A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate against the making available of current and former diplomats, officials, and members of the Armed Forces of the United States for questioning by the government of Vladimir Putin.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, we will vote today on the confirmation of Ryan Bounds to the Ninth Circuit. He has been nominated to fill the vacancy left by Judge O'Scannlain. Mr. Bounds once served as a law clerk to Ninth Circuit Judge O'Scannlain.

Mr. Bounds is highly qualified to serve on the Ninth Circuit. A native of Oregon, he attended Stanford University and Yale Law School. He has dedicated his career to public service and has served in government for the past 14 years. The last 8 years were as an assistant U.S. attorney in Oregon.

I have listened to my colleagues on the other side voice their opposition to Mr. Bounds. Interestingly, none of them cite anything Mr. Bounds has done in his legal career as a reason for opposing his nomination. Instead, they focus on two things. First, they say we shouldn't confirm Mr. Bounds because his home State Senators didn't return their blue slips. Second, they say some of Mr. Bounds' college writings were insensitive. So I am going to start with point No. 1 on which they base their opposition to him.

As I have explained so many times on the floor of the U.S. Senate and in the Senate Judiciary Committee--and I don't know how many times to the multitudes of journalists who are on the Hill--my blue-slip policy is the same as all but 2 of my 18 predecessors who were chairmen of the Judiciary Committee over the 100-year history of blue slips. Like Chairmen Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Orrin Hatch, I will hold hearings for circuit court nominees who have negative or unreported blue slips if the White House has consulted with the home State Senators, and I will not allow Senators to abuse the blue-slip courtesy for political or ideological reasons.

In the case of Mr. Bounds, the White House sought the Oregon Senators' input, seriously considered the one candidate suggested by the Oregon Senators, and waited several months for the Senators from Oregon to establish their judicial selection committee, which is quite a tradition in that State. The selection committee itself even recommended Mr. Bounds. Yet the Oregon Senators still didn't return their blue slips.

They say it was because Mr. Bounds didn't disclose some of his college writings to the selection committee. There is a very good reason he didn't--the selection committee never asked for his college writings. In fact, Senator Wyden's staff instructed Mr. Bounds not to disclose them. Moreover, the Oregon Senators refused to ever meet with Mr. Bounds during this whole process.

It has been misleadingly said this will be the first time in modern history we will have confirmed a judge without there having been at least one positive blue slip from the two State Senators. My Democratic colleagues have only themselves to blame. The way the blue slip used to be enforced was through the 60-vote filibuster, and that was done away with in November 2013, led by the then-Democratic majority and Senator Reid.

For example, Chairman Hatch held hearings for five nominees in 2003 and 2004, despite there being the lack of a positive blue slip from either home State Senator. These nominees were voted out of committee. Then Senate Democrats blocked these nominees on the floor by using the 60-vote filibuster. But my Democratic colleagues abolished that filibuster, as I said, in 2013 for the reason that they needed the votes and the freedom to pack the DC Circuit with liberal judges who would uphold Obama's regulatory schemes.

Leading this effort was none other than Senator Merkley of Oregon, who argued that 41 Senators shouldn't be able to block a Senate majority from confirming judges. Now they have a different point of view. Now he argues that he alone should have the right to block Mr. Bounds from even getting a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

In November of 2013, I told my Democratic colleagues that they would regret abolishing the filibuster just to stack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with their friends. Now, obviously, today, as they consider the Bounds nomination, they know they made a mistake.

Turning to the only other criticism my colleagues have made about Mr. Bounds, which is in regard to his college writings, I don't believe that misguided statements made in a college newspaper 25 years ago should disqualify Mr. Bounds. I hope we don't live in a world where controversial things that we write in college end our careers forever. This is especially true with our kids and grandkids now in the era of social media.

For example, a few years ago, just when the same thing came up on Justice Wright going to the Minnesota

District Court, I voted and supported her despite very controversial writings she had in law school. We shouldn't assume that views expressed years ago during college and law school represent the nominee today.

Mr. Bounds testified that he regretted much of what he wrote in those op-eds.

We received numerous letters in support of Mr. Bounds' nomination from people who have known him personally throughout his life. We received a letter from some of his classmates at Stanford. And before I quote, it is kind of like--these sound like they were his friends in the dormitories. I never was a dormitory student, but I imagine you really get acquainted with people there. This is what they had to say about Mr. Bounds:

We have become aware of a handful of controversial op-eds

and articles Ryan wrote for The Stanford Review during that

time. None of us believes that these writings reflect Ryan's

character, either then or now. All of us remember our dorm-

mate fondly.

We are a diverse bunch. Yet Ryan never failed to treat all

of us with courtesy, respect, and civility, regardless of our

respective genders, sexual orientations, skin colors,

religions, ethnicity, or any other characteristics.

There is not, and never has been, a racist, sexist,

homophobic, or bigoted bone in Ryan Bounds's body.

Mr. Bounds has also been a community leader, promoting diversity and equality. As a member of the Multnomah Bar Association's Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee, Mr. Bounds spearheaded programs to expose underprivileged young people to the legal profession. He mentored young scholarship recipients and helped those same people navigate law school admissions and law school. He expanded low-cost CLE offerings and organized anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training.

Mr. Bounds is imminently qualified to serve on the Ninth Circuit. His college writings do not represent who he is today. His professional accomplishments and exemplary public service speak much more loudly to his character and integrity.

I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support Mr. Bounds' confirmation today.

Mr. President, I am hopeful that we will come together on this resolution, which I introduced with the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Hawaii, that it is neither the policy nor the practice of the United States to submit our citizens, let alone our Ambassadors, to the interrogation of a foreign adversary.

Let this resolution be a warning to the administration that Congress will not allow this to happen. I call on President Trump to say once and for

all--not through his spokespeople--that the lopsided, disgraceful trade he called an incredible offer is now off the table. There should be no equivocation on the matter.

One more point. I am so disappointed in the failure of the resolutions earlier today. We had a real chance for bipartisanship. The resolutions were modest and mild, and they were just resolutions, but we couldn't even come to agreement on those. Our Republican colleagues, given the crisis we have in foreign policy, have to step up to the plate and join us not just in resolutions but in bipartisan action that is so important.

I was told that one of the reasons the resolution was objected to was because we couldn't--they didn't even want us to get the notes, let alone hear from the translator of this 2-hour, mysterious meeting where nobody seems to know what happened. The American people should know what happened. The Senate should know what happened. Our leaders in the State Department and Defense Department should know what happened. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be too afraid to let us bring that up. That is so wrong for the security of America.

I am hopeful--there are bipartisan efforts going on today--that we cannot do what we did earlier and block the resolution by the Senator from Vermont and the bipartisan resolution from the Senators from Arizona and Delaware but move together in real action to undo the damage--try to undo the damage that the President has done to this country this week.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the Bounds nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and proceed to the immediate consideration of a Schumer resolution that is at the desk; further, that the Senate immediately vote on the resolution; that if agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 584 as under the previous order and that I then be permitted to speak briefly about it.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).