[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 6, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Page S1682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Chad A. Readler

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
nomination of Chad Readler to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  This nomination, if confirmed, would be advanced without the support 
of one of his home State Senators, and it deliberately ignores Senate 
precedent that has historically respected Senators' ability to identify 
nominees that best fit the needs of their State.
  In his current position at the Department of Justice, Chad Readler 
led the legal briefs for some of the Department's most extreme 
positions.
  He defended President Trump's travel ban, led efforts to end DACA, 
supported the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census, 
suggested that the structure of the CFPB was unconstitutional, and 
argued that businesses should be able to refuse services to same-sex 
couples.
  Mr. Readler also led the DOJ's legal brief for the Texas v. U.S. 
lawsuit, arguing against the Affordable Care Act's protections for 
people with preexisting conditions, even while three other career 
attorneys at the DOJ refused to do so.
  Think about that for a second. This nominee took up his pen and 
drafted a legal opinion at the Department of Justice that stated it was 
fine for his Department not to defend the law--a law that protects 
millions of Americans' access to the critical healthcare they need.
  If that weren't enough to shock the conscience, Mr. Readler's 
nomination to the Sixth Circuit judgeship was announced the same day 
the brief was filed.
  Is that a coincidence? Maybe, but since three other career lawyers at 
the Department of Justice resigned rather than draft this brief and 
violate their duty to the law, I think it is fairly obvious.
  This administration has made it crystal clear that Mr. Readler was 
chosen because of his willingness to dismantle the ACA and completely 
eliminate critical protections that ensure seniors, kids, and families 
in Nevada and across this country are able to get health insurance, 
regardless of whether they have a previous medical condition. For many 
Americans, denying vital healthcare protections and access to care is 
truly a matter of life and death.
  President Trump and Republican leaders have promised to sabotage our 
healthcare from day one, and this nomination is another example in a 
long line of legislation, nominations, and Executive actions aimed at 
ripping away healthcare coverage from hard-working families in Nevada 
and across the country.
  The Affordable Care Act is, quite simply, the law of the land. Its 
patient protections have wide bipartisan support, as evidenced by 
Congress's inability to pass ACA repeal. Since its inception, over 
400,000 Nevadans have gained healthcare coverage, including 158,000 
children. Tens of million more Americans across the country have gained 
access to affordable health insurance, prescription drug coverage, 
mental health services, and preventive care.

  The ACA's provisions have also guaranteed that over 1.2 million 
Nevadans with preexisting conditions will not be denied coverage 
because insurance companies deem them ``too risky'' to cover.
  We cannot go back to the day when women, veterans, cancer survivors, 
and children with disabilities were charged more for healthcare or were 
flatout denied coverage.
  Americans need us to work together to defend their access to quality 
and affordable healthcare, not just in Nevada but across this country. 
Yet Mr. Readler has shown us that he would instead take us backward, 
unravelling more than a decade of progress and wreaking potential havoc 
on our economy.
  This nominee has demonstrated that he is willing to carry water for 
this President's political interests and not serve in the best interest 
of Americans.
  I oppose Mr. Readler's nomination because Americans deserve a judge 
who respects the rule of law and interprets the law based on statute, 
not the political needs of this or any administration.
  I oppose this nominee because Senate Republican leaders are trying to 
jam him through without the support of one of his home State Senators, 
which is a direct attack on our constitutional role as U.S. Senators to 
advise and consent.
  I want my colleagues to know that a vote in support of his nomination 
is a vote in support of unleashing chaos on the American health system, 
eliminating preexisting condition protections, and one that would 
result in millions more uninsured.
  Mr. Readler is a dangerous choice, who has a long track record of 
supporting the most extreme legal positions, which makes him unfit to 
sit on any court, much less one whose decisions will impact millions of 
Americans.
  Thank you.
  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.
  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.