Floor Statements

Mr. President, last month, Peter G. Peterson passed away in his home in Manhattan at the age of 91. He was a rare figure in modern American politics as a true public citizen asking politicians to be fiscally responsible.

Peter George Peterson was born Peter Petropoulos in Kearney, NE, to a Greek family. His parents came from southern Greece without any money. George, his father, took a job as a dishwasher for the Union Pacific Railroad. His mother made wine in his basement, which she sold to people. George eventually opened a Greek restaurant in Kearney and changed the family name to Peterson. At age eight, Peter would work the register at this place. The family never had much wealth.

Almost everyone knew him as Pete. His family was so frugal that Pete and his brother took turns using the same bath water on Saturday nights. The Great Depression taught him lessons that he would message to the country for the rest of his life: Never spend more than one earns, even in the worst of times.

Pete developed into a business wonder. He finished top in his class in high school, attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Northwestern University. In the 1950s, Pete was an advertising executive for the legendary McCann Erickson agency before he was 30. Within a decade, he became chief executive for Bell and Howell electronics.

Pete answered the call for service in 1971, becoming the White House Assistant for International Economic Affairs and, eventually, Commerce Secretary for a brief period of time for President Nixon, but he was never a White House insider. Partisans distrusted him because he was too comfortable with Democrats. He left a year into the post before scandal engulfed the White House.

He was nearsighted and colorblind, but he had a clear vision of where he thought the country should go. Pete built a career that made him one of the few captains of business stretching into public life. He was chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations for 22 years and led government commissions and advisory bodies. Pete also helped found the incredibly successful Blackstone Group and became chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He was a member of President Bill Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform as well.

Pete's leadership as a fiscal watchdog might be his greatest achievement. Since the 1970s, Pete has challenged leaders of both parties to address the country's dangerous fiscal path. He launched the Institute for International Economics in 1981, which became the Peterson Institute for International Economics in 2006. Pete was the founding president of the bipartisan Concord Coalition, which included former Democratic Senator Paul Tsongas and former Republican Senator Warren Rudman in 1992 to advocate for generationally responsible fiscal policy.

The national debt is not a partisan problem; it is an American problem. Pete wrote several books challenging both parties to come together and fix it. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which he founded in 2006, has kept the conversation alive and pushed put the country on a sustainable fiscal path. Members of both parties and all walks of life have come to foundation events to participate in providing solutions to long-term fiscal challenges. I was at a few of them.

Pete's life is a reminder that we need to work together to serve future generations. He is survived by his wife, Joan Ganz Cooney; and five children, John, Jim, David, Holly, and Michael Peterson; a brother, John; and nine grandchildren.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, many of us were shocked when the President tweeted that he was deploying the National Guard to the border.

The President's claim that we face a crisis at our Southwest border is simply false, and it is particularly ironic when the President himself has repeatedly bragged--again, falsely--that illegal border crossings are at an alltime low.

I remain concerned that the Trump administration is diverting Defense Department resources to the border to help carry out its deportation agenda. The Department is unable to tell Congress how much these deployments may cost our Nation--paid for with money diverted from other, critical defense programs. So far, the Department of Defense has provided a preliminary estimate that these deployments will cost $182 million in fiscal year 2018, but there is no end in sight.

I am also concerned that these deployments may harm the readiness of our National Guard by disrupting training for core missions. As one local elected official in New Mexico noted in the Albuquerque Journal, ``We're going into forest fire season. A big percentage of the state is in drought right now, and if National Guard folks are continuously rotated down to the border for a problem that doesn't exist, are they going to be available for a real problem when it happens?''

Well, yesterday, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson issued a surprising report, which inadvertently agreed with these concerns.

Last year, Congress required the Department of Defense to examine past deployments of National Guard troops to the border and to analyze those experiences for whether they had been beneficial for those Guard members. As Vice Chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I received the Department's report yesterday.

It is fair to say that its conclusions are probably not what the President wanted to hear from his own political appointees.

The report notes that several States have conducted training and operations along the Southwest border. It concludes that training and operations by California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas Guard units ``does not directly contribute to collective core Mission Essential Task readiness'' of those units. In other words, we are diverting them from their most important missions.

It was even harsher in its conclusions for National Guard units from other States traveling to the border for similar training. It describes a pilot program to send 250 National Guard personnel to the border. Not only did the pilot program cost a half a million more than that unit's regular, scheduled training, but it also resulted in only 22 more apprehensions than normal, while contributing almost nothing to the unit's training.

The report also notes that these kinds of deployments ``comes at a cost to the individual soldier, his/her family, and her/his employer, as well as to overall united readiness.''

Is that what we want? To impose costs on our volunteer Guard personnel, their families, their employers supporting their service?

The report goes on to say, ``Such tasking could also potentially impact support to validated Global Force Management Allocation Plan requirements.'' That is a mouthful, but it means that these deployments could make our National Guard less prepared to respond to a natural disaster back home or, God forbid, a war.

Is that what we want? No. There's an old adage that goes, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

We all know that the President wants to build a wall on the border, but he has failed to convince Congress that spending $25 billion on a campaign promise is the right thing to do. Instead, he is sending the outstanding women and men of the National Guard to the border, as if to compensate for his inability to work with Congress.

I have met a great number of members of the National Guard, and I know they will carry out their assigned duties as well as they can. Many will view their deployments as a chance to serve the country they love, but we owe it to them to send them on a mission that is worth it, and the Pentagon's own study raises serious questions about that.

I hope that we end National Guard deployments to staff the crisis that the President invented and get them back to their core job: protecting their States and protecting this country.

Madam President, I would like to recognize a tragic anniversary upon us this month. Four years ago this month, the terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapped 276 girls in the dead of the night from a school in Chibok, Nigeria, where they were taking final exams.

Some of the girls managed to run away, but Boko Haram abducted 219 girls.

These hundreds of young girls were held captive, abused, made to be slaves, forced into marriage with their abductors, raped, starved, and, in some cases, forcibly converted to Islam.

Some have tragically died while trying to flee or even during childbirth.

You might recall the global campaign on Twitter, #BringBackOurGirls, to urge the rescue of the girls.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama was moved to join the campaign for the release of the girls, as were over 3 million people around the world.

I, myself, was mortified to learn that, for the mere act of seeking an education, the girls were abducted and forced into child marriage or slavery. That is why, back then in 2014, I introduced a resolution condemning the Chibok abduction and calling for the immediate, safe return of the girls.

Since the kidnapping, just over 100 girls have been released, leaving over 100 girls still missing. I fear some may have already perished.

Parents marked the fourth anniversary on Saturday by marching with thousands of others to the school in Chibok where the girls were abducted in 2014.

I think we should join them here in the Senate in remembering this tragic anniversary.

That is why I have introduced, with some of my female colleagues, a resolution calling for the immediate release of all Boko Haram captives, especially the remaining Chibok girls.

The girls who have returned have told of the deplorable abuses Boko Haram fighters made them suffer.

No one should be subject to the depravity of an organization that doesn't value human life, let alone young girls simply trying to get an education.

Unfortunately, since 2012, Boko Haram has conducted a violent campaign of mass kidnappings of women, girls, and boys in Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, and Niger.

Boko Haram remains one of the deadliest terrorist groups in the world, killing more than 13,000 people since 2013. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says almost 2.5 million people in Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, and Niger have been displaced--that is forced from their homes--because of Boko Haram's brutality.

And the terror continues.

Just in February, Boko Haram militants stormed the town of Dapchi in Nigeria and abducted 111 girls and 1 boy.

Thankfully, most of those children have been returned to their families, but, heartbreakingly, some died during their ordeal, and one girl still remains a hostage.

The New York Times recently ran a stirring front page piece about some of the Chibok girls who have been freed. I applaud the extraordinary bravery of those survivors, who have come forward to share their stories and experiences at great risk to themselves.

The courage and strength of the girls who are still being held captive to remain resilient in the face of unspeakable brutality is deeply moving.

As a testament to their fortitude, let us all recommit ourselves to ending discrimination and violence against women and girls, to ensuring the safety and welfare of women and girls, to pursuing policies that guarantee girls education, and to the release of the remaining Boko Haram captives.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning business.

Mr. President, what has happened to the State Department under this administration is almost impossible to imagine. What we are seeing there is a devastation and a decimation of the resources of a great part of our government, one of the most important parts. It is a small percentage of our budget, but the work done by the State Department is critically important in maintaining the position of the United States around the world, projecting our image--our values--where we can, helping the helpless in parts of the world where many countries come to their aid.

Under this administration in the last year, we have seen things happen that are unimaginable. When it gets down to the basics, key posts are unfilled at the State Department. There are more than 30 vacancies in ambassadorial positions. Don't blame Congress for it. In many cases, they have not even sent us the names of the nominees.

Can anyone here believe that we still do not have an ambassador from the Trump administration to South Korea? South Korea? We spend time talking about the Korean Peninsula and the future of the Korean Peninsula, and this President cannot find an ambassador to represent the United States in South Korea. What is the possible explanation for this? He can't blame anyone but himself. He has not sent us a nominee to even consider.

We are faced with a nuclear-armed North Korean dictator. We have 28,000 American U.S. military personnel who are literally risking their lives in South Korea, and we don't have a diplomat on the scene to try to make sure that the United States is well represented.

The Department is also hemorrhaging top staff. Under Secretary Tom Shannon--one of the most respected--is scheduled to leave soon. It is no surprise this is happening. President Trump has repeatedly proposed dramatic, irresponsible cuts in the budget of the Department of State. His administration has kept top diplomats out of key discussions and deliberations. How, at a time of such international unrest in this dangerous world we live in, can we be diminishing and demoralizing our topline diplomats? How can that be a smart way to keep America safe?

I have been hoping someone would come along to right the ship at the State Department--someone to draw on this amazing reservoir of American talent in the areas of diplomacy and foreign policy, someone to make sure our best diplomatic efforts are projected to prevent conflict and to further American interests, someone who could be a proud face of America around the world.

It was in this context and with this challenge that I met with Mike Pompeo. He and I have met and had serious and challenging discussions before, notably when he was nominated to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. We met again a few weeks ago. It was a good, candid conversation. He seemed to understand the desperate situation at the State Department and that the State Department's top experts should be included in key administration discussions.

This conversation left me in the same place, I believe, that Senator Menendez pondered at the end of Pompeo's Foreign Relations Committee hearing: Who is the real Mike Pompeo?

You see, I find it hard to square the reasonable man I met with the other day with some of his actions and comments. For example, has Michael Pompeo completely renounced the use of torture? He said he would not obey an order from the President to use torture. Let me add it is tragic that we have a President who brags about using such illegal, abhorrent, and un-American approaches, but we still have to worry about this. Contrast that with Mr. Pompeo's previous defense of waterboarding or his jarring comments about the 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee's torture report when he said ``Senator Feinstein [today] has put American lives at risk'' and that the intelligence operatives whose acts were scrutinized were ``heroes, not pawns in some liberal game being played by the ACLU and Senator Feinstein.''

Or what about Mr. Pompeo's association with prominent anti-Muslim figures in the United States, like Frank Gaffney? The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Mr. Gaffney one of America's most notorious Islamophobes. For

example, Gaffney favors congressional hearings to unmask subversive Muslim conspiracies and was even banned from the far-right Conservative Political Action Conference events after accusing two of its organizers of being agents of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yet Mr. Pompeo appeared on Mr. Gaffney's radio show at least 24 times between 2013 and 2016.

What about when Mr. Pompeo used his position on the House Intelligence Committee to accuse then-Secretary of State Clinton of orchestrating a wide-ranging coverup of the Benghazi attacks that ended in the tragic loss of American lives in Libya? Is there anyone here who believes for a minute that was not a political witch hunt, which in part led to the further discrediting of the critical congressional committee involved--a committee that, incidentally, has lost all legitimacy in the current investigation over Russia's involvement in our election?

I face this decision on Mr. Pompeo with real concern. There are many policy issues on which Mr. Pompeo and I might disagree, notably on the Iran nuclear agreement. I asked him point-blank: What do you think is going to happen to this nuclear agreement to stop the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon?

His conjecture was that this President would walk away from it and hope that our European allies, who also signed on to this agreement, would enforce it. Does that sound like a cogent foreign policy for a leader in the world like the United States?

Our Nation desperately needs someone to bring leadership to the State Department, but torture, Islamophobia, and wild political conspiracy theories don't seem to mesh with being our Nation's top diplomat from where I am standing.

I will vote against Mr. Pompeo's nomination. I sincerely hope I am wrong about this nominee. I believe he will be approved by a very small margin. I hope he will, in the end, uphold our Nation's laws and values when it comes to torture, tolerance, and international cooperation. I hope he will make sure diplomacy is exhausted before we turn to yet another war and, in particular, that he will resist John Bolton and others who are notorious for wanting to rush into military conflict. I hope he will listen carefully to Secretary Mattis at the Defense Department--someone I supported and someone I trust. I hope he will be clear to this President, as the man who is the Secretary of State in his administration, that climate change and Russia are truly threats to our Nation and well-being. Doing this will help strengthen America's leadership abroad and help build greater trust and cooperation in Congress.

Mr. President, last Sunday, April 22, marked the 49th Earth Day. Given the Trump administration's reckless assault on the environment, it is frightening to think where we might be on the 50th Earth Day.

President Trump hasn't built that ``big, beautiful'' wall he promised. More than a year into his term, he still hasn't filled dozens of critical posts, from Cabinet Secretaries to ambassadors.

Looking at what hasn't been done, a reasonable person might assume that this President still hasn't learned how to make government work. That might be true in many areas, but when it comes to the environment, it is dead wrong.

From day one of his administration, President Trump has used budget cuts, executive orders, and other administrative and regulatory tools to push a concerted rollback of environmental protections. President Trump has repealed or frozen some 850 rules and regulations, many of which have a direct impact on the environment.

He has signaled his intention to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord. America is the largest emitter of carbon gases, and we are the only nation on Earth that is not part of the global effort to save the planet from climate chaos and catastrophe.

Under this President, we have ceded global leadership on the climate to other nations, especially to China. Not only is that shameful, it is bad business. Some of the best-paying jobs of the 21st century will be in renewable energy industries. How are we going to create those jobs and industries in America with a President and administration that refuse to admit even the existence of climate change?

Since Earth Day last year, the U.S. has suffered some of the deadliest and costliest disasters in our history. Last August, Hurricane Irma battered the southern U.S., especially south Florida. It was followed quickly by Hurricane Harvey, which caused an estimated $200 billion in damage and pummeled Houston. In September, Hurricane Maria caused the worst natural disaster on record in Puerto Rico. Nearly 8 months later, most of the island is still without electricity. After the hurricanes came the wildfires, including some of the worst wildfires in California's history.

Scientists warn that without significant reductions in carbon emissions, climate chaos will become more frequent, more deadly and more expensive.

What is FEMA's response? Strategic plans drawn up by FEMA during both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations acknowledged climate change as a serious threat, right up there with terrorist attacks. Under this President, FEMA has dropped any mention of climate change from its strategic plan. The reality we dare not deny has become the crisis whose name the Agency dare not utter.

Last year and again this year, President Trump has sent Congress budget plans that would gut the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Scott Pruitt, the President's choice to run EPA, is an ethical nightmare, but he is a polluter's dream. He has vowed to withdraw the Clean Power Plan, a plan to cut emissions from the U.S. power sector by 32 percent from 2005 by 2030. Administrator Pruitt has signaled that he wants to roll back modest new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light-duty trucks--standards that would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions significantly. The EPA under Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt has suspended the ``waters of the United States'' rule, designed to reduce pollution in 60 percent of the Nation's lakes, rivers, and streams.

EPA is not the only member of the Trump Environmental Wrecking Crew.

Today, 94 percent of the outer continental shelf in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic Oceans is off limits from oil and gas exploration. The Department of the Interior is proposing to open 90 percent of the outer continental shelf for future oil and gas drilling. On top of this, this administration has weakened safety requirements that prevent oil spills.

Interior's Bureau of Land Management is also selling off thousands of federally owned parcels of land for oil and gas development. Among the national treasures up for sale are two national monuments in Utah: the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears, home to some of the richest and most important archeological finds in our Nation.

Interior Secretary Zinke had a special flag designed for himself and ordered that it be flown whenever he was in the Department headquarters. It would be more fitting if he flew the white flag of surrender because that is what this administration is doing.

They are surrendering America's global leadership in the efforts to save this planet from climate catastrophe, and they are surrendering decades of important and lifesaving progress we have made since the first Earth Day in safeguarding our environment, preserving our natural treasures, and protecting the health and safety of the American people.

They are undoing decades of bipartisan agreements that balanced science

and the public good with the interests of States, localities, landowners, business, and conservationists.

This past weekend, on the eve of Earth Day, the New York Times published an oped entitled, ``America Before Earth Day: Smog and Disasters Spurred the Laws Trump Wants to Undo.'' The article recounts five devastating ecological disasters that shook Americans deeply in late 1960s and the 1970s and led to the creation of major environmental laws that have saved millions of lives and reversed horrendous environmental damage.

The accidents include the Cuyahoga River burning in 1969, which helped spur passage of the Clean Air Act, and the toxic poisoning of Love Canal in Niagara Falls, NY--a catalyst for the creation in 1980 of a superfund that would make oil and chemical companies pay for the pollution they cause and not walk away from the devastation and stick taxpayers with the tab.

The Trump administration is working to dismantle not just to these major environmental laws and abdicate America's role as a global leader on environmental protection, it is reneging on a bipartisan tradition on conservation and preservation of America's public lands that goes back more than a century, to a proud Republican President by the name of Teddy Roosevelt.

I ask unanimous consent that that full New York Times op-ed be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Fortunately, American businesses and scientists, State and local governments, and the American people themselves refuse to wave the white flag. They refuse to sell America's clean air and clean water and the health of the American people to the highest bidder.

They are working in boardrooms and classrooms, in laboratories, in city halls, State houses, and courthouses to solve the urgent environmental challenges of our time and preserve the bipartisan environmental progress we have made.

The Trump administration needs to listen and stop waving the white flag of surrender. Our world and the health of our children and grandchildren is worth fighting for.

Mr. President, in honor of April being National Poetry Month, I want to take a few moments to recognize an extraordinary teacher, poet, and Quincy, IL, legend, Dwain ``Doc'' Preston.

In the winter of 1936, Doc was born on a farm near Barry, IL. The son of a World War II tank crewman and a tough as nails mother who grew up in Oklahoma surviving the Dust Bowl, Doc attended four different one- room schoolhouses, including Berrian Elementary School in Quincy. After graduating from Liberty High School, he enrolled at Western Illinois University. That was the decision that he said ``took me out of the cornfield.''

Doc joined the Air Force, attending Chinese language school, spending 6 hours a day for 8 months, studying at Yale University. To this day, much of his work in the Air Force remains classified. After his service, Doc returned to Quincy and was introduced to Regina Higgins by a friend Jay Lenne at Park Bowl, a bowling alley at the corner of 12th and Harrison. They fell in love, got married, and started their family. They had the first of four daughters in 1963, the second in 1964, the third in 1965, and lastly, the fourth, in--you guessed it--1966.

Doc followed in his uncle's footsteps--a teacher of 55 years--and accepted a position at Quincy Junior High School after two of his former teachers vouched for him. Six years later, Doc used his G.I. bill to work toward his doctorate at the University of Illinois in Champaign. While working on his dissertation, he taught at Western Illinois University and officially became ``Doc'' Preston. He then did the unexpected and tried his hand at selling insurance, but Doc had teaching in his blood and returned to the classroom after just 1 year. For the next 26 years, Doc Preston could be found in the classroom, teaching writing, speech, and English at Quincy Notre Dame, where each of his daughters would attend high school. He also supervised the QND student council, teaching leadership skills and important life lessons that aren't normally found in high school textbooks. Even after his official retirement, Doc continued teaching creative writing to seniors and others.

Throughout the years, Doc has stayed in touch with many of his students. They will send him notes using words like icon, terrific, great, awesome, amazing, special--to describe him as a teacher or writer, but mostly as a man. When hearing these compliments, he responds in his humble simple way: ``That's always fun.'' They just don't make them like Doc Preston anymore.

Doc and his wife, Regina, spent 44 years, or as Doc put it, ``over 16,000 days'' together before Regina passed away in 2006, just 4 weeks following Doc's retirement. In his beautiful poem titled, To Regina, he writes:

For over 16,000 days

You were part of me.

Now only memories are left

Of days that used to be.

But Ah! What memories they are!

The Buoy of my very life,

Which would have been of little worth

Had you not been my wife.

His words are haunting as he takes us on an emotional ride that both breaks the heart and allows us to celebrate the blessings that are memories.

Doc Preston didn't write to publish or make money. He wrote because he loved it and his audience, consisting largely of his family, loved it. When each of his four daughters were married, Doc wrote them a sonnet. When each of his 11 grandchildren turned 13, he wrote what could be called a ``goodbye to their youth'' poem. When they were younger, Doc wrote each of them a book. All told, Doc estimates he has written about 150 books. On his 80th birthday, Doc's children compiled and presented him with a book of his poem's that he dedicated to Regina.

Despite being a brilliant writer and teacher, Doc's proudest accomplishment is his family. In an interview last year, he said, ``One of the things that is joyful about being a parent is watching them grow up and succeed.'' His children certainly did. Two even went into the family business and became teachers. Doc loved parenting, but he once said, ``Grandparenting is better.'' I couldn't agree more.

When looking for heaven, many look toward the sky--not Doc Preston. Doc and Regina, looked along the river bluffs of the Mississippi River and built heaven in Quincy, IL. Whether it was with Doc's wife, Regina, four daughters--Carolyn, Cheri, Debbie, Teresa--11 grandchildren, or countless student, his life, love, and poetry have touched so many lives, including my own.

I want to thank Doc Preston for his dedication to teaching and his generosity to the wonderful people of Quincy. They call Quincy ``Gem City.'' Well, there is no gem shining brighter than Dwain ``Doc'' Preston.

Thank you, Doc, for sharing your gift with us all.

I would like to share the final lines of Doc's poem, Southern Memories.

Oh, yes, I'll savor snapshots,

To be sure,

But what I'll treasure most

Are all the memories I made with you.

Doc's right. I would like to tell him that what will be treasured most by those who know Doc, ``Are all the memories [we] made with you.''

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Kyle Duncan to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Duncan's record shows that he is far outside the judicial mainstream. He has a history of ideological opposition to important civil and constitutional rights. There are many examples of Mr. Duncan's extreme views. I will discuss several of them.

First, Mr. Duncan has a track record of outright hostility toward the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision and the rights of the LGBTQ community.

When the Obergefell case was pending before the Supreme Court, Mr. Duncan wrote an article where he described the plaintiffs in the case as, ``profoundly mistaken.'' He went on to write: ``It is often asked by proponents of same sex marriage what harms would flow from judicial recognition of their claims. From the perspective of democratic self- government, those harms would be severe, unavoidable, and irreversible.''

After the Obergefell plaintiffs won and the Supreme Court recognized the right to same-sex marriage, Mr. Duncan wrote another article where he described the Obergefell decision as ``an abject failure'' and said the case ``imperils civic peace.''

When he was before the Judiciary Committee, I asked Mr. Duncan in writing if he agreed that same-sex marriage is now settled law. He ducked the question.

This surprised me. Even President Trump conceded in November 2016 that same-sex marriage is ``already settled. It's law. It was settled in the Supreme Court,'' but Mr. Duncan would not acknowledge that point.

I also asked Mr. Duncan in writing if he would pledge not to take steps to undermine the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision if he were confirmed. He did not respond to that question either.

Make no mistake, Mr. Duncan's advocacy against LGBTQ rights goes beyond arguments that he advanced on behalf of clients. He has repeatedly advocated against LGBTQ rights when writing in his own personal capacity about his own views.

Mr. Duncan also has a troubling record of hostility to voting rights.

He joined with another extreme Trump judicial nominee, Thomas Farr, to represent the North Carolina Legislature in seeking Supreme Court review of the Fourth Circuit's decision to strike down North Carolina's 2013 voter suppression law.

This is the notorious law that the Fourth Circuit said targeted African-American voters with ``almost surgical precision.'' The Fourth Circuit decried this law as ``the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow.''

Mr. Duncan's brief argued that the Fourth Circuit's decision was ``an affront to North Carolina's citizens and their elected representatives.'' Fortunately, the Supreme Court denied Mr. Duncan's cert petition.

Mr. Duncan also wrote a brief defending a Texas voter ID law that the Fifth Circuit ruled had violated the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Duncan's brief cited the specter of voter fraud to support his argument that this law was necessary.

I decided to ask Mr. Duncan a simple question about voter fraud. I asked him in writing what he thought of President Trump's wholly unsubstantiated claim that 3 to 5 million people voted illegally in the 2016 election.

His response? He said ``I am constrained by the canons of judicial ethics from commenting on political matters.''

Why would we put someone on the Federal bench who thinks a false claim about millions of illegal voters in the 2016 election is a ``political matter''? Why couldn't Mr. Duncan bring himself to say that President Trump's statement was blatantly false?

Mr. Duncan's views on voting rights are troubling, so much so that Derrick Johnson, president of the NAACP, sent a letter saying that ``President Trump's nomination of Mr. Duncan to the Fifth Circuit is a brazen insult to the civil rights legacy of this court.''

There are many other issues where Mr. Duncan has advocated for positions that are far to the right of the center stripe.

In 2014, he gave a speech where he discussed the Supreme Court's right-to-marry cases, including the landmark decision Loving v. Virginia, and said to the audience, ``Ask yourselves this: do they add up to a right to marry your first cousin? A thirteen year old?''

Mr. Duncan also filed briefs in opposition to the DACA program and the proposed DAPA program, which he claimed ``would greatly increase the risk of unauthorized immigrants committing serious crimes.'' His arguments perpetuated a stereotype of immigrants as criminals that is simply not borne out by evidence.

Mr. Duncan represented Hobby Lobby in its Supreme Court case, where he argued that for-profit corporations have religious rights that permit them to circumvent the law and refuse to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.

The NAACP has described Mr. Duncan's record on criminal justice issues as ``abysmal.'' They noted his efforts to overturn a wrongful conviction verdict based on prosecutor misconduct, as well as his defense of inhumane conditions in severely overcrowded prisons.

What kind of message does it send when the Republican Party goes out of

its way to nominate people like Mr. Duncan who have expressed such hostile views on issues of fundamental civil rights such as the right to marry and LGBTQ rights?

There are plenty of well-qualified Republican judicial candidates who do not have a track record of taking extreme ideological views. Why choose someone like Mr. Duncan? What kind of signal does that send to litigants who might argue before the Fifth Circuit?

It is possible to find highly qualified, nonideological candidates for the Federal bench, nominees whom both parties can be proud of. We have done that with the two pending Illinois nominees to the Seventh Circuit. I wish that had happened with this Fifth Circuit vacancy, but unfortunately, that is not the case.

I cannot support Mr. Duncan's nomination, and I will vote no.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for allowing Senator Whitehouse and myself to conclude today's session.

I want first to salute my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, who will be on the floor momentarily. He has come to the floor many times to talk about issues relative to climate change and global warming. He has come on so many occasions that I have lost track, but it shows his dedication to this issue.

He has also been outspoken on the issue of campaign financing and what is happening in America today. We all know that it takes big money to run big campaigns, and we all know that many people are put off by politicians who are waiting on wealthy donors to give them the money to make it across the finish line. That is a fact.

I have always said that in this business of politics, there are two categories. There are multimillionaires and mere mortals, and I am in the second category, never having enough money to finance my own campaign, prevailing on my friends to help. It is too bad that politics has reached the level where campaigns are so long and so expensive.

Tonight Senator Whitehouse and I will highlight one aspect of that issue that is particularly worrisome and really should be front and center; that is, the so-called secret contributions, the dark money-- money that is being spent on political campaigns with no fingerprints. It is a growing phenomenon, and it is troublesome to think that our democracy has reached that point.

I am going to speak about one aspect of it, and Senator Whitehouse will follow me on the topic. I thank him for initiating this opportunity this evening.

Let me tell my colleagues what my topic is about. It is one aspect of it. We know that the United States leads the world in medical research. Because of the U.S. scientific community, HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence, polio has been eradicated in this country, people survive cancer and heart attacks in record number, and a child born today will likely live to be 78 years of age--nearly three decades longer than a baby born in 1900.

Thanks to the U.S. scientific community, we know the true dangers of tobacco. Now we are learning about the dangers related to e-cigarettes. But it was not always the case that the dangers of cigarette smoking were commonly accepted knowledge. For years, the tobacco industry claimed to be interested in rigorous, independent science. They wanted to sell less harmful products, and they wanted to support scientific research. Evidence has now been disclosed which unequivocally demonstrates that tobacco companies, by funding alternate research and funneling money into front organizations to do their bidding, have literally corrupted the science on this issue. They produced products they knew were no less hazardous and sought to influence elections to ensure the friendliest voices supporting tobacco were elected to office at Federal, State, and local levels all across the country.

If this tactic sounds familiar, it should. It is exactly what the Koch brothers are currently doing with respect to sowing seeds of doubt about the causes of climate change and helping to elect Republicans who are climate change deniers.

I have said repeatedly on the floor of the Senate and I will repeat this evening: The Republican Party of the United States of America is the only major political party in the world today that denies climate change. I have said that repeatedly, expecting some Republican to come to the floor and say it is not true. One of them whispered to me in the elevator after I said this a few times: I think there is a party in Australia that also denies climate change. That is the best they could come up with.

How did this happen? There was a time when Republicans were the leaders when it came to environmental protection. If I am not mistaken, I say to my colleague, I think it was President Richard Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency.

When I look back on my own experience in Congress, there were Republicans who stood up and spoke up on the issue of climate change. I remember when John McCain and Joe Lieberman were the two lead sponsors on a bill dealing with global warming. It has been within my period of time serving in the Senate, but not anymore. It has changed dramatically. The Koch brothers, I think, are behind it. They didn't come up with this strategy on their own. They were able to look at Big Tobacco's playbook from years gone by.

The first thing Big Tobacco did was to question legitimate science. The Koch brothers got right in line. They have been questioning legitimate science when it comes to global warming, and they pioneered efforts to use dark money to influence America's public opinion and to sway elections without ever really revealing their true identities or motivations.

I look back on tobacco and cancer. I am one--probably, like most Americans--who has lost a dearly loved member of my family to tobacco and cancer. My father died when he was 53 years of age from lung cancer. I was 14 years old. He smoked two packs of Camels a day. It was a horrible death.

He lingered for 100 days in the hospital before he died. It is something you never forget. There is hardly a family in America who doesn't have a similar story to tell.

By the early 1950s, evidence linking smoking and lung cancer was growing. Tobacco companies could have responded by taking steps to protect American consumers. What they did was to launch a conspiracy to challenge the science behind tobacco. In 1953, tobacco companies hired the PR firm Hill+Knowlton to lead a pioneering effort to discredit emerging science and keep people smoking. At the heart of this strategy was an effort to manufacture a scientific controversy by insisting there were two sides to the debate about whether cigarette smoking caused cancer. Tobacco companies identified and paid scientists who had expressed skepticism about the health risk of cigarettes, who were critical of statistical methods, and who had offered alternative theories of what really was causing cancer among smokers.

They also formed an industry-sponsored research entity that claimed to support independent research. Instead, the organization's main purpose was to serve the industry's public relations interests--namely, to sow seeds of doubt about the health risks of smoking and not advance science. Does it sound familiar to the scientists sowing seeds of doubt about global warming?

As more and more independent research found an association between smoking and disease, tobacco companies used their so-called independent research organizations to insist that there was a great deal of uncertainty about whether smoking caused cancer. These entities supported scientists who showed a willingness to generate data and provide testimony that would support the industry. Meanwhile, tobacco- friendly elected officials were happy to accept this bogus, fake science while also receiving generous campaign contributions from Big Tobacco.

The tobacco industry efforts reached new highs--or lows, if you wish--when, in the early 1970s, there was growing concern about the impact of secondhand smoke. Arizona became the first State to restrict indoor smoking in some areas in 1973 after a Surgeon General report mentioned that secondhand smoke could be harmful to nonsmokers. By 1981, 8 years later, 36 States had some type of smoking restriction in place.

I know this issue, personally, because as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives I decided to offer an amendment to ban smoking on airplanes. At the time, I was opposed by the leadership of both the Republicans and the Democrats in the House of Representatives. Of course, anyone from a tobacco-growing State or from the South opposed my efforts to ban smoking on airplanes. Well, it turned out we had a lucky break here and there in the House Rules Committee and got to bring the measure to the floor of the House for a vote, and I succeeded in passing the first restriction on smoking on airplanes.

It turned out the reason was obvious: The largest frequent flier club in America is the U.S. Congress. We spend half of our lives on airplanes, and we know better when people say: You are sitting in the nonsmoking section of an airplane. Everybody was in the smoking section in the back of the airplane was puffing away.

So that measure passed. I called my friend Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, then a Senator, and said: Frank, can you take this up in the Senate? He said he would, and he did, and the two of us passed the basic prohibition of smoking on airplanes.

By the 1980s, evidence had accumulated about the health risks of secondhand smoke and, in 1986, the Surgeon General concluded that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers and was associated with respiratory illness in children. Once again, tobacco companies didn't accept the obvious. They responded to the evidence of harm from secondhand smoke and restrictions on smokers by launching an effort to undermine the scientific evidence. They identified, trained, and subsidized friendly scientists and sponsored symposia all around the world to feature these scientists without revealing they were paying them to come up with these opinions.

In 1988, tobacco companies began funding the Center for Indoor Air Research. This is after we started banning the use of cigarettes on airplanes, for example. Like the other so-called independent research organizations funded by tobacco companies, CIAR--the Center for Indoor Air Research--allowed tobacco companies to fund and control the use of research favorable to their market position so they could continue to sell addictive, cancer-causing products to more and more people-- especially to kids. To shift emphasis away from secondhand smoke, the so-called research institute supported studies to weaken the case for regulation of tobacco.

Why is it important to reflect on history of 30 years ago? It is happening all over again. Tobacco companies continue to provide funding to third-party organizations that advocate policies that align with the interests--such as e-cigarettes--without ever publicly disclosing their ties to these tobacco companies. In recent years, tobacco companies have sought to advance the idea that bringing to market so-called lower risk tobacco products will actually benefit public health. They warn that overregulations are going to hurt their business.

Tobacco companies have provided funding to an array of think tanks-- the Heartland Institute, the R Street Institute, the National Center for Public Policy Research, just to name a few. These tobacco industry- funded groups have sent letters to policymakers, they publish op-eds, they write reports, and they issue press releases that mirror the tobacco industry's position, warning that any future FDA rules will burden the tobacco industry and undermine efforts to bring a so-called lower risk product to market. Many of these groups have historically been silent or opposed policies that have proven effective in reducing smoking rates. Do you know what reduces smoking more than anything else? Cost of the product. As we have seen States and the Federal Government raise the tobacco tax, we have seen use of the product diminish. They haven't supported that, of course, and they don't support smoke-free laws or mass media campaigns.

Last year, Philip Morris, notorious as a tobacco company, established the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. Let me repeat that. Philip Morris, a tobacco company, established the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. They are going to fund research to end cigarette smoking and provide $80 million a year for 12 years. Given their history and their continued opposition to proven policies to reduce cigarette use, excuse me if I am skeptical.

That is the problem, isn't it? Research from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World or TV ads or op-eds from the Heartland Institute or the National Center for Public Policy Research just may seem harmless, but if the American public and elected officials knew that R.J. Reynolds, Altria, or Philip Morris--some of the biggest tobacco companies--were behind this research PR, they would be as skeptical as I am.

One more example: corporations and wealthy donors flooding cash into efforts to influence the American public and American political officials. In addition to funding bogus research, we know tobacco companies have poured millions of dollars into nonprofit, dark money organizations, which, in turn, spend millions of dollars to influence elections, never disclosing who they are or where the money is coming from. Dark money makes it nearly impossible to find the true sources behind the attack ads and political campaigns these organizations fund, but sometimes, thanks to the news media and transparency organizations, the donors are revealed.

In 2013, the Center for Public Integrity reported that the tobacco giant Reynolds American, Incorporated, funded several dark money groups during the 2012 election cycle, including conservative activist Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity--a conservative political advocacy group--and the Partnership for Ohio's Future, an anti-union organization backed by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

The only reason we know Reynolds was the secret source is because it was disclosed at the behest of an unnamed

shareholder; otherwise, these donations and the involvement of tobacco companies would have remained a secret.

Whether they are quietly funding attack ads or the release of supposedly unbiased reports, corporations and wealthy donors are using anonymous, dark money contributions to influence America's public, casting doubt on legitimate science and trying to sway elections without ever revealing their true identities and motivations.

It is not just limited to Big Tobacco and their campaigns to turn public opinion against tobacco taxes and smoke-free laws; the Koch brothers have built on this model and expanded the Big Tobacco playbook. They are pushing faulty research in an attempt to obscure the reality of global warming and using dark money to influence our political system. Why would the Koch brothers care so much? They are in the oil business. It is so a rich few can benefit financially at the expense of everyone else if they vote the Koch brothers' line--and that is at the expense of our children and grandchildren.

It is time to put an end to dark money influence in elections.

I yield the floor to the leader on this issue in the Senate Democratic caucus, Senator Whitehouse.