[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14139-14141]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 F_____
                                 

NOMINATION OF TODD M. HUGHES TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 
                            FEDERAL 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 assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Todd M. 
Hughes, of the District of Columbia, to be United States Circuit Judge 
for the Federal Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Continuing Resolution

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, as we debate legislation to keep the 
government running, we should not be debating a budget number that is 
higher than the Budget Control Act asks for. Frankly, this is a 
statement that should not have to be said here on the Senate floor. Why 
would we even begin to consider a budget number that is some $20 
billion higher than the Budget Control Act? Have we somehow become 
flush with cash? I don't think so. Did we decide the way to run the 
country is to increase spending for a few months, only to have the 
sequester kick in, in January? Who are we kidding?
  We are not kidding most Americans. They justifiably wonder what we 
are doing. Once again we find ourselves on the brink of a showdown and 
a shutdown. It is the same old story but amid the back-and-forth 
between the two sides of the aisle, Americans do not see Congress 
getting serious about Federal spending. We failed to pass even 1 of the 
12 spending bills to responsibly fund the government for the fiscal 
year that starts in a few days. Had we taken up these bills in regular 
order, Members would have had the opportunity to review and consider 
our spending priorities. That is what people expect us to do here. 
Instead, we have procrastinated and put off the hard decisions like a 
bunch of teenagers putting off the pain of a term paper, but this has 
more serious consequences.
  Over the past several months the Senate could have voted on these 
bills, setting spending priorities while abiding by the $967 billion 
budget cap for the next year. Instead, we chose to go through the 
motions of preparing spending bills as if no spending limit existed, 
with the knowledge that these bills would never see the light of day. 
Now as we quickly approach the 1st of October, we are faced with either 
passing the continuing resolution with a pricetag of $986 billion, $19 
billion more than the law allows, or risking a government shutdown.
  The Senate should at the very least take up a spending resolution 
that respects the realities we face, one that respects the Budget 
Control Act, one that funds government at the $967 billion level for 
next year.
  If we pass a bill above the limit set by law, we will simply cause 
another round of sequester cuts in January. I am all for responsible 
sequester replacement legislation that brings down our national debt, 
but we cannot and should not weaken the law of the land, the Budget 
Control Act, that has locked in real and meaningful cuts in spending.
  As such, I hope the majority leader allows us to have a vote on a 
fiscally responsible continuing resolution. The majority leader has 
made clear his intention to amend the continuing resolution to address 
his concerns. A fair process would include affording other Members the 
same opportunity.
  Any process that yields a take-it-or-leave-it approach to funding 
government while ignoring spending caps that are the law of the land 
is, quite simply, irresponsible.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently considering the Hughes 
nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the nomination of Todd Hughes to fill the 
judicial vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 
which is an extremely important court. It is also an important 
milestone for the court. If confirmed, Mr. Hughes will be the first 
openly gay judge to serve on the Federal appellate court in our 
Nation's history. I am proud that the Senate has finally taken a 
historic step to break down another barrier to increase diversity on 
our Federal bench.
  Mr. Hughes has extensive experience on issues that come before the 
Federal Circuit. He joined the Department of Justice in 1994 and, since 
2007, has served as Deputy Director for the Commercial Litigation 
Branch of the Civil Division. Mr. Hughes earned his B.A. cum laude from 
Harvard and his J.D. with honors from Duke Law School. Upon graduating 
law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Robert Krupansky 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

[[Page 14140]]

  Mr. Hughes' nomination was reported unanimously by the Judiciary 
Committee more than 2 months ago and could--and in my view should--have 
been confirmed within days. At a time when judicial vacancies are once 
again above 90, this kind of needless delay undermines the serious work 
we have to do to ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide 
justice to Americans around the country. In addition to Mr. Hughes, we 
have 13 other Federal circuit and district nominees pending on the 
Executive Calendar. Of those nominees, 11 were reported by voice vote 
and there is no good reason to not confirm them today.
  The delays in confirming noncontroversial consensus nominees have a 
real life impact on the American people and the economy. It does not 
benefit anyone if litigants have their cases delayed for months and 
months because our Federal courts are understaffed. Americans are 
rightly proud of our legal system and the promise of access to justice 
and speedy trials that is embedded in our Constitution.
  Also critical to the functioning of our courts is doing all we can do 
to alleviate the harmful impact of sequestration. As we debate the 
continuing resolution to fund the Federal Government we must look to 
streamline wherever we can, but we should do so with care and not 
simply cut indiscriminately across the board. We have the benefit of 
the greatest justice system in the world for less than 1 percent of our 
entire Federal budget. Yet, we refuse to provide this coequal branch 
with the adequate resources it needs. Let us work to reverse the 
senseless cuts to our legal system from sequestration so we can help 
our coequal branch meet the Constitution's promise of justice for all 
Americans.
  I congratulate Mr. Hughes on what I expect will be an overwhelming 
vote in support of his confirmation. And I commend President Obama for 
his continued commitment to nominating highly qualified and diverse 
individuals.


                         Continuing Resolution

  Mr. President, I have another important matter to address.
  I remember the Bill Murray movie ``Groundhog Day''--a wonderful 
movie, farcical but nowhere near as farcical as the groundhog day we 
have once again in Congress. We find ourselves in a funding crisis 
manufactured by a small, partisan faction. They say they are doing this 
for the good of the country as they watch people's pension funds and 
their savings for the kids' college--not to mention everything else--go 
south because of the concern the markets and investors have as they 
wait to see if Congress can get its act together and actually do what 
we were elected to do.
  This small group of ideologues continue to turn their backs to 
reality. They insist on their ``my way or the highway'' ultimatums to 
the rest of the country, which is preventing a bipartisan solution on 
the funding bill and is leading us to the brink of a government 
shutdown.
  I love my grandchildren. They range in age from 5 to 15 years old. I 
have watched them grow up. I saw them on the playground when they were 
1, 2, 3, and 4 years old. Sometimes they would have little squabbles, 
but they would work it out. This is a playground that would be a 
terrible example to children in a schoolyard. This crisis is again 
artificial and manufactured for political posturing. Even its effects 
on the American people as we all again must anticipate a shutdown--are 
as real as they are avoidable. The American public is rightly weary and 
wary of this brinkmanship and of one Made in Congress, manufactured 
crisis after crisis. This artificially induced uncertainty is harmful 
as well to our American economy, which is still tentatively regaining 
its footing after the great recession.
  Some could come and posture--in this body or the other body--about 
how they will shut down the government if they don't have their way 
because they have this figured out better than everybody else.
  They will get their 2 or 3 minutes on television, and they will be 
very happy that they did. The American people who will see their 
businesses close, their stocks go down, their savings dry up, and their 
jobs closed off just so someone can get on television, are not thrilled 
about this, especially when it is all totally unnecessary.
  The issue that is preventing even a temporary spending bill from 
making it to the President's desk is the Affordable Care Act. 
Unfortunately, ever since its enactment, many Republicans in Congress 
have been determined to derail the law and prevent its implementation. 
They don't come up with a better idea. They say it is all or nothing. 
They don't come and say: What are we going to do to help pay for your 
kids' insurance while they are in college? What are we going to do to 
help your family if they have a preexisting condition. No, no, no. We 
are just going to say no to everything.
  Instead of doing the people's business, such as enacting routine 
budget measures before the end of the fiscal year, the House has voted 
more than 40 times this year alone to defund this landmark law, the 
Affordable Care Act. They have no interest in fixing problems or making 
it better--only in blowing it up. Even though the President has 
promised to veto a bill that includes this provision and the Senate has 
voted down similar measures in the past, the law's opponents perceive 
this short-term spending bill as an opportunity to hold the rest of 
America and all government activities hostage to their ideological 
demands.
  They have not come up with one single idea of how they might make it 
better. They have not come up with anything. They haven't proposed an 
idea and said: Here is our idea that could be better. No, just get rid 
of it all.
  Actually, I would remind them that was the position of their 
candidate for President 1 year ago. He said if he were elected 
President, he would do away with it. What did the American people say? 
I recall how that election came out.
  Let's think about what defunding and repealing the Affordable Care 
Act would really mean: Our country would return to a time when 
insurance companies could deny coverage because of a preexisting health 
condition. Benefits would be stripped for those who get sick. And 
seniors would pay more for prescription drugs. Tens of millions of 
Americans are currently without health insurance, but the health 
insurance marketplaces opening next month will provide access for these 
Americans to obtain coverage. And while we often hear that this is a 
``job-killing'' bill that is adding trillions of dollars to our 
deficit, that rhetoric could not be farther from the truth. Repealing 
the Affordable Care Act would actually add to our deficit, because the 
reforms we put in place more than three years ago are designed to save 
health care costs in the long run.
  Beyond that damage, the House continuing resolution also would 
drastically affect current Medicare beneficiaries. The House bill would 
eliminate free wellness visits, which this year alone have helped 16.5 
million seniors gain access to quality preventative care. The House's 
short-sighted CR would also stop Medicare prescription drug coverage 
and discounts known as the ``donut hole'' forcing seniors to pay more 
out-of-pocket for their prescription drugs. And sadly, seniors are not 
the only ones who would be harmed by this cynical House legislation. 
Community Health Centers, which provide necessary care to our rural 
communities across the Nation and especially in Vermont, would be hit 
with a 60 percent reduction in Federal funding. Lifesaving nurse 
visitation programs to help low-income mothers carry healthy babies to 
term would be eliminated, and more than 92,000 individuals who 
currently have coverage under the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan 
Program would be dropped. The list goes on.
  The ill-conceived, short-term spending bill passed by the House last 
week is not the only bill approved by the other body that would deal 
firm blows to the most vulnerable in the country. After refusing to 
bring a farm bill to the House floor that would garner enough 
bipartisan votes to pass--as the chair of our committee, Senator 
Stabenow, did in the Senate, where we had a bipartisan bill--House 
leaders took

[[Page 14141]]

the unprecedented step earlier this year and split food assistance from 
the other essential programs supported by the farm bill, even though we 
passed a farm bill that would save $25 to $30 billion.
  After months of delay, last week the House voted on a separate 
nutrition title, which only moves us further away from enacting a farm 
bill before the programs expire on September 30. This latest lurching 
maneuver means even more uncertainty for farmers.
  Instead of standing with the millions of Americans who are still 
struggling to put food on the table--these House Members never have to 
go hungry, except by choice, because of the huge salaries they make--it 
is regrettable and inexcusable that the House Republicans are turning 
to slashing essential nutrition help for struggling Americans. Ensuring 
that these programs can continue to serve Vermonters and all Americans 
in need is a key part of enacting a strong farm bill for our country. 
It is a reality recognized by the bipartisan Senate-passed farm bill.
  The House cuts SNAP benefits by levels 10 times as high as the 
bipartisan Senate bill and twice as high as the House's original bill. 
These cuts would mean that each year an average of 3 million people 
would be kicked off food assistance, even those who are working and 
making as little as $2,500 per year. What is worse, the bill will mean 
hundreds of thousands of children will lose access to school meals. Ask 
any teacher, whether in Hawaii, Vermont or in any other State, does a 
hungry child learn? Of course not.
  These school meals are an investment in our future and an investment 
in our children. Having young people who are able to learn is an 
investment in the future of the U.S. economy. So what do we say? Oh, 
no, we are not going to feed them. This is a country that spends 
billions of dollars just to get rid of excess food and on needless diet 
programs, but we cannot feed children in school. It is shameful. It is 
mean-spirited, shortsighted, and it hurts America.
  If that were not enough, the House Republicans also assert with their 
bill that 3 months of benefits every 3 years is plenty of time for out-
of-work Americans to find a job that pays well enough to feed a family. 
Get real. Have they seen what happened to the economy in this country? 
Have they seen what happened as we try to drag ourselves back from the 
horrible recession they put us into a few years ago? Unfortunately, 
when there is only one job for every three unemployed workers. Simply 
telling out-of-work Americans to get a job is easier said than done. 
Somebody ought to ask them why don't they do their jobs.
  Times of high unemployment are the very reason we have food 
assistance. These food programs were always carried by Republicans and 
Democrats who worked together to help Americans get back on their feet. 
Despite the heated rhetoric, our Food Stamp Program is working as 
intended.
  I was fortunate to come here when we had two men with entirely 
different philosophies. Both men became nominees of their party to run 
for President, George McGovern and Bob Dole. They worked together to 
feed the hungry people in this country, especially in the School Lunch 
Program.
  The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the SNAP costs will 
fall over the next several years. As the economy improves and people 
get back to work, those costs will come down. Children who are educated 
will create jobs.
  Instead, we have bumper sticker politics--appealing to our worst 
instincts. It is churlish, childish, and irresponsible. I might also 
say it is immoral.
  The House-passed CR and the House so-called farm bill will only 
worsen the gridlock that crippled the Senate since our return from the 
August recess. We are elected not to grandstand but to legislate. Let's 
legislate around here. Members need to stop running to the cameras, 
getting little sound bites and saying things such as: I am standing up 
for America, as they do everything to kill the American economy.
  We were not elected to make the government less efficient. We are 
even unable to make the most basic decisions that the American people 
elected us to make. The American people want us to solve the problems 
now through fair solutions and through the give-and-take of our elected 
government.
  I appreciate the fact that the people of my State--Republicans and 
Democrats together--give me the honor of serving here. I have become 
the longest serving Senator from our State and also the longest serving 
Senator in this body. I have seen Republicans and Democrats work 
together on these problems. I have seen people in the past do that. I 
know it can be done but not when a tiny minority says: We are the only 
ones who know what to do, and we will make the decision. No. We have 
good men and women from both parties in the House and Senate. Let's 
stop the bumper sticker politics. Let's get back to work and do things 
the way they should be done. There is still time to show the American 
people that we know why we were sent here and that Congress can still 
do the work of the Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on the Hughes nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Todd M. Hughes, of the District of Columbia, to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. 
Shaheen) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Ex.]

                                YEAS--98

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Shaheen
     Udall (CO)
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table, and the President 
will immediately be notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________