[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 34 (Monday, February 25, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1423-S1425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Eric D. Miller

  Mr. President, in the very near future, my Senate colleagues will be 
asked to take an unprecedented vote--a vote that never should have been 
scheduled here in the first place.
  Republican leaders are demanding that we move ahead and vote on 
President Trump's nominee to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court despite 
the fact that I and my colleague Senator Cantwell have not returned our 
blue slips on behalf of our constituents in Washington State and 
despite the fact that the hearing for the nominee was a total sham. 
This is wrong, and it is a dangerous road for the Senate to go down. 
Not only did Republicans schedule this nominee's confirmation hearing 
during a recess period when just two Senators--both Republicans--were 
able to attend, but the hearing included less than 5 minutes of 
questioning--less questioning for a lifetime appointment than most 
students face for a book report in school.
  Confirming this Ninth Circuit Court nominee without the consent or 
true input of both home State Senators and after a sham hearing would 
be a dangerous first for this Senate.
  This is not a partisan issue. This is a question of the Senate's 
ability and commitment to properly review nominees. Yet, here we are on 
the Senate floor, barreling toward a vote to confirm a flawed nominee, 
who came to us following a flawed nomination process--all because a 
handful of my Republican colleagues will apparently stop at nothing to 
jam President Trump's extreme conservatives onto our courts, even if 
that means trampling all over precedent, all over process, or any 
semblance of our institutional norms.
  Maybe Republican leaders are hoping most Americans aren't paying 
attention to what is happening right now in the Senate--that somehow 
tossing out Senate norms in order to move our country's courts to the 
far right will go unnoticed.
  Well, I am standing here right now to make sure everyone knows 
because I, for one, fear the short- and long-term consequences of 
letting any President steamroll the Senate on something as critical as 
our judicial nominees--the very men and women who are tasked with 
interpreting our Nation's laws and making sure they serve justice for 
all Americans.
  I fear the consequences of abandoning the blue-slip process and, 
instead, bending to the will of a President who has demonstrated time 
and again his ignorance and disdain for the Constitution and the rule 
of law.
  At a time when we have a President whose policies keep testing the 
limits of law--from a ban on Muslims entering the United States to a 
family separation policy at our southern border--it is very important, 
more than ever, that we have well-qualified, consensus judges on the 
bench.
  Let's be very clear. Trump cannot steamroll the Senate by himself. 
But in

[[Page S1424]]

the Republican leadership, he has found Members willing to throw out 
every rule, every tradition, every safeguard in the book to give him 
what he wants.
  So this vote, which is happening soon, and this new precedent of 
turning a blind eye to the blue slip should stop every one of my 
colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--in their tracks because, today, 
the two home Senators still holding their blue slips are my colleague 
Senator Cantwell and me, but in the future, it could be any Member of 
this body.
  I am doing this for very good reasons--reasons very much in line with 
why the blue-slip process exists in the first place. I am doing this 
because I don't believe Mr. Miller has received the necessary scrutiny 
and vetting to serve on the bench--a lifetime appointment. I believe 
the people I represent would not want him there, plain and simple.
  I want to briefly go into one area that causes particular and very 
serious concern, and that is what I have heard from my constituents 
about Mr. Miller's misunderstanding of Tribal sovereignty and his 
ability to be impartial and fair-minded when hearing cases involving 
Tribal rights.
  As one Tribal leader from my home State put it, Mr. Miller has built 
a career out of mounting challenges against Tribes, including their 
sovereignty, their lands, their religious freedom, and even the core 
attributes of Federal recognition.
  I want to be very clear because I do not believe that it is wise for 
Senators to support or oppose nominees only because of their past 
clients. Our legal system requires talented lawyers on both sides of 
every case, and sometimes lawyers represent clients who are politically 
unpopular.
  But making a career decision to be one of the top attorneys, in case 
after case, attacking Tribal sovereignty--that is more than a choice of 
a client. That is a choice about values, and it is something my 
colleagues should consider.
  There are more than 400 federally recognized Tribes in the Western 
United States, including Alaska. Every single one could find themselves 
before the Ninth Circuit and before a judge who spent years fighting 
for an extreme position directly opposed to their own sovereignty and 
whose advocacy repeatedly attempted to undermine the rights of Tribal 
nations everywhere. Particularly at a time when the Supreme Court may 
demolish important protections for subsistence rights, a circuit 
nominee opposed to Tribal sovereignty should not be confirmed.
  This is a serious matter worthy of true examination. Yet Mr. Miller's 
nomination process was inadequate from the start.
  Today it is Washington State families who are getting cut out from 
this important process. Tomorrow, it can be the concerns of any of your 
constituents and any of your home States that get tossed aside for a 
President's crusade to reshape our courts and satisfy a political 
base--and Senate leaders unwilling to stand up for our norms and our 
precedents and our constitutional duty.
  I urge my colleagues to truly think about what moving ahead with this 
nomination means and to ask themselves: Are we still able to work 
together in a bipartisan way and find common ground for the good of the 
country and the people we serve? Can we still engage in a bipartisan 
process to find consensus candidates to serve on our courts? Or will 
our work here in the U.S. Senate be reduced to partisan extremes and 
political gamesmanship?
  Will Republicans accept simply being a rubberstamp for their leader 
in the White House, and will my colleagues be complicit in allowing our 
courts to be taken over by ideology alone, abandoning pragmatism and a 
commitment to justice for all?
  That is the choice every Senator will make with this vote, and I 
sincerely hope a choice for which every Senator will be held 
accountable.
  To vote yes will be a vote in favor of further eroding the Senate's 
commitment to examining nominees for lifetime appointments and its 
ability to serve as a check on the Executive. To vote yes is to toss 
away each Senator's ability to provide guidance on judicial nominees 
for their State and the families they represent.
  To vote no will be a vote to stand up for the Senate's role in our 
democracy and to stand up for a process that helps the Senate ensure 
qualified judges who play such a critically important role in our 
democracy. To me, the choice is pretty clear.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                                 S. 311

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join many of my 
colleagues in raising our voices on behalf of some of the most 
vulnerable members of our society.
  Recently, a very disturbing and revealing discussion has been taking 
place in our country that raises serious questions about how much value 
and worth we ascribe to babies in the womb, especially those who are 
born despite an attempted abortion procedure.
  Before I go any further, let me say this clearly and unequivocally: 
If we as a nation are to hold any claim to a moral character that 
deserves to be admired and emulated, then we must be willing to say 
that the lives of newborn children have inherent value and are worthy 
of protection. There is simply no way to credibly claim otherwise.
  Whether it be legislation introduced or enacted by State legislatures 
or comments made by public officials, such as the Governor of Virginia, 
our country has begun to entertain the idea that the rights and 
privileges newborn babies possess is an open-ended question.
  This is alarming, and the U.S. Senate should go on the record in 
defense of their right to live instead of being callously discarded or 
worse--intentionally killed in the name of reproductive freedom. There 
is no middle ground here.
  It is concerning to me that in some corners of this country, and even 
within this Congress, there is an utter failure to recognize and affirm 
the right to life, especially after an infant has already been born.
  Throughout my time in elected office, I have found that giving those 
who disagree with me on any given issue the benefit of the doubt as it 
relates to their motivations has allowed me to consistently find 
commonality and reach compromise, even with incredibly unlikely allies 
and partners. But in this instance, there can be no mistake or 
ambiguity. The common ground that we all must occupy should be a shared 
commitment to uphold the basic, fundamental right to protect the life 
of every child, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, which 
brings me to the legislation before the Senate today.

  I am a cosponsor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, 
and I am grateful to each of my colleagues who supported the bill 
tonight. This legislation would create criminal penalties for doctors 
who allow infants to die rather than provide medical care after an 
attempted abortion.
  It would also require that born-alive abortion survivors be 
transported to a hospital for care and treatment rather than being left 
to languish on the counter of an abortion clinic or--as one former 
nurse and pro-life activist has shockingly recounted--be discarded 
along with the biohazard materials.
  Even in situations where comfort care is rendered to these little 
ones, that sometimes amounts to nothing more than keeping a baby warm 
until it passes away alone. No child should suffer this way.
  Under this bill, abortionists who defy these mandates to render care 
to born-alive survivors would face the justice that they are due 
instead of being ignored or permitted to continue committing 
infanticide.
  It is time for our country to demand that the victims of this 
abhorrent, inhumane treatment be afforded their rights and the 
perpetrators be held accountable.
  Speaking with one clear voice, we must say that every human being is 
made in the image of God and is therefore in possession of dignity and 
worth that cannot be displaced or dispossessed. Anything short of this 
unambiguous declaration would be a tremendous disservice to our 
children and fatally undermine the values of our society that we claim 
to uphold.

[[Page S1425]]

  While the debate surrounding abortion has engulfed this country for 
decades, the goalposts are now being shifted. Reproductive autonomy, we 
are now told, must include the ability and choice to end the life of a 
baby who survives an attempted abortion.
  As a former medical provider, I believe that to end a newborn's life 
either by refusing to provide lifesaving care or actively taking that 
child's life--as in the case of the infamous abortionist Dr. Kermit 
Gosnell and others--violates the oath every medical provider takes to 
do no harm.
  As a dad and a grandfather, I know from my own experience just how 
precious each life is. My daughters and grandchildren are treasured 
gifts that bring my family and me immeasurable joy. To think that they 
or any other child might be treated with anything other than the 
dignity and respect they are entitled to is tragic, heartbreaking, and 
outrageous.
  Providing necessary medical attention to save the lives of infants 
who survive an abortion is an imperative that we as a society must 
embrace if we are to be faithful to the promise our Founders made to 
the generations of Americans who would succeed them. In declaring the 
self-evident truth that all men are created equal, surely they intended 
to extend the same rights and liberties that their countrymen fought 
and died for to newborn babies who survive abortions.
  I am proud to have stood with my colleagues today in support of this 
legislation that seeks to protect these precious, vulnerable lives. We 
can and should do this as a reflection of the country we want to be.
  Our abortion laws in the United States already situate us among some 
of the world's worst human rights abusers, including North Korea and 
China.
  Now a national conversation about whether to provide children who 
survive abortions medical attention and care has ensued. It is my hope 
and prayer that the final word in this discussion will end with a 
resounding commitment to protect and preserve life.
  I would like to thank the junior Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Sasse, 
for leading on this critical issue and pushing to bring this measure to 
the floor today.
  I would also like to thank the President for his vocal commitment to 
defending life and protecting the most vulnerable among us.
  I feel blessed to stand alongside so many others to raise our voices 
on behalf of the voiceless.
  While I am disappointed with the result of today's vote, I remain 
committed to fighting for those who are unable to fight for themselves 
and will continue working to protect and uphold the sanctity of life.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.