[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 122 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5088-S5090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              S. Res. 584

  Madam President, as it relates to this resolution, it is outrageous 
that the White House would not instantaneously and firmly dismiss a 
proposition that Russian prosecutors question a former U.S. Ambassador. 
Again and again, we have seen President Trump take Vladimir Putin's 
word. It is unconscionable that this White House would give anything 
other than a full-throated defense of America's Foreign Service, like 
Ambassador Mike McFaul, who has served our country with honor and 
distinction.
  The reason Putin doesn't like Mike McFaul is that as our U.S. 
Ambassador, he stood up for democracy and human rights in Russia; he 
stood up to the Russian regime; and he promoted American values and 
ideals. He spoke truth to power inside Russia. That is why Putin wants 
him. Congress shouldn't have to tell America's President to stand up 
for America's public servants and its diplomatic corps, but apparently 
we have to.
  President Trump has repeatedly dismissed Russia's attack in 2016 and 
shrugs off the threat it poses today, despite all of our intelligence 
agencies and the Director of National Intelligence, just days ago, 
saying there are red blinking lights about Russia's continual 
engagement and interference in

[[Page S5089]]

the elections that will take place 110 days from now.
  This week, he has continuously and directly contradicted his own 
national security advisers and, instead, has embraced the line of Putin 
and Russian intelligence. Now, I know they have been trying to clean it 
up. Yet he has said it so many times and in the same way he said it in 
Helsinki. That is what he really believes. Now for him to say something 
that is different--wrong time, wrong continent, not too much. He has 
spouted talking points that have sounded like they have come straight 
from the Kremlin. He has shown a willingness to accede to Putin's 
requests to interrogate Americans, a willingness to accept Putin's 
denials about Russian interference, a willingness to attack NATO allies 
like Montenegro, and a willingness to be a supplicant to Putin's views.
  The President keeps claiming he has been tough on Russia. No. It is 
Congress that has been tough on Russia by its passing CAATSA, the 
Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, with broad and 
deep bipartisan support. Yet the White House hasn't taken it seriously. 
It has ignored a series of mandates in the law. The clear tone and 
intent that came from the Helsinki summit was one of accommodation, not 
of pressure.
  I don't see any other way forward, other than through further 
congressional action, to forcefully call out and address the 
administration's willful paralysis to Putin's abhorrent behavior. To 
date, our efforts have been transformative, but just as the 
administration has been prepared to find ways that allow Putin to 
circumvent the law and to avoid implementing mandatory provisions of 
CAATSA, we must be equally prepared to adjust and adapt by closing 
those loopholes.
  That is why I will soon introduce comprehensive legislation to 
increase pressure to actually implement the law and increase pressure 
on Russia for its aggression against the United States and our allies. 
Among the considerations we have for this new legislation are to 
increase sanctions on Russia's energy sector, to increase sanctions on 
its cyber sector, to increase pressure on Russia's oligarchs and those 
who are closest to Putin, and to look at Russia's sovereign debt as a 
target.
  We cannot wait to see whether Russia will attack us in the 2018 
election. We know it is in the midst of making that a reality, and we 
need to ramp up the pressure. We can't afford to wait.
  Based on this President's behavior, we also need to protect our 
institutions here at home. That is why we want to include protections 
for the Office of Special Counsel. The President has done more to 
target Bob Mueller than he has to go after Vladimir Putin, and this 
must stop. This effort must be bipartisan, which is why I look forward 
to working with my Republican colleagues who truly want to see us fight 
back on Russia and nearly all of whom voted to increase sanctions on 
Russia last year and place more authority for sanctions alleviation in 
the hands of Congress. They were right to support such measures in July 
of 2017, and God knows it would now be right to step up and defend 
America's interests.
  It is time to show the American people that we can be patriots, not 
just partisans. It is time to show the world that we can put our 
country over party. It is time that we defend America's democratic 
institutions against Russia's continued aggression. I look forward to 
the resolution and its vote, and I urge everyone to join us in 
approving it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we will vote today on the confirmation 
of Ryan Bounds to the Ninth Circuit. He has been nominated to fill the 
vacancy left by Judge O'Scannlain. Mr. Bounds once served as a law 
clerk to Ninth Circuit Judge O'Scannlain.
  Mr. Bounds is highly qualified to serve on the Ninth Circuit. A 
native of Oregon, he attended Stanford University and Yale Law School. 
He has dedicated his career to public service and has served in 
government for the past 14 years. The last 8 years were as an assistant 
U.S. attorney in Oregon.
  I have listened to my colleagues on the other side voice their 
opposition to Mr. Bounds. Interestingly, none of them cite anything Mr. 
Bounds has done in his legal career as a reason for opposing his 
nomination. Instead, they focus on two things. First, they say we 
shouldn't confirm Mr. Bounds because his home State Senators didn't 
return their blue slips. Second, they say some of Mr. Bounds' college 
writings were insensitive. So I am going to start with point No. 1 on 
which they base their opposition to him.
  As I have explained so many times on the floor of the U.S. Senate and 
in the Senate Judiciary Committee--and I don't know how many times to 
the multitudes of journalists who are on the Hill--my blue-slip policy 
is the same as all but 2 of my 18 predecessors who were chairmen of the 
Judiciary Committee over the 100-year history of blue slips. Like 
Chairmen Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Orrin Hatch, I will hold hearings 
for circuit court nominees who have negative or unreported blue slips 
if the White House has consulted with the home State Senators, and I 
will not allow Senators to abuse the blue-slip courtesy for political 
or ideological reasons.
  In the case of Mr. Bounds, the White House sought the Oregon 
Senators' input, seriously considered the one candidate suggested by 
the Oregon Senators, and waited several months for the Senators from 
Oregon to establish their judicial selection committee, which is quite 
a tradition in that State. The selection committee itself even 
recommended Mr. Bounds. Yet the Oregon Senators still didn't return 
their blue slips.
  They say it was because Mr. Bounds didn't disclose some of his 
college writings to the selection committee. There is a very good 
reason he didn't--the selection committee never asked for his college 
writings. In fact, Senator Wyden's staff instructed Mr. Bounds not to 
disclose them. Moreover, the Oregon Senators refused to ever meet with 
Mr. Bounds during this whole process.
  It has been misleadingly said this will be the first time in modern 
history we will have confirmed a judge without there having been at 
least one positive blue slip from the two State Senators. My Democratic 
colleagues have only themselves to blame. The way the blue slip used to 
be enforced was through the 60-vote filibuster, and that was done away 
with in November 2013, led by the then-Democratic majority and Senator 
Reid.
  For example, Chairman Hatch held hearings for five nominees in 2003 
and 2004, despite there being the lack of a positive blue slip from 
either home State Senator. These nominees were voted out of 
committee. Then Senate Democrats blocked these nominees on the floor by 
using the 60-vote filibuster. But my Democratic colleagues abolished 
that filibuster, as I said, in 2013 for the reason that they needed the 
votes and the freedom to pack the DC Circuit with liberal judges who 
would uphold Obama's regulatory schemes.

  Leading this effort was none other than Senator Merkley of Oregon, 
who argued that 41 Senators shouldn't be able to block a Senate 
majority from confirming judges. Now they have a different point of 
view. Now he argues that he alone should have the right to block Mr. 
Bounds from even getting a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.
  In November of 2013, I told my Democratic colleagues that they would 
regret abolishing the filibuster just to stack the DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals with their friends. Now, obviously, today, as they consider the 
Bounds nomination, they know they made a mistake.
  Turning to the only other criticism my colleagues have made about Mr. 
Bounds, which is in regard to his college writings, I don't believe 
that misguided statements made in a college newspaper 25 years ago 
should disqualify Mr. Bounds. I hope we don't live in a world where 
controversial things that we write in college end our careers forever. 
This is especially true with our kids and grandkids now in the era of 
social media.
  For example, a few years ago, just when the same thing came up on 
Justice Wright going to the Minnesota

[[Page S5090]]

District Court, I voted and supported her despite very controversial 
writings she had in law school. We shouldn't assume that views 
expressed years ago during college and law school represent the nominee 
today.
  Mr. Bounds testified that he regretted much of what he wrote in those 
op-eds.
  We received numerous letters in support of Mr. Bounds' nomination 
from people who have known him personally throughout his life. We 
received a letter from some of his classmates at Stanford. And before I 
quote, it is kind of like--these sound like they were his friends in 
the dormitories. I never was a dormitory student, but I imagine you 
really get acquainted with people there. This is what they had to say 
about Mr. Bounds:

       We have become aware of a handful of controversial op-eds 
     and articles Ryan wrote for The Stanford Review during that 
     time. None of us believes that these writings reflect Ryan's 
     character, either then or now. All of us remember our dorm-
     mate fondly.
       We are a diverse bunch. Yet Ryan never failed to treat all 
     of us with courtesy, respect, and civility, regardless of our 
     respective genders, sexual orientations, skin colors, 
     religions, ethnicity, or any other characteristics.
       There is not, and never has been, a racist, sexist, 
     homophobic, or bigoted bone in Ryan Bounds's body.

  Mr. Bounds has also been a community leader, promoting diversity and 
equality. As a member of the Multnomah Bar Association's Equity, 
Diversity, and Inclusion Committee, Mr. Bounds spearheaded programs to 
expose underprivileged young people to the legal profession. He 
mentored young scholarship recipients and helped those same people 
navigate law school admissions and law school. He expanded low-cost CLE 
offerings and organized anti-harassment and anti-discrimination 
training.
  Mr. Bounds is imminently qualified to serve on the Ninth Circuit. His 
college writings do not represent who he is today. His professional 
accomplishments and exemplary public service speak much more loudly to 
his character and integrity.
  I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
Mr. Bounds' confirmation today.