[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 30, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2528-S2530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               VENEZUELA

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last year, I made a visit to Caracas, 
Venezuela. It was a surprise that they even offered me a visa to 
journey to that country. In the course of several days, I saw firsthand 
what life in Venezuela was like. It was terrible from every aspect--
malnutrition, children fainting in schools, hospitals without the basic 
medicines, the return of diseases which had been eradicated decades 
before, people on the street emaciated and working day in and day out 
in a runaway inflation country. At 11:30 at night, there were queues by 
ATM machines where people stood patiently in line for hours to make the 
maximum withdrawal from their savings account, which was the money they 
needed the next day to take the bus to work. It is a terrible 
situation.

  In the course of that visit, I met with President Maduro and talked 
to him directly about his plans to schedule an election. It was clear 
to me this election was rigged. He had intimidated and even jailed his 
opponents to make certain that there would be no serious opposition, 
and I told him there would be no credibility in that election. It 
wouldn't be accepted by countries around the world that he was the 
legitimate leader of that country. Yet he persisted and went through 
with the election.
  During the time that I was there, I had a chance to meet with some of 
his political opponents. His tactics against these opponents were 
harsh. Leopoldo Lopez, a popular opponent, was put under house arrest 
for years. I spoke to him on the telephone and met personally with his 
wife, who described the bleak existence he had day to day in the same 
house under house arrest by Maduro.
  One evening, we had dinner with opposition members of the National 
Assembly, and it was held at a secret location, upstairs in a darkened 
room, because of their fear of retribution by Maduro and his regime.
  These are some pretty brave young men and women who are part of the 
opposition to Maduro. I can recall one of them saying to me: If you 
come back next year, out of the five of us, two will have been 
deported, two will be missing, and one of us will be dead. That is what 
happens when you oppose the Maduro regime.
  One of those people who were at that dinner meeting with me was named 
Juan Guaido. His name became prominent just a few months ago when he 
stepped up in an extraordinary show of political courage and declared 
himself, under the original Constitution, as the leader of Venezuela--
directly confronting Maduro and his regime. Since then, he has received 
a lot of publicity. He went to the border with Colombia and tried to 
encourage the Maduro regime to allow transports of food, medicine, and 
other humanitarian needs into the country. Maduro refused.
  He also made it clear that he was willing to risk his life. I met 
here in Washington with his young wife, who had a little baby girl. His 
wife had come to the United States to plead his case in the Halls of 
Congress. She knew the danger her husband faced. Yet she understood 
that he was willing to risk that for the future of Venezuela.
  Juan Guaido's effort to become the leader of that country has been 
recognized now and acknowledged by leaders

[[Page S2529]]

of countries around the world. The Organization of American States--the 
largest organization of Central and South American countries--
acknowledged in a formal vote that Juan Guaido would be the leader of 
Venezuela by their calculation. They didn't accept the Maduro election 
any more than I did.
  In the last several months, there has been increasing tension and 
concern as members of Guaido's following were jailed by the Maduro 
regime and concern that Guaido himself may be in danger because of this 
ongoing situation.
  Early this morning, I received a phone call from Ambassador John 
Bolton, who works with the President in the White House. He knew of my 
interest in Venezuela, and he wanted to alert me that today was a day 
that could be historic, a day of reckoning. Guaido and Leopoldo Lopez, 
who had been under house arrest, were both appealing directly to the 
military leaders in Venezuela, asking those leaders to join their 
effort to establish a legitimate government in Venezuela and to have a 
free and fair election. We didn't know what was in store. There were no 
predictions as to who would prevail in this, and there was a great deal 
of danger associated with Guaido's position. Lopez, coming out of house 
arrest, is risking his own life in the process. We didn't know what 
Maduro's response would be.
  In the last several weeks, there have been groups that have come to 
the aid and support of the Maduro regime. They include some Cuban 
security forces, as well as colectivos and motorcycle gangs that 
support the Maduro regime, but most notably the arrival of several 
hundred Russian military into Caracas. This, of course, complicates the 
situation. There are rumors in the press. We don't know which to 
believe and which not to believe, but at this point, there is at least 
a question as to whether Maduro was prepared to leave and was 
discouraged by the Russians and told to stay. I hope he does leave.
  I hope Venezuela can turn the corner. I hope the people of that 
country who are leaving Venezuela by the millions to go to countries 
like Colombia have an opportunity to see a new life in their country 
and to move forward.
  I have supported the efforts of the Trump administration against the 
Maduro regime in Venezuela with an understanding that they want to move 
forward with regime change in that country without the involvement of 
U.S. military force. I think it would be a mistake if we did that, to 
put in U.S. military force. We are in a situation where the history of 
that region is well known. There has been a lot of tension and a lot of 
difficulty in the past, and I hope we do not consider that military 
possibility. I certainly support their efforts and applaud their 
success in bringing the Organization of American States and other 
countries to the side of Juan Guaido and Leopoldo Lopez.
  I urge Maduro to do the right thing for Venezuela--to avoid 
bloodshed, to accept Guaido's amnesty offer, and to step out of the way 
of a long-overdue transition and return to democracy.
  Until then, I support President Guaido's peaceful effort to advance 
the constitutional transition period in which a credible and timely 
election can be prepared under his leadership. Mr. Guaido is literally 
putting his life on the line for the future of his country. The 
Russians and Cubans in Caracas who attempt to prop up Mr. Maduro must 
step back and let the Venezuelan people decide their own fate in an 
open and free election.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Judicial Nominations

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I come to the floor tonight to discuss 
the troubling state of judicial nominations before the Senate. This 
week, we are voting on, among others, two district court nominees--
Campbell Barker and Andrew Brasher--who have, in my judgment, very 
concerning records.
  Just several weeks ago, Senate Republicans changed the Senate rules 
so that they can continue to put on the Federal bench highly 
ideological and sometimes unqualified jurists who have the corporate 
stamp of approval but I don't think the mainstream stamp of approval. 
Under new Senate rules, these nominees will receive only 2 hours of 
postcloture consideration time on the Senate floor, but if confirmed, 
they would sit on the Federal bench for life. So 2 hours postcloture 
for a lifetime appointment.
  I will start with Mr. Campbell Barker, who has been nominated to the 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He has a 
troubling record from his time as deputy solicitor general of the State 
of Texas. In 2016, he defended Texas's voter ID law, which the Fifth 
Circuit said violated the Voting Rights Act because it prevented 
minority voters from exercising their right to vote.
  Second, Mr. Barker submitted amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court 
attacking the Affordable Care Act. In those briefs, he argued that the 
individual mandate is unconstitutional--a position rejected by the U.S. 
Supreme Court. He also opposed the contraceptive coverage mandate, 
which was a critical part of the ACA's efforts to make sure that women 
have access to the medical care they need. He also signed amicus briefs 
arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against LGBT 
customers and supporting the President's travel ban, which, in my 
judgment, was a bigoted policy that discriminated against the Muslim 
community.
  The second nominee I will make some comments about tonight is Mr. 
Andrew Brasher, a nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Middle 
District of Alabama. Like Mr. Barker, Mr. Brasher has a troubling 
record from his time in the state solicitor general's office. In 2014, 
he defended the Alabama State redistricting scheme, which a Federal 
court determined violated the Constitution because it packed African-
American voters into a few districts, diluting the power of their vote 
on the basis of their race.
  Similar to Mr. Barker, Mr. Brasher challenged the contraceptive 
mandate in the Affordable Care Act and argued that the reasonable 
accommodations made for religious nonprofits were still too 
burdensome--an argument that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals 
rejected.
  In 2015, he submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court 
arguing against the right of same-sex couples to marry--a position the 
Supreme Court has rejected.
  Lastly, Mr. Brasher submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court 
arguing against commonsense gun laws, such as age requirements for gun 
purchases and restrictions on concealed carry licenses.
  There is no good reason why we should be confirming these judges with 
these troubling records on matters of critical importance to many 
Americans. There is no shortage of qualified, mainstream attorneys or 
judges, State court judges and other judges across the country. Of 
course, in the case of a Republican Senate and Republican President, 
these judges are often Republican in their party affiliation or by way 
of their philosophy, but I think there is often a big difference 
between a conservative jurist or potential judge who has a conservative 
view on issues--that is different from being extreme right, as many of 
these nominees are.
  Just by way of contrast to these nominees and others we will be 
considering, Senator Toomey and I have worked together jointly to 
recommend experienced, consensus nominees for Federal district courts 
in Pennsylvania. Everyone knows we are in different parties. We have 
different views. We rarely vote together. But we have figured out a way 
on most days--not every day, not every nominee or potential nominee, 
but on most days--to work together to try to find consensus for 
district court nominees.
  I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey, for 
his commitment to our process over these many years we have served 
together now, since 2011. This process has allowed us to confirm 18 
Federal judges to the 3 Federal district courts in Pennsylvania since 
2011. We have five others who are being considered by the Senate now, 
including Joshua Wolson, whose nomination is on the floor this week. I 
returned a blue slip and will vote for Josh Wolson. He is experienced. 
He has strong academic credentials. He is a conservative. He probably

[[Page S2530]]

wouldn't be my first pick, but I am supporting him. He has been a 
partner at a distinguished Philadelphia law firm, the Dilworth Paxson 
firm, since 2008 and has both the ability and I think the integrity to 
serve as a Federal district court judge. So that is a demonstration 
that this process can work when you have consensus, even between 
Senators who don't often vote together.
  This is a bipartisan process. It requires both parties to work very 
hard. It requires our staff to work hard. It requires consensus. It has 
required several White Houses now--the Obama administration's White 
House, as well as the Trump administration--to work with us. But we 
found a way to make it work on most days.
  This bipartisan district court process is indeed the exception, not 
the rule. In so many other instances, especially with regard to circuit 
court nominees, we have seen extreme nominees being pushed through. The 
rule change that I referred to earlier that cut the postcloture time to 
just 2 hours means there is very little time to fully consider nominees 
to these lifetime appointments to the Bench. The Judiciary Committee 
has stacked multiple circuit court nominees in single hearings, giving 
Senators on the Judiciary Committee less time to ask nominees 
questions.
  Circuit court nominees now receive votes over the objection of their 
home state Senators. That is new. That wasn't happening just a few 
years ago, and it wasn't happening many years before that.
  The blue-slip process has been eviscerated for circuit court judicial 
nominees. That is a loss for the Senate, which may be the only body in 
the world that has the kind of rules that govern our work so that we 
will arrive at a consensus by empowering the minority to work with the 
majority to arrive at that consensus. It is a loss for the Senate, but 
it is also a loss for our constituents who are served by Federal 
district courts and Federal circuit courts.
  Last year, the Senate confirmed David Porter to the Third Circuit 
Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania--Pennsylvania being one of the States 
represented in the circuit. That nomination and confirmation was over 
my objection as a home State Senator. This was in spite of my record of 
bipartisan work on judicial nominations. My record now goes back over 
the course of three Presidencies and different Senates--Democratic 
Senate, Republican Senate. Despite all the bipartisan work, this 
nominee was both nominated and confirmed without my consent.
  For the first time in history, we have confirmed two judges to the 
circuit court--Eric Miller and Paul Matey--without the consent of any 
home State Senators, meaning you have two Democratic Senators who did 
not give consent, and now they have been confirmed. I don't think that 
is good for the Senate in the long run. I am certain it is not good for 
our constituents, as I said. I think they would prefer judges who come 
through a process where there is a degree of consensus, including all 
of the vetting that these nominees go through.
  This isn't how the process is supposed to work. This process is 
supposed to be one of advice and consent. Advice and consent as to 
nominating people for lifetime appointments to the Federal courts, 
especially the circuit courts, has been gutted. ``Gutted'' might be an 
understatement. These nominees will impact not just the lives of the 
parties before them in court, but, of course, the lives of all 
Americans.
  It is true that in our system, one Federal judge can affect the whole 
country. We know that from our history. And that includes both district 
court judges, as well as circuit court judges.
  In the case of circuit court judges, often that is the last stop. 
Very few cases are briefed and argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 
many cases, the last stop is the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. For 
all intents and purposes, that becomes the Supreme Court for a lot of 
cases--the highest level of review.
  I hope we can return to a more inclusive process that focuses on 
putting experienced, mainstream judges on the bench rather than ramming 
through--and that is the best way to describe what has been happening 
lately--nominees with views and with records that are out of the 
mainstream. I would argue for purposes of the near-term votes that both 
Mr. Barker and Mr. Brasher would not fit under the umbrella of being 
mainstream.
  I think there are plenty of folks around here in the Senate who would 
like to work together to arrive at more of a consensus. It doesn't mean 
that we will not have disagreements; it doesn't mean that one side will 
not have a different point of view. But I think someone can be 
conservative and philosophically aligned with one party or one point of 
view without being so far out of the mainstream that a lot of Americans 
would consider them extreme.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________