[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 30 (Monday, February 24, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S988-S996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF JEFFREY ALKER MEYER TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Jeffrey Alker 
Meyer, of Connecticut, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  Mr. RUBIO. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Sexual Assault

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, this is a sad day for the Senate. 
What does it say about this body that after having seen so many brave 
survivors of sexual assault in the military walk through the halls of 
this Congress for over a year now, we can't even give them the decency 
of a debate on the reform they so deeply believe in--a reform they 
believe in so deeply that they have selflessly retold their stories, 
reliving some of the worst moments of their lives, all so, hopefully, 
someone else doesn't have to suffer what they did. They may not wear 
the uniform anymore, but no one can tell me they aren't still serving 
their country through their sacrifice. Yet we can't even agree to vote 
for moving forward to debate the issue? They deserve a vote. The men 
and women who serve in our Armed Forces deserve a vote.
  Anyone who has been listening has heard over and over from survivors 
of sexual assaults in the military how the deck has been stacked 
against them. For two full decades the Defense Department has been 
unable to uphold its continued failed promises of zero tolerance for 
sexual assault. But when the Senate can't even agree to debate the one 
reform that survivors have consistently said is needed to solve this 
crisis, we are telling those victims the deck is stacked against them 
right here in the Senate as well.
  Last month this Congress rushed with great speed to remove a 
reduction in military pensions not slated to begin until 2015--a fix I 
fully supported. Legislative action was swift, and it was just. But I 
ask: Where is the same urgency to help stem the crisis of military 
sexual assault--an epidemic that is happening today? How is it we can't 
wait another week to stop a COLA reduction in pensions, but a reform 
that will lead to more rapists and predators behind bars waits 
indefinitely. We have been waiting for 20 years now--all the way back 
to 1992, when Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney stated zero tolerance in 
the wake of Tailhook.
  As many of my colleagues likely saw, the Associated Press revealed 
new evidence last month that took years of freedom of information 
requests to obtain. After reviewing the documents from Okinawa, Japan, 
the AP described the handling of cases as ``chaotic,'' where commanders 
overruled recommendations to prosecute or dropped charges altogether.
  Among the AP's findings: ``Victims increasingly declined to cooperate 
with investigators or recanted--a sign they may have been losing 
confidence in the system.''
  If that sounds familiar, it is because that is a fact that today's 
military leaders openly admit themselves. As Commandant of the Marine 
Corps James Amos put it:

       Why wouldn't female victims come forward. Because they 
     don't trust us. They don't trust the chain of command. They 
     don't trust the leadership.

  That is what we have a chance to fix right here today, but we are 
letting it pass us by because some here believe it is not even worthy 
of debate.
  This was never about being a Democratic idea or a Republican idea. It 
is just about doing what is right. People of good faith from both sides 
of the aisle, from both parties, can unite to deliver an independent, 
objective, and nonbiased military justice system that is worthy of the 
sacrifice the men and women in uniform make every day. It has taken us 
a long time to get to this point--too long, in fact. Every day we wait 
is another day the deck remains stacked against sexual assault victims 
in our military--another day when, statistically, it is estimated that 
over 70 incidents of unwanted sexual contact occur, and nearly nine out 
of 10 go unreported.
  Nowhere else in America would we allow a boss to decide if an 
employee was sexually assaulted, except in the U.S. military.
  The men and women of our military deserve to have unbiased, trained 
military prosecutors reviewing their cases and making the ultimate 
decision about whether to go to trial solely on the merits of the 
evidence. They deserve a fair shot at justice today, not after another 
year of a system that is broken under any metric. They deserve a vote 
that a bipartisan majority of the Senate supports, and they deserve 
that vote now.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the role.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here very proudly and gratefully 
to support the nomination of Jeffrey Meyer as a U.S. district court 
judge for the District of Connecticut. I am proud because of his 
extraordinary credentials. I am grateful to President Obama and, 
hopefully, to this body for giving Connecticut the services of a 
professor, litigator, prosecutor, and a person of extraordinary 
integrity and ability. Jeffrey Meyer has all of the qualifications in 
extraordinary depth and quality to be a great judge. He is truly a 
lawyers' lawyer. He is a prosecutors' prosecutor. He will be a judges' 
judge.
  Mr. Meyer served as a legal aid lawyer in Vermont for Vermont Legal 
Aid and as an associate of two Washington, DC, law firms. He really has 
made his mark as a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office in 
Connecticut, where he served for 10 years, five of them as appeals 
chief. He also was a law clerk to Judge Oakes for the Second Circuit. 
He has a grounding in academia, having taught at Quinnipiac Law School 
and served as Supreme Court advocacy clinic teacher at Yale, where he 
has also been a visiting professor since 2000.
  I am abbreviating and summarizing his credentials because they are 
well documented and well known in this body. What can't be summarized 
so easily is the quality of judgment he has and that befits a judge on 
the Federal court.
  Judges on the U.S. district court, as I know from my own experience, 
having litigated for quite a few years, are often the last point of 
justice for many people in our country. They are the voice and face of 
justice for so many people who may not have the means or the 
persistence to appeal further, and for most litigants he will be the 
voice and face of justice before his court. That is a very solemn 
responsibility. It is a responsibility for life.
  These decisions about who will serve on the district court are among 
the most important we make in this body, so we approach it seriously 
and thoughtfully. Following the high standards we impose, Jeffrey Meyer 
aptly and abundantly meets the test for serving as a U.S. district 
court judge: His background in litigation; his experience in actually 
trying cases; his background as an academic, in thinking through some 
of the toughest issues of the law and teaching others how to do it, how 
to actually be a lawyer; and, of course, his judgment and his sense of 
perspective and, most importantly, his integrity.
  I have worked with Jeff Meyer. I know of his dedication to his 
clients. I have worked with him in very tough personal situations where 
his advice to a client would make a critical difference in that 
person's life. I know he

[[Page S989]]

has the human quality of compassion and insight that is really 
necessary to make judgments about credibility when he has to judge the 
credibility of a witness on the stand or when he has to sentence an 
individual who may have broken the law but has mitigating factors to 
present. Anybody who spends time in a trial court knows that judges 
have to make split-second decisions based on their knowledge of the law 
but also on their instincts, on what they sense is right. Jeff Meyer 
has that quality of judgment that makes all the difference in the 
world. Some people have it, even if they haven't graduated, as Jeff 
Meyer did, from some of the best schools in the country, and some 
people don't, even when they have all the degrees in the world. Maybe 
it is common sense or horse sense or good instincts or character. It is 
very hard for anyone to say who has it without meeting them, as we did 
on the Judiciary Committee, and knowing them.
  I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my great friend and 
colleague Senator Leahy, for championing people of this great ability. 
Senator Leahy has devoted his lifetime to the quality of our Federal 
judiciary, and it has been immensely beneficial to our judiciary and to 
all who appear before our Federal judges to have a champion such as 
Senator Leahy of Vermont.
  There are now 96 vacancies in our Federal court. Thirty-nine of those 
vacancies have been classified as judicial emergencies. Let us get on 
with our task and our responsibility to make sure justice is not 
delayed in the greatest country in the history of the world, because we 
know so often justice delayed is, in fact, justice denied. That may be 
true of the least seemingly important case that matters so greatly to 
the person whose life is at stake or it may be an issue of great moment 
to the Nation's future. But one way or the other, the American people 
rely on us to make sure justice is done, that judges are nominated and 
confirmed, and that we enable every American to have access to judges 
who will decide fairly and wisely the merits of their case. Whether it 
is through a trial or in a motion, justice is what makes our Nation one 
of the greatest--the greatest, in fact--in the history of the world.
  I am very proud and grateful for the opportunity to support Jeff 
Meyer to be a U.S. district court judge for Connecticut.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator 
from Connecticut for his kind words. Having served as attorney general 
of his State and in various other roles in our courts, he understands 
very much when he says justice delayed is justice denied. Whether you 
are a plaintiff or a defendant, that is true.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 
minutes and Senator Murphy of Connecticut be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I began the year expressing my hope that we 
would set aside our differences and do what is best for this country by 
confirming qualified nominees to fill these critical vacancies facing 
our Federal judiciary. I have been here with both Republican and 
Democratic leadership, Republican and Democratic Presidents. Never in 
my 40 years in the Senate have I seen such an effort to exploit every 
means of delay for every judicial nomination, even when a nominee is 
supported by both Republicans and Democrats and supported by their home 
State Senators. This did not happen with President Ford, with President 
Carter, with President Reagan, with President George H.W. Bush, with 
President Clinton, with President George W. Bush. This President is 
treated differently.
  Now, I have heard some Senate Republicans claim the majority leader 
can simply bring up these nominations for a vote whenever he chooses to 
do so. I think that is done with the hope that some in the press or 
some people watching may not understand they are hiding from the 
American people the fact that they are not letting the majority leader 
bring them up for a vote. In fact, if their claims were true, we would 
be voting to confirm four district court judges tonight. Instead, the 
Senate Republicans are deliberately obstructing and placing roadblocks 
so that each and every confirmation takes longer. It is very similar to 
what they did when they caused the needless and costly partial shutdown 
of the government. They shut down the government. Here, they are trying 
to shut down the judiciary.
  This pointless obstruction is why Congress is so unpopular with the 
American people. They make it as difficult as possible to respond to 
the needs of our Federal judiciary. This has been going on since 
President Obama first took office in 2009. In fact, within a short time 
after the President was sworn in, Republicans filibustered his very 
first judicial nominee. That has never been done for any President of 
either party. Incidentally, that judicial nominee, who had the highest 
possible rating from the American Bar Association, had the strong 
support of the senior Senator from his State, who was also the senior 
Republican then serving in the Senate. The most senior Republican 
Senator supported the nomination, but the Republican leadership said: 
No. We have to filibuster and block the nomination because, after all, 
it was President Obama's nomination, not President Bush's nomination.
  It was around this time that the Republican leader said his primary 
goal was for President Obama to fail. Now, if a Democrat had said that 
about a Republican President, we would have heard about it ad 
infinitum.
  We were forced to change the Senate Rules. This was something I was 
very reluctant to see done, but we did it because we have to get past 
this obstruction. Otherwise, our Federal judiciary would grind to a 
halt in many parts of the country. The worst part about it is when 
there are judicial nominees with the support of both Republican and 
Democratic Senators, but a tiny group in their leadership says: Oh, no, 
we cannot possibly vote on these. It might give President Obama a 
victory. This ignores the fact that he was elected twice by pretty 
significant margins. It also ignores the fact that the Federal 
judiciary has always been kept out of partisan politics. Instead, they 
do it to politicize the Federal judiciary more than I have seen in my 
40 years here. It is a shame. It should stop.
  Let's start acting like grownups in the Senate, not like children 
fighting in a sandbox. And then they wonder why the American people are 
so turned off. First they close down the Federal Government; now they 
are, by increments, closing down the Federal courts.
  Tonight I hope we will vote to end the filibusters of four judicial 
nominees to Federal district courts in Connecticut, Arkansas, and 
California. Each of these nominees--Jeffrey Meyer to fill a vacancy to 
the District of Connecticut; James Maxwell Moody, Jr., to fill a 
vacancy to the Eastern District of Arkansas; and James Donato and Beth 
Labson Freeman to fill judicial emergency vacancies to the Northern 
District of California--were voted out of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee with the unanimous support of Republicans and Democrats. Yet, 
they have languished on the Senate floor for months. Because of 
Republican obstruction we are again wasting precious time to overcome 
procedural hurdles just to have an up-or-down vote on these worthy 
nominees.
  I began the year expressing my hope that we would set aside our 
differences and do what is best for this country by confirming 
qualified nominees to fill critical vacancies facing our Federal 
Judiciary. Instead, it appears that Senate Republicans have decided to 
double down and to further exhaust every means of delay at their 
disposal, even when a nominee is supported by those on both sides of 
the aisle and supported by both home State Senators.
  A few weeks ago, prior to recessing, Senator Pryor asked for 
unanimous consent to vote on the nominations of Timothy Brooks and 
James Moody to fill judicial vacancies in the Western and Eastern 
Districts of Arkansas. Both of these nominees had the bipartisan 
support of their home State senators, as well as the bipartisan support 
of every single member of the Judiciary Committee. Both these nominees 
could and should have been confirmed last year, as they were originally 
voted out of committee by voice vote last October and November, 
respectively. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans refused

[[Page S990]]

to consent to a vote on their nominations as the year ended. This meant 
that these nominees had to be re-nominated and re-processed through 
committee. Having jumped through all of these additional hurdles, these 
nominees still cannot get a vote on their nominations as Senate 
Republicans continue to object. Senate Republicans claim that the 
majority leader himself can bring up these nominations for a vote 
whenever he chooses to do so. But what the Republicans are hiding from 
the American people is that they are deliberately obstructing and 
placing roadblocks so that each and every confirmation takes as long as 
humanly possible.
  This illustrates why Congress is so unpopular with the American 
people. Here, you have lawmakers deliberately making it as difficult as 
possible to do something to address the needs of our Federal Judiciary. 
Republicans may see this as retribution for the rules change that 
occurred last year, but their steadfast obstruction only hurts the 
American people.
  More than a month into the new year, we have confirmed just one 
judicial nominee. This is the case even though there are currently 96 
judicial vacancies, 39 of which have been deemed emergency vacancies by 
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In stark contrast, there 
were only 56 judicial vacancies at the same point in President Bush's 
tenure. The comparison is even more troubling when you consider the 32 
judicial nominees currently pending on the Executive Calendar. We could 
lower the number of judicial vacancies today to 64 if Senate 
Republicans would consent to voting on the pending nominees. We have 
not had fewer than 70 vacancies since May 2009, more than 4 years ago. 
And for most of President Obama's tenure in office, judicial vacancies 
have continued to hover around 80 and 90 because of Senate Republican 
obstruction. Nevertheless, Senate Republicans continue to object to 
votes on these nominations.
  There are no excuses for the delays except sheer partisanship. All 
but 3 of the 32 judicial nominees currently pending on the Executive 
Calendar had hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. 
Despite the self-imposed delays by Republicans, who demanded these 
nominees be sent back to the President to be re-nominated and re-
processed through committee, the Judiciary Committee has worked hard to 
again report them out of committee. The only delay that is holding them 
up is the Republicans who have continuously objected to a vote on their 
nominations.
  Almost all of the judicial nominees pending before the full Senate 
are uncontroversial. In fact, of the 32 judicial nominees currently 
pending, 30 were voted out of committee with bipartisan support. It is 
clear that Senate Republicans have decided to use the rules change as 
another excuse to further accomplish their partial government shut 
down. Before the rules change, Senate Republicans used anonymous holds 
to delay confirming qualified judicial nominees, and dragged their feet 
every step of the way to slow down the confirmation process. Senate 
Democrats changed the rules precisely because of these delay tactics, 
which were causing great harm to the judicial system and negatively 
impacting those Americans who were seeking justice in our Federal 
courts. The American people who have sought to obtain justice in our 
Federal courts deserve speedy and prompt justice. The petty partisan 
tactics on display tonight are not even worthy of the playgrounds of 
our children and grandchildren, let alone the United States Senate.
  It used to be that nominees for U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal were 
confirmed by unanimous consent without taking up any floor time. 
However, Republicans have now decided that they will delay the 
confirmation of these nominees as well. Once again, the only 
individuals who are hurt by these tit-for-tat political games are the 
American people. When a State lacks the necessary law enforcement 
officers they need to keep its streets safe from criminals, it is the 
American people that are hurt. I hope that Senate Republicans will re-
think this misguided strategy of obstruction and do-nothingness.
  Shortly, I hope we can overcome the filibusters on the following 
qualified judicial nominees:
  Jeffrey Meyer is nominated to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Connecticut. He has served since 
2006 as a professor of law at Quinnipiac University School of Law, and 
since 2010 as a visiting professor of law at Yale Law School. He served 
as senior counsel to the Independent Inquiry Committee into the United 
Nations Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq from 2004 to 2005. He served as an 
assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Connecticut from 1995 to 
2004, and as appeals chief from 2000 to 2004. Prior to his work as a 
Federal prosecutor, he worked as an associate at Kellogg, Huber, 
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel PLLC from 1993 to 1995, and at Shearman & 
Sterling LLP in 1993, and from 1990 to 1991. He worked as a staff 
attorney for Vermont Legal Aid from 1992 to 1993. Following law school, 
he served as a law clerk to three distinguished Federal judges, 
including Justice Harry Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge 
Donald Ross of the Eighth Circuit, and Judge James Oakes of the second 
Circuit. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary 
unanimously rated Mr. Meyer well qualified to serve on the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Connecticut, its highest rating. He 
has the strong support of both his home State Senators, Senator 
Blumenthal and Senator Murphy. He was approved by the Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote last September, and once again, last month.
  Judge James Moody is nominated to fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. 
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Since 2003, he has 
served as a circuit court judge in Arkansas's Sixth Judicial Circuit. 
He has presided over 1,000 cases in the Arkansas State Court Systems. 
He previously worked in private practice at Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 
LLP as a partner from 1994 to 2003, and as an associate from 1989 to 
1994. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously 
rated Judge Moody well qualified to serve on the U.S. District Court 
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, its highest rating. He has the 
strong bipartisan support of both his home State Senators, Senator 
Pryor and Senator Boozman. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee 
by voice vote last November, and once again, last month.
  James Donato is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in the 
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Since 
2009, he has worked in private practice as a partner at Sherman & 
Sterling LLP. He has served pro bono as a court appointed mediator in 
the Northern District of California since 2002, handling civil rights 
actions against state and local law enforcement departments. He 
previously worked as a Partner at Cooley LLP from 1998 to 2009, and as 
a special counsel from 1996 to 1998. He served as a deputy city 
attorney in the Trial Division of the San Francisco City Attorney's 
Office from 1993 to 1996, and as an Associate at Morrison & Foerster 
LLP from 1990 to 1993. Following his graduation from Stanford Law 
School, he clerked for Judge Proctor Hug, Jr., of the United States 
Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Donato earned his B.A. in 
1983 from the University of California, where he was a member of Phi 
Beta Kappa. He earned his M.A. in history in 1984 at Harvard 
University, and his J.D. in 1988 from Stanford Law School, where he 
served as senior editor of the Stanford Law Review. He has the strong 
support of both his home State Senators, Senator Boxer and Senator 
Feinstein. He was approved by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote 
last October, and once again, last month.
  Judge Beth Freeman is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy 
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 
Since 2001, she has served as a California State judge in San Mateo 
County Superior Court. She served as the presiding judge from 2011 to 
2012. During her 12 years on the bench, she has presided over 
approximately 150 jury trials and over a thousand bench trials. She 
previously served as a deputy county counsel to the San Mateo County 
Counsel's Office from 1983 to 2001. She worked in private practice at 
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, and Jacobson in Washington, DC as an 
associate attorney from 1979 to 1981. Judge Freeman earned her B.A. 
with distinction from the University of California,

[[Page S991]]

Berkeley in 1976. She earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. 
She has the strong support of both her home State Senators, Senator 
Boxer and Senator Feinstein. She was approved by the Judiciary 
Committee by voice vote last October, and once again, last month.
  I thank the majority leader for filing cloture petitions to end the 
filibusters of these much needed trial court judges. I hope my fellow 
Senators will join me today to end these filibusters so that these 
nominees can get working on behalf of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in support of the 
nomination of Jeffrey Meyer of Connecticut to be a U.S. judge for the 
District of Connecticut. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee for his hard work in shepherding Mr. Meyer's nomination 
through the process and thank my colleagues and leadership for bringing 
it to the floor today.
  Before I make brief remarks in support specifically of Meyer's 
nomination, I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator 
Leahy and Senator Blumenthal.
  There are essentially two ways to try to shut down the government 
from within. You can try to defund it--and we have seen that effort 
play out in real terms at great cost to the American people over the 
last year and a half--and you can also try to depopulate it. You can 
try to very slowly and methodically take people out of positions by 
either denying them confirmation into the administration--as we have 
seen, as a long list of nominees to agencies throughout the Federal 
Government are being delayed by Republicans--or you can try to keep the 
judiciary understaffed so it cannot do its work as well.
  So I, unfortunately, believe this is part of a pretty methodical 
policy and strategy on behalf of those who feel as though they have 
been elected to destroy government from within, to both try to defund 
the organs of government and then also to depopulate its ranks. That is 
part of the reason I think we are laboring under delay tactic after 
delay tactic when it comes to our Federal judiciary. Today, though, 
hopefully we can unite around a nominee who is singularly qualified to 
serve on the district court.
  I am proud to support Jeff Meyer's nomination--someone who comes from 
a family with deep roots in public service. Mr. Meyer has worked in the 
legal system but also has a history of helping the poor and the 
voiceless in Connecticut throughout his career. Both Senator Blumenthal 
and I know his father well, Ed Meyer, who served with me in the 
Connecticut State Senate.
  Jeff Meyer comes from a world-class educational background, in part 
because he got a lot of it in Connecticut. He is a graduate of both the 
college and the law school at Yale. He has an extensive academic and 
teaching background. After he graduated law school, Mr. Meyer clerked 
at the Supreme Court for Justice Blackmun, and then for Judge James 
Oakes, the former chief judge of the Second Circuit. Currently, he 
teaches the Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School, where he 
provides pro bono legal services. Before that, he taught at Quinnipiac 
Law School, where he was honored with their Excellence in Teaching 
Award.
  But even more impressive than his academic background and training is 
Jeff Meyer's long history of working for a fair and just legal system 
in Connecticut and, frankly, throughout the Northeast. Even as a law 
student Jeff Meyer showed a commitment to helping disadvantaged groups 
by giving legal assistance to homeless clients through the Yale Law 
School clinic. He actually received an award for his work there from 
the City of New Haven. Later, he worked as a staff attorney in Senator 
Leahy's home State of Vermont at Vermont Legal Aid. In Connecticut, he 
helped keep our State safe by serving as an assistant U.S. attorney for 
9 years. Since 2008 he has served on the Connecticut Judicial Ethics 
Committee--a fairly thankless task, I might add--and he has served on a 
range of other important State and local committees, including the 
Advisory Committee for the Selection of the Connecticut Federal Public 
Defender, the Independent Accountability Panel for New Haven's police 
department, and the U.S. Attorney's Police and Urban Youth Task Force.
  Aside from his academic and community work, Jeff Meyer has also 
managed to find time in between to litigate complex commercial issues 
and investigate foreign aid issues. He served as an editor and 
counselor of the Independent Panel Review of the World Bank Department 
of Institutional Integrity. And he did an incredibly important tour of 
duty as the senior counsel of the Independent Inquiry Committee into 
the United Nations Oil for Food Program. He also wrote a book on the 
U.N. oil for food scandal. Along with his book, Mr. Meyer has an 
impressive body of legal scholarship that includes a wide range of law 
review articles and opinion pieces on topics ranging from criminal 
justice issues, to foreign aid, to workplace safety.
  I will point out that Jeff Meyer is exceptional in the sense that he 
has sought work that others in the legal community might avoid. The 
work he has done on Connecticut's Judicial Ethics Committee or in the 
independent review process of the New Haven Police Department or even 
in his work investigating the Oil for Food Program was tough stuff--
issues that were controversial that some other lawyers may have 
avoided. But Jeff Meyer sought places in which his talents were needed 
and in areas in which others may have looked the other way.
  The District of Connecticut is currently about 13 percent 
understaffed, and this confirmation would fill a vacancy that has 
existed now for almost 2 years. Because Jeff Meyer has such stellar 
qualifications, I cannot think of any reason why people in this body 
would oppose his nomination. I urge all my colleagues to support him.
  I yield the floor.
 Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to 
invoke cloture on the nomination of Jeffrey Meyer to fill a judicial 
vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. 
Though I was not able to be present to cast my vote this afternoon, I 
fully support the nomination of this qualified individual to fill the 
vacancy in Connecticut. If I had been here I would have voted to 
confirm this highly qualified nominee. It would not have changed the 
outcome of the vote. I want to congratulate Senator Leahy and Senator 
Grassley on their leadership and hope that we can all continue to work 
together to address the backlog of judicial nominations.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Jeffrey Alker Meyer, of Connecticut, to be United States 
     District Judge for the District of Connecticut.
         Harry Reid, Sherrod Brown, Richard J. Durbin, Christopher 
           Murphy, Robert Menendez, Christopher A. Coons, Angus S. 
           King, Jr., Martin Heinrich, Amy Klobuchar, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Tom Udall, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Bernard 
           Sanders, Barbara Boxer, Brian Schatz, Robert P. Casey, 
           Jr., Thomas R. Carper, Benjamin L. Cardin, Michael F. 
           Bennet.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Jeffrey Alker Meyer, of Connecticut, to be United States 
District Judge for the District of Connecticut, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. HATCH (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from 
Idaho (Mr.

[[Page S992]]

Risch), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 37, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 36 Ex.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Hatch
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Graham
     Isakson
     Landrieu
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Risch
     Toomey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 55, the nays are 37, and 1 
Senator voting ``present.''
  The motion is agreed to.
  Pursuant to the provisions of S. Res. 15 of the 113th Congress, there 
will be up to 2 hours of postcloture consideration of the nomination, 
equally divided, in the usual form.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. On behalf of the majority, I yield back 58 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is so yielded.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Either tonight or tomorrow the Senate will consider 
several district court nominees. These nominees will be brought up, 
considered by the Senate, and in all likelihood confirmed in very short 
order. As I mentioned several times, this is a procedure the Democrats 
voted to pursue in November when they voted for the so-called nuclear 
option. The majority voted to eliminate the filibuster on nominations 
and to cut the minority, us Republicans, out of the process.
  While the Senate is debating these district court nominees, it gives 
me a good opportunity to continue the discussion about how the Senate 
ought to be functioning in the constitutional way determined by our 
Constitution writers. There is no debate that the Senate isn't 
functioning properly, and we have been treated to relentless finger-
pointing from the other side regarding who is to blame.
  Unless we can establish a nonpartisan account of how the Senate ought 
to function, this debate will amount to nothing more than a 
kindergarten shouting match.
  I wish to return to the Federalist Papers, which are the most 
detailed account, from the time the Constitution was being ratified, 
about how our institution, this Senate, was intended to 
operate. Although these Federalist Papers were written over 200 years 
ago, the principles those papers articulate are timeless, and the 
problems they highlight are strikingly relevant to this very day.

  The last time I addressed the Senate on this subject I quoted at 
length from a passage in Federalist No. 62. Although the Federalist 
Papers were published under the pseudonym of ``Publius,'' we know they 
were written by three of our Founding Fathers: James Madison, Alexander 
Hamilton, and John Jay.
  Federalist No. 62 has been attributed to the father of the 
Constitution James Madison. In it he lists several problems that can be 
encountered by a republic the Senate was specifically, under the 
Constitution, designed to counteract.
  The first point Madison makes is that having a second chamber--
meaning the Senate--composed differently than the House makes it less 
likely one faction will be able to take over and enact an agenda out of 
step with the American people.
  The second point deals with the tendency of a unicameral legislature 
to yield to sudden and popular impulses and pass what he called 
``intemperate and pernicious resolutions.''
  The third point is that based on the experience of the early 
unicameral State legislatures, a second chamber, with longer terms, 
such as the Senate, and a more deliberative process, such as the Senate 
is supposed to have, will make sure any laws passed are well thought 
out. The Framers of our Constitution determined it was better to get it 
right the first time than to subject the American people to the 
upheavals caused by the need to fix poorly conceived laws.
  Madison talks about the early American experience with ``all the 
repealing, explaining and amending laws,'' which he calls ``monuments 
of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding 
against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, of 
the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted 
Senate.''
  In my last speech I did not get to Madison's fourth and final point 
in Federalist Paper 62, which is quite long and deserves to be examined 
in detail, and that is my main purpose today. Madison concludes Federal 
No. 62 with an extensive discussion of the importance of stability to 
good government and the danger to rule of law from constant change. So 
here he is talking about the purpose intended for the Senate. This 
section starts:

       Fourthly, the mutability in the public councils arising 
     from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified 
     they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the 
     necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every 
     new election in the States is found to change one-half of the 
     representatives. From this change of men must proceed a 
     change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change 
     of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is 
     inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect 
     of success. The remark is verified in private life, and 
     becomes more just, as well as more important, in national 
     transactions.

  Here Madison is making a case for stable government instead of 
constant change. He says that constant change, even with good ideas, 
will not produce positive results. Madison then elaborates on the 
various problems caused by an unstable government. This is what he 
first says about a country that is constantly changing its laws:

       . . . she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is 
     the derision of her enemies; and that she is prey to every 
     nation which has an interest in speculating on her 
     fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.

  Madison then makes the case that the domestic ramifications of 
constantly enacting and changing laws ``poisons the blessing of liberty 
itself.''
  But he goes on to explain:

       It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are 
     made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous 
     that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot 
     be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are 
     promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, 
     who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be 
     tomorrow.

  This sounds a little bit like what we are finding with the health 
care law today, which is being rewritten daily and on the fly by the 
Obama administration. The Law has been changed by the President 29 
times so far. But it is part of a bigger problem we face with new laws 
and regulations from agencies which have the force of law being churned 
out in such volume that no American can possibly know what all those 
regulations are.
  Just based upon probability, Americans are likely to violate some 
regulation or some other law without knowing it at the time. Madison is 
making a case not just for more thoughtful laws but fewer laws.
  When the majority leader and many in the media complain the Senate 
should be passing laws at a higher rate, those people miss the point 
entirely. To listen to some Members of the majority, and even more so 
in the media of America, one would think the success of a session of 
Congress was measured solely on the sheer number of laws passed and not 
on the quality of those laws that it passes.
  Common sense tells all of us the Senate was specifically designed to 
slow down the process and to make sure

[[Page S993]]

that Congress passes fewer but better laws. Madison elaborates further 
on why fewer laws are better in this passage, which is extremely 
relevant today:

       Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable 
     advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and 
     the moneyed few over the industrious and uninformed mass of 
     the people.
       Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in 
     any way affecting the value of the different species of 
     property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the 
     change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not 
     by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body 
     of their fellow citizens.

  In other words, a situation where Congress is constantly changing the 
laws gives more influence to those who can hire lawyers to keep on top 
of the changes and lobbyists who influence them versus the little guy 
who is out there on his own.
  It is sometimes said that big businesses don't like regulations. But 
that isn't my experience in many instances. The bigger and wealthier a 
business or a union or other special interest group, the better chance 
they have to shape a new law or regulation and the more people they can 
hire to help them comply. On the other hand, small businesses and 
individuals can't hire a team of lawyers to read the latest laws and 
regulations and fill out the proper paperwork. Small businesses and 
individuals are the ones squeezed out of the marketplace by the 
constant flow of new laws.
  An overactive government benefits the big guys at the expense of the 
little guys. If you think that fact is lost on the big guys and their 
lobbyists when they come to Congress, you would in fact be very badly 
mistaken. So as James Madison so wisely noted, an overactive government 
is an invitation to the rich and the powerful to use government to 
their benefit and to the detriment of their competitors.
  That goes to show there is a great benefit to stability in laws as 
opposed to constant change--the very purpose Madison sets out for the 
Senate.
  A cornerstone of liberty is the rule of law, meaning the law is 
transparent and no one is above the law. If you look around the world 
today, the poorest and least free countries are the ones where there is 
no rule of law. If someone can take what you have earned through force 
and you have no legal recourse, that is an example where there is no 
rule of law. If the rich and the powerful get special privileges, that 
is an example of where the rule of law has broken down.
  The rule of law is one of the principles our country was founded 
upon. But when there are so many rules and they are changing so quickly 
the average citizen cannot keep up, that undermines the rule of law.
  Of course, the situation is only made worse when the rules already on 
the books are waived for the politically connected. Of course, that is 
another problem, but one that has become all too common under this 
administration, particularly with the health care reform law, where 29 
changes have already been made by the President on his own volition, 
and some of us believe even contrary to law. As an example, I have even 
heard some Democratic Senators comment: How can the President make the 
change on employer mandates?
  Of course, going back to the Senate's role, I am not making a case 
for doing nothing or that we should be happy with the failure of the 
Senate to debate legislation. The Senate is supposed to be slow and 
deliberative, not stopped. That is why we are called the greatest 
deliberative body in the world. Still, it is important to get away from 
this notion that somehow the failure to ram legislation through the 
Senate with no debate and no amendments is a problem.
  The reason the Senate doesn't function when the majority leader tries 
to run it that way is very simple. The Senate was not designed to do 
business that way. The Senate was intended to be the deliberative body 
we always praise and has been for most of its history. But it has now 
become routine for the leadership to file cloture to end consideration 
of a matter immediately upon moving to it. By contrast, the regular 
order is for the Senate to consider a matter for some period of time--
how long would vary--but allowing Senators from all parties to weigh in 
before cloture is even contemplated.
  Cloture was invented to allow the Senate to end consideration of a 
matter after the vast majority of Senators had concluded it has 
received sufficient consideration. Prior to that, there was no way to 
end debate so long as at least one Senator wished to keep deliberating. 
Cloture was a compromise between the desire to move things along and 
the principle that each Senator, as a representative of his or her 
respective State, has the right to participate fully in the legislative 
process.
  The compromise was originally that two-thirds of Senators voting had 
to be satisfied a matter had received sufficient consideration. That 
was reduced to three-fifths of all Senators. Each time this matter is 
renegotiated, the compromise leans more in favor of speeding up the 
process at the expense of allowing Senators to fully represent the 
people of their respective States.
  The majority leadership routinely files cloture immediately upon 
proceeding to a matter. Again, cloture is a tool to cut off further 
consideration of a matter when it appears it is dragging on too long. 
One can hardly claim the Senate has taken too much time to deliberate 
over something when it hasn't even begun consideration and debate of 
the specific matter.
  According to data from the Congressional Research Service, there were 
only seven times during the first session of this current Congress the 
Senate started to consider a bill for a day or more before cloture was 
filed. That is out of 34 cloture motions related to legislative 
business. The number of same-day cloture filings has more than doubled 
compared to when Republicans last controlled the Senate.
  Moreover, the total number of cloture motions filed each session of 
Congress under this majority leadership has roughly doubled compared to 
the period from 1991 to 2006, under majority leaders of both political 
parties. Before 1991, cloture was even more rare. This is a sign that 
cloture is being overused, even abused, by the majority.
  Still, if this alarming rise in cloture motions was a legitimate 
response to a minority of Senators insisting on extended debate to 
delay proceedings beyond what is necessary for reasonable deliberation, 
otherwise known as a filibuster, then of course it would be justified. 
That is clearly not the case when the overwhelming number of motions to 
cut off debate are made before debate has even started.
  What amount of time is necessary for deliberations and what is purely 
dilatory in any particular case is, of course, a subjective 
determination. However, the practice of routinely moving to cut off 
consideration of virtually every measure when there has not even yet 
been any deliberation cannot be justified in a body termed ``the most 
deliberative body in the world''--that being the U.S. Senate.
  So we are in a situation where this is very much an abuse of the 
cloture motion. Along with the routine blocking of amendments, cloture 
abuse is preventing Senators from doing what we are paid to do; that 
is, to represent the people of our States.
  Shutting Senators out of the deliberative process isn't just an 
argument about dry Senate procedure, as the majority leader has tried 
to suggest in response to criticisms. When Senators are blocked from 
participating in the legislative process, the people they represent are 
effectively disenfranchised.
  When I say people are disenfranchised when the majority leadership 
shuts Senators out of the process, I don't just mean citizens of the 45 
States that elected Republican Senators. The citizens of States that 
elected Democratic Senators also expect those Senators to offer 
amendments and engage with their colleagues from different parties. 
Shutting down consideration of a bill before it has been considered 
prevents even Members of the majority party from offering amendments 
which may be important to the people of their respective States. Voters 
have a right to expect the people they elect to actually do the hard 
work of representing them, not just be a rubberstamp for their 
leadership's legislative agenda.
  Senators who go along with tactics which disenfranchise their own 
constituents should have to answer to those who voted them into office 
as to why they aren't willing to do the job they were elected to do. 
That job includes not just offering amendments

[[Page S994]]

when appropriate but taking tough votes which reveal to their 
constituents where that Senator stands. The majority leader has gone 
out of his way to shield members of his caucus from taking votes that 
may hurt them back home. Senators don't have any right to avoid tough 
votes. That is not the deliberative process James Madison envisioned 
and expressed in the writings of the Federalist Papers.
  If we are going to have good laws which can stand the test of time, 
the Senate must be allowed to function as it was intended to function. 
One aspect of what is needed to return the Senate to its proper 
function as a deliberative body is to end cloture abuse.
  I would ask my colleagues to reflect on all the changes to the Senate 
recently, including those negotiated between the two leaders a year ago 
in return for a promise--which was not kept--not to use the nuclear 
option, as well as the subsequent use of the nuclear option yet 10 
months later, last November.
  Those reforms, if you can call them reforms, have been in the 
direction of reducing the ability of individual Senators to represent 
the people of their States and at the same time concentrating power 
with the majority leadership. It is time we had some reforms to get the 
Senate back functioning as a deliberative body as was intended under 
the Constitution. The Senate is supposed to be a place where all voices 
are heard and reason can rise above partisanship.
  I urge all my colleagues to reflect on these thoughts and think about 
our responsibility to the people of our States. If we do, I am sure we 
can come up with some sensible reforms to end the abuse of cloture and 
restore the Senate to the deliberative body the Framers of the 
Constitution intended it to be and, most importantly, as expressed by 
James Madison. I will be thinking about that, and I would encourage all 
my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                               ObamaCare

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Iowa talks 
convincingly and persuasively about so many times when Members are shut 
out of the process. Certainly chief among those would have been in 
2009, when we could have used the expertise of Senator Grassley, had 
our colleagues across the aisle been willing to work with him in a 
bipartisan fashion to write a bipartisan health care bill which 
employed market principles and competition. Instead, just as he 
mentioned in his remarks, he was shut out of the process, as were all 
Republicans. So we have an ObamaCare law on the books now supported by 
every Democrat in the Senate and supported by no Republicans, some 18 
percent of our gross domestic product turned on its head by this 
legislation, and it was not done in a bipartisan fashion as anything 
this big should be done. The Senator is correct, and I appreciate him 
mentioning the larger sense in which Members feel they are being shut 
out of the process.
  I rise tonight particularly to call Members' attention to an op-ed in 
today's Wall Street Journal, Monday, February 24, page A-15, entitled 
``ObamaCare and My Mother's Cancer Medicine,'' by Stephen Blackwood.
  I have no idea about Stephen Blackwood's politics. The article at the 
end says Mr. Blackwood is president of Ralston College, a planned 
liberal arts institution in Savannah, GA. So I know he comes from 
academia, and I know he loves his mother and is concerned with what 
ObamaCare has done to his mother's cancer coverage.
  The story Mr. Blackwood tells about his mother Catherine reflects the 
very real life-or-death consequences of the President's health care 
law. Many of us who oppose the law often point to the financial costs, 
the delays, and the flawed implementation. But the human aspect is much 
more tragic.
  In relaying his family's current situation in this op-ed in the Wall 
Street Journal today, Mr. Blackwood depicts the law's devastating 
effects on individual Americans. He begins by saying:

       When my mother was diagnosed with carcinoid cancer in 2005, 
     when she was 49, it came as a lightning shock.

  I know it would to any family. He goes on to say later:

       Anyone who's been there knows that a cancer diagnosis is 
     terrifying.

  He explains later on in the op-ed that:

       Carcinoid, a form of neuroendocrine cancer, is a terminal 
     disease but generally responds well to treatment by 
     Sandostatin, a drug that slows tumor growth and reduces (but 
     does not eliminate) the symptoms of fatigue, nausea, and 
     gastrointestinal dysfunction. My mother received a painful 
     shot twice a month and often couldn't sit comfortably for 
     days afterwards.
       As with most cancers, one thing led to another. There have 
     been several more surgeries, metastases, bone deterioration, 
     a terrible bout of thyroiditis (an inflammation of the 
     thyroid gland) and much more. But my mother kept fighting, 
     determined to make the most of life, no matter what it 
     brings. She has indomitable will and is by far the toughest 
     person I've ever met. But she wouldn't be here without the 
     semimonthly Sandostatin shot that slows the onslaught of her 
     disease.
       And then in November, along with millions of other 
     Americans, she lost her health insurance. She'd had a Blue 
     Cross/Blue Shield plan for nearly 20 years. It was expensive, 
     but given that it covered her very expensive treatment, it 
     was a terrific plan. It gave her access to any specialist or 
     surgeon, and to the Sandostatin and other medications that 
     were keeping her alive.
       And then, because our lawmakers and the president thought 
     they could do better, she had nothing. Her old plan, now 
     considered illegal under the new health law, had been 
     canceled.
       Because the exchange website in her state (Virginia) was 
     not working, she went directly to insurers' websites and 
     telephoned them, one by one--

  This is a woman with carcinoid cancer whose policy has been cancelled 
because of ObamaCare

     --over dozens of hours. As a medical office manager, she had 
     decades of experience navigating the enormous problems of 
     even our pre-ObamaCare system.

  Even with her experience, she had trouble with the repeated and 
prolonged phone waits, which Mr. Blackwood described as Sisyphean. In 
the end, she was told she could purchase a Humana policy.

  The enrollment agent said that after she met her deductible for all 
her treatments and medications, including those for cancer, she would 
be covered 100 percent. However, the enrollment agents did not have 
access to the coverage formularies for the plans they were selling. 
They said the only way to find out what was in the plan in detail was 
to buy the plan.
  Does that sound familiar? It sounds like what the former Speaker of 
the House, Nancy Pelosi, famously told us in 2009. We have to hurry up 
and pass the bill so we can find out what is in it.
  In this case, Mrs. Blackwood needed to hurry up and buy the insurance 
plan--pay the premiums--so she could then find out whether she was 
covered, and it turns out she was not covered. The cost of the 
Sandostatin alone, since January 1 of this year, was $14,000, and the 
company was refusing pay.
  To quote Mr. Blackwood further:

       The news was dumbfounding. This was a woman who had an 
     affordable health plan that covered her condition. Our 
     lawmakers weren't happy with that because . . . they wanted 
     plans that were affordable and covered her condition. So they 
     gave her a new one. It doesn't cover her condition and it's 
     completely unaffordable.
       Though I'm no expert on ObamaCare (at 10,000 pages, who 
     could be?), I understand that the intention--or at least the 
     rhetorical justification--of this legislation was to provide 
     coverage for those who didn't have it. But there is something 
     deeply and incontestably perverse about a law that so 
     distorts and undermines the free activity of individuals that 
     they can no longer buy and sell the goods and services that 
     keep them alive. ObamaCare made my mother's old plan illegal, 
     and it forced her to buy a new plan that would accelerate her 
     disease and death. She awaits an appeal from her insurer.
       Will this injustice be remedied, for her or millions of 
     others? Or is my mother to die because she can no longer 
     afford the treatment that keeps her alive?
       Like every American, I want affordable health care, and I'm 
     open to innovative solutions of all kinds--individual, 
     corporate, for-profit, nonprofit and public. It will take all 
     of these, and all the intelligence, creativity and self-
     discipline we have, as well as everything we can offer one 
     another as families, neighbors, friends and citizens--and it 
     still won't be perfect. But it is precisely because health 
     care for 300 million people is so complicated that it cannot 
     be centrally managed.

  Mr. Blackwood concludes:

       The ``Affordable'' Care Act is a brutal, Procrustean 
     disaster. In principle, it violates the irreducible 
     particularity of human life, and in practice it will cause 
     many individuals to suffer and die. We can do better, and we 
     must.


[[Page S995]]


  At this point, I ask unanimous consent that this opinion piece by 
Stephen Blackwood be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 24, 2014]

               ObamaCare and My Mother's Cancer Medicine

                         (By Stephen Blackwood)

       When my mother was diagnosed with carcinoid cancer in 2005, 
     when she was 49, it came as a lightning shock. Her mother, at 
     76, had yet to go gray, and her mother's mother, at 95, was 
     still playing bingo in her nursing home. My mother had always 
     been, despite her diminutive frame, a titanic and 
     irrepressible force of vitality and love. She had given birth 
     to me and my nine younger siblings, and juggled kids, home 
     and my father's medical practice with humor and grace for 
     three decades. She swam three times a week in the early 
     mornings, ate healthily and never smoked.
       And now, cancer? Anyone who's been there knows that a 
     cancer diagnosis is terrifying. A lot goes through your mind 
     and heart: the deep pang of possible loss (what would my 
     father and all of us do without her?), and the anguish and 
     anger at what feels like injustice (after decades of 
     mothering and managing dad's practice, she was just then 
     going back to school).
       We, as a family, were scared and angry, but from the 
     beginning we knew we would do all we could to fight this 
     disease. We became involved with fundraising for research, 
     through the Caring for Carcinoid Foundation in Boston; we 
     blogged; we did triathlons (my mother's idea) and cherished 
     our time together as never before.
       Carcinoid, a form of neuroendocrine cancer, is a terminal 
     disease but generally responds well to treatment by 
     Sandostatin, a drug that slows tumor growth and reduces (but 
     does not eliminate) the symptoms of fatigue, nausea and 
     gastrointestinal dysfunction. My mother received a painful 
     shot twice a month and often couldn't sit comfortably for 
     days afterward.
       As with most cancers, one thing led to another. There have 
     been several more surgeries, metastases, bone deterioration, 
     a terrible bout of thyroiditis (an inflammation of the 
     thyroid gland), and much more. But my mother has kept 
     fighting, determined to make the most of life, no matter what 
     it brings. She has an indomitable will and is by far the 
     toughest person I've ever met. But she wouldn't still be here 
     without that semimonthly Sandostatin shot that slows the 
     onslaught of her disease.
       And then in November, along with millions of other 
     Americans, she lost her health insurance. She'd had a Blue 
     Cross/Blue Shield plan for nearly 20 years. It was expensive, 
     but given that it covered her very expensive treatment, it 
     was a terrific plan. It gave her access to any specialist or 
     surgeon, and to the Sandostatin and other medications that 
     were keeping her alive.
       And then, because our lawmakers and president thought they 
     could do better, she had nothing. Her old plan, now 
     considered illegal under the new health law, had been 
     canceled.
       Because the exchange website in her state (Virginia) was 
     not working, she went directly to insurers' websites and 
     telephoned them, one by one, over dozens of hours. As a 
     medical-office manager, she had decades of experience 
     navigating the enormous problems of even our pre-ObamaCare 
     system. But nothing could have prepared her for the 
     bureaucratic morass she now had to traverse.
       The repeated and prolonged phone waits were Sisyphean, the 
     competence and customer service abysmal. When finally she 
     found a plan that looked like it would cover her Sandostatin 
     and other cancer treatments, she called the insurer, Humana, 
     to confirm that it would do so. The enrollment agent said 
     that after she met her deductible, all treatments and 
     medications--including those for her cancer--would be covered 
     at 100%. Because, however, the enrollment agents did not--
     unbelievable though this may seem--have access to the 
     ``coverage formularies'' for the plans they were selling, 
     they said the only way to find out in detail what was in the 
     plan was to buy the plan. (Does that remind you of anyone?)
       With no other options, she bought the plan and was approved 
     on Nov. 22. Because by January the plan was still not showing 
     up on her online Humana account, however, she repeatedly 
     called to confirm that it was active. The agents told her not 
     to worry, she was definitely covered.
       Then on Feb. 12, just before going into (yet another) 
     surgery, she was informed by Humana that it would not, in 
     fact, cover her Sandostatin, or other cancer-related 
     medications. The cost of the Sandostatin alone, since Jan. 1, 
     was $14,000, and the company was refusing to pay.
       The news was dumbfounding. This is a woman who had an 
     affordable health plan that covered her condition. Our 
     lawmakers weren't happy with that because . . . they wanted 
     plans that were affordable and covered her condition. So they 
     gave her a new one. It doesn't cover her condition and it's 
     completely unaffordable.
       Though I'm no expert on ObamaCare (at 10,000 pages, who 
     could be?), I understand that the intention--or at least the 
     rhetorical justification--of this legislation was to provide 
     coverage for those who didn't have it. But there is something 
     deeply and incontestably perverse about a law that so 
     distorts and undermines the free activity of individuals that 
     they can no longer buy and sell the goods and services that 
     keep them alive. ObamaCare made my mother's old plan illegal, 
     and it forced her to buy a new plan that would accelerate her 
     disease and death. She awaits an appeal with her insurer.
       Will this injustice be remedied, for her and for millions 
     of others? Or is my mother to die because she can no longer 
     afford the treatment that keeps her alive?
       Like every American, I want affordable health care, and I'm 
     open to innovative solutions of all kinds--individual, 
     corporate, for-profit, nonprofit and public. It will take all 
     of these, and all the intelligence, creativity and self-
     discipline we have, as well as everything we can offer one 
     another as families, neighbors, friends and citizens--and it 
     still won't be perfect. But it is precisely because health 
     care for 300 million people is so complicated that it cannot 
     be centrally managed.
       The ``Affordable'' Care Act is a brutal, Procrustean 
     disaster. In principle, it violates the irreducible 
     particularity of human life, and in practice it will cause 
     many individuals to suffer and die. We can do better, and we 
     must.

  Mr. WICKER. We talk a lot about the failures of the Affordable Care 
Act. Because of ObamaCare, 7 million people are expected to lose their 
employer-sponsored health insurance by 2024. Another 5 million 
Americans have seen their health care plans canceled, and one of them 
is Mrs. Blackwood.
  I say again to my colleagues and everyone within the sound of my 
voice, I don't know the politics of the Blackwood family. They had an 
insurance policy that worked for Mrs. Blackwood. It covered a vital 
drug--Sandostatin--that kept her alive from the disease of carcinoid 
cancer, and she has lost that coverage because of the very act that was 
supposed to help people.
  Mr. Blackwood says, ``We can do better,'' and I suggest we can do 
better. We need to repeal this ill-considered law which has caused so 
much pain for millions and millions of Americans and still left 31 
million people uninsured.
  We need to work together across the aisle in a bipartisan way to fix 
this system and have a system that doesn't throw innocent and sick 
people out of their insurance coverage and threaten their health and 
their very lives.
  I yield the floor.
 Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to 
confirm the nomination of Jeffrey Meyer to fill a judicial vacancy on 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Although I was 
not able to be present to cast my vote this afternoon, I fully support 
the nomination of this qualified individual to fill the vacancy in 
Connecticut. If I had been here I would have voted to confirm this 
highly qualified nominee. It would not have changed the outcome of the 
vote. I congratulate Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley on their 
leadership and hope that we can all continue to work together to 
address the backlog of judicial nominations.
  Mr. LEAHY. I see the majority leader is on the floor. Obviously, he 
is seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the President pro tempore could wait for 
just a minute, I wish to tell everyone what we are going to do this 
evening. We will have two more votes tonight.
  I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on Executive 
Calendar No. 570, at 11:15 tomorrow, Tuesday, February 25, the Senate 
proceed to Executive Session and that all postcloture time with respect 
to Calendar No. 570 be dispensed with and the Senate proceed to vote on 
the confirmation; further, that following disposition of Calendar No. 
570, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on Calendar No. 566, and 
that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be dispensed with and 
the Senate proceed to vote on Calendar No. 566; further, that following 
disposition of Calendar No. 566, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture 
of Calendar No. 567, and that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture 
time be dispensed with and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation 
of Calendar No. 567; that all after the first vote on Tuesday be 10 
minutes in length; that with respect to the above nominations the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with 
no intervening action or debate; that President Obama be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative 
session.

[[Page S996]]

  I express appreciation to my friend for yielding to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes for debate 
equally divided in the usual form prior to the second rollcall vote 
tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when I was in third grade, I read all of 
Dickens and all of Robert Louis Stevenson. I remember two words that 
really struck me during that time. The words ``pettifoggery'' and 
``balderdash.'' I have heard more pettifoggery and balderdash on the 
other side this evening than I could imagine.
  The fact of the matter is this. The Republican Party--and many of 
them are dear friends of mine--orchestrated a partial shutdown of the 
government last year. It cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars 
and it accomplished nothing. Well, I shouldn't say it accomplished 
nothing. It stopped cancer research and a number of other things. Now 
they are trying the same thing with the Federal judiciary by taking 
judges who had passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously 
and doing what the Republicans did with the very first nominee of 
President Obama who came up. They filibustered it--something that had 
not been done ever in my 40 years here with either Republican or 
Democratic presidents--ever. This was a judge supported by the most 
senior Republican in the Senate.
  Shortly after that, the Republican leader said his primary goal was 
for President Obama to fail. Unfortunately for them, he didn't. He was 
reelected resoundingly. But they have now achieved a partial shutdown 
of the Federal judiciary by blocking these judges. It is balderdash and 
pettifoggery.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield back the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Jeffrey Alker Meyer, of Connecticut, to be United States District 
Judge for the District of Connecticut?
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 2, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Ex.]

                                YEAS--91

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Coburn
     Crapo
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Blunt
     Cornyn
     Graham
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Risch
     Toomey
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and the President 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________