Executive Calendar

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss an issue that impacts consumers, small businesses, our general economy, and most families. It is the issue of net neutrality. The concept behind this is pretty simple. It ensures that all content on the internet is treated equally so that the internet can remain an openly accessible platform for users and an equal playing field for everyone.

Unfortunately, some leaders at the Federal Communications Commission disagreed. Despite being given the responsibility to make sure they operate in the public interest when it comes to our Nation's communications networks, in December, the FCC walked away from this important responsibility and decided to put the needs of companies ahead of customers.

It appears with this administration that everything is for sale. That means public lands, our privacy, and, in this case, the pathway American families use every single day to get on the internet. Led by Chairman Pai, the FCC voted for a radical plan in December to dismantle net neutrality rules and threaten the existence of a free and open internet as we know it today. This new plan will allow large internet providers the power to freely block, throttle, or manipulate consumers' access to the internet in ways that profit the provider.

Think about your access to apps and the internet today, and compare it to your access to cable channels. If you want more channels, you put in more money. Today the internet is open to us, and we have access to it. The Trump administration, through the Federal Communications Commission, wants to change that. If you want fast internet service, you pay more money. If you want access to certain apps, you pay more money. That changes the nature of the internet as we have known it. It is a dramatic change in the way we communicate and gather information. It is just another bill.

Many people are now facing the prospect of cable TV shows and other things they have to pay more money for on a pretty substantial monthly bill. Now comes the FCC to say: We have another monthly bill for you if you want the same access to the internet today that you had before. Not only does this mean less choice and higher cost for consumers whose access to content could be determined by what is in the best financial interest of their provider, but small businesses will no longer be able to compete on a level playing field.

For many small businesses and entrepreneurs in my State of Illinois and across the country, the internet has given them the ability to reach consumers across the globe and compete against large companies. The innovation and healthy competition that a free and open internet allows are essential to continue pushing our economy forward. If the FCC has its way, they are going to create internet fast lanes and slow lanes, where winners and losers are no longer determined by how good a business's product is but by whether a small business can afford to pay in. That is wrong. It is not good for the economy, and it is not good for our democracy.

I have heard from hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans who are concerned, and there is concern all across the country, across party lines. We filed a discharge petition today to take up this issue of net neutrality on the floor of the Senate.

We have considered a lot of rules and regulations from the Obama administration. Now we are going to consider one from the Trump administration. We are going to see if there is bipartisan support for net neutrality.

Senator Collins, Republican of Maine, has joined us. Will there be more? Are there a number of Republican Senators who want to stand up for net neutrality and for open access for America to the internet or do they want to sell off this opportunity to the highest bidders?

Keeping the internet a place where content is shared freely and accessed equally by everyone is important to our small businesses, educators, and consumers. We are pleading with America in the hours before we take up this measure to log on and tell the Trump administration to lay off. When it comes to net neutrality, it is too important a value across America to sell at the FCC.

Madam President, before the Senate left for last week's recess, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, filed cloture on six circuit court nominees.

I supported three of these nominees in the Judiciary Committee--Amy St. Eve, Michael Scudder, and Joel Carson--and I opposed three of them--Michael Brennan, Kurt Engelhardt, and John Nalbandian. I carefully consider each nominee's qualifications and record when I cast my votes.

I want to speak today, though, about the process that Senate Republicans are using to move judicial nominations under President Trump. I fear the Republican majority is diminishing the advice and consent role of the Senate in an effort to rush through President Trump's nominees. That troubles me. Just look at what Republicans are doing to the blue slip when it comes to circuit court nominations.

For the last century, the blue-slip process has worked well. It has encouraged negotiation and meaningful consultation between the White House and Senate when it comes to making lifetime appointments to the federal bench. The blue slip serves as a check and a balance, helping to steer the judicial selection process toward the center stripe, and it ensures Senators are meaningfully consulted on judicial nominations in their State.

Many Senators have established expert screening commissions to help evaluate and vet nominees in their States. When blue slips and screening commissions are respected, it leads to consensus and high- quality nominees.

Look at the way the White House worked with Senator Duckworth and me on filling the two current 7th Circuit vacancies from Illinois. We had good-faith consultation and a substantive back-and-forth, and the White House respected our Illinois tradition of having an expert screening committee review and vet candidates.

This process resulted in a pair of excellent Illinois 7th Circuit nominees--Amy St. Eve and Michael Scudder, whom all sides could agree upon. That is the way it should work.

We know that blue slips and screening commissions can help build consensus and lead to good outcomes. Yet this week the Senate is taking major steps to abandon these processes.

Senator McConnell is calling a vote on the floor this week on 7th Circuit Wisconsin nominee Michael Brennan. Mr. Brennan is a controversial nominee with a history of troubling statements. In particular, I am concerned by his 2001 National Review op-ed in which he argued that judges need only follow ``correct precedent''--which suggests judges can disregard precedent they don't agree with. I am also concerned by his 2004 Marquette Law Review article on personal responsibility, in which he was disdainful of criminal defendants who said they had a difficult upbringing.

The Brennan nomination is controversial on substance, but even more controversial is the way this nomination has been pushed forward. Both Senator Baldwin and Wisconsin's bipartisan screening commission were effectively cut out of the process of selecting this nominee.

Mr. Brennan failed to meet the threshold vote of the screening commission that Wisconsin's senators had set up, but President Trump nominated him anyway. Senator Baldwin has raised serious concerns about Mr. Brennan and has not submitted a blue slip for his nomination, yet Republicans are pressing ahead. This is taking us down a troubling path.

I know that Senators in both parties like to quibble over precedents and point fingers at each other when it comes to judicial nominations, but I think all Senators understand that we have a fundamental responsibility to our constituents when it comes to federal judges in our home States. We must exercise a vigorous advice and consent role for these judges who will sit in our States' courthouses.

It should concern all of us if any Senator is cut out of the judicial selection process in that Senator's State. None of us want that to happen to us.

If the Senate votes to confirm Mr. Brennan, we will be sending a clear signal that home State senators don't matter anymore in the judicial selection process. That is the wrong path to go down, but Senate Republicans appear to be doubling down on this path.

Today, in the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Grassley called a hearing on a 9th Circuit nominee from Oregon, Ryan Bounds. This nominee has not received a blue slip from either home State senator, nor does he have the approval of Oregon's judicial selection committee.

I hope my Republican colleagues stop and think about how they would feel if this happened to them in their home States. I hope our example in Illinois shows that there is a better way--a path of good faith negotiations that can lead to compromise while respecting the Senate's important traditions and home-State practices.

There are other troubling nomination trends besides the bypassing of blue slips and home State screening commissions. Republicans also have been moving very quickly to confirm President Trump's picks for Federal judges. For example, last year the Senate confirmed 12 circuit court judges, a record for a President's first year in office. President Trump's first 15 circuit court nominees have been confirmed in an average of 131 days, including just 20 days pending on the Senate floor. This is a very fast pace. By comparison, President Obama's first 15 circuit court nominees took an average of 254 days to be confirmed, including 167 days pending on the floor.

This fast pace carries risks. Senators who do not serve on the Judiciary Committee need time to review the records of judicial nominees before voting on whether to confirm them to lifetime positions on the Federal bench.

This scrutiny is even more important in the Trump era, when nominees are often not carefully vetted before they are nominated. Just look at nominees like Brett Talley, who was rushed through the Judiciary Committee and reported on a party line vote before many Senators realized his utter lack of qualifications to be a Federal judge.

I understand the need to fill vacancies in the Federal Judiciary, but we must not do so at the expense of careful vetting.

I also want to briefly respond to the argument that somehow Democrats are being obstructionist when it comes to judicial nominees. It is wildly hypocritical for Republicans to make this argument.

Remember, my Republican colleagues retired the trophy for judicial obstruction during the Obama Administration: Republicans forced cloture filings on 36 of President Obama's judicial nominees in his first 5 years-the same number of judicial cloture filings as in the previous 40 years combined; Republicans used the tactic of withholding blue slips to block 18 of President Obama's nominees; Republicans refused to support any Obama nominee for three D.C. Circuit vacancies, no matter how qualified; Republicans allowed only 22 Obama nominees to be confirmed in his last two years--the fewest judicial confirmations in a Congress since President Truman; and Republicans blocked Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland from even having a hearing.

Senate Republicans often opposed President Obama's nominees simply because it was President Obama who nominated them. In contrast, Senate Democrats simply want to ensure that nominees are adequately vetted, well-qualified, non-ideological, and in the judicial mainstream.

We have the ability to make the nominations process work in a consensus way. We have done it in Illinois. I hope we can do it across the country.

Let's start by keeping the blue slip. Sometimes it can be frustrating-we saw that when Republicans used blue slips to block 18 of President Obama's nominees. But it is a tool that compels us to find consensus. Let's keep that tool.

I urge my Republican colleagues to vote no on the nomination of Michael Brennan, both because of his troubling record and because of what his confirmation would mean for the future of the blue slip. I urge my colleagues to vote for nominees like Amy St. Eve and Michael Scudder whose qualifications are outstanding, who were selected through a good process, and who have both home State Senators' support.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source