tv U.S. Senate Debates Judicial Nomination CSPAN July 19, 2017 4:02pm-5:35pm EDT
>> the question is a green on the amendment offered by ms. lee. all those in favor say aye. expired. >> the amendment offered by miss lee. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed, no. >> no. >> in the vote, the nos have it. we will postpone the >> border security and immigration modernization act . >> the 2018 budget market is expected to last until late, watch it live on c-span3 or c-span.org. leaving it here for the senate which is in recess for a briefing on isis by defense secretary jamesmattis . >>
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, each michigander i talk to has their own unique hopes and dreams, but some aspects of the american dream are truly universitial. financial security, the opportunity for your children to grow and prosper and for a dignified retirement. mr. peters: we know there are almost limitless paths to achieved these shared goals.
for my parents' generation, this often meant a fair day's pay for a day of hard work, a wage that grew steadily over time and perhaps a pension that could support a comfortable retirement and even the money to help with college tuition for your children. for small business owners, the path could mean bootstrapping a business from scratch, scraping by at first, building a business that had a good product, and did the right thing by your employees and then grow into a profitable business. but in today's economy, for so many people the connection between today's hard work and tomorrow's economic security isn't always so clear. new entrants into our work force are increasingly unlikely to have a pension that they can rely on for retirement. we're also seeing an entire generation of business owners rapidly approaching retirement after spending a lifetime building their businesses.
we have a younger generation of employees who are increasingly disconnected from their employers and an older generation of entrepreneurs who are trying to figure out how to retire without disrupting their successful business. actually, i see this as a unique opportunity to solve two problems at once. the employee ownership model, including employee stock ownership plans, better known as esops, allows the employees of a company to become partial owners. aesop plans which are created as heads of family who run small businesses look to retire create employee owners who have a real stake in their company that they have dedicated their career to. for both management and employees, aesops mean that their goals are aligned, a growing, sustainable company that gives a shot at prosperity for everyone from the highest ranking employee to middle-level
managers to the front office staff. for both business owners and employees, the proven benefits of the aesop model is clear. employee owners have higher wages, more job stability, higher net worth and larger retirement accounts than nonemployee owners in a similar company. for entrepreneurs who want to see the company they build continue to thrive after they are gone, research has shown that businesses see their sales grow faster in the years following their conversion to employee ownership. the data is clear about what employee ownership means for a company's bottom line and for workers' performance. when i have a chance to visit employee-owned businesses, the benefits are as clear as day. last year on the first day of my motorcycle tour across michigan, i visited smar smarttruck u.s.aa
distributor in cold water that makes world class parts. sport truck u.s.a. wasn't just proud of their offroad products. they were also proud of their achievement as an employee-owned business. i met a long-time front office employee who had a retirement account worth upwards of $1 million. i met a warehouse worker who did as well. and they were both very happy to show up to work every day. with sport trucks so -- sold in 2014, the esop model ensured that their employee owners had a say on whether to approve the sale and fully compensated them for when it went through. sport truck u.s.a. is a great success story, but for many businesses the idea of an employee-owned transition is simply not on their radar. despite having been enshrined into law by congress in 1974 for
many business owners and employees, the esop model is not well known or understood. and before an esop transition can take place, there could be months or sometimes even years of preparation and planning that has to take place. but it's clear the more people that are aware of their options for employee ownership, the more businesses that will decide that this is the path that they want to take. and there's now bipartisan agreement that congress can take steps to help businesses find the awareness and the support that they need to make this a reality. and that's why i recently introduced bipartisan legislation with the chairman of the small business committee, senator risch, our small business employee ownership enhancement plan will increase awareness and provide technical assistance for the creation of esops and other employee ownership models. we do this by empowering the business experts at score, the
nonprofit small business counseling association to provide information about employee ownership. many of these counselors participated in esops themselves and can speak to their benefits and what it takes to transition to this structure. as a partner of the small business administration, score and their volunteers are on the ground in communities across our country, and i believe that they will help create the next generation of employee owners. increasing awareness of esops is a vital first step, and i'm committed to finding new ways to provide resources to businesses and employees as they transition to employee ownership. but for michiganders that are looking to secure their future, building awareness of the esop model can help make this critical transition. mr. president, the small business employee ownership enhancement act will help successful small business owners
retire with the peace of mind that their legacy will be carried on by the employees that they hired, mentored, and developed over the years. it will help businesses invest in their employees and employees invest in their business. when too many americans family like they're being left behind, employee ownership lifts up employees and gives them a real stake in their company and the opportunity to prosper and achieve their version of the american dream. mr. president, i yield the floor -- or, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. coons --. mr. coons: i come to the floor to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: i come to oppose the nomination of john bush to serve on the sixth circuit court of appeals. he has not demonstrated the civility, the temperament and the judgment that are the most basic requirements to be a judge on a u.s. federal circuit court. i also have some concerns with
mr. bush's legal philosophy. at mr. bush's confirmation hearing, i asked questions about his interpretation of due process and the right to privacy. these constitutional rights protect the freedoms that are the linchpin of our modern, diverse, inclusive society. they impact real people. but my concerns about mr. bush extend far beyond disagreements about legal philosophy. i worry more deeply about his judgment and temperament. he has published statements that demonstrate not just a lack of judgment and temperament, but also a fundamental lack of civility and decency. there are many examples which id read. he referred to the first female speaker of the house as mama pelosi and said she should be gagged. he depicted a threat that obama supporters stealing a campaign sign would, and i quote, find out what the second amendment is
all about. he chose to repeat the use of a well-known anti-gay slur in a speech he gave. and all of this was not while he was in middle school or high school, but after he had been practicing law more than 15 years. there is much more i could cite cite, some of it more offensive and more derogatory. mr. president, these are not the statements of someone fit to serve on a federal circuit court bench. don't get me wrong, mr. bush has every right to put these views out into the world, even now over in the senate office buildings, there are folks exercising their first amendment rights, protesting and in some cases being arrested today, expressing strongly their feelings. and i'm sure some of them are saying things that are forceful, vigorous, even perhaps personally offensive to members of the senate as they are protesting. but the vote this body will take on the nomination of mr. bush
isn't about his first amendment rights. it's about whether he's capable of conducting himself -- of conducting himself in a civil way such that he can give fair treatment to all litigants who come before his court. our vote isn't about mr. bush's own constitutional rights of free expwretion. -- expression. its about upholding americans rights in courts when litigants stand before him. mr. bush's judgment and his repeated choice to utilize not just negative, not just provocative, but inflammatory and derogatory language when expressing himself do not suggest to me that he's capable of the fairness, civility and impartiality we expect. mr. president, mr. bush owns the reputation he has built for himself in many speeches, op-eds, blogs and newsletters. and i heard very little in the
way of disavowing these prior statements at his confirmation hearing, suggesting that he either stands by them, doesn't see what's wrong with them, or simply doesn't care. i'm not sure which is worse, but to me, each of these is disqualifying. my republican colleagues have reservations about this nominee interpreting the law for years to come, i hope you'll deliver that message with your vote here on the floor. mr. president, i haven't shied away from supporting president trump's p nominees when i believe they are fully qualified for the job, even when their politics have sharply diverged from my own. but this case isn't about partisan politics. the senate should not be a rubber stamp for nominees of any president, of any political party. we must guard the balance of power and the integrity of the
federal judiciary as an unbiased and fair-minded institution. president trump has more than 100 judicial vacancies to fill. and if we don't demand any other standard to the white house, then this, this problem will extend beyond the nomination of mr. bush to this circuit court seat and the precious, the vital reputation of our federal judiciary will be damaged as a result. i pray we do not reach that outcome. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, the -- some really big things are happening right now that are going under the radar, and people are not aware of it. but one of them is the fact that the obama war on fossil fuels is officially over now, and good
things are happening. this coincides with the time when we have a shale revolution. we have a situation where we are actually having -- reviving an industry that has been pushed for the last eight years. the oil and gas accounts for over 5% of the jobs in the entire country, accounts for over $1 trillion of economic impact in the u.s.'s gross domestic product. in my state of oklahoma, the industry directly employs nearly 150,000 people, and each of those jobs support more than two additional jobs in the state. and thanks to, for the election of, to the election of president trump, help has arrived. there are some very vocal sectors in america that want to put the fossil fuel industry out of business. we know that. they're out there. they're alive and well. and the attacks will keep coming. and while most inroads were made
toward that goal during the obama administration, the environmental extremists will continue to use our court system and the media to ensure that the war on fossil fuels continues, putting american jobs and the economy at risk. and -- well, back in oklahoma, it's kind of funny. i established a policy for the last 20 years that every year -- at the end of every week i will either, if i don't have to be in afghanistan or someplace, i'm always back in the state. i'm never here. i've been in aviation for many years, so i get one of my airplanes, get to travel around the state, and talk to people, real people, and people don't understand this. you don't get logical questions asked or responded to here in washington. they'll say, for example -- and this happened early in the obama administration. they would come up to me and say, all right, explain this to me, inhofe.
we have a president who has a war on fossil fuels, trying to do away with fossil fuels. he doesn't like nuclear either. and yet, it's nuclear and fossil fuels, which is oil and gas and -- accounts for 89% of the energy it takes to run this machine called america. so if he's successful, how do you run the machine called america? the answer is you can't. with the election of a republican-led congress and a republican-led white house, we should be working together to address concerns of the industries that provide cheap, reliable fuel for american energy. unfortunately, as what always seems to be the case when we're in power, republicans can't seem to get together and work toward a common goal, dividing themselves over some of the issues, and this health care thing is no better example that we have. but the threat against the industry, the fossil fuels, should be a priority to all republicans and democrats,
whether or not they come from a state that's dependent on these resources for jobs, because cheaper and more reliable energy is an issue that affects all americans, helping them to get to work and heat their homes, to cook their meals. yet we already have examples of republicans not working together to defeat threats to our energy sector. we -- we only had one c.r.a. vote to fail, and that was the one on the b.l.m. venting and flaring rule. it was held up by some of the republicans who want to expand a mandate that they already have, and that is the renewable fuel standard, and it was ultimately defeated by another republican. now, that was one that the oil and gas industry would consider to be one of the real key regulations that was imposed by president obama and that needed to be released. and by the way, we have -- if anyone's interested in my office, we have accumulated all
47 of the regulations that this administration has either had -- is in the process of doing away with or have done away with, and these are the things that are putting people out of business. so some good things are happening right now. we know that the programs that were created at a time in our history when we were dependent on foreign oil or when our energy production at home was received, and that's all changed. some of you might not be old enough to remember, i am, but back in the early 1970's, opec opec -- remember opec in the middle east, retaliated against us for helping israel against egypt and syria in the yom kippur invasion by imposing an oil embargo, and this resulted in long lines of cars at the pumps and in rationing was
pretty traumatic. in the late 1970's, unrest in the middle east again disrupted the oil market, once again causing shortages and prices to skyrocket. the corporate average fuel economy, the cafe standards as we call them, the cafe standards program was created during this time of uncertainty in the oil and gas market when we were dependent on oil from the middle east, but the bleak future that we are facing -- we were facing at that time didn't happen. it wasn't the end of the world as they said it was going to be. in fact, just the opposite happened. the united states is no longer dependent on foreign sources for oil and gas and is in the position to export our resources and provide for a better security for us here. i was very proud of the president the other day when he was in poland, he made the speech, he talked about -- and this is with putin right there -- talked about the fact that we are going to start exporting our oil and gas, we're
already doing it now in some of these former satellite countries of the soviet union and other countries, where they want to import from us, but they have had iran and -- iran and russia have had a lot on the exports, and so they are forced to be dependent on that. that's not the case anymore. i have to say this parenthetically that anyone who believes that this president was trying to cater to putin at any time, for him to stand up and say we're going to be the ones who are exporting instead of russia when russia is dependent upon -- for their economy is dependent upon their exports. so that's actually happening right now. well, the cost of cars went up even though that didn't work. the cafe standards were supposed to have -- were there by government officials who thought they could force the public into smaller cars and mileage and all
that. that's not the way the american people responded. the cost of cars did go up $3,800 per vehicle in dwict, just from -- in 2016, just from their standards that were put together in 2016. and when that happened, the -- that was significant, but it didn't change the behavior of the american people. so any small benefit of new standards estimated at .007 degrees by 2100 is outweighed by the fact that consumers are doing something different than the government predicted. i'm happy about that. which always seems to be the case when government starts messing with industry. and none of this touches the effect the california waiver has on the fuel economy debate and the consumer market. if california and the states that have followed had their
way, liquid fuels would be phased out altogether, consumer demand and prices, they wouldn't really matter. so another way that congress has tried to manipulate the fueling market is when the energy future was uncertain is through the renewable fuel standards. i know this is not a partisan issue because it's really more a geographical issue. you get the people up in the core area, they are very strongly supportive of the renewable fuel standards and other people are not. so it's not a partisan thing as most of the things we talk about on the floor of the senate are. in 2005, and then expanded in 2007 despite my best efforts, the r.f.s. was created to address decreased energy production at home and to decrease carbon dioxide emissions. however, when the shale
revolution -- our dependency on foreign energy has stopped, the more we learned about core ethanol and the more we know the r.f.s. has not been the environmental solution as it was sold to us. i always remember when al gore -- he's the guy, in case you forget. it's been a while. he invented ethanol, in case you forget. that was supposed to solve all the problems out there, until al gore realized that the environmental community that motivated him to get involved in this issue came back and said no, that's the worst thing in the world for the environment. so he had to back down. and then land is increasingly set aside for the production of corn to feed the mandate. the more corn that is diverted to ethanol production, the less there is for our food consumption and for ranchers who need corn to feed their live stock and making the cost of
our food rise. so that's another major issue that nobody talks about anymore. fuels with corn ethanol are less efficient than gasoline diesel by 27%, so while consumers may pay less at the pump than conventional fuel, they're coming back to the pump more often, and the math works out, it costs them more. so this also translates into more greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere to make up for the efficiency lost in using corn ethanol. oklahomans know this and demand for clear gas -- yeah, put that chart up. you will enjoy this. i call attention to the chair. this is very common in oklahoma. i actually took this picture myself because people know, number one, it's bad for the environment. number two, it's not good for mileage. number three, it destroys small engines. and so in oklahoma, this is what you see see see in almost every community. they know the demand for clear
gas, that's the gas that doesn't have any of the additives, remains high in my state. in fact, retailers in oklahoma just continue to -- to advertise it. and they also don't like corn ethanol because they understand it's not good for their engines. we have heard testimony from people from in the small engine, outboard motors and those things talking about how they are quite often sued and then they have to defend the thing because the damage was actually caused by the -- by the ethanol as opposed to the manufacturer. well, ethanol supporters claim the warning labels on the pump is sufficient to alert customers, but studies show consumers make fueling choices by prices and have ruined boat small engines, causing manufacturers and retailers to invest in a nationwide campaign to prevent misfueling.
furthermore, the mandate is not living up to its promises of advancing biofuels. in fact, over the last five years, the e.p.a. has had to lower the total renewable fuel volume requirements to amounts below the statutory requirements because advanced biofuels have not been developed in the capacity drafters of the r.f.s. have hoped, ion with the -- even with the mandate. to comply with the r.f.s., we have become very relightning on foreign imports of soybeans and ethanol from south america to count toward r.f.s., the exact opposite of what the mandate was supposed to prevent in the first place. meanwhile, supporters of the r.f.s. want more. they want a waiver for even higher ethanol levels in gas. currently gas with 13% ethanol or higher can't be sold during the hot summer months because of its negative effect on ambient air quality. ethanol supporters want a waiver now so that e-15 and higher can
be sold year-round. right now it can't be sold during the hot et cetera summer months for obvious reasons. with all the problems with the r.f.s., we should not give them this waiver without addressing the larger issue with the program. now, between cafe and r.f.s., the fuel industry had its hands full. but the war is being waged on all fronts, and i will continue to work with every fiber of my being to make sure that doesn't happen. there are no guarantees that the next administration after president trump would not return to the regulate to death plans of the obama administration. i'm not talking about the war on fossil fuels. we need to work together to address the regulations that we were not able to with the c.r.a. process. i will work -- and by the way, the c.r.a. process is the one congressional review act. it's one of the two ways you can
minimize or eliminate onerous regulations, and it's been very effective. as i said, the only -- the flare-up mandate was the only one that has not been successful. all the rest of the c.r.a.'s have been successful. it's kind of funny, we went 20 years using it effectively once in 20 years. we have used it 47 times now. so times have changed. anyway, we're going to work with our colleagues to get as much as we can on any legislation that looks like it might be moving, both in my committees in jurisdiction and on the senate floor. any regulation that is a threat to the energy sector should be addressed, so we will find ourselves in the situation of hoping for favorable court rulings again, which is what we relied on before. there are many regulations that threaten the availability of cheaper energy. i will be pursuing any means available to address it. from the waters of the united states rule -- and by the way, that rule, when you talk to the farmers and the ranchers around the country and you say, you
know, what are the major problems, they say it's nothing that is found in the farm bill. it's the overregulation by the e.p.a. which one regulation did they single out as being the one that is the most serious one, and that is the waters of the united states? in my state of oklahoma, we have out in the panhandle, it's a very arid area. if we change the jurisdiction from the states to the federal government, i'm sure that would become some type of a serious problem with all the water that is not out there. but anyway, we had the waters of the united states, the clean power plan, the e.p.a., the b.l.m. methane rules fixing compliance issues with most recently the next standards. also i will be pursuing ways to amend the r.f.s. and the cafe programs from rescinding the california waiver that drives cafe issues and harmonizing the e.p.a.-d.o.t. rule maker to reforms of the r.f.s.
programming, including requiring any e-15 or higher blend be tied to the commercial availability of sell iew lossity -- sell lossity ethanol or requiring certain criteria to be reached before the e-15 waiver is triggered. there are many ways looking to address the issue. i am looking forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that not only is the environment protected but that the entire fuel industry is as well and that we have available fuel. the latest battle on fossil fuels is one with the election of president trump, but the war is still being waged, and i will continue to defend that industry and any industry that employs that number of people and provides cheap energy for americans. again, the question that i got back in oklahoma, where the real people are, i might add, was if
the obama administration had been successful and we're dependent upon the very thing he was trying to do away with for 89% of the industry, how do we run the machine called america? the answer is we can't. with that, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
oregon. the nation's courts are intended to be run by men and women with scholarly reflection with the temperament to put aside their own feelings and biases and consider the facts of the case before them in order to make the best judgments possible. men and women should have a judiciary that respects our constitutional rights. i'm sorry to say that the nominee before us for the sixth circuit court of appeals does not meet that standard. this man is not fit to sit on the bench. after a long series of blog posts under a pseudonym, john bush does -- have sat. mr. bush himself acknowledged during his confirmation hearing
that, quote, many of the blog posts use flippant or intem per ant language. but it wasn't just flippant ang wage -- language. he wrote in an extreme right-wing partisan fashion his confirmation would threaten women's rights, the rights of lgbtq americans, it would threaten americans' voting rights, to -- it would threaten issue after issue, topic after topic of the rights embedded in our constitution. let's take just a few moments to look at his words and his record. let's look first at women's rights and the extreme views on this issue that he has held. in 1993 he filed an amicus brief
of not admitting women, saying, this does not appear to be compatible with the developmental needs of most young women. basically indicating that young women cannot handle the same rigors as men or serve in the same capacity as men. certainly a myth that has been shatter time and time again, but is locked into an 1800's view of the world. i know that my daughter, i know that her friends, i know that my colleagues who serve here in the chamber don't believe a woman in serving in the same roles that a man can. there was a log post about a women's right to choose with slavery. he wrote, slavery and abortion, based on similar reasoning and activist justices at the u.s.
supreme court, first in the dred scott decision and later in rowe. it is hard to imagine how an individual takes the extraordinary human condition of slavery and the lack of freedom involved in that and compares it to a woman making decisions with the advice of her own doctor about her own body. one is slavery, one is freedom. clearly not the same thing. how could any woman walking into his courtroom believe that they would get a fair hearing with his extreme anti-women views? for that matter, mr. bush's words and actions call into question whether he would abide and uphold a precedent that is far more recent, that is the rights of the lgbtq. the supreme court held that
same-sex couples enjoy the fundamental right to marry. yet mr. bush repeatedly demonstrated insensitivity and contempt for the rights of the lgbtq community. in 2005 he gave a speech to a private club in louisville, and he apparently wanted to bond with his audience by saying something about the town of louisville, something he found positive. and so he chose to use a quote related to hunter thompson to describe louisville, a quote using a derog tif term -- derog tif term for gay men. he recites the words of a man who said, quote, i come here every year and let me tell you one thing i've learned. this is now town to be giving people an impression you're some kind of -- fill in the derogatory word, the pejorative for gay men. of all the possible quotes that
this individual could choose to create a bond between himself and his audience in louisville, he chooses to attack the lgbtq community. now, he could have chosen any of a number of quotes. a member of my team did a very quick look and in moments they found a quote from the great frontiersman daniel boone saying, quote, soon after i returned home to my family with the determination to bring them as soon as possible to live in kentucky, which i esteemed as second paradise. well, that would be a nice thing to describe about kentucky, about connection to your audience in louisville rather than describing a set of characteristics of hatred and discrimination. but that's where this nominee comes from full of his vial opinions about women and about a
range spectrum of people in our nation. so much for opportunity for all in the united states of america. the following year he coauthored a paper criticizing the kentucky supreme court decisions regarding the right to privacy, specifically focusing on lgbtq communities. then a couple of years later when the state department's updating passport applications, he ridiculed the effort to accommodate lgbtq community in one of his posts. at a time when we should be continuing to push our country forward towards ensuring the community enjoys a full measure of equality they're entitled to under our constitution and the 1964 civil rights act, confirming john bush to be a federal judge would certainly walk back many of the gains that so many have made. and then there are -- is his opinion of money in politics.
our constitution starts with those beautiful three words, we the people. not we the powerful who can spend billions of dollars in third-party campaigns to have a mega phone the size of a stadium sound system. no. in fact, jefferson said for us to really secure the will of the people, the individuals have to have essentially an equal voice, but this individual who is before us today doesn't like that whole concept of equal voice. he doesn't like the mission statement of the constitution of the united states of america. he wants government by and for the powerful and the privileged and nothing less. therefore, he should go and serve in some foreign country that doesn't have a vision of government of, by, and for the people. but he certainly doesn't belong here in our court system in the united states of america.
there's so much more that people have described. his writing in support of the -- at last summer's republican convention or his trafficking in birthism and more and more and more. i will be verimently -- vehemently opposing this confirmation. i urge my colleagues to do the same. let's fight for the vision. let's fight for the we the people mission on which our constitution was founded. and we have the responsibility to uphold. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: so far senate republicans have selected a long list of wall street insiders, corporate c.e.o.'s, radicallists and right-wing ideologues to run the federal government. but the republicans haven't stopped there. they're also working to fill vacancies on the courts with the
same kind of people. nominees who reflect pro-corporate radically conservative views that will threaten the principle of equal justice under law. and that's no coincidence. powerful right-wing groups have had their sights set on the courts for decades. over the past eight years they have launched a relentless campaign to capture our courts. during the obama administration, a key part of their strategy was stopping fair, main street nominees with diverse professional backgrounds from becoming judges. and our federal courts suffered the consequences. vacancies sat open for months. they sat open for years and cases piled up on the desks of overworked judges. but now president trump is in the white house and senate republicans are in control of the senate, and those powerful interests see an unprecedented opportunity to reshape our courts in ways that will benefit
billion theirs and giant corporations for decades to come. now they see their chance to stack the courts with radical right-wing probig business conservatives. john bush, president trump's nominee to sit on the sixth circuit court of appeals, is one of those radical right-wing pro business conservatives. mr. bush is not just a member of the ultraconservative federalist society. he is the cofounder and 20-year president of the louisville chapter. and during his career, he has earned a reputation for fighting for the big guys. for example, mr. bush supports weakening our campaign finance laws so that giant corporations and wealthy individuals can flood our elections with unlimited contributions and buy the officials they want. now, i believe that mr. bush's pro corporate views call his qualifications to the federal bench into question.
i do not understand how he can be fair and impartial when his billionaire buddies show up in court. but my concern about mr. bush runs much deeper. he has demonstrated a level of disrespect for other people that flatly disqualifies him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. and here's just a glimpse of what the man nominated to be a federal judge has written and said in public. in a blog post, he called for then house speaker nancy pelosi to be gagged. in another blog post, mr. bush mocked policies that recognize same-sex parents saying, quote, it's just like the government to decide it needs to decide something like which parent is number one and which parent is number two. and in a speech in louisville, he repeated a quote from a late
journalist saying, quote, i come here every year. and let me tell you one thing i've learned. this is no town to be giving people the impression that you're some kind of a -- and he finished the quote with an antigay slur that begins with an "f." there it s. dismissive, demeaning, and down right ugly. and if that word makes you furious or if you believe that that term is hurtful, then think about what it means that this is the man president trump has put forward to be a federal judge to sit in judgment on others. whatever his other qualifications, mr. bush has aggressively and conclusively disqualified himself to be a judge. i think mr. bush knows that. in his hearing before the judiciary committee, mr. bush was not keen to defend what he
said. when asked about those hateful statements, he ducked and dodged like a prize fighter. he played that old game we've seen before, the i promise to be a fair and impartial judge if i'm confirmed game. yeah. he's selling and i'm not buying. mr. bush should be embarrassed to defend those statements. they are shameful. senator mcconnell might defend this man calling those statements as he did personal views about politics, but i call them hateful views that disqualify him for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge. yes, decent, reasonable people can disagree on policy, and decent, reasonable people can disagree on legal interpretation, but decent, reasonable people should not disagree on basic norms that all judges in our federal courts should abide by. anyone who thinks that it is
okay to use antigay slurs and to tell other anti-lgbtq jokes is disqualified to be a federal judge, period. no senator, republican or democrat, should be willing to confirm such a man. our courts have one duty, to dispense justice under the law. no one, no one can have confidence that mr. bush could fulfill such a task, and no senator should be also -- should be willing to give mr. bush a seat on the court of appeals of the united states of america. mr. president, i yield. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. thursday, july 20. 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, following leader
remarks the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the bush nomination. further, that all postcloture time on the bush nomination expire at 12:15. finally, notwithstanding the provisions of rule 22, the cloture vote with respect to burnhardt occur at 1:45 tomorrow. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: can no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the the obama health care replacement bill and we will get more details on that for you. the senate today moved ahead
with the nomination of don busch for the sixth circuit court. most of in senators intended a white house lunch with vice-president pence and president trump. ms. mcconnell says he expects to bring a repeal quote before next week. >> mr. president, obamacare was imposed on a country seven long years ago. it's been hurting the people we represent ever since.ts families were supposed to spend less on health costs and they actually paid more. families were supposed to help more people places and they ended up with fewer, sometimes not at all. for many years this way the way the concerns of middle-class families were hurting. today we thankfully have an administration that showsetter.
instead and agrees with us that americans deserve a lot better. i appreciate the efforts of the administration at every step of the process to move beyond the failures of obamacare. the present, the vice president, secretary price, administrator and so many others, we thank them for all the work they have done so far and we look forward to continuing these collaborative efforts will be travel to the white house later today because we have an important task before us. as i announced last evening, after consulting with the white house in our members, we decided to hold the vote and open debate on obamacare appeal early next week. the obamacare appeal legislation will ensure a stable, two-year t transition. which will allow us to wipe the slate clean and start over with real patient centered health care ref