[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 6, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1692-S1694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Chad A. Readler

  Mr. President, I now want to speak about the Readler nomination. I 
have often said that healthcare isn't political; it is personal. Being 
able to take your child to the doctor when they get sick is not 
political; it is personal. Being able to manage chronic conditions such 
as diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure with quality 
medical care and prescription medicine is not political; it is 
personal. Being able to count on your medical insurance to cover you if 
you get sick is not political; that is personal.
  That is why, when the Trump administration nominates people for 
powerful positions who waged war on healthcare--you want to talk about 
somebody going to war. We have someone who waged war on healthcare who

[[Page S1693]]

we are about to vote on, on the Senate floor. I take that very 
personally, and the people of Michigan take it personally too.
  I will be voting no on Chad Readler, President Trump's nominee for 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I want to take a 
moment to explain why.
  The Sixth Circuit covers Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and my own State 
of Michigan. In this unending parade of terrible judicial nominees, Mr. 
Readler stands out. It is not just that he defended restrictive voting 
laws in Ohio or that he voiced support for giving minors the death 
penalty--young people the death penalty--or that he argued that State 
and local governments shouldn't be allowed to pass laws to protect our 
LGBTQ friends and neighbors from discrimination, no, Mr. Readler's 
appalling views, if implemented, would touch every single family in 
Michigan.
  At the Department of Justice, Mr. Readler has led efforts to 
dismantle the Affordable Care Act, including protections for people 
with preexisting conditions. In fact, he is the architect of the 
argument in Texas v. United States; that if the requirement that people 
have health insurance is found unconstitutional, then protecting people 
with preexisting conditions is also unconstitutional. Perhaps 
``architect'' is the wrong word, given that architects build things, 
and Mr. Readler is solely devoted to tearing them down.
  His argument is, of course, nonsense. It is also terrifying for 
Michigan families. Just imagine what Mr. Readler's goal could mean for 
the family of a child with diabetes, asthma, or cancer. Parents could 
find themselves with no insurance coverage for a child who needs 
chemotherapy to survive. Families could once again run up against 
lifetime limits that mean a child with complex medical issues could 
reach her lifetime limit by age 2 or 3. Parents could spend a lifetime 
worrying about a child who would never be able to qualify for health 
insurance as an adult.
  Of course, moms and their daughters would be charged more if being a 
woman was once again treated as a preexisting condition. All of these 
things routinely happened to Michigan families during the bad old days 
when insurance companies were in charge of our healthcare prior to the 
Affordable Care Act. Now Mr. Readler wants to bring those bad old days 
back.
  However, that is not the end of Mr. Readler's noxious views. He is 
just as toxic when it comes to education.
  In my State, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos made a name for herself 
undermining our public education system. Well, you can call Chad 
Readler the Betsy DeVos of Ohio. Mr. Readler, as chair of the Ohio 
Alliance for Public Charter Schools, pushed school privatization and 
fought oversight over Ohio's troubled charter schools. He fought 
oversight of the troubled charter schools.
  He fought to eliminate the part of Ohio's Constitution that 
guarantees Ohio students will receive ``a thorough and efficient'' 
education. In short, he would eliminate the right to public education 
in Ohio.
  He proposed language that would exclude LGBTQ students from 
discrimination protections in Ohio schools, and while at the Department 
of Justice, he defended Betsy DeVos when she delayed implementation of 
rules aimed at helping students who are victims of illegal or deceptive 
tactics by colleges. They were victims of illegal or deceptive 
practices by colleges, and he supported stopping that relief.
  Michigan families who have children with preexisting conditions 
deserve better than Chad Readler. Michigan students who have been 
targeted by unscrupulous colleges deserve better than Chad Readler. 
Michigan folks who have business before the U.S. court of appeals 
certainly deserve better than Chad Readler.
  In my judgment, he has no business being a judge with a lifetime 
appointment, and I know a whole lot of Michigan families who agree. I 
am voting no, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as the longest serving Member of the Senate 
and also the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I feel 
compelled--and I normally don't come down and speak about these 
things--but I want to warn about the destruction of long-held norms and 
traditions that have protected the Senate's unique constitutional role 
with respect to lifetime judicial appointments.
  This is an extraordinary responsibility on the part of the U.S. 
Senate. The Constitution quite properly allows any President to 
nominate whomever they want for a lifetime position on our Federal 
courts, but as our Founders said, the Senate has to give advice and 
consent because of the effect of this person's lifetime position. They 
go way beyond the term of the Senators who vote for them and the term 
of the President who nominates the person.
  In fact, until recently, and certainly during the years I have served 
here, Members of this body knew well they had a say when it came to who 
serves in the Federal courts in their States. It didn't matter whether 
you had a Republican or Democratic President or a Republican or 
Democratic majority in the Senate; blue slips protected the prerogative 
of home State Senators and gave meaning to the constitutional 
requirement of advice and consent. It ensures fairness but, more 
importantly, I think it also ensured comity in the Senate. That now is 
fast becoming history, and I fear it is going to do lasting damage to 
the Senate.
  What is happening is a disingenuous double standard. When I was 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the beginning of the Obama 
administration, every single Senate Republican, including many serving 
today, signed a letter. They made the case for the importance of the 
blue-slip tradition. They said it was absolutely imperative that it be 
respected during the new administration, the Obama administration. The 
Republicans said: We must do this. Well, I didn't need any reminder 
because under my chairmanship during both the Bush Republican 
administration and the Obama Democratic administration, I respected the 
blue-slip tradition without exception, even when it was not politically 
expedient to do so. I respected Republicans and Democrats alike. 
Regardless of who was in the Oval Office, under my chairmanship, not a 
single judicial nominee received a hearing without first receiving both 
home State Senators' positive blue slips.
  I defended the blue slips, and that was unpopular in my own party on 
occasion, but I believed in both their constitutional and institutional 
importance. I also believed in the prerogatives of home State Senators 
and the need to ensure that the White House works in good faith with 
those Senators. I believed then, and I still believe now, that certain 
principles matter more than party. Something that, unfortunately, some, 
probably because they are new here, don't understand.
  All of us, whether Democratic or Republican, should care about good-
faith consultation when it comes to nominees from our home States. The 
reasons are principled and pragmatic. We know our State better than 
anybody else. We know who is qualified to fill lifetime judicial seats. 
They are going to have a tremendous impact on our communities. We know 
the men and women who are qualified. Without blue slips, nothing 
prevents our State selection committees from being completely ignored 
by the White House. Nothing would even prevent a New York or California 
lawyer from being nominated to a Texas court or vice versa.
  Yet the Senate is abandoning this protection. Senators of the 
Republican Party who promised they would uphold it, gave their word 
they would uphold it, asked me to uphold it, have suddenly broken their 
word. That bothers me.
  Last week, for example, for the first time in the history of this 
body, a nominee was confirmed to a seat on the circuit court over the 
objections of both home State Senators. That is the first time in our 
history that has happened. That meant my friends on the other side of 
the aisle had to break their word from what they agreed to before.
  This week, we are voting on two additional nominees, Chad Readler and 
Eric Murphy, who are opposed by another home State Senator, Mr. Brown. 
Senator Brown made extensive efforts to reach a compromise with the 
White

[[Page S1694]]

House on these two Sixth Circuit vacancies, but the White House was not 
interested.
  The White House knew the Republicans would not keep to the position 
they expected Democrats to keep when we were in the majority, and 
because they knew they could rely on Members of their own party not to 
follow tradition for the first time, they didn't even try. The White 
House didn't even try to consult. Even superficial consultation is an 
afterthought.
  Senator Brown then attended the confirmation hearings. He spoke 
against these nominations. He cited, among other things, Mr. Readler's 
unprecedented actions attacking healthcare protections while serving in 
the Trump Justice Department.
  Mr. Readler was willing to reverse Justice Department policy and sign 
a brief undermining protections for preexisting conditions when career 
Justice Department officials--career officials who have been there in 
both Republican and Democratic administrations--refused. They refused 
to reverse their well-established Justice Department policy. He, 
however, was perfectly willing to throw it away in court. Is this 
somebody we expect to be fair on the court?
  Senator Brown cited Mr. Murphy's longstanding support and advocacy 
for restrictive voting laws in Ohio. He knows that his constituents 
will have to live with the ramifications if these nominees are 
confirmed. It will directly affect the State. He expressed his concerns 
about their records, and his voice, in this process as a U.S. Senator, 
was ignored.
  These votes come on the heels of the Senate's confirming a 37-year-
old nominee for the Fourth Circuit who has practiced law for less than 
10 years--a grand total of 9 years. She now holds a lifetime judgeship 
on an appellate court, just one step below the Supreme Court. Her 
confirmation hearing made a mockery of the Senate's duty of advice and 
consent.
  It marked the first time in the Judiciary Committee's history--the 
first time ever that a nomination hearing was held during the October 
recess over the objections of the other party. We found out why.
  Only two Republican Senators attended the hearing, and the 
questioning lasted only 20 minutes for someone who demonstrated no 
abilities to serve on the Fourth Circuit. They knew it didn't make any 
difference whether she had the abilities or knew what she was doing. 
All they knew is that this White House had nominated her, so let's 
rubberstamp this.
  Frankly, the Senate should never function as a mere rubberstamp for 
nominees seeking lifetime appointments to our Federal judiciary. We 
shouldn't do it whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in the 
White House. That is exactly what we are doing with a Republican 
President and a Republican majority. No matter whether the person is 
qualified, if the name comes up, rubberstamp it.
  When I chaired the Judiciary Committee, many Senators--Republican 
Senators--expressed both publicly and privately their appreciation for 
the fact that my respect for blue slips protected their rights and gave 
meaning to advice and consent. Many told me this is the way it must 
always be, whether Republicans or Democrats are in the majority.
  Well, their about-face, now that they control the Senate, is 
unbecoming, and it basically says that the Senate will just bow down to 
the executive branch. We will give up our responsibility, we will give 
up our authority, and we will just be rubberstamps. We might as well 
not even bother to show up; just do whatever we are told. It is deeply 
disappointing.
  I know the pressure because many of my Republican friends have told 
me to rubberstamp President Trump's nominees. I know my warnings will 
fall on many deaf ears, even for those who promised me they would not 
do this.
  I have served in the Senate long enough to know that political winds 
tend to change direction. Inevitably, the majority becomes the 
minority, and the White House changes hands. I suspect that many of my 
Republican colleagues who care about this institution, as do I--and 
there are many--are going to live to regret many of these actions.
  The further down this path the Senate goes, the harder it is going to 
be to unring this bell. A vote for Mr. Readler or Mr. Murphy is a vote 
to say that we abandon our abilities as home State Senators to serve as 
a check not just on this President but any future President, Republican 
or Democrat. Basically, we are saying that we don't believe in advice 
and consent. Basically, we are saying that we don't believe in the 
Senate being the conscience of the Nation. Basically, we are saying 
that we don't believe the Founders of this country knew what they were 
doing when they said the U.S. Senate--this body of 100 people--has to 
represent 325 million Americans and that we don't believe they should 
have any responsibility, have any say in lifetime appointments.
  If we abandon longstanding traditions and chase partisan expediency, 
I remind everybody that provides only fleeting advantage. It inflicts 
lasting harm on this body. It is within our power to stop it right here 
and right now.
  I urge all Senators to ensure that home State Senators are provided 
the same courtesies during the Trump administration that they received 
from both Republican and Democratic judiciary chairmen during the Obama 
administration. I believe we can do that. I ask my fellow Senators to 
oppose Mr. Readler's and Mr. Murphy's nominations because they were 
done so out of the way that they should be done. Let the U.S. Senate, 
all of us, Republicans and Democrats, say that we are not a rubberstamp 
to any President. We don't take our orders from any President. We don't 
bow and scrape for any President. Let's act like Senators, not like a 
rubberstamp.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.