive vote on october 26, 2017. so for six months, he has been in limbo even after getting reported out of committee. he has been blocked by just a couple of democrats, maybe just one, and this body has not had the chance to vote on him. that's why i was pleased to see the majority leader filed cloture and that's why we will get a vote this week on mr. greenl. -- mr. grenell. i think he is very qualified for the position. he is someone who has a lot of experience in diplomacy, international issues. in 2001, he was appointed by president george w. bush to serve as the director of communications and public diplomacy for our representative to the united nations. in this role, he advised four of our ambassadors, john meg row upon tea, john danforth, john bolton, on the formation and articulation of the united states policy at the united

nations. he was also appointed by john danforth to be the representative of the united states to the u.n. security council with full voting rights and privileges. he served as spokesman there during a turbulent time, an important time, but he also did more than that. he was appointed as a united states delegate to a variety of united nations conferences over the years, including the financing for development conference, the world food summit, the world summit on sustainable development, the iraq donors conference, the treaty preparatory committee, a committee on hiv-aids, and a commission on population and development, among many others. he has moderated a lot of united nations panel discussions over the years on subjects ranging from children in armed conflict to postwar qowx issues, clean energy solutions as my colleague was talking about a moment ago. and he is up to speed on the world's pressing issues. so he is very well qualified to be an ambassador representing the united states. he has also been an active speaker, speaking on topics

around the country that relate to crisis communications, united nations international issues, ranging from sudan to north korea, middle eastern issues. he has been on a lot of tv programs, which is one reason he generates some controversy on the other side. yes, he has spoken his mind on occasion, but he is also someone, again, if you look at his qualifications and experience and his ability as he did for president george w. bush to be a team player and to work with the team to communicate clearly, an excellent, i think, candidate to be a u.s. ambassador. just about anywhere, but particularly to a country as important as germany. he received his master's degree in public administration from john f. kennedy's school of government. and finally, i would just say the timing is really important. one reason i think it's key that we vote this week is that we need an ambassador in germany. over the easter break, i was over in germany. i was meeting actually with our

troops over there on a fact-finding mission because we have a lot of american troops in germany still. we were looking at some of the weapons systems that have been developed in my home state of ohio and how they're working. i will tell you, the people with whom i talked -- and it was our u.s. military officers, but also german officials and others, were saying it's really important to have american leadership in germany right now with all that's going on, with what's happening in ukraine where germany is really a key player in keeping the european union together, what's happening certainly in the middle east where they do play an important role, what's happening in terms of our economy and trade issues. i have heard from everybody, why don't you guys have an ambassador over here? it's time we do it. finally, there is a particularly urgency this week because chancellor america he will is coming -- chancellor merkel is coming for a visit to washington this week. i think she will be here on friday at the white house in

meetings. wouldn't it be great if we were to confirm this qualified ambassador to represent our interests in germany and to begin the process of improving our relationship with germany and deepening that relationship. so i hope that we have the opportunity to have this vote in the next couple of days, and i would just urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle take a look at rick grenell's background. i don't think you will find a noncareer person to be better versed on this public issues. i think he will do an excellent job for us in germany. the second nominee i want to talk about briefly has also faced some opposition on the other side of the aisle to the point he was reported out of committee last night on a party line vote, 20-11. i want to thank senator coons. i think mike pompeo, who is the current director of the c.i.a.

c.i.a. is -- of the c.i.a. is extremely well qualified. when you look at the job of the secretary of state, this body has been able to support people who they may not be able to agree on every policy issue, or agree with the president who appointed that person, but realize that the president should have his or her own person in that job, particularly the secretary of state. with regard to senator kerry, who was a colleague of ours here. when he was up for the confirmation vote, the vote was 94 senators out of 100 supporting him. with regard to secretary clinton, when she was nominated, she was confirmed by a vote of 94 senators -- 94 out of 100 voted for her. now, that's been more or less typical. collin powell was confirmed by a unanimous vote of this body.

condoleezza rice was voted in with 80 votes. i don't think they can dispute the fact that he is qualified for this job. in is a man who has been successful in everything he has done. from humble beginnings, he goes to west point, he graduates at the top of his class. he then is an army officer. he is there before the wall came down. he was an officer in germany patrolling the iron curtain. he then goes to law school after having served in the military. he goes to harvard law school and ends up being an editor of harvard and graduates cum laude. he goes into business and deals with national security issues. he runs for the house of representatives and is elected.

he's on the intelligence committee in the house and so has the ability to get well versed on a lot of the classified information needed to be able to understand, again, the danger and volatility we face in the country today and well regarded in the house on both sides of the aisle. by the way, he was confirmed by this same body as c.i.a. director by a vote of 66 senators, so a nice bipartisan majority. i hope that happens again. because, again, i think it's important that we get a secretary of state in place at a critical time, but also we get one in place that is shown to have some of the momentum and trust and confidence of this body, certainly the president has a lot of confidence in him or he wouldn't nominate him for this additional responsibility. as c.i.a. director he is well versed on all the issues. one i will mention you have heard about recently probably is that he went on a secret mission to meet with the dictator of

north korea, kim jong-un, recently, and he did that to help the president have a successful meeting between the president and the north koreans. we hope that is indeed constructive and they make progress on the denuclearization, which we all hope for in the korean peninsula. you need somebody like mike pompeo to direct that. i think it's the right time for him to move forward on a number of issues, that is certainly one. one issue i am interested in working with him on is in eastern europe, the destabilizing affect russia is having both with regard to the hybrid war, disinformation and propaganda, but also the military part of this, which is happening on the eastern border of ewe ukraine. usual -- ukraine. russia has taken that part of

the border away. he supports the ukrainians being able to defend themselves. that was a big change from the last administration and, frankly, from the first year of this administration, and it happened recently. those materials are now being delivered and the ukrainians, having just been there over the easter break, the ukrainians are feeling a renewed sense of support from their western allies, particularly from the united states, and i think mike pompeo's the right guy to be there with regard to that issue also. i have taken a leadership role in pushing back against the disinformation, including the meddling in our own election here, which i believe happened and i believe will happen again unless we are smarter about pushing back. that's why i joined with my colleague, senator murphy, and others to promote a center at the state department that

coordinates all of the efforts and particularly focuses on the online effort. it is called the global engagement center. i spoke with mr. pompeo privately and also in public testimony about this issue, and he has expressed his strong support for that global engagement center and for having a more effective and robust response. so i think he is the right person at the right time. i think he is qualified for this job as well as anyone i can imagine out there and, again, talking to my colleagues, some of them have said that they disagree with president trump's positions and that's why they are opposing mr. pompeo. you know, their favorite person who would probably be in the other party and have different views will not be nominated by president trump. president trump is going to nominate somebody who does support him on most of his basic approach to foreign policy and who he trusts.

that's just how it works. again, when we supported john kerry with a 94-5 vote, it's not that we agreed with all of the policies from president obama, it's that we believed president obama should have the right to have his secretary of state, who he thought was going to best represent him, and we thought senator kerry was qualified. i think the same was true with hillary clinton, the same was true with condoleezza rice and collin powell. mike pompeo is extremely well qualified. the other thing i heard from my colleagues and i heard from a number of them on and off the committee to see if they could join us in supporting mr. pompeo so he could have more bipartisan momentum as he goes into this job. the other thing i have heard given the background in the military and as a member of congress that maybe he will focus more on military power than soft power.

in other words, more on diplomacy and more on can he nettic or military -- kenetic or military. i don't think i heard that from him where he addressed that issue. as a former army officer and went to west point and graduated at the top of his class, he is someone who actually believes very strongly in soft power, and believes that military actions ought to be the last resort, not the first resort. and i think that's true with almost anybody whose been in the military, certainly people who have been in combat. and i made the comparison to what colin powell said and what general mattis said today. i believe mike pompeo has the opportunity not only to help with regard to the crisis issues we are facing around the world, north korea, syria, what's happening in iran and ukraine, as we talked about, but i think

he has the ability to improve the morale at the state department at a critical time. in fact, i'm convinced of it. having talked to some people at the state department, and as you know many of the career civil servant people feel like they were not consulted. mike pompeo is a listener just as he was at the c.i.a. he talked about the fact that god gave us only one mouth but two ears, in other words, we're supposed to be listening and taking in the input and hoping to lead as a servant leader. i believe that is the kind of leader mike pompeo is. my hope is that he will be confirmed and earn the trust some of -- some of us have seen in him, getting the diplomats in the state department engaged in power and start with diplomacy before military power and working with our military and with the white house and with the congress to have a u.s. foreign policy that is effective in keeping the peace.

yes, we need a strong military because by having a strong military, by having a strong defense we maximize the chance for peace, but we also have to have a strong diplomacy arm that's out there ensuring that we take every measure that we possibly can to use soft diplomacy and diplomacy is something that i think mike pompeo has shown he is committed it -- committed to. my hope is that we will have positive votes on mr. grenell and mike pompeo and have bipartisan support and they in turn will have the trust that this body has shown in them. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate resume legislative session for ar period of morning business -- for ar period of morning business with senators permitted p to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: unanimous consent that the president of the senate be authorized to -- to escort his excellency, emanuel rakone for the joint meeting on wednesday, april 25, 2018. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 2061 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2061, an act to

reauthorize the north korean human rights act of 2004 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the rubio amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 482 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 482, congratulating the vil nova university wildcats and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i ask unanimous

consent when the senate completes completes its business today, it -- its business today it adjourn until 12 noon, further following the prayer and pledge, morning hour be expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and morning business be closed finally, i ask that following leader remarks the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the pompeo nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stands adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned until 12 noon, april 25, 2018.