[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 203 (Wednesday, December 13, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7990-S7992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Tax Reform Bill

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, the good news about the tax bill that I 
believe we will pass over the next few days is that it will go into 
effect on the first day of January and people will quickly see, no 
matter how loud others are talking, the exact facts. For work done in 
January, people who get that check in January or February or whenever 
they get paid for their January work--there is going to be a 
substantial tax decrease for working families at all levels. Our 
friends want to talk about what happens after 2025 or 2027, but surely 
the Congress can do its job between now and then.
  This is a pro-growth policy. There are two ways to increase people's 
take-home pay, and we are going to pursue both of them. One is to take 
less out of your pay right now. That will happen not a year from now 
and not a year and a half from now; that will happen next month. So 
next month, when people get their paychecks, it will be clear to them 
who had the facts and who didn't have the facts on this. The second way 
it will increase people's pay is by having better jobs to start with. 
Hundreds of economists who have looked at this bill say that it will 
make the United States of America the best place to invest money and 
create jobs, and I think we will know sooner rather than later that 
that happens.
  So good tax policy, commonsense regulation, and judges--another thing 
we are working on this week--make a difference in how people look at 
the economy that they want to invest in and an economy that they want 
to grow. Why would judges make a difference? Judges make a difference 
because judges create a sense of fairness in the court. They create a 
sense of an ability to get your case heard. And they create a sense 
that what the law says hopefully is what the judge will decide rather 
than what the judge thinks the law should say.
  We are making great progress in all of those areas if we add good tax 
policy to what has been happening.
  Right now, Mr. President, we are talking about judges, and President 
Trump has a unique opportunity to shape the long-term view of the 
judiciary. This week we are going to confirm three circuit judges, and 
I wish to speak in just a little while about what that means.
  At the start of President Trump's term, 12 percent of all of the 
Federal judiciary seats were vacant. No President has had that kind of 
opportunity

[[Page S7991]]

since President Clinton had that opportunity now almost 25 years ago 
when he started his first year. And the President will have the 
opportunity--and is making the most of it--to fill those vacancies.
  I believe President Trump made the right choice when he selected 
Justice Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. There was a record as a 
circuit judge; you can look at what he had decided. The Presiding 
Officer and I and other Members of the Senate can look at what he has 
decided and anticipate, after 10 years of that record, what his record 
would look like. It makes a difference. I have no doubt that President 
Trump will continue to nominate judges who will rule as did Justice 
Scalia, whose unfortunate death created the most recent vacancy.
  Justice Scalia, by the way, served on the Supreme Court for 26 years 
after the person who nominated him left the White House and 13 years 
after President Reagan died. So the legacy of what happens here is 
important.
  Justice Scalia was profound in his sense that the work of the Court 
was not to decide what the legislature should have done; the work of 
the Court was to decide what the law and the Constitution said. There 
are ways to change the law, and there are ways to amend the 
Constitution, but a person on the Court needs to look at what the 
Constitution and the laws say.
  While Supreme Court vacancies tend to get a lot of attention, it is 
just as important that the Senate nominate and confirm the jobs the 
President and the Senate share. It is our responsibility too.
  The Constitution could have said: Will report to the Senate, and, 
unless there is some big objection, that person becomes a judge. That 
is not what it says. It says: The Senate will confirm.
  As of this morning, there are slightly more than 140 lifetime 
vacancies on the courts to be filled. So far this year, we have 
confirmed 10 circuit court judges. By the time we leave this week, I 
think we will have confirmed 12 circuit judges this year. That will be 
close to a post-World War II record. It has been a long time since 
World War II, and it has been a long time since a President has had the 
opportunity to do that.
  Why do we need to do that? First of all, the people of this country 
have a right to seek justice and to believe that the rule of law will 
prevail. The Supreme Court hears about 100 to maybe 150 cases in a 
year, but the 12 circuit courts--where you appeal a lower Federal court 
ruling to--hear many cases, and about 7,000 of those cases are appealed 
to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court deals with 100 to 150 of them. 
So the judges in the 12 circuits often write what, in our structure, is 
essentially final law; the final rule of any court is at the circuit 
level.
  The Federal Bar Association says that the ``number of federal 
judicial vacancies throughout the federal court system is straining the 
capacity of the federal courts to [do their job].''
  In cooperation with the President, we have a job to do here. The 
capacity to hear these cases is important. Justice delayed is justice 
denied.
  Filling these vacancies is also critical to ensuring that the balance 
of the Constitution is in place. This was a brandnew idea when James 
Madison and others thought of putting a machine together. They 
sometimes referred to the Constitution as the instrument that would be 
the guideline for a machine--a machine that was so finely balanced that 
it would govern itself.
  The courts--the judiciary--the legislative branch, and the executive 
branch all have unique powers, and those unique powers were designed to 
keep the government in check. This concept, new in 1787, has worked 
well for us, but it doesn't work if one of the groups is allowed to 
become out of balance. So filling these vacancies matters.
  The leadership of the majority leader and the leadership of Chairman 
Grassley in his committee make a difference. As we move forward with 
the confirmation process for three more nominees this week, we are 
advancing our goal of restoring the courts to judges who will determine 
what the law says, not what they think it should say.
  I urge my colleagues to support these well-qualified nominees. But I 
also urge my colleagues on the other side to stop using the process to 
frustrate the other work of the government. There is a right to 30 
hours of debate, which is what we are in right now; we are in 30 hours 
of debate on a circuit judge, but nobody is talking about that circuit 
judge. Other bills could have been brought to the floor, and other 
issues that could have been dealt with aren't being dealt with because 
the minority has decided to abuse their power--to say that we are going 
to have 30 hours of debate about this judicial nominee, and then have 
no debate about the judicial nominee.
  It doesn't mean we don't need to confirm the judges, but it does 
mean, if we did so in a way that made sense for the people we work for, 
we would be doing other business now, and these three judges would have 
already been confirmed. They will be confirmed this week.
  My belief is that if the rules designed to protect the minority in 
the Senate are abused, they will not last forever. Eventually, you have 
to say: OK, facts are facts. This rule isn't being used this way, and 
the Senate has to do the people's work. If rules have to be changed to 
do that, I am for changing those rules.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 
XXII, at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, December 13, there be 30 minutes of 
postcloture time remaining on the Willett nomination, equally divided 
between the leaders or their designees; that following the use or 
yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the confirmation of the 
Willett nomination; and that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table and the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, this week is a great week for the State of 
Texas and for the Federal judiciary because this week we will be 
confirming two exemplary judges from the State of Texas to the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: Texas Supreme Court Justice Don 
Willett and former Texas Solicitor General Jim Ho. These will be the 
11th and 12th court of appeals nominees who we will have confirmed this 
year--a modern-day record.
  Indeed, I looked up just the other day the number of assigned slots 
on the Federal courts of appeals. It is 179. This means the 12 that 
have been nominated and confirmed this year represent roughly 7 percent 
of the appellate bench. That is a powerful accomplishment for the first 
year of this Presidency, a powerful accomplishment for this Republican 
majority in the Senate, and a powerful legacy that will extend decades 
into the future, protecting our constitutional rights, protecting the 
Bill of Rights, protecting the First Amendment, free speech, religious 
liberty, protecting the Second Amendment, and protecting all the 
fundamental liberties we enjoy as Americans.
  With respect to Don Willett and Jim Ho, I have known both of them for 
decades. Both are close friends. Both are brilliant lawyers. Both have 
spent decades earning a reputation as principled constitutionalists who 
will remain faithful to the law and will not impose their own policy 
preferences from the bench.
  Beyond that, both Don and Jim are testaments to the American dream. 
They have both taken different paths to the Fifth Circuit, but both of 
their stories encapsulate what is so incredible about this great 
Nation.
  Justice Willett was born Donny Ray Willett--his birth certificate 
doesn't say Donald; it says Donny Ray--in July of 1966, to an unwed 
teenage mother. He was a sickly and frail newborn who was not even 
expected to survive until Christmas. But he was nursed back to health 
and then adopted by an incredible couple who were unable to have their 
own children.
  Justice Willett grew up in a double-wide trailer in a small town of 
just 32 people, surrounded by cotton and cattle. His town had a cotton 
gin and a Catholic church. That is about it.
  Justice Willett suffered heartbreak early in life. His father passed 
away at age 40, just 2 weeks after Justice Willett turned 6 years old. 
He was

[[Page S7992]]

raised by his widowed mother, who waited tables at the local truck 
stop. She would leave the trailer for her 6 a.m. shift before Justice 
Willett even woke up in the morning. He would wake himself up, get fed, 
dressed, and then catch the bus to a neighboring town to go to school.
  Justice Willett was the first person in his family to even finish 
high school, let alone go to college and then to law school. He has 
four degrees. He got his bachelor's from Baylor with a triple major in 
economics, finance, and public administration. He then received a 
master's degree in political science, a law degree, and an LLM degree 
from Duke.
  After law school, he clerked on the Fifth Circuit--the court on which 
he will soon be serving--for Judge Jerre Williams. Then, after 2\1/2\ 
years at a large law firm, he decided to dedicate his career to public 
service. He worked for Gov. George W. Bush in Texas and then for 
President Bush in DC. He and I worked closely together in that regard. 
After his time in DC, he happily returned to the great State of Texas 
to serve as the deputy attorney general for legal counsel. Don served 
alongside me, working under Greg Abbott, then the attorney general. We 
had offices just down the hall from each other.
  In 2005, he was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to serve as an associate 
justice on the Texas Supreme Court, and he was reelected by the people 
of Texas to that court in 2006 and again in 2012.
  I can't tell you how proud I am to see Justice Willett confirmed as a 
judge on the Fifth Circuit and to see his lifetime of service continue 
in this new arena.
  Jim Ho took a different path to the Fifth Circuit, but his story is 
just as powerful as an example of the American dream.
  Jim was born in Taipei, Taiwan. He immigrated to the United States 
with his family when he was just 1 year old. For the first few years of 
his life, his family lived with relatives in Queens, NY. Jim learned 
English watching Sesame Street. His family then moved to Southern 
California, where he attended high school and then went on to college 
at Stanford University.
  In 1996, Jim enrolled at the University of Chicago Law School, where 
he graduated with high honors in 1999. He then moved to Texas for the 
first time in his life, accepting a clerkship in Houston with Judge 
Jerry Smith on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit--again, 
the same court on which he is preparing to serve. It was during the end 
of his clerkship in Houston that he started dating his law school 
classmate, now his wife Allyson, a Houston native and another dear 
friend of mine.
  In 2000, Jim moved to Washington, DC, to join the law firm of Gibson 
Dunn & Crutcher. In 2001, he joined the U.S. Department of Justice as a 
Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, 
working under now-U.S. Labor Secretary Alex Acosta. Later that year, he 
joined the Department's Office of Legal Counsel. After 2 years at OLC, 
he came here to the Senate, where he served as the first chief counsel 
of my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, John Cornyn. After 2 
years as Senator Cornyn's chief counsel, Jim went to clerk at the 
Supreme Court for Justice Clarence Thomas.
  At the end of the clerkship, Jim and Allyson finally fulfilled their 
dream of going back to Texas, where Jim rejoined the law firm of Gibson 
Dunn & Crutcher in Dallas.
  Then, in 2008, my tenure as solicitor general of Texas was coming to 
a close. Attorney General Abbott had told me that if I were going to 
leave, I would have to find my successor. I picked up the phone and 
called my longtime friend, Jim Ho. I talked to Jim about coming to 
succeed me as solicitor general. Jim agreed to take on the job and did 
a remarkable job as the chief appellate lawyer for the State of Texas, 
representing Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court and all the State and 
Federal appellate courts.
  Jim served as solicitor general from April 2008 until December 2010, 
when he returned to Dallas and once again rejoined Gibson Dunn as a 
partner. A few years later, he became cochair of the firm's appellate 
and constitutional law practice group. Jim has done many extraordinary 
things, but nothing more so than marrying his wife Allyson, who is, 
like Jim, a Supreme Court advocate and one of the most talented 
constitutional lawyers in the country.
  Allyson is my former law partner. When I left the job of solicitor 
general and went to the Morgan Lewis law firm, I promptly recruited 
Allyson to come lead the Supreme Court practice with me. I am proud to 
say that over the past 5 years, Jim's wife Allyson has argued more 
business cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than any lawyer in Texas.
  Jim has become a pillar of the legal community in Texas, and the 
outpouring of support he has received demonstrates that. To take just 
one example, I have a letter from Ron Kirk, the former mayor of Dallas 
and a former member of President Obama's Cabinet and, incidentally, the 
Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate who Senator Cornyn defeated in 
2002. By any measure, he is a strong and prominent Democrat in the 
State of Texas. Mr. Kirk writes:

       The last time Texans got to fill a seat on the Fifth 
     Circuit, it was Judge Gregg Costa, who this body confirmed by 
     a well-deserved unanimous vote. As a lifelong Democrat and 
     devoted member of the Obama cabinet, I ask you to give Jim Ho 
     the same unanimous consent.

  I agree, and I hope our Democratic friends in this body will set 
aside the partisan rancor that has so characterized this year and will 
listen to the words of one of their own, a member of Obama's Cabinet, 
and a prominent Democrat from Texas, urging that Jim Ho be confirmed 
unanimously.
  Sadly, Senate Democrats insisted on and provided a party-line vote in 
the Judiciary Committee. It is my hope that this full body will 
demonstrate more wisdom and less partisan animosity than the Judiciary 
Committee Democrats demonstrated.
  Both Jim and Don, I am convinced, will make excellent judges on the 
Fifth Circuit. They are brilliant. They are principled. They are humble 
men of deep character. They love their families. They are wonderful 
fathers. I am confident that not only will they faithfully follow the 
law in the court of appeals, but I predict Jim Ho and Don Willett will 
become judicial superstars. They will become jurists to which other 
Federal judges across the country look. Their opinions will be cited 
heavily. They will be followed in other courts of appeals. Their 
careful and meticulous analysis and their fidelity to the law will be 
held up as exemplars for judges across the country to follow. That is a 
great accomplishment for the Federal judiciary, a great accomplishment 
for the Senate, and a great week for the State of Texas.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Wyoming.