Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar Nos. 548 through 551 and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk; that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 654 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, December 18; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be

deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and proceed to the consideration of Calendar Nos. 241 and 193 under the previous order, en bloc, with the debate time on the nominations to run concurrently; finally, that at 5:30 p.m., the Senate vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order listed with no intervening action or debate.

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.

Madam President, this week, the Senate is continuing to consider President Trump's outstanding judicial nominees. Yesterday, we confirmed a talented individual to be a circuit court judge, and soon we will confirm another. Next, we will advance the nomination of James Ho to be a judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Ho is another well-qualified individual, and, like all of President Trump's judicial nominees, he is dedicated to upholding the rule of law and serving as an impartial arbiter on the bench.

Similar to Justice Willett, whom I discussed yesterday, Mr. Ho has an inspirational story. Immigrating to the United States from Taiwan at the age of 1, he learned English by watching ``Sesame Street.'' He went on to graduate from the University of Chicago Law School with high honors and earned a clerkship with Judge Jerry E. Smith of the Fifth Circuit. In 2001, Mr. Ho joined the Department of Justice as the Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and later worked in the Office of Legal Counsel. In addition to his service in the executive branch, he worked here in the Senate as chief counsel for the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution. Afterward, he went across the street to clerk for Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

After his distinguished and successful legal career in Washington, Mr. Ho returned to Texas, joining a top law firm and specializing in appellate litigation. He then served as the solicitor general of Texas, succeeding our colleague Senator Ted Cruz. It was while he was serving in that role that he won the Supreme Court Best Brief Award from the National Association of Attorneys General. He went on to earn the award two more times. After his time in State government, Mr. Ho returned to his private practice firm and currently serves as the cochair of its appellate and constitutional law group. He has presented oral arguments in State and Federal courts around the country, including the Supreme Court.

It is clear that Mr. Ho possesses impressive credentials, with the experience necessary to excel on the Fifth Circuit. He also earned the praise of prominent Democrats who believe he will make an excellent addition to the Federal court.

Ron Kirk, the Obama administration's Trade Representative and the former mayor of Dallas, supported Mr. Ho's nomination to the Judiciary Committee. He wrote:

Jim possesses the temperament, integrity, and intellect

that anyone, Republican or Democrat, should insist on in a

federal judge. He is wickedly smart, and is among the most

brilliant appellate lawyers in the United States. If there is

one thing that my liberal and conservative colleagues agree

on, it is that Jim just has it in his DNA to be a great

judge.

A Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights appointed by President Obama also recommended Mr. Ho in a letter to the Judiciary Committee. She knows him from his volunteer work with the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. She wrote that he ``has a strong reputation as an intelligent, reasonable, fair and principled lawyer.''

I would like to commend President Trump for another very strong nomination. I would also like to express my gratitude to Chairman Grassley and the members of the Judiciary Committee for their work to process the President's judicial nominees.

I look forward to advancing Mr. Ho's nomination soon.

Madam President, one of the great advances of our time has been the development and expansion of the internet and wireless technologies. The internet connects people across the globe in an unprecedented way. It brings together producers and consumers, students and educators, and even Members of the Senate with our constituents.

It is difficult to exaggerate the impact the internet has on our society

and our economy each and every day. Even a few decades ago, the technologies many of us take for granted today would have been totally unfathomable.

But the success of the Internet wasn't an accident. Today's internet--and all the incredible innovations that utilize it--aren't the product of unnecessary and burdensome government regulations that hindered growth. Instead, they were the direct result of a bipartisan desire to create an environment of advancement--one that utilized a light regulatory touch. Innovators were free to create and develop what they wanted to, without having to think about complying with overbearing Washington regulation.

As the internet grows, so does the United States. Our Nation has led the world in internet technology, and citizens throughout the country and the world have enjoyed the benefits.

However, the previous administration seemed bent on subjecting the internet to a whole host of new regulations--rules designed in the age of the rotary phone and rooted in the railroad era of the 1800s. Through unprecedented government overreach, the Obama administration argued that this change would fix a problem. But there wasn't a problem that needed fixing.

Therefore at the behest of President Obama in 2015, the partisan majority at the Federal Communications Commission rejected our decades- old approach and reclassified broadband internet access. This overreach subjected it to new burdens and regulations and threatened the marketplace freedom and innovation that brought us the internet we have come to know today.

It shouldn't shock any of my colleagues to hear that an increase in burdensome regulations created uncertainty for businesses of all sizes and negatively impacted investment. In the last 2 years, broadband investment has suffered a serious decline, even though many Americans, including large numbers in rural States like Kentucky, lack access to crucial internet services at home.

Earlier this year, President Trump changed direction from the previous administration. He elevated Ajit Pai to serve as the Chairman of the FCC, and tomorrow, the Commission will vote to repeal the misguided 2015 rule.

Chairman Pai submitted a proposal to restore freedom to the internet and to classify broadband internet access once again as an information service, just like it was until 2015.

When the FCC votes tomorrow, they will be voting to return the internet to a consumer-driven marketplace free of innovation-stifling regulations.

Opponents of Chairman Pai's plan have expressed their concerns about unfair or disruptive business practices that may hurt consumers' access to the internet. However, his proposal will actually restore the Federal Trade Commission's authority to protect consumers and police companies that engage in unfair practices.

Chairman Pai's proposal will also require internet service providers to clearly disclose how they treat their customers' data so that consumers can choose the services that are right for them.

I look forward to their vote in support of the open internet and to Congress's actions in the future to keep the internet open for consumers in a lasting way.

Before I continue onto another matter, I feel that it is necessary to take a moment to discuss the vitriolic and divisive debate over this topic.

As my colleagues know, I am a strong defender of political speech, and I have fought for decades to protect the rights of all Americans to question government policies. However, the discussion on this issue took on a new tone. While the First Amendment protects political speech, it is no excuse for bad conduct.

Instead of debating the effects of a proposal, some of the far left engaged in personal attacks, even going as low as to promulgate attacks citing Chairman Pai's children. This type of behavior does nothing to elevate our Nation's discourse or forward a particular policy. I hope that we can all agree that this type of harassment deserves universal condemnation.

Now, on another matter, Madam President, over the last eight years, our foreign policy was guided by a Commander in Chief who wished to draw down conventional military power from across the globe. Iran, China, and Russia have sought to fill this vacuum and exploit the perception that America was withdrawing.

This Republican Congress has made a commitment to work with President Trump to rebuild our military and give our men and women in uniform the resources they need to face the challenges of a dangerous world.

We know there is more work to do in restoring our military's combat readiness and meeting the full needs of the force. Earlier this year, we passed a funding measure that was an important departure from the Obama years.

The President has renewed our commitment to Afghanistan, and is trying to train and equip a force that can meet the daunting challenge posed by North Korea.

To begin rebuilding our military, we ignored the Obama-era demand that any increase in defense funding must be equally matched to nondefense increases. We did that earlier this year, and we must do it once again.

As we continue to discuss a plan to fund the government, we must prioritize efforts to provide for our warfighters. The Defense Department suffered a disproportionate reduction under the Budget Control Act--one that has real consequences for readiness. If we are not able to come to a funding agreement, our military--and many other critical functions of the Federal Government--will suffer intolerable budget cuts next year.

I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will work with us in a serious manner to make sure that we are able to responsibly fund the government so that our military has the tools it needs to keep us safe.

Now, on one final matter, Madam President, later today, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act conference committee will host an open meeting to discuss its progress in resolving the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

The conferees have been working diligently to produce a report that both Chambers can vote on soon. Once they complete their work, Congress will be able to fulfill our commitment to the American people and deliver real tax reform.

For too long, the hardworking men and women of Kentucky and our Nation have endured a struggling economy and a broken tax code. Rates are too high. The structure is too complicated to understand, and it is too easy for the wealthy and the well-connected to exploit. Incentives are so nonsensical that some actually encourage corporations to ship American jobs overseas.

It is time for a change. Passing pro-family and pro-growth tax reform is the single most important action we can take right now to grow our economy and help the middle class get ahead.

Families deserve a tax system that works for them; and along with President Trump and his team, this Republican-led Congress is working to deliver. This is our chance to set a new course--to undo the damage that our outdated Tax Code has inflicted on the economy over the last decade.

For the Americans who were left behind by the Obama economy, this is our opportunity to provide relief. We want to make your taxes lower, simpler, and fairer. We want to bring investment and jobs back home and keep them here. The bottom line is this: We want to take more money out of Washington's pocket and put more money into the pockets of the middle class. I am confident the conference committee will finalize a bill that does just that.

It will also repeal ObamaCare's individual mandate tax, delivering relief to low- and middle-income Americans who have struggled under an unpopular and unworkable law.

In addition to this once-in-a-generation tax relief, our legislation will also provide for our Nation's energy future. By further developing Alaska's oil and gas potential, this bill will help create jobs, support energy independence, and promote our national security.

The forthcoming conference report represents our chance to provide a real

benefit to families and small businesses across the Nation. I am grateful to the members of the conference committee for their hard work to resolve the differences between the two bills. I look forward to voting for the final product soon.

Mr. President, 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. 193, the nomination of Owen West to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense. I further ask that there be 30 minutes of debate on the nomination, equally divided in the usual form; 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 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. 241, the nomination of J. Paul Compton to be General Counsel of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I further ask that there be 120 minutes of debate on the nomination, equally divided in the usual form; 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 the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, December 14; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Ho nomination; finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on the Ho nomination.

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, following the remarks of our Democratic colleagues.

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate advanced the nomination of Mr. Leonard Steven Grasz to be a judge on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Grasz has sterling credentials and strong support from the Nebraska legal community. I proudly voted to advance his nomination, and the Senate will confirm him soon.

Next, we will vote to advance the nomination of another well- qualified individual, Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett, to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Willett respects the rule of law and our foundational legal principles, and he will be a strong addition to the Fifth Circuit.

His story is an inspirational one. Adopted at a young age and raised by a widowed mother in a town of 32 people, he was the first person in his family to graduate from high school. As our colleague Senator Cornyn said at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, ``Justice Willett's life [reflects] the best of Texas, and the best of America.''

From these humble beginnings, Justice Willett has led a remarkable career. After graduating from Duke School of Law, he clerked for Judge Jerre Williams of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the panel he has now been nominated to join.

He spent a short time in private practice before entering public service in then-Gov. George W. Bush's administration as a legal and policy adviser. When President Bush entered the White House, Justice Willett joined him as the Special Assistant to the President. In that role, he helped shape the domestic legal policy of the Bush administration, especially in the President's efforts to increase charitable activities in neighborhoods across the Nation.

The next year, he became Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy. There, he oversaw both civil and criminal policy initiatives, including what became the PROTECT Act of 2003, which increased law enforcement's ability to prevent and prosecute violent crimes against children.

Afterward, Justice Willett returned to Texas to serve as the Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel. As the top legal aide to then- Attorney General Greg Abbott, he advised the office on a wide variety of legal matters.

In 2005, he was appointed to serve as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. Elected to a full term in 2006 and reelected in 2012, Justice Willett has served with distinction on the Texas high court now for over a decade. During that time, he has ruled fairly and impartially.

Four of his former colleagues on the Texas Supreme Court wrote a letter to the Judiciary Committee supporting Justice Willett's nomination. They wrote, ``His demonstrated belief is that the courts should enforce both constitutional rights and constitutional limitations and uphold the rule of law, but not enforce a personal agenda.''

``On occasion,'' they continued, ``we did not agree with each other or with

him on the disposition of an appeal but we respected Don's opinions and never doubted his devotion to principle.''

In addition, the retired Texas Supreme Court justice, Wallace Jefferson, recommended Justice Willett's nomination, writing that he will be ``a thoughtful, hardworking, diligent, and influential member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.''

Justice Willett has also been recognized for his excellence by the Texas Review of Law and Politics, which named him its Distinguished Jurist of the Year in 2014.

I would like to commend President Trump for nominating Justice Willett to the Fifth Circuit. Under Chairman Grassley's leadership, the Judiciary Committee has done an excellent job processing this nomination and many others.

By joining the Fifth Circuit, Justice Willett will use his talents to continue to serve his State and his Nation. I look forward to advancing his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me in doing so.