[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 5, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1644-S1645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Chad A. Readler

  Mr. President, I am here, though, to talk about the Affordable Care 
Act.
  One of the things we talk a lot about here on the Senate floor is of 
our mutual concern for people with preexisting conditions. These are 
the 130 million Americans who are sick or who have histories of 
sickness. If you were to listen to both sides of the aisle, you would 
believe that everyone is on board with the idea that we should provide 
protections to individuals who are sick or who have ever been sick.
  Yet actions do not meet words when it comes down to it in the U.S. 
Senate.
  Over the last 2 years, my Republican colleagues have spared no 
expense or effort to try to strip away protections for those 
individuals with preexisting conditions that were in the Affordable 
Care Act. The repeal of the Affordable Care Act is the most obvious 
example of that.
  This week, we will have a rare opportunity to take an up-or-down vote 
on this issue of whether we support keeping protections for people with 
preexisting conditions in this country. The reason for that is, we are 
going to vote on a nominee to the Sixth Circuit Court who 
orchestrated--who directed--the Department of Justice's attempts to 
take away protections for people with preexisting conditions through 
the court process.
  Chad Readler filed a brief in a case brought by State attorneys 
general--all of them Republicans--to strike from the Affordable Care 
Act the protection for people with preexisting conditions.
  Normally, when State attorneys general come after the 
constitutionality of a statute, whether those are Republican or 
Democratic attorneys general, the administration, whether it be a 
Republican or Democratic administration, defends the constitutionality 
of the statute.
  This was an exceptional case in which these Republican attorneys 
general were trying to take away protections for people with 
preexisting conditions, saying the ACA was unconstitutional, and an 
Assistant Attorney General by the name of Chad Readler stood up and 
volunteered to file a brief alleging that, in fact, the attorneys 
general were right--a rare, almost completely unprecedented example of 
the Department of Justice arguing against the constitutionality of a 
statute that had been passed by the Congress and signed by the 
President.
  Interestingly, before Chad Readler decided to file that brief, others 
at the Department of Justice refused. In fact, one lawyer left the 
Department of Justice because he wouldn't put his name on something so 
absurd as the brief Chad Readler filed.
  I am not the only person who thinks the arguments in his brief trying 
to strike down those protections for people with preexisting conditions 
was absurd. In fact, Senator Alexander read Readler's brief and said 
the arguments in it were ``as far-fetched as any I have ever heard.'' 
That is a Republican Senator.
  Now, the consequences of the judge following the recommendations of 
Chad Readler were catastrophic. In fact, the judge struck down the 
Affordable Care Act. That order has been held in abeyance temporarily, 
but the consequences of the Readler brief would be that 133 million 
Americans would lose their protections from higher rates because they 
were sick or had been sick. The 20 million people who had insurance 
would lose it virtually overnight.
  Admittedly, the Readler brief didn't agree with every single element 
of the lawsuit of the attorneys general but enough of it such that it 
was very clear

[[Page S1645]]

the administration was weighing in on the side of the petitioners.
  Almost immediately after filing that brief, he was nominated to serve 
on the appellate court, sending a very clear signal to all of those in 
the administration that if you take a leadership role on trying to 
strip away protections for people with preexisting conditions, you will 
be rewarded--in this case, rewarded with a lifetime appointment.
  So we are about to vote on the architect of this administration's 
legal strategy to try to undo the most popular, most important 
protections in the Affordable Care Act, and it represents this rare 
opportunity to understand where Senators stand.
  It is super easy. It takes no political risk to stand up and say you 
support protecting people who are sick and making sure insurance 
companies don't jack up their rates. As it turns out, it is a little 
bit harder to actually back up your words with actions, but this one 
isn't that hard. Voting against Chad Readler isn't that difficult, in 
part, because Senator Brown, who is the Senator from Ohio who did not 
sign a blue slip for Chad Readler's nomination, has made it clear as 
early as 10 minutes ago that he is willing to support and sign a blue 
slip for a mainstream conservative nominee.
  In this case, Democrats aren't saying we want a nominee to the Sixth 
Circuit who isn't one who could be charitably described as a 
conservative nominee. We just don't want a nominee who has made his 
mark trying to tear down protections for sick people in this country, 
but that is what happens when you get rid of the blue ship. Senator 
McConnell and Senator Grassley have gotten rid of this decades-old 
protection to try to make sure nominees to the Federal bench, to the 
appellate bench in this case, have the support of their home State 
Senators. When you do that, you tend to get a little bit more 
mainstream nominees.
  Now that the blue slip is gone, now that Senator Brown has no ability 
to weigh in on individuals who are going to be making law in his State, 
you get a much more extreme nominee like this.
  So let's see what happens. I hope there are some Republicans who will 
stand up and decide they are going to put their votes where their 
mouths have been on the question of protections for people with 
preexisting conditions, but at the very least, the American public will 
get to see where we all stand on this very important question in a 
matter of hours.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.