Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has primary responsibility to review administrative actions taken by countless Federal departments and agencies. The court's decisions--including its recent invalidation of President Obama's unconstitutional ``recess'' appointments--often have significant political implications. As a result, this body--the Senate--has a longstanding practice and tradition of scrutinizing nominees to the D.C. Circuit very carefully. When evaluating those nominees, we have also carefully considered the need for additional judges on that court. In July 2006 President Bush nominated an eminently qualified individual, Peter Keisler, to fill a seat on the D.C. Circuit. I know Peter Keisler. Peter Keisler is among the very finest attorneys I have ever worked with. In fact, most who know him would agree he is among the very finest attorneys in the entire country. He is one who happened to have enjoyed bipartisan support throughout the legal profession at the time of his nomination. Nevertheless, Democratic Senators blocked Mr. Keisler's nomination, and his nomination simply languished in the Judiciary Committee. At the time a number of my Democratic colleagues signed a letter arguing that a nominee to the D.C. Circuit ``should under no circumstances be considered--much less confirmed--before we first address the very need for that judgeship.'' Those Senators argued that the D.C. Circuit's modest caseload simply did not justify the confirmation of any additional judge to that court. More than 6 years have elapsed from that moment, but the D.C. Circuit's caseload remains just as minimal as it was back then. The court's caseload has actually decreased since the time Democrats blocked Mr. Keisler. The total number of appeals filed is down over 13 percent, and the total number of appeals pending is down over 10 percent. With just 359 pending appeals per panel, the D.C. Circuit's average workload is less than half of other Federal appellate courts. Some have sought to make much of the fact that since 2006 two of the court's judges have taken senior status, leaving only seven active judges on the D.C. Circuit. But the court's caseload has declined so much in recent years that even filings per active, nonsenior, sitting judge are roughly the same as they were back then. Of course, this doesn't account for the six senior judges on the D.C. Circuit who continue to hear appeals and author opinions. Their contributions are such that the actual work for each active, nonsenior judge has declined and the caseload burden for the D.C. Circuit judges is less than it was when the Democrats blocked Mr. Keisler on the basis of declining caseload in the D.C. Circuit. Indeed, the average filings per panel--perhaps the truest measure of actual workload per judge--is down almost 6 percent since the time Democrats blocked Mr. Keisler. And those who work at the court suggest that in reality, the workload isn't any different today than it was back at the time the Democrats blocked Mr. Keisler's nomination to that court. Much like Mr. Keisler, the D.C. Circuit nominee before us today, Mr. Srinivasan, is exceptionally qualified, and I am pleased to say he enjoys broad bipartisan support from throughout the legal profession. Unlike what the Democrats did to Mr. Keisler, I will vote to confirm Mr. Srinivasan. I do not believe in partisan retribution and hope that, moving forward, the Senate--whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans at any moment in the future--will rise above such past differences and disputes. The D.C. Circuit is one area in which we share common ground. Both Democrats and Republicans have argued repeatedly that the D.C. Circuit has too many authorized judgeships. Indeed, while other Federal circuit courts throughout the country struggle to keep up with rising caseloads, in each of the last several years the D.C. Circuit has canceled regularly scheduled argument dates due to a lack of pending cases. For these reasons I am an original cosponsor of S. 699, the Court Efficiency Act, which was introduced last month. The bill does not directly impact today's nominee, but it will reallocate unneeded judgeships from the D.C. Circuit to other Federal appellate courts where caseloads are many times higher than that of the D.C. Circuit. Especially after we have confirmed Mr. Srinivasan, I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will join me in ensuring that these unnecessary D.C. Circuit judgeships are reallocated to courts that need those judge slots. I certainly hope neither the White House nor my Democratic colleagues will instead decide to play politics and seek--without any legitimate justification--to pack the D.C. Circuit with unneeded judges simply in order to advance a partisan agenda. Now, importantly, it was stated earlier in debate that we should stop ``playing games'' with this nomination. We agree. In fact, we could not agree more. Unfortunately, the only game played was by the majority leader in manufacturing a false impression by filing cloture one day after the nominee was listed on the Executive Calendar and after Senate Republicans agreed to a vote. It has also been suggested that Senate Republicans have somehow refused to fill this seat or any other on the D.C. Circuit since 2006. Apparently, this is representative of a memory lapse or perhaps they want to rewrite history. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request so that it not be in order for the Senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit.

Mr. LEE. My friend and my distinguished colleague from Missouri is absolutely correct in citing the Constitution and pointing out the fact the two Houses do have to agree before something becomes law. It is also important to point out that under article 1, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution, each House of Congress is constitutionally charged with the task of establishing its own rules for operation. The rules of operation in this body, as they apply right here, require this kind of request receive unanimous consent. What that means is every one of us has to be willing to vote for this. What I and a few of my colleagues have said is that regardless of what you might decide to do, we respect your opinion. But if you are asking us to vote for this, meaning to give our consent, which is a vote, we are asking for one slight modification, and that slight modification includes something very simple, which says we are not going to negotiate the debt limit as part of a budget resolution. They are two separate things. We didn't consider a single amendment that would have addressed the debt limit. Not a single part of the budget resolution passed out of this body addressed the debt limit. The debt limit not having been the subject of the budget resolution, it is not important for that to be addressed by the conference committee.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEE. Compared to the way we do things on the floor, this is a closed-door deal. Compared to the way we do things on the floor, this is not subject to the same kind of scrutiny. The fact is that we have rules in the Senate--rules--on something like this, which would allow us to proceed on the basis of a 60-vote threshold. That is the whole purpose of this discussion. That is the basis of our concern. We don't want legislation that can run through to raise the debt limit, incurring potentially trillions of dollars in borrowing authority on the basis of only a 51-vote threshold. That is our concern.

Mr. LEE. I would like to finish what I am saying--legislation which would itself raise the debt limit and voted on a 51-vote margin rather than a 60-vote margin. So this is different. Regardless of how open they make that conference meeting, it is not the same kind of open debate in which every Senator and every Representative is able to participate in the same way they would be able to on the floor.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, as to the suggestion that this produces a budget resolution that at the end of day does not go to the President, and therefore it isn't law, technically, on its own face, is accurate. What we are concerned about are the instructions which would accompany the conference report. We are concerned about instructions that would allow the normal rules of the Senate to be circumvented specifically for something like this or perhaps a piece of legislation which would itself raise the debt limit to be considered----

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I want to follow up on some of the comments made by my friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Virginia. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to have this debate. We need a budget. The American people want it, they deserve it, they have been without it for 4 years. It is because we want this debate and it is because we want this issue debated in public that we have this concern. In other words, as the Senator from Texas pointed out a moment ago, there are a lot of issues that were discussed and debated and voted on when we were addressing the budget resolution a couple of months ago. We were here until 5 in the morning making sure we could get through all the amendments. At no point during that very lengthy discussion in connection with the budget resolution did we discuss or address or have a vote on or in any way make a decision regarding the debt ceiling. That is a separate debate, one that did not come up in connection with the budget resolution. It is a debate that needs to happen. Just as the discussion of the budget resolution needs to move forward, we do need to have a public debate and ultimately a vote with regard to the debt ceiling. The American people expect us to have this debate. They expect us to have it in the light of day and not under cover of darkness behind closed doors, resulting in one of those infamous backroom deals that have given Washington its often much-deserved bad name. The debt ceiling was not in the bill. It was not in the budget resolution. We have not debated it. All we are asking for is that the other side agree that they will not use budget reconciliation as a mechanism for working a backroom deal to raise the debt limit. The American people expect us to debate this, not in secret but in public. That is what we are trying to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, earlier today we were asked to give our consent to go to conference on the budget resolution. This is an important matter because we have now gone more than 4 years without a budget. This has been of great concern to many of us. I do not think there is one Member of this body who would not want Congress to pass a budget this year. We would like to see that happen. We need that. We do, however, have a concern--some of us--with the request that we go to conference without certain assurances. Most important, we want a very simple assurance that any conference report that results from this conference will not be used to raise the debt limit. The reason for this is simple. This is an important matter. At a time when we have racked up about $17 trillion in debt, we want some assurances that this important decision will be made under the regular order of the Senate; that the normal rules of the Senate will apply; that this will not be negotiated behind closed doors in a backroom deal. The American people deserve more. They demand more. Those who may have questioned our motives in connection with this, I ask them a very simple question: Will you give us an assurance that you are not going to use the conference report to raise the debt limit? If they can answer that question to our satisfaction, if they can simply give me an assurance that is not what they are going to use it for, then I will gladly give my consent. So I invite that to be the topic of discussion. All this begs the question. Why would they not give that assurance? What on Earth is wrong with the regular order? What on Earth is wrong with giving an assurance that, in connection with a conference report on a budget resolution, they would not be willing to say: If we are going to raise the debt limit, we are going to do it under the regular order.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, in short, in response to the question from my colleague from Texas, I do find it difficult to understand why anyone would oppose this resolution. I also find it difficult to understand how this can be put on the same plate--as serious as other kinds of abuses are, as serious as other acts of medical malpractice may be, this one is different. This is about premeditated first degree murder of the most defenseless, most vulnerable people in our society, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LEE. Yes, I would.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 133; that the Senate proceed to its consideration; that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent I be given 60 seconds to answer the question and then I will yield.

Mr. LEE. Reserving the right to object, the kind of abuse, the kind of betrayal of trust described in the resolution proposed by my friend and my colleague from Connecticut is different in kind from that described in my resolution. The kind of abuse involved in my resolution involves the intentional taking, the first-degree premeditated murder of a human life. I think that deserves its own consideration, and on that basis I object.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise to ask my colleagues once again to join me in expressing the sense of the Senate that governments at all levels have a compelling interest in preventing and punishing the practices of late-term abortions under unsafe, unsanitary, and illegal circumstances. It seems as though every day we find new evidence that this problem is much bigger than we could have feared previously. Earlier this week, of course, Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was convicted on three counts of first-degree murder for severing the spines of newborn infants, and one count of involuntary manslaughter for the death of a pregnant mother who came to see Dr. Gosnell for care. The shocking details of the Gosnell case have, despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to cover it up, become national news. The abortion industry has spun into action, trying to isolate and condemn Gosnell as an aberration. Planned Parenthood cited Gosnell's ``appalling crimes.'' NARAL called him a ``butcher.'' On this very floor last week, Gosnell's actions were decried by pro-choice Senators as ``reprehensible'' and ``an outrage . . . a violation of everything we hold dear.'' But Kermit Gosnell has only been sentenced to life in prison and condemned as a monster for doing things for which--had he done them just a few seconds earlier or a few centimeters in a different direction--those same voices might have hailed him as a hero and not as a monster. Remember, President Obama himself, while serving in the State legislature of Illinois, voted against legislation that would have protected the civil and constitutional rights of infants--human beings--born alive. At a recent hearing in the Florida State Legislature, a Planned Parenthood representative refused even to acknowledge that newborn babies have the right to life. In recent weeks, undercover videos have caught abortion clinics around the country casually offering to kill infants born alive. Just this week, evidence emerged about similar abuses at a clinic in Texas. This has nothing to do with health care or even with medical negligence but with murder--a war on women and children waged under the guise of legitimate health care. As much as we might want to agree that Kermit Gosnell is an aberration, recent revelations, indeed, suggest otherwise. A mounting body of evidence seems to suggest that at least among some late-term abortion providers and advocates, the immorality of infanticide may be an open question. The abortion industry's defense of late-term abortion has always been based on a rejection of innate human dignity. How could it be otherwise? But as technology advances, their case for late-term abortion increasingly rejects medical science as well. We now know as a scientific fact that unborn children, after about 20 weeks of development, can feel pain. We know Dr. Gosnell's victims squirmed and cried before he severed their spinal cords, and we know that every day medical technology progresses our abortion laws fall further behind the science. It is a tragedy all on its own that even today our laws defining human life depend more on geography than biology. The unsettling question before us now is: Has an industry whose profits have always depended on dehumanizing unborn children gone even further and dehumanized children born alive too? The case of Kermit Gosnell, the undercover videos, and recent clinic scandals around the country all hint at a terrifying answer. Yet right now we just don't know. My resolution would call on governments at all levels to find out--to find out what the late-term abortion industry is up to and to take any appropriate and necessary measures to prevent and punish abusive, unsanitary, and illegal practices. Some might say this resolution is a symbolic gesture, and I and others have introduced more concrete legislation. Perhaps. But even so, symbols are themselves important. It is important that the strong stand for the weak; that we, in the world's greatest deliberative body, lend our voices to the voiceless; that we, representatives of the most powerful Nation on Earth, promise to protect the weakest, most innocent, and most vulnerable among us and punish those who would do our children harm.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we want to proceed with this as well. We want a budget. It has been 4 years and it has been far too long. What we want to avoid is a deal negotiated behind closed doors, a backroom deal to raise the debt limit. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request so that it not be in order for the Senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit.

Mr. LEE. I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I speak in opposition to this amendment. While I understand the concern underlying it, I also have significant concerns as to what this would do. In some circumstances, this could increase the cost of materials in some Federal projects by close to 25 percent. So if we are talking about $1 billion worth of materials, we are talking almost $250 million of increased cost for certain materials this could bring about. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, today I wish to recognize eight exemplary Utahns and future officers in the U.S. military. Each of them will begin their education at a military academy this fall. Jonson Henry, graduating from Park City High School, will be attending the Naval Academy. An accomplished runner, he was captain of his cross-country team and participated in track and field. He is an avid outdoorsman and an accomplished musician. He was also an AP Scholar with Distinction. Phillip Lowry, a Weber High School graduate, will be attending the Naval Academy. Phillip was an Eagle Scout, captain of his rugby team, and accomplished in Jujitsu and mixed martial arts. He was also an accomplished musician and an AP Distinguished Scholar. His Father is currently Active Duty with the Army and is serving in Afghanistan. Amanda Ley, from Viewmont High School and Northwestern Preparatory School, will be attending the Air Force Academy. Amanda was a member of the National Honor Society and earned her Academic Letter. She was captain of the swim team and actively volunteered with South Davis Community Hospital. Her father is an Air Force veteran. McKenna Cox graduated from Mountain View High School and will be attending the Air Force Academy. McKenna was a student body officer and a member of the National Honor Society. A great example of a student athlete, she was Academic All-State in soccer and was the captain of the basketball team, the softball team, and the cross-country team. She organized food drives for the Utah Food Bank and care packages for the military. William Estes, from Dugway High School and attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, was a National Honor Society and participated in ice hockey, baseball, track and field, and was Academic All-State in basketball. He was also band president and participated in the JROTC. His father is currently serving in the Army. Russell Landes will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Russell attended the American Leadership Academy, where he was student body president. He was captain of the wrestling team and also participated on the football and track teams. He also earned his Eagle Scout award. Benjamin Lemon, from Bountiful High School and the University of Utah, will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Benjamin was a member of the National Honor Society and earned his Eagle Scout. He was captain of the football team and participated in wrestling and the track and field team. His brother also served honorably in the armed services, where he was wounded in the service of his country. Thomas Maddox, a graduate of Juan Diego Catholic High School, will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He was an outstanding scholar and captain of the lacrosse and ice hockey teams. He has over 75 hours of community service. He was student government class officer and founder and president of the Patriots Club. One of my greatest honors as a Senator has been to get to know and nominate each of these young men and women. I know that our Nation's future is bright in the hands of these exemplary individuals who have distinguished themselves amongst their peers.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the insight and the concern shared by my friend and colleague from Connecticut. These are all things we all ought to be thinking about, be concerned about, and be debating from time to time. To reiterate one of the points we need to make here: As with all health-care-providing institutions, all clinics, all hospitals need to be subjected to the scrutiny of some outside regulator. They need to have some accountability to those who will ensure that conditions there are safe, that the treatments being provided are effective, and that they are not going to result in more injury, in more disease, in life-threatening conditions, in emergency responders who show up not being able to access the patient in time because the hallways are too narrow, the exits are blocked or the hallways are crowded. I appreciate the insight from my colleague from Connecticut and thank him for his remarks. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 133 submitted earlier today. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this week in Philadelphia, a jury is deliberating the case of Kermit Gosnell. That doctor has been charged and tried for some of the most gruesome atrocities ever encountered by the American justice system. As the grand jury opened its harrowing report: This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy--and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. Yet according to defense attorneys, Dr. Gosnell is not a monster, not a serial killer, not a predator of vulnerable mothers and their helpless children. He is just an abortionist. Mr. President, let me suspend my speech momentarily. I understand my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, wishes to make a motion.

Mr. LEE. Reserving the right to object, as my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, is aware, we have only just received the language of this resolution in the last few minutes. Without having to read it closely, I am reluctant to grant consent at this time. But I will say I am heartened, and I think all Americans should be heartened, and the entire pro-life movement should be heartened by the clear implication that health regulations should be equitably applied and enforced on abortion clinics as they are on other health care facilities. Part of the reason we fear that Dr. Gosnell's clinic, if, in fact, the allegations are proven true, was not a rare outlier is that abortion clinics are generally held to the same safety standards as hospitals, ambulatory, surgical facilities, et cetera. So on that basis, I object.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, if I may continue my remarks which I started a few moments ago. According to his defense attorneys, then, Dr. Gosnell is not a monster, not a serial killer, not a predator of helpless mothers and their children. He is just an abortionist. In this context, Dr. Gosnell's alleged crimes were just abortions, and his facility, the so- called Women's Medical Society--reportedly strewn about with animal waste, infectious instruments, and fetal remains--was not, as the grand jury alleged, ``a baby charnel house.'' No, it was just a clinic. His staff of allegedly unqualified, untrained frauds were not coconspirators in the contract killing of newborns. No, they were just health care providers. And the failure of local health inspectors and political officials to investigate repeated claims of Dr. Gosnell's barbarism was just a bureaucratic oversight--perhaps--or perhaps, as the panicked abortion industry would have us believe, Dr. Gosnell is an outlier, an outcast, nothing like the professional, competent, law- abiding late-term abortion providers around the country. But then again perhaps not. Just a few weeks ago, a Planned Parenthood representative testified before the Florida State legislature and suggested that infants born alive during botched abortions might not be entitled to medical attention--in clear violation of Federal law, to say nothing of fundamental human rights and dignity. Even since then, undercover videos have caught late-term abortion providers telling pregnant mothers that even if their babies are accidentally born alive during the procedure, even if the law requires them to treat the newborn as a patient and citizen of the United States, and also telling them that even if the baby is born somewhere other than their clinic, they will see to it that the child does not survive. So is the case of Dr. Gosnell an outlier or is the legitimacy of the late-term abortion industry merely a lie? The American people deserve to know. Yesterday I introduced legislation to end the practice of late-term abortion in Washington, DC, after 20 weeks, the point at which science tells us unborn children can feel pain, in light of the chilling details coming in from Pennsylvania, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and various abortion clinics around the country that late- term abortions on pain-capable, unborn children are an important issue we need to debate. Opinions will obviously be divided, as they always are on abortion- related issues. But we owe it to the American people to see if we can find common ground to protect innocent women and innocent children. But there should be no division or controversy surrounding the sense- of-the-Senate resolution I called up a few minutes ago. The resolution has the support of every Republican Senator, pro-life and pro-choice Members alike. The resolution expresses the sense of the Senate, affirming: The duty of the State and Federal Government agencies to protect women and children from violent criminals posing as health care providers; the equal human and constitutional rights of fully born infant children; the need to prevent and punish abusive, unsanitary, and illegal abortion practices. One of the newborns Dr. Gosnell is accused of murdering, ``Baby Boy A,'' was born alive--breathing and moving--to an underage girl almost 30 weeks pregnant. Witnesses describe Gosnell severing the baby's spine, discarding the child in a shoebox, and joking that he was big enough ``to walk me to the bus stop.'' Joking. Joking. A clinic employee estimated Baby Boy A's birth weight at about 6 pounds, larger and heavier than two of my own children when they were born. If there are other Kermit Gosnells out there waging their own personal war on women, we need to know about it, and we need to stop them. I don't think I can make a stronger argument for this resolution than the one the grand jury in the Gosnell case made itself: Let us say right up front we realize this case will be used by both sides of the abortion debate. We ourselves cover a spectrum of personal beliefs about the morality of abortion. For us as a criminal grand jury, however, the case is not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants. We find common ground in exposing what happened here and in recommending measures to prevent anything like this from ever happening again. I hope the Senate too, whose Members cover a similar spectrum of views on abortion, can follow the grand jury's lead to find common ground in the pursuit of truth and justice for American women and children. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LEE

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