March 5, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 39 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S1647-S1648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Chad A. Readler

  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, it is very important that the American 
people know that Republicans are still trying to take away their 
healthcare. Last year, Republicans filed a lawsuit arguing that the 
entire Affordable Care Act should be invalidated, and now they want to 
give a promotion to the person who led that effort at the Department of 
Justice. That person's name is Chad Readler, currently a Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department.
  Last year, he filed an argument on behalf of the Department of 
Justice to take away protections for people with preexisting 
conditions. The American Medical Association said that Mr. Readler's 
argument would ``have a devastating impact on doctors, patients, and 
the American health system as a whole,'' that it ``would cause 32 
million people to become uninsured,'' and that it would double 
insurance premiums.
  The American Medical Association was not alone here. Lawyers at the 
Justice Department refused to sign their names to Mr. Readler's brief. 
One senior career official actually resigned in protest, and Senator 
Lamar Alexander said that his arguments were ``as farfetched as any 
I've ever heard.''
  On the same day that Mr. Readler filed his argument to take away 
people's healthcare, the White House nominated him to a lifetime 
appointment to the bench on the Sixth Circuit. They wanted to promote 
him because of his good work suing in Federal court trying to 
invalidate the entire healthcare system--the entire healthcare law.
  We should not sign off on this nominee--not if we care about 
protecting the health of our constituents, especially those who have 
cancer, asthma, diabetes, or any other preexisting medical condition.
  We should also be wary of putting someone on the Sixth Circuit who 
makes the kind of poor, farfetched argument that Mr. Readler made, 
because this isn't purely a question of public policy. If it were 
public policy, you would definitely say: Don't take 32 million people 
and take away their healthcare--right? If it were public policy, you 
would say: Don't do the thing that is going to double premiums.
  This is about what kind of a lawyer he is. This is about what kind of 
a judge he would be. The White House may want to reward his efforts, 
but we don't have to.

[[Page S1648]]

  If you look at Mr. Readler's record and feel that, OK, he tried to 
deport the Dreamers. Even if you concede past his defense of the Muslim 
ban or his discrimination against a gay couple who wanted to get 
married or even if you don't mind that he is trying to make it harder 
for people to vote or his argument to allow kids under 18 to be 
sentenced to death--even if none of that bothers you--it should bother 
you that a Senator in Mr. Readler's home State has not returned a blue 
slip. It should really bother you. If you say you are for protecting 
people with preexisting conditions, here is your opportunity.
  It is one thing to say: Well, we would never do that. We would never 
take away protections for people with preexisting conditions. After 
all, we all know people with preexisting conditions.
  I have no doubt that is the actual sentiment among Members of the 
Senate on both sides. Here is the thing. This week is the week to walk 
the talk. This week is the week to decide whether or not you are for 
protecting people with preexisting conditions, because you have a guy 
who led the effort to gut protections for people with preexisting 
conditions.
  Mr. Readler is unqualified for other reasons, but now we have a 
litmus test on where you stand on preexisting conditions. It is not 
enough to say it in your campaign debate. It is not enough to say it in 
the hallway and say: Hey, we want to protect people.
  Here is your moment. Someone who has dedicated some portion of his 
professional life to gut the American healthcare system is now being 
given a permanent job on the Sixth Circuit. Everybody should vote no.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I don't come to the floor that often to 
ask about or to talk about any person who is being recommended by our 
President, whether I agree or disagree. This is one time I feel very 
compelled to do so.
  I rise today to urge my colleagues not to confirm Chad Readler to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I would say this: A vote 
for him, in my estimation, is a vote against every West Virginian and 
every American with a preexisting condition, and I will tell you why.
  After 20 State attorneys general and Governors challenged the 
constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and its protections for 
people with preexisting conditions in Texas v. United States, as Acting 
Assistant Attorney General, Readler refused to defend the Affordable 
Care Act. That is his job. That is the law of the land. He refused, 
basically, to protect and defend it, which resulted in putting nearly 
800,000 West Virginians with cancer, heart disease, asthma, or diabetes 
and women who care to have a baby at risk of financial jeopardy if they 
get sick.
  Readler was not just a participant but the chief architect of the 
Department of Justice's decision to not defend the current law in the 
case. Let me make sure we all understand how devastating this could 
have been but also the intent. Coming from the Assistant Attorney 
General, he was not just a participant, but he was the chief architect 
of the Department of Justice's decision to not defend--to not do his 
job, to not defend--the current law in the case.
  He wrote and filed a brief arguing that the Affordable Care Act's 
individual mandate is unconstitutional, and that if the mandate is 
stricken as unconstitutional, the Affordable Care Act's protections for 
the people with preexisting conditions should also be stricken.
  He is taking the position as one person, not as an elected official, 
saying that it is unconstitutional when we voted in this body not to 
repeal it. We voted in this body, representing the people of the United 
States, not to repeal it. He made a decision as one person, not an 
elected official, saying it is unconstitutional.
  This brief was so controversial and inhumane that several career 
lawyers with the Civil Division refused to sign their name to this 
brief, and one senior career Department of Justice official resigned 
because of his decision.
  After the Department of Justice's announcement, I introduced a 
resolution to authorize the Senate legal counsel to intervene in this 
lawsuit on behalf of the Senate and defend all Americans' right to 
access affordable health insurance. Because of Readler and the 
Department of Justice's decision to abandon its responsibility, the 
court ruled against Americans with preexisting conditions in December.
  This misguided and inhumane ruling will kick millions of Americans 
and tens of thousands of West Virginians off their health insurance. So 
800,000 West Virginians with preexisting conditions will be at risk of 
losing their health insurance, and the thousands of West Virginians who 
gained health insurance through the Medicaid expansion will no longer 
qualify. This ruling is just plain wrong, and it is rightfully being 
appealed to a higher court.
  While I continue to fight to pass my resolution to defend Americans 
and West Virginians with preexisting conditions, I must commend our 
colleagues in the House who passed a similar resolution earlier this 
year that allowed their legal counsel to intervene. I wish we had both 
legal counsel from the House and the Senate intervening together.
  In this body, I am known for examining judicial nominees fairly, 
based on their qualifications, temperament, and judgment, which I take 
very seriously, but I cannot stand idly by and allow the Senate to 
confirm a person who singlehandedly tried to rip insurance away from 
West Virginians and Americans when he had no authority to do so. He was 
not an elected official, not speaking on behalf of the law, not 
defending the law but trying to represent his own beliefs or political 
agenda.
  This vote today will show Americans and West Virginias with 
preexisting conditions who is really fighting for them and all of us 
who believe strongly in their right to be able to care for themselves. 
A vote for Mr. Readler is a vote against people with preexisting 
conditions, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
will join me in voting against his confirmation.
  This is something I don't do often. I don't take it lightly. It is 
very serious. This gentleman has basically shown it is not about the 
law; it is not about the Constitution; it is about his politics and 
himself and not a man who should be sitting on a higher court.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.