[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7497-7507]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   NOMINATION OF PAUL J. WATFORD, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE UNITED STATES 
                  CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

  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 legislative clerk read the nomination of Paul J. Watford, of 
California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am glad we are finally able to debate and vote on the 
nomination of Paul Watford of California to fill a judicial emergency 
vacancy on the Ninth Circuit. As the distinguished Presiding Officer 
knows, it was 3\1/2\ months ago that we voted Mr. Watford out of 
committee. We had not been able to get an agreement to debate or vote 
on this nomination since it was approved. So for the 27th time, the 
majority leader was forced to file cloture to get an up-or-down vote on 
one of President Obama's judicial nominations.
  Thankfully enough, Senate Republicans came forward to say they are 
not going to delay a vote or to continue a filibuster. We ought to just 
have an up-or-down vote, which we always used to do. Hopefully, we will 
not vote to promote a filibuster, but vote up or down, and I thank 
those Republicans who came forward and said enough of the cloture 
votes, let's vote.
  This nominee, Paul Watford, is highly qualified. In fact, he has the 
highest qualifications for the Ninth Circuit. He shouldn't be 
filibustered. He should not require a cloture vote. He is a nominee 
with impeccable credentials and qualifications. He served as a Federal 
prosecutor and is now a highly regarded appellate litigator in private 
practice. He served as a law clerk at the United States Supreme Court 
and at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The 
ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Paul Watford the 
highest possible rating they could give and they gave it to him 
unanimously. He also has the strong support of his home State Senators, 
Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer. He has widespread support across 
the spectrum, including known conservatives such as two former 
Presidents of the Los Angeles chapter of the Federalist Society, as 
well as Judge Alex Kozinski, a conservative Reagan appointee who is now 
Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit. By any traditional measure, Paul 
Watford is the kind of judicial nominee who should be confirmed easily 
by an overwhelming vote--a vote of both Republicans and Democrats.
  I had hoped after the agreement between the Democratic and Republican 
Senate leadership to begin finally considering the backlog of judicial 
nominations from last year that the Senate was at last returning to 
regular order. The refusal of Senate Republicans to consent to a debate 
and vote on this nomination for more than 3\1/2\ months, however, again 
required the Majority Leader to file cloture to end another Republican 
filibuster.
  Senate Republicans continue to apply what they have admitted is a 
``new standard'' to President Obama's judicial nominees. From the 
beginning of the Obama administration, Senate Republicans abandoned the 
standards and arguments they used to say should apply to judicial 
nominations. During the administration of the last President, a 
Republican, they insisted that filibusters of judicial nominees were 
unconstitutional. They threatened the ``nuclear option'' in 2005 to 
guarantee up-or-down votes for each of President

[[Page 7498]]

Bush's judicial nominations. Many Republican Senators declared that 
they would never support the filibuster of a judicial nomination.
  Senate Republicans reversed course and filibustered President Obama's 
very first judicial nomination, that of Judge David Hamilton of 
Indiana. They tried to prevent an up-or-down vote on that nomination 
even though he was nominated by President Obama after consultation with 
the most senior and longest-serving Republican in the Senate, Senator 
Dick Lugar of Indiana, who strongly supported the nomination. 
Fortunately, the Senate rejected that unjustified filibuster and Judge 
Hamilton was confirmed with Senator Lugar's support.
  Senate Republicans previously engaged in misguided filibusters last 
year of Goodwin Liu's nomination to the Ninth Circuit and Caitlin 
Halligan's nomination to the D.C. Circuit. Each of those nominees is 
the kind of brilliant lawyer we should encourage to join the Federal 
bench. There were certainly no ``extraordinary circumstances'' for 
filibustering their nominations. Senate Republicans filibustered them 
anyway, setting a new and unfortunate standard for the Senate. Those 
filibusters demonstrated that any nominee can be filibustered based on 
concocted controversies and baseless claims. That was unfortunate and 
unwise. Senate Republicans have already succeeded in preventing 
confirmation votes on five of President Obama's judicial nominees who 
were blocked from a Senate vote after being voted out of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.
  Paul Watford is the kind of person we want in our Federal judiciary. 
This is the kind of person when we talk about the Federal courts, we 
can say here is a judge we can look up to and who can inspire others 
who seek to be judges. He is not a nominee against whom a partisan 
filibuster would be justifiable, and I thank some of those Republican 
Senators who called me this weekend who said they would oppose a 
Republican filibuster. I thank them for that, because what they are 
doing is what is best for the Senate. By allowing a vote, they are 
doing the best for the Ninth Circuit but, even more importantly, they 
are doing what is best for the independence of our Federal judiciary. 
Because if one is going to vote to try to block somebody as qualified 
as Paul Watford, one is basically saying they don't care who the 
nominee is, they are going to block it, and that is not the message we 
should send if we are going to have an independent Federal judiciary in 
this country.
  He has a mainstream record. He demonstrates legal excellence and 
experience at the top of his profession. He clerked at the United 
States Supreme Court for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and on the Ninth 
Circuit for now-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, a conservative appointee of 
President Ronald Reagan. Over his 17-year legal career, Paul Watford 
has worked on briefs in nearly 20 cases before the United States 
Supreme Court, and has argued numerous cases before the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals as well as the California appellate courts. As a 
Federal prosecutor in the 1990s, Mr. Watford handled prosecutions 
involving immigration and drug offenses, firearms trafficking, and 
major frauds.
  So he should be on the Ninth Circuit, and I am delighted, as I make a 
preliminary nose count, that he will be confirmed as a judge of the 
Ninth Circuit. When confirmed, he will be only the second African-
American judge serving on the Ninth Circuit, joining Judge Johnnie 
Rawlinson of Nevada on the bench. And I will not be surprised when he 
is confirmed, because of his work as a tough but very fair prosecutor. 
It is no surprise that he had support from conservatives as well as 
liberals. The shock I had was that for a while, his nomination was 
being held up and we couldn't get a vote.
  Two former presidents of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Federalist 
Society wrote to the Judiciary Committee in support of Mr. Watford. 
Jeremy Rosen wrote:

       Everyone who knows Paul (whether they are conservative or 
     liberal, or somewhere in between) recognizes that he 
     possesses the qualities that are most needed in an appellate 
     judge. While I find myself in somewhat frequent disagreement 
     with the President on many issues (and an active supporter of 
     one of his opponents), his nomination of Paul to the Ninth 
     Circuit is a home-run and should receive bi-partisan support.

  Henry Weissman, another former Federal Society chapter President, 
wrote that he has ``never seen any hint of politics in Mr. Watford's 
lawyering'', and that he has ``every confidence that, as a judge, Mr. 
Watford would apply the law faithfully, objectively, and even-
handedly.''
  Conservative law professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law and creator of 
the conservative Volokh Conspiracy blog, expressed his strong support 
for Mr. Watford to the Committee, writing:

       He has all the qualities that an appellate judge ought to 
     have: intellectual brilliance, thoughtfulness, fairness, 
     collegiality, an ability to deal civilly and productively 
     with colleagues of all ideological stripes, and a deep 
     capacity for hard work. . . . Paul is the sort of moderate 
     Democratic nominee that moderates and conservatives, as well 
     as liberals, should solidly support.

  Conservative law professor Orin Kerr of George Washington University 
Law, a former special counsel to Senator Cornyn, called him ``extremely 
bright, a moderate, and very much a lawyer's lawyer,'' and concluded an 
online post saying, ``I hope he will be confirmed.''
  In their letter of support, 32 of the clerks who served with him at 
the Supreme Court from the chamber of all the other Justices concluded: 
``We are unanimous in our view that Paul possesses all the qualities of 
the most highly regarded jurists: powerful analytical abilities, a 
readiness to listen to and consider fairly all points of view, a calm 
temperament, and a prodigious work ethic.''
  A number of corporate general counsels from leading U.S. corporations 
have written us urging confirmation:

       Mr. Watford has represented a broad spectrum of clients, 
     both in private industry as well as in the public sector. In 
     doing so, he has demonstrated an understanding of the legal 
     and economic challenges faced in both spheres, and an 
     appreciation for the importance of fair, consistent 
     application of the rules of law that govern business.

  The assistant general counsel of Mattel joins in this support, 
writing: ``[I can] personally attest to his reputation for being 
remarkably intelligent, insightful and evenhanded. He is highly 
regarded within his firm, amongst his clients, and within the wider 
legal community for his exceptional skills as an appellate 
practitioner.''
  Daniel Collins, an Associate Deputy Attorney General during the 
administration of President George W. Bush, described Paul Watford as 
``incredibly intelligent and has solid integrity and great judgment.'' 
He concluded that this judicial nominee would not ``approach the job 
with any kind of agenda other than to do what is right and consistent 
with precedent as he understands it.''
  I ask unanimous consent that copies of letters of support be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Paul Watford is far from an ideological, partisan 
selection. He shouldn't engender any serious objection; he is too good 
for that. He is the kind of nominee who, as my years here in the Senate 
demonstrate, normally receives unanimous support. It would usually not 
even require a roll call vote, because he has the qualifications, the 
judgment, and the ability. Maybe some were concerned that he was too 
well qualified or relatively young, and so some feared he might some 
day be nominated to a still higher court so they wanted to avoid voting 
on his nomination as they did when Elena Kagan was nominated to the 
D.C. Circuit by President Clinton, or when they delayed a vote as they 
did with Judge Sonia Sotomayor when she was nominated to the Second 
Circuit by President Clinton.
  I strongly disagree with those who seek to nitpick this man's legal 
career. Since his service as a Federal prosecutor, he has worked at a 
highly respected Los Angeles law firm on a wide variety of matters. He 
has always represented his clients ethically and to the best of his 
legal ability.

[[Page 7499]]

  The distinguished Presiding Officer, who has been an attorney general 
of his State, knows that lawyers are supposed to give their best 
counsel and their best effort to those whom they are representing. That 
is what lawyers are supposed to do. In my case, I defended criminals in 
private practice. I then prosecuted criminals as a prosecutor. In both 
cases, I knew what my role in the legal system was. As I said, that is 
what lawyers are supposed to do. Actually, that is what Republicans 
used to argue to defend the Federalist Society and corporate lawyers 
that were being nominated by a Republican President.
  As Chief Justice Roberts noted during his confirmation hearing, 
lawyers represent clients. They do not stand in their client's shoes 
and they should not have their client's legal positions used against 
them.
  Let's abandon the crude and inaccurate litmus tests being applied to 
President Obama's nominees. Let's stop the caricaturing. If not, no 
lawyer could ever be confirmed to the Federal bench. When we have a 
lawyer who has actually been active in his or her practice, of course 
they are going to represent some people others disagree with. Of 
course, they are going to represent some issues where others may, as 
individual Senators, feel they would rather be on the other side of the 
issue. But how quickly would our legal system break down if lawyers 
could only represent one side of an issue, or when a matter comes to 
court we can only hear from one side and not from the other? One of the 
most valued legal systems in the world would disintegrate.
  As an attorney in private practice Paul Watford has advocated 
positions well within the mainstream of legal argument. There were only 
two cases on which he worked as a lawyer among the hundreds and 
possibly thousands in which he has been involved, that were criticized 
by Committee Republicans.
  In one, the well-known law firm with which he is affiliated 
represented groups challenging the controversial Arizona immigration 
law, and won a preliminary injunction against certain provisions for 
violating the Constitution. In his role as an attorney he was consulted 
by others working on the case to review and edit their preliminary 
injunction motion. That motion contains arguments based on Federal 
preemption, due process, and other constitutional rights that are well 
within the mainstream of legal advocacy and that were raised, as well, 
by the U.S. Department of Justice in its filings. That a Senator might 
disagree with the position he assisted in developing on behalf of his 
firm's clients in this case is hardly a reason to oppose his 
nomination. I did not oppose Chief Justice Roberts' nomination because 
he helped and advised the challenge resulting in Bush v. Gore. Paul 
Watford's legal work at Munger, Tolles was professional, principled and 
not out of the mainstream.
  The other case on which critics have fastened as if to justify their 
opposition was his legal advocacy on behalf of clinical ethicists and 
critical care providers challenging a specific lethal injection 
protocol. He did not challenge the death penalty as unconstitutional. 
The legal challenge was to the manner in which it was being 
administered. In fact, in direct and express answers to questions from 
Senator Grassley, the nominee wrote that he does not have any personal 
conviction or religious beliefs that would impact the way he would rule 
in a death penalty case and that he would have no difficulty ruling 
fairly and impartially in cases involving the death penalty. He also 
answered that he believes the death penalty an acceptable form of 
punishment and that he would have no difficulty faithfully applying the 
Supreme Court's precedent in that regard. How this record can be seen 
as justifying opposition is beyond me.
  Our legal system is an adversary system that is predicated upon legal 
advocacy from both sides. No nominee should be disqualified for 
representing clients zealously. Go back in history. John Adams, one of 
the most revered Founders and later President of this country, wrote 
that his representation of the British soldiers in the controversial 
case regarding the Boston Massacre was ``one of the most gallant, 
generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of 
the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.''
  Did he agree with the British in holding the colonies subservient? Of 
course not. Did he agree with the efforts of us in this country to be 
free people--free from alliance with Great Britain? Of course he did. 
That is what he did when he helped and when he served as one of the 
Founders of this country and when he became President. But he also knew 
our whole system broke down if somebody within a court did not have 
adequate representation on both sides, and that is why he represented 
British soldiers in the case involving the Boston Massacre--not because 
he was supportive of what the British were doing and not because he 
wanted anything other than to have us as a free people, but because he 
wanted to make sure that in a free country, in a free United States of 
America, when someone goes before our courts, they are going to have 
representation on both sides, and that is the way it should be.
  At his confirmation hearing to become the Chief Justice of the United 
States, John Roberts made the point:

       [I]t's a tradition of the American Bar that goes back 
     before the founding of the country that lawyers are not 
     identified with the positions of their clients. The most 
     famous example probably was John Adams, who represented the 
     British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre. He did that 
     for a reason, because he wanted to show that the Revolution 
     in which he was involved was not about overturning the rule 
     of law, it was about vindicating the rule of law.
       Our Founders thought that they were not being given their 
     rights under the British system to which they were entitled, 
     and by representing the British soldiers, he helped show that 
     what they were about was defending the rule of law, not 
     undermining it, and that principle, that you don't identify 
     the lawyer with the particular views of the client, or the 
     views that the lawyer advances on behalf of the client, is 
     critical to the fair administration of justice.

  That has always been our tradition. I hope it always will be our 
tradition, but I am concerned that some feel it should change. This 
litmus test that would disqualify nominees because as a lawyer they 
represented a side in a case on which we disagree is dangerous and 
wrong. Almost every nominee who has actually been a practicing attorney 
who has had more than one client in their life is going to fail such a 
test. They are going to be disqualified, because if they are practicing 
law, if they are doing what they are supposed to do, if they are making 
sure that someone is adequately represented in court no matter how 
unpopular that case may be, then of course they are going to take on 
some cases we might not like. The distinguished Presiding Officer was 
the chief prosecuting officer of his State. I was the chief prosecuting 
officer of my county. I prosecuted some people whom I wanted to go to 
jail for as long as possible. But the last thing I wanted was for them 
not to have a good and adequate lawyer on the other side. I wanted them 
to have the best of counsel on the other side, because that way, 
society is protected. That way, our court system is protected. That 
way, it meant that if any one of us came in and were innocent and were 
being charged, we would know there was an example of always having 
representation.
  Republican obstruction of this nomination is particularly damaging 
given the dire need for judges on the Ninth Circuit. With three times 
the number of cases pending as the next busiest circuit and twice the 
caseload of the judges on other circuits, the Ninth Circuit cannot 
afford further delay filling its emergency vacancies. The 61 million 
people served by the Ninth Circuit are not served by this delay. I have 
been asked for months that the Senate expedite consideration of this 
nomination and that of Justice Hurwitz of Arizona to fill these 
judicial emergency vacancies.
  The Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan 
appointee, along with the members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth 
Circuit, wrote to the Senate months ago emphasizing the Ninth Circuit's 
``desperate need for judges,'' urging the

[[Page 7500]]

Senate to ``act on judicial nominees without delay,'' and concluding 
``we fear that the public will suffer unless our vacancies are filled 
very promptly.'' The judicial emergency vacancies on the Ninth Circuit 
are harming litigants by creating unnecessary and costly delays. The 
Administrative Office of U.S. Courts reports that it takes nearly five 
months longer for the Ninth Circuit to issue an opinion after an appeal 
is filed, compared to all other circuits. The Ninth Circuit's backlog 
of pending cases far exceeds other Federal courts. As of September 
2011, the Ninth Circuit had 14,041 cases pending before it, far more 
than any other circuit.
  When Senate Republicans filibustered the nomination of Caitlin 
Halligan to the D.C. Circuit for positions she took while representing 
the State of New York, they contended that their underlying concern was 
that the caseload of the D.C. Circuit did not justify the appointment 
of another judge to that Circuit. I disagreed with their treatment of 
Caitlin Halligan, their shifting standards and their purported caseload 
argument. But if caseloads were really a concern, Senate Republicans 
would not have delayed action on this nomination to a judicial 
emergency vacancy on the overburdened Ninth Circuit for more than 3 
months.
  There is no justification for refusing to address the needs of the 
Ninth Circuit. A few years ago the Senate was forced to invoke cloture 
to overcome Republican filibusters of President Clinton's nominations 
of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit. That 
obstruction is being repeated.
  We did not engage in tit for tat when the presidency changed. During 
the Bush administration, the Senate proceeded to confirm seven of the 
nine Ninth Circuit nominees of President Bush. Four of President Bush's 
Ninth Circuit nominees were confirmed during his first 4-year term: 
Judge Richard Clifton, Judge Jay Bybee, Judge Consuelo Callahan, and 
Judge Carlos Bea.
  By contrast, Senate Republicans have been opposing our moving forward 
to consider and confirm Paul Watford and Andrew Hurwitz, who are both 
strongly supported by their home State Senators, to fill judicial 
emergency vacancies. Senate Republicans have already successfully 
filibustered the nomination of Goodwin Liu, who also had the strong 
support of his home State Senators.
  I urge Senators to show that we can work together to reduce the 
vacancies that are burdening the Federal judiciary. Do what some of my 
friends on the Republican side of the aisle have said to me, which is 
to move forward to vote for this nominee. They should also help the 
millions of Americans who rely on our Federal courts who seek justice. 
We can show we intend to do that. We can start right here by voting to 
confirm this good man, Paul Watford, who is a highly qualified nominee 
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and say to the American people, 
we believe in justice for everybody here.

                               Exhibit 1

                                     Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar


                                                  & Scott LLP,

                                      Chicago, IL, April 30, 2012.
     Re Paul Watford.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hart 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: We write to provide our enthusiastic support 
     for Paul Watford's nomination to serve on the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
       We have known Paul personally and professionally for nearly 
     twenty years, having met him in 1994 when we served together 
     as clerks to Judge Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit. One of us 
     also spent a second year working with Paul during the year he 
     spent as clerk to Justice Ginsburg at the United States 
     Supreme Court.
       During the crucible those intense years, we learned a lot 
     about Paul's approach to legal issues, his attitudes about 
     legal rules and precedents, and perhaps most importantly his 
     demeanor when confronted with competing views of what the law 
     is or should be. Paul is intelligent, thoughtful, balanced 
     and fair. He is moderate, not extreme, in his views. As a 
     serious student of the law, his instinct is to look for the 
     answer dictated by precedent, not his personal views. And 
     even in the face of heated debate, he maintains an even keel, 
     demonstrating a temperament that is well-suited to the act of 
     judging.
       Others can and no doubt will speak to Paul's obvious 
     qualifications, including his demonstrable intelligence and 
     distinguished professional career. We can speak, from both 
     sides of the political aisle (one registered Democrat, one 
     registered Republican), to the personal qualities and 
     temperament that make Paul not only qualified but uniquely 
     well-suited to the position to which he has been nominated. 
     We could go on (and on) with our praise for Paul, but the 
     simple fact is that he will make an excellent judge.
       We urge you to bring Paul's nomination to a vote, and to 
     vote to confirm.
           Very truly yours,
     Sean W. Gallagher,
     Mark S. Ouweleen.
                                  ____

                                                     May 15, 2012.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell, We 
     write in strong support of Paul Watford's nomination to be a 
     Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
     Circuit. All of us served as law clerks at the Supreme Court 
     during the same year that Paul clerked for Justice Ruth Bader 
     Ginsburg (the October 1995 Term of the Court). During that 
     time, some of us worked with Paul directly in Justice 
     Ginsburg's chambers; others of us worked directly with Paul 
     on cases that we were assigned to in common; and all of us 
     got to know Paul as a colleague. Based on what we saw then, 
     and what we know of Paul's career in the years since, we 
     believe that Paul is a superb choice to be a Judge on the 
     Ninth Circuit. We encourage you to support his nomination and 
     to bring it to a vote expeditiously.
       Paul came to the Supreme Court after clerking for Circuit 
     Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, and after attending 
     UCLA Law School. His path to a Supreme Court clerkship 
     reflected his work ethic and his legal acumen. At the Supreme 
     Court, Paul brought those qualities to bear in analyzing 
     difficult legal problems and finding ways to explain them 
     clearly and sensibly. In so doing, Paul won respect from 
     everyone he worked with. Paul invariably got along well with 
     his peers, was always a superb listener, and treated everyone 
     with kindness and respect. Those of us who clerked with Paul 
     for Justice Ginsburg know that she praised his work as 
     exemplary and that she is a tough judge of legal talent.
       After leaving the Court, Paul has had a distinguished legal 
     career in public service and private practice. At the United 
     States Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, Paul was a standout 
     lawyer in the criminal division and appeared regularly before 
     the Ninth Circuit. For many years, Paul has been a partner at 
     Munger, Tolles & Olson, where he helps lead that firm's 
     appellate practice and has represented a wide range of 
     commercial clients in important and complex appellate 
     matters. Paul has been a lawyer representative to the Ninth 
     Circuit Judicial Conference, and has achieved distinction in 
     the profession. Given his experience as a law clerk, as a 
     federal prosecutor, and as a lawyer in private practice, Paul 
     has an ideal background for the position of a Circuit Judge.
       The group below is composed of individuals with very 
     different political viewpoints and represents clerks from the 
     chambers of every Justice on the Supreme Court during the 
     OT95 term. We are unanimous in our view that Paul possesses 
     all the qualities characteristic of the most highly regarded 
     jurists: powerful analytical abilities, a readiness to listen 
     to and consider fairly all points of view, a calm 
     temperament, and a prodigious work ethic. We respectfully 
     request that the Senate bring Paul's nomination to a vote and 
     confirm him to the Ninth Circuit.
           Sincerely,
         Julia Ambrose, David Barron, Stuart Benjamin, Yochai 
           Benkler, Steve Chanenson, Nancy Combs, Jeff Dobbins, 
           Charlie Duggan, Ward Farnsworth, Lisa Beattie 
           Frelinghuysen, Shawn Fagan, Sean Gallagher, Heather 
           Gerken, Craig Goldblatt, Mark Harris, Julie Katzman, 
           Joseph Kearney, Steve Kinnaird, Kelly Klaus, Laurie 
           Allen Mullig, Eileen Mullen, Kate Moore, Jennifer 
           Newstead, Gretchen Rubin, Kevin Russell, Maria Simon, 
           Simon Steel, Ted Ullyot, Phil Weiser, Mike Wishnie, 
           Michael Wong, Ernie Young.

[[Page 7501]]

           
                                  ____
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, 522 Hart Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 433 
         Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, 361A Russell Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 135 
         Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell, 
     Chairman Leahy, and Ranking Member Grassley: We write in 
     support of the nomination of Paul J. Watford to the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Like Mr. 
     Watford, we have all clerked for the Honorable Alex Kozinski 
     of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and we 
     wish to echo the strong support that Chief Judge Kozinski has 
     given to Mr. Watford.
       All of us believe that Mr. Watford has the ability and 
     character to be an excellent federal appellate judge. Mr. 
     Watford has a stellar reputation in the legal community. He 
     is known not only for his intelligence, but also for his 
     collegiality and even temperament. For those of us who know 
     Mr. Watford personally, his graciousness, sincerity and 
     brilliance are immediately apparent.
       Mr. Watford's legal career confirms that he has the 
     experience, skills and demeanor well-suited for the bench. He 
     clerked for two distinguished jurists, then-Judge Kozinski on 
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Justice 
     Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court of the United 
     States. He served in the Department of Justice as an 
     Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of 
     California. Mr. Watford is currently a partner in the Los 
     Angeles office of Munger, Tolles, & Olson LLP, a well-
     respected law firm. He also has taught a course on judicial 
     writing for prospective law clerks at USC's Gould School of 
     Law. In his experiences in public service and private 
     practice, Mr. Watford has gained the respect and admiration 
     of his peers. At every stage of his career, he has 
     demonstrated a strong work ethic, a judicious temperament, 
     unquestionable 1 integrity, a collaborative and respectful 
     manner, and a deeply thoughtful approach to each and every 
     issue that has crossed his desk.
       As a close family of Kozinski clerks, we share Chief Judge 
     Kozinski's strong faith in Mr. Watford's abilities. We 
     believe he has the necessary qualifications and 
     characteristics to make an exemplary federal appellate judge. 
     Based on his record and personality, we have no doubt that 
     Mr. Watford would approach each case with an open mind and 
     make thoughtful judgments based on the law. Accordingly, we 
     recommend him for this position without hesitation or 
     reservation.
           Sincerely,
       Jerry L. Anderson, Drake University Law School, Judge Alex 
     Kozinski (1986-1987); Fred A. Bernstein, Judge Alex Kozinski 
     (1996-1997); James Burnham, Judge Alex Kozinski (2009-2010); 
     Steven A. Engel, Dechert LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski (2000-
     2001); Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (OT 2001); Kristin A. 
     Feeley, Judge Alex Kozinski (2009-2010); Stuart Banner, UCLA 
     School of Law, Judge Alex Kozinski (1988-1989); Justice 
     Sandra Day O'Connor (OT 1991); William A. Burck, Quinn 
     Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski (1998-
     1999); Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (OT 1999); Jacqueline 
     Gerson Cooper, Judge Alex Kozinski (1990-1991); Justice 
     Anthony M. Kennedy (OT 1991); Susan E. Engel, Kirkland & 
     Ellis LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski (2000-2001); Justice Antonin 
     Scalia (OT 2001); Victor Fleischer, Professor of Law, 
     University of Colorado, Judge Alex Kozinski (1997-1998).
       Troy Foster, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Judge Alex 
     Kozinski (1999-2000); Sean W. Gallagher, Judge Alex Kozinski 
     (1994-1995), Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (OT 1995); Stephanie 
     Grace, Latham & Watkins LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski (2010-2011); 
     Robert K. Hur, Judge Alex Kozinski (2001-2002), Chief Justice 
     William H. Rehnquist (OT 2002); T. Haller Jackson IV, Tulane 
     University School of Public Health & Tropical Medicine, Judge 
     Alex Kozinski (2009-2010); Theane Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, 
     Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski (2003-2004), Justice 
     Sandra Day O'Connor (OT 2004); Scott Keller, Judge Alex 
     Kozinski (2007-2008), Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (OT 2009); 
     John P. Franz, Judge Alex Kozinski (1996-1997); Daniel L. 
     Geyser, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski 
     (2002-2003); Leslie Hakala, Judge Alex Kozinski (1997-1998), 
     Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (OT 1999); Eitan Hoenig, 
     Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Judge Alex Kozinski (2010-
     2011); Robert E. Johnson, Judge Alex Kozinski (2009-2010); 
     Kevin M. Kelly, Gendler & Kelly, Judge Alex Kozinski (1989-
     1990), Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (OT 1990); Michael S. 
     Knoll, Theodore K. Warner Professor, Law School Professor of 
     Real Estate, Wharton School Co-Director, Center for Tax Law, 
     and Policy University of Pennsylvania; Judge Alex Kozinski 
     (1986).
       Tara Kole, Gang, Tyre, Ramer & Brown, Judge Alex Kozinski, 
     (2003-2004), Justice Antonin Scalia (OT 2004); Chi Steve 
     Kwok, Judge Alex Kozinski (2002-2003), Justice Anthony M. 
     Kennedy (OT 2003); C.J. Mahoney, Judge Alex Kozinski (2006-
     2007), Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (OT 2007); Chris Newman, 
     George Mason University School of Law, Judge Alex Kozinski 
     (1999-2000); Christopher R.J. Pace, Weil Gotshal & Manges 
     LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski (1991-1992), Justice Anthony M. 
     Kennedy (OT 1992); Mark A. Perry, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 
     LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski (1991-1992), Justice Sandra Day 
     O'Connor (OT 1993); David A. Schwarz, Irell & Manella LLP, 
     Judge Alex Kozinski, (1988-1989); Kathryn H. Ku, Munger, 
     Tolles & Olson LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski (2003-2004); Joshua 
     Lipshultz, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski 
     (2005-2006), Justice Antonin Scalia (OT 2006); Laura Nelson, 
     Judge Alex Kozinski (1985-1986); Mark Ouweleen, Bartlitt Beck 
     Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski (1994-
     1995); Eugene Paige, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Judge Alex 
     Kozinski (1998-1999); Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (OT 2000); 
     Kathryn Haun Rodriguez, Judge Alex Kozinksi (2000-2001), 
     Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (OT 2004); K. John Shaffer, 
     Stutman, Treister & Glatt PC, Judge Alex Kozinski (1989-
     1990), Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (OT 1990).
       Steven M. Shepard, Judge Alex Kozinski (2007-2008), Justice 
     Anthony M. Kennedy (OT 2008); Elina Tetelbaum, Wachtell, 
     Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Judge Alex Kozinski (2010-2011); 
     Alexander ``Sasha'' Volokh, Assistant Professor, Emory Law 
     School, Judge Alex Kozinski (2004-2005); Justice Sandra Day 
     O'Connor and Justice Samuel Alito (OT 2005); Christopher J. 
     Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State 
     University, Judge Alex Kozinski (2006-2007), Justice Anthony 
     M. Kennedy (OT 2008); Harry Susman, Judge Alex Kozinski 
     (1996-1997); Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (OT 1997); Mary Ann 
     Todd, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Judge Alex Kozinski (1993-
     1994); Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA 
     School of Law, Judge Alex Kozinski (1992-1993), Justice 
     Sandra Day O'Connor (OT 1993).
                                  ____

                                           The General Counsels of


                                        Four Large Businesses,

                                                 February 1, 2012.
     Re Nomination of Paul J. Watford as Circuit Judge of the U.S. 
         Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We write 
     to express our support for the nomination of Paul J. Watford 
     to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and urge 
     that the Committee promptly and favorably act to send his 
     nomination to the floor for confirmation. We are General 
     Counsels of a broad spectrum of American businesses. 
     Everything we know about Mr. Watford, both from the direct 
     contact some of us have had to others who have only seen his 
     work, indicates that he would be a superb addition to the 
     bench.
       For the last 11 years of private practice at one of the 
     nation's premier law firms, Mr. Watford has represented a 
     broad spectrum of clients, both in private industry as well 
     as in the public sector. In doing so, he has demonstrated an 
     understanding of the legal and economic challenges faced in 
     both spheres, and an appreciation for the importance of fair, 
     consistent application of the rules of law that govern 
     business. The jobs, goods and services that constitute our 
     economy require exactly that objective and impartial approach 
     to deciding the important legal principles that come before a 
     court such as the Ninth Circuit. We have every confidence 
     that Mr. Watford has the right experience, intellect and 
     character for such an important role in the judiciary.
       It also is noteworthy that Mr. Watford's experiences prior 
     to joining private practice demonstrate the same even-handed 
     perspective. He served as a law clerk on the Ninth Circuit 
     and on the Supreme Court to jurists who are known to come at 
     issues from very different places and often end at very 
     different conclusions. Working closely with such diverse 
     intellects is emblematic of Mr. Watford's own capabilities 
     and temperament, and his legal talents are reflective of 
     their skills as well. He is a superb writer, a keen 
     intellect, a strong oral advocate, and someone with a genuine 
     appreciation for the real interests on all sides. He is 
     exactly the kind of individual that any plaintiff or 
     defendant--person, business or government--would welcome 
     deciding their case, and would trust would do so fairly.
       We urge the Committee to swiftly and favorably act on Mr. 
     Watford's nomination.
           Respectfully,
         Alan J. Glass, Vice President, General Counsel & 
           Secretary, CIRCOR International, Inc.; Randal S. Milch, 
           Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Verizon 
           Communications Inc.; Bob Normile, Executive Vice 
           President and Chief Legal Officer, Mattel, Inc.; Kent 
           Walker, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, 
           Google, Inc.

[[Page 7502]]

           
                                  ____
                                                 Mattel, Inc.,

                                 El Segundo, CA, January 31, 2012.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, 224 Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, 224 Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley: I write this 
     letter in support of the nomination of Paul Watford to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I have 
     known Paul on a professional basis for a number of years, and 
     can personally attest to his reputation for being remarkably 
     intelligent, insightful and evenhanded. He is highly regarded 
     within his firm, amongst his clients, and within the wider 
     legal community for his exceptional skills as an appellate 
     practitioner. More importantly, he is remarkably sincere and 
     friendly, and working with him is always a pleasure.
       Paul enjoys an exemplary record as an attorney: UCLA Law 
     Review Editor, clerk to Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth 
     Circuit, clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the U.S. 
     Supreme Court, Assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, and 
     currently, a partner at the esteemed firm of Munger, Tolles & 
     Olson. Paul has had significant, substantive involvement in 
     bar association activities; most notably, he served as the 
     Chair of the ABA Litigation Section's Appellate Practice 
     Committee, and on the ABA's Amicus Curiae Committee. In 
     addition, Paul shares his talent and time with the broader 
     community, serving on the board of a non-profit legal 
     services provider for low income clients and teaching upper-
     division legal writing at USC. Certainly, Paul's resume is 
     testament to his stellar qualifications and his dedication to 
     the law.
       Paul has assisted Mattel with several appellate matters. 
     His analysis, reasoning and writing is of the highest 
     caliber. His performance as a ``judge'' on a moot court 
     panel, however, is what stands out most in my mind. His 
     questions went right to the core issues, his follow-up 
     questioning was quick and insightful, and his discussion of 
     legal nuances and distinctions came easily and naturally. As 
     always, his demeanor was thoughtful, attentive and 
     respectful. Paul has all the hallmarks of an excellent 
     jurist, and I highly endorse his appointment to the Ninth 
     Circuit.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jill E. Thomas.

  Mrs. BOXER. I rise today to support Paul Watford, a California 
nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals whose nomination is 
before us today.
  Mr. Watford has been nominated for a seat that is designated as a 
judicial emergency, which means that it is critical we move swiftly to 
confirm him.
  I was pleased when President Obama nominated Mr. Watford to serve on 
the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has a wide breadth of 
experience, ranging from public service to the private sector, and he 
will make an excellent addition to the federal bench.
  Let me say a few words about his background.
  Mr. Watford was born in Garden Grove, CA. He is a graduate of the 
University of California at Berkeley, and received his law degree from 
the University of California at Los Angeles, where he graduated with 
honors and was an editor of the UCLA Law Review.
  Following law school, he clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski on the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, then clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 
on the United States Supreme Court.
  From 1997 through 2000, Mr. Watford served as a federal prosecutor in 
the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of 
California, where he handled a variety of criminal trial and appellate 
matters for the office, including major fraud investigations.
  After his tenure as a prosecutor, Mr. Watford entered private 
practice--first with Sidley & Austin, then with his current law firm, 
Munger Tolles, where he is a partner specializing in appellate casework 
and complex commercial litigation.
  In addition to his record as a lawyer, Mr. Watford has served in bar 
associations and professional committees. He has served as Co-Chair of 
the American Bar Association's Appellate Practice Committee, and he is 
a member of the Central District Court's Magistrate Selection Panel.
  The American Bar Association has given him their highest rating--
unanimously well qualified.
  Mr. Watford has earned the respect of attorneys who know his work. 
For example, Daniel Collins, who clerked for Justice Scalia and served 
as an attorney in both Bush administrations, said this about Mr. 
Watford:

       He just embodies the definition of judicial temperament--
     very level-headed and even-keeled. . . . I don't think he'll 
     approach the job with any kind of agenda other than to do 
     what is right and consistent with precedent as he understands 
     it.

  And Jeremy Rosen, a partner at Horvitz & Levy and former president of 
the Los Angeles Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society, said Mr. 
Watford is a nominee many conservatives could support:

       I know he has the respect of anyone who has come into 
     contact with him. He is exceptionally bright and well 
     qualified. . . .

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from 
Daniel Collins, Jeremy Rosen, Eugene Volokh and Henry Weissmann 
immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. BOXER. In conclusion, Mr. Watford is a talented lawyer who has 
earned the respect of his peers for his work in the public and private 
sectors. He will be a great addition to the federal bench, and I urge 
my colleagues to join me in voting for him today.

                               Exhibit 1

                                    Los Angeles, CA, May 18, 2012.
     Re Nomination of Paul J. Watford as Circuit Judge, United 
         States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, 522 Hart Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, 473 
         Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate, 317 Russell Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, 135 
         Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: I write to express my strong support for the 
     confirmation of Paul J. Watford to be a Circuit Judge on the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Having 
     known and worked with Paul for more than eight years at 
     Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in Los Angeles, I am confident 
     that he has the skills, judgment, temperament, and integrity 
     to be an outstanding appellate judge.
       Paul and I come from opposite ends of the political 
     spectrum. I have been a conservative Republican for my entire 
     adult life, I am a member and supporter of the Federalist 
     Society, and I served in the Justice Department in 
     Washington, D.C. during the Administrations of both George 
     H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Despite our political 
     differences, I can unreservedly support Paul's nomination 
     because I believe that he understands and respects the 
     crucial distinction between law and politics. I say that 
     based on years of having observed how he approaches legal 
     precedent and how he analyzes complex legal arguments.
       During our time together at Munger, Tolles, I have 
     frequently consulted Paul on many difficult legal issues, and 
     he has served many times as a ``moot court'' judge helping me 
     to prepare for oral arguments. Given Paul's brilliance and 
     honesty, I know that I can always count on him to quickly 
     spot the weak points in a legal argument and to give me a 
     frank and professional assessment of the applicable case law. 
     Few traits are more important in a Circuit Judge than a 
     willingness to adhere faithfully to precedent, and I have 
     always been impressed by the thoroughness, objectivity, and 
     candor that Paul brings to bear in his evaluation of the 
     relevant body of law in any given area.
       I strongly agree that judges must respect the proper limits 
     of their office and should not attempt to implement a 
     personal or ideological agenda from the bench. I believe that 
     Paul understands those limits. While he and I may differ on 
     certain jurisprudential issues, I have always been impressed 
     by the even-handed and measured approach he brings to bear in 
     analyzing legal problems. I feel confident that, on the 
     bench, he would do his level best to fairly reach the correct 
     answer under the law as be sees it.
       To my mind, another indication of Paul's fairmindedness, 
     and of his ability to separate law and politics, is the wide 
     range of the matters on which he has worked. Paul has 
     gravitated to many of the most interesting legal matters in 
     the firm, and that has unsurprisingly led him to work on 
     important matters involving controversial issues that may 
     generate strong reactions on one or the other end of the 
     political spectrum. I do not think that Paul's work on these 
     or any other cases can be viewed as suggesting that he

[[Page 7503]]

     has an ideological agenda that would distort his approach to 
     the law on the bench. Indeed, one of the more controversial 
     cases that Paul worked on was Mohamad v. Jeppesen DataPlan 
     Inc., in which he and I represented the defendant company, 
     which was accused by the plaintiffs (who were represented by 
     the ACLU) of assisting the CIA in carrying out its alleged 
     ``extraordinary rendition'' program. That Paul has shown a 
     willingness to work, with great professionalism, on such a 
     diverse set of important matters seems to me to dispel any 
     concern that his approach to judging would be anything other 
     than evenhanded. Paul has always struck me as a lawyer's 
     lawyer and as refreshingly oblivious to ``political'' 
     concerns. On the bench, he'd be a judge's judge.
       Lastly, I would note that Paul has an outstanding 
     disposition. Anyone who has met him for any length of time 
     cannot fail to be impressed by his graciousness and 
     professional demeanor. He is without guile. On the bench, he 
     would epitomize judicial temperament.
       I recognize the importance of the decision to confirm an 
     individual to a lifetime appointment as a federal appellate 
     judge. I am confident that Paul Watford has the talent, 
     fairness, and integrity to be an excellent jurist, and I am 
     pleased to support his confirmation.
           Sincerely,
     Daniel P. Collins.
                                  ____



                                           Horvitz & Levy LLP,

                                     Encino, CA, January 26, 2012.
     Re Nomination of Paul Watford.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley: I write this 
     letter in support of the nomination of Paul Watford to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I have 
     known Paul for over a decade, first as a colleague and then 
     as a friendly competitor in the relatively small California 
     appellate bar.
       By way of background, I am a partner at Horvitz & Levy LLP, 
     the largest civil appellate law firm in California. My 
     practice primarily focuses on handling appeals in the Ninth 
     Circuit and California appellate courts. At the outset of my 
     career, I had the privilege of serving as a law clerk for a 
     judge on the Ninth Circuit. I am also a member of the 
     National Chamber Litigation Center's California Advisory 
     Committee and past president of the Los Angeles Chapter of 
     the Federalist Society.
       While I find myself in somewhat frequent disagreement with 
     the President on many issues (and an active supporter of one 
     of his opponents), his nomination of Paul to the Ninth 
     Circuit is a home-run and should receive bi-partisan support. 
     As an appellate lawyer, I care deeply about our nation's 
     appellate courts and see on a daily basis the important role 
     they play in our society. For appellate courts to effectively 
     serve the public, it is vitally important that brilliant, 
     collegial, and fair-minded men and women serve as appellate 
     judges. Paul Watford is such a person.
       Paul graduated with honors from UCLA Law School and then 
     served as a law clerk to two extremely distinguished judges 
     (one Republican and one Democrat), Alex Kozinski and Ruth 
     Bader Ginsberg. Paul then served the public admirably as an 
     assistant United States Attorney. Since 2000, Paul has been 
     an extremely distinguished appellate lawyer in private 
     practice where he has handled many complex and sophisticated 
     appeals. Throughout his career, Paul has shown himself to 
     possess excellent legal analysis and judgment. Indeed, there 
     are few lawyers in California (or elsewhere) who are better 
     prepared for the intellectual challenges of becoming an 
     appellate judge.
       Most lawyers who have achieved as much as Paul tend to be 
     unpleasant egomaniacs. Not Paul. He is humble, polite and a 
     good listener. I have no doubt that he will have collegial 
     relations with the other judges on the Ninth Circuit. I also 
     have no doubt that Paul will be fair-minded and will 
     carefully apply the relevant legal precedent to each case he 
     decides. Through his clerking experience, and his public and 
     private practice, Paul has always demonstrated high integrity 
     and ethics.
       In short, everyone who knows Paul (whether they are 
     conservative or liberal, or somewhere in between) recognizes 
     that he possesses the qualities that are most needed in an 
     appellate judge. Given the urgent need to fill vacancies in 
     the Ninth Circuit, I would strongly urge the Senate to 
     swiftly confirm Paul.
           Very truly yours,
     Jeremy B. Rosen.
                                  ____

                                         University of California,


                                                School of Law,

                                Los Angeles, CA, January 30, 2012.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley: I am writing this 
     to express my strong support for the nomination of Paul 
     Watford to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
     Circuit. I have long been extremely impressed by Paul, since 
     I first met him almost 20 years ago, when my then-boss Judge 
     Alex Kozinski (now Chief Judge) was interviewing him as a law 
     clerk.
       As you know, Paul had a stellar academic career, graduating 
     very near the top of his class at UCLA School of Law and then 
     clerking for Judge Kozinski and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 
     He has also earned tremendous respect as a practicing lawyer, 
     both as a federal prosecutor and an appellate lawyer. He has 
     all the qualities that an appellate judge ought to have: 
     intellectual brilliance, thoughtfulness, fairness, 
     collegiality, an ability to deal civilly and productively 
     with colleagues of all ideological stripes, and a deep 
     capacity for hard work. If confirmed, he'll make a superb 
     judge.
       Let me turn then to the question of ideology. In the 
     overwhelming majority of cases that an appellate judge faces, 
     the judge's legal philosophy is entirely or almost entirely 
     irrelevant: The cases are either straightforward applications 
     of clear and well-settled law, or, even if less than clear, 
     involve highly technical legal questions that relate little 
     to high-level philosophical debates. For those questions 
     Paul's intellect, care, and legal craftsmanship will yield 
     results that both liberals and conservatives should applaud.
       At the same time, there is no doubt that some small but 
     important fraction of appellate cases consists of matters on 
     which liberal judges and conservative judges will reach 
     different results. That is inevitable: Law is not 
     mathematics. Some legal questions are unsettled and not 
     answered by statutory or constitutional text, or binding 
     precedent. And in the absence of a clear and obvious legal 
     answer, different judges reach different results based partly 
     on their philosophies. Paul is a moderate liberal; I am a 
     moderate libertarianish conservative; I therefore expect 
     that, if he is confirmed, there would be some future 
     decisions of his with which I will disagree.
       Yet our current President is President Obama, not Senator 
     McCain. The American people spoke, and they elected someone 
     who will not nominate judges with whom Republicans like me 
     will always agree. So, respecting as I do the voters' choice 
     in 2008 (though it was not my choice), I do not ask: Is this 
     the sort of judge who shares my legal philosophy? Rather, I 
     ask: Would he be the sort of judge whom I could respect 
     intellectually? Would he be the sort of judge whom I could 
     trust to be fair-minded and respectful of the legal rules 
     that he is obligated to follow? Is he likely to be more on 
     the moderate side rather than solidly on the left? For Paul, 
     my answer to those questions is a definite yes.
       When a Democratic President nominates a judge who is indeed 
     well on the left, Republicans like me face a difficult 
     question: Should we resist the nomination, or should we 
     accept it so long as the judge appears to be excellent on the 
     nonideological factors? I have not fully thought through this 
     question.
       But for the reasons I mentioned, that's a question that 
     doesn't even come up for me in this instance. Paul is the 
     sort of moderate Democratic nominee that moderates and 
     conservatives, as well as liberals, should solidly support.
           Sincerely,
     Eugene Volokh.
                                  ____



                                              Henry Weissmann,

                                     Los Angeles, CA, May 3, 2012.
     Re Nomination of Paul Watford.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Hart 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Reid, McConnell, Leahy and Grassley: I write 
     in support of the nomination of Paul Watford to the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
       I am a partner of Mr. Watford's at Munger, Tolles & Olson 
     LLP. Prior to joining Munger, Tolles, I had the honor of 
     serving as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the 
     Supreme Court and Judge James L. Buckley of the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I am also a past 
     President of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Federalist 
     Society and serve on the Executive Committee of its national 
     Telecommunications Practice Group. Although I do not agree 
     with President Obama on many issues, I completely agree with 
     his nomination of Mr. Watford.
       I have had the pleasure of working with Mr. Watford for 
     over a decade in a variety of appellate matters involving 
     large corporate clients. He is brilliant, developing 
     effective arguments on matters of first impression. He

[[Page 7504]]

     is efficient, producing top-quality work product quickly. He 
     is respectful of his colleagues, his opponents, and the 
     courts. Above all, he is a careful lawyer, applying precedent 
     and common sense in a way that leads to moderate arguments. I 
     have never seen any hint of politics in Mr. Watford's 
     lawyering.
       Mr. Watford is highly regarded not only within our firm, 
     but also in the legal community at large. Lawyers from 
     private practice, his former colleagues in the U.S. 
     Attorney's office, clients, academics, and many others--
     including those from a wide range of political perspectives--
     hold Mr. Watford in the highest esteem.
       I have every confidence that, as a judge, Mr. Watford would 
     apply the law faithfully, objectively, and even-handedly. Mr. 
     Watford would be an outstanding addition to the Ninth 
     Circuit, and I support his nomination enthusiastically.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Henry Weissmann.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
vote on the Watford nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, 
that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any 
statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the 
Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, but I 
ask unanimous consent that the time between now and the vote at 5:30 be 
evenly divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          FDA Reauthorization

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
bipartisan legislation to which the Senate will move to reauthorize the 
Food and Drug Administration user fees and critical programs to ensure 
Americans have access to safe and effective medications.
  Most of us do not think about the FDA on a regular basis. In fact, we 
rarely think about where our medicines come from, the scientists who 
invented them, the investments required to develop them, and the 
innovative, cutting-edge new treatments that are essential to keeping 
Americans healthy and safe or the regulators who make sure these 
pharmaceuticals, devices, and treatments work as they are supposed to. 
But when the moment comes that we face a health crisis and our doctors 
prescribe us essential medication, we want those pharmaceuticals 
available right away, and we want them to work as promised.
  One example of the many constituents who have contacted me about 
PDUFA is Virginia from Newark, DE, who recently sent a letter to my 
office. She volunteers with the National Brain Tumor Society and is 
concerned that without reauthorization of this legislation, safe and 
effective brain tumor therapies will be slower to be developed and made 
available to patients who need them. She wrote:

       It has been too long since any new therapies have become 
     available for brain tumor patients that significantly extend 
     survival. Anyone can be diagnosed with a brain tumor, and 
     they are the second leading cause of cancer death in children 
     under twenty.

  I say to the Presiding Officer, I am sure, like me, in your office, 
as a Senator from Connecticut, you regularly are visited by folks from 
around the country or around your State who are deeply concerned about 
continuing medical progress, discovery and development of the 
lifesaving treatments Americans have developed over the last two 
decades. It is my hope that the Senate will continue to clear the way. 
That is why we need this legislation.
  This reauthorization helps take care of innovation and safety so 
consumers and patients do not have to worry. It permanently authorizes 
programs that have helped make medicines safer for millions of 
children. It upgrades the FDA's tools to police the global supply chain 
and helps reduce the risk of drug shortages of the kind we saw 
recently, which Senator Klobuchar just spoke to earlier this afternoon, 
when supplies of critical cancer medications ran low.
  This is a matter of great urgency. The current FDA authorization will 
expire in a few short months. If we allow that to happen, we put at 
risk patient access to new medications as well as America's ongoing 
global leadership in biomedical innovation.
  Worst of all, failing to reauthorize would cost us thousands of jobs, 
and more pink slips is not what we need as our economic recovery gains 
strength. If new drug and medical device user fee agreements are not 
authorized before the current ones expire, the FDA must lay off nearly 
2,000 employees. Because that does not happen overnight, layoff notices 
would start going out as early as July. The good news is we are moving 
forward with a timely reauthorization to save those jobs, save 
America's leading role in innovation, and ensure that the FDA continues 
to make progress.
  This is an all-too-rare display of bipartisanship across both 
Chambers. This legislation was unanimously approved by the House 
committee and found strong bipartisan support in the HELP Committee 
here in the Senate, ably led by Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member 
Enzi.
  There is a reason Members of the House and Senate of both parties are 
in such strong support of this reauthorization.
  The American economy has always been driven by innovation, and some 
of our most extraordinary innovations have come in the biomedical 
sector. In the years ahead, it is my faith, my hope, that we will see 
more and more narrowly targeted drugs created specifically for certain 
kinds of patients or very specific diseases. In the lifecycle of 
innovation, this is different than the last few decades when 
blockbuster medications were used and then developed on a very wide 
scale across the country or world. But it is an equally impressive feat 
of innovation that lies in the years ahead, and one that is only 
possible because of amazing advances in technology, the mapping of the 
human genome, the disassociation across many labs and small startup 
businesses, of the machinery, the mechanics, and the capabilities to 
innovate in the discovery and development of pharmaceuticals.
  We have to continue to support and encourage this kind of innovation 
in order to stay competitive in the global economy. At the moment, the 
FDA continues to keep pace with many of our global competitors in terms 
of their review time for new drug applications, but we are at real risk 
of falling behind.
  One recent example to which I paid close attention, the blood-
thinning drug Brilinta, was manufactured by a company--was developed 
and discovered by a company--in my home State of Delaware, AstraZeneca. 
It was finally approved by the FDA in July 2011. But prior to that 
approval, 33 other countries, including the EU and Canada, had already 
approved the drug months or years before. This delay in review and 
approval in some certain cases can be bad for patients who rely on 
these medications and bad for the competitiveness of the United States. 
So I am glad this reauthorization clears away some of the conflict in 
the underbrush and will reauthorize and strengthen and streamline the 
review timeline for new pharmaceuticals.
  Not only will this provide the kind of predictability and certainty 
any business needs to succeed, but it helps make sure the FDA's 
essential regulatory process keeps pace with scientific innovation. In 
my home State of Delaware, there are more than 20,000 jobs that 
directly rely on biomedical research and innovation. But around the 
country there are more than 4 million indirectly and more than 675,000 
jobs that directly benefit from this area.
  Frankly, it is also one of our strongest export areas of growth for 
the long term. So we need this reauthorization now. In my view, moving 
forward with this legislation also means finding the

[[Page 7505]]

fine balance between speed and safety, between getting treatments to 
patients without delay, and being certain these new drugs will be 
effective and safe.
  In a recent editorial, the Washington Post noted:

       This time around, the balance appears to be tilting 
     slightly toward faster approval. That's good.

  I agree. Safety is paramount, but with today's technology and the 
FDA's century of experience, I think we can move more quickly to put 
innovative treatments in the hands of patients who desperately need 
them. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act originally passed by Congress 
in 1992 and reauthorized every 5 years since is what allows the FDA to 
collect user fees from pharmaceutical manufacturers and provide a 
stable, consistent funding stream that has steadily decreased drug 
review times by nearly 60 percent since it was first enacted. It has 
provided access on a faster and more predictable timeframe to over 
1,500 new medicines since it was first enacted and deserves to be 
reauthorized to help expedite approval for breakthrough medications to 
treat rare and widely experienced diseases.
  In closing, the FDA is the oldest comprehensive consumer protection 
agency in the Federal Government. Its relevance has not decreased with 
age; in fact, quite the opposite. As our researchers and scientists 
have made major breakthroughs in care and technologies for treatment, 
the FDA has continued to serve as the conduit between innovators, 
physicians, and patients.
  We face tremendous hurdles in treating devastating diseases of all 
kinds. In addition to ancient puzzles such as cancer that continue to 
elude us, there are new challenges cropping up every day. One example 
would be the need for new drugs to treat increasing cases of bacterial 
infections, greatly resistant to conventional antibiotics, so-called 
superbugs. That is why I have joined with the Presiding Officer and 
Senator Corker as a cosponsor of the GAIN Act, to spur development of 
these specific types of drugs. This is one of many examples of the 
kinds of innovations that will solve the medical mysteries of the 21st 
century, ease the suffering of millions of Americans, secure high-wage 
and high-skilled jobs in the biomedical research field, and ensure our 
competitiveness globally.
  So let's continue working in the bipartisan spirit that has carried 
this reauthorization thus far and proceed to pass it without delay.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, at 5:30 we will be voting on the 
nomination of Paul Watford for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I 
would like to say a few words about him at this time. But before I do, 
I think Members might want to consider the fact that the Ninth Circuit 
is by far the busiest U.S. circuit in the Nation. It has over 1,400 
appeals pending per three-judge panel. That is the most of any circuit. 
It is over two times the average of other circuits combined.
  The Judicial Conference of the United States has declared each Ninth 
Circuit vacancy a ``judicial emergency.'' So today we are, in fact, 
filling one of the seats which is a judicial emergency. The candidate 
is Paul Watford, a Ninth Circuit nominee with stellar credentials and 
support across the political spectrum. I am delighted that cloture was 
vitiated so the vote will be directly on his nomination, and it is 
anticipated that he will be confirmed without controversy.
  Mr. Watford earned his bachelor's degree from the University of 
California Berkeley in 1989 and his law degree from UCLA in 1994 where 
he was editor of the UCLA Law Review and graduated Order of the Coif. 
After finishing law school, Mr. Watford clerked for Ninth Circuit Judge 
Alex Kozinski, an appointee of President Reagan's. He then clerked for 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Following his two clerkships, he spent a year in private practice at 
the prestigious firm of Munger, Tolles, and Olson and then moved into 
public service as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles in 1997. 
There he prosecuted a broad array of crimes, including bank robberies, 
firearms offenses, immigration violations, alien smuggling, and various 
types of fraud.
  He later served in the major fraud section of the criminal division, 
focusing on white collar crime. Among his many cases, he prosecuted the 
first case of an online auction fraud on eBay in California. During his 
tenure as a Federal prosecutor, Mr. Watford appeared in court 
frequently, typically several times per week. He tried seven cases to 
verdict, and he worked on numerous Ninth Circuit appeals, arguing four 
of them.
  In one such case, a cocaine dealer had already convinced the State 
court that a drug seizure had violated his fourth amendment rights. Mr. 
Watford prevailed on appeal in forcing the dealer to forfeit over 
$100,000 in drug trafficking proceeds.
  In 2000, Watford rejoined Munger, Tolles, and Olson where he is 
currently a partner. This is one of the premiere appellate law firms in 
California. Paul Watford specializes in appellate litigation at the 
firm. Like most major law firms, Munger's docket is dominated by 
business litigation. Thus the focus of Mr. Watford's work has been 
appellate litigation for business clients. For example, he represented 
Verizon Communications in a consumer class action case. He represented 
the technology company, Rambus, in two complex patent infringement 
cases. He also represented Shell Oil in an antitrust case.
  Mr. Watford and his colleagues at Munger won a 9-to-0 reversal on 
behalf of Shell Oil in the Supreme Court. He has also represented 
numerous other American businesses, such as Coca-Cola and Berkshire 
Hathaway, as well as business executives and municipal government 
agencies.
  In total he has argued 21 cases in the appellate courts, and he has 
appeared as counsel in over 20 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. So he 
is well equipped.
  His extensive experience as a prosecutor and private practitioner, 
including his specialty in appellate work, will serve the Ninth Circuit 
extremely well. Mr. Watford is also regarded by attorneys on both sides 
of the aisle, including conservative Republicans who praise him for his 
keen intellect and fair-minded approach to the law. He has been 
endorsed by two former presidents of the Los Angeles chapter of the 
Federalist Society.
  One, Jeremy Rosen, says Watford is, ``open-minded and fair,'' and a 
``brilliant person and a gifted appellate lawyer.'' The other, Henry 
Weissman, says that although he ``do[es] not agree with President Obama 
on issues, [he] completely agree[s] with his nomination of Paul 
Watford.'' So that is a good thing.
  Daniel Collins, who clerked for Justice Scalia and served as an 
Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Bush Justice Department, says 
Watford ``embodies the definition of judicial temperament--very level-
headed and even keeled.''
  Thirty-two Supreme Court clerks from the term when Watford clerked 
for Justice Ginsburg have written in support of the nomination. These 
include clerks from every Justice on the Court at that time, including 
all of Justice Scalia's clerks from that year, as well as several from 
Justices Rehnquist, Thomas, and Kennedy. I find that quite amazing.
  A group of over 40 former clerks for Judge Kozinski have also written 
in support of Watford's nomination. This group includes numerous 
individuals with unquestionable conservative credentials. Many clerked 
for Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Alito, and Kennedy. Several, such as 
Steve Engel, Charles Duggan, and Ted Ullyot also served in the Bush 
administration, including in the White House Counsel's Office and the 
leadership of the Justice Department.
  Watford also has strong support in the business community. The 
general counsels of leading American corporations, including Google, 
Mattel, Verizon, and CIRCOR, have also written in support of Mr. 
Watford. They say Watford ``is exactly the kind of individual that any 
plaintiff or defendant--person, business, or government--would welcome 
deciding their case.''

[[Page 7506]]

  In short, Paul Watford is truly both an excellent and distinguished 
choice for the Ninth Circuit. He is extremely bright. He is experienced 
at the trial and appellate level and in both civil and criminal cases. 
He is uniquely respected for his intellect and judgment, and he has 
broad support across the political spectrum and in the business 
community.
  Maybe this is the reason cloture was vitiated. He is not 
filibusterable. I hope people see the fine and keen intellect this man 
is, and he should have a very large vote. If confirmed, he would be one 
of just two African-American active judges on the Ninth Circuit. The 
Ninth Circuit, by far the busiest circuit in the Nation, urgently needs 
him to begin his service.
  As I said the Ninth Circuit is a judicial emergency. This will fill 
one vacancy. So I urge my colleagues to vote at 5:30, in 15 minutes, 
for Mr. Watford's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we are going to turn to a 
nomination that the Senator from California has just referred to, Paul 
Watford, to be circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit. I am disappointed 
that the majority leader has brought this nomination to the floor.
  The reason I say that is there are at least 10 nominations on the 
Executive Calendar that might fall into the category of consensus 
nominees. Six nominees on the calendar had significant opposition in 
committee and clearly are not consensus nominees. Mr. Watford falls 
into this category of not being a consensus nominee.
  I will oppose Mr. Watford's nomination and ask my colleagues to 
oppose the nomination as well. My opposition to this nomination is 
based upon substantive concerns that I have regarding Mr. Watford's 
views on both immigration and the death penalty.
  Mr. Watford partnered with the American Civil Liberties Union and the 
National Immigration Law Center in two cases to oppose Arizona's 2010 
immigration bill. In the first case, Friendly House, a class action 
lawsuit, Mr. Watford served as cocounsel for most of the plaintiffs, 
including the class action representative Friendly House.
  The Friendly House complaint attacks the Arizona law on a variety of 
grounds. He argued the law violates the Supremacy clause; that it 
violates the Equal Protection clause by promoting racial profiling; 
that it violates the first amendment by chilling the speech of non-
English speakers; that it violates the fourth amendment; and that it 
violates due process by inviting racial profiling and employing vague 
definitions of ``public offense'' and other statutory terms.
  In the second case, United States v. Arizona, Mr. Watford served as 
cocounsel on an amicus brief filed by the Friendly House plaintiffs. 
This brief covers most of the arguments raised in the Friendly House 
complaint. But in addition, it asserts that Arizona ``fails to account 
for the complexities and realities of Federal immigration law'' because 
individuals lacking immigration registration documents are put at risk 
of ``constant and repeated criminal prosecution.''
  I do not believe an attorney should be held accountable for the legal 
positions he advocates on behalf of a client. Of course, there are some 
exceptions to that general rule; for instance, if the legal positions 
are far outside the mainstream of legal theory, are frivolous or 
indicate an unacceptable level of professional competence. However, in 
this case, Mr. Watford has not simply argued on behalf of a client, he 
adopted those legal theories as his very own. On July 14, 2010, Mr. 
Watford gave a speech analyzing the constitutionality of the Arizona 
law. His speech concentrated on ``why S. 1070 is unconstitutional,'' 
and he recapped many of the arguments he made in the Friendly House 
case.
  Moreover, despite the fact that he discussed his views on immigration 
publicly, he nonetheless declined to answer many of my questions during 
his hearing before the Judiciary Committee. For instance, I asked about 
an argument in his brief that the Arizona statute prohibiting illegal 
aliens from soliciting work somehow violated the first amendment. The 
nominee responded that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on 
questions related to whether illegal immigrants were entitled to 
constitutional protections other than those contained in the fifth, 
sixth and fourteenth amendments. Again, remember, he had already given 
a speech on this topic, so I was disappointed that he would not share 
his views on these important topics.
  With regard to the death penalty, Mr. Watford assisted in submitting 
an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Baze v. Rees on behalf of a 
number of groups that opposed Kentucky's three-drug lethal injection 
protocol.
  In its plurality opinion, the Court rejected the arguments raised in 
the brief. Ultimately, Kentucky's three-drug protocol was upheld on a 
7-to-2 vote in the Supreme Court.
  At the hearing we had for Mr. Watford, in following up questions, Mr. 
Watford gave the standard response that he would follow Supreme Court 
precedent regarding the death penalty. Yet it is very curious to me 
that he would go out of his way to provide his services to a case that 
would undermine the death penalty.
  Furthermore, his concession that he would give consideration to 
foreign or international law in interpreting the meaning of the Cruel 
and Unusual Punishment clause makes me wonder how he would approach 
this issue.
  I have other concerns based on positions this nominee has taken in 
his legal advocacy, as well as some of his presentations.
  I am generally willing to give the President's nominees the benefit 
of the doubt when the nominee on the surface meets the requirements I 
have previously outlined. But I don't think this nominee meets these 
requirements.
  Finally, Republicans continue to be accused of obstruction and delay 
when it comes to judicial nominations. This comes even as we have now 
confirmed 145 of this President's district and circuit court nominees. 
That, of course, is during a period when we also confirmed two Justices 
to the Supreme Court. The last President who had two Supreme Court 
nominees had only 120 confirmations. So this argument of obstruction, 
of delay, and of unfairness doesn't hold up.
  I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the 
obstructionism, delay, and filibusters, which they perfected. The 
history of President Bush's nominees to the ninth circuit provides some 
very important examples.
  President Bush nominated nine individuals to the ninth circuit. Three 
of those nominations were filibustered. Two of those filibusters were 
successful. The nominations of Carolyn Kuhl and William Gerry Myers 
languished for years before being returned to the President. A fourth 
nominee, Randy Smith, waited over 14 months before finally being 
confirmed after his nomination was blocked and returned to the 
President. After being renominated, he was finally confirmed by a 
unanimous vote.
  President Obama, on the other hand, has nominated six individuals to 
the ninth circuit. Only one of those nominees was subject to a cloture 
vote. After that vote failed, the nominee withdrew. If confirmed, Mr. 
Watford will be the fourth nominee of President Obama nominated to 
serve on the ninth circuit. Those four confirmations took an average of 
about 8 months from the date of nomination.
  For all of President Obama's circuit nominees, the average time for 
nomination to confirmation is about 242 days. For President Bush's 
circuit nominees, the average wait for confirmation was 350 days. Given 
this history that I have spelled out, one might wonder then why 
President Bush and his nominees were treated differently and so much 
more unfairly than President Obama's nominees.
  Mr. Watford received his B.A. from University of California, Berkeley 
in 1989 and his J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles 
(UCLA) School of Law in 1994. Upon graduation, he clerked for Judge 
Alex Kozinski on the

[[Page 7507]]

Ninth Circuit and then for Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. In 
1996, he began working as an associate in the Litigation Department at 
the Los Angeles law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olsen. From 1997-2000, Mr. 
Watford was an Assistant United States Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's 
Office for the Central District of California, in Los Angeles, handling 
a variety of criminal prosecutions, such as immigration, narcotics, 
firearms trafficking, bank robbery, computer fraud, mail and wire 
fraud, and securities fraud.
  In 2000, Mr. Watford returned to private practice as an associate in 
the appellate practice group at Sidley & Austin's Los Angeles office. 
In 2001, he rejoined Munger, Tolles & Olsen as an associate, becoming a 
partner there in 2003. His practice focuses primarily on appellate 
litigation, specifically business and commercial disputes. Mr. Watford 
has also taught a course on Judicial Opinion Writing at the University 
of Southern California's Gould School of Law for three semesters (2007, 
2008, and 2009).
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated 
him as Well Qualified for this position.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 3187

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 400, S. 3187, the Food 
and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, be vitiated; that at 
2:15 tomorrow, Tuesday, May 22, the motion to proceed be agreed to; 
that the Harkin-Enzi substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be 
agreed to, and the bill, as amended by the Harkin-Enzi substitute, be 
considered original text for the purposes of further amendment, and 
that the majority leader be recognized at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, based on this, we will have a vote that 
should start in 5 minutes, which will be the only vote of the day.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the role.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I yield back all time and ask unanimous 
consent that the vote start now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Paul J. Watford, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge 
for the Ninth Circuit.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. 
McCaskill) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), 
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Louisiana 
(Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 34, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Ex.]

                                YEAS--61

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--34

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     DeMint
     Heller
     Kirk
     McCaskill
     Vitter
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________