[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.