[Pages S6967-S6986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the VanDyke
nomination.
The Senator from Texas.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1416
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as all America knows, climbing healthcare
costs continue to keep the American people up at night. A Kaiser
Foundation poll in September found that the No. 1 health concern of the
American people is prescription drug pricing. A whopping 70 percent of
those polled think lowering prescription drug costs should be a top
priority--a top priority--for Congress, making it the No. 1 item on our
to-do list, but our friend and colleague from New York, the minority
leader, objected last time I offered unanimous consent to take up and
pass a bill, which I will describe here momentarily.
I hope, given the intervening time and further reflection, he will
not do so today, and we can get this bill passed and address this top
priority of the American people.
The good news is, Republicans and Democrats both agree we need to do
something about it. I have the honor of serving on both the Finance and
Judiciary Committees, where we have been looking into this problem and
some of the potential solutions.
There are pharmaceutical CEOs who earn big bonuses as sales go up. I
am not opposed to them receiving compensation, but pharmacy benefit
managers who negotiate backdoor rebates that drive up out-of-pocket
costs are a problem because of the lack of transparency.
What I find very seriously concerning as well is anti-competitive
behavior when it comes to patents by drug manufacturers. There are two
practices, in particular, that the legislation I intend to offer a
unanimous consent request on would address.
One is called product hopping, which occurs when a company develops a
reformulation of a product that is about to lose exclusivity. Let me
just stop a moment and say that one of the ways we protect the
investment and the intellectual property of American innovators is to
give them exclusivity over the right to sell and license that
intellectual property, including drugs. That encourages people to make
those investments. In turn, it benefits the American people and the
world, literally, by creating new lifesaving drugs, and that is a good
thing. There is a period of exclusivity, and after that expires--after
that goes away--then it opens that particular formulation up to generic
competition; meaning, the price will almost certainly be much lower and
more affordable to the American people.
This issue of product hopping is gamesmanship, as I will explain.
First of all, before the drug loses exclusivity, the manufacturer pulls
the drug off the market. This is done not because the new formula is
more effective, but it will block generic competitors.
The second issue is patent thicketing, which occurs when an innovator
uses multiple, overlapping patents or patents with identical claims
that make it nearly impossible for competitors to enter the market.
This is nothing more and nothing less than
[[Page S6968]]
abuse of our patent system, and it is coming at a high cost for
patients who rely on affordable drugs.
Earlier this year, I introduced a bill with our friend and colleague
from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, who happens to be a Democrat, to
address these anti-competitive behaviors. Our bill is called the
Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act, and it streamlines the
litigation process by limiting the number of patents these companies
can use in court. So companies are spending less time in the courtroom
and, hopefully, more time innovating these new lifesaving drugs, while
opening up these drugs once they lose their exclusivity to generic
competition and more and more affordable prices for consumers.
This legislation does not stifle innovation; it doesn't limit
patients' rights; and it doesn't cost taxpayers a dime. In fact, the
Congressional Budget Office estimates it would lower--lower--Federal
spending by more than a half a billion dollars over 10 years. This is
just savings to the Federal Government for Medicare and Medicaid.
Undoubtedly, it would show significant savings for consumers with
private health insurance as well.
I am sure it comes as no surprise, then, that this legislation passed
unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee; not a single Senator
opposed it. That happened in June. This is December, and there has been
no movement since then.
We have tried to be patient because we know there are other bills
coming from the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. There
is a bill coming out of the Finance Committee on which the Presiding
Officer and I sit. My hope is that we would have been able to make
progress on a larger package, but here we are at the end of the year,
and there has been no movement. We have been more than patient, but I
think there comes a time when patience ceases to be a virtue,
particularly when it comes to providing something that would benefit
the American people.
There are no concerns about the policies laid out in the bill, as you
can see by some of the comments reflected in this chart. Again, our
colleague, the Democrat from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, said:
``This bill offers a positive, solid step toward ending abuses in the
use of patents.''
Senator Durbin, who is the Democratic whip, a member of leadership,
said:
It is a bipartisan measure that passed the Senate Judiciary
Committee. I not only voted for it, I cosponsored it, and I
believe it should pass and should become the law of the land.
So imagine my surprise when the Democratic leader objected to a
unanimous consent request to pass it a couple of weeks ago. He even
went so far as to call this ``a manipulative charade'' and ``a little
game,'' which is strange because he also called it a good bill. His
biggest criticism was it didn't do enough, but as I pointed out then,
if you sit around waiting for the big bill to get passed, nothing
happens in the meantime, and it is a loss to the American people.
I think it is past time for us to take up this legislation, get it
passed, get it signed by the President. Our friends in the House of
Representatives have already passed two bills, which, put together,
essentially reflect the same policy.
I can't think of any other reason for the Democratic leader to object
than pure politics. He doesn't want anybody to get a ``win.'' That also
goes for the Senator from Iowa, when she had offered a bill to
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. She happens to be on the
ballot in 2020 as well. The only rationale I can possibly think of that
the Democratic leader would continue to object to these bipartisan
consensus bills is just that he doesn't want somebody to be able to
score a point on this side because he feels like that will disadvantage
his candidates in the next election and advantage us.
There comes a time when we need to put those election considerations
to the side and focus on making good policy. I happen to believe good
policy is good politics.
The truth is, the Democratic leader, in objecting to the passage of
this legislation, does have one very big and powerful cheerleader
behind him; that is, the drug companies. The drug companies love it
when bipartisan legislation gets blocked on the Senate floor for
whatever reason. The truth is, they hate this bill, and they don't want
to see anything done on this issue. Inadvertently or not, the
Democratic leader seems to be providing them a lot of cover right now.
My constituents didn't send me to Washington to play these endless
games. They sent me here to get results, and that is exactly what I aim
to do.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as in legislative
session, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar
No. 132, S. 1416. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported
substitute be withdrawn; that the Cornyn amendment at the desk be
agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time
and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, my good friend, the Senator from Texas,
is just engaged in a gimmick to cover up all that he hasn't done on
making drug costs lower. Now, 99 percent of what the public wants is
not being allowed on the floor by his leadership when he was the whip,
by this leadership, and now he wants to get well with a bill that is
very small.
Open up the floor to debate. We will debate all the big things that
will really reduce prices, which people want, and we will debate his
bill. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I point out to my friend from New York, I
am not the leader or the floor manager of legislation. That is up to
Senator McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky. Obviously, there has been
foot-dragging on important things like appropriations bills, the
USMCA--the important trade agreement with Canada and Mexico--and now
there is impeachment mania that has consumed the House of
Representatives and has crowded out our ability to get other things
done; hence, my loss of patience after waiting since June to get this
bill passed.
This isn't a case of my wanting to get well; this is a case of
wanting to make the American people well by providing them access to
low-cost generic alternative drugs and preventing Big Pharma from
engaging in the sorts of gamesmanship that keep drug prices up and keep
the American consumer down.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Healthcare
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this morning, or I guess this
afternoon, to talk about a couple of issues. I will start with
healthcare and talk about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, as well as another piece of legislation we are considering in
the next couple of days.
Let me start with healthcare. There is a lot to talk about here. We
don't have time for all of it today, but a number of things are
happening on the healthcare front that I think most Americans are aware
of but maybe have not heard a lot about recently.
I would argue there are three basic threats to healthcare right now--
not just healthcare for some but, in large measure, healthcare for all.
One is a lawsuit, which is being litigated in the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals. It is a lawsuit that would wipe out the Affordable Care
Act, and that lawsuit has already prevailed at the district court
level. It is now before the appellate court, and if that lawsuit were
to prevail, the Affordable Care Act--or I
[[Page S6969]]
should say it by its full name--the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act would be declared unconstitutional. That would have
ramifications not only for those 20 million who got covered--coverage
they didn't have before--but also the tens of millions who have
protections they never had before the act was passed in 2010.
If you have a preexisting condition, for example--roughly, one out of
two Americans has a preexisting condition--if you have one, you should
be very concerned about the result of that lawsuit, the determination
of which could be made in a matter of days or weeks. That is a big
threat. That is the biggest threat to healthcare for virtually every
American or at least every American family.
The second big threat to healthcare is what the administration has
undertaken since day one of the Trump administration, and that is the
sabotage of the existing system in this regard, especially with respect
to the insurance exchanges. What the administration has done is try to
take administrative action, action by agencies under the President's
jurisdiction, to undermine the exchanges.
How do they do that? Well, they cut the advertising. So when they
advertise to say that you can shop for a health insurance plan on the
exchanges, they cut the advertising budget by 90 percent. They left 10
percent there. I guess we are supposed to be happy with that.
So they cut advertising by 90 percent. Then they started attacking
the contracts for navigators. These are individuals all across the
country who sit with people and say: Let me help you go through the
options you might have for purchasing insurance or changing your
insurance plan.
For example, right now, we are in an open enrollment period, so folks
can change their health insurance plans until Sunday--basically,
December 15. It would be nice to have a navigator--an assistant, in a
sense--sitting next to you if you are making those decisions about your
healthcare.
So threat No. 1 to healthcare is the lawsuit; threat No. 2 is the
sabotage; and threat No. 3 has not quite played out yet, but I don't
know a Member of the House or the Senate in the Republican caucus in
either Chamber who is not against the threat--the cuts to Medicare and
Medicaid proposed by the administration.
I thought it was bad when the administration--or I should say, House
Republicans--back in the spring of 2018 proposed a cut of $1 trillion
to the Medicaid Program over 10 years. That was bad enough. That was
dangerous enough. But the administration went further than that. The
administration's proposal and, I have to say, unless it is
contradicted, the official position of Republican Members of Congress
is a 10-year cut to Medicaid of $1\1/2\ trillion--$1\1/2\ trillion.
That means the official Republican position in Congress--unless they
say they disagree with the President, and I haven't heard any Member
say that yet--is that the Medicaid Program should be cut by $150
billion each and every year for 10 years. That is the proposed cut.
That is Medicaid.
By the way, Medicaid is the kids' disabilities and nursing home
program, for shorthand. Most of the people helped by Medicaid are folks
in nursing homes, low-income children, children from low-income
families, and children with disabilities who have a substantial stake
in this.
When you consider those three threats--the lawsuit, the sabotage, and
the budget cuts--all are bad news, but then when you start getting into
the details of each, you realize one aspect of this, which I wanted to
raise today, and that is the adverse impact on children.
We are told by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute
Center for Children and Families--I am holding up a November 2019
summary of a report, a back and a front. I will not read all of it and
I will not enter it into the Record because there is a lot of detail
here that we probably can't enter into the Record. I do want to read
into the Record a couple of highlights from it, though. These folks
have been doing research on children's health insurance for many years
and have spent their lives working on this. The headline reads ``The
Number of Uninsured Children is on the Rise.''
The United States of America, which finally, decades after passing
the Medicaid Program, which was a great advancement in children's
health insurance, then added to that with the enactment in the 1990s of
the Children's Health Insurance Program--it had the letter ``S'' before
it, the SCHIP program--which really was adopting programs that have
been adopted in my home State of Pennsylvania and a few others.
That same country which made a great advancement for children's
health with Medicaid--tens of millions of kids--then made a greater
advancement with the Children's Health Insurance Program and then made
even more substantial gains when we passed the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and substantially drove down the number of
uninsured Americans. Basically what happened was that about 20 million
people got healthcare coverage in about 6 years--not even a decade. A
number of those Americans were children.
As we were substantially driving down the uninsured rate, what has
happened in the last 2 years? The uninsured rate is going up. The
Census Bureau told us in September that the uninsured rate is going up
by 2 million people--to be exact, 1.9 million people. A big share of
the 1.9 million people who are now uninsured--that number is going up
instead of down, as it had been for most of the decade--a lot of those
are children.
Here is a summary of finding No. 1 in this report by the Georgetown
University Health Policy Institute Center for Children and Families,
November 2019. It is by Joan Alker and Lauren Roygardner. ``The number
of uninsured children in the United States increased by more than
400,000 between 2016 and 2018, bringing the total to over 4 million
uninsured children in the nation.''
That same Nation which made great advancements by lowering the number
of uninsured children is now going in the wrong direction.
Finding No. 2: ``These coverage losses are widespread, with 15 states
showing statistically significant increases in the number and/or the
rate of uninsured children.''
The following States are listed: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. That is significant. Those
States are represented in some cases by two Democratic Senators,
sometimes two Republican Senators, and sometimes Senators of both
parties. So it is happening in a widespread fashion. The rate of
uninsured children is going up.
Finding No. 3: ``Loss of coverage is most pronounced for white
children and Latino children (some of which may fall into both
categories).''
The other category where the number is going up substantially is
younger children, under the age of 6. So we are not just talking about
children losing coverage; we are talking about that number being more
pronounced for children under the age of 6.
This also includes children in low- to moderate-income families who
earn between 138 percent and 250 percent of the poverty level, meaning
a little more than 29,000 bucks to 53,000 bucks annually--``bucks'' is
my word, not the report's word--$29,435 to $53,325 annually for a
family of three. So these folks who are struggling in a lot of ways--
low-income families trying to climb that ladder to get to the middle
class, in many cases working two or three jobs, trying to make ends
meet--at least in many cases, their children had coverage, and now
children in those families are losing coverage.
Point No. 4 and the last point: ``States that have not expanded
Medicaid to parents and other adults under the Affordable Care Act have
seen increases in their rate of uninsured children three times as large
as states that have,'' meaning States that expanded Medicaid. The
expansion of Medicaid was part of that advancement I talked about.
The three threats to healthcare are bad enough. It is especially bad
when you consider that the Americans who are carrying the heaviest
burden of that uninsured rate going up are, in fact, children.
The second thing I want to raise is the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program. We had a great effort undertaken in the 2018 farm
bill. There were
[[Page S6970]]
efforts by some to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
which we used to know as food stamps. Fortunately, those efforts to cut
the program and to knock people off of the SNAP program were
unsuccessful.
We came together in a bipartisan effort in both the House and the
Senate, and the President signed it into the law just about a year
ago--December 2018. The ink was barely dry on his signature when his
administration and the Department of Agriculture started to think of
other ways to do the same thing to SNAP they couldn't do by way of
legislation.
So where are we? Well, we have had basically three proposals over the
course of the last year by the administration that would take 4 million
people out of the SNAP program, kick 4 million people off the program.
Here is what one of those proposals would do: According to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's own estimates, the proposed changes to one
part of SNAP called categorical eligibility would eliminate millions
from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and it could also
leave nearly 1 million children without access to free school meals. I
don't know about everyone here, but I think that is a step in the wrong
direction.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is important not only
for those families--many of them working families, many of them with a
child in the household who needs food assistance, who faces food
insecurity without SNAP--many of those same families might have a child
and an individual with a disability in the same household or one or the
other. That is the SNAP program.
By the way, everyone else in the country benefits when people spend
those SNAP dollars because when you provide those dollars and folks buy
food, guess what happens. You guessed it. The economy gets a jump-start
from that activity. The SNAP program isn't about just the people who
are directly benefiting. I think we have an obligation to help them,
for sure. We all benefit when there is economic activity. There is more
than a bang for the buck in the SNAP program; you spend a buck, and you
get a lot more than a buck in return.
This is all in the context of where we are with a lot of families. We
hear a lot on the floor of this Chamber and I am sure on the floor of
the other body, the House, about ``Well, certain people shouldn't get
this benefit,'' and some make an argument against that.
It is interesting that in the SNAP program for many years now, not
just for the last couple of years, the payment error rate in that
program has been way down, the lowest levels ever. Why? It is because
of good efforts to detect fraud, and also technology allows payments to
be tracked. The payment error rate is at its lowest level ever. Yet we
still have efforts undertaken to knock people out of the program. That
is not just insulting, it is very dangerous to people's lives.
I hope Members of the Senate will tell the administration to back off
those proposals that have been undertaken to knock literally, if you
have the effect of all three proposals, 4 million people off of the
program, many of whom are children.
This all happens in the context of those healthcare issues I raised
before. The same child or the same family who might have their SNAP
benefits cut or taken away might be the same family who is losing their
coverage because of cuts to Medicaid and Medicare or because of the
uninsured rate going way up in a country that was driving it way down.
Both are happening at the same time.
Bipartisan American Miners Act of 2019
Mr. President, I want to raise another issue, and then I will
conclude. This is about coal miners across the country but in
particular in a couple of States, like my home State of Pennsylvania,
and I know this is true of Kentucky and Virginia and West Virginia,
just to name several--or I should say the main States we are talking
about here.
The Bipartisan American Miners Act of 2019, S. 2788--I know Senator
Manchin and others have spoken about this. We are trying to get this
legislation or some version of this passed by the end of this year. I
won't go through all the details of the legislation, but it attempts to
help on the miners' pension issue--and these are obviously retired coal
miners--as well as the healthcare for those same miners, those same
families.
I will make a comment about what this means. Many of those same
families had to wait way too long--several years--before this body
acted to provide a measure of relief to some of those retired miners on
healthcare. The job isn't done yet on healthcare but even more so on
pensions.
The point I have always made here is that our government made a
promise to them decades ago. In fact, it was the time when President
Truman was in office in the late 1940s. We made a promise to coal
miners at that time.
In that whole intervening time period, those decades, they kept their
promises. Many of them were sent overseas to fight in wars, from World
War II, to Korea, to Vietnam and beyond. They kept their promise to the
country by fighting for their country. They kept their promise to their
employer by going to work every day in the most dangerous job in the
world, likely. I am not sure there is one that is more dangerous. They
kept their promise to their families to go to work and to support them,
sometimes on that one income of a coal miner.
In my home area of Northeastern Pennsylvania, the novelist Stephen
Crane--he is known for the ``Red Badge of Courage,'' but what he is not
known for as much is an essay he wrote about coal mining in the late
1800s--1890s to be exact. He described all the ways a coal miner could
die in a coal mine. He described the coal mine as a place of
inscrutable darkness, a soundless place of tangible loneliness, and
then walked through the ways a miner could die.
I know we have advanced from the 1890s--thank God we have--but there
are still coal miners in the recent history of this country who have
lost their lives. All they have asked us to do--they haven't asked us
to come up with some new fancy plan for them and their families; all
they have asked us to do is to have this government--the executive
branch and the legislative branch--keep the promise to coal miners and
their families with regard to healthcare and pensions. Both of those
parts of our policy are promises.
So when we work on this between now and the end of the year to try to
find a solution, we will be only meeting that basic obligation of
keeping our promise to retired coal miners and their families like they
kept their promise to their country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). The Senator from Kansas.
Tribute to Kelly McManus
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today, I want to take a moment to recognize
the contributions of Kelly McManus. She is a member of my staff. She is
U.S. Army MAJ Kelly McManus, who has spent the last year working in my
personal office as part of the U.S. Army Congressional Fellowship
Program.
Before Kelly departs my office here at the end of the year to return
to the Big Army, I rise to express my appreciation to Major McManus for
all of her hard work and dedication and service to our Nation.
Kelly's 10 years of service in the U.S. Army have developed her
leadership abilities and shaped her perspective on major defense issues
of national significance. These assets and attributes have made her an
invaluable asset to our team as we work to serve Kansans,
servicemembers, and veterans.
Before joining our office, Kelly's assignments had taken her around
the world in service of our country. She deployed to both Iraq and
Kuwait to support operations New Dawn and Spartan Shield, from 2011 to
2012, served as the medical planner for the Allied Land Command in NATO
headquarters in Izmir, Turkey, and reported to Wiesbaden, Germany, to
serve on the personal staff of the U.S. Army Europe headquarters
commanding general, LTG Ben Hodges.
Kelly has also served stateside, leading her detachment through
deployment in Fort Dix, NJ, in support of Hurricane Sandy relief
efforts and commanded a medical company in the 2nd Infantry Division at
Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State.
Kelly joined our team in January 2018. From day one, she embraced
Kansas, its people, and the challenges they face day in and day out. On
her first official trip to Kansas, she visited our
[[Page S6971]]
military installations and talked with soldiers and airmen to learn
about their life experiences. She made it a priority to spend time in
Kansas and to learn from the Kansas people so that she could bring
their thoughts and ideas back to the Nation's Capital. These personal
conversations with Kansans and Kelly's experience in the Army have
helped to drive meaningful policy.
She led our efforts to secure maternity leave for those serving in
the National Guard and Reserve after talking with an expectant mother
in the Kansas National Guard. She has also sought to increase access to
suicide prevention programs and destigmatize the notions surrounding
mental illness.
In addition, her experiences in serving in uniform have been
instrumental to my efforts to support our veterans. Over the past year,
I have continually been impressed by Kelly's leadership and
professionalism. At every opportunity, she has proven herself to be an
important and fully integrated member of my team, carrying the equal
weight and responsibility of my personal staff. Her seamless
communications and her skill in tackling issues big and small have been
a great benefit to our office and the people that we serve. Kelly has
exceeded all of my expectations and has demonstrated a commitment to
excellence that has been nothing short of outstanding.
A testament to her leadership over the past year was her promotion to
major in July. It was my honor to be part of her promotion ceremony and
to have the privilege to pin her new and deserving rank on her uniform.
It will be sad when she leaves our office at the end of the month,
but I know she will serve the Army well next year in the Army's Budget
Liaison Office, where I am confident she will be a highly effective
ambassador to Congress for the Army.
Kelly is one of the most impressive military officers I have had the
honor of knowing, and I hold her in the highest regard, personally and
professionally. She is a significant asset to our country and to the
U.S. Army. Kelly represents the best that the Army has to offer, and I
know that she will continue to be a benefit to the future of our
Nation. There is no group of people I hold in higher regard than those
who serve our Nation, and I want to reiterate my gratitude to Kelly for
her dedication and service to our country.
Once again, thank you, Kelly, for all you have done for Kansans this
year and what you will continue to do for our Nation. You have been a
model of selfless service and leadership. I know you will continue to
do great things throughout your Army career and your life in service,
wherever that path my lead you.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Berkley Bedell
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute
to an extraordinary Iowan with whom I shared a decades-long
friendship--a very prominent Democrat from my State.
Over this past weekend, former Iowa Congressman Berkley Bedell passed
away at the age of 98. For nearly a century of life, Berkley took his
grandmother's advice to heart: ``You can do almost anything within
reason if you will only set your mind to it.''
From an early age, Berkley Bedell set his mind to a high standard of
achievement. He set an example for the rest of us. He practiced what he
preached and he made a difference in this world.
As a child raised during the Great Depression, Berkley became a
soldier in the U.S. Army. He was, obviously, a World War II veteran, an
entrepreneur, a job creator, a philanthropist, a policy influencer,
and, most of all, a devoted husband and father.
What I left out is how I got acquainted with him. He was a fellow
Member of the House of Representatives during my early years and for
some time after I came to the Senate. Our decades-long friendship began
when Berkley and I were elected to serve Iowans in the House of
Representatives in 1974. Soon after the orientation for new Members,
Barbara and I developed a close relationship with Elinor and Berkley.
This friendship remained for the next 45 years.
Looking back, those were lonely days for a freshman Republican House
Member. That is when the Watergate scandal upended the midterm
elections. Voters elected 91 new House Members to that Congress. I
happened to be the only Republican in the Iowa congressional
delegation. Among our so-called Watergate class of 1974, I was joined
by Iowans Tom Harkin, Michael Blouin, and Berkley Bedell. We were all
freshman Members of Congress. We joined then with more senior Members
from the State of Iowa--Neal Smith, who went on to serve 36 years in
the House, and Ed Mezvinsky. The Democrat Senators from Iowa were Dick
Clark and John Culver. Berkley would go on to represent Iowa's Sixth
Congressional District for six terms, from 1975 to 1987. Even though he
lived about another 32 years after that, I presume he would have served
a lot longer if his health had held out.
Although Berkley and I didn't share the same political points of
view, we did share a common approach for representative government,
meaning with dialogue and feedback from Iowans that was very necessary
if we were going to represent them properly. Most often, the forums for
that were our respective townhall meetings.
Throughout our service together in Congress, party labels didn't
displace our ability to work with and for Iowans. As one example,
during the farm crisis of the 1980s, which was much worse than this
farm crisis we have right now, we used our voices to raise public
awareness and steer help to struggling farm communities in our home
State. We did everything possible to shape farm policy and restore hope
to thousands of farm families who were coping with double-digit
inflation and with the farm debt crisis.
As a Federal lawmaker, Berkley took his oversight work seriously.
Even though I take oversight seriously, I didn't do it in quite the way
he did. His was kind of an unorthodox approach. He just ventured,
willy-nilly, into a Federal bureaucracy here or a Federal bureaucracy
over there. He took the liberty of dropping by in person at these
agencies. He would go up to people and ask: What is your job? I don't
know exactly the questions he asked, but in knowing Berkley the way I
did, I think he probably wanted to have very calm conversations with
them to determine what they did and maybe even see if they were doing
it right, particularly if they were spending the taxpayers' money
right. He did this to keep tabs on how these Federal employees in these
various bureaucracies were serving the Nation and, particularly,
serving Iowans. Now, that is what I would call an in-the-flesh gut
check--a very different type of oversight from what I have done.
Berkley was born in Spirit Lake, IA. I assume he lived his entire
life in Spirit Lake, IA, except for the period of time he was in the
military and until he spent some retirement time in Florida. Spirit
Lake, IA, is a close-knit farming community in Dickinson County. His
neck of the woods is located in the Iowa Great Lakes region--a regional
destination for fishing, boating, and outdoor recreation. I will bet
the Presiding Officer has been there many times.
The area is fondly known as the University of Okoboji, where
generations of families go year after year to vacation and enjoy life.
By the way, the University of Okoboji is not really a university but is
very much a selling point for that part of the State, from an economic
development point of view, and it has worked very successfully.
As I just described, this is where Berkley's insatiable work ethic
took root. It guided him for his nearly 100 years of life on Earth.
Through philanthropic good works, he leaves behind a legacy of
conservation, stewardship, and historic preservation. With his wife, he
helped to launch the Okoboji Foundation more than three decades ago.
Since then, the foundation has awarded millions of dollars to scores of
nonprofit organizations in that lakes region of Iowa.
[[Page S6972]]
In other words, Berkley believed in paying it forward. He cared
deeply about giving back to his community for future generations to
enjoy. As you would expect an Iowan to do, he rolled up his sleeves,
opened his wallet, and pitched in to make a difference. By my measure,
his represents a life well lived, and he lived life well.
As I mentioned earlier, Berkley and Elinor became steadfast friends
with Barbara and this Senator. We shared an abiding mutual respect, and
we cherished their gracious regard for that friendship. After the
Bedells moved to Florida in their retirement, Barbara and I enjoyed an
annual gift from the Bedells each February. It was a very simple annual
gift but one that had a lot of meaning to it--more than the material it
represented. They sent us a box of oranges from their home in the
Sunshine State. Just as regularly as a clock, we received these over
many, many years.
Through these many years, their annual Christmas letter was something
that we looked forward to. In many years, in personal notes in those
very letters, they even thanked us for our friendship. Berkley also
stayed in touch with a friendly Valentine note each year to Barbara, my
wife. With Berkley's passing, we are saddened to know that these tokens
of friendship have now come to an end.
Berkley's story is an inspiration for younger generations of
Americans who are pursuing their dreams. It is never too early to dream
big. This was how Berkley Bedell was dreaming as a 16-year-old: He
became an entrepreneur. Berkley launched a fishing tackle business with
Jack, his brother. It was called the Berkley Fly Company. I am told he
started the company with $50 from paper route money. He started tying
fly fishing lures in his bedroom.
Pouring years of sweat equity into the family business boosted the
local economy and created jobs in his beloved Iowa Great Lakes. His
tenacious leadership developed a strong workforce for what was then
called Berkley Industries. That company, which is now called Pure
Fishing, is today one of the leading fishing tackle manufacturers in
the world.
At 98 years young, Berkley didn't let age slow him down by any
stretch of the imagination. He remained active in public policymaking
and immersed in electoral politics in Iowa. Usually, at least once a
year, he called on me here in Washington, in the Hart Office Building,
to tell me about some legislative issue he was interested in, and we
worked together on some of those legislative issues. Everything here in
Washington is so political, so this may sound very unusual, and maybe
it is unusual today: Despite our differences in political
philosophies--he was a Democrat; I am a Republican--we both appreciated
how crucial it was to engage the next generation in civic life.
Berkley's leadership and legacy will be remembered for generations to
come. I am proud to have called him a very good, good friend.
Barbara and I extend our condolences to his sons, Ken and Tom, and to
Joanne, his daughter.
Your dad made a big footprint in his life's journey.
As my former colleague in the House of Representatives, Berkley later
became my constituent when I was elected to serve here in the U.S.
Senate. I never knew Berkley Bedell to stop advocating for his
community or for the good of our Nation. It became Berkley's lifelong
hallmark to leave God's green Earth better than he had found it for
generations to come.
I wish Godspeed to my good friend Berkley Bedell, who joins Elinor,
his beloved wife, in eternal life.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was in my office and just learned, by
Senator Grassley's floor speech, about the passing of Berkley Bedell,
and I just wanted to add my voice to his.
He was a wonderful man. I served with him in the House of
Representatives. Spirit Lake was his home area in Iowa. He was a really
knowledgeable man when it came to issues of agriculture, and I didn't
learn until many years later that he was a very successful businessman
in the fishing tackle business, if I remember correctly, and sporting
goods. He had many interests.
He was a spirited, friendly, good person who worked hard at his job
and was a credit to the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of
party, and I think Senator Grassley's remarks reflect that.
I am going to miss his annual Christmas card. He and his wife--she
passed away just recently, as well--would send a card about the comings
and goings of their big, old family. It was a big oversized card, and I
always looked forward to it.
I feel honored to have been able to serve with him. I thank my
colleague and friend Senator Grassley from Iowa for paying tribute to
him.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The World Bank and China
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, despite the objections of the
United States, the World Bank adopted a plan for lending more than $1
billion annually to China.
China is the world's second largest economy, and its per capita
income is well above the level at which countries are supposed to
graduate from needing World Bank assistance. American tax dollars
should not be used, even indirectly, for lending to wealthier
countries, particularly when they violate human rights.
China seeks legitimacy through international institutions for its bad
practices, including for its own predatory lending through the Belt and
Road Initiative. Despite what the recent World Bank Group's Country
Partnership Framework reads, China is not an example developing
countries should follow.
To sum up on this point, China has the second largest economy in the
world, and it still wants to be considered a developing country and
lend taxpayers' dollars around the world in order for there to be a
greater Communist influence. As taxpayers, we should not stand for that
to happen.
78th Anniversary of the Attack on Pearl Harbor
Mr. President, on another point, this past weekend marked the 78th
anniversary of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor--a raid that plunged the
United States into World War II. Almost 2,500 U.S. soldiers lost their
lives that day.
I am proud of the many Iowans who have served and sacrificed for our
great country. Earlier this year, three of these people returned to
Iowa to be laid to rest--Robert J. Bennett, William L. Kvidera, and
Bert E. McKeeman.
I honor them and all of our servicemembers for their sacrifices in
serving our people, protecting our constitutional rights and the
freedom and liberties we have.
I yield the floor.
Nomination of Stephen Hahn
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to take a chance this afternoon
and vote for one of the President's nominees. Some of my colleagues
have come up to me and said I am making a big mistake, and I hope I am
not.
His name is Stephen Hahn. He is a medical doctor and an oncologist
from MD Anderson in Texas, and he has been named to serve as the Food
and Drug Administration Commissioner.
This is a relatively small agency by Federal standards that has a
major-size impact on the lives of Americans and beyond. I think it is
one of our most important agencies. It regulates so many things
relating to safety and quality of life, and Dr. Hahn would come to this
position at an auspicious moment in our history.
I refer, of course, to the fact that we are now battling a vaping
epidemic across the United States of America.
The Presiding Officer, from Utah, and I have worked on this together,
and I thank him for his leadership in this regard.
I look at Dr. Hahn and I think of all the questions that I have asked
him. I had a face-to-face meeting with him in my office and then had
him on the phone last night for another half hour, and he was very
patient in answering my questions.
[[Page S6973]]
I asked him about the vaping crisis we face, the epidemic that we
face. He readily concedes that this is something he feels very strongly
about.
The latest disclosure from the youth tobacco report suggests that 28
percent or more of high school students across the United States are
currently using e-cigarettes or vaping. Yesterday, I had a group of
high school students from New York who asked to see me, and they said:
Senator, you are wrong. It is over half.
A majority of the students in high school now are using JUUL devices,
or vaping devices, and these flavors, and they have developed nicotine
addictions, which have become controlling in their lives and it affects
the way they feel and the way they perform as students.
That is why it is so important, from my point of view, for Dr. Hahn
to make this a major priority. He assured me that he would. He reminded
me that he is a lung cancer doctor, and we had a long conversation
about my father, who died of that disease, and tobacco and the impact
it had on his life. I felt sincerity on the part of the doctor when he
was discussing this.
We talked about working with Dr. Azar, who has been an ally in this
conversation about controlling vaping devices and cigarettes.
He said that regardless of how I voted for him, he would look forward
to working with me. I am going to vote for him as the new FDA
Commissioner. It is a leap of faith because I am not certain where the
President of the United States is at this moment.
The Presiding Officer was at a meeting a couple of weeks ago in the
White House, and I have commended him for the questions he asked there,
hoping to hold the President and First Lady to their promise of
September 15 to really take on this epidemic of vaping and e-
cigarettes. I don't know at this moment whether he is going to continue
in that effort or whether the vaping industry has diverted him to a
different point of view.
Dr. Hahn may find himself in a compromised position soon, and I told
him as much. If it comes to the point where the President has abandoned
his effort against vaping and the industry is going to prevail, then, I
am afraid that Dr. Hahn is going to be wearing the collar for some of
the things that follow. Even though he may not even agree with the
President's conclusion, he will be working for the President as part of
his administration.
Dr. Hahn said to me: I don't want to be known in history as the head
of the FDA who saw this epidemic grow dramatically when it comes to
vaping by young people.
I am going to give him my vote, and I do it with the hope that he
will have a persuasive voice with Dr. Azar and the administration to
move in the right direction.
I applauded President Trump--which is unusual from my side of the
aisle--when he made his initial decision to take action against e-
cigarettes, and I would like to applaud him again. I hope he will
resume this effort. I hope the First Lady, who rarely gets engaged in
issues but seems to feel very strongly about this, will join us in
persuading the President to keep true to his promise of September 15.
I will be supporting Dr. Hahn's nomination for FDA Commissioner.
Remembering the Reverend Dr. Clay Evans
Mr. President, last Friday night was an amazing evening. I went to
the Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church on the South Side of Chicago,
not too far from where the White Sox play baseball.
There was a Friday night memorial service for the longtime pastor of
that church, the Reverend Clay Evans. He actually divided the service
up and said, Friday night is for the politicians and government people;
Saturday morning will be the memorial service for the members of the
church. A lot of people showed up on Friday night because a lot of us
considered Clay Evans to be a friend.
He was more than a friend. He was a legend. The Reverend Clay Evans
died peacefully at his home the day before Thanksgiving at the age of
94. Let me tell you a little bit about him.
If you ever had the good fortune to witness the Reverend Dr. Clay
Evans preach, you were lucky. With his rousing sermons, his soulful
baritone voice and ``the Ship,'' which is what he called the legendary
Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church choir behind him, Reverend Evans
was mesmerizing.
His sermons gave hope to the downhearted. His singing could bring you
to your feet. His Sunday services were so moving and so uplifting that
the legendary Sam Cooke used to come and attend for inspiration.
Even in Chicago, the birthplace of modern Black gospel music, the
home of Mahalia Jackson, James Cleveland, Mavis Staples, and so many
others, the Reverend Clay Evans stood out for the power of his
preaching.
But it wasn't just his beautiful voice that drew people in. Clay
Evans was a man of faith, integrity, and moral courage. In the 1960s,
he helped persuade Dr. Martin Luther King to come to Chicago and use it
as his base as Dr. King sought to expand the civil rights movement. It
was not a popular position at the time, believe me.
Chicago power brokers, fearful of the unrest in the streets, warned
Black ministers: Don't let Dr. King into your churches. Many of them
listened to that warning and turned him away--not Clay Evans.
He invited Dr. King to speak at his church. He opened the doors of
the ``Ship'' to Operation Breadbasket, the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference's economic justice project. Then, he persuaded
other Chicago ministers and churches to join him.
He paid a price for it. Offers of construction loans he needed to
build his church were withdrawn when he made this controversial
decision. Building permits were withheld for several years.
But Chicago, over time, became more just. Thanks to the work of
Reverend Evans, Dr. Martin Luther King, and the man whom Evans
ordained, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, Operation
Breadbasket helped to open up thousands of jobs for Black Chicagoans in
previously all-White grocery chains and companies.
Years ago, Reverend Evans told a Chicago Tribune reporter: ``I try to
embody the principles of Christianity, and for me that means being
dedicated to freedom and equality.'' For him, faith was not just what
you believed; it was the way he lived.
Clay Evans was born in 1925 into a large, church-going family in
Brownsville, TN. His family were sharecroppers. He was one of nine
kids. At night, he liked to listen to jazz music on the radio.
He moved to Chicago in 1945, part of the Great Migration that has
enriched that city in so many ways.
The most successful man he knew in Brownsville, TN, was an
undertaker, and that is what Clay Evans thought he would become in
Chicago, but he couldn't afford the tuition for mortuary school. He
took jobs where he found them. He worked at a pickle factory, as a
window washer. He drove a truck delivering pies. He was working at the
Brass Rail cocktail lounge in downtown Chicago when they prompted him
to join in song and marveled at his voice. He might have been a
successful nightclub performer, but he felt called to the ministry.
He attended the Chicago Baptist Institute and was ordained a Baptist
minister in 1950. He would later study at both the Northern Baptist
Theological Seminary and the University of Chicago Divinity School.
He founded the Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church in 1958 and
served as pastor for 42 years. He used radio and later TV to bring his
ministry to homes throughout the Midwest and South and to introduce
Black gospel music to the Nation.
Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church, or ``The Ship,'' as it is
affectionately known, quickly became one of the most influential
churches in Chicago.
He helped to launch the careers of nearly 90 up-and-coming young
ministers, including Mother Consuella York, the first woman to be
ordained a Baptist minister in the city of Chicago.
He ordained the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and, in 1971, the two
ministers cofounded Operation PUSH to encourage African-American self-
help.
Carved into his wooden pulpit was one of his favorite sayings: It is
no secret what God can do. What God did through his servant Clay Evans
helped to increase hope and justice in Chicago and far beyond.
I remember when, as a downstate Congressman, I made my early trips to
[[Page S6974]]
Chicago to meet the movers and the shakers. Reverend Clay Evans was
high on that list, and, as luck would have it, at one of the dinners we
were seated next to one another. He leaned over to me--I knew exactly
who he was--and he said: Congressman, I am Reverend Clay Evans.
I said: That is not what I heard. I heard you are Reverend Chicago.
He laughed and he looked down. He said: Well, they call me that from
time to time.
That is the kind of respect that he commanded, not just because of
his ministry but also because he was such an integral part of the faith
scene in that big city.
We got to be friends, and I was always looking forward to the times
we could get together.
With a choir led by his sister, Lou Della Evans-Reid, Pastor Evans
produced and recorded over 40 gospel albums--11 that charted on and 2
that topped the Billboard Gospel Albums Chart.
His first No. 1 gospel hit was called ``I'm Going Through,'' released
in 1993. The title song talks about staying on the righteous road, no
matter how steep the climb, how large the obstacles.
Reverend Evans would sing:
I'm going through. I'm going through no matter what they
may do. The world behind, heaven in view, I'm going through.
The Reverend Clay Evans walked that righteous road. He overcame
obstacles and widened the road so others could follow. He is certainly
going to be missed, and the crowd of speakers Friday night is just
evidence of the many lives that he touched.
My wife Loretta and I want to offer our condolences to his wife of
nearly 74 years, Lutha Mae, their children, their grandchildren, and
their great-grandchildren, and all of those in the family of Clay Evans
who tried to maintain a warm smile at a time of sadness for many of
them.
What he has left behind is something that we will all point to for
years to come.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Federal Regulations
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, on Monday I spoke at the annual meeting of
the Missouri Farm Bureau, and, in our State, as in, frankly, almost
every other State, the No. 1 economic activity in terms of value
produced is agriculture.
Where we live in the middle of the country, we do better in an
economy that focuses on growing things and making things than we do on
an economy that focuses more on giving advice--not that we don't want
to give a lot of advice, but the truth is we don't want to get a lot of
advice, either.
So there is nothing wrong with a service-based economy, and there is
nothing wrong with an important service sector in our economy, but
America, in so many ways, was built on a productive economy, on an
economy that produced something and something tangible. I think we have
a chance to see those things happen again.
Where we are located, almost exactly in the middle of the country,
the Mississippi River Valley is the biggest piece of contiguous
agricultural land in the world. Compared to the near competitors in
size, it is the only one of them that has its own built-in, natural
transportation center.
In fact, there are more miles of navigable river in the Mississippi
River Valley than in the rest of the world put together. I didn't say
more river than the rest of the world put together because that
wouldn't be true, but more miles of river that you can actually
navigate--river you can use as an avenue of transportation and commerce
than everywhere else in the world put together.
For an economy that is trying to reach out to the world or trying to
efficiently compete, that is a big advantage.
So at the Farm Bureau meeting, at least three of the things the
people I talked to were most interested in were regulation,
transportation, and trade.
When it comes to regulation, Missouri farm families understand that
many of the best things that have happened to them in the past 3 years
have been the things that didn't happen. There was a terrible
regulation proposed--waters of the U.S.--in which the EPA was trying to
decide that their authority over navigable water would be authority
over all the water. Suddenly, navigable water had become, under the
Obama EPA, any water that could run into any water that could run into
any water that could run into any water that eventually would run into
navigable water. If that is how we want to define it, the Congress
should decide that, not the EPA.
I stood on this floor many times during that terrifying time when the
EPA was about to take over anything that related to water, from the new
sidewalk in front of your house to whether you pave your driveway to
whether you could set a utility pole without EPA approval.
With the Farm Bureau map of Missouri, I think 99.7 percent of our
State would have met the new EPA definition of the water the EPA would
regulate. The other 0.3 percent, I think, were sinkholes that went
directly back into the middle of the Earth. So virtually 100 percent of
all Missourians would have been affected by that.
It would have slowed the economy in an incredible way because the EPA
could never have exercised effectively the jurisdiction they were
asking for. The good news is, it didn't happen.
The Trump administration moved forward with a Clean Water Act that
made more sense. They listened to rural America. They listened to the
people who build houses, to the people who provide power, and to the
people who provide jobs, and they said: We are not going to go in that
direction.
Then there was the Obama Clean Power Plan, which sounds like a good
thing. Clean power--I am not opposed to that, and I don't know anybody
who is. We want power to be as clean as you can reasonably expect it to
be. But the Obama Clean Power Plan was so aggressive in its approach
that where I live, the average utility bill at home and at work would
have doubled in about 10 years.
Well, lots of things work at today's utility rate--or some gradual
increase of today's utility rate--that just frankly wouldn't work if
the utility bill doubled.
That didn't happen either. In fact, we reversed course, and there is
now an affordable clean energy rule making its way into law and
regulation that really understands that.
Again, if you at home write your utility check and then write it out
of your checkbook again, a lot of things that you would do at your
house you wouldn't be able to do if you had to pay your utility bill
twice. Frankly, the job you may have may not be there if you had to pay
your utility bill twice.
Also, when thinking about making something in America today--and I
think there is a lot of interest in bringing manufacturing that has
gone overseas back to this country for lots of reasons, but when you
think about making something in America today, the first question you
would ask yourself would be this: Can we do what we want to do and pay
the utility bill? The second question would be this: Does the
transportation work for what we want to do? If the answer to either of
those questions is no, then there is no reason to ask a third question.
There is no reason to talk about workforce. There is no reason to talk
about tax structure in the place you are thinking about locating. There
is no reason to ask any other question if you can't do what you want to
do, pay the utility bill, and still have some profit.
There is no reason to talk about--if you can't do what you want to
do--having a transportation system that allows you to do what you want
to do. Those things are critically important, and they were critically
important at the Farm Bureau meeting. They certainly understood it
takes good highways, good State roads, and it takes a strong
understanding of connecting highways, roads, railroads, and water
together that will allow you to compete.
The last continuing resolution on this issue that we passed just a
few weeks ago actually funded the fifth year of the highway bill that
was passed 4 years ago. It provided for 5 years of authority but only 4
years of money.
That $7.6 billion allows the transportation systems in our States and
many things in our communities to happen. It allows county bridges to
be built.
[[Page S6975]]
Missouri would lose $350 million in Federal highway funds if we hadn't
figured out how to fund that fifth year, which we did figure out just a
few days ago. Knowing that is going to happen allows people to begin to
look forward to other things.
United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement
Mr. President, on trade, I was predicting on Monday that we would get
to the USMCA before the end of the year. I was pleased on Tuesday when
it was announced that we had an agreement between the House and the
administration.
The votes had been there for a long time to pass this, but the House
had to pass it first. So it is important to understand that the
election has consequences. Speaker Pelosi got to decide and got to do
some final negotiation, but trade is important.
Trade policy, tax policy, and regulatory policy are the three Federal
policies that make a difference in how competitive we are and how
strong our economy is. Certainly, when you have our No. 1 and 2 trading
partners--Mexico, our No. 1 trading partner, and Canada, our No. 2
trading partner--involved, clearly, when they are the only two
countries that we share a border with in the continental United States,
for the neighborhood to do well, it is important.
What has happened in Mexico since NAFTA is incredible. What has
happened in the United States in a positive way is also incredible. So,
hopefully, we will see the continuation of the commitment to have a
vote in the House this year and a vote in the Senate as soon as we meet
the deadlines the law requires--the waiting periods--once we get a bill
in the Senate. A lot of people are going to be relieved to know that
there is more certainty about that.
Tribute to Leighton Grant
Mr. President, I also want to take a moment today to recognize
Leighton Grant, for whom I asked earlier to have floor privileges for
the rest of this Congress.
Leighton Grant has really been critical both to my work in
appropriations and in our work on foreign policy in our office. He has
handled many of our national defense matters in the 116th Congress.
Leighton's 15 years of service to our country, both in Active Duty
and as a civilian in the U.S. Air Force, have allowed him to cultivate
a deep understanding of national security issues that affect the State
of Missouri and affect our country. His prior experience at the
Pentagon, where he worked extensively on generating the Air Force's
budget and strategy documents, has been particularly valuable in my
work as a defense appropriator.
The air defense of the country is critical. The appropriations
decisions we make are critical. The order we keep them in is critical--
keeping defense lines active so that we are not stopping and starting
to meet our future needs--so doing that in a reasonable way matters.
Leighton certainly understands that, and he should. He joined the Air
Force in 2004 as a command and control battle management operator. He
served four deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the global
War on Terror. He also deployed to Qatar and Jordan, as well as to
Latin America.
He holds a bachelor's degree in aeronautics, as well as a master's
degree in project management. While working as our military fellow, he
completed work at the Air War College and obtained a certificate of
legislative studies at Georgetown University.
He has contributed greatly. He has helped support us in veteran
casework, Defense appropriations, and military construction projects
that will impact our State.
On Sunday night, I ran into a mom who said: I just want to thank you
for all you did to get my son out of Syria. This was a young man who
got caught up while hiking in Syria. She knew Leighton Grant's name
because Leighton Grant took that seriously and, after several weeks of
working, helped to get him out of Syria. That is the kind of thing he
has helped us do. He has worked on matters that relate to Iran,
Colombia, Australia, China, and other areas. I am glad to have him.
I want to thank his wife Jennifer, his daughter Marleigh, and his son
Cyrus for supporting his career as he serves the Nation. I wish him and
his family well as they embark on a new chapter. I hope this year of
working with the Senate and Congress, with the vast breadth of issues
he has helped us with, turns out to be as valuable to him as his help
has been to us.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tax Cut and Jobs Act
Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, it has been almost a year since I was sworn
in. I thought it was a good time to kind of reminisce a little bit
about the first year of being a U.S. Senator from Indiana. I want to
cite that, when you come from a place like Indiana, it is where America
really works. Think about it. We still believe in balanced budgets. We
have rainy day funds. We take on big issues and talk about how we are
going to pay for it, not borrow the money, throw it on the backs of our
kids and grandkids.
So, in being here now nearly a year, I want to reminisce back to what
motivated me to stick my neck out and do it in the first place. I saw
in November of 2016 that it looked like we might have a different
dynamic here in our U.S. Government. I look back and see, in December
of 2017, a Main Street entrepreneur, someone who has always lived by
those rules of stick your neck out, take a risk. You don't really
exceed mediocrity unless you do things that push the envelope a little
bit now and then, but do it in the context of where it is sustainable.
I noticed, in December of 2017, we finally got some legislation
across the finish line that rewards enterprisers, rewards Main Street
USA. That was in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act passed then. I did not know
how it was going to unfold. Of course, even our CBO said it was going
to end up costing the government, not rewarding it through more
enterprise, greater revenues. Well, we have now got some evidence from
it. We have got the hottest economy that we have had in modern history,
and, yes, we are raising record revenues, despite having lower tax
rates.
Well, that sounds like the math wouldn't work out. Well, there is a
point, especially in small business on Main Street, that you will not
keep enterprising, you will not work hard if you end up having to send
too much to a place like this that over the years did not, to me, look
like it was delivering good value. So we have been vindicated; it is
working.
Healthcare
Mr. President, so what else has happened in this first year? That
happened before I got here. I ran because I wanted to weigh in on
things like the cost of healthcare. I tackled that in my own business
back in 2008. I found a way to make it consumer driven to where the
people that use healthcare actually have some skin in the game.
I did it in a way I wanted to emphasize wellness, not remediation. I
tried as a State legislator back in 2015--served 3 years in the Indiana
State House--and realized how hard that was going to be. I had three
really good bills that now, ironically, are pertinent here on the main
stage. I could not even get a committee hearing. The healthcare
industry has dug in to the point where I think, if they don't start
embracing the fact that they need to reform themselves, they could be
under a drastically new system.
So we had a President that was elected that wasn't going to be happy
with business as usual. I was hoping that we might parlay some of that
into real results here. Well, we have worked a year on trying to reform
the healthcare system, and we are really not any further ahead than
what we were a year ago. That is because the system is digging in and
fighting it. That doesn't mean I am going to give up. That is kind of
bad news, other than the fact that 80 Senators have come forward to
say, Hey, you are not doing a good job. We have got suggestions. That
ought to be a real wake-up signal that you get with it.
Judicial Nominations
Mr. President, one thing we have done here that has been immensely
valuable is that we, as conservatives, have
[[Page S6976]]
been able to impact our court system, which got lopsided over the
years, to where many laws that were passed here get into the court
system and then either get overturned or get impacted in ways that did
not have the original intent. We here in our own conference, I think,
have addressed that imbalance, and I think here soon we will have
appointed, in the 3 years that President Trump has been at the helm,
the 50th circuit judge. That is impressive. We are also filling slots
now that we made a change in the rules here to not only get judges
appointed but also to fill a lot of the slots in our government that
are vacant. So that is good news.
Economic Growth
Mr. President, you don't hear much about the fact that household
incomes have increased more than $5,000 a family in the 3 years since
President Trump was elected. It went up a total of $1,000 in the 16
years through the Bush and Obama administrations. That should be the
banner, the headline, and sadly, we are mired in other discussions that
I will address here in a moment.
I believe in the long run that, if we are going to change the
dynamic, we will need more disruption in an institution that, in the
year I have been here, I have been surprised how many people come here
actually wanting more, not realizing that when you are running
trillion-dollar deficits, that is a bad business partner. That is a
business partner that I would hedge my bets and maybe find other ways
to pay the way in the long run. Sadly, I don't think we are going to
fix that component until we probably have a crisis or two, and then we
solve it in that fashion.
So the budget which is, in my opinion, in the long run what we need
to do here, if we want to be helpful to the American public, it has got
to straighten itself out. Whether that will happen, I do not know.
United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement
Mr. President, let's talk about some of the things that have been
occupying time here, and let's talk about something that looks like,
finally, it is going to get across the finish line: USMCA. We hear
about trade issues. It is correct to be concerned about trade. Our
focus is normally on the Chinese. I do believe this has been the time
to take them on, call them out for their bad behavior when it comes to
stealing intellectual property, forced technology transfers,
manipulating currencies, creating gluts, dumping it on the market; no
one else is doing that. Until President Trump came along, nobody else
was talking about it. He was over in Europe recently, reminding our
allies that, when you are running trillion-dollar deficits, you can no
longer afford to be paying the bills for the rest of the world. That is
business as usual, thank goodness, because we simply can't afford it
anymore.
USMCA reflects arrangements between our two largest trading partners,
Canada and Mexico--many inequities there, mostly because we were kind
in those original agreements, but it needed to be changed because we
cannot sustain that in the long run. This is going to help
manufacturing. It is going to help farmers. The number of jobs it will
create, even in this low unemployment context, are amazing.
When you look at that, it finally gets across the finish line, and we
now, over the next couple weeks, couple months--who knows--we are
dealing with what is going to happen in one of the biggest political
events that has occurred in the history of this country. All I can tell
you is we will get through it.
I don't think we are going to find out any more than what we know
currently, but hopefully, when we do get it resolved, we are going to
give full credit due to getting tasks done like the USMCA, lowering
taxes, creating more enterprise across this country, and hopefully
relying less on this institution in all parts of our daily lives until
it sets the example that it starts to live within its means, live
sustainably. And then we start tackling issues like the cost of
healthcare, where we start talking about climate, when we start talking
about the issues that future generations will have to deal with and
that are currently paying all the bills through the money that we are
borrowing, hopefully that dynamic will change, and hopefully, we will
be back on track in November 2020 with the leadership that has put us
in a position to actually change things here to where we do live in a
way in the future that is sustainable, setting the example starting
right here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Georgia.
Farewell to the Senate
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I always come to the well of the Senate
with a purpose. I try not to talk too long, and I try to make my point
and get out before I make a big mistake. When you are saying thank you
to people who have done so much for you, it is almost always the time
where you do make a mistake and you leave somebody out here and
somebody out there and somebody out here. I am going to do a little
something I have never done before. I know one thing, I will leave
nobody out.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a list of names of my staff.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Personal Office Staff and Interns
Monica Heil, Jeremy Johnson, Jay Sulzmann, Amanda Maddox,
Marie Gordon, Charles Spry, Michael Gay, Toni Brown, Jody
Redding, Kathie Miller, Nancy Bobbitt, Nancy Brooks, Tommy
Nguyen, Maureen Rhodes, Sheila Robinson, Andrew Blascovich,
Michael Black.
Laura Gower, Will Dent, Jack Overstreet, Gus Youmans,
Elizabeth McKay, Tripp Adams, Hanna Yu, Preston Miller,
Kristine Nichols, Brad Williamson, Ryan Williams, Brooke
Doss, Drew Ferguson, Connor Rabb, Taylor McDowell, Logan
Purvis.
Caroline Maughon, Kate Hunter, Nyjel Jackson, Jason
Maynard, Max Turner, Hannah Kitzmiller, Colleen O'Connell,
Ken Ciarlatta, Seth MacKenney, Riya Vashi, Matt Sartor,
Sahiti Namburar, Olivia Kelly, Frederick Severtson, Floyd
Buford.
VA Committee Staff
Adam Reece, Thomas Coleman, Reider Grunseth, Asher Allman,
DeKisha Williams, Barry Walker, Leslie Campbell, Annabell
McWherter, John Ashley, Brian Newbold, Lindsay Dearing, David
Shearman, Patrick McGuigan, Jillian Workman, Emily Blair,
Pauline Schmitt.
Ethics Committee Staff
Deborah Sue Mayer, Karen Gorman, Cami Morrison, Geoff
Turley, Madeline Dang, Shane Kelly, Katharine Quaglieri,
Kelly Selesnick, Charlotte Underwood, Danny Remington, Katie
Jordan, Gabrielle Quintana, Taylore Presta, Taisha Saintil,
Mary Yuengert.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, it contains a list of literally hundreds
of people who have helped me get to where I am today in this Chamber. A
few of them are in this Chamber with me right now and a lot of them
were here Tuesday of last week when the Senate was very kind to give me
a sendoff. In fact, I thought they were so happy I was leaving, I had
done something really wrong, and I was saving them some trouble, but
they were really happy because we were being happy together about the
years we have had together.
I have had 15 years together with Members of the U.S. Senate, and it
has been the greatest 15 years of my life. I learned as much about
myself as I learned about anybody else, but I learned even more about
my country, which I love so passionately.
I want to take a few minutes today to talk about a few people I want
to thank for what they said about me, what they have done for me, and
how they have helped me. I wish to also tell the people who may be
listening to this show or watching C-SPAN today to understand there are
a lot of people who make us work. We do all the mistakes by ourselves
without any help, but the good things we do take a lot of help. They
take a lot of strength and a lot of time and a lot of commitment.
The 100 Members of this Senate sitting here have literally hundreds
of people behind them who help them do their job they otherwise
couldn't do. I represent 10 million people; Senators from California,
almost 30 million people; from New York, almost 15 million people. All
of the States have different populations, but all of them have a lot of
people who need help.
That is what Members of the Senate are there to do, along with the
Members of the House, and that is to give them the help they need from
the country they love and the country they were born in or became a
naturalized citizen in.
I want to talk today more about the hard work--the hard work of
licking stamps and envelopes when I first got
[[Page S6977]]
in politics. I don't do that anymore. We punch a computer key, and it
says ``reply all'' or ``distribute to all'' or ``send to all.''
Technology allows us to communicate at the drop of a hat.
The biggest challenge I have every day communicating is because of
what is on television beginning at midnight. President Trump usually
makes a tweet about 3 o'clock in the morning, and the news starts. We
get phone calls, our staff gets phone calls, and for the rest of the
day we are responding to what he said at 3 a.m., knowing the next
morning at 3 a.m. there will be a new tweet. There will be a new issue,
and he will be setting the pace. During the afternoon, when people
respond to it, their response to it will be setting the pace. All of us
are reacting in the third person or for the third time. It is a
challenging job.
With communications like it is and 24/7 television like it is and the
media like they are, it is really a challenge. The men and women who
work for me help me to make that communication. I want to, first of
all, start off by thanking them.
The lady sitting to my left--on the screen, I guess that would make
it your right--Miss Amanda Maddox. Amanda came to work for me a number
of years ago when I stole her from one of the House Members because I
knew she was the best person on the floor of the House. She was not an
easy steal because I knew she was a tough lady, but I knew I needed a
tough lady and somebody who could help. She has been a tremendous help
for me through a lot of difficulties we never expected, neither she nor
I--health challenges that I had, challenges I had in terms of my staff,
training for trips I took, going on trips I took, dealing with the
media during things we took on that were tough. Every day she did it
with skill and aplomb. Every day she did it right, and every day she
helped me look much better than I deserved.
I look in the mirror so I know what I start out with, but when I get
up and open my mouth, I can do even more damage. Amanda keeps me from
doing that. She is a first-class lady.
Another lady who is not here today, unfortunately, is Marie Gordon,
who is in Atlanta. Marie works under Amanda. She works for me in
Atlanta, GA.
They are really my communication. You heard of left brain-right
brain. This is my left brain. Marie is my right brain. They make me
work, and I know how many times I owe to say thank you to them, and it
is more than I could ever come to. They have been wonderful to me, and
I will miss them a lot as I retire, but I know they will be here to
help somebody else along the same way who will take my place and do
just as good a job or better.
I want to, personally, publicly, thank Amanda and Marie for what they
have done and how they made me look good.
A harder job is getting me around with my current difficulties I am
having in terms of movement.
Where is Logan?
Logan is on the floor somewhere. He is my pusher. He is not the kind
of pusher you are thinking about. He is my wheelchair pusher. He
doesn't sell anything else but wheelchairs, but he does a great job
with it and gets me in a lot of bad places I am not supposed to be able
to get into, but he does it safely. We haven't had any accidents, and
he makes me look good. I could not do without Logan and his talent and
his willingness to get up early hours to get me in a truck or get me in
an airplane or get me in my own car and get me to the places I need to
go safely and on time and get me back home to see my wife if we are in
Atlanta or back here to see my many supporters in the office when they
need me.
He is my instant communication man. That means he is also my right
brain. He is in there thinking ahead to make sure we have enough time
to get where we need to go and have enough places to stop for the
restroom, which when you are in a wheelchair, that is something you
have to think about from time to time and all the other little parts of
life you take for granted until you can't do them anymore. When
somebody helps you do them, they are a lifetime friend, and Logan
Purvis is a lifetime friend for me in what he does.
There is a real tall guy somewhere in the room who is good golfer.
His name is Trey Kilpatrick. Trey has been with me for 10 years. He
started with me in my third reelection or second reelection--one of my
reelections--in the first half of this century. Sometimes elections
seem like a century, not a day or not an hour but a century.
Trey has done everything. He has made appointments; he has
substituted for me; and he does an excellent job of that. He has given
me advice on what not to say. When he does this, I know what it means.
I know what it means from my wife, too, but when Trey does it, it means
to shut up, you dummy. He gets me to shut up in time and not say a bad
thing. That is a valuable person.
He is also valuable because I can't play golf anymore, but I let him
play in my stead, and he is a scratch golfer. For those of you who are
listening or watching this, that means he will beat anybody who tries
to beat him, and I hope to get half the money. If I don't get half the
money, I just enjoy seeing him and his great talent.
He has his third child coming pretty soon, so he is producing some
good voters for us in about 15 or 20 years from now. I appreciate that
as well. I appreciate Sally, his wife, and the sacrifice she has made
to let him take as much time out of his life and her life as I have
taken out of their lives.
I appreciate those who have made me look good. They made me look good
all the time, and I appreciate what they have done to help me along the
way with my service in the U.S. Senate.
There is another person I want to talk about for 1 minute. I will do
it some more tomorrow. I will break it up, so I am not taking up all of
the time of the Chair, but I want to take as much as I can right now to
talk about Joan Kirchner Carr. I have a unique situation with the chief
of staff. Joan Kirchner is my chief of staff. Her name is now Joan
Carr. She changed her name because she married my previous chief of
staff. She came with me as a deputy chief of staff and fell in love
with my chief of staff, and they fell in love with each other. He is
now the attorney general of Georgia. She married my chief of staff.
I actually have pretty good luck for somebody who wants to get
married. If you come to my office, you will find a husband or wife or
something like that. That is not a bad thing to happen in Washington,
DC.
Joan has been fantastic. She wrote for AP. She covered me when I was
almost a little guy. I first got elected in 1976, and she was working
for AP at that time in the Georgia Legislature and wrote speeches about
all the people who were in the legislature, and I was one of them. I
was the minority leader. I was the minority leader of a group of 19
Republicans who had 161 Democrats opposing them. Custer had better odds
than we did. We didn't have good odds at all. She was a great writer, a
great reporter, and I fell in love with her--not in the physical sense
but in the platonic sense--because I knew how good she was at what she
did.
Over the years, she impressed me so much, I brought her along on
whatever campaign I had. I brought her along to help me in the office I
had. She ultimately became my press secretary, my deputy chief of
staff, my chief of staff, and my best friend. When you can cover all
those bases at one time, you are doing pretty good, and Joan does
exactly that.
I am so grateful for all those who have helped me along the way, all
those who gave a lot, all those who gave a little but mostly those who
gave of themselves. Politicians are always asking for money; they are
always talking about money; and they are always promising money. Money
is fine, but that doesn't get you much of anything--but relationships
are impossible to replace. You take a good relationship with somebody
who has worked hard to help you get where you want to go, there is
nothing better or more valuable in life. No contribution of money is
worth anything more than just that act of love or that act of kindness
or act of support that gets you where you are going.
From this one guy who is leaving the U.S. Senate under his own power,
but not as much as I used to have, I enjoyed my 15 years more than you
would ever know, and I want to thank all those people who helped me get
here and made it possible for me, particularly those I pointed out now
and will point out later in my speeches this week. May God bless them,
may God bless all of you, and may God bless the United States of
America.
[[Page S6978]]
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from West Virginia.
Tribute to Johnny Isakson
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor with my
colleagues to honor our friend and our colleague, Johnny Isakson from
Georgia. I could almost tell you he is probably hating this about now,
but I want to get my two cents in. I don't need to read off his
impressive resume or thank him for his service in the Georgia National
Guard, his successful real estate business, his extensive public
service, and all that he has done and accomplished in Congress.
I want to talk about Johnny Isakson, my friend. You hear everybody in
this body get up and we say: My colleague and my friend. Sometimes I am
not sure we are really talking about friends, but I want to tell you,
Johnny, I am not making this up. I am talking about you as my friend. I
am not just being polite. You know me better than that.
I will tell a little story, and he has heard me tell it, but when I
was first elected to the House of Representatives in the year 2000, I
was walking down the aisle, probably our first vote, had no idea really
what I was doing, didn't know anybody in the 435-Member body, and I
must have had it written all over my face because I was wandering, and
this hand reaches out, and he says: Why don't you sit down here next to
me, and we can talk about what is going on.
That was my introduction to Johnny Isakson. We talked about what was
going on on the floor. We talked about who his friends were. We talked
about the fact that my mother's family was from Perry, GA, and I had
some Georgia blood running through these veins.
Johnny, as we have heard, doesn't care if you have been here 20 years
or if you have been here 20 minutes, he wants to be a friend. I heard
him say that the other day; that he has friends and then he has future
friends. I have actually thought about that a lot over the holiday
weekend. He doesn't care if you are a Republican or Democrat, from the
North or the South--South will probably help a little bit--East or
West, he has an innate ability to put everybody at ease. He doesn't
count anybody as an enemy. We have been to the Prayer Breakfast. We
have shared our highs and lows together in our respective lives. He
never cares who gets the credit. He just cares about getting things
done. I think you have seen that through everybody's wonderful tributes
to Johnny. He brings people together. That is hard to do, but he leads
by example. He has been a great example to me. You have been a great
example to me. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator John Hoeven, has
called you ``Mr. Congeniality of the Senate.'' I can't think of a
better analogy. You are Mr. Congeniality, but you are also a very
forceful, strong person with a steel spine to know what is right and
what is wrong.
The Bible asks, ``What does the Lord require of you?'' Johnny is
living that answer: to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly
with God. We could use a few more humble walkers around here, I think.
We could sure use more Johnny Isaksons.
You will be there cheering us on, I know, because your heart is with
your many friends who are here. I will miss seeing you coming around
the corner because our offices are very close. I will miss our car
rides together and our golf games together. I will miss that extended
hand in friendship, but I know that you will still be extending it from
your home with your family and your many, many friends.
I am really happy to be here. This is happy for me because I think it
is happy for you. I think that as much as you probably regret leaving
and feel there is more work to be done, you can go in peace and love
and know that you have happy days ahead of you and a lot of well-
wishers on the way.
Johnny, thanks a lot. Thanks for extending that hand of friendship.
It meant so much to me then, as it does today. Good luck and Godspeed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, like
the Senator from West Virginia, and pay tribute to our friend Senator
Johnny Isakson.
It has been an incredible privilege to work with Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson and I got to know each other first through the
bipartisan Senate Prayer Breakfast and then serving together on the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and Finance Committees. I have
always appreciated his commitment to bipartisanship, problem-solving,
and getting results for the people in his home State of Georgia and for
people all across our country. Because of that commitment, Senator
Isakson and I have worked together to cosponsor a number of pieces of
legislation, including efforts to improve care for veterans and to make
hearing aids available over-the-counter. We also partnered together to
pass a resolution designating March 25 ``Cerebral Palsy Awareness
Day.''
In addition to being kind, thoughtful, and bipartisan, one thing
stands out to me about Senator Isakson the most: his bravery in
speaking out on issues regarding human dignity. He demonstrated that
bravery early on in his career as a State senator who spoke out against
a local anti-gay resolution. At a time when standing up for the rights
of people of all sexual orientations wasn't easy or convenient, he did.
That took real courage.
In addition, I am in awe of Senator Isakson's bravery in sharing
publicly his family's experience losing his grandson Charlie to an
overdose. By opening up and sharing this tragedy, Senator Isakson
helped reinforce that this crisis affects families from all walks of
life. His public discussion has and continues to make a real difference
as we work to break down the stigma that comes with addiction. I know
he has continued working here in the Senate to prevent more families
from experiencing a loss like his own.
I am also grateful for Senator Isakson's leadership on behalf of our
country's veterans. In June, Senator Isakson led a bipartisan Senate
delegation to Normandy to mark the 75th anniversary of the D-Day
landings. During that visit, I saw firsthand Johnny's incredible
kindness and commitment to our country's veterans. I also saw how
quickly he dismissed compliments and thanks directed his way to ensure
that others got credit for their part in his success. I know that
carries over to his tireless efforts and hard work on behalf of
veterans as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Above all, I appreciate Senator Isakson's friendship. He has
represented the people of Georgia in the Senate with dignity,
determination, and grit, as well as a really good sense of humor. He
has made a real difference.
As Senator Isakson confronts a health challenge of his own right now,
I am confident that he will face it with the bravery, humility, and
humor he has exemplified throughout his life and here in the Senate.
Senator Isakson, we will all miss you terribly, but we are looking
forward to traveling to Georgia to see you and to continue the many
conversations that have made us all better people and better Senators
and makes this country a better place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I know I am not in the right order, but
since we have a gap here, I thought I would just jump in.
I am honored to be here today for the Johnny Isakson memorial tribute
part two. Being the lower person in the Senate on the totem pole here,
I didn't get a chance to talk last week, but I did sit through the
Senators' remarks, which I found very compelling.
I have found Johnny Isakson to be very compelling. You know, there
are times when you watch a movie or a TV show, and there are these
special moments when two people meet, and there is one person who has
that spark, who has that magic, and when they touch, when they embrace
with a hug or a shake of the hands, all of a sudden, the other person
realizes they are talking to somebody very special. That is Johnny
Isakson. That moment is built around Johnny Isakson.
From the first time I had the chance to meet him on January 3, 2018,
I knew all of those things that are being said about his
bipartisanship, about his friendliness, and about how he wants to work
with people and how he cares about people were absolutely true. I could
tell by the first handshake and the ``Welcome to the Senate, Doug.''
I will say that I think meeting me and having that spark was a real
test
[[Page S6979]]
of Senator Isakson more than anybody in this body because you have to
understand that when we first met, it was about 5 days before his
beloved Georgia Bulldogs were going to face the University of Alabama
in the national championship game.
For those who don't know this, I am telling you, you can think of
``partisanship'' and ``tribalism'' as political terms here in
Washington, DC, but if you ain't experienced football partisanship and
football tribalism as far as SEC rivals, you ain't experienced nothing.
So the fact that Johnny Isakson embraced me, a Democrat from his
neighboring State of Alabama, was very, very special and something I
will always cherish.
I truly mean that, Johnny. I have watched you as a member of the HELP
Committee with me. I have watched you in so many hearings and listened
to you and your wisdom. That wisdom often came from personal
experiences. Whether it was business or education or whether it was the
tragedy with your grandson, everything about what you have done in the
U.S. Senate has been personal.
I think that is something we should all strive to do. Everything we
do in this body needs to be personal because for all of our
constituents, it is personal to us. It is personal to our States and
personal to everyone, but we don't always seem to act that way. A lot
of times, we act in a way that it seems to be more political than
personal. I have never seen that in Senator Isakson. I have seen that
time and again, where everything he has spoken about--whether or not I
agreed with him was not the issue. I could tell that what he was
speaking of was personal, that it meant something to him, and that he
knew how it was going to affect those in the State of Georgia and
across the United States.
I can remember last year when we were moving toward trying to find a
way to help farmers in south Georgia and south Alabama who had been so
devastated by Hurricane Michael. This was crossing party lines. He and
Senator Perdue and I talked a lot about how this was affecting people
and people's lives and how frustrating it was for all of us to see the
politics kind of take over for a period of--I don't know--4 or 5 months
while these farmers suffered. That is the Johnny Isakson who reaches
across the aisle. That is the Johnny Isakson who cares about people.
That is the Johnny Isakson who goes to funerals and sits in the back of
the room and then works to make sure he does the right thing for all
those who could be affected.
Johnny, I am going to miss you a lot. I enjoy our talks about
football. I enjoy kidding you. I enjoy your ribbing me. But more
importantly, I just enjoy the camaraderie. I enjoy the warmth, the
feeling that I belong here. I, a Democrat from Alabama, belong in this
body--maybe not after 2020. I ain't going to push you that far, Johnny,
OK? I get that. But for me, there has always been a sense that you
belong in this body and you have a voice, and it is an important voice.
We need more of that.
We need to make sure everything Johnny Isakson said is remembered in
this body. We are about to go through some rough seas. The ship of
state, as I have said before, is about to chart some rough seas. We
need to remember the words of Senator Isakson as he leaves this body to
make sure we continue to do the work.
I think what we have done these last couple of weeks is reflective of
the legacy of Johnny Isakson. Whereas what was going on in the House
and what was dominating in the media--we still got an NDAA done, we
still got the FUTURE Act done, and we are still, over in the House,
negotiating USMCA. Things in this body can work if we work together and
we make sure that whatever happens after the first of the year does not
interfere with our ability to relate to each other and to our
constituents and for the people of America.
Johnny, I have been honored and privileged to serve with you. It will
always be one of the greatest honors in my life to have been able to
have served in this body with you. I wish you and your family nothing
but the best in the future. I hope that you will continue to contact me
during the football games and throughout so that we can commiserate the
good, the bad, and the ugly about Georgia and Alabama football. I love
you, and I appreciate you. Thank God you have been here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Alabama,
Senator Jones. Senator Jones and I haven't been here as long as some of
our other colleagues have been, but I think it is probably fair to say
that when Senator Jones and I have a colleague who is departing or if
the Presiding Officer has a colleague who is departing, there will be
one day of farewell. Maybe there will be an hour's window in which we
can come to the floor to say thank you or there will be a reception in
the Mansfield Room. I think it is fair to say, as has my colleague
Senator Jones, that I have been in line for a long time to get to this
day to say thank you to Johnny Isakson.
These tributes started when Senator Isakson first announced he would
be retiring from the Senate. It is very fitting that they continue
through this day because of the work he has pursued and because of his
accomplishments but also because of the humanity that rests in his
heart. All of us are better off because of his work.
In my knowing him, I hope that a little bit of Johnny Isakson rubs
off on all of us and that we can be here today, knowing that we are a
better institution, better leaders, and better public servants because
of his model.
Senator Isakson has done a lot of things that have been discussed on
the Senate floor. I don't know how much I can add, but I am going to
add a few things to the kind words that have been said. So many people
have said such great things.
The first time Senator Isakson and I had an opportunity to really
work together was on something that will benefit generations of
Coloradans. It was the VA hospital in Colorado--something that may have
shaved off some of the patience Senator Isakson has, which seems to be
unending at times. This one, though, I am sure, took a little bit of a
toll--the frustration with a very crazy collapse of a VA facility that
had taken over a decade and--gosh--hundreds of millions of dollars to
complete. It was a project that started out in the nineties but that
didn't get done until about a year ago or so. It was a project that had
started out at $300 million but that had ended up being over $2
billion.
Through it all, Senator Isakson was mindful of a very simple purpose,
which was that this facility was to benefit the veterans who had given
so much to this country. The first thing Senator Isakson said to me
was: Don't worry. We are going to get this done, and we are going to
make reforms so that this never happens again.
Under Senator Isakson's leadership, we have seen changes at the VA,
and we have also seen changes about how new facilities are going to be
completed and built so that we can avoid the kinds of mistakes that led
to the delays in Colorado.
Ultimately, Senator Isakson knew that this would be the crown jewel
in the Rocky Mountain region for veterans' service and veterans' care,
and that is exactly what it continues to be. We have Senator Isakson to
thank for the completion of that and the time on task it took to get
the job done.
Senator Isakson held a field hearing in Aurora, CO, with, I think at
the time, Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson to find out what had happened,
why the delays occurred, and then to fix it and to hold the people
accountable who were responsible for the delays. That is the kind of
leadership Senator Isakson provided.
Throughout that process, I think I threatened to rename the
colonoscopy unit after a couple of people, but for Senator Isakson, we
should name the town after him for the work he did to complete that
facility.
I remember the first time I gave him a little bit of a treat from
Colorado in order to thank him for his work. It was a box of Enstrom
Toffee from a family company in western Colorado. It was a pretty
incredible treat. I gave it to him and thought he had never had this
before.
He looked at it, and he said: Oh, Enstrom Toffee. I love this stuff.
I used to give this out to my clients when I was in real estate.
[[Page S6980]]
So I couldn't even surprise him with what I thought was a very
special Colorado treat.
Johnny is the kind of person who has the ability to cut through
problems, to cut through the smoke, to cut through the haze and the fog
of a challenge and go right to the merits of it, to very concisely riff
on any issue at a moment's notice, cut to the heart of a problem, and
provide a solution to that problem and to that challenge.
As the old saying goes, you are known by the company you keep. When
one looks around this Chamber, one sees the people who came to pay
their thanks to Senator Isakson. It is pretty good company. He has done
such great things for Georgia and for this country. I can't thank
Senator Isakson enough for his leadership, for helping us all out in
Colorado, and for making this country a better place.
Senator Isakson, thank you for all that you have done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to
pay tribute to our good friend Senator Johnny Isakson of the great
State of Georgia. I say ``ours'' because I know he is a friend to
everyone in this Chamber. It was a real blow to me and, I know, to all
of the Senators to hear that Senator Isakson wouldn't be seeking
another term and that he would be leaving early.
Over the years, Johnny and I have had a chance to partner on a number
of bipartisan initiatives. He has established a reputation in this body
as an honorable and hard-working Senator who cares deeply about his
constituents. Beyond that, he is just a kind person. As we think about
the accolades we could say about somebody, somebody who is kind to
everyone they meet, that is about as nice a thing, I think, as you can
say.
What Johnny does has been demonstrated time and again in Congress. He
develops trust and good working relationships, and he gets things done.
As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and a veteran himself,
Johnny has taken on the difficult but critical task of making reforms
to the VA to better deliver care to those who have fought for our
country. Having been through some of those challenges with veterans in
New Hampshire and seeing what they are facing with getting the care
they need, to be able to go back to them and say that because of the
work of Senator Isakson and Senator Tester, we now have the MISSION
Act--which is bipartisan legislation to expand care and services to
veterans--has been very reassuring.
We also know that Senator Isakson is a fierce advocate for local
priorities in his home State. I have a sister in Georgia, in Atlanta,
and when I ask her about Senator Isakson, she speaks very positively
about what she has seen that he does in Georgia.
Of course, many of us here have been reminded time and again of the
importance of the Port of Savannah and its dredging needs. I can
especially identify with those since we have small ports--much smaller
than Savannah's--in New Hampshire, but they consistently have dredging
needs, so I know how important it is to have an advocate who is there
all the time, making sure that the needs of those ports are being seen
to.
One of the many areas where Senator Isakson and I have found common
ground is reforming our budget process. I think it is not a secret to
anybody in this body that the Federal budget process is broken. Since
2011, I have worked with Senator Isakson, who had been working on
trying to get a biennial budgeting process for the Federal Government.
That is something that I think makes sense. Nineteen States, including
New Hampshire, operate on a biennial budget. We believe that taxpayers
would be better served by a process whereby Congress budgets for 2
years rather than 1 and is able to use the second year for oversight.
As we know, it is not easy to change things in Washington. I couldn't
have asked for a better partner in this effort.
One of the things I have especially appreciated about Johnny is that
he has very little time for partisan sniping, which has too often
characterized much of what we do here.
One of the gestures that mattered to me and that has stood out about
what his character is and how he has operated in the Senate has been
the fact that he came to New Hampshire to advocate for our biennial
budgeting efforts in 2013, a year when I was in cycle for reelection.
It didn't matter to him. What mattered was that we were working on this
issue, and it was important to the American people.
I had the opportunity to go the following year to Atlanta, and we did
the same presentation in Atlanta to again show that we could work in a
bipartisan way to try and address what wasn't working in New Hampshire.
I have especially appreciated that he has taken that approach on
everything we have worked on together.
I know Senator Isakson also cares deeply about the institution of the
Senate. He served as chairman of the Senate's Ethics Committee, a
committee I have also been a member of, though not nearly as long as he
has. I have seen closeup how he has faithfully and honorably conducted
the committee's business and, again, how partisanship has not been any
part of how he has approached his duties on the Ethics Committee. What
has been important has been preserving the integrity of the Senate and
the responsibility that each of us has as a Senator.
There have been so many ways in which Johnny Isakson has bridged the
partisan divide. One of those is through food, and I think all of my
colleagues would agree with me that one of the highlights of our year
is when Senator Isakson has his bipartisan barbecue lunch, which
features not just the dishes his home State is known for but, as he
points out, the best barbecue in America.
In New Hampshire, we don't have a lot of barbecue, so I don't have
much basis on which to judge, but I certainly would agree it is very
good barbecue.
I think, as somebody who has served in the Army, he understands that
the way to our hearts is through our stomachs, and we know if we keep
our troops eating well that they do better, and I think the same is
probably true of Senators. If we can keep eating well and collaborate
when we are doing that, it is great for our morale, and it is a great
way to help work better together.
In closing, I just want to say that throughout his time in Congress,
Johnny Isakson has been a statesman, and he has been a gentleman of the
highest order. They say that we remember people not by what they say as
much as by how we feel we are treated, and I know it is fair to say,
whether it is the person operating the elevator, the person who is
serving us lunch, each of us as Senators, or his constituents, Johnny
Isakson has made all of us feel very important, and he recognizes the
value that each individual in the Senate contributes to this body. For
that, I am very appreciative, and I will miss you, Senator Isakson.
Thank you for everything you have done for all of us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, let me join my dear friend and colleague
from New Hampshire in paying tribute to so many things about Johnny
Isakson.
I know we are supposed to abide by the rules, address remarks to the
Chair, and not speak to each other, and if I occasionally look over at
the senior Senator from Georgia and call him Johnny, I will apologize
in advance to the Chair and to the keeper of the rules.
I think one of the points that Senator Shaheen was making about the
bipartisan barbecue lunch every year is that we ought to do this more
often. We choose sides so many times, and for those of us on this side
of the aisle, it is three times at lunch every week--Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday. The senior Senator from New Hampshire and I
never have a chance to have lunch together because we are there with
our leadership talking about what our folks are going to do.
Johnny Isakson decided at least one time a year, when he was in
charge of making that decision, that he would invite Republicans and
Democrats. Sometimes we got pushback from the leadership of both
parties because they didn't have us captive that particular hour, and
some of us who tried it didn't do it year after year after year. Johnny
Isakson has done that and has been an example of bipartisanship.
[[Page S6981]]
I hope, Johnny, we are not making you weary of speechmaking, but I
did want to make an extra point that perhaps others haven't made and
give a quotation that Senator Johnny Isakson has made about others that
he would never have made about himself because he is too modest.
I first became aware of Johnny Isakson in 1990, and he and I had not
met at that point, but I was in Atlanta, GA, for some party function.
Johnny Isakson was a successful businessman and a member of the Georgia
senate. He was the Republican nominee for Governor that year, and it
was pretty well known that he was not going to win that race. But he
came before us and gave a rip-roaring talk, very impressive, and I said
to myself: You know, he may not win this year, but this Johnny Isakson
fellow has a future, and he is going to go places.
It turned out that the impression I had that day was correct. He
would go on to serve for some time in a bipartisan way in Georgia, and
then, when the Speaker of the House of Representatives resigned from
office, Johnny Isakson was there to win the special election and became
my colleague in the House of Representatives.
During that time when we served in the House together, we were on the
deputy whip team together. And, Johnny, it was usually you and I
sitting next to each other at each of those weekly meetings of the whip
team.
I began to realize on a personal, day-to-day basis what an
outstanding leader he was, what an articulate leader he was, how
persuasive he was, and how able he was to actually come up with some
accomplishments in the Congress.
Boy, it is hard to get a bill passed, and Johnny Isakson has gotten
bill after bill after bill passed for our Nation's veterans, of which I
am proud to be one--a list as long as my arms. I am proud to be a
veteran. I am proud to be the father of an Air Force major and the son
of an Army-Air Force veteran from World War II. We all appreciate in
our family, down through the generations, the efforts that Johnny has
made.
He has been so effective because he understands people, because he
understands the business about building consensus and using strong
relationships and treating each and every one of us on both sides of
this center aisle with dignity and respect--the kind of respect that we
would hope to be treated with always.
Senator Isakson enjoys poetry, as do I, and I have been known to
quote a line or two from a poem, but today I want to quote from a poem
entitled ``Sermons We See'' by Edgar Guest.
The reason I want to do this is that from time to time, when we have
honored people Johnny Isakson admired, he would cite this poem or a
verse or two from it as a way of honoring and pointing out the virtues
of the person being honored. He would never be so bold as to quote the
poem about himself.
I submit today for the Record the entire poem, and ask unanimous
consent that it be admitted.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Sermons We See
(By Edgar Guest)
I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day;
I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way.
The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear,
Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear;
And the best of all the preachers are the men who live their
creeds,
For to see good put in action is what everybody needs.
I soon can learn to do it if you'll let me see it done;
I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast
may run.
And the lecture you deliver may be very wise and true,
But I'd rather get my lessons by observing what you do;
For I might misunderstand you and the high advise you give,
But there's no misunderstanding how you act and how you live.
When I see a deed of kindness, I am eager to be kind.
When a weaker brother stumbles and a strong man stays behind
Just to see if he can help him, then the wish grows strong in
me
To become as big and thoughtful as I know that friend to be.
And all travelers can witness that the best of guides today
Is not the one who tells them, but the one who shows the way.
One good man teaches many, men believe what they behold;
One deed of kindness noticed is worth forty that are told.
Who stands with men of honor learns to hold his honor dear,
For right living speaks a language which to every one is
clear.
Though an able speaker charms me with his eloquence, I say,
I'd rather see a sermon than to hear one, any day.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I will read the first two verses of
``Sermons We See'' by Edgar Guest.
I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day;
I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the
way.
The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear.
Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear;
And the best of all the preachers are the men who live
their creeds,
For to see good put in action is what everybody needs.
I soon can learn to do it if you'll let me see it done;
I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast
may run.
And the lecture you deliver may be very wise and true,
But I'd rather get my lessons by observing what you do;
For I might misunderstand you and the high advise you give,
But there's no misunderstanding how you act and how you
live.
Those are first two verses of ``Sermons We See.''
I am so grateful for the sermons I have been able to see as a Member
of the House of Representatives, as a fellow colleague of Johnny
Isakson's here in the U.S. Senate.
He has demonstrated, in the way he has acted, the way we should
always act. He has shown us how to be a gentleman and how to be an
accomplished gentleman in the way he has lived and the way he has
worked across the aisle. How he ends this chapter gives us an
opportunity to say thank you for the way he has made the Nation better
and the way he has made life better for millions and millions of his
fellow Americans. Thank you, Johnny.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it is now my pleasure to also say some
words of tribute to my colleague from Georgia.
When I first came here and found out about his real estate background
and his interest in homeownership, I felt it was a powerful connection,
in that while I was never in the real estate business, when I went back
to Oregon in 1991, I found a connection with Habitat for Humanity and
eventually became their director, and it was all about homeownership.
So I spent a tremendous amount of time working to advance homeownership
for families in Oregon. Certainly, that is what the residential rules
say business is all about, and he spent decades in that world before he
came to Congress.
In fact, I also felt a connection because of his service in the House
of Representatives in Georgia. I only had 10 years in the Oregon House,
and he had far more than that in the Georgia House of Representatives.
I don't know if the Georgia House is like the Oregon House, but the
Oregon House was a very functional place, where people came to the
floor and listened to each other and shared ideas. They were only
allowed to speak for 5 minutes so everybody could hear each other. You
could borrow time from others, but if you borrowed time, then, people
started to say: The longer that you speak, the less support you will
have.
So it was great to have the entire group present, talking to each
other, working, and talking on the floor.
That is how I envision the Georgia House, as well, which I think is a
tremendous foundation for networking ideas, working with others,
realizing that relationships make such a difference as we strive for
policies we believe in. But the pathway involves relationships.
John F. Kennedy once said: ``Let the public service be a proud and
lively career.'' When I think about my colleague's career spanning the
Georgia House and Georgia Senate and the U.S. House and now the U.S.
Senate, and all that he has worked on, I think of it as exactly that--a
proud and lively career not only that he can be proud of but that all
of us can be proud of, as evidenced by the many folks who have
[[Page S6982]]
come to the floor to say thank you for your service.
There was one particular event that I will never forget, and that is
after the passage of Dodd-Frank. I heard that a problem had occurred
related to the interest on lawyer trust accounts, known by the term
IOLTA. This interest, which was not allowed to accrue directly to the
company of lawyers, was dedicated by law to funding legal defense funds
for noncriminal assistance to American citizens facing court
proceedings so they could get a fair day in court.
So I was trying to get unanimous consent for us to fix this, and I
needed a partner on the Republican side of the aisle. I was walking
from one Senator to another to another. I probably went through about
15 Senators, and I would say: Have you ever heard of IOLTA?
And, universally, the answer was no. I would explain what it was and
say why it might make a difference, and each time I spoke they would
say: Well, it is probably not something near the top of my list to
spend time on.
Then, I asked Senator Isakson: Have you ever heard of IOLTA?
He said: Of course, I have.
I explained to him exactly what it was and why it mattered, and I
said: Would you be a partner and try to fix this so that the funds will
go to the public legal defense fund? And he said yes.
We had to persuade, collectively, a number of folks who had holds on
the amendment, which we did. We finally had one Senator who was still
putting a hold on it, and we met with him--I don't know if my colleague
from Georgia will remember this, but we met with him--and explained our
case.
He said that, well, he would think about it, and we decided to inform
him that we were going to ask for a unanimous consent motion on the
floor at a certain time on a certain day, and that he was welcome to
come back and object if he wanted. He did come back, and he met with us
at that moment and withdrew his objection, and we passed that fix.
Now, interest rates have not been as high. So the amount of funds
that went into the fund were not equivalent to what they were in a
previous era, but it is an example of bipartisan work. It is not blue
or red work. It is work to help make something go a little better for
people in the United States of America.
So to my colleague from Georgia, thank you for doing many things to
make life better for the citizens of the United States of America,
working with that goal in mind, not partisanship.
Bless you and your family. Thank you for your service.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
nomination of lawrence vandyke
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Lawrence
VanDyke to fill a Nevada seat on the Ninth Circuit. When my Republican
colleagues decided to abandon blue slips for circuit court seats, many
on our side warned that we would start to see nominees with little
connection to the States in which they were nominated to sit. Those
warnings are coming true. We saw it earlier this year, when the Senate
approved the nomination of Daniel Bress to fill a California seat on
the Ninth Circuit, even though he had barely lived or practiced in
California as an adult.
Now, we are seeing it again with Mr. VanDyke, whose ties to Nevada
are minimal. He did not grow up in Nevada or attend any schools there.
He did not move to Nevada until 2015, after he had lost a race for the
State supreme court of Montana. He did not become an active member of
the Nevada Bar until October 2017. He does not have family ties to
Nevada. He does not currently live in Nevada. Since he moved to
Virginia 8 months ago, he has not been to Nevada even once. Mr.
VanDyke's only real tie to Nevada is that he was given a job there for
a few years as solicitor general, apparently as a landing spot after he
lost his race in Montana.
There are many longtime members of the Nevada legal community who are
well qualified to serve as a Federal circuit court judge. But none of
them will get the chance to fill this seat. Instead, Senate Republicans
are going to rubber-stamp someone with minimal Nevada ties for this
Nevada judgeship. How would my colleagues like it if that happened to
their States? Mr. VanDyke also has a deeply troubling record.
When he was Montana's solicitor general, we saw from his emails that
he allowed political considerations to guide litigation decisions. For
example, in a 2013 email, he urged that Montana join an amicus brief
supporting the NRA in a cert petition involving a challenge to a gun
law on the books. VanDyke wrote, ``I'm not sure I agree with the
strategy of bringing this case to SCOTUS, but I think we want to be on
the record as on the side of gun rights and the NRA.''
I am troubled that, for his judicial election campaign, he filled out
an NRA endorsement questionnaire in which he said he agreed that ``gun
control laws are misdirected.'' He also has a lengthy history of
criticizing and undermining LGBTQ rights. This includes his 2004 column
where he wrote that there is, ``ample reason for concern that same-sex
marriage will hurt families, and consequently children and society.''
Mr. VanDyke is the ninth Trump judicial nominee who has been rated
``Not Qualified'' by the ABA, out of over 260 Trump nominees the ABA
has reviewed. The ABA conducts a peer review process. In VanDyke's
case, the ABA interviewed 60 attorneys and judges who knew him and his
work.
Mr. VanDyke's peers said that Mr. VanDyke ``is arrogant, lazy, an
ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice
including procedural rules,'' ``does not always have a commitment to
being candid and truthful,'' and ``in some oral arguments, he missed
issues fundamental to the analysis of the case.'' These were scathing
comments from dozens of judges and lawyers who know Mr. VanDyke and his
work well.
In short, it is no surprise that both of Nevada's Senators oppose
this nomination. I agree with them. I will oppose the VanDyke
nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to
the nomination of Lawrence VanDyke to a Nevada seat on the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of
letters and other documents relevant to Mr. VanDyke's nomination
following my remarks.
Mr. VanDyke's temperament and integrity have been called into
question by his colleagues and the American Bar Association, which
rated him ``Not Qualified'' for the Federal bench. Mr. VanDyke's
record, including his opposition to rights of LGBT individuals and
commonsense gun control, is far outside the mainstream.
First, I want to discuss concerns raised by Mr. VanDyke's colleagues
regarding his temperament, competence, and work ethic. The American Bar
Association interviewed 60 of Mr. VanDyke's colleagues, including 43
lawyers, 16 judges, and one other individual who have worked with Mr.
VanDyke in the four States where he has worked and who are ``in a
position to assess his professional qualifications.''
In its letter to the committee, the ABA reported that Mr. VanDyke's
colleagues described him as ``arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking
in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules''
and stated that he ``has an 'entitlement' temperament, does not have an
open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and
truthful.''
As Montana's solicitor general, Mr. VanDyke's coworkers raised
similar concerns. They noted that he ``avoids work'' and that he ``does
not have the skills to perform, nor desire to learn how to perform, the
work of a lawyer.'' These concerns were echoed by six retired justices
of the Montana Supreme Court who wrote that Mr. VanDyke ``has neither
the qualifications nor the temperament to serve as a federal court of
appeals judge.'' Based in part on these assessments, the ABA deemed Mr.
VanDyke ``Not Qualified'' to be a Federal district court judge. The ABA
[[Page S6983]]
has rated 97 percent of President Trump's judicial nominees since 1989.
It has a process and standards. It has rated 97 percent of President
Trump's judicial nominees ``Qualified'' or ``Well Qualified.'' Mr.
VanDyke, then, is a clear exception.
Mr. VanDyke's record on LGBT rights is also deeply troubling.
In a 2004 op-ed, he wrote that there is ``ample reason for concern
that same-sex marriage will hurt families, and consequentially children
and society.'' Lambda Legal rightly characterized this claim as a
``stigmatizing and disproven myth.'' During his hearing, and in written
questions, Mr. VanDyke was given many opportunities to disavow this
statement, which is not supported by the research. He declined to do
so.
I asked Mr. VanDyke whether the Supreme Court's decision legalizing
same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges has harmed families and
children, and I presented him with research showing that the children
of gay and lesbian parents do as well as children raised in opposite-
sex households. Still, Mr. VanDyke refused to disavow his anti-LGBT
statements.
In its letter to the committee, the ABA reported that some
interviewees were unconvinced that Mr. VanDyke would be fair to members
of the LGBT community. The ABA further noted that Mr. VanDyke ``would
not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him,
notably members of the LGBT community.'' I am concerned based on Mr.
VanDyke's record and the ABA's assessment that LGBT litigants cannot
expect to be treated fairly in his courtroom.
Finally, I would like to highlight Mr. VanDyke's long history of
advocating against commonsense gun control.
As Nevada solicitor general, he undermined implementation of a 2016
ballot initiative, passed by Nevada voter that would have closed a
loophole by expanding background checks for private gun sales. As
Montana solicitor general, he called assault weapons bans
``ineffective'' and questioned the Federal Government's authority to
regulate guns in any capacity.
While running for a seat on the Montana Supreme Court in 2014, he
filled out an NRA Questionnaire that highlights how far outside the
mainstream his views on gun control are.
On this questionnaire, Mr. VanDyke indicated that he believes all gun
control laws are ``misdirected.'' He opposed banning the possession,
purchase, or sale of any firearm. He also opposed assault weapons bans
and requiring background checks for guns sold at gun shows.
Mr. VanDyke even appeared to pledge loyalty to the NRA itself. He
wrote on the questionnaire that he had stopped being a member of the
organization because he ``didn't want to risk recusal if a lawsuit came
before [him] where the NRA was involved.'' Mr. VanDyke willingly
offered these views when he was seeking judicial office, and so I asked
him to answer the same questions from the NRA's questionnaire as part
of this nomination process. He declined to do so.
It is distressing that a nominee would offer his views on gun control
to the NRA, but not to a Member of the U.S. Senate who must vote on his
lifetime appointment to the Federal bench.
It is no wonder that gun safety groups, including the Giffords Law
Center and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, fear that Mr. VanDyke
has demonstrated a ``clear lack of impartiality'' and is ``incapable of
serving as an impartial justice.''
The Nevada Senators strongly oppose Mr. VanDyke, in part because he
lacks ties to the State. Their opposition is justified. It is hard to
believe that this nominee, whose views are so far outside the
mainstream and who is unqualified for the position, is the best the
Nevada legal community has to offer.
Federal appeals court judges must be knowledgeable, and litigants
must have confidence that these judges will treat them fairly and
honestly. Unfortunately, Mr. VanDyke does not meet these basic
standards. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
NRA-PVF
National Rifle Association of America
Political Victory Fund
2014 Montana Candidate Questionnaire
Name: Lawrence VanDyke
Website: www.VanDykeforJustice.com
Campaign Name: VanDyke for Supreme Court-
Campaign ID #: 46-5103703
Public Office(s) Held: Montana Solicitor General
Occupation: Attorney
Office Sought: Montana Supreme Court Justice-
District: Seat 2--
Party: Non-Partisan
For further information on Montana firearm laws, Please
visit www.nraila.org and click on the ``Gun Laws'' feature
located in the menu.
1. Do you agree that the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution guarantees a fundamental, individual
right to keep and bear arms that applies to all Americans,
regardless of where they live in the United States?
a. X Yes.
b. ___ No.
2. Which of the following statements best represents your
opinion on the prevention of violent crime?
a. ___ Gun control laws will solve the crime problem.
b. ___ Gun control laws will not solve the crime problem,
but they must be a part of the overall solution.
c. X Gun control laws are misdirected; the solution is the
enforcement of existing laws which punish criminals who
misuse firearms and other weapons in the commission of
crimes.
d. ___ Other:
3. Considering current Montana firearm laws, would you
support any additional restrictive state legislation
regulating firearms and/or ammunition?
a. ___ Yes, I support additional restrictive state
legislation regulating firearms and/or ammunition.
b. ___ Yes, I support additional restrictive state
legislation regulating firearms. Please explain:
c. ___ Yes, I support additional restrictive state
legislation regulating ammunition. Please explain:
d. ___ No, current state firearm laws are sufficient.
e. X No, current state firearm laws should be improved to
benefit law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen in Montana.
4. Would you support state legislation banning the
manufacture, possession, ownership, purchase, sale and/or
transfer of any firearms?
a. ___ Yes, for all firearms. Please specify type of
restrictions:
b. ___ Yes, for all handguns. Please specify type of
restrictions:
c. ___ Yes, for some firearms. Please specify types of
firearms/restrictions:
d. X No, I oppose banning the manufacture, possession,
ownership, purchase, sale and/or transfer of any firearm.
5. Many .50 caliber firearms are used in big game hunting
and target competition and the .50 caliber BMG cartridge has
been used for nearly a century. Would you support legislation
prohibiting the ownership and/or sale of any .50 caliber
firearms or ammunition in Montana?
a. ___ Yes, I would support such legislation. Please
explain:
b. X No, I would oppose such legislation.
I personally have hunted with a 50 AE Desert Eagle Pistol
(.50 caliber)
6. In 1994, Congress imposed a 10-year ban on the
manufacture, for sale to private individuals, of various
semi-automatic* firearms it termed ``assault weapons,'' and
of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10
rounds of ammunition, which primarily affected handguns
designed for self-defense. Congress' subsequent study of the
ban, as well as state and local law enforcement agency
reports, showed that contrary to the ban's supporters'
claims, the guns and magazines had never been used in more
than about 1%-2% of violent crime. Since the ban expired in
2004, the numbers of these firearms and magazines owned have
risen to all-time highs and violent crime has fallen to a 42-
year low. Would you support state legislation restricting the
possession, ownership, purchase, sale, and/or transfer of
semi-automatic firearms and/or limits on the capacity of
magazines designed for self-defense?
* Semi-automatic firearms have been commonly used for
hunting, target shooting, and self-defense since their
introduction in the late 1800s. All semi-automatics fire only
one shot when the trigger is pulled. They are not fully-
automatic machine guns, which have been strictly regulated
under federal law since 1934.
a. ___ Yes, I would support such legislation for semi-
automatic firearms only.
b. ___ Yes, I would support such legislation for magazines
only.
c. ___ Yes, I would support such legislation for semi-
automatic firearms and magazines.
d. X No, I would oppose such legislation.
7. Federal law requires federally-licensed firearms dealers
to keep records of the make, model, caliber, and serial
number of all firearms sold. Would you support state
legislation requiring all firearm owners to register all
their firearm(s) for entry into a centralized state file or
database?
a. __ Yes, for all firearms.
b. __ Yes, for all handguns.
c. __ Yes, for some firearms. Please specify which
firearms:
[[Page S6984]]
d. X No, I oppose state registration of firearms.
8. Would you support the state licensing* of law-abiding
citizens who own, possess and use firearms?
*Licensing, as used here, refers to state legislation
requiring firearm owners to obtain a license from a
government official or agency to own and possess a firearm.
As a rule, firearm owner licensing laws generally require
fingerprinting, photographing, and/or a background
investigation of the applicant. Note: this is different from
acquiring a ``permit to carry'' a concealed weapon from the
state.
a. __ Yes, for owners of all firearms.
b. __ Yes, for owners of all handguns.
c. __ Yes, for owners of some firearms. Please specify
which firearms:
d. X No, I oppose state registration of firearm owners.
9. Federal law requires all federally-licensed firearms
dealers to conduct a criminal records check prior to the sale
of any firearm, whether the sale occurs at their retail store
or at a gun show. Access to the FBI-run telephone-based
``instant check'' system is limited to licensed dealers only.
Under federal law, individuals who only occasionally sell
firearms from their personal collections are not ``engaged in
the business'' of selling firearms, and are therefore (1) not
required to be licensed; (2) not required to conduct records
checks prior to transferring firearms; and (3) not permitted
to access the records check system used by licensed dealers.
Although less than 1% of guns used in crimes are purchased at
gun shows (Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics), gun
control advocates are trying to ban firearms sales at gun
shows by occasional sellers and private collectors, or
require that any transactions involving their legal property
be conducted through a licensed dealer. Would you support
legislation restricting firearms sales by occasional sellers
and private collectors at gun shows?
a.__ Yes, I would support such legislation. Please explain:
b. X No, I would oppose such legislation.
10. In the United States, the number of privately owned
guns has risen by more than 10 million annually to an all-
time high. Meanwhile, according to the National Center for
Health Statistics, firearm accident deaths have decreased by
90 percent over the last century. This trend is due in part
to an increasing use of NRA firearm safety training programs
by tens of thousands of RA Certified Instructors, schools,
civic groups and law enforcement agencies. Nevertheless,
several states have recently considered legislation that
would mandate the placement of locking devices on firearms
kept in the home. These devices greatly restrict access to
firearms for self-defense purposes and potentially increase
the risk of accidental discharge of a firearm. Would you
support legislation that would mandate the use of locking
devices or other locking procedures for firearms stored in
the home?
a. __Yes, I would support such legislation. Please explain:
b. X No, I would oppose such legislation.
11. Recently, some employers have extended their ``gun-
free'' workplace rules to employees' locked private vehicles
in parking lots. Such policies effectively disarm law-abiding
citizens, including concealed weapon license holders, from
the time they leave their house in the morning to their
return home in the evening. Would you support ``Employee
Protection'' legislation that would allow law abiding
citizens to keep lawfully transported firearms locked in
their personal vehicles while parked on publicly accessible,
privately owned parking lots (see 2013 Montana House Bill
571)?
a. __Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
12. Current Montana law (MCA Sec. 45-8-328) lists certain
``prohibited places,'' including banks, government office
buildings and establishments where alcoholic beverages are
served, where concealed weapon permit holders (and law
enforcement officers) may not carry a concealed firearm. This
puts law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage because, although
they could carry ``openly'' in these locations, criminals
will obviously ignore the law and carry concealed. Would you
support legislation to repeal the restrictions on where law-
abiding citizens may carry a concealed weapon (see 2013
Montana House Bill 358)?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
13. Current Montana law allows law-abiding citizens to
carry a concealed weapon for defense of themselves and
others, free from government interference, anywhere outside
the official boundaries of any city or town. In order to
cross into a city or town and still be in compliance with
Montana law, however, a law-abiding citizen must have a valid
concealed weapon permit. Would you support state legislation
to remove the requirement that law-abiding citizens obtain
governmental permission in order to provide a means of self-
protection when they cross into the boundaries of cities and
towns in Montana (see 2013 Montana House Bill 304)?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
14. Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), an individual
wanting to acquire an NFA-regulated item, such as a firearm
sound suppressor or fully automatic firearm, must submit the
proper paperwork and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), pay a $200 tax and
have a chief local law enforcement officer (CLEO) sign-off on
the proper forms. Some CLEOs simply refuse to sign such
forms, even for otherwise qualified applicants, because they
oppose civilian possession of these items, are fearful
of liability or the perceptions of anti-gun constituents,
or for other subjective reasons. Legally owned NFA items
are very rarely used in crime, with the total number of
cases documented numbering in the single digits. This
legislation would also include an immunity provision for
CLEOs. Would you support state legislation that would make
this process more objective by requiring CLEOs to sign
such forms if the applicant is not otherwise prohibited
from obtaining an NFA item?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
15. Many public colleges and universities allow visitors
with concealed handgun permits to carry concealed firearms on
their campuses, yet nearly all state-funded higher learning
institutions ban faculty, staff and students from carrying
concealed handguns on campus--even if they have permits to
carry concealed firearms. The NRA believes a person with a
permit to carry a concealed firearm should be able to carry
that firearm concealed anywhere he or she has a legal right
to be, except in certain ``sterile'' high-security locations.
Assuming each classification of individuals listed below
possessed a concealed handgun permit recognized by the state,
who do you believe should legally be allowed to carry a
concealed handgun on state college and university campuses?
a. X All law-abiding persons, including visitors, faculty,
staff and students.
b. __ Visitors, faculty, staff and some students. Please
explain:
c. __ Faculty, staff and students.
d. __ Visitors, faculty and staff.
e. __ Faculty and staff.
f. __ Each college or university should determine the
policy for its campus.
g. __ No one should be allowed to carry a concealed handgun
on state college and university campuses.
16. The residents of 39 states can legally own firearm
suppressors. Contrary to Hollywood portrayals, suppressors
are virtually never used in crime or poaching and criminal
misuse carries severe penalties. Suppressors can improve
shooting accuracy, protect against hearing loss, reduce noise
complaints from the public and make shooting and hunting more
enjoyable. The current prohibition on hunting suppressor use,
in effect, requires firearms to be as loud as they can
possibly be, contrary to the manner in which virtually all
other noise-emitting objects are treated. Suppressors are
strictly regulated under federal law. Individual purchasers
must pay a $200 federal tax; submit to an extensive
background check that includes fingerprints and photographs;
and obtain the approval of the chief law enforcement officer
in their jurisdiction. Would you support legislation that
allows the use of suppressors while hunting and allow law-
abiding Montana sportsmen the freedom to protect against
hearing loss, improve accuracy and reduce noise complaints?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
17. Many states provide civil liability protection to
private property owners who allow the public to hunt on their
property. Shielding property owners from frivolous lawsuits
eliminates a significant concern for property owners and
encourages them to open their land to hunting. This enhances
public hunting opportunities and assists the state in
effectively managing its wildlife populations. Would you
support passing or strengthening liability protections for
private landowners who allow hunting on their property?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
18. Youth/mentored hunting programs have been implemented
in 29 states to help promote our hunting heritage by removing
barriers to participation. This enormous case study has
proven safe beyond anyone's expectations. Mentored hunting
allows novice hunters--young and old--to hunt prior to
completing hunter education requirements if they hunt under
the close supervision of a licensed, adult hunter who meets
hunter education requirements. This is the ``try it before
you buy it'' concept. These programs also dramatically reduce
or eliminate minimum hunter ages. Would you support a youth/
mentored hunting law to help promote Montana's hunting
heritage?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor a youth/mentored
hunting law.
b. X Yes, I would support implementing a youth/mentored
hunting law.
c. __ No, I oppose implementing a mentored hunting law.
Montanans will prove to be the exception to the rule of
extraordinary safety established by the citizens of the 29
states that have implemented this program.
[[Page S6985]]
d. _ Other. Please explain:
19. For which of the following reasons do you support
firearm ownership for law-abiding Montana citizens (please
mark any and all that apply)?
a. X Constitutional Right.
b. X Hunting.
c. X Competitive shooting.
d. X Informal sport shooting (e.g., plinking).
e. X Defense of self, family, and home (basic human right).
f. X Collecting.
g. X Defense of state and nation.
h. X All of the above.
i. __ None of the above.
20. Have you ever run for or held state or local elective
office?
a. __ Yes. Please specify:
b. X No.
21. Are you a member of the National Rifle Association, the
Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Montana Rifle &
Pistol Association or any other shooting/sportsmen's/gun
rights organization?
a. __Yes. Please specify:
b. X No.
I have previously been a member of the NRA, but am not
currently a member. I don't want to risk recusal if a lawsuit
came before me where the NRA was involved.
--Please see the information from the email sent to Brian
Judy on Sept. 16, 2014.
--Please also see the attached article from the Great Falls
Tribune dated 9/18/14. The emails referenced in the article,
which are available at the website, are very illuminating
regarding my defense of the 2nd Amendment while serving as
Montana's Solicitor General. See especially page 93.
Candidate Signature: Lawrence VanDyke Date: 9/18/14
____
American Bar Association,
October 29, 2019.
Re Nomination of Lawrence J.C. VanDyke to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Hon. Lindsey Graham,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein: The
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary has received a full report on Lawrence J.C. VanDyke
and a supplemental review by a former chair of the Committee.
The Committee's work is based solely on a review of
integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.
Based on these criteria, a substantial majority of the
Committee has determined that Mr. VanDyke is ``Not
Qualified,'' and a minority determined that he is
``Qualified'' to serve on the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. The majority rating represents the
Standing Committee's official rating. I write to offer a
brief explanation of this rating.
The evaluator's Formal Report is based on 60 interviews
with a representative cross section of lawyers (43), judges
(16), and one other person who have worked with the nominee
in the four states where he has worked and who are in a
position to assess his professional qualifications. They
include but are not limited to attorneys who worked with him
and who opposed him in cases and judges before whom he has
appeared at oral argument. The evaluator obtained detailed
background materials such as more than 600 pages of publicly
produced emails involving and/or written by Mr. VanDyke, news
reports where Mr. VanDyke had been interviewed, and articles
and opinions written about him.
Mr. VanDyke is a highly educated lawyer with nearly 14
years of experience in appellate law, including one year as a
law clerk, an associate in a law firm, and as a Solicitor
General for over five-plus years, first in Montana and then
Nevada, two states in the Ninth Circuit where he would serve
if confirmed. The Committee was tasked with balancing Mr.
VanDyke's accomplishments with strong evidence that supports
a ``Not Qualified'' rating.
Mr. VanDyke's accomplishments are offset by the assessments
of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an
ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day
practice including procedural rules. There was a theme that
the nominee lacks humility, has an ``entitlement''
temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always
have a commitment to being candid and truthful.
Some interviewees raised concerns about whether Mr. VanDyke
would be fair to persons who are gay, lesbian, or otherwise
part of the LGBTQ community. Mr. VanDyke would not say
affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before
him, notably members of the LGBTQ community.
Even though Mr. VanDyke is clearly smart, comments were
made that in some oral arguments he missed issues fundamental
to the analysis of the case. There were reports that his
preparation and performance were lacking in some cases in
which he did not have a particular personal or political
interest.
While the evaluator was careful in her interview with Mr.
VanDyke not to name interviewees, the nature of the issues
that gave rise to some of the negative comments had been
publicly discussed and other adverse comments could be raised
without identifying interviewees. The negative issues
discussed in this letter were thoroughly discussed with
interviewees and vetted with the nominee. Significantly, the
interviewees' views, negative or positive, appeared strongly
held on this nominee.
The Committee's work is guided by the Backgrounder which
reflects that judgment is a component of professional
competence, and that open-mindedness, courtesy, patience,
freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under law
are components of judicial temperament. Based on these
principles, a substantial majority of the Committee
determined that the nominee is ``Not Qualified'' to be a
Ninth Circuit judge.
Very truly yours,
William C. Hubbard.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, yesterday, I went to the Senate floor
to ask unanimous consent on the DETER Act, bipartisan legislation that
I authored alongside Senator Rubio that is languishing in the Senate
legislative graveyard.
The DETER Act is absolutely critical to protect our democracy from
foreign interference. It serves a clear, simple, and essential purpose.
It says to Russia and any other foreign power that, if they interfere
in our elections and undermine the integrity of our democracy, they
will face severe consequences in the form of tough sanctions. Foreign
interference in our elections remains as critical a threat as ever.
That is why, on November 5, seven U.S. Federal agencies jointly stated,
``Russia, China, Iran, and other foreign malicious actors all will seek
to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions.
Adversaries may try to accomplish their goals through a variety of
means, including social media campaigns, directing disinformation
operations, or conducting disruptive or destructive cyberattacks on
state and local infrastructure.''
The Senate endorsed the inclusion of this bill in this year's
National Defense Authorization Act, unanimously passing a resolution in
the fall instructing NDAA conferees to include such a provision in the
conference report. However, the Republican leadership has stonewalled
the inclusion of this bill in the NDAA. Instead, we are voting this
week on two Ninth Circuit judicial nominees of dubious qualifications,
including one who was rated ``Unqualified'' by the American Bar
Association, ABA.
Circuit courts play an important role in our country. Circuit court
judges review the decisions of district court judges. Instead of
nominating experienced jurists, Republicans have chosen to advance two
nominees, Messrs. Bumatay and VanDyke, neither of whom have absolutely
any experience as judges, at the Sate or Federal level. Mr. VanDyke was
harshly described by his peers and colleagues as someone who is
``arrogant and disrespectful to others, both in and outside of this
office. He avoids work. He does not have the skills to perform, nor
desire to learn how to perform, the work of a lawyer.'' This harsh
criticism of a judicial nominee from their peers is extremely rare and
factored in heavily into the ABA's ``Unqualified'' rating.
Instead of trying to confirm unqualified radical ideologues to the
bench, Republicans should be working across the aisle to pass
bipartisan legislation to secure our elections and address other
national priorities. Failing to do so is a dereliction of our duty.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
rollcall vote scheduled to begin at 4:15 begin at 4:05 p.m.,
immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on VanDyke Nomination
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the VanDyke nomination?
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massahusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
[[Page S6986]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 391 Ex.]
YEAS--51
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--44
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Bennet
Booker
Paul
Sanders
Warren
The nomination was confirmed.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and
the President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________