March 5, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 39 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session
All in Senate sectionPrev22 of 65Next
Nomination of Chad A. Readler (Executive Session); Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 39
(Senate - March 05, 2019)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S1644-S1645] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Nomination of Chad A. Readler Mr. President, I am here, though, to talk about the Affordable Care Act. One of the things we talk a lot about here on the Senate floor is of our mutual concern for people with preexisting conditions. These are the 130 million Americans who are sick or who have histories of sickness. If you were to listen to both sides of the aisle, you would believe that everyone is on board with the idea that we should provide protections to individuals who are sick or who have ever been sick. Yet actions do not meet words when it comes down to it in the U.S. Senate. Over the last 2 years, my Republican colleagues have spared no expense or effort to try to strip away protections for those individuals with preexisting conditions that were in the Affordable Care Act. The repeal of the Affordable Care Act is the most obvious example of that. This week, we will have a rare opportunity to take an up-or-down vote on this issue of whether we support keeping protections for people with preexisting conditions in this country. The reason for that is, we are going to vote on a nominee to the Sixth Circuit Court who orchestrated--who directed--the Department of Justice's attempts to take away protections for people with preexisting conditions through the court process. Chad Readler filed a brief in a case brought by State attorneys general--all of them Republicans--to strike from the Affordable Care Act the protection for people with preexisting conditions. Normally, when State attorneys general come after the constitutionality of a statute, whether those are Republican or Democratic attorneys general, the administration, whether it be a Republican or Democratic administration, defends the constitutionality of the statute. This was an exceptional case in which these Republican attorneys general were trying to take away protections for people with preexisting conditions, saying the ACA was unconstitutional, and an Assistant Attorney General by the name of Chad Readler stood up and volunteered to file a brief alleging that, in fact, the attorneys general were right--a rare, almost completely unprecedented example of the Department of Justice arguing against the constitutionality of a statute that had been passed by the Congress and signed by the President. Interestingly, before Chad Readler decided to file that brief, others at the Department of Justice refused. In fact, one lawyer left the Department of Justice because he wouldn't put his name on something so absurd as the brief Chad Readler filed. I am not the only person who thinks the arguments in his brief trying to strike down those protections for people with preexisting conditions was absurd. In fact, Senator Alexander read Readler's brief and said the arguments in it were ``as far-fetched as any I have ever heard.'' That is a Republican Senator. Now, the consequences of the judge following the recommendations of Chad Readler were catastrophic. In fact, the judge struck down the Affordable Care Act. That order has been held in abeyance temporarily, but the consequences of the Readler brief would be that 133 million Americans would lose their protections from higher rates because they were sick or had been sick. The 20 million people who had insurance would lose it virtually overnight. Admittedly, the Readler brief didn't agree with every single element of the lawsuit of the attorneys general but enough of it such that it was very clear [[Page S1645]] the administration was weighing in on the side of the petitioners. Almost immediately after filing that brief, he was nominated to serve on the appellate court, sending a very clear signal to all of those in the administration that if you take a leadership role on trying to strip away protections for people with preexisting conditions, you will be rewarded--in this case, rewarded with a lifetime appointment. So we are about to vote on the architect of this administration's legal strategy to try to undo the most popular, most important protections in the Affordable Care Act, and it represents this rare opportunity to understand where Senators stand. It is super easy. It takes no political risk to stand up and say you support protecting people who are sick and making sure insurance companies don't jack up their rates. As it turns out, it is a little bit harder to actually back up your words with actions, but this one isn't that hard. Voting against Chad Readler isn't that difficult, in part, because Senator Brown, who is the Senator from Ohio who did not sign a blue slip for Chad Readler's nomination, has made it clear as early as 10 minutes ago that he is willing to support and sign a blue slip for a mainstream conservative nominee. In this case, Democrats aren't saying we want a nominee to the Sixth Circuit who isn't one who could be charitably described as a conservative nominee. We just don't want a nominee who has made his mark trying to tear down protections for sick people in this country, but that is what happens when you get rid of the blue ship. Senator McConnell and Senator Grassley have gotten rid of this decades-old protection to try to make sure nominees to the Federal bench, to the appellate bench in this case, have the support of their home State Senators. When you do that, you tend to get a little bit more mainstream nominees. Now that the blue slip is gone, now that Senator Brown has no ability to weigh in on individuals who are going to be making law in his State, you get a much more extreme nominee like this. So let's see what happens. I hope there are some Republicans who will stand up and decide they are going to put their votes where their mouths have been on the question of protections for people with preexisting conditions, but at the very least, the American public will get to see where we all stand on this very important question in a matter of hours. 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. Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
All in Senate sectionPrev22 of 65Next