[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.