[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 74 (Tuesday, May 8, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2535-S2537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Remembering Michael Beaver

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we have all heard the sad news. While we 
were back in our districts last week, our Assistant Parliamentarian, 
Michael Phillip Beaver, passed away unexpectedly at the very young age 
of 39. Family and friends gathered this morning to celebrate his life.
  Born in Mount Pleasant, he was the son of Linda Susan Beaver and 
William R. Beaver. He was a graduate of Saint Vincent College, where he 
studied political science with a minor in graphic design, and he earned 
his juris doctorate from the Ohio State University Moritz College of 
Law. He was a member of the Ohio and the California State Bar 
Associations.
  Most recently, he served here in this Chamber as the Assistant 
Parliamentarian. Prior to that, he served as the deputy legislative 
counsel for the State of California. Aside from being a brilliant 
attorney, Michael was passionate about hockey and music. He was a 
talented cook, an avid gardener, and a gifted artist.
  He was a loving husband to his wife, Gilda, and was a caring, fun, 
and patient father to his two young boys, Bradley Dastan Beaver, age 3, 
and Connor Milad Beaver, age 2.
  It is hard to believe that an unexpected medical condition could end 
his life so soon at the age of 39. He was contributing so much to the 
United States and so much to his family. We will greatly miss him here 
as I know he will be missed by a very wide expanse of family and 
friends and community.

[[Page S2536]]

  Mr. President, I come to the floor to address one aspect of our ``we 
the people'' Nation. In writing the Constitution, our forefathers put 
those words, ``We the people,'' in supersized font, so even if you are 
far away and you can't read the fine print, you know the mission 
statement of our Constitution. It was all about, as President Lincoln 
summarized, a ``government of the people, by the people, [and] for the 
people,'' always intended to be the opposite of governments by and for 
the powerful.
  Yet what have we seen in 2017? Much of the year was spent on a 
healthcare bill designed to destroy healthcare for some 22 to 30 
million Americans. That is not government by the people or for the 
people; that is government by and for the powerful.
  We saw a tax bill that borrowed $1.5 trillion from the people of the 
United States--which our children will have to repay--and gave it to 
the wealthiest Americans. That is not government by and for the people; 
that is government by and for the powerful.
  We saw the theft of a Supreme Court seat for the first time in our 
history--a Supreme Court seat sent when it was vacated by the death of 
Antonin Scalia from one Presidency to the next, more than a year in the 
future in order to sustain a 5-to-4 Court decision called Citizens 
United, which allows a powerful America to spend unlimited sums, 
contaminating our political system with hundreds of millions of 
dollars, corrupting this Nation. That is not government of, by, and for 
the people; that is government of, by, and for the powerful.
  Now we see the ongoing effort to pack the courts. Although I have 
heard complaints from some of my Republican colleagues about the slow 
pace of nominees, we see that the pace is very fast compared to the 
pace that existed for President Obama. For the first 14 circuit court 
nominations, they waited under President Obama an average of 251 days, 
but under President Trump, in less than half the time at 125 days--a 
breakneck pace--we have seen more nominees confirmed. If we compare 
from the start of the Presidency to this far into the Presidency under 
President Obama, we had a total of 21 nominees--9 circuit court 
nominees, 11 district court nominees, and 1 Supreme Court nominee, 
totaling 21. We see that under President Trump there are confirmations 
for 15 circuit court nominees, 17 district court nominees, and the 
filling of a Supreme Court seat, a stolen seat. There are 33--12 more--
and more than 50 percent faster. So the argument that anything is being 
slow-walked is completely false.
  We see all kinds of efforts, though, to rush nominees through without 
proper consideration. Last year, we had cloture votes on four circuit 
court nominees in a single week. We had cloture filled on three 
nominees within hours of being reported out of committee--and not 
reported out of committee unanimously but with divided votes. We know 
that when something comes out of the committee, there needs to be time 
for the rest of the body to be able to exercise their efforts to 
understand the background of that nominee. Often new information is 
turned up. For example, with Brett Talley--nominated for the district 
court--after he came out of committee, then it became known that he had 
written controversial commentaries defending the KKK, and he had 
belittled the Sandy Hook tragedy where little children were 
slaughtered. We found that out after he came out of committee. Yet 
cloture is being filed right after nominations come out of committee. 
We even had an individual who was rated ``not qualified'' by the 
American Bar Association. That, my colleagues, is rare.
  The tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation involving the blue 
slip goes back a long way--since about 1917, a little more than a 
century. Senator Thomas Hardwick objected to President Wilson's 
district court nominee. He wrote on a blue slip of paper, saying: ``I 
object to this appointment--the same is personally offensive and 
objectionable to me, and I can not consent to the confirmation of the 
nominee.'' Thus began the blue-slip tradition of courtesy and respect 
for the viewpoint of Senators from a variety of States.
  Under President Obama the blue slips were honored, whether they came 
from a Democrat or from a Republican. In fact, 18 of President Obama's 
nominees were blocked by Republican blue slips because they were 
honored by the Democrats.
  In 2009, we had a letter from my Republican colleagues, and it said 
about the practice of observing senatorial courtesy that ``we, as a 
Conference, expect it to be observed, even-handedly and regardless of 
party affiliation.'' Isn't the sentiment expressed in 2009 appropriate 
for 2018?
  Let me state that in the history of these 100 years, not a single 
nominee has been approved over the objection of two Senators from the 
relevant State. The former Republican chairman, Senator Hatch, said:

       Weakening or eliminating the blue slip process would sweep 
     aside the last remaining check on the President's judicial 
     appointment power. Anyone serious about the Senate's 
     constitutional ``advice and consent'' role knows how 
     disastrous such a move would be.

  I would like to know how many folks in this Chamber are still serious 
about the Senate's constitutional advice and consent role.
  Chairman Grassley said in 2015:

       This tradition is designed to encourage outstanding 
     nominees and consensus. . . . I appreciate the value of the 
     blue-slip process and also intend to honor it.

  He did honor it while President Obama was in office, but now, 
apparently, the world is a different place. Look what is happening on 
the Senate floor this week. We have a nominee, Michael Brennan, whose 
views on women's rights, civil rights, education, criminal justice, 
sexual discrimination, and judicial precedent are out of the 
mainstream. His nomination has moved forward despite the opposition and 
over the objections of a home State Senator. This is a seat, by the 
way, that is open because the blue-slip process was honored. The 
objection through a blue slip was honored under President Obama.
  There are more extreme nominees coming through. So if we think back 
to that point made by Senator Grassley that ``the tradition is designed 
to encourage outstanding nominees and consensus,'' we are seeing that 
the decision not to honor it is doing the reverse.
  There is Kurt Engelhardt, a nominee for the Fifth Circuit. His record 
on the district court is deeply troubling, particularly when it comes 
to cases regarding sexual harassment, discrimination, civil rights, 
discriminating against women in the workforce who choose to have 
children--a right that should be open to every American woman without 
fear of losing one's job. Yet, last night, this body voted for cloture 
and is sending his nomination to a final vote.
  We have Joel Carson, nominee for the Tenth Circuit, who has spent 
most of his career deeply embedded in advocating for fossil fuel 
interests. That is a huge conflict of interest for being able to weigh 
in as a judge on any issue regarding energy.
  Then we have the case in Oregon. The chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee has scheduled a hearing for Mr. Ryan Bounds tomorrow, despite 
the fact that Senator Wyden and I have not returned our blue slips. 
Should this nomination come forward to this floor and be confirmed, 
this will be the first time in the history of the blue slips that the 
combined objections of both home State Senators have been ignored.
  One might ask: Why is it that Senator Wyden and I feel so strongly 
about this particular nominee? Well, first, the White House didn't 
consult with us. They brought him in for an interview and decided they 
were going to nominate him without consulting the home State Senators. 
Any Member of this body who wants to stand up for consultation would 
stand against this nomination. Oh, the White House says that they 
consulted. They have a very strange definition of consultation. I think 
they mean it to say that they informed us about their decision. We 
asked the White House to stand aside until our committee back in Oregon 
had completed its work, but they chose not to. That is not 
consultation.
  There are the inflammatory writings of this individual regarding the 
rights of workers, people of color, and the LGBTQ community. The 
Alliance for Justice said in their report on this nominee, Mr. Ryan 
Bounds, that his ``writings reveal strong biases that call into 
question his ability to fairly apply the law and maintain confidence in 
the

[[Page S2537]]

justice system's ability to dispense even-handed justice to all.''
  Shouldn't that be the heart of the nomination process, that we make 
sure we are sending forward individuals who add to the integrity of our 
judicial system, not individuals who take away from it?
  During his interviews with our committee out in Oregon--this 
committee continued its work, even though the President nominated him 
without waiting for the committee to finish its work. The committee 
asked him if he had controversial writings or events in his life that 
he needed to disclose, and he said that he did not. He did not disclose 
them. This is not an ancient failure of integrity; this is an 
immediate, recent past failure of transparency and integrity.
  The letter we received from the chair of Oregon's Federal Judicial 
Selection Advisory Committee states:

       I am writing to you as Chair of the [Oregon] Federal 
     Judicial Selection Advisory Committee. I have reviewed a 
     recent piece in the Wall Street Journal titled ``Give Amnesty 
     for College Writings.'' The piece concerns Ryan Bounds, a 
     candidate for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacancy, and 
     specifically states that our committee recommended him. The 
     piece notes Mr. Bounds' writings, but fails to point out Mr. 
     Bounds never disclosed those writings to the committee at any 
     point in the interview process. Since that time, I have heard 
     from four members of the judicial selection committee 
     specifically with regard to this omission. I can say with 
     confidence that those four committee members as well as 
     myself would not have ranked Mr. Bounds as we did had we 
     known about these deeply troubling writings.
       Mr. Bounds' writings themselves are objectionable not only 
     for the views they express, but for the intemperate and 
     demeaning tone that he uses to express his opinion. Equally, 
     if not more disturbing, Mr. Bounds failed to disclose 
     these writings when specifically asked by the committee 
     about his views on equity and diversity. Although he felt 
     free to volunteer details about his life going back to 
     childhood, he misled the committee in response to this 
     important inquiry. For this reason, five of the seven 
     committee members no longer recommend Mr. Bounds.

  That is what we heard from the Oregon committee.
  We have a responsibility to the institutions of governance of the 
United States of America, with the fundamental principle embedded in 
those three words: ``We the People''--government of, by, and for the 
people. We have seen a series of significant bills where it is the 
exact opposite of this: bills designed to destroy healthcare for 
millions of Americans, bills that put us deep in debt in order to 
deliver the proceeds to the richest Americans. It is perhaps the 
biggest bank heist in the history of the world.
  Now we see an effort to sully the integrity, to damage the legitimacy 
of our courts. That is unacceptable, and we need to rethink our course 
and honor our responsibility to strengthen, not undermine, the 
beautiful architecture of our ``we the people'' Nation.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The assistant Democratic leader.