Floor Statements

Mr. President, to help ensure that our Federal judicial system remains free of corruption, bias, and hypocrisy, today I rise to reintroduce the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act. This important bill would establish within the Judicial branch an Office of Inspector General to assist the Judiciary with its ethical obligations as well as to ensure taxpayer dollars are not lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.

During my many years in Congress, I've worked hard to strengthen the oversight role of Federal Inspectors General who serve as the first line of defense against fraud, waste and abuse. The facts demonstrate that the institution of the Inspector General has been crucial in detecting, exposing and deterring problems within our government. In collaboration with whistleblowers, Inspectors General have been extremely effective in their efforts to expose and help correct these wrongs.

I've come to rely on IGs and whistleblowers to ensure that our tax dollars are spent according to the letter and spirit of the law. And when that doesn't happen, we in Congress need to know about it and take corrective action.

During the past fiscal year, Congress appropriated roughly $7 billion in taxpayer dollars to support the Federal judiciary. Put in context, the Small Business Administration and the Corporation for National and Community Service each received less funding than the judiciary but both entities have an Office of Inspector General. If we in Congress believed that these entities could use an Inspector General, doesn't it make good sense that the Judiciary would deserve the same assistance?

Beyond fiduciary factors, the current practice of self-regulation of judges with respect to ethics and the judicial code of conduct has time and time again proven inadequate. In fact, in the past seven years, the Senate received articles of impeachment for not one but two Federal judges.

In the first case, former Judge Samuel B. Kent, although charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. It took a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice to uncover his false statements made to his colleagues who were assembled to investigated him as well as substantiate the horrendous claims made against him.

In the second case, you will recall that the Senate found former Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. guilty on multiple articles of impeachment, including accepting money from attorneys who had a case pending before him in his court and committing perjury by falsifying his name on bankruptcy filings. This Judge's misbehavior came to light through a federal criminal investigation, after which another judicial committee had to be organized to investigate their fellow judge.

Moreover, in each case the disgraced judge tried to game the system in order to retain his $174,000 salary. Rather than resign their commissions, each first tried to claim disability status that would allow each to continue to receive payment, even if in prison. Then both played chicken with Congress daring us to strip them of their pay by impeaching and convicting them. I am pleased that we put our foot down and said ``No.''

The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act would establish an Office of Inspector General for the judicial branch. The IG's responsibilities would include conducting investigations of possible judicial misconduct, investigating waste fraud and

abuse, and recommending changes in laws and regulations governing the federal judiciary. The bill would require the IG to provide the Chief Justice and Congress with an annual report on its activities, as well as refer matters that may constitute a criminal violation to the Department of Justice. Further, the bill establishes important whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees to help keep the judiciary accountable.

Judges are supposed to maintain impartiality. They're supposed to be free from conflicts of interest. An independent watchdog for the federal judiciary will help its members comply with the ethics rules and promote credibility within the judicial branch of government. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act will not only help ensure continued public confidence in our federal courts and keep them beyond reproach, it will strengthen our judicial branch.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2146 and the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of Calendar No. 167, the nomination of Susan Bodine to be an Assistant Administrator of EPA. I further ask that there be 30 minutes of debate on the nomination, equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on confirmation with no intervening action or debate, and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, December 7; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that

following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each until 11 a.m.; I further ask that at 11 a.m., Senator Strange be recognized for up to 30 minutes; finally, that at 11:45 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the Balash nomination as under the previous order.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, I want to make a few brief remarks regarding the introduction of the Security, Enforcement, and Compassion United in Reform Efforts, and we have selected the acronym SECURE for this piece of legislation we are introducing today. This bill promotes and protects the interests of the American people in a lawful immigration system and provides a fair and equitable solution on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and everyone in the Senate knows that by the acronym DACA. It is the product of several months of hard work between this Senator and Senators Cornyn, Graham, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, and Cotton. I think, before the day is out and the Senate closes down, you will hear from almost all of those folks on their approach to this legislation and their support for it.

Before I discuss what the bill does, I want to explain the process we used to reach this point. On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Sessions announced that President Trump had decided to rescind former President Obama's unlawful Executive amnesty program. Because almost 700,000 young people relied on President Obama's false promise, the Trump administration called upon Congress to do what the President doesn't have the legal authority to do and to find the only real type of long-term solution to this issue. Obviously, we are here because that is a legislative solution and not something the executive branch thinks up and tries to put in place.

Starting in September, I have held multiple meetings with Senators Cornyn, Graham, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, and Cotton to determine how best to fix DACA. Our aim was to find a solution that not only is fair for DACA recipients but also promotes the interests of the American people. The immigration policies of the previous administration carried consequences that weren't always in our best interest. For example, President Obama allowed thousands of people to illegally cross our borders and to stay in our country, including dangerous gang members, sex offenders, and violent criminals. So robust border security is crucial to bring integrity back to our Nation's immigration enforcement.

The enforcement policies of the previous administration enabled dangerous, unauthorized criminals, individuals like Kate Steinle's killer, to have free rein in our country, risking the safety of innocent Americans. The

flagrant disregard of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions unfairly takes tax dollars from hard-working Americans, only to ignore the rule of law and their own people's public safety.

In crafting our bill, we also considered the inherent unfairness in our Nation's immigration court and asylum adjudication systems and how hundreds of thousands of aliens wait in backlogs for years at a time. That is wrong. It hurts the people who are stuck in the backlog, and it is unfair to ask the American people and legal immigrants to bear the burden of supporting these people while they wait.

Finally, thanks to the leadership of Senators Graham, Perdue, and Cotton, we discussed in our small group of Senators the need for a merit-based immigration system, one where we bring people to this country based on what they can contribute and not simply because they have some attenuated family relationship to a legal immigrant who is already here.

So after having these discussions and after meeting with the President to get his input and his support, we have come up with a plan. This plan is fair to all parties. It is pro-American, and it is a solution to DACA.

Our plan, as I said, which goes by an acronym, the SECURE Act of 2017, provides a solution to all of the issues we discussed. First, building off of the hard work and leadership of Senator Cornyn, we are putting days of porous, uncontrolled borders behind us. We are doing this by mandating the construction of tactical and technological infrastructure at the border. We are also beefing up our law enforcement and judicial resources, and we are putting more boots on the ground in the border States so that we can better apprehend and prosecute those who enter our country illegally.

Our plan takes meaningful steps to end the lawlessness and tragedies at the hands of dangerous criminal aliens throughout our country. We do this by cracking down on sanctuary cities, ending the misguided catch- and-release policies of the previous administration, and finally taking real steps to address intentional visa overstays.

In recognition of the many Americans who have lost their lives to criminal aliens, we included Kate's law, named after the person murdered by a criminal felon who came back into our country five times--Kate Steinle. So it is Kate's law. This legislation enhances penalties for repeat illegal border crossers and expands the inaccessibility and expedited removal of terrorists, gang members, aggravated felons, and drunk drivers. We also provide a fix to the disastrous Zadvydas decision so that the government doesn't keep releasing dangerous criminals onto our streets just because of the refusal of their home countries to take responsibility.

Our bill takes steps to eliminate many of the ``pull'' factors that encourage people to immigrate illegally. We do this by permanently authorizing the E-Verify Program and providing immunity and other incentives to encourage small businesses to participate in that E- Verify Program. We also take meaningful steps to reduce immigration court and asylum adjudication backlogs by hiring more judges and personnel, limiting the number of continuances an immigrant can receive, and imposing new safeguards to combat well-documented fraud and abuse.

Again, thanks to the leadership and advocacy of Senators Graham, Perdue, and Cotton, our bill eliminates the phenomenon known as chain migration. From the day this bill becomes law, immigrants will be able to bring only their spouses and minor children into the country. This bipartisan, pro-American worker reform, which the President strongly supports, is an important first step toward creating the merit-based, economically productive immigration system that both Democrats and Republicans want.

Finally and most importantly, we provide a bipartisan solution to protect undocumented young people brought to the United States as children by adopting a bill that goes by the acronym BRIDGE, Bar Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy. Senator Durbin called the BRIDGE Act ``an opportunity for supporters and critics of DACA to come together and address a compelling humanitarian issue on a bipartisan basis.''

We agree with Senator Durbin. The BRIDGE Act is supported by Senators Graham, Durbin, Gillibrand, Heller, Murkowski, Feinstein, Nelson, Flake, Schumer, and Harris. It would provide relief from deportation and work authorization to DACA recipients, allowing them to continue to fulfill their dreams, and they will continue to contribute to our economy.

As you can see, Mr. President, our plan has fair, bipartisan, and serious provisions. By listening to colleagues and adopting solutions that both sides can agree on, we are providing a real solution to the immigration issues our country is facing. Our plan protects the DACA kids, it cracks down on criminal illegal aliens, and it provides real long-term reforms to our Nation's immigration system that benefit the American people. It does so through the proper legislative process, in other words, by a constitutional way--unlike a previous President tried to do this--providing greater certainty for Americans and immigrants alike.

Importantly, it is also supported by the President. That is all the more reason to pass this bill and fulfill our promises to the American people and the DACA recipients.

Again, I want to thank the hard work of Senators Cornyn, Graham, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, and Cotton, and their staffs, especially, in developing the solution. I am looking forward to considering this measure in the new year and seeing President Trump sign it into law, as he asked us to do.

I see that two of my colleagues, Senator Lankford and Senator Tillis, are here. I am giving up the floor, if you would like to speak.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the last time Congress modernized the Tax Code was in 1986. That was more than 30 years ago, which is quite obvious to anybody who can subtract. In the generations since, the Tax Code has grown out of control. It has been a dream come true for whom? The professionals in accounting and the lobbyists who protect the loopholes. But it happens to be a real nightmare for most Americans. I would say, for most Members of Congress, as one reads regularly, very few Members of Congress do their own taxes.

The outdated Tax Code helps the powerful and the well connected but hurts American workers. It hurts American industry, and it hurts America's ability to compete with the rest of the world. That means lower wages and less employment.

The bill that passed out of the Finance Committee moves us very much in the right direction to make our Tax Code simpler, fairer, and more competitive. At the heart of the legislation is a middle-class tax cut. A typical family of four with two children making $59,000 a year could see a tax cut of more than $1,700. That is very significant tax relief, but you would never know it by listening to the rhetoric of my colleagues of the other political party. They have repeatedly recited the tired line that Republicans are only interested in giving tax cuts to the wealthy. In fact, they began pushing that narrative even before this bill was written. In going way back to September, they started analyzing a bill that didn't even exist. It was a charge made by a document that was put out, called the Big Six framework. But the framework was no piece of legislation; it merely provided guidelines from which to start for the tax-writing committees.

The partisan Tax Policy Center then filled in the gaps with policy assumptions and crafted an analysis to fit its narrative and its analysis of a piece of legislation that had not even been written. The problem is that its narrative hasn't changed. The Finance Committee provided policy details that it should have used to change its narrative, but it still keeps with the same old rhetoric. I think even the Tax Policy Center would have to agree that the Finance Committee's product differs drastically from the underlying assumptions of its initial analysis.

I am going to try to explain what the Tax Policy Center says about the tax law that we ought to pass in comparison to our bill, and you will see that there seems to be a real closeness in some of the ideas that ought to be done that we get from the left that are in this bill, but they don't even recognize it.

The Finance Committee used all of the available tools it was granted under the unified framework to target more relief to middle-income taxpayers and retain the progressivity of the Tax Code. Let's take a look at some of the major features of the Finance's bill and how it provides relief for the Nation's middle-class and low-income earners.

First, it nearly doubles the standard deduction, which means that many lower income Americans will be removed from the tax rolls completely and that tax filing season will be simpler for millions more. Second, it doubles the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 and moderately increases its refundability. Both of these are made possible in large part by repealing personal exemptions. Personal exemptions for the taxpayer and spouse help to increase the standard deduction, and the personal exemptions for children help with increasing the child tax credit.

Interestingly enough, these provisions mirror a proposal that was put out by the leftwing Tax Policy Center in December of just last year. Nearly identical to the Finance bill, the very liberal Tax Policy Center's paper argued for repealing personal exemptions, nearly doubling the standard deduction, and increasing the child tax credit to $2,012. According to the authors of the liberal Tax Policy Center's proposal, such a change would ``reduce complexity, remove inequities, and mitigate marriage penalties.'' That is exactly what the bill before the Senate does, but they don't seem to recognize that. They sure wanted that as a goal last year.

The fact is that these changes provide more tax relief to the middle class and at the same time simplify the Tax Code. As the liberal Tax Policy Center's paper points out, the value of the personal exemption is largely dependent on the tax bracket of the taxpayer. The higher the tax bracket, the more benefit that comes from the personal exemption. In comparison, the child tax credit generally lowers a taxpayer's tax liability dollar for dollar regardless of the tax bracket. As a result, repealing the personal exemption

in favor of expanding the child tax credit makes the Tax Code more progressive and targets more relief to lower and middle-income taxpayers.

Admittedly, there are some differences between what was suggested by the liberal Tax Policy Center and what is in the bill before us. Its proposal would have been more generous on the refundable feature of the child tax credit, but on the opposite end, it would have made the child tax credit available to everyone, including to millionaires. The Finance's bill is less generous to the affluent because it phases out the credit for married taxpayers with incomes of over $500,000. One would think that those on the other side--meaning the Democratic Party--in their finding fault with this bill, would offer some credit for taking this rather progressive approach to providing family tax relief, but no. They continue repeating their line over and over that this bill is a tax cut for the wealthy.

Another major feature of the Finance's bill that provides relief to middle-class and lower income earners is the reduction of tax rates for middle-bracket taxpayers. First, it retains the 10-percent bracket, which many on the other side expressed concern about being repealed based on the Big Six framework. They were wrong in using the framework, but they have not admitted that.

Next, it lowers the current law's 15-percent bracket to 12 percent and expands its applicability.

Additionally, it reduces what is essentially the current law bracket of 25 percent down to 22 percent and what is essentially today's current law 28-percent bracket to a much wider 24-percent bracket. These rate reductions target tax relief to the very heart of America's middle class.

One may be wondering how this middle-class tax relief bill will be financed--largely by repealing the State and local tax deduction, also known as the SALT deduction. Our colleagues on the other side have tried to argue that the repealing of the State and local tax deduction is a tax increase on the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth in considering the reduced tax brackets, which I just discussed, in combination with the higher standard deduction and the doubled child tax credit.

The repeal of the State and local tax deduction is actually a very key piece of this legislation that makes the middle-class tax cuts possible. The State and local tax deduction overwhelmingly benefits the so-called wealthy, who our colleagues on the other side vehemently argue should receive no tax benefits under this bill.

I am going to tell you now how the liberal elements in this town see the State and local tax deduction as something that should have gone away anyway, and now they are complaining because we are doing away with it. Don't take my word for it. Here is what several partisan think tanks have said about the State and local tax deduction in the past.

According to the Tax Policy Center--remember that is the leftwing organization finding fault with the bill even before it was written-- about 40 percent of the State and local tax deduction benefit goes to taxpayers with incomes exceeding $500,000. So we do away with the State and local tax deduction because it benefits wealthy people, and they don't give us any credit for it.

Keep in mind that tax filers with incomes of half a million or more make up only about 1 percent of all tax filers, making it a very lopsided benefit. Here is what the very leftwing Center for American Progress has said about the State and local tax deduction:

The deduction for state and local taxes disproportionately

benefits high-income taxpayers, property owners, and

residents of high-tax states. That is because these groups

pay the most taxes at the state and local level. It also

benefits high-income taxpayers because any kind of deduction

is worth more to people in high tax brackets than in low tax

brackets.

I just finished quoting the Center for American Progress, which said that the State and local tax deduction ought to be done away with because it benefits wealthy people. Yet they complain to us that our tax bill is a tax benefit for the wealthy.

To further illustrate who eliminating the State and local tax benefit really hits, I would like to highlight a recent Bloomberg article entitled ``Tax-Hike Fears Trigger Talk of Exodus From Manhattan and Greenwich.'' This article is not about the concerns of middle-class police officers or teachers on repeal of the State and local tax deduction. Instead, it highlights concerns of wealthy hedge fund managers who may now consider moving out of the high-tax State of New York. The Bloomberg article states:

The problem for the Connecticut hedge-fund set--and, more

broadly, for a lot of the Wall Street crowd--is that

Republican proposals in both the House and Senate would drive

up taxes for many high-earners in the New York City area. By

eliminating the deduction for most state and local taxes, an

individual making a yearly salary of $1 million . . . would

owe the Internal Revenue Service an additional $21,000.

This legislation repeals that deduction and makes the person making a yearly salary of $1 million pay $21,000 more in taxes, and liberal groups are proposing doing away with it, and we put it in our bill so that we don't let these wealthy people get the benefit of the tax deduction, and they don't recognize it. So I ask my colleagues on the left: Are you prepared to go to bat over SALT deductions for millionaire hedge fund managers?

From listening to my Democratic colleagues' rhetoric, I am really surprised by this article. I thought Republicans were all about ``tax cuts for the wealthy'' and giveaways to Wall Street. But this article suggests otherwise. In fact, these types of taxpayers are likely to experience sizable tax hikes under the proposal on the Senate floor now.

According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, by 2023, nearly 30 percent of taxpayers with incomes exceeding $1 million will experience a tax hike. That does not sound like a giveaway to the wealthy to me.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate November as National Adoption Month. During this month, we are reminded of the importance of adoption to so many families and children in Iowa and all across the country. As Americans are celebrating the season of Thanksgiving with family and friends, adoptive families are celebrating with their new families, giving thanks for the joy of somebody they adopted.

Since the first recognition of National Adoption Day 16, 17 years ago, nearly 65,000 kids have been adopted on National Adoption Day, which is always celebrated on the Saturday before Thanksgiving each year. In 2016 alone, over 4,700 adoptions were finalized on National Adoption Day.

National Adoption Month is certainly a time to celebrate the joys of a new family; however, it is also a reminder of the obstacles that so many children may face. Nationally, there are over 425,000 children in foster care. Over 100,000 of these children are hoping to be adopted. In Iowa, there are about 1,000 kids in foster care who are eligible for adoption.

This year, the special focus of National Adoption Month is older youth waiting to be adopted. Teenagers, unfortunately, face more difficulty in being adopted than do younger children.

As cofounder and cochair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I have had the chance to hear directly from teenagers in foster care. In fact, our Senate Caucus on Foster Youth has a couple, three seminars every year just to listen to older youth in the foster care system, particularly those who are about ready to age out. These young people tell me that, more than anything else, they want a loving family. They tell me that they need families and that nobody is too old to be adopted. The support that parents provide to teens is critical to navigating the transition to adulthood--from making decisions about higher education to finding a job or buying a car. A loving family continually provides the support teens need to succeed.

Congress must continue to work toward policies that help make adoption a reality for our foster youth. We must work to ensure that all children, no matter their circumstances, have permanent, loving homes and consistent, caring adults in their lives. I am glad that the Senate preserved the adoption tax credit in the tax reform legislation, and I am hopeful that Congress will continue to work on policy that promotes adoption and improves the lives of those in foster care.

As National Adoption Month comes to an end tomorrow, I thank all of those who work to improve the lives of children. I thank advocates for children who tirelessly work to make adoption possible, and I thank adoptive parents and families for opening their hearts and homes.

Mr. President, today the Senate is voting to confirm Gregory Katsas to serve as U.S. circuit judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mr. Katsas's 28-year legal career has prepared him well to serve as a Federal judge. His nomination has garnered widespread support in the legal community.

Mr. Katsas graduated with his A.B. from Princeton University in 1986 and from Harvard Law School in 1989. After graduating from Harvard Law School, Mr. Katsas clerked for Judge Edward Becker on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and for Justice Clarence Thomas on the DC Circuit and on the U.S. Supreme Court. Following his clerkships, Mr. Katsas joined the DC office of Jones Day, where he worked in the issues and appeals section of their litigation group.

From to 2001 to 2006, Mr. Katsas served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division at the Department of Justice, where he argued, briefed, and supervised a number of significant appeals handled by the Federal Government. He then served as the Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General from 2006 to 2008 and the Acting Associate Attorney General from 2007 to 2008. In 2007, President Bush nominated Mr. Katsas to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division at the Department of Justice. The Senate confirmed him by voice vote in 2008, and he served in that role until the end of the Bush administration.

Mr. Katsas rejoined Jones Day as a partner in 2009, where he handled many important litigation matters. In January of this year, Mr. Katsas again left the private sector to serve the President as deputy counsel in the White House Counsel's office.

One only has to look at his professional record to understand how eminently qualified Mr. Katsas is to serve as a Federal appellate judge. Over the course of 28 years, Mr. Katsas has briefed hundreds of cases and argued more than 75 appeals, including three cases in the Supreme Court and 13 cases in the DC Circuit, the court to which he is nominated.

I am pleased to support Mr. Katsas's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation.

Mr. President, earlier this week, I spoke about the history of the blue-slip courtesy. I hope my colleagues will read that history as well. I explained in that speech earlier this week that in my nearly four decades in the Senate, I have regularly returned my blue slip even when I would have preferred that the President had nominated someone else.

Today, I am announcing that the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing for two circuit court nominees, each of whom has one home State Senator who has not returned a blue slip containing a positive endorsement.

The hearing for Justice David Stras, nominee to the Eighth Circuit, and Kyle Duncan, nominee to the Fifth Circuit, will take place on November 29. Both of these nominees appear to be very well qualified, and they deserve the Judiciary Committee's further consideration. I would therefore like to offer an explanation as to why I am choosing to proceed on these nominations and allow the hearing despite the lack of two positive blue slips.

As I explained earlier this week, the blue-slip courtesy is just that--a courtesy. For 100 years, the Judiciary Committee chairmen have asked for the views of home State Senators on judicial nominees via the blue-slip process. The blue slip is meant to solicit insights into nominees and ensure that the White House is adequately consulting with home State Senators as the advice part of the advice and consent would apply.

Let me be very clear. I will maintain the blue-slip courtesy, but some of my Democratic colleagues and leftwing outside groups mistakenly assert that the blue slip affords a home State Senator veto power over a nominee. That is not true. Only 2 out of the 18 previous chairmen of this committee in the last 100 years allowed a single Senator to wield veto power over a nominee.

Senator Joe Biden, when he was the Judiciary Committee chairman, articulated what I consider to be a sensible policy with regard to the blue slip. He said that a negative blue slip will be a ``significant factor'' for the committee to weigh, but ``it will not preclude consideration of a nominee'' unless the administration were to fail to consult with the Senator. I intend to follow this practice for negative and unreturned blue slips. This practice is consistent with the vast majority of the blue slip's history.

I will add that I am less likely to proceed on a district court nominee who does not have two positive blue slips from home State Senators, but circuit courts, as we know, cover multiple States. There is less reason to defer to the views of a single State's Senator for such nominees when that nominee is going to serve several States in a circuit.

It is important to remember that the judicial confirmation process has changed over the last several years. Previously, when home State Senators did not return a positive blue slip, their colleagues often defeated that very same nomination on the floor but not in committee.

When President Bush nominated Carolyn Kuhl to the Ninth Circuit, her home State Senators did not return positive blue slips. Chairman Hatch, nevertheless, held a hearing and a vote for that nominee. Her home State Senators, however, convinced their colleagues to filibuster the nominee on the Senate floor. Carolyn Kuhl was never confirmed.

A few years ago, as we know--I think it was in 2013--Democrats abolished the filibuster for nominees to the lower courts. They argued that a minority of Senators should not be allowed to block nominees who had majority support.

Our colleague, the Senator from Oregon, said: `` `Advice and consent' was never envisioned as a check that involved a minority of the Senate being able to block a Presidential [nomination].'' Well, now that Senator is withholding his blue slip for a nominee to the Ninth Circuit. If he did not believe that 41 Senators should be able to block a nominee, he surely wouldn't believe that a single Senator would have that right.

I think the Democrats now seriously regret that they abolished the filibuster, as I warned them about at that particular time when they were trying to add a lot of people who were not needed on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, as an example--packing the court, in other words. They cannot veto it because there is not a filibuster, so they want to use the blue slip for that purpose. It is very clear from the history of the blue slip that that is not what the blue slip was meant for.

On the other hand, some have argued that the blue-slip courtesy has no place in modern judicial confirmations. The LA Times recently suggested getting rid of the blue slip, as did the New York Times several years ago. Even our committee's ranking member, Senator Feinstein, once advocated for abolishing the blue slip.

I disagree that we should abolish the blue slip. The blue slip serves the important purpose of encouraging consultation between the White House and the Senate. Otherwise, the constitutional provision of advice and consent is just consent. But there is opportunity to advise ahead of time. That is what the blue slips help to do. The blue slip serves the important purpose of encouraging consultation between the White House and the Senate. The White House has an obligation to engage in good-faith consultation with home State Senators for the purpose of advice.

I will not allow the White House to just steamroll home State Senators, but, as I have said all along, I will not allow the blue-slip process to be abused. Ever since last November, when the press had asked me about the blue slip, I have said that we are going to honor the blue-slip process but that there are always exceptions. I am not going to allow Senators to prevent a committee hearing for political or ideological reasons. Those are the least reasons not to have a hearing. Using the blue slip for these purposes is not consistent with historical practice.

This brings me to one of the two nominations we are having on November 29, that of Justice David Stras of Minnesota.

Justice Stras appears to be exceptionally well qualified. He graduated first in his class from the University of Kansas Law School. He clerked for both the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit and then for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. After several years in private practice in Minnesota, Justice Stras joined the faculty of the University of Minnesota Law School. He remained there until his appointment to the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2010. In 2012, he was

elected to a full 6-year term on the court by 56 percent of Minnesota voters. Think about one's not returning a blue slip when somebody gets 56 percent of the vote to be returned to the court.

Justice Stras was raised by a single mother in Kansas. He is the grandson of Holocaust survivors. He carries the lessons passed down by his grandparents with him each day.

I want to refer to a writing he just submitted to a leading newspaper. Writing recently about their survival in Auschwitz and then immigrating to the United States, he recalled that his grandfather had ``the uncommon gift of being able to see the light of human generosity in the midst of near-total darkness.''

He wrote that his grandparents embraced ``a message of optimism, intended to ensure that their children and grandchildren were able to lead a life free from the atrocities that they had witnessed.''

Justice Stras has an impeccable reputation in the Minnesota legal community.

His former colleagues at the University of Minnesota Law School describe him as a person who ``engaged in debate respectfully, listening to opposing ideas while backing up his own views with facts and arguments'' and who ``wanted our students to be exposed to a wide range of beliefs.''

Another group of colleagues of Justice Stras from his days in private practice describe this justice as the type of attorney who ``never talked down to people'' and ``there was never any hint that he felt himself superior to anyone.'' Instead, Justice Stras ``listened to others' views, and worked to find an approach to legal problems that was both effective and acceptable to everyone on the team.'' They also note in that letter his dedication to mentoring young lawyers.

Despite these accomplishments and accolades, one Senator has withheld his blue slip. Evidently, my colleague from Minnesota believes that Justice Stras has not even earned a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But the reasons given for withholding the blue slip are not consistent with the blue slip's purposes and history.

Justice Stras was nominated to the Eighth Circuit on May 8, more than 6 months ago. After many months, my colleague formally announced that he would not return a blue slip. He cited Justice Stras's ``deeply conservative judicial philosophy,'' as well as his admiration for Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. To me, this amounts to an ideological litmus test: Admirers of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia need not ever apply for being on a circuit court.

The Minnesota StarTribune's editorial board summed it up. They said the Senator from Minnesota ``rejected Stras for one reason: the justice's conservative views.''

The editorial board of the largest newspaper in Minnesota echoed the retired justice, Paul Anderson:

While Stras is more conservative than I would like, that is

not the point. The question is whether Stras is qualified to

serve on the Eighth Circuit. And he is.

My colleague later claimed that he was not adequately consulted by the White House, which would be a legitimate reason for withholding a blue slip, as I hope I have implied several times during my remarks today and before. So I looked into this by reviewing the records of consultation--and thank God the White House keeps pretty good records. It is clear the White House earnestly and repeatedly attempted to work with both home State Senators. The White House reached out to my colleague from Minnesota several times between January and May of this year to discuss the Eighth Circuit vacancy that Minnesota supplies a member for.

It wasn't until May 2 that my colleague suggested alternatives to Justice Stras. That was more than 3 months after initial contact by the White House. Nevertheless, the White House did what they should under the Constitution by listening to Senators. They considered my colleague's two suggested nominees. I am satisfied that the White House adequately tried to consult with both home State Senators as the Constitution requires under advice and consent. Therefore, I am not going to deny Justice Stras a hearing.

I would like to say a brief word about Justice Stras's supposedly rigid conservative views. The Judiciary Committee has received numerous letters attesting to Justice Stras's intellectual honesty and, probably more importantly, open-mindedness. It is clear that he has great respect for the rule of law, and his tenure on the Minnesota Supreme Court demonstrates that, like any good judge, he is able to put aside his personal views and apply the law faithfully.

One letter, written by a bipartisan group of attorneys from Justice Stras's former firm, noted that they ``never doubted for a minute that he reached his decisions based on his well-considered view of the law, and not personal, political, or ideological considerations.''

They went on to note:

The lawyers whose names appear at the bottom of this letter

span the political spectrum, from Democrat to Republican,

liberal to conservative. We differ in our political views,

but we are united in our support of Justice Stras's

nomination to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

There are all kinds of people writing that letter--Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Why is a Senator concerned about the justice's ideological views when people who know him well seem to think that is not a consideration because he is going to make a good judge?

A group of former colleagues at the University of Minnesota agree. They wrote a letter to the committee stating:

We are Minnesota law professors with diverse political

views ranging from very conservative to very progressive.

Some of us have appeared before Justice Stras as advocates,

and all of us are familiar with his academic and judicial

track records.

Now as I continue the quote, I want to say to everybody, get this:

He is no extremist, and he has approached his academic and

judicial work without bias or favoritism.

This support is echoed by his colleagues in my State of Iowa. The committee has received several letters of support from the faculty at the University of Iowa College of Law where Justice Stras teaches as an adjunct professor. Among his supporters are the dean of the law school, Gail Agrawal, and Professor Sheldon Kurtz, a self-described ``life-long liberal.''

Justice Stras is a widely respected jurist, and he should have a hearing. Ideological differences should not prevent the committee from moving forward.

I would also like to address my decision to hold a hearing for Kyle Duncan, a nominee for the Fifth Circuit. He also has not had two positive blue slips returned. He is a widely respected appellate lawyer who has litigated over 30 cases in Federal and State appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

My friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy of Louisiana, has declined to return a positive blue slip. However, Senator Kennedy expressed that while he is undecided on Mr. Duncan's nomination, he does not oppose a hearing for Mr. Duncan. This seems to me to be a very sensible approach. It is the correct distinction that a Senator should make when deciding whether to return a blue slip. The blue slip is not meant to signify the Senator's ultimate support or opposition to the nominee. It only expresses a Senator's view about whether the nominee should have a hearing.

Senator Feinstein made this precise distinction in 2003 for Carolyn Kuhl's nomination. I referred to that nomination earlier in my remarks. Senator Feinstein returned a blue slip which noted that she ``reserved judgment'' on Carolyn Kuhl. She also supported holding a hearing for Judge Kuhl. Ultimately, after Judge Kuhl's hearing, Senator Feinstein decided to oppose confirmation.

Evidently, the hearing served a useful purpose, and Senator Feinstein was able to distinguish between allowing a hearing and supporting a nominee. Senator Kennedy has shown that he understands this distinction as well.

I look forward to hearing from Justice Stras and Mr. Duncan at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on November 29.

I think that all 100 Senators ought to look at the advice and consent clause. We have an opportunity to give advice to a President. We have an opportunity then, if that nominee comes up here, to vote for that nominee.

Do we want to preserve the ``advice'' part of advice and consent? If we do, I would suggest that we look at the blue slip as a useful tool for accomplishing a very important part of the process. If it is abused--at least while I am chairman, you don't have to worry about it going away. But if it is abused, someday it will go away, and then all we are going to have, when it is all said and done, is consent.

I yield the floor.

I thank the leader.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Abby Hollenstein and Laura Nowell, law clerks at the Judiciary Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Madam President, in the last several weeks, there has been a lot of discussion regarding the blue-slip courtesy that applies to judicial nominations. I want to take a moment to clarify a few things. My position hasn't changed. Like I said in November of last year, I intend to honor the blue-slip courtesy, but there have always been exceptions.

First, the blue slip has always been a Senatorial courtesy. It is premised on the idea that home State Senators are in a very good position to provide insights into a nominee from their State for the Federal judiciary. It is meant to encourage consultation between the White House and home State Senators about judicial nominations. That is why I value the blue-slip tradition and ask for the views of Senators on all nominees to courts from their respective States.

Throughout its history, the many chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee have applied this blue-slip courtesy differently. That is a chairman's prerogative. The chairman has the authority to decide how to apply the courtesy. Over the past 100 years, there have been 18 chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee who recognized the value of the blue-slip courtesy, but only 2 out of these 18 chairmen required both Senators to return positive blue slips before scheduling a hearing.

The practice of sending out blue slips to home State Senators started 100 years ago, in 1917. Chairman Charles Culberson started the blue- slip practice to solicit the opinions of home State Senators, but he did not require the return of two positive blue slips before the committee would proceed on a nominee. In fact, in the blue slip's very first year, Chairman Culberson held a hearing and a vote for a nominee who received a negative blue slip. His successors over the next nearly 40 years had the same policy. It was not until 1956 that the blue-slip policy changed under Chairman James Eastland, a Democrat from the State of Mississippi. Chairman Eastland began to require both home State Senators to return positive blue slips before holding a hearing and a vote.

Chairman Eastland, as history tells us, was well known for his segregationist views. Unfortunately, it is likely that he adopted a strict blue-slip policy to veto judicial nominees who favored school desegregation. This is what Villanova Law School Professor Tuan Samahon explained: ``When segregationist `Dixiecrat' Senator John Eastland chaired the Judiciary Committee, he endowed the blue slip with veto power to, among other things, keep Mississippi's federal judicial branch free of sympathizers with Brown v. Board of Education.''

After Chairman Eastland retired in 1979, Senator Kennedy became chairman. He got rid of Senator Eastland's policy. He didn't want a single Senator to be able to unilaterally veto a judicial nominee. Senator Kennedy's policy was that an unreturned or negative blue slip wouldn't prevent the committee from conducting a hearing on a nominee. Then along comes Senator Strom Thurmond, continuing this policy when he became chairman. So did Senator Joe Biden. So did Senator Orrin Hatch. Each of those chairmen allowed hearings for nominees who had negative or unreturned blue slips.

In 1989, Chairman Biden sent a letter to the White House articulating his blue-slip policy. This is what Chairman Biden wrote: ``The return of a negative blue slip will be a significant factor to be weighed by the committee in its evaluation of a judicial nominee, but it will not preclude consideration of that nominee unless the Administration has not consulted with both home State Senators prior to submitting the nomination to the Senate.''

Obviously, chairmen from both parties saw the danger of allowing one or two Senators to veto a nominee for political or ideological reasons. My predecessor, Chairman Leahy, reinstated Chairman Eastland's strict blue-slip policy. Some believe he did so in order to exert firmer control over the new Bush administration nominees, but even he said he wouldn't stand for Senators abusing the blue slip to delay or block nominees. Chairman Leahy said the blue-slip courtesy was ``meant to ensure that the home state Senators who know the needs of the courts in their state best are consulted and have the opportunity to make sure that the nominees are qualified'' and should not be ``abused simply to delay [the Committee's] ability to make progress filling vacancies.''

Chairman Leahy also said:

I assume no one will abuse the blue-slip process like some

have abused the use of the filibuster to block judicial

nominees on the floor of the Senate. As long as the blue-slip

process is not being abused by home-state Senators, then I

will see no reason to change that tradition.

As I have said all along, I will not allow the blue slip to be abused. I will not allow Senators to block nominees for political or ideological reasons. This position is consistent with the historical role of the blue-slip courtesy. It also matches my personal experience with the blue slip.

I am going to tell you about a personal experience I had when I first came to the U.S. Senate. In my first year in the Senate, a vacancy arose on the Eighth Circuit. At the time, I served with a Republican, my senior Senator from Iowa, Roger Jepsen, and we had a Republican President, Ronald Reagan. Senator Jepsen and I thought the nominee should be a State judge from Des Moines so we recommended his name to the White House--not like we do now in Iowa, submit two or three names, four names sometimes, for the President to pick from. In 1981, the White House decided they would like to consider another name for the vacancy. The other individual, Judge Fagg, was a State court judge in Iowa. The White House interviewed the judge who was supported by both Senator Grassley and Senator Jepsen along with having interviewed this other nominee.

President Reagan, ultimately, nominated the other nominee for the vacancy. He was not the person Senator Jepsen and I recommended, but the White House thought that he was better suited to the circuit court, and that ended up being the correct decision. Judge Fagg served with great distinction for more than two decades. Even though he was not our pick, Senator Jepsen and I returned our blue slips on the nominee. That was not unusual as more deference has always been given to the White House, particularly for circuit court nominees, which is different from district court nominees.

When Judge Fagg was nominated to the Eighth Circuit, both Senators from Iowa were Republicans, and the blue slip practice did not change when Senator Harkin, a Democrat, was elected to the Senate, succeeding Senator Jepsen.

Senator Harkin and I served together for 30 years, and we did not have any problems with judicial nominees. Generally, when there was a Republican

President, I sent a list of names to the President, and when there was a Democratic President, Senator Harkin sent a list of names to the White House. We served together for those 30 years and never had any problems with blue slips, not once.

During the Clinton administration, a vacancy arose on the Eighth Circuit. The White House nominated Bonnie Campbell for the court. Ms. Campbell was originally from New York and had previously worked for two Democratic Senators. For 6 years, she served as chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party. Ms. Campbell was elected as Iowa's attorney general after having defeated the Republican candidate. She also ran for Governor against Gov. Terry Branstad. After she lost that election, she was appointed by President Clinton to a position within the Department of Justice.

It happens that I liked Ms. Campbell very much. She was not the type of nominee I would have picked for the court, but that did not stop me from returning my blue slip.

Ms. Campbell was a controversial nominee. During the campaign for Governor, she was quoted discussing Christian conservatives. She said: ``I hate to call them Christian because I am Christian, and I hate to call them religious, because they're not, so I'll call them the radical right.''

Ms. Campbell had a very liberal record and had spent most of her career as a politician, and a lot of people did not want me to return her blue slip. So why did I return her blue slip? In the process, I was criticized extensively by the conservative base of my State of Iowa.

I did that because the blue slip is not supposed to allow the unilateral veto of a nominee. A Senator cannot use a blue slip to block a nominee simply because he or she does not like the nominee's politics or ideology. A Senator cannot use a blue slip to block a nominee because it is not the person the Senator would have picked.

The President gets to nominate judges. The White House should consult home State Senators, and it is important that they do so in a meaningful way. The White House may disagree with Senators and may determine that a different individual is more suited to serve on the circuit court, but so long as there is consultation, the President generally gets to make that call. So I will not let Senators abuse the blue slip to block qualified nominees for political or ideological reasons.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.