[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 154 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7699-S7705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Congratulating the Boston Red Sox

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, before I start, I want to recognize the 
Boston Red Sox team for an outstanding historic season and to 
congratulate Red Sox Nation on their third World Series Championship in 
10 years. Go Sox.
  The Red Sox mean so much to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to 
our communities throughout New England, particularly this year. They 
have been a symbol of Boston's strength and resilience. From their 
historic one-season turnaround to their

[[Page S7700]]

win in front of the Fenway faithful for the first time since 1918, to 
their scruffy beards, this team will be remembered forever for its 
heart and for its success. Like all of us in Massachusetts, they have 
shown what it means to be Boston strong.
  I also want to congratulate the St. Louis Cardinals on their 97-win 
season and their extraordinary achievement for winning 4 pennants in 10 
years. Really amazing.
  I am honored every day to represent the people of Massachusetts and 
the values we stand for. I am especially proud to congratulate the Red 
Sox today.
  Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Congressman Mel 
Watt's nomination to serve as the Director of the Federal Housing 
Finance Agency.
  In many areas of Massachusetts and around the country, housing 
markets have recovered, but in too many other areas the housing market 
is plagued by underwater mortgages and foreclosures. A wounded housing 
market continues to drag down our economy and it leaves millions of 
families struggling to rebuild economic security.
  One of the people who can make an important difference in helping the 
housing market back to full health is the Director of FHFA. The FHFA 
oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Between them, Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac back the vast majority of mortgages in the country, which 
means right now the FHFA has enormous influence over the American 
housing market.
  The FHFA has the tools to help homeowners who continue to struggle 
following the 2008 financial crisis. It has the tools to help 
accelerate our economic recovery. For 4 years now, the FHFA has been 
led by an acting director. The time has come for some permanence and 
for some certainty. It is time for the FHFA to have a director, and 
Congressman Mel Watt is the right man for the job.
  He has decades of relevant experience. He spent 22 years as a 
practicing lawyer, working with middle-income and lower income families 
on real estate closings and other housing issues. He then spent the 
next 21 years in Congress as a member of the House Financial Services 
Committee where he dealt firsthand with housing finance as a 
policymaker.
  When it comes to housing, Congressman Watt has seen it all. 
Congressman Watt has shown good judgment throughout it all. Several 
years before the housing market collapse in 2008, Congressman Watt 
introduced the Prohibit Predatory Lending Act in an effort to stop 
mortgage lenders from taking advantage of homebuyers. The act would 
have helped Congress address the underlying cause of the financial 
crisis by making it harder for lenders to push families toward 
mortgages they could not repay and too often did not understand.
  After that crisis hit, Mel built on his earlier legislation to craft 
laws that reduced risky mortgage lending and gave homeowners additional 
protection. Congressman Watt has worked hard to level the playing field 
for consumers. But he is no ideologue. I have worked with him for many 
years now. I have seen firsthand that he is a thoughtful policymaker. 
He can see problems coming, and when he does he seeks common ground and 
works hard to develop real solutions.
  As Congress looks at ways to fix Freddie and Fannie to steady the 
housing market, Congressman Watt's practical approach is exactly what 
FHFA needs. The people who know him best, the Senators from his home 
State of North Carolina, the business leaders in his congressional 
district in Charlotte, support his nomination without reservation.
  So what I want to know is this: Why would anyone in Congress try to 
block Mel from receiving a simple up-or-down vote? Why would they not 
want strong leadership in an agency that has been thrust into such a 
critical role in the economy? It does not make sense, not to the people 
who know Mel and not to the people who want to put this economy back on 
track.
  Mel's work will help restore the housing market, help lift the 
economy, and most of all, help strengthen America's families.
  It is time for obstruction for obstruction's sake to end, and it is 
time for the Senate to move forward with an up-or-down vote to confirm 
Congressman Watt so that he can get to work at the FHFA serving the 
American people.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


 Nomination of Patricia Ann Millett to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the 
appointment of Patricia Millett to the DC Circuit. The DC Circuit is an 
11-member appellate court that hears some of the greatest and most 
serious administrative appeals in this country. Most of them are 
complicated, somewhat convoluted, and they do take serious expertise.
  The court is an 11-member court. It currently has eight members. 
Three of the eight are women, and there are three vacancies on the 
court. Patricia Millett has been nominated by the President to fill one 
of those vacancies. What is interesting about this debate is that no 
one questions her qualifications or her temperament. She graduated 
summa cum laude from the University of Illinois in 1985 and magna cum 
laude from Harvard Law School in 1988. Even Senator Cruz from Texas has 
pointed out how superbly qualified she is. Yet there is a good chance 
that there will not be the votes to allow us to proceed to a vote on 
her qualifications and therefore confirm the nomination.
  I wish to state some of her qualifications. She clerked for Judge 
Thomas Tang on the Ninth Circuit in Phoenix, AZ, for 2 years. She 
worked in the Solicitor General's office for 11 years, in the Justice 
Department's civil Appellate Section for 4 years. She leads the Supreme 
Court and appellate practice at the law firm Akin Gump. She has argued 
32 cases in the Supreme Court, placing her in the top 10 of all 
attorneys from 2000 to 2012. She has also argued dozens of cases in 
other appellate courts.
  She is known as a superb appellate lawyer. She is known as someone 
with sterling qualifications, and she has received the unanimous rating 
of ``well qualified'' from the ABA--the highest rating the ABA gives. 
She has received numerous awards from the Department of Justice and 
strong support across the aisle, including from all three Solicitors 
General who served in the Bush administration. She is not only an 
outstanding lawyer, she is also an exceptional person with a work 
ethic, a morality, and a history of faithful service that is truly 
admirable.
  She is the mother of two children, David and Elizabeth. She earned a 
black belt in Tae Kwon Do after taking classes with her husband and 
their children. I am not sure how important that is, but I assume she 
is physically very fit.
  She is a military spouse. Her husband Bob served in the Navy and the 
Navy Reserve until his retirement in 2012, and he was deployed to 
Kuwait in 2004.
  Anyone who has read the Bars and Stripes article on her cannot but 
look at this woman and say she is the model American woman. Yet we may 
not even be able to vote on her today.
  During that time, Patricia was also one of so many military spouses 
who shouldered the burden of parenting while her husband was overseas. 
She understands the sacrifices military families make to keep our 
country safe. ``Pattie did the job of two parents while Bob was away. . 
. . During Bob's nine-month deployment [to Kuwait], Pattie was still 
working at the Solicitor General's office and handling a heavy Supreme 
Court caseload,'' which is very special if one thinks about what it 
means. ``She argued one Supreme Court case and briefed five more while 
juggling her solo-parenting duties.'' According to this article, Tom 
Goldstein, a distinguished appellate practitioner and the founder of 
the popular scotus Web site, said ``Through it all, he never saw Pattie 
complain about these sacrifices for her country.''
  She has also made a long-time commitment to work on behalf of the 
homeless. The Bars and Stripes article says:


[[Page S7701]]


       The project most near and dear to Pattie's heart is 
     Mondloch House, a group of homeless shelters and individuals 
     that Pattie has been involved with for many years. Each week, 
     Pattie coordinates fruit and vegetable deliveries . . . to 
     make sure the shelters have fresh produce.

  Judge Thomas Ambro of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said it 
best:

       Pattie is a really good human being. And, as everyone 
     knows, she's in the first rank of appellate practitioners in 
     this country. She combines talent, hard work, judgment, and 
     focus; she's the complete package.

  The question is, Why is there opposition to this nomination? Some on 
the Republican side have said the DC Circuit, which today has eight 
judges and three vacancies, doesn't need any new judges. They said 
President Obama is trying to pack the court. I disagree. Only 7 or 8 
years ago my Republican colleagues were arguing to confirm President 
Bush's nominees to fill vacancies on the 9th seat, the 10th seat, and 
the 11th seat on the DC Circuit. They even threatened to invoke the 
nuclear option to fill these seats. The caseload isn't much different 
than it was then. In fact, it is greater in some measures today. The 
number of pending appeals per active judge on the DC Circuit is greater 
than the number when all four of President Bush's DC Circuit nominees 
were confirmed. In addition, while the raw filings per active judge are 
lower on the DC Circuit than some other circuits, there is good reason 
for that. The DC Circuit's caseload is different because of the 
substantial docket of complex administrative agency appeals.
  In fact, statistics published by the Judicial Conference of the 
United States show that--without counting immigration appeals--43 
percent of DC Circuit cases were administrative appeals. The average in 
all other circuits combined is only 1.7 percent. That is a huge 
difference.
  If you look at the published opinions from the first six months of 
this year, the DC Circuit's published cases took just as long--and in 
many cases longer--than did the published decisions of many other 
circuits. The median time from filing to disposition is 11.8 months--28 
percent above average among the circuits.
  And, many of those DC Circuit cases involved highly complex 
administrative appeals with important questions of Federal law and 
regulation.
  Chief Justice Roberts wrote about this in a 2006 law review article 
called What Makes the DC Circuit Different? He cited the Court's 
jurisdiction to review decisions of numerous important agencies, such 
as the FCC, the EPA, the NLRB, the FTC, and the FAA. And he wrote: 
``Whatever combination of letters you can put together, it is likely 
that jurisdiction to review that agency's decision is vested in the 
Circuit.''
  And, as former DC Circuit Judge Patricia Wald wrote in the Washington 
Post, ``These cases can require thousands of hours of preparation by 
the judges, often consuming days of argument, involving hundreds of 
parties and interveners, and necessitating dozens of briefs and 
thousands of pages of record--all of which culminates in lengthy, 
technically intricate legal opinions.''
  So, the caseload does support the confirmation of new judges to the 
DC Circuit.
  I would also like to take a moment to address this notion of ``court 
packing,'' a term that originated with a plan by President Franklin 
Roosevelt to authorize new seats on the Supreme Court when he was not 
getting decisions he favored.
  This is not about creating new seats. This is about filling seats 
that exist, seats that have been authorized by Congress for many years, 
seats that the Judicial Conference continues to recommend be filled, 
and seats that my Republican colleagues pushed to fill not so many 
years ago. This is not ``court packing.''
  Now, I remember how the DC Circuit looked after President Bush's last 
appointee was confirmed in 2006. The Court had seven Republican 
appointees and three Democratic appointees. Other circuits were 
similarly lopsided as well. Some might see that as packing the courts.
  But I do not see it that way. A President must do his or her job 
making nominations to ensure that the judicial business of the American 
people gets done over time, long after that President leaves office. 
That is how our system works.
  I supported two of President Bush's DC Circuit nominees, John Roberts 
and Thomas Griffith, and I supported cloture on a third, Brett 
Kavanaugh. I supported other controversial Bush circuit court nominees, 
sometimes to the chagrin of many on my own side. I did so because I 
believed those nominees were qualified and could be fair. I believe 
very deeply that the judiciary is too important to play partisan games 
with. That is exactly what is going on. Why should I continue, as a 
member of the Judiciary Committee with the second most seniority, when 
the administration changes, to step out and support any new 
Republican's nominees? I have done it in the past. I hoped to break 
this deadlock of partisanship. I had hoped we could vote when a nominee 
is qualified regardless of party. This nominee, if a motion to close 
off debate is not granted, shows me that the atmosphere is such that 
this can never be the case and that I, as someone on the Judiciary 
Committee who has been willing to cross party lines to vote for a 
qualified nominee, should cease and desist in this regard. That is the 
message of this nominee to me.
  Think of this woman and her history: Army wife, mother of two, 
appellate lawyer, Solicitor General's office, and the tenth greatest 
number of Supreme Court appearances in the last 12 years. She is going 
to be denied, and no one has cast any blemish on her academic ability 
or her moral ethic. So the only thing I am left with is intense 
partisanship.
  Please, let there be some Republicans who want to change the nature 
of this place and begin that change with the recognition that we have a 
superior woman. In a country where the majority of people are women, 
the number of women on this court is in the minority, and there is a 
need for bright, informed, legal talent. This woman is one of them. I 
hope she will survive cloture.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article from Bars and Stripes be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From Bars and Stripes, Oct. 21, 2013]

   Faith & Family: The Center of a Military Spouse DC Circuit Nominee

                            (By Reda Hicks)

       Patricia Millett (Pattie to her friends) is the complete 
     package. From the beginning of her career, Pattie had all the 
     markings of a legal rock star. Top of her classes at 
     University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Harvard Law 
     School. Prestigious clerkship for the Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals. Appellate staff of the Department of Justice Civil 
     Division. Assistant to the Solicitor General, serving equal 
     time under Presidents Bush and Clinton. Head of Akin Gump's 
     Supreme Court practice. More than 30 cases argued before the 
     Supreme Court. Sky-high stack of professional accolades. 
     ``Unanimously Well Qualified'' ABA Rating. Seven Solicitors 
     General support her nomination to the D.C. Circuit.
       But somewhere in that rocket-propelled career, Pattie fell 
     in love with a Sailor. And became a mom. And earned a black 
     belt. All while living a genuine, intentional, faith-based 
     life of success. And these qualities and experiences, even 
     more than her legal fame, are what make her the complete 
     package.
       Her long-time friend and fellow appellate attorney Tom 
     Goldstein knows that all too well: ``Pattie is an outstanding 
     talent, an incredibly hard worker, and the best legal writer 
     I have ever had the good fortune to work with. But her 
     success comes from a complete commitment to a core set of 
     values, to family, God, and country that really drive all of 
     her decisions.''
       Pattie met Bob King in 1995, in Washington, D.C., while he 
     was serving at the Pentagon in the U.S. Navy. They met at a 
     Washington Street United Methodist Church singles event Bob 
     reluctantly attended at the urging of his roommate. Bob knew 
     right away that Pattie was the one; he felt like they had 
     been together forever because their core values were so in 
     step from the very beginning. Bob and Pattie were married a 
     year later in June 1996, in the same church where they had 
     first met.
       Three years later, when it looked like Bob's next 
     assignment would send him far from Pattie, they made the 
     decision that Bob would transition to the Navy Reserves, 
     where he served until his retirement in 2012. Commitment to 
     family is a top priority for Bob and Pattie, who work 
     together to make their children David and Elizabeth the 
     center of their lives.
       Like so many other military spouses, Pattie did the job of 
     two parents while Bob was away on reserve duty, and 
     eventually in 2004 he was called on to deploy. ``It was 
     really hard for her, working sixty hour weeks and keeping our 
     family together in my absence

[[Page S7702]]

     with a three-year-old and six-year-old to handle at home,'' 
     he says. ``But she did an amazing job!''
       During Bob's nine-month deployment, Pattie was still 
     working at the Solicitor General's office and handled a heavy 
     Supreme Court caseload. She argued one Supreme Court case and 
     briefed five more while juggling her solo-parenting duties. 
     Tom Goldstein says through it all, he never saw Pattie 
     complain about these sacrifices for her country.
       ``She was proud of Bob's service, and was completely 
     committed to her family as her first priority.'' Pattie might 
     have made it look easy, but her associate Hyland Hunt knows 
     differently. Hyland, also a military spouse, has been working 
     with Pattie at Akin Gump for two years.
       ``Pattie has been a tremendous encouragement to me,'' says 
     Hyland. ``Other things pulling at us can sometimes make it 
     very hard to focus on work, but watching Pattie helps me know 
     that it can be done.'' But it doesn't just happen. ``If 
     Pattie has taught me anything, it's that you have to live 
     intentionally in each part of your life.''
       Pattie served as a mentor for Hyland on the law, but has 
     also been a sounding board as she navigates the difficult 
     choices military spouses have to make when balancing career 
     and a spouse's military service. Helping others is a practice 
     familiar to those who know her, as Pattie is held in high 
     esteem as much for being a good person as for being a good 
     lawyer.
       ``Pattie is a really good human being,'' says Judge Thomas 
     Ambro of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. ``And, as 
     everyone knows, she's in the first rank of appellate 
     practitioners in this country.'' Judge Ambro met Pattie in 
     2000, when a friend suggested she would make a good addition 
     to an appellate panel he was working on. The success of the 
     first panel led to many more, and Pattie now speaks to Judge 
     Ambro's Georgetown undergraduates each year about how to 
     manage all of the things tugging at their time and balance. 
     It's a message that really resonates with them.
       ``[She] combines talent, hard work, judgment, and focus; 
     she's the complete package,'' Judge Ambro notes. ``And she 
     does it all without being nasty.''
       ``The thing that amazes me, knowing how much stress she is 
     under, is that she is incredibly kind and unfailingly humble 
     and gracious,'' says associate Hyland Hunt. ``You never hear 
     her snap at opposing counsel. She keeps an equanimity that is 
     remarkable.''
       For Pattie, this kindness goes hand in hand with her and 
     Bob's core principles. From that first fateful day when Bob 
     and Pattie met at Washington Street United Methodist, they 
     have been committed to putting service and faith at the 
     center of their family.
       ``We firmly believe that we are here to serve,'' Bob says, 
     ``and we are very intentional about teaching that to our 
     children.'' Today, the whole family is involved in various 
     ministries. David worked on the Highland Support Project in 
     Guatemala, bringing running water to remote areas. 
     Elizabeth's service started when she raised $1,800 selling 
     lemonade to raise money for children living in a garbage dump 
     in Cambodia. And both kids have been on mission trips to West 
     Virginia, where they worked with the Jeremiah Project to help 
     repair and rebuild low-income housing. Next summer, says Bob, 
     they are very excited to be going on a mission trip together 
     for the first time, working with the White Mountain Apache 
     Tribe in Ft. Apache, Arizona.
       The project most near and dear to Pattie's heart is 
     Mondloch House, a group of homeless shelters for families and 
     individuals that Pattie has been involved with for many 
     years. Each week, Pattie coordinates fruit and vegetable 
     deliveries, organizing volunteers for pick-ups and drop-offs 
     to make sure the shelters have fresh produce to serve. Hyland 
     Hunt says Pattie's family has a well-known tradition of 
     serving dinners together at one of the homes, called 
     Hypothermia Shelter.
       Pattie, Bob, and the kids love to do things together. In 
     fact, Bob says spending time, all four of them together, is 
     Pattie's favorite thing to do. That's why, many years ago 
     when their daughter joined her older brother in taekwondo 
     lessons, Bob and Pattie decided to start taking lessons, too.
       ``We wanted something to do together that was active,'' 
     says Bob. ``It is a fun family activity, but it also teaches 
     each of us basic self-defense skills, which are very 
     important.'' Now, all four of them are black belts; in fact, 
     Pattie is a second degree black belt, surpassing her husband 
     and nearly catching up to her son David's third degree belt.
       Pattie's colleagues say unequivocally that her passion for 
     the law takes a backseat to her husband and their two 
     children. Maintaining balance between family and a demanding 
     legal field is probably also one of her greatest career 
     challenges. But she has a champion in her biggest fan, her 
     husband.
       ``Seventeen years is no short amount of time, but I have 
     loved every minute with her,'' he says. ``She still amazes me 
     with how she can juggle everything and keep her sanity.''
       From her very first Supreme Court argument, Bob wanted to 
     be in the gallery cheering Pattie on. But Pattie refused. ``I 
     don't want you to see me crash and burn!'' she would say, 
     although Bob knew that she certainly would not.
       It took Bob five years to convince Pattie to let him come 
     watch her argue, and when she finally agreed, Bob was blown 
     away. Now, Bob goes to watch her every chance he gets. ``I've 
     seen four or five arguments now, and I'm just amazed every 
     time because you have to be so fast on your feet! I could 
     never do that. She's one of the best! I know I'm not 
     objective on that, but it's true!''
       Watching Pattie before the Supreme Court, Bob says it is 
     clear she has earned the respect of the Justices. ``They know 
     what they will get when Pattie comes before them, because she 
     is always prepared.'' That might be an understatement.
       Before an argument, Pattie spends weeks studying the 
     record, going through moot court arguments until she knows 
     her case inside and out. Tom Goldstein calls Pattie a 
     ``ferocious preparer, committed to leaving no stone unturned, 
     and thinking of every possible nuance and counter argument to 
     the counter argument.'' Says Hyland Hunt, ``It always amazes 
     me how she can digest and know the record,'' but Pattie's is 
     the kind of knowledge that comes from plain and simple 
     diligence.
       Pattie's hard work, focus, and tenacity have made her a 
     great advocate. Her kindness, wisdom and graciousness have 
     made her a highly respected professional. But her strong 
     center, built on family, faith, and service make her the 
     complete package.
       Military spouses forging their own careers can learn a lot 
     from Pattie's example. Whatever our professional pursuits, 
     true success starts at the core; build a strong one, then 
     hold on to it tightly.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be opposing cloture on the nominations of Melvin 
Watt to be the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and 
Patricia Millett to be a U.S. circuit court judge for the District of 
Columbia Circuit. I do so because I believe that neither candidate 
should be affirmed by the Senate at this time.
  I have been privileged many times to be a part of groups of Senators 
who were able to come together and negotiate agreements to end the 
gridlock surrounding nominees, avert the nuclear option, and allow the 
Senate to move forward with our work on behalf of the American people. 
My work in these groups--often referred to as ``gangs''--has won me 
both praise and condemnation and has often put me at odds with my 
party.
  In 2005 when the Republicans were in the majority and we were about 
to exercise a nuclear option on President Bush's judicial nominees who 
were being filibustered by the other side that was in the minority, 
part of the agreement addressed future nominees, an agreement which has 
held all these years. I quote from the agreement:

       Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the 
     Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution 
     in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under 
     extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his 
     or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether 
     such circumstances exist.

  As to both of the nominees we are considering today, I find and it is 
my judgment as a Senator that extraordinary conditions exist. The 
agreements I have entered into, including to begin on the motion to 
proceed, including last July on the NLRB nominations, have all included 
preserving the right of individual Senators to exercise their rights.
  If we go to the nuclear option--which I understand some of my 
colleagues are now frustrated to the point where they would like to--
meaning that 51 votes will now determine either nominees or other rules 
of the Senate, we will destroy the very fabric of the Senate; that is, 
that it requires a larger than numerical majority in order to govern.
  I understand the frustration of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. It is interesting that well over half of my colleagues in 
the Senate have been here less than 6 or 7 years. The majority of my 
friends on the other side have not been in the minority. The majority 
of my colleagues on this side have not been in the majority. I have 
been in both. When this side was in the majority, I watched how out of 
frustration we wanted to curtail the 60-vote criteria and go to 51 
because we were frustrated over the appointment of judges. That was 
back in 2005. I watched my colleagues on the other side want to go to 
51 votes because of their frustration over the motion to proceed. I 
have watched and understand the frustration the majority feels because 
they feel it is their obligation to make this body function 
efficiently.

  The truth is, this body does not function efficiently nor was it 
particularly designed to. Is there more gridlock

[[Page S7703]]

than there used to be? In many respects, yes. And I believe with all my 
heart that what we just did to the American people in the shutdown of 
the government may motivate colleagues of mine on this side as well as 
the other side not to do this kind of thing again. Our approval rating 
with the American people has sunk to all-time lows and they are going 
to see another expression of gridlock when we take these votes today. 
But the cure is going to have repercussions for generations to come in 
this body.
  There is no reason to have a House and Senate if we go to a simple 
51-vote rule in this body. My colleagues should understand that 
someday--someday--this side of the aisle will be in the majority and 
this side of the aisle will feel frustration, as we did once before 
when we were in the majority because of blockage from the other side of 
the aisle.
  I urge patience on the part of the majority leader. I urge patience 
on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Most of 
all I urge the kind of comity between leadership on both sides and 
individuals on both sides.
  I see the Senator from Virginia is here, and he has been one who has 
worked very hard to engender that in this body. Can't we work some of 
these things out without having a showdown on this floor every single 
time?
  This dispute won't affect the American people. What we just did in 
the shutdown certainly injured the lives and well-being of millions of 
innocent Americans. Maybe we have learned from that, but I urge my 
colleagues to understand the votes being taken on these two issues are 
in keeping with the agreement I joined in with 13 of my colleagues, 
Republican and Democrat, back in 2005. That agreement stated that 
``signatories''--those who made the agreement--``will exercise their 
responsibilities under the advice and consent clause of the United 
States Constitution in good faith.''
  In good faith. I am acting, with my vote, in good faith.
  I see my friend the majority leader on the floor of the Senate, and I 
hope he understands this action is being taken in good faith. But I 
also understand the frustration my friend the majority leader feels. So 
I urge my colleagues, when we get through this, to sit down, have some 
more conversations and negotiations so we can avoid this kind of cliff 
experience which has earned us the strong, profound, and well-justified 
disapproval of the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, very briefly, I want to respond to my friend 
from Arizona.
  I have worked with the senior Senator from Arizona on many things 
over these many years we have been in Congress together, and I heard 
what he said. I appreciate his suggesting we have a conversation about 
what is going to happen in the next couple of days and I am always 
willing to do that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I also to want speak to the judicial 
nomination, but I want to first respond as well to the Senator from 
Arizona. Let me first of all say there are few people in this body I 
have more respect for, and there are few people in this body who have 
time and again shown the political courage he has to put country ahead 
of party. I share a lot of his views. It is odd, but I feel sometimes 
that I work in the only place in America where being a gang member is 
considered a good thing.
  I have not served here during these times when my party was in the 
minority, and intellectually I understand Senator McCain's point, but I 
guess what I can't understand and what I can't explain to the folks all 
across Virginia when they ask me: Why can't you guys get anything done, 
is that on any historical basis, looking at the number of times these 
procedures have been used in the past--and clearly they have been used 
by both parties--it seems at some point, while the rights of the 
minority need to be protected, there has to be some level of common 
agreement for not exercising these tools to the extent they have been 
so that this institution becomes so dysfunctional we allow ourselves to 
do something that in my tenure both in public and private life was 
never as stupid as what we did during the first 3 weeks of October.
  So I do appreciate the Senator's comments. And although I now want to 
speak to the extraordinary qualifications of Patricia Millett, someone 
from Virginia, I wanted to state that I believe in the Senator's good 
faith and I also hope we can avoid the kind of further breakdown that 
would further disappoint the American people. I thank him for his 
comments.
  I do want to take a couple of moments to talk about something other 
Senators have come out to speak on, and that is the nomination the 
President has made of a fellow Virginian, Patricia Millett, to be part 
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
  I have had the opportunity as Governor to appoint people to the 
bench, and I took that responsibility very seriously in terms of 
reviewing the qualifications of the candidates. I had the opportunity 
as a Senator to recommend individuals to the courts for the President's 
consideration, and I can't think of a candidate who brings more 
qualifications, more evidence of bipartisan support, more deserving of 
appointment, than Patricia Millett.
  We all know the DC Circuit plays an incredibly important role in our 
judicial system. We also know the court currently has 3 of its 11 seats 
vacant. I recognize that in the past this court has been the focus of 
some debate and discussion, but the idea that we are going to somehow 
change the rules midstream seems inappropriate. If there is a 
legislative reason why we should change the DC Circuit Court from 11 to 
some fewer number of judges, that ought to be fully debated, but we 
should not hold up the confirmation of an individual whose credentials 
I believe are impeccable.
  Ms. Millett currently chairs the Supreme Court practice at Akin Gump. 
She went to the University of Illinois and Harvard Law School. She 
clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and she 
worked on the appellate staff of the civil division of the U.S. 
Department of Justice.
  She has spent over a decade in the U.S. Solicitor General's office, 
serving both Democratic and Republican administrations. During her time 
there she was awarded the Attorney General's Distinguished Service 
Award, and as has been mentioned by my other colleagues, during her 
career she has argued 32 times before the Supreme Court, which until 
recently was the highest number of cases argued by any woman in our 
history.
  What is also remarkable--and the Senator from Arizona mentioned we 
need to move past some of these partisan divisions--is that this is an 
individual who is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter 
indicating that support.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     July 3, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We are 
     former Solicitors General of the United States, and we write 
     in support of the nomination of Patricia Millett for a seat 
     on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit. Each of us has substantial first-hand 
     knowledge of Ms. Millett's professional skills and personal 
     integrity. It is our uniform view that she is supremely 
     qualified for this important position.
       Ms Millett served for 15 years in the United States 
     Department of Justice--first as an appellate attorney in the 
     Civil Division during the George H. W. Bush Administration 
     and then for 11 years in the Solicitor General's office, 
     during the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations. Since 
     leaving the Department, she has co-led and then led the 
     Supreme Court practice at Akin Gump. Over the course of her 
     distinguished career, Ms. Millett has argued 32 cases in the 
     Supreme Court and many more in the courts of appeals--in 
     matters that span a broad range of federal-law issues, from 
     constitutional challenges to administrative review, 
     statutory-interpretation disputes, and commercial and 
     criminal law questions. With deep experience in both private 
     and government practice, she will bring an appreciation of 
     both sides of the many important disputes before the District 
     of Columbia Circuit.

[[Page S7704]]

       Within the Bar, Ms. Millett has been a leader among her 
     peers, and a mentor to many other lawyers, through her 
     teaching visits to law schools and her work with a number of 
     professional associations, including the Coke Appellate Inn 
     of Court, the Supreme Court Institute, and the Opperman 
     Institute for Judicial Administration.
       Ms. Millett has a brilliant mind, a gift for clear, 
     persuasive writing, and a genuine zeal for the rule of law. 
     Equally important, she is unfailingly fair-minded.
       We understand there is an ongoing debate about the optimal 
     number of active judges for the District of Columbia Circuit, 
     and this letter takes no position on that issue. But if 
     additional judges are to be confirmed, we think Ms. Millett's 
     qualifications and character make her ideally suited for a 
     position on that distinguished Court. Please do not hesitate 
     to contact any of us if you have any questions.
           Sincerely,
     Kenneth W. Starr,
       (Solicitor General, 1989-1993).
     Drew S. Days III,
       (Solicitor General, 1993-1996).
     Walter E. Dellinger,
       (Acting Solicitor General, 1996-1997).
     Seth P. Waxman,
       (Solicitor General, 1997-2001).
     Theodore B. Olson,
       (Solicitor General, 2001-2004).
     Paul D. Clement,
       (Solicitor General, 2005-2008).
     Gregory G. Garre,
       (Solicitor General, 2008-2009).

  Mr. WARNER. Ms. Millett served seven former Solicitors General from 
all ends of the political spectrum. In the letter I just referred to, 
her nomination is supported by Democrats such as Walter Dellinger as 
well as Republicans such as Ted Olson and Ken Starr.
  She has also been recognized by the National Law Journal as one of 
the hundred most influential lawyers in America, and has received the 
endorsement of the American Bar Association.
  As mentioned by the Senator from California already, she has a 
remarkable personal story as well. She is active in our community in 
Virginia, she is a resident, and actually attends church in my home 
city of Alexandria. We saw earlier the picture of her and her husband, 
and as was mentioned before a picture is worth a thousand words. Her 
husband was deployed a number of times as a naval reservist in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, and earlier this month the Military Spouse 
J.D. Network recognized Ms. Millett for her professional service and 
for her service as a spouse of an Active-Duty participant.
  So this incredible lawyer, this incredible community servant, this 
individual who has the support of both Republicans and Democrats, 
should not be denied her appointment to the DC Circuit.
  Again, I have not been here when we were in the minority, but as has 
been mentioned time and again, when John Roberts--who is now, 
obviously, our Supreme Court Chief Justice--was nominated for the DC 
Circuit, he was confirmed unanimously. Even though many Democrats did 
not share his judicial views, they viewed his qualifications as 
impeccable.
  I heard constantly the same from my colleagues on the other side, 
that this is not a question of Ms. Millett's qualifications. Why should 
this individual be denied her appropriate representation on the DC 
Court of Appeals? So I hope, my colleagues, that we can avoid further 
threats and counterthreats. Let's vote this individual based upon her 
qualifications. On any indication of qualifications, Patricia Millett 
is ably qualified, uniquely qualified to serve on the DC Circuit Court 
of Appeals, and I urge my colleagues to vote for her confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Pattie 
Millett, of Alexandria, VA, to the United States Court of Appeals for 
the DC Circuit. Ms. Millett is extremely well qualified for this 
position, in terms of her legal expertise, experience, character, and 
integrity. The Senate should invoke cloture on and confirm her 
nomination.
  As one of the Nation's leading appellate lawyers, Ms. Millett 
possesses remarkable legal expertise in this area. She has litigated 
appellate cases extensively, including 32 arguments and many briefs 
before the U.S. Supreme Court, and 35 arguments spanning 12 of the 
Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal (including the DC Circuit). Her cases 
have spanned the spectrum of legal issues that the DC Circuit 
confronts, including constitutional law, administrative law, civil and 
criminal procedure, commercial disputes, national security, and civil 
rights. Ms. Millett also has many years of experience in the public 
sector, having worked in the Office of the Solicitor General for over 
11 years, and in the Appellate Section, Civil Division of the 
Department of Justice for 4 years. It's important to note that her 
service to the United States was bipartisan, spanning both Democratic 
and Republican administrations.
  Ms. Millett graduated from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, in 
1988 and she clerked for the Honorable Thomas Tang of the U.S. Circuit 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for 2 years.
  I believe Ms. Millett possesses the character and integrity necessary 
for a nomination of this caliber. She is an active member of Aldersgate 
United Methodist Church, where she teaches Sunday school and visits the 
hospitalized and home-bound. For many years she has also participated 
in the Hypothermia Homeless Shelter, which operates during the winter 
months on the Route 1 corridor in Alexandria, preparing meals.
  As a military spouse, Ms. Millett and her family have also sacrificed 
for our Nation. Ms. Millett's husband was deployed during Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, so she brings a unique understanding of veterans' issues 
and the stress of deployment on soldiers and their families.
  I know there have been issues raised regarding the caseload for the 
DC Circuit. These issues do not concern me. With respect to the size of 
the DC Circuit, Congress removed a seat under the Court Security 
Improvement Act of 2007. Today, three of the DC Circuit's eleven 
existing seats are vacant. And three other circuits currently have 
lower caseloads per active judge than the DC Circuit. Yet, just this 
year, the Senate confirmed nominees to two of these other circuit 
courts--the Eighth and Tenth Circuit.
  As Governor of Virginia, I chose two members of the Supreme Court of 
Virginia and have thought deeply about qualities that make for a strong 
appellate judge. I believe Ms. Millett is superbly qualified for a 
position on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I hope the Senate invokes 
cloture on her nomination today, and that she is confirmed for a 
position on the DC Circuit.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr President, I wish to speak briefly about an 
outstanding candidate nominated to serve on the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On June 4, 2013, 
President Obama nominated Patricia Millett to be a United States 
Circuit Judge.
  Patricia's qualifications to be a United States Circuit Judge are 
impeccable. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the University 
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Patricia practiced at Miller & 
Chevalier and worked as a law clerk for Judge Thomas Tang, on the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. Following 4 years in the appellate section of 
the Department of Justice's Civil Division, Patricia served as 
assistant to the Solicitor General for more than a decade.
  After her public service, Patricia joined Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & 
Feld LLP, where she heads the firm's Supreme Court practice and is co-
leader of its national appellate practice. She has extensive experience 
arguing cases before the Supreme Court--32 in all and is without 
question one of the Nation's leading appellate lawyers. Patricia's 
experience, education, and character have earned her praise from 
colleagues and clients alike. Following her nomination, the American 
Bar Association rated her unanimously well qualified to serve as a 
United States Circuit Judge.
  Patricia is also a military spouse, having steadfastly stood by her 
husband's side as he served his country in uniform for 22 years. As she 
awaits Senate confirmation, I am proud to say Patricia's nomination is 
supported by Blue Star Families, by veterans, and active-duty members 
of the Armed Forces, who today stand with her as she prepares to serve 
her country once more. Their support is a testament to

[[Page S7705]]

Patricia's character and to the integrity with which she will serve as 
a federal judge.
  I rise today to not only speak in strong support of Patricia's 
nomination, but also to decry the decision by Senate Republicans to 
once again play politics with President Obama's nominees and to place 
partisanship above all else.
  I rise today because my colleagues in the minority have declared it 
unnecessary to fill the three vacancies on the DC Circuit, including 
the seat to which Patricia has been nominated. The Senate Republicans 
on the Judiciary Committee propose eliminating the 9th, 10th, and 11th 
seats on the DC Circuit, rather than confirming nominees put forward by 
this President. Now, of course, my Republican colleagues dispute any 
partisan motivation. Instead, they claim a diminished caseload on the 
DC Circuit simply does not warrant confirmation of President Obama's 
nominees. This might be a persuasive argument were it not belied by 
Senate Republicans' confirmation of President Bush's nominees to these 
same seats and by the fact that the DC Circuit caseload has been 
consistent over the past decade and has even increased in recent years.
  In fact, when John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 
last held the seat Patricia would occupy, his caseload was lower than 
the pending caseload Patricia will encounter on her first day as a 
judge. Let me be clear, the fight over this confirmation has nothing to 
do with Patricia--instead it has everything to do with the fact that a 
Democrat, rather than a Republican, now controls the White House. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing everything they can 
to prevent confirmation of this President's nominees.
  Truly, the stakes are too high for this type of political 
gamesmanship, The DC Circuit is often called the second most important 
court in the United States, and for good reason. The DC Circuit handles 
some of the most complicated cases that enter the Federal court system, 
and its decisions touch the lives of Americans each and every day. From 
decisions affecting our clean air and water, to decisions having broad 
implications for labor relations, elections, and how we interpret and 
apply the Americans with Disabilities Act--decisions by the DC Circuit 
impact not only the quality of our lives today, but also our children's 
lives tomorrow.
  Most importantly for our men and women in uniform, for our veterans, 
and for their families, the DC Circuit has jurisdiction over the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Its 
decisions matter to our servicemembers, to our veterans, and to their 
families--which is why it is shameful that Senate Republicans would 
rather play politics than allow a clean up or down vote on Patricia's 
nomination. The American people expect more from us. They deserve more 
from us.
  I urge my colleagues to set aside partisanship and politics and allow 
an up or down vote on Patricia's nomination. Through her distinguished 
career and public service, Patricia Millett has earned not only our 
admiration and respect, but our support. Join me in supporting this 
nominee who is eminently qualified to serve as a United States Circuit 
Judge.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
nomination of Patricia Millett to be a Circuit Judge for the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  As my colleagues have noted, Patricia Millett will bring a wealth of 
experience and skill to the bench. She is a nationally recognized 
appellate attorney. She has argued 35 cases in nearly all of the 
Federal appellate courts and 32 cases at the Supreme Court. Patricia 
Millett is unquestionably qualified to serve as a judge on the DC 
Circuit Court.
  I am proud to serve on the Senate Armed Services and Veterans' 
Affairs Committees, and I have been moved by Patricia Millett's 
experience as part of a military family.
  Her husband, Robert King, served in the Navy and as a Navy reservist 
until his retirement last year. In 2004, he was deployed to Kuwait as 
part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and was called up again in the fall of 
2009 for Afghanistan, while Patricia cared for their 2 children, 
maintained the household, and continued her career, arguing before the 
Supreme Court.
  Patricia and her husband have faced what so many military families 
have, the difficulties of deployment, the challenges of separation and 
single parenting at home, and the process of reintegration when a 
servicemember returns. They have shown the deepest commitment to 
serving our Nation.
  Patricia Millett will bring these important experiences and the 
devotion to this country unique to military families with her to the 
bench, a vital contribution to the DC Circuit given the distinct role 
it plays in adjudicating military and defense issues.
  Much of Patricia's life has been devoted to public service, and her 
desire to serve as an appellate judge for the important DC Circuit is a 
reflection of that commitment to serve in the public interest. I am 
disappointed that our colleagues have blocked a vote to confirm Ms. 
Millett. I urge Senators to reconsider and support her nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The majority leader.