[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 5, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1667-S1668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the last vote we took today was about 
Americans' healthcare. It was about consumer protections for 
preexisting conditions that are at risk because of partisan judges.
  The Presiding Officer was running for the Senate at the time and 
wasn't in this body, but I assume she knows, and all of us remember the 
day when the repeal of the Affordable Care Act failed.
  The people on that side of the aisle, the Republicans, were all 
voting to take away consumer protections for preexisting conditions. 
That was part of the vote for the repeal. Among other things, it was to 
cut people off Medicaid, many of whom were getting treatment for opioid 
addiction, and it was to take away the consumer protections for 
preexisting conditions. That is when people can't get insurance because 
they are sick or they get their insurance canceled because they are too 
expensive. They are sick, their insurance is too expensive, and the 
insurance companies come down on them.
  So the stage was set. The Republican Members who said they wanted to 
preserve preexisting conditions, many of them ran their campaigns on--
because they knew the voters were very upset with Republicans for 
trying to take away the consumer protections on preexisting conditions, 
they ran their campaigns on that issue. So the Republicans quickly 
flipped and said: Well, we are going to protect you too.
  Well, tomorrow is the day we have a chance to really protect the 
consumers with preexisting conditions and to keep the protections for 
consumers with preexisting conditions. The problem is, they can't do it 
in Congress. They can't take it away because voters don't like it if 
they take away the protections so they do it through the Federal 
judiciary. That is how they work around here.
  These partisan judges who are voted out of here--maybe the worst one 
yet is from Columbus, OH, named Chad Readler. Last summer, Readler did 
what three career attorneys with the Department of Justice refused to 
do--he filed a brief challenging the law protecting Americans with 
preexisting conditions.
  He was the person in the Trump administration who was the point 
person for taking away the consumer protections protecting Americans 
against losing their insurance because of a preexisting condition.
  Do you know what? After he filed that brief, the very next day the 
lights went on. The very next day, Chad Readler was nominated for a 
lifetime appointment to the Sixth Circuit Court--the next day.
  He did his work for the insurance companies. He did his work for the 
Trump White House. He did his work for the Republican majority who is 
going to take away any consumer protections. What is his reward? I 
guess

[[Page S1668]]

you can't say ``payoff'' because there were no dollars actually 
exchanged, but the reward that this party--the Senate majority leader 
down the hall and the President of the United States--gave the guy who 
wants to take those protections away and do the bidding of the 
insurance company is a lifetime--I don't know, $180,000, $200,000-a-
year, whatever it is--Federal judgeship. It is for life. Mr. Readler is 
in his forties, so lifetime could be a very long time.
  The arguments he made were unprecedented. Three career attorneys 
withdrew from the case after Readler made that decision. One went so 
far as to resign in objection to the Department of Justice's 
unprecedented actions.
  Our Republican colleague Senator Alexander from Tennessee called 
Readler's arguments as farfetched as he had ever seen. This is a 
Republican saying that the Trump White House's Department of Justice 
Chad Readler's, Acting Assistant Attorney General, logic was as 
farfetched as he had ever seen.
  We saw what happened with the Texas decision in December, going along 
with Readler's arguments and threatening the healthcare coverage of 20 
million Americans; that is, 20 million people because of a decision he 
made.
  Judges are deciding the fate of Americans' healthcare right now. 
Judges are. It is not their elected body. It is judges who are taking 
away healthcare. The elected officials failed to take it away. They 
tried. They tried, and they tried. They did it 50 times in the House. 
They tried in the Senate. We defeated it by one vote. The Vice 
President was here on behalf of the President just in case he had to 
break the tie. He didn't have to because we defeated it by one vote. He 
didn't get to break the tie.
  Now it is judges. Judges decide right now. We can't afford to put one 
of the White House's ringleaders in the fight to dismantle healthcare 
protections on the bench for life.
  It is not just healthcare. It is LGBTQ rights. It is women's rights. 
It is voting rights. Judges make decisions right now that eliminate and 
limit Americans' rights for a generation.

  On these issues, the President's nominees for the Sixth Circuit, Chad 
Readler and the other one, Eric Murphy, have a proven record of 
fighting to strip Americans of their rights.
  Get this. Chad Readler not only supported the death penalty for 
minors, for 16-year-olds, as a private citizen, he took it upon himself 
to pen an op-ed saying he wanted to allow the execution of 16-year-
olds--the execution of 16-year-olds. Think about that.
  Apparently, he thinks it is OK for a mistake someone makes as a child 
to not only get them locked up for life but to actually take away their 
life altogether. What kind of person writes an editorial calling for 
the execution of 16-year-olds, and we are going to put him on the 
Federal court for life?
  At a time when we are taking important bipartisan steps forward on 
sentencing reform, how do you turn around and put someone on the bench 
for life who supports executing children? A 16-year-old is still a 
teenager, a child, in our State, in our country, and in our society.
  During his nomination hearing, Readler stood by his op-ed. He refused 
to disavow his support for using the death penalty on high schoolers.
  As for Eric Murphy, he argued against marriage equality in the 
landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case. That is why Jim Obergefell has 
spoken out against his nomination.
  He worked to restrict access to contraceptives for women, and my 
favorite, he defended Big Tobacco because those companies were doing 
such useful things for our country. As a lawyer, he defended Big 
Tobacco.
  He also defended Ohio's voter purge. Think about the anniversary we 
will mark this week. This Thursday will mark 54 years, to the day, 
since Bloody Sunday.
  Last weekend, my wife Connie and I were in Selma and walked across 
the Selma bridge. For me, it was the fifth time. I took my teenage 
daughters once. I took my mother, who was born in a small town in the 
South and taught me about civil rights. My wife and I went. We went 
back again this year to walk across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
  I listened to their stories. Women and men were beaten, their blood 
was spilled, and their homes were broken into. Why? Because people of 
color couldn't vote in many places in this country, and Alabama was one 
of those places. They were willing to suffer and, in some cases, die so 
they could have a right to vote. That was only a half century ago. That 
happened only 54 years ago.
  Judges around this country, all the way to the Supreme Court, are 
systematically dismantling those rights. Without question, they are 
taking away people's right to vote by voter suppression. We can't let 
the sacrifices of the foot soldiers in Selma be in vain.
  It is pretty despicable that a bunch of Members of Congress who have 
health insurance are willing to take it away for millions of people. 
That is pretty despicable. It is also despicable that Members of this 
body are going to mark this anniversary by putting another judge on the 
bench for life who will work to undo that legacy, who will likely be 
another judge ruling to send us back to those days, and who will 
rubberstamp modern-day poll taxes and literacy tests. They will not 
exactly do poll taxes and literacy tests, but they will find plenty of 
ways to take voters off the rolls.
  We know the Governor's race in Georgia was essentially stolen from 
the African-American woman who was the nominee because of the sitting 
Secretary of State--oh, yes, who happened to be running for Governor. 
We know that. We know the election in Georgia was stolen. We know 
voters were purged prior to that election by the Secretary of State, 
who happened to be running for Governor.
  I ask my colleagues, if you will not listen to me, listen to those 
foot soldiers in Selma, listen to the civil rights leaders who ask you 
to reject these judges.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________