[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 204 (Thursday, December 14, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8020-S8025]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



           Fifth Anniversary of the Sandy Hook Mass Shooting

  Mr. President, I want to talk today on the occasion of the fifth 
anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre in my State of Connecticut. It 
was one of the saddest days of my life and one of the worst days of my 
public career when I went to the elementary school in Newtown, CT, 
along with a number of my colleagues who will be speaking today as 
well, Congresswoman Esty and Senator Murphy.
  In the Judiciary Committee, just moments ago, Senator Feinstein 
circulated a framed copy of the front page of the Daily News of 
Wednesday, December 15, 2012--5 years ago, almost to the day. That 
front page has photographs of the 20 beautiful children who were lost 
in that unspeakable act of terror and horror. They are 20 wonderful 
human beings who would be 11 years old today. Their great teachers were 
killed as well.
  Having valued and known their parents as friends and fellow advocates 
in the effort to achieve commonsense legislation against gun violence, 
I know how deeply that pain is still felt. The healing is far from 
over. The grief never ends. The prayers and thoughts of mine go every 
day to the loved ones who lost those children and educators.
  Prayers and thoughts are not enough. It never has been after any of 
these massacres, and it never will be after the mass killings or for 
the one-by-one deaths in our communities--90 every day in this great 
country. Gun violence kills 90 people every day, and 150,000 have 
perished since Sandy Hook.
  So as we commemorate this awful day, 5 years ago, let us rededicate 
ourselves to act to honor those victims with action, to honor all those 
with action. It is never too soon to honor the victims with action.
  On that front page of the Daily News, there is a line that says ``New 
York's Hometown Newspaper.'' New York wasn't the hometown to those 
Sandy Hook victims, but America felt that Sandy Hook was every town in 
America, and it is indeed quintessentially an American town, filled 
with wonderful people who hugged and grieved together that day.
  That night, in the St. Rose of Lima Church, and in the days 
following, when there were calling hours and funerals, one after the 
other, it seemed like they would never end. In some ways they have 
never ended, because those families' losses are still real and urgent. 
For us the task of honoring those 20 beautiful children and the 6 
educators ought to be real and urgent, even more so today than it was 
then.
  That day we prayed in the St. Rose of Lima Church. I said to the 
congregation that the whole world is watching. The whole world was 
watching. The world is watching America to see whether we will act.
  We are not the only country with mental health problems. Our rate of 
mental illness is no greater than any other developed industrial 
country, but our rate of gun violence is off the charts compared to 
other countries. There is no excuse for it. There is no rational 
explanation for it.
  As we prayed and grieved then, in the wake of that senseless, 
horrific tragedy, Congress turned its back. It turned its back on those 
courageous and strong families who came here in

[[Page S8021]]

the weeks following, talking to our colleagues, across the aisle and on 
this side, asking for commonsense measures, background checks. There 
was a bipartisan measure then to extend background checks and achieve 
other gun violence prevention measures, which unfortunately failed on 
this floor to gain enough votes. We had 55, but we needed 60. From the 
Gallery on that day, someone shouted: ``Shame.''
  December 14, 2012, will be forever a stain on our Nation's history. 
That day will forever be a black mark on the United States of America, 
but so will the day that those commonsense measures were rejected in 
this Chamber. That shame was richly deserved on that day.
  Congress saw the photos of those innocent babies, those wonderful 
children. It saw their grieving parents. It saw the lines of terrified 
and traumatized children that day being led to safety out of their 
elementary school. It saw the war zone that the school became when that 
mass killing turned it into something that no teacher, no educator ever 
could have foreseen. Those educators helped save lives.
  Congress saw and heard the stories of how brave educators sought to 
shield their children from the bullets coming from that assault weapon 
on that day. Unfortunately, the vice-like grip of the gun lobby and, 
principally, the NRA--let's be blunt about who is leading that lobby--
prevailed. In the 1,825 days since the Sandy Hook tragedy, despite the 
150,000 people who have perished from gun violence since then, Congress 
has chosen inaction. It has disregarded public safety and the clear 
will of the American people. It has heeded instead the campaign 
contributions of the gun lobby, and it has failed to act. It has been 
complicit in the continuing scourge of gun violence by its inaction. It 
has been complicit in those deaths. It has been an aider and abettor, 
in fact, to the 90 killings each day as a result of gun violence. Shame 
on Congress if it fails to act now.
  Today I am not just heartbroken; I am furious. I am angry beyond 
words about Congress's complicity, about the inaction we have seen, 
about Congress's abject failure to take commonsense steps that will 
protect the American people, about its failure to meet this public 
health crisis with the kind of action that the American people deserve 
and need. If 90 people every day were perishing from Ebola or some 
contagious disease--even the flu--there would be an outcry, an outrage, 
and we would be clamoring to do something.
  Here, the solutions are self-evident. None of them is a panacea. None 
is a single, magic solution to this problem. The trap raised by the gun 
lobby that none will necessarily deal with the mass killing that just 
happened is, indeed, a trap we should reject.
  The ban on bump stocks might have prevented Las Vegas but not 
Charleston. The closing of the 72-hour loophole that permits purchasers 
to buy a gun if the background check has not been completed in 72 hours 
might not have prevented Las Vegas, but it would have prevented 
Charleston. Dylann Roof purchased the gun only because he was able to 
circumvent the background check as a result of that 72-hour loophole.
  The ban on certain kinds of high capacity magazines might not have 
prevented San Bernardino or Orlando, but it would have helped to 
prevent Sandy Hook.
  We will never know whether any of these measures would prevent every 
one of the killings that we cite, but each of them can save lives, and 
if we save one life, we will have saved the world.
  Shame on Congress for allowing this tragic anniversary to be followed 
by so many more--Sutherland Springs, Las Vegas, Orlando, Charleston, 
and each and every day in the news. Every day, none of our communities 
is immune from this scourge. It is truly a public health crisis.
  I am hopeful that there may well be a crack in the united partisan 
front emerging. I am proud to be part of a very powerful bipartisan 
alliance involving our colleagues, Senators Scott and Cornyn, across 
the aisle, as well as Senator Murphy and other Senators on this side of 
the aisle. I hope we can make modest and crucial improvements to the 
National Instant Criminal Background Check system.
  The NICS system should be fixed. The Fix NICS Act will provide 
incentives and encourage States to do better reporting. Right now there 
are immense gaps in reporting in the States and even in the Federal 
Government, which is why, in fact, perhaps, Sutherland Springs 
occurred, because of a failure to report by the Air Force a domestic 
violence conviction by court-martial that would have barred the shooter 
from lawfully obtaining a weapon, had it been reported accurately.

  The Fix NICS bill would ensure that Federal and State authorities 
comply with existing law and accurately report relevant criminal 
history records to the background check system. This step is the least 
we can do, not the most, but it is the bare minimum.
  While there is broad support for this modest but significant measure, 
the Republican leadership in the House is already attempting to 
sabotage it by linking it and pairing it with the truly dangerous 
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. That act would sabotage the laws of 
States like Connecticut that seek to protect our citizens. It would, in 
effect, provide that permits from other States be treated like driver's 
licenses, no matter how lenient or even nonexistent the provisions may 
be for obtaining permits in those other States. It would eviscerate 
rights of States like Connecticut to protect our citizens with higher 
standards.
  These basic measures to prevent gun violence have no threat 
whatsoever to gun ownership. They ensure that people who are a danger 
to themselves or others and convicted criminals and others already 
barred from buying weapons will not be permitted to carry a lethal 
firearm.
  I respect the Second Amendment. It is the law of the land. No firearm 
should be taken away from law-abiding citizens. But the idea that there 
is nothing Congress can do to make a difference and save American lives 
is unacceptable and false. It is a political copout resoundingly 
rejected by the vast majority of Americans.
  Ninety-five percent of Americans want background checks applied to 
all purchases. They overwhelmingly favor fixes to the present 
background check system that make the oversight of purchases more 
accurate, and they favor commonsense measures that will protect 
innocent human beings like the 20 beautiful children and sixth grade 
educators lost that day in Sandy Hook.
  When I feel most discouraged and disgusted, I think of those 
families. I think of the parents of Olivia Engel, and I think of the 
parents of all of those beautiful children and wonder, as I am sure 
they often do, what lives they would be leading today. What would 
Olivia Engel be doing on this day filled with Sun and beauty? In 
Connecticut, this morning, it snowed. At 6 or 11, snow would still be a 
wonderful thing, never to be taken for granted by any child. This 
holiday--all of the wonder and beauty of this holiday--is never taken 
for granted by a 6-year-old or an 11-year old. The possibilities, 
opportunities, dreams, and hopes were shattered on that day and lost 
forever.
  I was at the calling hours for one of the children killed at Sandy 
Hook, and it was a gut-wrenching moment--every one of them. I spoke to 
the mother of one of those children, and I said: When you are ready, we 
should do something about gun violence.
  She said, without hesitation, through reddened eyes and cracking 
voice: I am ready now. I am ready now.
  America should be ready. America is ready. This body should follow 
America's lead--honor with action. If nothing else is remembered of 
that day 5 years ago, let us honor with action those strong and 
courageous families who have suffered this unspeakable horror, this 
unimaginable grief, and who have come here in years past to ask us to 
honor with action the victims, survivors, and loved ones of Sandy Hook 
and of all gun violence horrors in this country.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Connecticut 
for his words. The Senator from Connecticut is a former prosecutor who 
knows law enforcement backward and forward. I can only imagine the 
grief felt in his State. As a neighboring New England State, I recall 
the vigils, the

[[Page S8022]]

people coming to pray, and the sadness from what happened in our 
neighboring State of Connecticut. But as so many have said, we can 
express grief--and we should--but we have to do what the Senator from 
Connecticut and others have suggested, which is actually take some 
steps that might stop these things. So I applaud him for what he said.
  Let me speak on another issue. This week, we voted on three circuit 
court nominees, just one step below the Supreme Court. All three of 
these nominees are extreme. One is objectively unqualified. The fact 
that we are so quickly casting floor votes on these troubling 
nominations, all of whom were reported out of the Judiciary Committee 
just last week, is a symptom of the Republicans' willingness to abandon 
decades of Senate tradition so that this body can serve as a 
rubberstamp for President Trump's nominees. The Senate will not be the 
conscience of the Nation or the check and balance it was always 
designed to be, but instead, a rubberstamp for the President.
  Let me just cover a couple of things. Don Willett is a sitting 
justice on the Texas Supreme Court. That should mean something. Sitting 
judges have an obligation to exercise good judgment; to not say 
anything that would lead individuals to question their impartiality. A 
question I ask nominees all the time is: Can someone who comes into 
your court--whether they are Republican or Democrat, plaintiff, 
defendant, rich, poor, whatever--look at you and say: Well, at least 
this judge is going to show impartiality. Maybe I will win or maybe I 
will lose, but it will not be because the judge wasn't impartial. When 
you look at this sitting justice, Don Willett, he fails the standard of 
impartiality.
  A few weeks ago, I questioned him about his tweet telling a young 
transgender woman, who was interested in playing softball to ``Go away, 
A-Rod.'' Justice Willett claimed that this tweet was in jest. But, let 
me say it again--a sitting justice telling a transgender teen to ``go 
away'' sends an unmistakable message to marginalized, vulnerable 
communities: Not all are welcome in my courtroom. Well, that is not a 
laughing matter.
  This was not the first time that Justice Willett has worn his bias on 
his sleeve. As an aide to George W. Bush while he was Governor of 
Texas, he objected to then-Governor Bush declaring a ``Business Women's 
Week.'' He opposed the proclamation's mention of ``glass ceilings, pay 
equity . . . [and] sexual discrimination/harassment.'' He dismissed 
these very real barriers to women in the workforce as ``hype.'' For 
these and other reasons, I seriously question his judgment or that he 
would be seen by people coming into his courtroom as impartial.
  Then we have James Ho, who is another troubling nominee. His views on 
social issues are, not surprisingly, extreme. He has even offered 
effusive praise for Jeff Mateer, another Trump nominee who has publicly 
proclaimed that transgender children are part of ``Satan's plan.'' Even 
as a judge, he has complained about the Supreme Court. Remember, these 
judges are supposed to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court. He 
has complained about the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision. He said 
that it is going to lead to ``people marrying their pets.'' I don't 
think any legal scholar anywhere from the right to the left would agree 
with that interpretation. Mr. Ho praised Mateer for ``protecting and 
enforcing the . . . civil liberties of every Texan.'' Well, it is not 
every Texan--just those he agrees with.
  Of course, this race to confirm Mr. Ho that is zipping through here 
means that we will not have fully vetted him for this lifetime 
appointment. When he served in the Justice Department's Office of Legal 
Counsel, he authored a memorandum that was cited in one of the shameful 
``torture memos.'' These torture memos have turned out to be a blot on 
the conscience of the United States. Mr. Ho has refused to answer 
questions about his involvement, despite the fact that the torture 
memos are now very much in the public domain. Unfortunately, these 
kinds of non-answers are considered sufficient as of late, since 
Republicans are more interested in rubberstamping President Trump's 
judicial nominees than asking serious questions of them as a coequal 
branch of government. I cannot believe that any Republican leadership 
would allow a nominee of a Democrat who would have been involved in the 
drafting of a key and controversial memorandum to be confirmed unless 
they are willing to answer questions about it.
  Then we have Steven Grasz, whom the American Bar Association 
unanimously rated him as unqualified for the Federal bench. In the past 
40 years, I recall seeing a unanimously unqualified rating only a few 
times, and those people never made it through. After an exhaustive 
review including more than 200 interviews about Mr. Grasz, the ABA 
concluded he could not separate his personal beliefs from his duties as 
a judge--a fundamental obligation of a judge. This is almost 
unprecedented to have a rating like this.
  To have at least a qualified rating from the ABA is a basic 
qualification for a nominee to the Federal bench. Certainly, 
Republicans would insist on it if it was a Democrat's nominee. The 
Republicans made it very clear that if a Democrat nominated somebody 
who got a ``not qualified'' rating--I don't recall it happening, but if 
they did--they made it very clear that person would never be 
considered. Well, here is somebody who is declared ``not qualified,'' 
and yet they whipped him through. You would think ``qualified'' would 
at least be the bottom line for a nomination. You would think whoever 
is President, they are at least nominating somebody who could hit the 
threshold of being considered qualified.

  Republicans are now casting aside the ABA as a biased institution; 
some have accused the ABA of opposing Mr. Grasz simply because of his 
opposition to abortion. Well, that is absurd. The ABA has rated 46 of 
President Trump's 50 nominees as ``qualified.'' Let's not delude 
ourselves, does anyone think that any of the 46 Trump nominees that the 
ABA rated as qualified support abortion rights? They would never get 
out of the White House if they did. So that argument--like so many 
others used to support these extreme nominees--does not pass the laugh 
test.
  As the longest serving member of the United States Senate and a 
former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have spoken up about the 
steady erosion of the Committee's norms and traditions. The Committee 
has processed un-vetted, extreme nominees at an unprecedented rate. 
President Trump will have four times as many circuit court nominees 
confirmed in his first year than did President Obama. The reason 
President Trump has four times as many circuit court nominees confirmed 
in his first year than did President Obama is because Republicans 
removed any and all guardrails on our confirmation process--the 
guardrails they insisted on when there was a Democratic President. No 
matter how careful the Democratic President was in picking that person, 
they had to have these guardrails. I thought, actually, the guardrails 
made sense.
  The second you have a President who nominates extreme judges, they 
decided we don't need those guardrails anymore because President Trump 
would never make a mistake. Nominees have had hearings scheduled before 
we even had the ABA ratings. Multiple circuit court nominees are 
regularly stacked on single panels. That is something Republicans 
insisted should not be done when there was a Democratic President. Now, 
unfortunately, the chairman--who is a friend of mine and a man I 
respect--has reversed his own blue-slip policy. He has begun to advance 
nominees without favorable blue strips from both home State Senators. 
That is the first time this has been done in the last two Presidents.
  I fear we are doing lasting damage to our nomination process. I fear 
we are making the advice and consent process a completely laughable 
exercise. The three nominees who are set forth this week are evidence 
of that.
  I am going to vote no on each of them because they are not qualified. 
I have voted for many Republican nominees. I might disagree with them 
philosophically, but they were qualified, just as I voted for many 
Democratic nominees. Some I disagreed with, but they were qualified. 
These nominees aren't qualified. They are extreme. I want the standard 
I always asked for; that whoever you are, when you come into a 
courtroom, you can look at the

[[Page S8023]]

judge and say: OK, whether I am a plaintiff or defendant, rich or poor, 
facing the State as the respondent, no matter my political background, 
I am going to be treated fairly. I will win or lose my case on the 
merits, not on the judge's bias.
  We are closing our door to that. We are closing our door to it when 
the President of the United States turns the selection process over to 
an extreme political, partisan group and then asks Republicans to 
rubberstamp it. I respect my Republican colleagues, but I can't imagine 
many of them ever standing for a Democratic President doing anything 
like this. I wouldn't.
  I wish they would bring the Senate back to where we should be, where 
we can be, and where the country is better off when we are.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, 2 days ago, the GOP-controlled Senate 
confirmed Leonard Steven Grasz to a Federal appeals court. This is a 
man who is so aggressively ideological that he earned a rating of ``not 
qualified'' from the American Bar Association.
  The ABA reached that conclusion, in part, after speaking with many of 
Mr. Grasz's peers who expressed concerns ``that Mr. Grasz' strongly 
held social views and/or his deeply rooted political allegiances would 
make it impossible for him to have an unbiased and open mind on 
critical issues.''
  Those individuals have ample reason to be concerned. Among his many 
appalling views, Mr. Grasz believes discrimination against LGBTQ 
individuals is A-OK. He supports the harmful and discredited practice 
of conversion therapy and he opposes reproductive rights and the 
Republicans just confirmed him to a lifetime appointment as a Federal 
judge who will make life-changing decisions for millions of Americans.
  The other judicial nominee the GOP-controlled Senate confirmed this 
week, Donny Willett, doesn't fall very far from that tree either. Mr. 
Willett, a current justice on the Texas Supreme Court, isn't shy about 
his radical rightwing views. He has bragged about being the most 
conservative justice on the Texas Supreme Court, and he has a record to 
show for it.
  Mr. Willett believes judges should be able to easily overturn State 
and local laws that protect workers, including minimum wage laws and 
laws that allow workers to unionize. This view is so out of the 
mainstream that other conservative judges, including Chief Justice John 
Roberts and Judge Robert Bork, have rejected him.
  Mr. Willett's radical views don't stop there. He has ruled to limit 
the rights of same-sex couples. He has mocked transgender individuals. 
He has demonstrated hostility to issues that affect working women, 
including pay equity, discrimination, and sexual harassment. Mr. 
Willett has ruled against efforts to help remedy discrimination in 
Texas schools. On issue after issue, Mr. Willett's record shows a 
stunning disregard of the issues that impact millions of Americans.
  The truth is, Mr. Grasz and Mr. Willett are not unique. They are just 
a few of the many nominees whose records show they cannot fairly and 
impartially dispense equal justice under the law.
  Right now, the GOP-controlled Senate is executing a breathtaking plan 
to fill our courts with rightwing, radical nominees like Mr. Grasz and 
Mr. Willett. It is a plan that has been long in the making. For years, 
Republicans have worked hand in hand with billionaire-funded, rightwing 
groups to ensure that our courts advance the interests of the wealthy 
and the powerful over everyone else.
  First, after President Obama was elected, Republicans abused the 
filibuster to stop reasonable mainstream judges from filling vacancies 
on Federal courts. They didn't stop those nominees because of their 
qualifications. They didn't stop them because of their records. The 
Republicans stopped those nominees because they didn't want judges who 
cared more about justice than about protecting the powerful.
  Then, once the filibuster was gone and Republicans had gained the 
majority in the Senate, they slowed the judicial nominations process to 
a crawl. Vacancies stacked up, and the courts became overloaded with 
cases.
  Finally, last year, Republicans took their assault on our judicial 
system to new heights, refusing to consider any nominee put forward by 
the President to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. They threw the 
Constitution and Senate precedent right out the window to advance their 
radical agenda. It was shocking, and it was shameful.
  Now that there is a Republican President who is committed to tilting 
our courts further in favor of the rich and the powerful, Republicans 
are looking to fill our courts with judges who share that commitment, 
no matter how unqualified they may be.
  This week, the Senate will vote on one more of those judicial 
nominees, James Ho, a man who, like Mr. Grasz and Mr. Willett, will 
work to hand our courts over to powerful, pro-corporate interests. When 
it comes to money and politics, Mr. Ho's view is the more the better. 
He has argued that there should be no limits on campaign contributions, 
none--democracy for sale. According to Mr. Ho, the reason government is 
so corrupt isn't because there is too much secret money slithering 
through our political system but because government makes it too hard 
for those big donors to succeed in the private sector.
  Tell that to the working families, the students, the teachers, and 
the small businesses that will be paying higher taxes to give those fat 
cat donors giant tax cuts.
  Mr. Ho has also defended discrimination against LGBTQ individuals. 
While he was solicitor general of Texas, Mr. Ho defended Texas's ban on 
same-sex marriage. More recently, he has heaped praise on a Federal 
district court nominee who, among other disgusting statements, said 
that transgender children are part of ``Satan's plan.''
  Here is another troubling aspect of Mr. Ho's record: his view on 
whether torture is illegal. While Mr. Ho worked in the Justice 
Department, he authored a memo relating to the treatment of prisoners 
of war. That memo is cited in one of the torture memos that became the 
basis for the Bush administration's illegal and immoral practice of 
torturing terrorism suspects. That memo was not provided to the 
Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Ho has refused to fully answer questions 
regarding his involvement in what ultimately became the Bush 
administration's policy on torture--information that every Senator 
should demand to see before we vote on his nomination.
  Grasz, Willett, and Ho--just about all of Trump's judicial nominees--
have a lot in common. They will put powerful interests before the 
rights of workers, before the rights of women, before the rights of 
LGBTQ individuals, people of color, religious minorities, and pretty 
much everyone else. Their radical, rightwing views mean that in their 
courts, it will be easier for giant corporations and wealthy 
individuals to get relief and harder for everyone else to find justice. 
That is the perverted, upside-down justice system that every Member of 
this Congress should be working to fix.
  Now more than ever, we need judges who will stand up for equal 
justice for all, not just for the rich and the powerful. The records of 
the nominees before us this week show that they cannot meet that 
standard. That is why I voted no on the nominations of Mr. Grasz and 
Mr. Willett, and that is why I will be voting no on Mr. Ho. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss 
the three judicial nominations we are considering this week: Steven 
Grasz, for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and James Ho and Don 
Willett, both for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Before I talk about those nominees, I would like to offer some 
background on the importance of circuit courts and remind my colleagues 
why we have so many judicial vacancies.
  The Supreme Court hears between 100 and 150 cases each year out of 
the more than 7,000 it is asked to review. But in 2015 alone, more than 
55,000 cases were filed in Federal appeals courts.

[[Page S8024]]

  These cases range from crime and terrorism to bankruptcy and civil 
matters, and the judges who hear these cases will affect millions of 
Americans.
  So it is extremely important who is confirmed to these lifetime 
positions. Federal judges have a tremendous impact on individuals, 
businesses, and the law. In a way, circuit courts serve as the de facto 
Supreme Court to the vast majority of individuals who bring cases. They 
are the last word.
  These nominations are very important. That is why it is so concerning 
that Republicans for years refused to allow judgeships to be filled.
  The simple fact is the rush to fill judicial vacancies is the direct 
result of Senate Republicans' historic obstruction of judicial nominees 
during President Obama's administration.
  During President Obama's last 2 years in office, just 22 judicial 
nominees were confirmed. That is the fewest in a Congress since Harry 
Truman was President. In contrast, during the last 2 years of the 
George W. Bush administration, Senate Democrats confirmed 68 judicial 
nominees.
  At the end of last year, three circuit court nominees and 20 district 
court nominees had been approved by the Judiciary Committee and were 
waiting for votes on the Senate floor. Republicans refused to schedule 
votes for those nominees, many of whom Republicans themselves voted 
for, so they could hold those seats open. Four more circuit court 
nominees and 52 district court nominees were pending in committee and 
never even received a hearing.
  Now, 1 year later, the Senate is voting this week to confirm the 
10th, 11th, and 12th circuit court nominees this year. Republicans went 
from delaying all nominees to cramming them through at a breakneck 
pace.
  The 11 circuit court nominees who have already been confirmed are 
more than any President in the first year of office since Richard 
Nixon.
  Two nominees we are considering this week, James Ho and Don Willett, 
lay out the Republican playbook.
  These seats on the Fifth Circuit have been vacant since 2012 and 
2013, even though the Obama White House tried to work with my 
colleagues from Texas to fill these seats with consensus nominees.
  But once President Trump entered the White House, they wasted no time 
in rushing to put conservative judges in those seats.
  Don Willett was nominated on October 3, James Ho on October 16.
  Just a month later, on November 15, the Judiciary Committee held a 
hearing for both circuit court nominees on the same day, and cloture 
was filed immediately on both nominations after the committee advanced 
them.
  The speed at which these judges are being rammed through the process 
is stunning.
  In fact, on four occasions in the last 6 months our committee has 
held hearings for two circuit court nominees at the same time. This 
happened only three times in all 8 years of the Obama administration.
  This is a problem because it gives Senators less time to review each 
nominee's record and less time to ask each nominee questions. Candidly, 
it makes it very difficult for us to exercise our constitutional duty 
to ``advise and consent.''
  We are already seeing the ramifications. Just yesterday, the White 
House announced that two of its nominees would not be moving forward. 
One nominee, Brett Talley, had already been voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee, but we learned of troubling undisclosed information while he 
was pending on the floor. This may not have happened if we had 
sufficient time and cooperation to fully review these nominees.
  In the month of November, the Judiciary Committee had hearings for 
five circuit court nominees. I have served on this committee since 
1993, and we have never held hearings for five circuit court nominees 
in a single month before. That is during a month when we spent a week 
at home for Thanksgiving.
  Republicans refused to advance seven circuit court nominees last 
year, but now we are speeding through the process to fill those seats 
with conservative judges. Fairness aside, we should all be concerned 
that we are giving lifetime appointments to potentially unqualified 
nominees.
  Now, I would like to talk about the three nominees we're considering 
this week. This week, Steven Grasz was confirmed to the Eighth Circuit.
  The American Bar Association has rated 1,755 judicial nominees since 
1989, and only two of those have been unanimously rated ``not 
qualified'' based on concerns over their impartiality.
  One was a nominee for the Fifth Circuit in 2006 who was never 
confirmed. The other is Steven Grasz.
  Let me repeat that. This week, for the first time since at least 
1989, the Senate voted to confirm a nominee who was unanimously rated 
as ``not qualified'' by the American Bar Association.
  The ABA doesn't rate nominees based on what the evaluators think. 
Rather, they review a nominee's written record, talk to the nominee, 
and interview many people who have direct personal and professional 
knowledge about the nominee.
  Here are just two direct quotes from the ABA's review:
  ``Mr. Grasz's professional peers expressed concerns about his views 
of stare decisis, and questioned his commitment to it.''
  ``[A] number of Mr. Grasz's professional colleagues expressed the 
view that, in terms of judicial temperament . . . Mr. Grasz is not 
`free from bias.' Specifically, they expressed the view that he would 
be unable to separate his role as an advocate from that of a judge.''
  These are stunning indictments of a man who was confirmed to a 
lifetime seat on a circuit court.
  Some of my Republican colleagues argue that the ABA is biased. The 
numbers just don't bear that out.
  Over the last 30 years, during both Republican and Democratic 
Administrations, the ABA has rated nearly 1,800 nominees and rated only 
two ``not qualified'' based on their temperament.
  I voted against Mr. Grasz's nomination and am very concerned that he 
was confirmed on Tuesday. He did not have the support of a single 
Democratic Senator.
  Next I would like to talk about James Ho, nominated to the Fifth 
Circuit.
  During his time at the Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Ho wrote a legal 
analysis of the scope of the term ``cruel, inhuman, and degrading 
treatment,'' which is prohibited under Common Article 3 of the Geneva 
Conventions.
  Unfortunately, this memo remains classified, and we haven't seen it.
  The reason we know this memo exists is because Jay Bybee cited it in 
one of the so-called torture memos, which were used to justify torture 
and have since been widely discredited.
  The Bybee memo also appears to have relied on Mr. Ho's analysis to 
argue that because the term ``cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment'' 
``appears to . . . have a rather limitless reach,'' conduct that 
qualifies as torture should be defined more narrowly than what is 
prohibited under international law.
  It is this kind of flawed legal reasoning that allowed the U.S. 
Government to torture people, and I have argued that no vote should 
have taken place on Mr. Ho's nomination until we had access to that 
memo.
  The Justice Department has provided us access to similar memos 
written by nominees for judgeships, so there is no reason to deny us 
access to the memo James Ho authored.
  I can't possibly vote in favor of a nominee to a lifetime appointment 
who may have helped provide the legal basis for torture, and it is a 
shame we are voting on this nominee this week.
  Finally, I would like to speak about Don Willett's nomination to the 
Fifth Circuit.
  At his hearing, my first question was about his 1998 comments on a 
draft proclamation for then-Governor George W. Bush to honor the Texas 
Federation of Business and Professional Women in 1998.
  Let me quote from them: ``I resist the proclamation's talk of `glass 
ceilings,' pay equity (an allegation that some studies debunk), the 
need to place kids in the care of rented strangers, sexual 
discrimination/ harassment, and the need generally for better ``working 
conditions'' for women (read: more government).''
  I asked Justice Willett if these were still his beliefs, and he 
refused to answer. I asked again, and again, he refused to answer. 
Senator Durbin asked

[[Page S8025]]

the same question, and Justice Willett refused to disavow these 
beliefs.
  As the National Women's Law Center wrote, ``Mr. Willett's skepticism 
of the existence of sex discrimination should disqualify him from the 
bench. Litigants coming before Mr. Willett . . . would have reason to 
question whether their claims of discrimination, including sexual 
harassment and pay discrimination, would be fairly and impartially 
heard or, instead, treated as `hype' to `debunk.' ''
  I could not support Justice Willett's nomination.
  Ms. WARREN. 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cornyn pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
361 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on a separate and happier note, today is a 
great day for our Nation's Federal judiciary. Yesterday afternoon, we 
confirmed Justice Don Willett, who currently serves on the Texas 
Supreme Court, who has been nominated by President Trump to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Soon we will be voting 
on Jim Ho, the former solicitor general of the State of Texas, who has 
also been nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  These are two outstanding nominees, and they reflect the best of 
Texas. They are each fathers, lawyers, scholars, public servants, and 
active participants in their communities. I wish to take just a few 
minutes to discuss each of their unique stories, as well as their 
sterling records of professional accomplishment.
  Don Willett was raised in Talty, a small town outside of Dallas, TX. 
He was adopted at a young age and raised by a single mom for most of 
his life. She must have been one heck of a lady because her son went on 
to achieve great things from those humble beginnings.
  He attended Baylor for undergraduate and Duke Law School. He clerked 
on the same court to which he has been nominated and now confirmed, the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He worked in private practice and 
served Governor, and then President, George W. Bush.
  That is not all, though. He went on to work at the Department of 
Justice's Office of Legal Policy and later served as deputy attorney 
general of Texas before his appointment to the Texas Supreme Court. He 
was elected to his first full term in 2006 and reelected in 2012.
  While serving on my State's highest court, Justice Willett was 
recognized for his excellence by the Texas Review of Law and Politics, 
which named him as its ``Distinguished Jurist of the Year'' in 2014.
  Justice Willett's confirmation now is good news, and, perhaps, the 
best news for him personally is that he will no longer have to run for 
election, as he has had to do as a member of the Texas Supreme Court, 
because, of course, his appointment now is for life tenure.
  Jim Ho's story is no less remarkable. Jim was born in Taiwan, and his 
parents immigrated to New York when he was a toddler. Jim learned 
English by watching Sesame Street.
  When he was young, his parents moved to California, where Jim later 
attended Stanford before moving on to law school at the University of 
Chicago. As an adult, in his professional life, Jim clerked for Judge 
Jerry Smith on the Fifth Circuit, the court to which he has now been 
nominated and will be confirmed, and he later clerked for Justice 
Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Jim has worked in a variety of legal capacities in the private 
sector. He has also served at the Civil Rights Division and the Office 
of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice.
  It is when he was at the Civil Rights Division that I first met Jim 
and I offered him a job on my Judiciary Committee staff, where he 
served as my chief counsel. Later, serving as solicitor general, he had 
the highest win rate before the U.S. Supreme Court of any person who 
has served in that role. When I was attorney general of Texas, we 
created this position of solicitor general because we had line lawyers 
who would, literally, handle cases for State agencies and who would 
handle those cases all the way to the Supreme Court, but really they 
didn't have the experience or training as an appellate advocate that we 
needed to speak with a single voice for the entire State before the 
Federal courts. Jim held that role and performed with distinction. As I 
said, he was enormously successful in his appellate advocacy.
  Jim also bears the distinction as the first Asian-American solicitor 
general of Texas, and he has taught as an adjunct professor at the 
University of Texas and is published in numerous scholarly journals.
  Simply put, Jim Ho and Don Willett are two stars in the Texas legal 
firmament. They were extensively vetted by the bipartisan Texas Federal 
Judicial Evaluation Committee, appointed by Senator Cruz and myself, as 
well as the Office of White House Counsel and the Department of 
Justice. I am glad we are now elevating them to the Federal bench.
  I wish to commend the President on these excellent nominations, and I 
thank my colleagues for their votes to support these two exceptionally 
qualified men.
  I yield the floor.
  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. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.