[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 121 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5043-S5044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Blue-Slip Tradition

  Madam President, I believe I have colleagues on the floor who are 
going to make a unanimous consent request, but before they do, I feel 
obliged to speak up about the steady erosion of the norms and 
traditions that protect the Senate's unique constitutional role with 
respect to lifetime appointments to our Federal courts.
  We should all be alarmed by the Judiciary Committee's abrupt change 
in course when it comes to respect for blue slips, which allow home-
State Senators to have a word in what happens. This should concern us 
all. For much of this body's history, blue slips have given meaning to 
the constitutional requirement of ``advice and consent.'' They have 
protected the prerogatives of home-State Senators, and they have 
ensured fairness and comity in the Senate.
  When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, under both the Bush 
and Obama administrations, not a single judicial nominee received a 
hearing without first receiving both home-State Senators' positive blue 
slips. Regardless of who was in the Oval Office, I steadfastly defended 
blue slips because I firmly believed in both their constitutional and 
institutional importance. I also firmly believed in the prerogatives of 
home-State Senators and the need to ensure that the White House works 
in good faith with those Senators.
  My decision to defend blue slips was not without some controversy. I 
faced significant pressure from my own party's leadership to hold 
hearings for President Obama's nominees who had not received positive 
blue slips from Republican Senators. I was criticized by liberal 
advocacy groups and major news outlets like the New York Times, but I 
resisted such pressure because I believed then--and I still believe 
now--that certain principles matter more than party.
  All of us, whether Democrat or Republican, should care about good-
faith consultation when it comes to nominees from our own States. The 
reasons for this are both principled and pragmatic. We know our States. 
We know who is qualified to fill lifetime judicial seats that will have 
a tremendous impact on our neighbors and communities.
  This week, the Senate will vote whether to confirm a nominee to the 
Ninth Circuit, Ryan Bounds, opposed by not one but both of his home-
State Senators. Senators Wyden and Merkley were cut out of the 
nomination process entirely. The White House interviewed Bounds and 
fast-tracked his nomination without consulting either senator. If Mr. 
Bounds is confirmed, it will mark the first time in the history of the 
Senate that a judicial nominee is confirmed despite opposition from 
both home-State Senators.
  My concern is not about a mere piece of paper. My concern is that we 
are failing to protect the fundamental rights of home-State Senators, 
and we are failing in our constitutional duty to provide our advice and 
consent on a President's nominees. That should concern all of us. The 
Senate should never function as a mere rubberstamp for nominees seeking 
lifetime appointments to our Federal judiciary.
  Without blue slips, nothing prevents a California nominee from being 
appointed to a Texas court. Nothing prevents our State selection 
committees from being completely ignored by the White House. That is 
what we are seeing today. The Oregon bipartisan judicial selection 
commission overwhelmingly voted that Mr. Bounds--who misled the 
commission about his controversial writings--did not deserve its 
recommendation.
  Some may dismiss these warnings, but I have served in the Senate long 
enough to know that winds tend to change direction. Inevitably, the 
majority becomes the minority. The White House changes hands. I suspect 
Republicans will rekindle their love of blue slips if they find 
themselves in the minority under a Democratic President, as they did 
under President Obama and during my chairmanship. That is precisely why 
maintaining a single, consistent policy with respect to blue slips is 
so critical.
  That is why I will vote against Mr. Bounds. If we abandon our 
longstanding traditions to change partisan expediency, that provides 
only fleeting advantage and inflicts lasting harm in this body. We are 
better off when we follow the tradition we always have. We foolishly 
hurt ourselves and our individual States when we allow ourselves to 
step away from it. I would urge all Senators to ensure that home-State 
Senators are provided the same courtesies during the Trump 
administration that they received from both Republican and Democratic 
Judiciary chairmen during the Obama administration. I ask my fellow 
Senators to oppose Mr. Bound's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am about to engage in a brief colloquy 
about a unanimous consent request with my colleague, the Senator from 
California.
  I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the previous order, I 
be able to have 5 minutes to do that prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 118

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of 
Calendar No.

[[Page S5044]]

297, S. 118; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed 
to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and 
passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I 
rise today to express concern with S. 118, the Reinforcing American-
Made Products Act, because it would preempt California's strong ``Made 
in America'' labeling standards.
  California requires that at least 90 percent of a final product be 
composed of American-made parts to use the label--the strongest 
standard in the Nation.
  This bill would undo California's tough standard, setting instead a 
watered-down national standard. Companies could then confuse consumers 
by flooding the market with products sold under the ``Made in America'' 
label that were built using more foreign-made components. That is why 
the California attorney general and the Consumer Federation of 
California support keeping California's strong standards in place.

  The ``Made in America'' label should promote U.S. manufacturing and 
give consumers confidence that they are supporting American jobs. 
Consumers want to know that products bearing the ``Made in America'' 
label are truly made in America. Because this would undermine that 
confidence and preempt California's strong standards, I believe this 
bill should not move by unanimous consent. Regretfully, for those 
reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by my 
distinguished colleague, the Senator from California.
  When Americans see a ``Made in USA'' label on a product, it is a 
source of great pride. It represents the American virtues of innovation 
and industriousness. It is a symbol of support for American 
manufacturing jobs and high-quality products across the board, and it 
often spurs American consumers to buy those very products.
  The Federal Trade Commission currently enforces a difficult standard 
for products to claim the ``Made in USA'' label. It requires that all 
or virtually all of a product must be made in the United States, and it 
has issued lengthy guidance documents establishing the rules. However, 
one State holds a different standard--one that is nearly impossible for 
businesses to meet. Under California's law, if more than 5 percent of 
the components of a product are manufactured outside the United States, 
even if that means just a few bolts or a few screws, then that product 
cannot be labeled ``Made in USA.''
  While companies could legally boast this claim in 49 of the 50 States 
under the Federal standards set by the Federal Trade Commission, they 
are often unable to do so because of the flow of interstate commerce. 
Most manufacturers sell wholesale to national and international 
distributors who then disperse products throughout the country. As a 
result, companies must label products according to the most rigid 
definition in order to protect themselves from costly litigation. In 
short, one State--one single State--is effectively governing how 
interstate commerce is conducted with regard to ``Made in USA'' 
labeling throughout the country.
  The Reinforcing American-Made Products Act would solve this problem 
by ensuring that the current Federal definition is the supreme labeling 
law in interstate commerce without weakening the strong ``Made in USA'' 
national standard. In addition to upholding the Constitution, which 
empowers Congress--this body--to regulate interstate commerce, this 
legislation would provide clarity and consistency, which would help 
American companies avoid unnecessary hardships and frivolous lawsuits.
  In the global marketplace, it is increasingly difficult for small 
American companies to stay afloat, let alone to compete. This reform 
would ultimately encourage manufacturing in America and use American 
tools and resources. It would also help so many of the small businesses 
and ordinary American workers who are currently being left behind, and 
helping them ought to be our goal.
  This bill passed unanimously out of committee, and it has broad 
bipartisan support. I am disappointed that it is being blocked by the 
few people who do not support it when it could benefit all 50 of our 
States. We should exercise this authority, and we should open the flow 
of interstate commerce.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Oldham 
nomination?
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 160 Ex.]

                                YEAS--50

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________