[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 11, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6978-S6985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Tribute to Johnny Isakson
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor with my
colleagues to honor our friend and our colleague, Johnny Isakson from
Georgia. I could almost tell you he is probably hating this about now,
but I want to get my two cents in. I don't need to read off his
impressive resume or thank him for his service in the Georgia National
Guard, his successful real estate business, his extensive public
service, and all that he has done and accomplished in Congress.
I want to talk about Johnny Isakson, my friend. You hear everybody in
this body get up and we say: My colleague and my friend. Sometimes I am
not sure we are really talking about friends, but I want to tell you,
Johnny, I am not making this up. I am talking about you as my friend. I
am not just being polite. You know me better than that.
I will tell a little story, and he has heard me tell it, but when I
was first elected to the House of Representatives in the year 2000, I
was walking down the aisle, probably our first vote, had no idea really
what I was doing, didn't know anybody in the 435-Member body, and I
must have had it written all over my face because I was wandering, and
this hand reaches out, and he says: Why don't you sit down here next to
me, and we can talk about what is going on.
That was my introduction to Johnny Isakson. We talked about what was
going on on the floor. We talked about who his friends were. We talked
about the fact that my mother's family was from Perry, GA, and I had
some Georgia blood running through these veins.
Johnny, as we have heard, doesn't care if you have been here 20 years
or if you have been here 20 minutes, he wants to be a friend. I heard
him say that the other day; that he has friends and then he has future
friends. I have actually thought about that a lot over the holiday
weekend. He doesn't care if you are a Republican or Democrat, from the
North or the South--South will probably help a little bit--East or
West, he has an innate ability to put everybody at ease. He doesn't
count anybody as an enemy. We have been to the Prayer Breakfast. We
have shared our highs and lows together in our respective lives. He
never cares who gets the credit. He just cares about getting things
done. I think you have seen that through everybody's wonderful tributes
to Johnny. He brings people together. That is hard to do, but he leads
by example. He has been a great example to me. You have been a great
example to me. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator John Hoeven, has
called you ``Mr. Congeniality of the Senate.'' I can't think of a
better analogy. You are Mr. Congeniality, but you are also a very
forceful, strong person with a steel spine to know what is right and
what is wrong.
The Bible asks, ``What does the Lord require of you?'' Johnny is
living that answer: to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly
with God. We could use a few more humble walkers around here, I think.
We could sure use more Johnny Isaksons.
You will be there cheering us on, I know, because your heart is with
your many friends who are here. I will miss seeing you coming around
the corner because our offices are very close. I will miss our car
rides together and our golf games together. I will miss that extended
hand in friendship, but I know that you will still be extending it from
your home with your family and your many, many friends.
I am really happy to be here. This is happy for me because I think it
is happy for you. I think that as much as you probably regret leaving
and feel there is more work to be done, you can go in peace and love
and know that you have happy days ahead of you and a lot of well-
wishers on the way.
Johnny, thanks a lot. Thanks for extending that hand of friendship.
It meant so much to me then, as it does today. Good luck and Godspeed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, like
the Senator from West Virginia, and pay tribute to our friend Senator
Johnny Isakson.
It has been an incredible privilege to work with Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson and I got to know each other first through the
bipartisan Senate Prayer Breakfast and then serving together on the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and Finance Committees. I have
always appreciated his commitment to bipartisanship, problem-solving,
and getting results for the people in his home State of Georgia and for
people all across our country. Because of that commitment, Senator
Isakson and I have worked together to cosponsor a number of pieces of
legislation, including efforts to improve care for veterans and to make
hearing aids available over-the-counter. We also partnered together to
pass a resolution designating March 25 ``Cerebral Palsy Awareness
Day.''
In addition to being kind, thoughtful, and bipartisan, one thing
stands out to me about Senator Isakson the most: his bravery in
speaking out on issues regarding human dignity. He demonstrated that
bravery early on in his career as a State senator who spoke out against
a local anti-gay resolution. At a time when standing up for the rights
of people of all sexual orientations wasn't easy or convenient, he did.
That took real courage.
In addition, I am in awe of Senator Isakson's bravery in sharing
publicly his family's experience losing his grandson Charlie to an
overdose. By opening up and sharing this tragedy, Senator Isakson
helped reinforce that this crisis affects families from all walks of
life. His public discussion has and continues to make a real difference
as we work to break down the stigma that comes with addiction. I know
he has continued working here in the Senate to prevent more families
from experiencing a loss like his own.
I am also grateful for Senator Isakson's leadership on behalf of our
country's veterans. In June, Senator Isakson led a bipartisan Senate
delegation to Normandy to mark the 75th anniversary of the D-Day
landings. During that visit, I saw firsthand Johnny's incredible
kindness and commitment to our country's veterans. I also saw how
quickly he dismissed compliments and thanks directed his way to ensure
that others got credit for their part in his success. I know that
carries over to his tireless efforts and hard work on behalf of
veterans as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Above all, I appreciate Senator Isakson's friendship. He has
represented the people of Georgia in the Senate with dignity,
determination, and grit, as well as a really good sense of humor. He
has made a real difference.
As Senator Isakson confronts a health challenge of his own right now,
I am confident that he will face it with the bravery, humility, and
humor he has exemplified throughout his life and here in the Senate.
Senator Isakson, we will all miss you terribly, but we are looking
forward to traveling to Georgia to see you and to continue the many
conversations that have made us all better people and better Senators
and makes this country a better place.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I know I am not in the right order, but
since we have a gap here, I thought I would just jump in.
I am honored to be here today for the Johnny Isakson memorial tribute
part two. Being the lower person in the Senate on the totem pole here,
I didn't get a chance to talk last week, but I did sit through the
Senators' remarks, which I found very compelling.
I have found Johnny Isakson to be very compelling. You know, there
are times when you watch a movie or a TV show, and there are these
special moments when two people meet, and there is one person who has
that spark, who has that magic, and when they touch, when they embrace
with a hug or a shake of the hands, all of a sudden, the other person
realizes they are talking to somebody very special. That is Johnny
Isakson. That moment is built around Johnny Isakson.
From the first time I had the chance to meet him on January 3, 2018,
I knew all of those things that are being said about his
bipartisanship, about his friendliness, and about how he wants to work
with people and how he cares about people were absolutely true. I could
tell by the first handshake and the ``Welcome to the Senate, Doug.''
I will say that I think meeting me and having that spark was a real
test
[[Page S6979]]
of Senator Isakson more than anybody in this body because you have to
understand that when we first met, it was about 5 days before his
beloved Georgia Bulldogs were going to face the University of Alabama
in the national championship game.
For those who don't know this, I am telling you, you can think of
``partisanship'' and ``tribalism'' as political terms here in
Washington, DC, but if you ain't experienced football partisanship and
football tribalism as far as SEC rivals, you ain't experienced nothing.
So the fact that Johnny Isakson embraced me, a Democrat from his
neighboring State of Alabama, was very, very special and something I
will always cherish.
I truly mean that, Johnny. I have watched you as a member of the HELP
Committee with me. I have watched you in so many hearings and listened
to you and your wisdom. That wisdom often came from personal
experiences. Whether it was business or education or whether it was the
tragedy with your grandson, everything about what you have done in the
U.S. Senate has been personal.
I think that is something we should all strive to do. Everything we
do in this body needs to be personal because for all of our
constituents, it is personal to us. It is personal to our States and
personal to everyone, but we don't always seem to act that way. A lot
of times, we act in a way that it seems to be more political than
personal. I have never seen that in Senator Isakson. I have seen that
time and again, where everything he has spoken about--whether or not I
agreed with him was not the issue. I could tell that what he was
speaking of was personal, that it meant something to him, and that he
knew how it was going to affect those in the State of Georgia and
across the United States.
I can remember last year when we were moving toward trying to find a
way to help farmers in south Georgia and south Alabama who had been so
devastated by Hurricane Michael. This was crossing party lines. He and
Senator Perdue and I talked a lot about how this was affecting people
and people's lives and how frustrating it was for all of us to see the
politics kind of take over for a period of--I don't know--4 or 5 months
while these farmers suffered. That is the Johnny Isakson who reaches
across the aisle. That is the Johnny Isakson who cares about people.
That is the Johnny Isakson who goes to funerals and sits in the back of
the room and then works to make sure he does the right thing for all
those who could be affected.
Johnny, I am going to miss you a lot. I enjoy our talks about
football. I enjoy kidding you. I enjoy your ribbing me. But more
importantly, I just enjoy the camaraderie. I enjoy the warmth, the
feeling that I belong here. I, a Democrat from Alabama, belong in this
body--maybe not after 2020. I ain't going to push you that far, Johnny,
OK? I get that. But for me, there has always been a sense that you
belong in this body and you have a voice, and it is an important voice.
We need more of that.
We need to make sure everything Johnny Isakson said is remembered in
this body. We are about to go through some rough seas. The ship of
state, as I have said before, is about to chart some rough seas. We
need to remember the words of Senator Isakson as he leaves this body to
make sure we continue to do the work.
I think what we have done these last couple of weeks is reflective of
the legacy of Johnny Isakson. Whereas what was going on in the House
and what was dominating in the media--we still got an NDAA done, we
still got the FUTURE Act done, and we are still, over in the House,
negotiating USMCA. Things in this body can work if we work together and
we make sure that whatever happens after the first of the year does not
interfere with our ability to relate to each other and to our
constituents and for the people of America.
Johnny, I have been honored and privileged to serve with you. It will
always be one of the greatest honors in my life to have been able to
have served in this body with you. I wish you and your family nothing
but the best in the future. I hope that you will continue to contact me
during the football games and throughout so that we can commiserate the
good, the bad, and the ugly about Georgia and Alabama football. I love
you, and I appreciate you. Thank God you have been here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Alabama,
Senator Jones. Senator Jones and I haven't been here as long as some of
our other colleagues have been, but I think it is probably fair to say
that when Senator Jones and I have a colleague who is departing or if
the Presiding Officer has a colleague who is departing, there will be
one day of farewell. Maybe there will be an hour's window in which we
can come to the floor to say thank you or there will be a reception in
the Mansfield Room. I think it is fair to say, as has my colleague
Senator Jones, that I have been in line for a long time to get to this
day to say thank you to Johnny Isakson.
These tributes started when Senator Isakson first announced he would
be retiring from the Senate. It is very fitting that they continue
through this day because of the work he has pursued and because of his
accomplishments but also because of the humanity that rests in his
heart. All of us are better off because of his work.
In my knowing him, I hope that a little bit of Johnny Isakson rubs
off on all of us and that we can be here today, knowing that we are a
better institution, better leaders, and better public servants because
of his model.
Senator Isakson has done a lot of things that have been discussed on
the Senate floor. I don't know how much I can add, but I am going to
add a few things to the kind words that have been said. So many people
have said such great things.
The first time Senator Isakson and I had an opportunity to really
work together was on something that will benefit generations of
Coloradans. It was the VA hospital in Colorado--something that may have
shaved off some of the patience Senator Isakson has, which seems to be
unending at times. This one, though, I am sure, took a little bit of a
toll--the frustration with a very crazy collapse of a VA facility that
had taken over a decade and--gosh--hundreds of millions of dollars to
complete. It was a project that started out in the nineties but that
didn't get done until about a year ago or so. It was a project that had
started out at $300 million but that had ended up being over $2
billion.
Through it all, Senator Isakson was mindful of a very simple purpose,
which was that this facility was to benefit the veterans who had given
so much to this country. The first thing Senator Isakson said to me
was: Don't worry. We are going to get this done, and we are going to
make reforms so that this never happens again.
Under Senator Isakson's leadership, we have seen changes at the VA,
and we have also seen changes about how new facilities are going to be
completed and built so that we can avoid the kinds of mistakes that led
to the delays in Colorado.
Ultimately, Senator Isakson knew that this would be the crown jewel
in the Rocky Mountain region for veterans' service and veterans' care,
and that is exactly what it continues to be. We have Senator Isakson to
thank for the completion of that and the time on task it took to get
the job done.
Senator Isakson held a field hearing in Aurora, CO, with, I think at
the time, Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson to find out what had happened,
why the delays occurred, and then to fix it and to hold the people
accountable who were responsible for the delays. That is the kind of
leadership Senator Isakson provided.
Throughout that process, I think I threatened to rename the
colonoscopy unit after a couple of people, but for Senator Isakson, we
should name the town after him for the work he did to complete that
facility.
I remember the first time I gave him a little bit of a treat from
Colorado in order to thank him for his work. It was a box of Enstrom
Toffee from a family company in western Colorado. It was a pretty
incredible treat. I gave it to him and thought he had never had this
before.
He looked at it, and he said: Oh, Enstrom Toffee. I love this stuff.
I used to give this out to my clients when I was in real estate.
[[Page S6980]]
So I couldn't even surprise him with what I thought was a very
special Colorado treat.
Johnny is the kind of person who has the ability to cut through
problems, to cut through the smoke, to cut through the haze and the fog
of a challenge and go right to the merits of it, to very concisely riff
on any issue at a moment's notice, cut to the heart of a problem, and
provide a solution to that problem and to that challenge.
As the old saying goes, you are known by the company you keep. When
one looks around this Chamber, one sees the people who came to pay
their thanks to Senator Isakson. It is pretty good company. He has done
such great things for Georgia and for this country. I can't thank
Senator Isakson enough for his leadership, for helping us all out in
Colorado, and for making this country a better place.
Senator Isakson, thank you for all that you have done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to
pay tribute to our good friend Senator Johnny Isakson of the great
State of Georgia. I say ``ours'' because I know he is a friend to
everyone in this Chamber. It was a real blow to me and, I know, to all
of the Senators to hear that Senator Isakson wouldn't be seeking
another term and that he would be leaving early.
Over the years, Johnny and I have had a chance to partner on a number
of bipartisan initiatives. He has established a reputation in this body
as an honorable and hard-working Senator who cares deeply about his
constituents. Beyond that, he is just a kind person. As we think about
the accolades we could say about somebody, somebody who is kind to
everyone they meet, that is about as nice a thing, I think, as you can
say.
What Johnny does has been demonstrated time and again in Congress. He
develops trust and good working relationships, and he gets things done.
As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and a veteran himself,
Johnny has taken on the difficult but critical task of making reforms
to the VA to better deliver care to those who have fought for our
country. Having been through some of those challenges with veterans in
New Hampshire and seeing what they are facing with getting the care
they need, to be able to go back to them and say that because of the
work of Senator Isakson and Senator Tester, we now have the MISSION
Act--which is bipartisan legislation to expand care and services to
veterans--has been very reassuring.
We also know that Senator Isakson is a fierce advocate for local
priorities in his home State. I have a sister in Georgia, in Atlanta,
and when I ask her about Senator Isakson, she speaks very positively
about what she has seen that he does in Georgia.
Of course, many of us here have been reminded time and again of the
importance of the Port of Savannah and its dredging needs. I can
especially identify with those since we have small ports--much smaller
than Savannah's--in New Hampshire, but they consistently have dredging
needs, so I know how important it is to have an advocate who is there
all the time, making sure that the needs of those ports are being seen
to.
One of the many areas where Senator Isakson and I have found common
ground is reforming our budget process. I think it is not a secret to
anybody in this body that the Federal budget process is broken. Since
2011, I have worked with Senator Isakson, who had been working on
trying to get a biennial budgeting process for the Federal Government.
That is something that I think makes sense. Nineteen States, including
New Hampshire, operate on a biennial budget. We believe that taxpayers
would be better served by a process whereby Congress budgets for 2
years rather than 1 and is able to use the second year for oversight.
As we know, it is not easy to change things in Washington. I couldn't
have asked for a better partner in this effort.
One of the things I have especially appreciated about Johnny is that
he has very little time for partisan sniping, which has too often
characterized much of what we do here.
One of the gestures that mattered to me and that has stood out about
what his character is and how he has operated in the Senate has been
the fact that he came to New Hampshire to advocate for our biennial
budgeting efforts in 2013, a year when I was in cycle for reelection.
It didn't matter to him. What mattered was that we were working on this
issue, and it was important to the American people.
I had the opportunity to go the following year to Atlanta, and we did
the same presentation in Atlanta to again show that we could work in a
bipartisan way to try and address what wasn't working in New Hampshire.
I have especially appreciated that he has taken that approach on
everything we have worked on together.
I know Senator Isakson also cares deeply about the institution of the
Senate. He served as chairman of the Senate's Ethics Committee, a
committee I have also been a member of, though not nearly as long as he
has. I have seen closeup how he has faithfully and honorably conducted
the committee's business and, again, how partisanship has not been any
part of how he has approached his duties on the Ethics Committee. What
has been important has been preserving the integrity of the Senate and
the responsibility that each of us has as a Senator.
There have been so many ways in which Johnny Isakson has bridged the
partisan divide. One of those is through food, and I think all of my
colleagues would agree with me that one of the highlights of our year
is when Senator Isakson has his bipartisan barbecue lunch, which
features not just the dishes his home State is known for but, as he
points out, the best barbecue in America.
In New Hampshire, we don't have a lot of barbecue, so I don't have
much basis on which to judge, but I certainly would agree it is very
good barbecue.
I think, as somebody who has served in the Army, he understands that
the way to our hearts is through our stomachs, and we know if we keep
our troops eating well that they do better, and I think the same is
probably true of Senators. If we can keep eating well and collaborate
when we are doing that, it is great for our morale, and it is a great
way to help work better together.
In closing, I just want to say that throughout his time in Congress,
Johnny Isakson has been a statesman, and he has been a gentleman of the
highest order. They say that we remember people not by what they say as
much as by how we feel we are treated, and I know it is fair to say,
whether it is the person operating the elevator, the person who is
serving us lunch, each of us as Senators, or his constituents, Johnny
Isakson has made all of us feel very important, and he recognizes the
value that each individual in the Senate contributes to this body. For
that, I am very appreciative, and I will miss you, Senator Isakson.
Thank you for everything you have done for all of us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, let me join my dear friend and colleague
from New Hampshire in paying tribute to so many things about Johnny
Isakson.
I know we are supposed to abide by the rules, address remarks to the
Chair, and not speak to each other, and if I occasionally look over at
the senior Senator from Georgia and call him Johnny, I will apologize
in advance to the Chair and to the keeper of the rules.
I think one of the points that Senator Shaheen was making about the
bipartisan barbecue lunch every year is that we ought to do this more
often. We choose sides so many times, and for those of us on this side
of the aisle, it is three times at lunch every week--Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday. The senior Senator from New Hampshire and I
never have a chance to have lunch together because we are there with
our leadership talking about what our folks are going to do.
Johnny Isakson decided at least one time a year, when he was in
charge of making that decision, that he would invite Republicans and
Democrats. Sometimes we got pushback from the leadership of both
parties because they didn't have us captive that particular hour, and
some of us who tried it didn't do it year after year after year. Johnny
Isakson has done that and has been an example of bipartisanship.
[[Page S6981]]
I hope, Johnny, we are not making you weary of speechmaking, but I
did want to make an extra point that perhaps others haven't made and
give a quotation that Senator Johnny Isakson has made about others that
he would never have made about himself because he is too modest.
I first became aware of Johnny Isakson in 1990, and he and I had not
met at that point, but I was in Atlanta, GA, for some party function.
Johnny Isakson was a successful businessman and a member of the Georgia
senate. He was the Republican nominee for Governor that year, and it
was pretty well known that he was not going to win that race. But he
came before us and gave a rip-roaring talk, very impressive, and I said
to myself: You know, he may not win this year, but this Johnny Isakson
fellow has a future, and he is going to go places.
It turned out that the impression I had that day was correct. He
would go on to serve for some time in a bipartisan way in Georgia, and
then, when the Speaker of the House of Representatives resigned from
office, Johnny Isakson was there to win the special election and became
my colleague in the House of Representatives.
During that time when we served in the House together, we were on the
deputy whip team together. And, Johnny, it was usually you and I
sitting next to each other at each of those weekly meetings of the whip
team.
I began to realize on a personal, day-to-day basis what an
outstanding leader he was, what an articulate leader he was, how
persuasive he was, and how able he was to actually come up with some
accomplishments in the Congress.
Boy, it is hard to get a bill passed, and Johnny Isakson has gotten
bill after bill after bill passed for our Nation's veterans, of which I
am proud to be one--a list as long as my arms. I am proud to be a
veteran. I am proud to be the father of an Air Force major and the son
of an Army-Air Force veteran from World War II. We all appreciate in
our family, down through the generations, the efforts that Johnny has
made.
He has been so effective because he understands people, because he
understands the business about building consensus and using strong
relationships and treating each and every one of us on both sides of
this center aisle with dignity and respect--the kind of respect that we
would hope to be treated with always.
Senator Isakson enjoys poetry, as do I, and I have been known to
quote a line or two from a poem, but today I want to quote from a poem
entitled ``Sermons We See'' by Edgar Guest.
The reason I want to do this is that from time to time, when we have
honored people Johnny Isakson admired, he would cite this poem or a
verse or two from it as a way of honoring and pointing out the virtues
of the person being honored. He would never be so bold as to quote the
poem about himself.
I submit today for the Record the entire poem, and ask unanimous
consent that it be admitted.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Sermons We See
(By Edgar Guest)
I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day;
I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way.
The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear,
Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear;
And the best of all the preachers are the men who live their
creeds,
For to see good put in action is what everybody needs.
I soon can learn to do it if you'll let me see it done;
I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast
may run.
And the lecture you deliver may be very wise and true,
But I'd rather get my lessons by observing what you do;
For I might misunderstand you and the high advise you give,
But there's no misunderstanding how you act and how you live.
When I see a deed of kindness, I am eager to be kind.
When a weaker brother stumbles and a strong man stays behind
Just to see if he can help him, then the wish grows strong in
me
To become as big and thoughtful as I know that friend to be.
And all travelers can witness that the best of guides today
Is not the one who tells them, but the one who shows the way.
One good man teaches many, men believe what they behold;
One deed of kindness noticed is worth forty that are told.
Who stands with men of honor learns to hold his honor dear,
For right living speaks a language which to every one is
clear.
Though an able speaker charms me with his eloquence, I say,
I'd rather see a sermon than to hear one, any day.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I will read the first two verses of
``Sermons We See'' by Edgar Guest.
I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day;
I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the
way.
The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear.
Fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear;
And the best of all the preachers are the men who live
their creeds,
For to see good put in action is what everybody needs.
I soon can learn to do it if you'll let me see it done;
I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast
may run.
And the lecture you deliver may be very wise and true,
But I'd rather get my lessons by observing what you do;
For I might misunderstand you and the high advise you give,
But there's no misunderstanding how you act and how you
live.
Those are first two verses of ``Sermons We See.''
I am so grateful for the sermons I have been able to see as a Member
of the House of Representatives, as a fellow colleague of Johnny
Isakson's here in the U.S. Senate.
He has demonstrated, in the way he has acted, the way we should
always act. He has shown us how to be a gentleman and how to be an
accomplished gentleman in the way he has lived and the way he has
worked across the aisle. How he ends this chapter gives us an
opportunity to say thank you for the way he has made the Nation better
and the way he has made life better for millions and millions of his
fellow Americans. Thank you, Johnny.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it is now my pleasure to also say some
words of tribute to my colleague from Georgia.
When I first came here and found out about his real estate background
and his interest in homeownership, I felt it was a powerful connection,
in that while I was never in the real estate business, when I went back
to Oregon in 1991, I found a connection with Habitat for Humanity and
eventually became their director, and it was all about homeownership.
So I spent a tremendous amount of time working to advance homeownership
for families in Oregon. Certainly, that is what the residential rules
say business is all about, and he spent decades in that world before he
came to Congress.
In fact, I also felt a connection because of his service in the House
of Representatives in Georgia. I only had 10 years in the Oregon House,
and he had far more than that in the Georgia House of Representatives.
I don't know if the Georgia House is like the Oregon House, but the
Oregon House was a very functional place, where people came to the
floor and listened to each other and shared ideas. They were only
allowed to speak for 5 minutes so everybody could hear each other. You
could borrow time from others, but if you borrowed time, then, people
started to say: The longer that you speak, the less support you will
have.
So it was great to have the entire group present, talking to each
other, working, and talking on the floor.
That is how I envision the Georgia House, as well, which I think is a
tremendous foundation for networking ideas, working with others,
realizing that relationships make such a difference as we strive for
policies we believe in. But the pathway involves relationships.
John F. Kennedy once said: ``Let the public service be a proud and
lively career.'' When I think about my colleague's career spanning the
Georgia House and Georgia Senate and the U.S. House and now the U.S.
Senate, and all that he has worked on, I think of it as exactly that--a
proud and lively career not only that he can be proud of but that all
of us can be proud of, as evidenced by the many folks who have
[[Page S6982]]
come to the floor to say thank you for your service.
There was one particular event that I will never forget, and that is
after the passage of Dodd-Frank. I heard that a problem had occurred
related to the interest on lawyer trust accounts, known by the term
IOLTA. This interest, which was not allowed to accrue directly to the
company of lawyers, was dedicated by law to funding legal defense funds
for noncriminal assistance to American citizens facing court
proceedings so they could get a fair day in court.
So I was trying to get unanimous consent for us to fix this, and I
needed a partner on the Republican side of the aisle. I was walking
from one Senator to another to another. I probably went through about
15 Senators, and I would say: Have you ever heard of IOLTA?
And, universally, the answer was no. I would explain what it was and
say why it might make a difference, and each time I spoke they would
say: Well, it is probably not something near the top of my list to
spend time on.
Then, I asked Senator Isakson: Have you ever heard of IOLTA?
He said: Of course, I have.
I explained to him exactly what it was and why it mattered, and I
said: Would you be a partner and try to fix this so that the funds will
go to the public legal defense fund? And he said yes.
We had to persuade, collectively, a number of folks who had holds on
the amendment, which we did. We finally had one Senator who was still
putting a hold on it, and we met with him--I don't know if my colleague
from Georgia will remember this, but we met with him--and explained our
case.
He said that, well, he would think about it, and we decided to inform
him that we were going to ask for a unanimous consent motion on the
floor at a certain time on a certain day, and that he was welcome to
come back and object if he wanted. He did come back, and he met with us
at that moment and withdrew his objection, and we passed that fix.
Now, interest rates have not been as high. So the amount of funds
that went into the fund were not equivalent to what they were in a
previous era, but it is an example of bipartisan work. It is not blue
or red work. It is work to help make something go a little better for
people in the United States of America.
So to my colleague from Georgia, thank you for doing many things to
make life better for the citizens of the United States of America,
working with that goal in mind, not partisanship.
Bless you and your family. Thank you for your service.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
nomination of lawrence vandyke
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Lawrence
VanDyke to fill a Nevada seat on the Ninth Circuit. When my Republican
colleagues decided to abandon blue slips for circuit court seats, many
on our side warned that we would start to see nominees with little
connection to the States in which they were nominated to sit. Those
warnings are coming true. We saw it earlier this year, when the Senate
approved the nomination of Daniel Bress to fill a California seat on
the Ninth Circuit, even though he had barely lived or practiced in
California as an adult.
Now, we are seeing it again with Mr. VanDyke, whose ties to Nevada
are minimal. He did not grow up in Nevada or attend any schools there.
He did not move to Nevada until 2015, after he had lost a race for the
State supreme court of Montana. He did not become an active member of
the Nevada Bar until October 2017. He does not have family ties to
Nevada. He does not currently live in Nevada. Since he moved to
Virginia 8 months ago, he has not been to Nevada even once. Mr.
VanDyke's only real tie to Nevada is that he was given a job there for
a few years as solicitor general, apparently as a landing spot after he
lost his race in Montana.
There are many longtime members of the Nevada legal community who are
well qualified to serve as a Federal circuit court judge. But none of
them will get the chance to fill this seat. Instead, Senate Republicans
are going to rubber-stamp someone with minimal Nevada ties for this
Nevada judgeship. How would my colleagues like it if that happened to
their States? Mr. VanDyke also has a deeply troubling record.
When he was Montana's solicitor general, we saw from his emails that
he allowed political considerations to guide litigation decisions. For
example, in a 2013 email, he urged that Montana join an amicus brief
supporting the NRA in a cert petition involving a challenge to a gun
law on the books. VanDyke wrote, ``I'm not sure I agree with the
strategy of bringing this case to SCOTUS, but I think we want to be on
the record as on the side of gun rights and the NRA.''
I am troubled that, for his judicial election campaign, he filled out
an NRA endorsement questionnaire in which he said he agreed that ``gun
control laws are misdirected.'' He also has a lengthy history of
criticizing and undermining LGBTQ rights. This includes his 2004 column
where he wrote that there is, ``ample reason for concern that same-sex
marriage will hurt families, and consequently children and society.''
Mr. VanDyke is the ninth Trump judicial nominee who has been rated
``Not Qualified'' by the ABA, out of over 260 Trump nominees the ABA
has reviewed. The ABA conducts a peer review process. In VanDyke's
case, the ABA interviewed 60 attorneys and judges who knew him and his
work.
Mr. VanDyke's peers said that Mr. VanDyke ``is arrogant, lazy, an
ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice
including procedural rules,'' ``does not always have a commitment to
being candid and truthful,'' and ``in some oral arguments, he missed
issues fundamental to the analysis of the case.'' These were scathing
comments from dozens of judges and lawyers who know Mr. VanDyke and his
work well.
In short, it is no surprise that both of Nevada's Senators oppose
this nomination. I agree with them. I will oppose the VanDyke
nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to
the nomination of Lawrence VanDyke to a Nevada seat on the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of
letters and other documents relevant to Mr. VanDyke's nomination
following my remarks.
Mr. VanDyke's temperament and integrity have been called into
question by his colleagues and the American Bar Association, which
rated him ``Not Qualified'' for the Federal bench. Mr. VanDyke's
record, including his opposition to rights of LGBT individuals and
commonsense gun control, is far outside the mainstream.
First, I want to discuss concerns raised by Mr. VanDyke's colleagues
regarding his temperament, competence, and work ethic. The American Bar
Association interviewed 60 of Mr. VanDyke's colleagues, including 43
lawyers, 16 judges, and one other individual who have worked with Mr.
VanDyke in the four States where he has worked and who are ``in a
position to assess his professional qualifications.''
In its letter to the committee, the ABA reported that Mr. VanDyke's
colleagues described him as ``arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking
in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules''
and stated that he ``has an 'entitlement' temperament, does not have an
open mind, and does not always have a commitment to being candid and
truthful.''
As Montana's solicitor general, Mr. VanDyke's coworkers raised
similar concerns. They noted that he ``avoids work'' and that he ``does
not have the skills to perform, nor desire to learn how to perform, the
work of a lawyer.'' These concerns were echoed by six retired justices
of the Montana Supreme Court who wrote that Mr. VanDyke ``has neither
the qualifications nor the temperament to serve as a federal court of
appeals judge.'' Based in part on these assessments, the ABA deemed Mr.
VanDyke ``Not Qualified'' to be a Federal district court judge. The ABA
[[Page S6983]]
has rated 97 percent of President Trump's judicial nominees since 1989.
It has a process and standards. It has rated 97 percent of President
Trump's judicial nominees ``Qualified'' or ``Well Qualified.'' Mr.
VanDyke, then, is a clear exception.
Mr. VanDyke's record on LGBT rights is also deeply troubling.
In a 2004 op-ed, he wrote that there is ``ample reason for concern
that same-sex marriage will hurt families, and consequentially children
and society.'' Lambda Legal rightly characterized this claim as a
``stigmatizing and disproven myth.'' During his hearing, and in written
questions, Mr. VanDyke was given many opportunities to disavow this
statement, which is not supported by the research. He declined to do
so.
I asked Mr. VanDyke whether the Supreme Court's decision legalizing
same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges has harmed families and
children, and I presented him with research showing that the children
of gay and lesbian parents do as well as children raised in opposite-
sex households. Still, Mr. VanDyke refused to disavow his anti-LGBT
statements.
In its letter to the committee, the ABA reported that some
interviewees were unconvinced that Mr. VanDyke would be fair to members
of the LGBT community. The ABA further noted that Mr. VanDyke ``would
not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him,
notably members of the LGBT community.'' I am concerned based on Mr.
VanDyke's record and the ABA's assessment that LGBT litigants cannot
expect to be treated fairly in his courtroom.
Finally, I would like to highlight Mr. VanDyke's long history of
advocating against commonsense gun control.
As Nevada solicitor general, he undermined implementation of a 2016
ballot initiative, passed by Nevada voter that would have closed a
loophole by expanding background checks for private gun sales. As
Montana solicitor general, he called assault weapons bans
``ineffective'' and questioned the Federal Government's authority to
regulate guns in any capacity.
While running for a seat on the Montana Supreme Court in 2014, he
filled out an NRA Questionnaire that highlights how far outside the
mainstream his views on gun control are.
On this questionnaire, Mr. VanDyke indicated that he believes all gun
control laws are ``misdirected.'' He opposed banning the possession,
purchase, or sale of any firearm. He also opposed assault weapons bans
and requiring background checks for guns sold at gun shows.
Mr. VanDyke even appeared to pledge loyalty to the NRA itself. He
wrote on the questionnaire that he had stopped being a member of the
organization because he ``didn't want to risk recusal if a lawsuit came
before [him] where the NRA was involved.'' Mr. VanDyke willingly
offered these views when he was seeking judicial office, and so I asked
him to answer the same questions from the NRA's questionnaire as part
of this nomination process. He declined to do so.
It is distressing that a nominee would offer his views on gun control
to the NRA, but not to a Member of the U.S. Senate who must vote on his
lifetime appointment to the Federal bench.
It is no wonder that gun safety groups, including the Giffords Law
Center and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, fear that Mr. VanDyke
has demonstrated a ``clear lack of impartiality'' and is ``incapable of
serving as an impartial justice.''
The Nevada Senators strongly oppose Mr. VanDyke, in part because he
lacks ties to the State. Their opposition is justified. It is hard to
believe that this nominee, whose views are so far outside the
mainstream and who is unqualified for the position, is the best the
Nevada legal community has to offer.
Federal appeals court judges must be knowledgeable, and litigants
must have confidence that these judges will treat them fairly and
honestly. Unfortunately, Mr. VanDyke does not meet these basic
standards. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
NRA-PVF
National Rifle Association of America
Political Victory Fund
2014 Montana Candidate Questionnaire
Name: Lawrence VanDyke
Website: www.VanDykeforJustice.com
Campaign Name: VanDyke for Supreme Court-
Campaign ID #: 46-5103703
Public Office(s) Held: Montana Solicitor General
Occupation: Attorney
Office Sought: Montana Supreme Court Justice-
District: Seat 2--
Party: Non-Partisan
For further information on Montana firearm laws, Please
visit www.nraila.org and click on the ``Gun Laws'' feature
located in the menu.
1. Do you agree that the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution guarantees a fundamental, individual
right to keep and bear arms that applies to all Americans,
regardless of where they live in the United States?
a. X Yes.
b. ___ No.
2. Which of the following statements best represents your
opinion on the prevention of violent crime?
a. ___ Gun control laws will solve the crime problem.
b. ___ Gun control laws will not solve the crime problem,
but they must be a part of the overall solution.
c. X Gun control laws are misdirected; the solution is the
enforcement of existing laws which punish criminals who
misuse firearms and other weapons in the commission of
crimes.
d. ___ Other:
3. Considering current Montana firearm laws, would you
support any additional restrictive state legislation
regulating firearms and/or ammunition?
a. ___ Yes, I support additional restrictive state
legislation regulating firearms and/or ammunition.
b. ___ Yes, I support additional restrictive state
legislation regulating firearms. Please explain:
c. ___ Yes, I support additional restrictive state
legislation regulating ammunition. Please explain:
d. ___ No, current state firearm laws are sufficient.
e. X No, current state firearm laws should be improved to
benefit law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen in Montana.
4. Would you support state legislation banning the
manufacture, possession, ownership, purchase, sale and/or
transfer of any firearms?
a. ___ Yes, for all firearms. Please specify type of
restrictions:
b. ___ Yes, for all handguns. Please specify type of
restrictions:
c. ___ Yes, for some firearms. Please specify types of
firearms/restrictions:
d. X No, I oppose banning the manufacture, possession,
ownership, purchase, sale and/or transfer of any firearm.
5. Many .50 caliber firearms are used in big game hunting
and target competition and the .50 caliber BMG cartridge has
been used for nearly a century. Would you support legislation
prohibiting the ownership and/or sale of any .50 caliber
firearms or ammunition in Montana?
a. ___ Yes, I would support such legislation. Please
explain:
b. X No, I would oppose such legislation.
I personally have hunted with a 50 AE Desert Eagle Pistol
(.50 caliber)
6. In 1994, Congress imposed a 10-year ban on the
manufacture, for sale to private individuals, of various
semi-automatic* firearms it termed ``assault weapons,'' and
of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10
rounds of ammunition, which primarily affected handguns
designed for self-defense. Congress' subsequent study of the
ban, as well as state and local law enforcement agency
reports, showed that contrary to the ban's supporters'
claims, the guns and magazines had never been used in more
than about 1%-2% of violent crime. Since the ban expired in
2004, the numbers of these firearms and magazines owned have
risen to all-time highs and violent crime has fallen to a 42-
year low. Would you support state legislation restricting the
possession, ownership, purchase, sale, and/or transfer of
semi-automatic firearms and/or limits on the capacity of
magazines designed for self-defense?
* Semi-automatic firearms have been commonly used for
hunting, target shooting, and self-defense since their
introduction in the late 1800s. All semi-automatics fire only
one shot when the trigger is pulled. They are not fully-
automatic machine guns, which have been strictly regulated
under federal law since 1934.
a. ___ Yes, I would support such legislation for semi-
automatic firearms only.
b. ___ Yes, I would support such legislation for magazines
only.
c. ___ Yes, I would support such legislation for semi-
automatic firearms and magazines.
d. X No, I would oppose such legislation.
7. Federal law requires federally-licensed firearms dealers
to keep records of the make, model, caliber, and serial
number of all firearms sold. Would you support state
legislation requiring all firearm owners to register all
their firearm(s) for entry into a centralized state file or
database?
a. __ Yes, for all firearms.
b. __ Yes, for all handguns.
c. __ Yes, for some firearms. Please specify which
firearms:
[[Page S6984]]
d. X No, I oppose state registration of firearms.
8. Would you support the state licensing* of law-abiding
citizens who own, possess and use firearms?
*Licensing, as used here, refers to state legislation
requiring firearm owners to obtain a license from a
government official or agency to own and possess a firearm.
As a rule, firearm owner licensing laws generally require
fingerprinting, photographing, and/or a background
investigation of the applicant. Note: this is different from
acquiring a ``permit to carry'' a concealed weapon from the
state.
a. __ Yes, for owners of all firearms.
b. __ Yes, for owners of all handguns.
c. __ Yes, for owners of some firearms. Please specify
which firearms:
d. X No, I oppose state registration of firearm owners.
9. Federal law requires all federally-licensed firearms
dealers to conduct a criminal records check prior to the sale
of any firearm, whether the sale occurs at their retail store
or at a gun show. Access to the FBI-run telephone-based
``instant check'' system is limited to licensed dealers only.
Under federal law, individuals who only occasionally sell
firearms from their personal collections are not ``engaged in
the business'' of selling firearms, and are therefore (1) not
required to be licensed; (2) not required to conduct records
checks prior to transferring firearms; and (3) not permitted
to access the records check system used by licensed dealers.
Although less than 1% of guns used in crimes are purchased at
gun shows (Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics), gun
control advocates are trying to ban firearms sales at gun
shows by occasional sellers and private collectors, or
require that any transactions involving their legal property
be conducted through a licensed dealer. Would you support
legislation restricting firearms sales by occasional sellers
and private collectors at gun shows?
a.__ Yes, I would support such legislation. Please explain:
b. X No, I would oppose such legislation.
10. In the United States, the number of privately owned
guns has risen by more than 10 million annually to an all-
time high. Meanwhile, according to the National Center for
Health Statistics, firearm accident deaths have decreased by
90 percent over the last century. This trend is due in part
to an increasing use of NRA firearm safety training programs
by tens of thousands of RA Certified Instructors, schools,
civic groups and law enforcement agencies. Nevertheless,
several states have recently considered legislation that
would mandate the placement of locking devices on firearms
kept in the home. These devices greatly restrict access to
firearms for self-defense purposes and potentially increase
the risk of accidental discharge of a firearm. Would you
support legislation that would mandate the use of locking
devices or other locking procedures for firearms stored in
the home?
a. __Yes, I would support such legislation. Please explain:
b. X No, I would oppose such legislation.
11. Recently, some employers have extended their ``gun-
free'' workplace rules to employees' locked private vehicles
in parking lots. Such policies effectively disarm law-abiding
citizens, including concealed weapon license holders, from
the time they leave their house in the morning to their
return home in the evening. Would you support ``Employee
Protection'' legislation that would allow law abiding
citizens to keep lawfully transported firearms locked in
their personal vehicles while parked on publicly accessible,
privately owned parking lots (see 2013 Montana House Bill
571)?
a. __Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
12. Current Montana law (MCA Sec. 45-8-328) lists certain
``prohibited places,'' including banks, government office
buildings and establishments where alcoholic beverages are
served, where concealed weapon permit holders (and law
enforcement officers) may not carry a concealed firearm. This
puts law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage because, although
they could carry ``openly'' in these locations, criminals
will obviously ignore the law and carry concealed. Would you
support legislation to repeal the restrictions on where law-
abiding citizens may carry a concealed weapon (see 2013
Montana House Bill 358)?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
13. Current Montana law allows law-abiding citizens to
carry a concealed weapon for defense of themselves and
others, free from government interference, anywhere outside
the official boundaries of any city or town. In order to
cross into a city or town and still be in compliance with
Montana law, however, a law-abiding citizen must have a valid
concealed weapon permit. Would you support state legislation
to remove the requirement that law-abiding citizens obtain
governmental permission in order to provide a means of self-
protection when they cross into the boundaries of cities and
towns in Montana (see 2013 Montana House Bill 304)?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
14. Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), an individual
wanting to acquire an NFA-regulated item, such as a firearm
sound suppressor or fully automatic firearm, must submit the
proper paperwork and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), pay a $200 tax and
have a chief local law enforcement officer (CLEO) sign-off on
the proper forms. Some CLEOs simply refuse to sign such
forms, even for otherwise qualified applicants, because they
oppose civilian possession of these items, are fearful
of liability or the perceptions of anti-gun constituents,
or for other subjective reasons. Legally owned NFA items
are very rarely used in crime, with the total number of
cases documented numbering in the single digits. This
legislation would also include an immunity provision for
CLEOs. Would you support state legislation that would make
this process more objective by requiring CLEOs to sign
such forms if the applicant is not otherwise prohibited
from obtaining an NFA item?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
15. Many public colleges and universities allow visitors
with concealed handgun permits to carry concealed firearms on
their campuses, yet nearly all state-funded higher learning
institutions ban faculty, staff and students from carrying
concealed handguns on campus--even if they have permits to
carry concealed firearms. The NRA believes a person with a
permit to carry a concealed firearm should be able to carry
that firearm concealed anywhere he or she has a legal right
to be, except in certain ``sterile'' high-security locations.
Assuming each classification of individuals listed below
possessed a concealed handgun permit recognized by the state,
who do you believe should legally be allowed to carry a
concealed handgun on state college and university campuses?
a. X All law-abiding persons, including visitors, faculty,
staff and students.
b. __ Visitors, faculty, staff and some students. Please
explain:
c. __ Faculty, staff and students.
d. __ Visitors, faculty and staff.
e. __ Faculty and staff.
f. __ Each college or university should determine the
policy for its campus.
g. __ No one should be allowed to carry a concealed handgun
on state college and university campuses.
16. The residents of 39 states can legally own firearm
suppressors. Contrary to Hollywood portrayals, suppressors
are virtually never used in crime or poaching and criminal
misuse carries severe penalties. Suppressors can improve
shooting accuracy, protect against hearing loss, reduce noise
complaints from the public and make shooting and hunting more
enjoyable. The current prohibition on hunting suppressor use,
in effect, requires firearms to be as loud as they can
possibly be, contrary to the manner in which virtually all
other noise-emitting objects are treated. Suppressors are
strictly regulated under federal law. Individual purchasers
must pay a $200 federal tax; submit to an extensive
background check that includes fingerprints and photographs;
and obtain the approval of the chief law enforcement officer
in their jurisdiction. Would you support legislation that
allows the use of suppressors while hunting and allow law-
abiding Montana sportsmen the freedom to protect against
hearing loss, improve accuracy and reduce noise complaints?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
17. Many states provide civil liability protection to
private property owners who allow the public to hunt on their
property. Shielding property owners from frivolous lawsuits
eliminates a significant concern for property owners and
encourages them to open their land to hunting. This enhances
public hunting opportunities and assists the state in
effectively managing its wildlife populations. Would you
support passing or strengthening liability protections for
private landowners who allow hunting on their property?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor this legislation.
b. X Yes, I would support this legislation.
c. __ No, I would oppose this legislation. Please explain:
18. Youth/mentored hunting programs have been implemented
in 29 states to help promote our hunting heritage by removing
barriers to participation. This enormous case study has
proven safe beyond anyone's expectations. Mentored hunting
allows novice hunters--young and old--to hunt prior to
completing hunter education requirements if they hunt under
the close supervision of a licensed, adult hunter who meets
hunter education requirements. This is the ``try it before
you buy it'' concept. These programs also dramatically reduce
or eliminate minimum hunter ages. Would you support a youth/
mentored hunting law to help promote Montana's hunting
heritage?
a. X Yes, I would sponsor/cosponsor a youth/mentored
hunting law.
b. X Yes, I would support implementing a youth/mentored
hunting law.
c. __ No, I oppose implementing a mentored hunting law.
Montanans will prove to be the exception to the rule of
extraordinary safety established by the citizens of the 29
states that have implemented this program.
[[Page S6985]]
d. _ Other. Please explain:
19. For which of the following reasons do you support
firearm ownership for law-abiding Montana citizens (please
mark any and all that apply)?
a. X Constitutional Right.
b. X Hunting.
c. X Competitive shooting.
d. X Informal sport shooting (e.g., plinking).
e. X Defense of self, family, and home (basic human right).
f. X Collecting.
g. X Defense of state and nation.
h. X All of the above.
i. __ None of the above.
20. Have you ever run for or held state or local elective
office?
a. __ Yes. Please specify:
b. X No.
21. Are you a member of the National Rifle Association, the
Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Montana Rifle &
Pistol Association or any other shooting/sportsmen's/gun
rights organization?
a. __Yes. Please specify:
b. X No.
I have previously been a member of the NRA, but am not
currently a member. I don't want to risk recusal if a lawsuit
came before me where the NRA was involved.
--Please see the information from the email sent to Brian
Judy on Sept. 16, 2014.
--Please also see the attached article from the Great Falls
Tribune dated 9/18/14. The emails referenced in the article,
which are available at the website, are very illuminating
regarding my defense of the 2nd Amendment while serving as
Montana's Solicitor General. See especially page 93.
Candidate Signature: Lawrence VanDyke Date: 9/18/14
____
American Bar Association,
October 29, 2019.
Re Nomination of Lawrence J.C. VanDyke to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Hon. Lindsey Graham,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein: The
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary has received a full report on Lawrence J.C. VanDyke
and a supplemental review by a former chair of the Committee.
The Committee's work is based solely on a review of
integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament.
Based on these criteria, a substantial majority of the
Committee has determined that Mr. VanDyke is ``Not
Qualified,'' and a minority determined that he is
``Qualified'' to serve on the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. The majority rating represents the
Standing Committee's official rating. I write to offer a
brief explanation of this rating.
The evaluator's Formal Report is based on 60 interviews
with a representative cross section of lawyers (43), judges
(16), and one other person who have worked with the nominee
in the four states where he has worked and who are in a
position to assess his professional qualifications. They
include but are not limited to attorneys who worked with him
and who opposed him in cases and judges before whom he has
appeared at oral argument. The evaluator obtained detailed
background materials such as more than 600 pages of publicly
produced emails involving and/or written by Mr. VanDyke, news
reports where Mr. VanDyke had been interviewed, and articles
and opinions written about him.
Mr. VanDyke is a highly educated lawyer with nearly 14
years of experience in appellate law, including one year as a
law clerk, an associate in a law firm, and as a Solicitor
General for over five-plus years, first in Montana and then
Nevada, two states in the Ninth Circuit where he would serve
if confirmed. The Committee was tasked with balancing Mr.
VanDyke's accomplishments with strong evidence that supports
a ``Not Qualified'' rating.
Mr. VanDyke's accomplishments are offset by the assessments
of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an
ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day
practice including procedural rules. There was a theme that
the nominee lacks humility, has an ``entitlement''
temperament, does not have an open mind, and does not always
have a commitment to being candid and truthful.
Some interviewees raised concerns about whether Mr. VanDyke
would be fair to persons who are gay, lesbian, or otherwise
part of the LGBTQ community. Mr. VanDyke would not say
affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before
him, notably members of the LGBTQ community.
Even though Mr. VanDyke is clearly smart, comments were
made that in some oral arguments he missed issues fundamental
to the analysis of the case. There were reports that his
preparation and performance were lacking in some cases in
which he did not have a particular personal or political
interest.
While the evaluator was careful in her interview with Mr.
VanDyke not to name interviewees, the nature of the issues
that gave rise to some of the negative comments had been
publicly discussed and other adverse comments could be raised
without identifying interviewees. The negative issues
discussed in this letter were thoroughly discussed with
interviewees and vetted with the nominee. Significantly, the
interviewees' views, negative or positive, appeared strongly
held on this nominee.
The Committee's work is guided by the Backgrounder which
reflects that judgment is a component of professional
competence, and that open-mindedness, courtesy, patience,
freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under law
are components of judicial temperament. Based on these
principles, a substantial majority of the Committee
determined that the nominee is ``Not Qualified'' to be a
Ninth Circuit judge.
Very truly yours,
William C. Hubbard.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, yesterday, I went to the Senate floor
to ask unanimous consent on the DETER Act, bipartisan legislation that
I authored alongside Senator Rubio that is languishing in the Senate
legislative graveyard.
The DETER Act is absolutely critical to protect our democracy from
foreign interference. It serves a clear, simple, and essential purpose.
It says to Russia and any other foreign power that, if they interfere
in our elections and undermine the integrity of our democracy, they
will face severe consequences in the form of tough sanctions. Foreign
interference in our elections remains as critical a threat as ever.
That is why, on November 5, seven U.S. Federal agencies jointly stated,
``Russia, China, Iran, and other foreign malicious actors all will seek
to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions.
Adversaries may try to accomplish their goals through a variety of
means, including social media campaigns, directing disinformation
operations, or conducting disruptive or destructive cyberattacks on
state and local infrastructure.''
The Senate endorsed the inclusion of this bill in this year's
National Defense Authorization Act, unanimously passing a resolution in
the fall instructing NDAA conferees to include such a provision in the
conference report. However, the Republican leadership has stonewalled
the inclusion of this bill in the NDAA. Instead, we are voting this
week on two Ninth Circuit judicial nominees of dubious qualifications,
including one who was rated ``Unqualified'' by the American Bar
Association, ABA.
Circuit courts play an important role in our country. Circuit court
judges review the decisions of district court judges. Instead of
nominating experienced jurists, Republicans have chosen to advance two
nominees, Messrs. Bumatay and VanDyke, neither of whom have absolutely
any experience as judges, at the Sate or Federal level. Mr. VanDyke was
harshly described by his peers and colleagues as someone who is
``arrogant and disrespectful to others, both in and outside of this
office. He avoids work. He does not have the skills to perform, nor
desire to learn how to perform, the work of a lawyer.'' This harsh
criticism of a judicial nominee from their peers is extremely rare and
factored in heavily into the ABA's ``Unqualified'' rating.
Instead of trying to confirm unqualified radical ideologues to the
bench, Republicans should be working across the aisle to pass
bipartisan legislation to secure our elections and address other
national priorities. Failing to do so is a dereliction of our duty.