[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order for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________