[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16576-16590]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF MELVIN WATT TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 
                                 AGENCY

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nominations, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Melvin L. Watt, of North 
Carolina, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 12 noon will be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  The assistant majority leader.


                         Letter of Resignation

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that an 
official letter of resignation as mayor of Newark, NJ, from Senator-
elect Cory Booker of New Jersey be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   Newark, NJ,

                                                 October 30, 2013.
     Robert P. Marasco,
     City Clerk, City of Newark, Broad Street, Newark, NJ.
       Dear Mr. Marasco: Serving as the mayor of Newark, New 
     Jersey has been one of the greatest honors of my life. Since 
     taking office more than seven years ago, I've had the 
     privilege to work closely with countless residents, municipal 
     employees, elected officials, community leaders and others to 
     move Newark forward. It was not easy, but together, we have 
     brought incredible positive change to our city and set the 
     stage for this momentum to continue in the coming years.
       On Thursday, October 31, 2013 at noon, I will be sworn in 
     as one of New Jersey's United States Senators. Therefore, 
     effective Thursday, October 31, 2013 at 12:00 a.m., I am 
     officially resigning as mayor of Newark.
       While I am leaving one position, I am not leaving Newark. I 
     am proud to be able to now represent Newark and our entire 
     state as a United States Senator. My level of dedication, 
     passion and service will not falter as I serve New Jersey. 
     Our best days lie ahead, and together, we will continue to 
     achieve great things.
       The work goes on.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Cory A. Booker,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the statement that 
was just made by the Republican leader. It is a shame what is about to 
occur on the Senate floor if he has his way. The President has 
submitted the name of a nominee to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court. 
This is not just another court. Some view it as the second most 
important court in the land. Some of the most technical and challenging 
legal cases come before this court. The judges who serve there are 
called on not just to do routine things but to do extraordinary things 
on a regular basis. That is why the appointments to this court are so 
critically needed when it comes to maintaining the integrity of our 
Federal judiciary.
  What I heard from the Senate Republican leader was a statement that 
he would vote against the nomination of Patricia Ann Millett, President 
Obama's nominee for the vacancy on the court.
  There are 11 judges authorized for this court. Currently, only eight 
are serving. There are three vacancies. Ms. Millett is being suggested 
for the ninth seat out of the 11 that are authorized. I am not going to 
go back into the history of our exchanges when it comes to the 
appointment of judges. I can make as compelling a case, if not more 
compelling, than that just made by the Senator from Kentucky.
  At the end of the day those who are witnessing this will say it is 
another he said versus he said. What are these politicians up to? Who 
is right? Who is wrong? What I would suggest is, don't take my word for 
it and don't take the word of the Senator from Kentucky. Take the word 
of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
  On April 5 the Judicial Conference of the United States, led by Chief 
Justice John Roberts, made its Federal judgeship recommendations for 
this Congress. The Judicial Conference is not Republican or Democratic; 
it is nonpartisan. According to its letter, its recommendations reflect 
the judgeship needs of the Federal judiciary. The Judicial Conference, 
which judges the caseload and workload in the Federal courts, did not 
reach the same conclusion as the Senator from Kentucky. They didn't 
tell us we need fewer judges on the D.C. Circuit Court--not at all. It 
is incumbent upon us to fill those vacancies, and that is where we 
should be today.
  Let me add one additional note. What is especially troubling about 
what they are going to do to this fine woman is the fact that she is so 
extraordinarily well qualified. She may hold a record of having been an 
advocate and argued

[[Page 16577]]

before the U.S. Supreme Court some 32 times. She has received the 
endorsement of both Democratic and Republican Solicitors General. Those 
are the lawyers who represent the United States of America before that 
Court across the street, and her nomination is strongly supported by 
prominent former Republican Solicitors General.
  So the notion that the Senator from Kentucky suggests--that this is 
some partisan gambit--is completely destroyed by her letters of 
recommendation from Republicans as well as Democrats who have served as 
Solicitor General and have witnessed her fine work. This is about 
putting the right person in the job on one of the most important courts 
in the land, and sadly, unless the position of the minority leader of 
the Senate is not the position of all Republican Senators, she may 
suffer from this partisan approach to the appointment of this vacancy. 
What a sad outcome for a fine woman who has done so well as a 
professional advocate before appellate courts, has been recommended on 
a bipartisan basis--the highest recommendations--and now, after 
languishing on the calendar, is going to be dismissed. She didn't fit 
into the political game plan. That is awful.
  The men and women who step forward and submit their applications to 
become part of our Federal judiciary know they are going to be 
carefully scrutinized and criticized for some things in their past, but 
they do it anyway in the name of public service. What I hear from the 
Senator from Kentucky is that she doesn't fit into the political game 
plan on the other side of the aisle. I hope there are enough Republican 
Senators who will disagree with the Senator from Kentucky. We should 
give Patricia Ann Millett an opportunity to serve on the D.C. Circuit 
Court as quickly as possible.
  I know there are others on the floor, and I want to make sure 
everyone has time to say what is on their mind today because there are 
important issues before us, but I do want to make one brief comment 
about another issue.


                 Expiration of Stimulus Funds for SNAP

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 2 days ago Kate Maehr of the Greater 
Chicago Food Depository came to visit me in my office. Kate is one of 
my favorite people. Kate runs this huge network of food distribution in 
the Chicagoland area. Her warehouses are huge, and they are filled with 
foodstuffs, much of which is donated by companies that produce food so 
that it can be distributed in food pantries and other sources all 
around the Chicagoland area. Kate is one of the best, and I look 
forward to her visits each year because I know the fine work she does 
to feed the hungry.
  Two days ago she came into my office very sad.
  She said: I don't know what we are going to do.
  I said: What is the matter?
  She said: This Friday the increase in food stamps, or SNAP benefits, 
for the poor people who live in the greater Chicagoland area is going 
to be cut. It may be only $10 or $15, but I know these people, I know 
many of them personally, and they live so close to the edge. It will 
call for some sacrifice on their part, and many of them will be hard-
pressed to make that sacrifice, and I can't make up the difference. 
With all of the donations and all of the charitable contributions, I 
just can't make up the difference.
  I thought about it for a minute. I thought, how would you approach a 
Member of the Senate or the House of Representatives and say: You know, 
this cutback of $15 a month will really hurt. It is hard for us, in our 
positions in life, to really understand or identify with the plight and 
the struggle of those who are not certain where their next meal is 
coming from.
  Most of those people have the benefit of the SNAP program, the food 
stamp program. Well, who are these people? Who are these 48 million 
Americans who receive benefits from this program? Almost 1 million of 
them are veterans. Veterans who are not sure where their next meal is 
coming from get food stamps--SNAP benefits. Almost half of the 48 
million are children. There are 22 million children and another 9 
million who are elderly and disabled. When we talk about cuts in the 
SNAP program, we are talking about these people--the veterans, 
children, the elderly, and the disabled.
  Right now there are two proposals before us. One proposal is from the 
Senate, and that cuts back spending on this program to the tune of $4 
billion over 10 years. I supported it because I think it closes the 
potential for abuse. I don't want to waste a penny of Federal 
taxpayers' money on any program in any way, shape, or form. Senator 
Stabenow, chairman of the Senate agriculture committee, made this 
change in the food stamp program that will save us $4 billion and will 
not create hardship. In fact, it closes what may be a loophole.
  Now comes the House of Representatives, and their view is much 
different. They want to cut some $40 billion--10 times as much--over 
the next 10 years. When we take a look at the approach they are using 
for these cuts--10 times the amount cut by the Senate--we understand 
how they get their so-called savings. They take almost 4 million--3.8 
million--people out of the program: children, single mothers, 
unemployed veterans, and Americans who get temporary help from the food 
stamp program. The House would cut $19 billion and 1.7 million people 
from SNAP by eliminating the authority of Governors of both political 
parties to ask for waivers so that low-income childless adults under 50 
can still receive benefits beyond the 3 months they do ordinarily. This 
says that Governors looking at their States with high unemployment 
understand that there are people in need.
  It is hard for Members of Congress in the House or the Senate--it is 
hard for me too--to really appreciate the lifestyle of someone living 
from paycheck to paycheck, but that is a reality for millions of 
Americans. Many of the people who are receiving food stamps are 
working. That may come as a shock to people, but they are not making 
enough money to feed their families.
  I went on a tour of a food warehouse in Champaign, IL, and had a 
number of people explain the importance of not only their work with 
food pantries but the importance of the food stamp program. I noticed 
one young woman who was part of the tour. I didn't quite understand why 
she was there. She was an attractive young mother who was dressed well. 
She explained that she had two children. I later learned why she was 
there. She is a food stamp recipient. She has a part-time job with the 
local school district--not a full-time job--and her income is so low, 
she still qualifies for food stamps, SNAP benefits. She was there to 
thank me. She wanted to thank me not just for the food stamp program 
but because we changed the law a couple of years ago and allow mothers 
like her to take their kids to farmers markets and use their food 
stamps to buy fresh produce.
  She said: It is almost like a trip to Disneyland for my kids. They 
have come to know the farmers, and they look forward to meeting them 
each week. The farmers give them an extra apple or tomato or this or 
that, and I just want to thank you. My kids are getting good food from 
farmers markets, and it helps us make ends meet.
  This is a single working mom with two kids. Those are the types of 
people who are receiving food stamps and benefits. The notion that they 
are somehow lazy welfare queens--go out and meet them. Meet the woman 
at the Irving Park United Methodist Church food pantry I met who is 
trying to live in the city of Chicago on a Social Security check that 
pays her $800 a month. I challenge any Member in the Senate or House to 
try to get by on $800 a month in the city of Chicago. She makes it 
because she has two food pantries that give her 3 or 4 days of food 
each and she has food stamps.
  I will conclude by saying that what we are talking about as far as 
food stamps is really a matter of basic hunger of children, veterans, 
elderly, and disabled who get this helping hand that makes a difference 
in their lives.
  We are a great and caring nation. I am so proud to represent a great 
State in that Nation. We are a caring people, and caring people do not 
turn their backs on hungry kids or hungry elderly

[[Page 16578]]

people. We better take care, when it comes to this food stamp program, 
that we don't make cuts that are going to make their lives more 
difficult.
  Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all speakers on 
the Democratic side prior to noon be limited to 5 minutes each.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I don't know whether Senator Boxer was 
to be recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will take 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Boxer wants 5 
minutes, and I will yield to the fine chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee for 5 minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators on the Republican side be 
allocated 10 minutes each.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member on the Budget 
Committee. I know he has a lot on his plate. He and I work well 
together, and I thank him.
  Mr. President, I want to put on the Record my strong support for 
Congressman Mel Watt to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance 
Agency. May I do that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I hope we have a resounding vote for Mel Watt. He is a 
terrific person. He has the heart, intelligence, and the experience.
  Mr. President, as critical decisions are being made about the future 
of the housing finance system, it is time that we place permanent 
leadership at the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, FHFA. 
Congressman Mel Watt has both the experience and the expertise to help 
create a system that ensures access to safe and affordable credit and 
other housing options for all Americans.
  Congressman Watt brings with him over 40 years of experience in 
housing, real estate, and other financial services issues. From 1970 to 
1992, he ran a law practice focusing on business, real estate, 
municipal bonds, and community development, learning the details of 
housing finance from the ground level. He was first elected to 
represent the 12th district of North Carolina in 1992 and has served 
over 20 years on the House Financial Services Committee. In addition, 
his work on the House Subcommittees on Capital Markets and Government 
Sponsored Enterprises, and on Financial Institutions and Consumer 
Credit has given him the necessary policy expertise to run the agency 
that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
  Congressman Watt's experience and expertise made him one of the first 
policymakers to recognize how predatory underwriting practices were 
threatening the larger housing market and economy as a whole. Years 
before the foreclosure crisis began, Congressman Watt, along with 
Congressman Brad Miller, introduced the Prohibit Predatory Lending Act 
in 2004. They reintroduced it every Congress after that until it was 
adopted as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act. In March 2007, only 2 months after the Democrats became 
the majority party in Congress, Congressman Watt joined Chairman Barney 
Frank in introducing a bill to reform regulation of Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac. The bill passed both the House and the Senate with 
bipartisan support and now called the Housing and Economic Recovery 
Act, HERA, was signed into law by President Bush in July 2008.
  Congressman Watt also brings with him the experience and balance in 
vision to represent all stakeholders fairly, and has broad support from 
both industry and consumer groups.
  ``The National Association of Realtors has long appreciated 
Representative Watt's proven ability and willingness to engage the 
industry, stakeholders, and consumers throughout his service in the 
House of Representatives. Watt has always aimed to craft policy that is 
fair, garners wide consensus, and allows all parties to move forward, 
all of which are vital qualities for the Director of the FHFA.''
  The Mortgage Bankers of America said, ``Congressman Watt would bring 
considerable experience to the post of Director [and] a strong base of 
understanding on a wide variety of public policy issues related to 
housing finance. . . . [W]e would urge the Senate to approve his 
nomination.''
  The Center for Responsible Lending said, ``Watt brings to FHFA an 
ability to work with a variety of stakeholders, with many competing 
interests and perspectives. He has a track record of crafting practical 
solutions and alliances for a complex, dynamic marketplace. He is 
consistently thoughtful, fair, and respectful of all opinions, and his 
policies have been guided by a concern for all Americans.''
  The National Association of Home Builders said, ``We applaud the 
nomination of Representative Watt to this important position. After 
four years in conservatorship, the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
stands at a crossroad. Rep. Watt brings years of experience to this 
position at a pivotal moment as our nation's housing market recovers. 
NAHB looks forward to working closely with Rep. Watt to help address 
the many complex challenges facing the U.S. housing finance system upon 
his confirmation by the U.S. Senate.''
  The Center for American Progress said, ``We believe that Mr. Watt has 
the vision, expertise, and experience necessary to provide strong 
leadership for FHFA. His personal background and professional 
experience have provided him with a deep commitment to affordable 
housing and sustainable credit, which not only support a robust housing 
market, but also provide shelter and opportunity for America's families 
and spur economic growth for the nation as a whole.''
  The United States Conference of Mayors said, ``It is not surprising 
that Representative Watt has bipartisan support in the Senate. His 
record shows that he can work across the political aisle finding 
solutions to complex problems. Time and time again, mayors have been 
impressed with his thoughtful approach in developing solutions that are 
mindful of all stakeholders. As the nation's housing market climbs back 
as a major part of our economy, we need such a leader as Mel Watt at 
the head of FHFA.''
  Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for the rest of 
my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be on the floor with 
some very good news out of California and how ObamaCare, the Affordable 
Care Act, is working in our great State. People are phoning. People are 
going online. People are talking with insurance agencies, with health 
insurance companies. They are getting health care coverage, some for 
the very first time, and for many for the first time it is affordable; 
all good policies--good policies that will be there when they are 
needed.
  We know a small percentage of people, as the President addressed 
yesterday, are being told their old policies are not going to be 
offered to them anymore, but all of those folks know they can get 
better policies. They can't be turned away. There will be competition 
for their business. Many of them will get subsidies. So at the end of 
the day, this health care story, although quite bumpy, as we know the 
prescription drug launch was years ago--we know it is bumpy, and we are 
angry on both sides of the aisle that it is bumpy--but at the end of 
the day, I think it is going to be good.
  I wish to read some of the comments made by people who have logged in 
to ``Covered California,'' which is coveredCA.com. Here is one who just 
got an affordable health care policy:

       Thank you so much, President Obama! And everyone who works 
     there.
       This was soooo much easier than I thought it would be! I am 
     soooo grateful to get medical insurance! Thank you!

  Another:


[[Page 16579]]

       Great phone support, thank you. No wait time, the assistant 
     answered all my questions clearly.

  Another:

       GREAT JOB! EASY! WHAT'S All THE FUSS ABOUT?

  Another:

       Wow. This was easy and my monthly premiums are 
     significantly less than my previous employer's health care 
     coverage before the Affordable Care Act.

  One who I thought truly summed it up:

       Thank God Almighty I'm free at last!

  These are the real people. These are not people who have a political 
agenda. They are real people. They are Democrats. They are Republicans. 
They are Independent voters. They have had a hard time getting health 
insurance and, because of the Affordable Care Act, with all of its 
glitches on the national Web site--and we acknowledge them--it is 
working. It is working in our State, and eventually, once that national 
Web site is fixed, it will work for everybody.
  I wish to put some real numbers on this: 180,000 Californians have 
begun the process of signing up for coverage--180,000 families. Imagine 
the relief they have. Over 2 million unique visitors have been to 
coveredCA.com. There have been 200,000 calls to coveredCA.com's call 
centers. The average wait time is under 4 minutes and the average total 
call time is less than 16 minutes for Californians enrolling in 
coverage and asking questions. We have 4,000 insurance agents and 
clinic workers trained so far and certified. They have their badges so 
they can offer, in person, help to those who are looking to enroll.
  Very recently I went to a clinic in my home county and I can tell my 
colleagues the excitement there is palpable. The doctors, the nurses, 
the assistants, the people in the waiting room, everybody knowing they 
can get either insurance on the exchange or insurance through an 
expanded Medi-Cal Program. We have millions of people who will be able 
to sign up on the exchanges. We have about 1.4 million people who could 
sign up for the expanded Medi-Cal Program.
  Do I have any time remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 5 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Five seconds. I hope we get these two wonderful nominees 
on the way to confirmation today.
  I hope we will be patient and that we will all work together to fix 
the problems with health care. I think, at the end of the day, it is 
going to be great.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share some thoughts about the 
filling of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals 
judgeships. I have been involved in that issue for well over a decade. 
We started looking at the case numbers when President Clinton was in 
office. I, along with Senator Chuck Grassley, both Republicans, blocked 
President Bush from filling a vacancy, because that court did not need 
another judge and they wanted to fill it. Let's be frank. Presidents 
want to fill the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals because they think they 
can shift the balance there and be able to advance their agenda 
throughout the judicial process because a lot of key cases are filed 
there, and lobbyists and outside forces that care about judges want the 
Presidents to put their kind of people in those positions--maybe even 
their law partner or their friend or their political buddy on that 
court. But there are some great judges on the court. But I am Ranking 
Republican on the Budget Committee also. I serve on the Judiciary 
Committee and on the Budget Committee. We have no money in this country 
to fund a judgeship that is not needed.
  The last time we were able to move one of those judges to the Ninth 
Circuit where the position was needed. Today, it is clear that the 
caseload for the D.C. Circuit continues to fall. The number of cases 
per judge in the D.C. Circuit continues to decline. Senator Grassley 
has been a champion of this issue for years. He chaired the court 
subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I chaired it after he did. We 
have seen these numbers.
  Senator Durbin says, Oh, it is a shame. It is a shame these nominees 
don't get confirmed. As Senator McConnell noted, it was a shame that 
Peter Keisler, a fabulous nominee, didn't get confirmed. But, in all 
honesty, the court didn't need that slot filled and they don't need any 
of the three slots today that are vacant. They do not need to be 
filled. Congress has no responsibility to fill a vacancy that is not 
needed, and we shouldn't do it. Each one costs about $1 million a year. 
That is what it costs to fill a judgeship.
  We have needs around the country. We have certain needs around the 
country, and we are going to have to add judges. Why would we fill 
slots with judges we don't need and not fill slots with judges we do 
need? That is my fundamental view about it. I will just say this: It is 
not going to happen. We are not going to fill these slots. This country 
is in deep financial trouble.
  The majority basically is saying: Oh, the Budget Control Act and, oh, 
we have cut to the bone. We can't find another dime in savings. Do you 
know what the problem is, America? You haven't sent us enough money. If 
you would just send more money to Washington, we could spread it around 
and everything would be fine.
  This is basically what we are hearing from the leadership: No more 
cuts. In fact, the Budget Control Act reduced spending too much. Oh, 
this is critically important. Every dollar we spend is critically 
important and we can't reduce a dime of it or even the growth of it. 
That is what we have been hearing: Send more money to Washington. We 
want to raise taxes. We are open about demanding increases in taxes to 
fund whatever it is we want to spend.
  Is there any waste and abuse in this government? There absolutely is. 
Look at this chart. Senator Durbin is on the Judiciary Committee. He 
has been involved in this. He knows these numbers. There is nothing 
phony about what I am showing my colleagues today. This is absolute 
fact: Total appeals filed per active judge. These are the judges on the 
court today. The D.C. Circuit has eight judges. They have eight judges. 
The number of appeals filed per judge in their court is 149, and the 
average per circuit judge in America is 383. The average is 2\1/2\ 
times that number. We do not need to fill these slots.
  Look at the Eleventh Circuit. They have vacancies, but at this point 
they are doing almost 800 cases per judge per year. Think about that. 
In the Second Circuit, which is Manhattan--a very important circuit 
with very complex cases--there are more than 2\1/2\ times the number of 
cases than the D.C. Circuit. Remember, this is the current number of 
judges, I say to my colleagues. This isn't if we were to add three more 
judges. If we added three more judges, it would be a little over 100 
cases per judge, not 149. This is absolute fact. They take the entire 
summer off. No other circuit does this. They have canceled oral 
arguments they had scheduled because there were no cases to argue. They 
take the summer off.
  I talked to one circuit judge in another circuit who said: At least 
one of the judges in the D.C. Circuit goes around the country sometimes 
and helps out, but none of our judges can because we are so busy we 
don't have time to do it.
  Most of our judges are working very hard. I am a total believer in 
the integrity and the value of the Federal judiciary. I respect them 
greatly. They do important work. But it has just so happened in the 
course of our American system that the D.C. Circuit is at a point where 
it has the lowest caseload per judge in decades, of any circuit and it 
needs to be fixed and the number of cases continues to decline.
  So what I would say to my colleagues is I believe we should give 
deference to the President in the nomination of judges. I voted for, I 
am sure, close to 90 percent of the nominations the President has 
submitted. I voted for almost 90 percent, I would suggest. But I am not 
going to support three judges we don't need. The last thing we need to 
be doing is burning on the Mall of

[[Page 16580]]

the United States of America $3 million a year to fund judgeships we 
don't need. There are other places in this government we can cut 
wasteful spending as well, but this one highlights the situation.
  I suggest to my colleagues this is a test to this Senate. This is a 
test for all of the Members of the Senate. If we say there is no place 
to save money in Washington; if we say we have found every bit of 
waste, fraud, and abuse there is--well, look at this court.
  I am not condemning any of the nominees. I am not complaining about 
their quality or their ability. I am saying the taxpayers of America 
should not have extracted from them another $3 million a year to fund 
three judges that absolutely are not needed, particularly when we have 
legitimate needs in other courts around the country that need more 
judges.
  Look at the Eleventh Circuit, my circuit: Almost 800 cases per judge 
filed. This circuit, the D.C. Circuit, 149, and they want three more 
judges--not so.
  I believe we have a 10-minute limit. How much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So, in conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to be 
here. It looks as though we will vote on the Millett nomination maybe 
later today. With no personal criticism of that nominee in any way, I 
think it is important for us to say we just don't need these slots. We 
are not going to fill them. Not one of the three needs to be filled. We 
are not going to fill any of them. We are going to honor the finances 
of the American people.
  Once again, I express my appreciation to Senator Chuck Grassley, the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who has led the fight on 
this issue for a number of years. I have worked with him on it. We have 
legislation to transfer these judgeships to other places. That is what 
we should be doing, moving them to where they are needed. It has been 
great to work with Senator Grassley.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Congressman 
Mel Watt.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an 
inquiry, under the UC were we going to divide 30 minutes per side? Was 
that the intent of the unanimous consent request I made earlier?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time until noon is equally 
divided in the usual form.
  Mr. SESSIONS. In the usual form. All right.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Congressman 
Mel Watt, who is a champion for middle class families in my home State 
of North Carolina. Mel Watt is the President's nominee to be the next 
Director of our Federal Housing Finance Agency.
  Congressman Watt is a true North Carolinian. He was born in North 
Carolina. He attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 
and he has spent much of his distinguished career working for the 
people of North Carolina.
  Congressman Watt is an outstanding choice to lead the Federal Housing 
Finance Agency.
  Over his 20 years on the House Financial Services and Judiciary 
Committees, Congressman Watt has been a steadfast advocate for 
affordable housing in North Carolina and across the country. He has 
worked tirelessly to protect families from predatory and deceptive 
lending practices.
  He has been willing to work across the aisle to find common ground on 
issues that promote economic opportunity for the middle class.
  Well before the housing crisis, Congressman Watt raised concerns that 
predatory lending practices were harming consumers and putting our 
housing market at risk. He was instrumental in enacting Dodd-Frank and 
in supporting its antipredatory lending provisions. He will be a 
tremendous asset to our housing market and economy moving forward.
  In a letter to the Senate this week, 54 community and advocacy 
organizations called for Congressman Watt's confirmation, saying:

       Representative Watt has the depth to grasp the problems 
     that plague Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and has the skills to 
     work with everyone involved to get the housing market back on 
     track.

  I agree. I was proud to join my North Carolina colleague Senator 
Richard Burr in introducing Congressman Watt at his confirmation 
hearing earlier this year, and I am pleased that the Banking Committee 
approved his nomination.
  The bipartisan support for Congressman Watt from our delegation in 
North Carolina is representative of his longtime ability to work across 
the aisle.
  During his distinguished tenure in Congress, Congressman Watt worked 
with Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and 
Representative Lamar Smith to pass legislation that addressed Patent 
and Trademark Office backlogs. And he worked with Representative Blaine 
Luetkemeyer on legislation that ensured adequate transparency for ATM 
fees while eliminating excessive regulatory burdens.
  Congressman Watt's long congressional career builds on more than two 
decades in the private sector as a small business owner and a legal 
expert.
  With experience in the private sector and more than two decades of 
service on the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Watt has 
the background, the skills, and the history of bipartisan cooperation 
necessary to confront the challenges facing our recovering housing 
market.
  His nomination is supported by industry leaders such as the National 
Association of Realtors president Gary Thomas and the National 
Association of Home Builders chairman Rick Judson. He is supported by 
the Mortgage Bankers Association and the United States Conference of 
Mayors. And he is supported by Erskine Bowles, cochair of the National 
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and the former Bank of 
America chairman and CEO Hugh McColl.
  In fact, I ask unanimous consent that these letters from the National 
Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, and 
Mr. McColl be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Association


                                      of Realtors',

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 2013.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the one million members of the 
     National Association of Realtors' (NAR), their 
     affiliates, homebuyers, and homeowners, I strongly urge the 
     United States Senate to expeditiously confirm Representative 
     Mel Watt as the next Director of the Federal Housing Finance 
     Agency (FHFA).
       The National Association of Realtors' has long 
     appreciated Representative Watt's proven ability and 
     willingness to engage the industry, stakeholders, and 
     consumers throughout his service in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives. Watt has always aimed to craft policy that 
     is fair, garners wide consensus, and allows all parties to 
     move forward, all of which are vital qualities for the 
     Director of the FHFA.
       The extended conservatorship of the government-sponsored 
     enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is one of the most 
     pressing issues facing the housing sector. This requires that 
     the FHFA be led by a permanent Director, who looks for 
     measured and comprehensive solutions that will protect both 
     the housing market and taxpayers. Representative Watt has 
     clearly demonstrated through his extended service and 
     involvement with key housing issues before the House 
     Financial Services Committee that he has a keen understanding 
     of the importance of housing finance to the nation's economy.
       The FHFA Director plays a critical role in the future of 
     our nation's housing finance system and must weigh the costs 
     of action and inaction with the benefits of protecting the 
     taxpayer and ensuring the continued recovery of housing. 
     Representative Watt has the experience and skill necessary to 
     work with Congress and the Administration to ensure that both 
     costs and benefits are handled in a manner that benefits our 
     nation. As our economy continues its slow recovery from the 
     Great Recession, we must focus on sensible and commonsense 
     policies that foster strong growth and stability. 
     Representative Watt has the experience, knowledge, and 
     ability to bring that much needed focus to the FHFA.

[[Page 16581]]

       In short, we know that Representative Watt will not only be 
     an asset to FHFA but also to the Congress and the 
     Administration as we work together to restore strength to the 
     housing and mortgage markets. The National Association of 
     Realtors urges confirmation of Representative Watt, 
     and stands ready to work with FHFA and Congress to facilitate 
     a strong housing and economic recovery.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Gary Thomas,
     2013 President, National Association of Realtors'.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Home Builders,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 2013.
     Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC,
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: On 
     behalf of the 140,000 members of the National Association of 
     Home Builders (NAHB), I am pleased to offer NAHB's strong 
     support for the nomination of Representative Mel Watt as the 
     next Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). I 
     urge you to support his nomination when it is considered by 
     the full Senate later this week.
       Today's mortgage finance system is in a state of 
     uncertainty. The ongoing conservatorship of the government 
     sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 
     continues to be one of the most challenging issues facing the 
     housing industry today. With the path forward for 
     comprehensive housing finance reform taking shape, and with 
     that outcome still very uncertain, having a permanent FHFA 
     Director will be critical to ensure the safety and soundness 
     of the housing GSEs, as well as promote a stable and liquid 
     residential mortgage financing system for our nation's 
     housing market. NAHB believes that the confirmation of 
     Representative Mel Watt will bring much-needed certainty to 
     the U.S. housing finance system as we transition from the 
     current state of conservatorship to a new and stronger system 
     of housing finance.
       Representative Watt will bring years of experience to this 
     position at a pivotal moment in the recovery of our nation's 
     housing market. During Representative Watt's tenure on the 
     House Financial Services Committee, he has proven to be a 
     thoughtful leader on housing policy. The FHFA needs a 
     permanent director with his leadership capabilities.
       NAHB looks forward to working closely with Representative 
     Watt to help address the many complex challenges still facing 
     the housing finance system and the recovery of the housing 
     market. We hope that the Senate will move quickly to approve 
     his nomination.
           Best regards,
                                                      Rick Judson,
     2013 NAHB Chairman of the Board.
                                  ____

                                  Charlotte, NC, October 25, 2013.
     To: The Editor

                 Time To Act on the Mel Watt Nomination

       Given the need to have more economic activity, it appears 
     to me that the Senate should move now to confirm Congressman 
     Mel Watt as Director of FHFA. There seems to be no reason not 
     to approve Mr. Watt's nomination other than he has been 
     nominated by the President.
       I have known Mel Watt for 40-some odd years, both as a 
     lawyer and as a US Congressman. I know him to be highly 
     intelligent, a man of impeccable character, and a straight 
     shooter. While Chairman of the Board of the Bank of America, 
     I consulted with him on many occasions about banking 
     legislation. We did not always agree with each other, but I 
     always knew that I was getting an honest opinion and one that 
     was well thought out.
       Mr. Watt has been a real estate lawyer in one of the 
     fastest growing cities in America--Charlotte, NC, and he is 
     very much aware of the need for housing loans for people from 
     all economic segments. Most of his more than 20 years in 
     Congress were spent on the House Financial Services 
     Committee.
       It is worth reminding people that Congressman Watt has a 
     business degree from the University of North Carolina at 
     Chapel Hill, and a law degree from Yale University. Without 
     question, he is well educated. No doubt he is smart, and 
     there is no doubt that we need somebody like him in charge.
       I hope Senator Burr and Senator Hagan from North Carolina 
     will push for his confirmation. The Country needs him.
           Sincerely,
                                               Hugh L. McColl, Jr.

  Mrs. HAGAN. Congressman Watt's strong record of working with industry 
leaders, consumer advocates, Democrats and Republicans proves that he 
can deliver results for middle class families across the country and in 
North Carolina.
  We need Congressman Watt at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. I 
know he will work successfully with Congress to strengthen the backbone 
of our current housing finance system, and I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting his nomination later today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, just a parliamentary inquiry: I have 10 
minutes allocated to me?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I rise to address the candidacy of Congressman Mel Watt to be 
Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency as well.
  Let me preface my comments by making it very clear. I know 
Congressman Mel Watt. He is a good man. I served with him in the House. 
We served on the Banking Committee together. I know for many years he 
has been and continues to be a passionate advocate for increasing 
taxpayer subsidies for housing finance, and I have never once doubted 
his sincerity, his commitment, or his passion for working for his 
constituents and also for disadvantaged people generally. Having said 
that, while Mel Watt is certainly a good man, I think this is the wrong 
job for this good man, and I want to explain why.
  I think it is useful to first consider the massive size of the 
institutions that the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the FHFA, 
regulates. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks 
combined are enormous.
  Fannie and Freddie together hold 48 percent of all the outstanding 
mortgages in the United States of America. Last year, they guaranteed 
almost 80 percent of all the new mortgages that were issued. Combined, 
Fannie and Freddie have assets that are nearly $5.2 trillion--this is 
much larger than the Federal Reserve--which have just made themselves 
into an enormous institution. Combined, Fannie and Freddie are more 
than twice as big as JPMorgan Chase, the biggest bank in America. In 
addition to being very large, they are enormously complex, and they are 
at the center--in fact, they are the housing finance market of the 
United States of America.
  So they are enormously large, they are enormously complex. And the 
post we are talking about here--the directorship of the regulator--has 
virtually unchecked powers. The legislation that creates this post, 
that creates this agency and the head of this agency, empowers the 
Director enormously. Let me quote from the statute. The Director's 
powers include ``all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the 
regulated entity, and of any stockholder, officer, or director'' of the 
entity. In plain English that means this person has the power of the 
entire board of directors, the CEO and all the management, and the 
regulatory agency that controls it all. There is no parallel in our 
country for an institution where so much power is concentrated in one 
person.
  In addition, there is no congressional oversight. The FHFA does not 
depend on Congress for appropriations. It gets its money from fees from 
the entities it regulates. So Congress has no control, no authority, 
once a person is confirmed in this post, and they are confirmed for a 
5-year term and can only be removed for cause. So it is unchecked power 
on an enormous scale.
  Now, precisely because of the unchecked power over these enormously 
large, important, powerful, and complex institutions--precisely for 
that reason--the statute stipulates very clearly that the person 
holding this post has to be someone who is technically competent 
because of their own history, because they have been a practitioner in 
this field. The legislation demands that, and for good reason. 
Specifically, the law insists that the Director shall have a 
``demonstrated understanding of financial management or oversight, and 
have a demonstrated understanding of capital markets, including the 
mortgage securities markets and housing finance.''
  So we are not talking about being automatically qualified by virtue 
of being a Member of Congress. One needs to be a practitioner. I will 
give you one quick example of many why central to

[[Page 16582]]

the management of the enormous complexity of these institutions is the 
use of complex derivatives, which manage the interest rate risk 
inherent in these portfolios. Fannie and Freddie are the world's 
biggest users of derivatives for this risk management purpose. 
Understanding how these work, the risks that are inherent in them, and 
how it affects the broader capital markets is absolutely essential. Yet 
in December 2011, Mel Watt said this. I quote Congressman Watt:

       For all of the last term of Congress, I sat in the 
     Financial Services Committee, and a lot of these arguments 
     that I am hearing today are the same arguments that I heard 
     about derivatives. Well, I didn't know a damn thing about 
     derivatives. I am still not sure I do.

  Derivatives are central to the management of these institutions.
  There is another reason why this statute insists on an experienced 
practitioner and a technocrat rather than a politician, and that is 
because pursuing a political agenda at these institutions is enormously 
dangerous. Look at the damage that it did the last time. Congressman 
Watt was an advocate for all of the policies that helped to drive 
Fannie and Freddie into the conservatorship that cost taxpayers so much 
money. He supported lower capital standards, lower downpayments, lower 
underwriting standards, loan forgiveness. He was opposed to tougher 
regulations, even when it was becoming clear that these institutions 
were on a downward spiral and soon would need a massive bailout.
  Unfortunately, Congressman Watt still supports these policies. And if 
he were confirmed as the Director, with all of these powers, he could 
unilaterally reinstitute these policies.
  Now, fortunately, at the moment, we have a Director who understands 
that his obligation to the taxpayer precludes these misguided policies. 
I am deeply concerned that if confirmed, Congressman Watt would reverse 
that practice and reinstitute some of these very damaging and dangerous 
policies.
  So for these reasons and, I would say, in respect and in honoring the 
clear language of the statute, we have an obligation to not confirm 
Congressman Mel Watt. While I know he is a very good man, I think he is 
the wrong person for this job. So I would urge my colleagues to vote no 
on cloture later today.
  I yield the floor.


                      The Nomination of Mel Watts

 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while not many people know about 
the Federal Housing Finance Agency, it has become one of the most 
powerful and important government agencies. Following the financial 
crisis and massive bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and all the big 
banks, the Federal Government took a primary position in the mortgage 
market. Right now, 48 percent of all outstanding U.S. mortgages and 77 
percent of those issued last year were guaranteed by the Federal 
Government. This is a problem in and of itself, but the FHFA is the 
agency that oversees all of them.
  Mel Watts is the guy President Obama has nominated to lead the 
agency. I know Mel from my time both in the House and the Senate, and I 
am deeply concerned that he will push the Federal Government further 
into the mortgage business, instead of moving us away from it. He has 
shown his colors during his time here in Washington, and he is not the 
right guy to lead the agency. I am opposed to his nomination and urge 
my colleagues to oppose him.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to any motion to 
invoke cloture on nominees to the D.C. Circuit. I am somewhat 
disappointed that the Senate majority wants to turn to a very 
controversial nomination next rather than to continue on a path of 
cooperative confirmations or other important Senate business. It seems 
to me that scheduling such a controversial vote in the closing weeks of 
this session of Congress is designed simply to heat up the partisanship 
of judicial nominations.
  My opposition is based on a number of factors.
  First, an objective review of the court's workload makes clear that 
the workload simply does not justify adding additional judges, 
particularly when additional judgeships cost approximately $1 million--
$1 million--every year per judge.
  Second, given that the caseload does not justify additional judges, 
you have to ask why the President would push so hard to fill these 
seats. It appears clear that the President wishes to add additional 
judges to this court in order to change judicial outcomes.
  Third, the court is currently comprised of four active judges 
appointed by a Republican President and four active judges appointed by 
a Democratic President. There is no reason to upset the current makeup 
of the court, particularly when the reason for doing so appears to be 
ideologically driven.
  I will start by providing my colleagues with a little bit of history 
regarding this particular seat on the D.C. Circuit.
  It may come as a surprise to some, but this seat has been vacant for 
over 8 years. It became vacant in September 2005, when John Roberts was 
elevated to Chief Justice.
  In June of 2006, President Bush nominated an eminently qualified 
individual for this seat, Peter Keisler. Mr. Keisler was widely lauded 
as a consensus bipartisan nominee. His distinguished record of public 
service included service as Acting Attorney General. Despite his broad 
bipartisan support and qualifications, Mr. Keisler waited 918 days for 
a committee vote. The vote never happened.
  When he was nominated, Democrats objected to even holding a hearing 
for the nominee based upon concerns about the workload of the D.C. 
Circuit.
  First, I would like to remind my colleagues that in 2006 Democrats 
argued that the D.C. Circuit caseload was too light to justify 
confirming any additional judges to the bench. Since that time, do you 
know what happened. The caseload has continued to decrease.
  In terms of raw numbers, the D.C. Circuit has the lowest number of 
total appeals filed annually among all the circuit courts of appeals. 
In 2005 that number was 1,379. Last year it was 1,193--a decrease of 
13.5 percent.
  There are a lot of different ways to look at these numbers, but 
perhaps the best numbers to examine are the workload per active judge. 
The caseload has decreased so much since 2005 that even with two fewer 
active judges, the filing levels per active judge are practically the 
same. In 2005, with 10 active judges, the court had 138 appeals filed 
per active judge. Today, with only 8 active judges, it has 149. This 
makes the D.C. Circuit caseload levels the lowest in the Nation and 
less than half the national average.
  It has been suggested that there are other circuits, namely the 
Eighth and the Tenth, that have lighter caseloads than the D.C. 
Circuit. That is inaccurate. The D.C. Circuit has fewer cases filed and 
fewer cases terminated than either the Eighth or the Tenth Circuit.
  Cases filed and cases terminated measure the amount of appeals coming 
into the court and being resolved. Some of my colleagues have been 
arguing that the Eighth and the Tenth Circuits are similar to the D.C. 
Circuit based upon the comparison of pending cases. But cases pending 
does not measure how many cases are being added and removed from the 
docket.
  When looking at how many cases are added or filed per active judge, 
the D.C. Circuit is the lowest with 149. It is lower than the Eighth 
Circuit's 280 and the Tenth Circuit's 217. When looking at the number 
of cases being terminated by each court, the D.C. Circuit is once again 
the lowest at 149. Again, the Eighth Circuit and the Tenth Circuit 
courts are much higher at 269 and 218.
  Let me mention one other important point about pending appeals and 
the statistics my colleagues use. Several of my colleagues said on the 
floor yesterday that in 2005 there were only 121 pending appeals per 
active judge. That number seemed a little odd to me, so we looked into 
it a bit further, what the situation was in 2005. In order to arrive at 
that number, my colleagues appear to be taking the total appeals for 12 
months ending June 30, 2005, and dividing them by 11 active judges.

[[Page 16583]]

  As it turns out, there were only 9 active judges for almost that 
entire 12-month period. Janice Rogers Brown was sworn in on June 10, 
2005, and Judge Griffith was sworn in June 29, 2005. As a result, 
during that 12-month period there were 10 active judges for a total of 
only 19 days. There were 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit for a 
grand total of 1 day.
  A few months later in 2005, the court was back down to nine after 
Judge Roberts was elevated to the Supreme Court and Judge Edwards took 
senior status.
  This is how hard pressed the other side is to refute what everyone 
knows to be true: The caseload of the D.C. Circuit is lower now than it 
was back in 2005. In order to have a statistic that supports their 
judgment, the other side is claiming there were 11 active judges for 
that 12-month period, while that claim was true for only a total of 1 
day.
  The bottom line is this: The objective data clearly indicates the 
D.C. Circuit caseload is very low and that the court does not need 
additional active judges. That is especially true if you use the 
standard Senate Democrats established when they blocked Mr. Keisler.
  In addition to the raw numbers, in order to get a firsthand account, 
several months ago I invited the current judges of that court to 
provide a candid assessment of their caseload. What they said should 
not surprise anyone who has looked at this closely. The judges 
themselves confirmed that the workload on the D.C. Circuit is 
exceptionally low, stating, ``The court does not need additional 
judges.'' And, ``If any more judges were added now, there wouldn't be 
enough work to go around.''
  Those are powerful statements from the sitting judges in that 
circuit. Given these concerns, it is difficult to see why we would be 
moving forward with additional nominations, especially in a time when 
we are operating under budget constraints. Unfortunately, the 
justification for moving forward with additional D.C. Circuit nominees 
appears to be a desire and an intent to stack the court in order to 
determine the outcome of cases this court hears.
  It is clear the President wants to fill this court with ideological 
allies for the purposes of reversing certain policy outcomes. This is 
not just my view. It has been overtly stated as an objective of this 
administration.
  I would quote along this line a Washington Post article, ``Giving 
liberals a greater say on the D.C. Circuit is important for Obama as he 
looks for ways to circumvent the Republican-led House and a polarized 
Senate on a number of policy fronts through executive order and other 
administrative procedures.''
  We have a President who says: If Congress will not, I will. How do 
you stop that? The courts are the check on that. Even a member of the 
Democratic leadership admitted on the Senate floor that the reason they 
need to fill these seats was because, as he saw it, the D.C. Circuit 
was ``wreaking havoc with the country.''
  This is perplexing, given the current makeup of the court. Currently, 
there are four Republican-appointed judges, and, with the most recent 
confirmation, there are now four Democratic-appointed judges. 
Apparently some on the other side want to make sure they get a 
favorable outcome of this court.
  I have concerns regarding filling seats on this court which clearly 
has a very low caseload. I have greater concerns about this President's 
agenda to stack the court and to upset the current makeup simply in 
order to obtain favorable judicial outcomes because: If Congress will 
not, I will.
  Given the overwhelming lack of a need to fill these seats based upon 
caseload and especially considering the cost to the taxpayers of over 
$1 million per judge per year, I cannot support this nomination and 
urge my colleagues to reject it as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since I was first elected, the Senate has 
considered more than 1700 nominations to Article III federal courts. In 
nearly every case, the focus was on the individual nominee and whether 
he or she was qualified for judicial service. The nominee before us 
today is one of the rare exceptions. The focus here is on the court to 
which she and two others have been nominated, the US Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit. I cannot support any of these nominees because no 
one, no matter who they are and no matter what their qualifications, 
should be appointed to this court at this time.
  It would be difficult to make a more compelling case that the D.C. 
Circuit needs no more judges. The Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts is the keeper of the caseload facts and ranks the D.C. Circuit 
last among all circuits in appeals filed and appeals terminated per 
judicial panel. In fact, the AO ranks the D.C. Circuit last even in the 
catch-all category of ``other caseload per judgeship.'' And Chief D.C. 
Circuit Judge Merrick Garland recently confirmed that the number of 
D.C. Circuit cases scheduled for oral argument has declined by almost 
20 percent in the last decade.
  Here is another way to look at this issue. In July 2006, Democrats on 
the Judiciary Committee signed a letter to then-Chairman Arlen Specter 
opposing more D.C. Circuit appointments for two reasons. First, they 
used specific caseload benchmarks to conclude that the court's caseload 
had declined. Second, they said that filling vacancies labeled judicial 
emergencies by the Judicial Conference was more important.
  I am not aware that my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee have said either that they used the wrong standard in 2006 or 
that their 2006 standard should not be used today. I do not want to 
accuse anyone of using different standards for nominees of different 
political parties, so it is fair to apply the same standard that 
Democrats used to oppose Republican D.C. Circuit nominees.
  Democrats opposed more D.C. Circuit nominees because total appeals 
filed had declined. According to the AO's most recent data, total 
appeals filed have declined 18 percent further since 2006. Democrats 
opposed more D.C. Circuit nominees because written decisions per active 
judge had declined. The AO's data show that written decisions per 
active judge have declined 27 percent further since 2006. Democrats 
opposed more D.C. Circuit nominees because there were nominees to only 
60 percent of the 20 existing judicial emergency vacancies. Today, the 
Senate has pending nominees to only 49 percent of the 37 current 
judicial emergency vacancies. These are the facts. New appeals filed 
and written decisions per active judge in the D.C. Circuit are both 76 
percent below the national average and 50 to 60 percent below the next 
busiest circuit.
  I hope that my colleagues get the point. No matter how you slice it 
or dice it, the D.C. Circuit has the lowest caseload of any circuit in 
the country and its caseload continues to decline. The very same 
standards that Democrats used to oppose Republican nominees to the D.C. 
Circuit in 2006 show conclusively that the court needs no more judges 
today. As I said, none of my Democratic colleagues--and 4 who signed 
that 2006 letter are on the Judiciary Committee today--have said they 
were wrong in 2006 or attempted to explain why their 2006 standard is 
inappropriate today.
  The Senate evaluates the vast majority of judicial nominees on their 
own merits. These current D.C. Circuit nominees are the rare exception 
because they have been chosen for a court that needs no more judges at 
all. The better course would be to enact S. 699, the Court Efficiency 
Act, which would move two of these unnecessary D.C. Circuit seats to 
circuits that need them.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Congratulating the Boston Red Sox

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, before I start, I want to recognize the 
Boston Red Sox team for an outstanding historic season and to 
congratulate Red

[[Page 16584]]

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


Nomination of Patricia Ann Millett to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the 
appointment of Patricia Millett to the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit 
is an 11-member appellate court that hears some of the greatest and 
most serious administrative appeals in this country. Most of them are 
complicated, somewhat convoluted, and they do take serious expertise.
  The court is an 11-member court. It currently has eight members. 
Three of the eight are women, and there are three vacancies on the 
court. Patricia Millett has been nominated by the President to fill one 
of those vacancies. What is interesting about this debate is that no 
one questions her qualifications or her temperament. She graduated 
summa cum laude from the University of Illinois in 1985 and magna cum 
laude from Harvard Law School in 1988. Even Senator Cruz from Texas has 
pointed out how superbly qualified she is. Yet there is a good chance 
that there will not be the votes to allow us to proceed to a vote on 
her qualifications and therefore confirm the nomination.
  I wish to state some of her qualifications. She clerked for Judge 
Thomas Tang on the Ninth Circuit in Phoenix, AZ, for 2 years. She 
worked in the Solicitor General's office for 11 years, in the Justice 
Department's civil Appellate Section for 4 years. She leads the Supreme 
Court and appellate practice at the law firm Akin Gump. She has argued 
32 cases in the Supreme Court, placing her in the top 10 of all 
attorneys from 2000 to 2012. She has also argued dozens of cases in 
other appellate courts.
  She is known as a superb appellate lawyer. She is known as someone 
with sterling qualifications, and she has received the unanimous rating 
of ``well qualified'' from the ABA--the highest rating the ABA gives. 
She has received numerous awards from the Department of Justice and 
strong support across the aisle, including from all three Solicitors 
General who served in the Bush administration. She is not only an 
outstanding lawyer, she is also an exceptional person with a work 
ethic, a morality, and a history of faithful service that is truly 
admirable.
  She is the mother of two children, David and Elizabeth. She earned a 
black belt in Tae Kwon Do after taking classes with her husband and 
their children. I am not sure how important that is, but I assume she 
is physically very fit.
  She is a military spouse. Her husband Bob served in the Navy and the 
Navy Reserve until his retirement in 2012, and he was deployed to 
Kuwait in 2004.
  Anyone who has read the Bars and Stripes article on her cannot but 
look at this woman and say she is the model American woman. Yet we may 
not even be able to vote on her today.
  During that time, Patricia was also one of so many military spouses 
who shouldered the burden of parenting while her husband was overseas. 
She understands the sacrifices military families make to keep our 
country safe. ``Pattie did the job of two parents while Bob was away. . 
. . During Bob's

[[Page 16585]]

nine-month deployment [to Kuwait], Pattie was still working at the 
Solicitor General's office and handling a heavy Supreme Court 
caseload,'' which is very special if one thinks about what it means. 
``She argued one Supreme Court case and briefed five more while 
juggling her solo-parenting duties.'' According to this article, Tom 
Goldstein, a distinguished appellate practitioner and the founder of 
the popular scotus Web site, said ``Through it all, he never saw Pattie 
complain about these sacrifices for her country.''
  She has also made a long-time commitment to work on behalf of the 
homeless. The Bars and Stripes article says:

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

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

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

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

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

  Faith & Family: The Center of a Military Spouse D.C. Circuit Nominee

                            (By Reda Hicks)

       Patricia Millett (Pattie to her friends) is the complete 
     package. From the beginning of her career, Pattie had all the 
     markings of a legal rock star. Top of her classes at 
     University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Harvard Law 
     School. Prestigious clerkship for the Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals. Appellate staff of the Department of Justice Civil 
     Division. Assistant to the Solicitor General, serving equal 
     time under Presidents Bush and Clinton. Head of Akin Gump's 
     Supreme Court practice. More than 30 cases argued before the 
     Supreme Court. Sky-high stack of professional accolades. 
     ``Unanimously Well Qualified'' ABA Rating. Seven Solicitors 
     General support her nomination to the D.C. Circuit.
       But somewhere in that rocket-propelled career, Pattie fell 
     in love with a Sailor. And became a mom. And earned a black 
     belt. All while living a genuine, intentional, faith-based 
     life of success. And these qualities and experiences, even 
     more than her legal fame, are what make her the complete 
     package.
       Her long-time friend and fellow appellate attorney Tom 
     Goldstein knows that all too well: ``Pattie is an outstanding 
     talent, an incredibly hard worker, and the best legal writer 
     I have ever had the good fortune to work with. But her 
     success comes from a complete commitment to a core set of 
     values, to family, God, and country that really drive all of 
     her decisions.''

[[Page 16586]]

       Pattie met Bob King in 1995, in Washington, D.C., while he 
     was serving at the Pentagon in the U.S. Navy. They met at a 
     Washington Street United Methodist Church singles event Bob 
     reluctantly attended at the urging of his roommate. Bob knew 
     right away that Pattie was the one; he felt like they had 
     been together forever because their core values were so in 
     step from the very beginning. Bob and Pattie were married a 
     year later in June 1996, in the same church where they had 
     first met.
       Three years later, when it looked like Bob's next 
     assignment would send him far from Pattie, they made the 
     decision that Bob would transition to the Navy Reserves, 
     where he served until his retirement in 2012. Commitment to 
     family is a top priority for Bob and Pattie, who work 
     together to make their children David and Elizabeth the 
     center of their lives.
       Like so many other military spouses, Pattie did the job of 
     two parents while Bob was away on reserve duty, and 
     eventually in 2004 he was called on to deploy. ``It was 
     really hard for her, working sixty hour weeks and keeping our 
     family together in my absence with a three-year-old and six-
     year-old to handle at home,'' he says. ``But she did an 
     amazing job!''
       During Bob's nine-month deployment, Pattie was still 
     working at the Solicitor General's office and handled a heavy 
     Supreme Court caseload. She argued one Supreme Court case and 
     briefed five more while juggling her solo-parenting duties. 
     Tom Goldstein says through it all, he never saw Pattie 
     complain about these sacrifices for her country.
       ``She was proud of Bob's service, and was completely 
     committed to her family as her first priority.'' Pattie might 
     have made it look easy, but her associate Hyland Hunt knows 
     differently. Hyland, also a military spouse, has been working 
     with Pattie at Akin Gump for two years.
       ``Pattie has been a tremendous encouragement to me,'' says 
     Hyland. ``Other things pulling at us can sometimes make it 
     very hard to focus on work, but watching Pattie helps me know 
     that it can be done.'' But it doesn't just happen. ``If 
     Pattie has taught me anything, it's that you have to live 
     intentionally in each part of your life.''
       Pattie served as a mentor for Hyland on the law, but has 
     also been a sounding board as she navigates the difficult 
     choices military spouses have to make when balancing career 
     and a spouse's military service. Helping others is a practice 
     familiar to those who know her, as Pattie is held in high 
     esteem as much for being a good person as for being a good 
     lawyer.
       ``Pattie is a really good human being,'' says Judge Thomas 
     Ambro of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. ``And, as 
     everyone knows, she's in the first rank of appellate 
     practitioners in this country.'' Judge Ambro met Pattie in 
     2000, when a friend suggested she would make a good addition 
     to an appellate panel he was working on. The success of the 
     first panel led to many more, and Pattie now speaks to Judge 
     Ambro's Georgetown undergraduates each year about how to 
     manage all of the things tugging at their time and balance. 
     It's a message that really resonates with them.
       ``[She] combines talent, hard work, judgment, and focus; 
     she's the complete package,'' Judge Ambro notes. ``And she 
     does it all without being nasty.''
       ``The thing that amazes me, knowing how much stress she is 
     under, is that she is incredibly kind and unfailingly humble 
     and gracious,'' says associate Hyland Hunt. ``You never hear 
     her snap at opposing counsel. She keeps an equanimity that is 
     remarkable.''
       For Pattie, this kindness goes hand in hand with her and 
     Bob's core principles. From that first fateful day when Bob 
     and Pattie met at Washington Street United Methodist, they 
     have been committed to putting service and faith at the 
     center of their family.
       ``We firmly believe that we are here to serve,'' Bob says, 
     ``and we are very intentional about teaching that to our 
     children.'' Today, the whole family is involved in various 
     ministries. David worked on the Highland Support Project in 
     Guatemala, bringing running water to remote areas. 
     Elizabeth's service started when she raised $1,800 selling 
     lemonade to raise money for children living in a garbage dump 
     in Cambodia. And both kids have been on mission trips to West 
     Virginia, where they worked with the Jeremiah Project to help 
     repair and rebuild low-income housing. Next summer, says Bob, 
     they are very excited to be going on a mission trip together 
     for the first time, working with the White Mountain Apache 
     Tribe in Ft. Apache, Arizona.
       The project most near and dear to Pattie's heart is 
     Mondloch House, a group of homeless shelters for families and 
     individuals that Pattie has been involved with for many 
     years. Each week, Pattie coordinates fruit and vegetable 
     deliveries, organizing volunteers for pick-ups and drop-offs 
     to make sure the shelters have fresh produce to serve. Hyland 
     Hunt says Pattie's family has a well-known tradition of 
     serving dinners together at one of the homes, called 
     Hypothermia Shelter.
       Pattie, Bob, and the kids love to do things together. In 
     fact, Bob says spending time, all four of them together, is 
     Pattie's favorite thing to do. That's why, many years ago 
     when their daughter joined her older brother in taekwondo 
     lessons, Bob and Pattie decided to start taking lessons, too.
       ``We wanted something to do together that was active,'' 
     says Bob. ``It is a fun family activity, but it also teaches 
     each of us basic self-defense skills, which are very 
     important.'' Now, all four of them are black belts; in fact, 
     Pattie is a second degree black belt, surpassing her husband 
     and nearly catching up to her son David's third degree belt.
       Pattie's colleagues say unequivocally that her passion for 
     the law takes a backseat to her husband and their two 
     children. Maintaining balance between family and a demanding 
     legal field is probably also one of her greatest career 
     challenges. But she has a champion in her biggest fan, her 
     husband.
       ``Seventeen years is no short amount of time, but I have 
     loved every minute with her,'' he says. ``She still amazes me 
     with how she can juggle everything and keep her sanity.''
       From her very first Supreme Court argument, Bob wanted to 
     be in the gallery cheering Pattie on. But Pattie refused. ``I 
     don't want you to see me crash and burn!'' she would say, 
     although Bob knew that she certainly would not.
       It took Bob five years to convince Pattie to let him come 
     watch her argue, and when she finally agreed, Bob was blown 
     away. Now, Bob goes to watch her every chance he gets. ``I've 
     seen four or five arguments now, and I'm just amazed every 
     time because you have to be so fast on your feet! I could 
     never do that. She's one of the best! I know I'm not 
     objective on that, but it's true!''
       Watching Pattie before the Supreme Court, Bob says it is 
     clear she has earned the respect of the Justices. ``They know 
     what they will get when Pattie comes before them, because she 
     is always prepared.'' That might be an understatement.
       Before an argument, Pattie spends weeks studying the 
     record, going through moot court arguments until she knows 
     her case inside and out. Tom Goldstein calls Pattie a 
     ``ferocious preparer, committed to leaving no stone unturned, 
     and thinking of every possible nuance and counter argument to 
     the counter argument.'' Says Hyland Hunt, ``It always amazes 
     me how she can digest and know the record,'' but Pattie's is 
     the kind of knowledge that comes from plain and simple 
     diligence.
       Pattie's hard work, focus, and tenacity have made her a 
     great advocate. Her kindness, wisdom and graciousness have 
     made her a highly respected professional. But her strong 
     center, built on family, faith, and service make her the 
     complete package.
       Military spouses forging their own careers can learn a lot 
     from Pattie's example. Whatever our professional pursuits, 
     true success starts at the core; build a strong one, then 
     hold on to it tightly.

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

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

  As to both of the nominees we are considering today, I find and it is 
my judgment as a Senator that extraordinary conditions exist. The 
agreements I have entered into, including to begin on the motion to 
proceed, including last July on the NLRB nominations, have all included 
preserving the right of individual Senators to exercise their rights.

[[Page 16587]]

  If we go to the nuclear option--which I understand some of my 
colleagues are now frustrated to the point where they would like to--
meaning that 51 votes will now determine either nominees or other rules 
of the Senate, we will destroy the very fabric of the Senate; that is, 
that it requires a larger than numerical majority in order to govern.
  I understand the frustration of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. It is interesting that well over half of my colleagues in 
the Senate have been here less than 6 or 7 years. The majority of my 
friends on the other side have not been in the minority. The majority 
of my colleagues on this side have not been in the majority. I have 
been in both. When this side was in the majority, I watched how out of 
frustration we wanted to curtail the 60-vote criteria and go to 51 
because we were frustrated over the appointment of judges. That was 
back in 2005. I watched my colleagues on the other side want to go to 
51 votes because of their frustration over the motion to proceed. I 
have watched and understand the frustration the majority feels because 
they feel it is their obligation to make this body function 
efficiently.
  The truth is, this body does not function efficiently nor was it 
particularly designed to. Is there more gridlock than there used to be? 
In many respects, yes. And I believe with all my heart that what we 
just did to the American people in the shutdown of the government may 
motivate colleagues of mine on this side as well as the other side not 
to do this kind of thing again. Our approval rating with the American 
people has sunk to all-time lows and they are going to see another 
expression of gridlock when we take these votes today. But the cure is 
going to have repercussions for generations to come in this body.
  There is no reason to have a House and Senate if we go to a simple 
51-vote rule in this body. My colleagues should understand that 
someday--someday--this side of the aisle will be in the majority and 
this side of the aisle will feel frustration, as we did once before 
when we were in the majority because of blockage from the other side of 
the aisle.
  I urge patience on the part of the majority leader. I urge patience 
on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Most of 
all I urge the kind of comity between leadership on both sides and 
individuals on both sides.
  I see the Senator from Virginia is here, and he has been one who has 
worked very hard to engender that in this body. Can't we work some of 
these things out without having a showdown on this floor every single 
time?
  This dispute won't affect the American people. What we just did in 
the shutdown certainly injured the lives and well-being of millions of 
innocent Americans. Maybe we have learned from that, but I urge my 
colleagues to understand the votes being taken on these two issues are 
in keeping with the agreement I joined in with 13 of my colleagues, 
Republican and Democrat, back in 2005. That agreement stated that 
``signatories''--those who made the agreement--``will exercise their 
responsibilities under the advice and consent clause of the United 
States Constitution in good faith.''
  In good faith. I am acting, with my vote, in good faith.
  I see my friend the majority leader on the floor of the Senate, and I 
hope he understands this action is being taken in good faith. But I 
also understand the frustration my friend the majority leader feels. So 
I urge my colleagues, when we get through this, to sit down, have some 
more conversations and negotiations so we can avoid this kind of cliff 
experience which has earned us the strong, profound, and well-justified 
disapproval of the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, very briefly, I want to respond to my friend 
from Arizona.
  I have worked with the senior Senator from Arizona on many things 
over these many years we have been in Congress together, and I heard 
what he said. I appreciate his suggesting we have a conversation about 
what is going to happen in the next couple of days and I am always 
willing to do that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I also to want speak to the judicial 
nomination, but I want to first respond as well to the Senator from 
Arizona. Let me first of all say there are few people in this body I 
have more respect for, and there are few people in this body who have 
time and again shown the political courage he has to put country ahead 
of party. I share a lot of his views. It is odd, but I feel sometimes 
that I work in the only place in America where being a gang member is 
considered a good thing.
  I have not served here during these times when my party was in the 
minority, and intellectually I understand Senator McCain's point, but I 
guess what I can't understand and what I can't explain to the folks all 
across Virginia when they ask me: Why can't you guys get anything done, 
is that on any historical basis, looking at the number of times these 
procedures have been used in the past--and clearly they have been used 
by both parties--it seems at some point, while the rights of the 
minority need to be protected, there has to be some level of common 
agreement for not exercising these tools to the extent they have been 
so that this institution becomes so dysfunctional we allow ourselves to 
do something that in my tenure both in public and private life was 
never as stupid as what we did during the first 3 weeks of October.
  So I do appreciate the Senator's comments. And although I now want to 
speak to the extraordinary qualifications of Patricia Millett, someone 
from Virginia, I wanted to state that I believe in the Senator's good 
faith and I also hope we can avoid the kind of further breakdown that 
would further disappoint the American people. I thank him for his 
comments.
  I do want to take a couple of moments to talk about something other 
Senators have come out to speak on, and that is the nomination the 
President has made of a fellow Virginian, Patricia Millett, to be part 
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
  I have had the opportunity as Governor to appoint people to the 
bench, and I took that responsibility very seriously in terms of 
reviewing the qualifications of the candidates. I had the opportunity 
as a Senator to recommend individuals to the courts for the President's 
consideration, and I can't think of a candidate who brings more 
qualifications, more evidence of bipartisan support, more deserving of 
appointment, than Patricia Millett.
  We all know the D.C. Circuit plays an incredibly important role in 
our judicial system. We also know the court currently has 3 of its 11 
seats vacant. I recognize that in the past this court has been the 
focus of some debate and discussion, but the idea that we are going to 
somehow change the rules midstream seems inappropriate. If there is a 
legislative reason why we should change the D.C. Circuit Court from 11 
to some fewer number of judges, that ought to be fully debated, but we 
should not hold up the confirmation of an individual whose credentials 
I believe are impeccable.
  Ms. Millett currently chairs the Supreme Court practice at Akin Gump. 
She went to the University of Illinois and Harvard Law School. She 
clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and she 
worked on the appellate staff of the civil division of the U.S. 
Department of Justice.
  She has spent over a decade in the U.S. Solicitor General's office, 
serving both Democratic and Republican administrations. During her time 
there she was awarded the Attorney General's Distinguished Service 
Award, and as has been mentioned by my other colleagues, during her 
career she has argued 32 times before the Supreme Court, which until 
recently was the highest number of cases argued by any woman in our 
history.
  What is also remarkable--and the Senator from Arizona mentioned we 
need to move past some of these partisan divisions--is that this is an 
individual who is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

[[Page 16588]]

  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter 
indicating that support.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     July 3, 2013.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We are 
     former Solicitors General of the United States, and we write 
     in support of the nomination of Patricia Millett for a seat 
     on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit. Each of us has substantial first-hand 
     knowledge of Ms. Millett's professional skills and personal 
     integrity. It is our uniform view that she is supremely 
     qualified for this important position.
       Ms. Millett served for 15 years in the United States 
     Department of Justice--first as an appellate attorney in the 
     Civil Division during the George H. W. Bush Administration 
     and then for 11 years in the Solicitor General's office, 
     during the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations. Since 
     leaving the Department, she has co-led and then led the 
     Supreme Court practice at Akin Gump. Over the course of her 
     distinguished career, Ms. Millett has argued 32 cases in the 
     Supreme Court and many more in the courts of appeals--in 
     matters that span a broad range of federal-law issues, from 
     constitutional challenges to administrative review, 
     statutory-interpretation disputes, and commercial and 
     criminal law questions. With deep experience in both private 
     and government practice, she will bring an appreciation of 
     both sides of the many important disputes before the District 
     of Columbia Circuit.
       Within the Bar, Ms. Millett has been a leader among her 
     peers, and a mentor to many other lawyers, through her 
     teaching visits to law schools and her work with a number of 
     professional associations, including the Coke Appellate Inn 
     of Court, the Supreme Court Institute, and the Opperman 
     Institute for Judicial Administration.
       Ms. Millett has a brilliant mind, a gift for clear, 
     persuasive writing, and a genuine zeal for the rule of law. 
     Equally important, she is unfailingly fair-minded.
       We understand there is an ongoing debate about the optimal 
     number of active judges for the District of Columbia Circuit, 
     and this letter takes no position on that issue. But if 
     additional judges are to be confirmed, we think Ms. Millett's 
     qualifications and character make her ideally suited for a 
     position on that distinguished Court. Please do not hesitate 
     to contact any of us if you have any questions.
           Sincerely,
     Kenneth W. Starr,
       (Solicitor General, 1989-1993).
     Drew S. Days III,
       (Solicitor General, 1993-1996).
     Walter E. Dellinger,
       (Acting Solicitor General, 1996-1997).
     Seth P. Waxman,
       (Solicitor General, 1997-2001).
     Theodore B. Olson,
       (Solicitor General, 2001-2004).
     Paul D. Clement,
       (Solicitor General, 2005-2008).
     Gregory G. Garre,
       (Solicitor General, 2008-2009).

  Mr. WARNER. Ms. Millett served seven former Solicitors General from 
all ends of the political spectrum. In the letter I just referred to, 
her nomination is supported by Democrats such as Walter Dellinger as 
well as Republicans such as Ted Olson and Ken Starr.
  She has also been recognized by the National Law Journal as one of 
the hundred most influential lawyers in America, and has received the 
endorsement of the American Bar Association.
  As mentioned by the Senator from California already, she has a 
remarkable personal story as well. She is active in our community in 
Virginia, she is a resident, and actually attends church in my home 
city of Alexandria. We saw earlier the picture of her and her husband, 
and as was mentioned before a picture is worth a thousand words. Her 
husband was deployed a number of times as a naval reservist in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, and earlier this month the Military Spouse 
J.D. Network recognized Ms. Millett for her professional service and 
for her service as a spouse of an Active-Duty participant.
  So this incredible lawyer, this incredible community servant, this 
individual who has the support of both Republicans and Democrats, 
should not be denied her appointment to the D.C. Circuit.
  Again, I have not been here when we were in the minority, but as has 
been mentioned time and again, when John Roberts--who is now, 
obviously, our Supreme Court Chief Justice--was nominated for the D.C. 
Circuit, he was confirmed unanimously. Even though many Democrats did 
not share his judicial views, they viewed his qualifications as 
impeccable.
  I heard constantly the same from my colleagues on the other side, 
that this is not a question of Ms. Millett's qualifications. Why should 
this individual be denied her appropriate representation on the D.C. 
Court of Appeals? So I hope, my colleagues, that we can avoid further 
threats and counterthreats. Let's vote this individual based upon her 
qualifications. On any indication of qualifications, Patricia Millett 
is ably qualified, uniquely qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals, and I urge my colleagues to vote for her 
confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I strongly support the nomination of Pattie 
Millett, of Alexandria, VA, to the United States Court of Appeals for 
the D.C. Circuit. Ms. Millett is extremely well qualified for this 
position, in terms of her legal expertise, experience, character, and 
integrity. The Senate should invoke cloture on and confirm her 
nomination.
  As one of the Nation's leading appellate lawyers, Ms. Millett 
possesses remarkable legal expertise in this area. She has litigated 
appellate cases extensively, including 32 arguments and many briefs 
before the U.S. Supreme Court, and 35 arguments spanning 12 of the 
Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal (including the D.C. Circuit). Her 
cases have spanned the spectrum of legal issues that the D.C. Circuit 
confronts, including constitutional law, administrative law, civil and 
criminal procedure, commercial disputes, national security, and civil 
rights. Ms. Millett also has many years of experience in the public 
sector, having worked in the Office of the Solicitor General for over 
11 years, and in the Appellate Section, Civil Division of the 
Department of Justice for 4 years. It's important to note that her 
service to the United States was bipartisan, spanning both Democratic 
and Republican administrations.
  Ms. Millett graduated from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, in 
1988 and she clerked for the Honorable Thomas Tang of the U.S. Circuit 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for 2 years.
  I believe Ms. Millett possesses the character and integrity necessary 
for a nomination of this caliber. She is an active member of Aldersgate 
United Methodist Church, where she teaches Sunday school and visits the 
hospitalized and home-bound. For many years she has also participated 
in the Hypothermia Homeless Shelter, which operates during the winter 
months on the Route 1 corridor in Alexandria, preparing meals.
  As a military spouse, Ms. Millett and her family have also sacrificed 
for our Nation. Ms. Millett's husband was deployed during Operation 
Iraqi Freedom, so she brings a unique understanding of veterans' issues 
and the stress of deployment on soldiers and their families.
  I know there have been issues raised regarding the caseload for the 
D.C. Circuit. These issues do not concern me. With respect to the size 
of the D.C. Circuit, Congress removed a seat under the Court Security 
Improvement Act of 2007. Today, three of the D.C. Circuit's eleven 
existing seats are vacant. And three other circuits currently have 
lower caseloads per active judge than the D.C. Circuit. Yet, just this 
year, the Senate confirmed nominees to two of these other circuit 
courts--the Eighth and Tenth Circuit.
  As Governor of Virginia, I chose two members of the Supreme Court of 
Virginia and have thought deeply about qualities that make for a strong 
appellate judge. I believe Ms. Millett is superbly qualified for a 
position on the

[[Page 16589]]

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. I hope the Senate invokes cloture on her 
nomination today, and that she is confirmed for a position on the D.C. 
Circuit.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr President, I wish to speak briefly about an 
outstanding candidate nominated to serve on the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On June 4, 2013, 
President Obama nominated Patricia Millett to be a United States 
Circuit Judge.
  Patricia's qualifications to be a United States Circuit Judge are 
impeccable. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the University 
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Patricia practiced at Miller & 
Chevalier and worked as a law clerk for Judge Thomas Tang, on the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals. Following 4 years in the appellate section of 
the Department of Justice's Civil Division, Patricia served as 
assistant to the Solicitor General for more than a decade.
  After her public service, Patricia joined Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & 
Feld LLP, where she heads the firm's Supreme Court practice and is co-
leader of its national appellate practice. She has extensive experience 
arguing cases before the Supreme Court--32 in all and is without 
question one of the Nation's leading appellate lawyers. Patricia's 
experience, education, and character have earned her praise from 
colleagues and clients alike. Following her nomination, the American 
Bar Association rated her unanimously well qualified to serve as a 
United States Circuit Judge.
  Patricia is also a military spouse, having steadfastly stood by her 
husband's side as he served his country in uniform for 22 years. As she 
awaits Senate confirmation, I am proud to say Patricia's nomination is 
supported by Blue Star Families, by veterans, and active-duty members 
of the Armed Forces, who today stand with her as she prepares to serve 
her country once more. Their support is a testament to Patricia's 
character and to the integrity with which she will serve as a federal 
judge.
  I rise today to not only speak in strong support of Patricia's 
nomination, but also to decry the decision by Senate Republicans to 
once again play politics with President Obama's nominees and to place 
partisanship above all else.
  I rise today because my colleagues in the minority have declared it 
unnecessary to fill the three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit, including 
the seat to which Patricia has been nominated. The Senate Republicans 
on the Judiciary Committee propose eliminating the 9th, 10th, and 11th 
seats on the D.C. Circuit, rather than confirming nominees put forward 
by this President. Now, of course, my Republican colleagues dispute any 
partisan motivation. Instead, they claim a diminished caseload on the 
D.C. Circuit simply does not warrant confirmation of President Obama's 
nominees. This might be a persuasive argument were it not belied by 
Senate Republicans' confirmation of President Bush's nominees to these 
same seats and by the fact that the D.C. Circuit caseload has been 
consistent over the past decade and has even increased in recent years.
  In fact, when John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 
last held the seat Patricia would occupy, his caseload was lower than 
the pending caseload Patricia will encounter on her first day as a 
judge. Let me be clear, the fight over this confirmation has nothing to 
do with Patricia--instead it has everything to do with the fact that a 
Democrat, rather than a Republican, now controls the White House. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing everything they can 
to prevent confirmation of this President's nominees.
  Truly, the stakes are too high for this type of political 
gamesmanship, The D.C. Circuit is often called the second most 
important court in the United States, and for good reason. The D.C. 
Circuit handles some of the most complicated cases that enter the 
Federal court system, and its decisions touch the lives of Americans 
each and every day. From decisions affecting our clean air and water, 
to decisions having broad implications for labor relations, elections, 
and how we interpret and apply the Americans with Disabilities Act--
decisions by the D.C. Circuit impact not only the quality of our lives 
today, but also our children's lives tomorrow.
  Most importantly for our men and women in uniform, for our veterans, 
and for their families, the D.C. Circuit has jurisdiction over the 
Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Its 
decisions matter to our servicemembers, to our veterans, and to their 
families--which is why it is shameful that Senate Republicans would 
rather play politics than allow a clean up or down vote on Patricia's 
nomination. The American people expect more from us. They deserve more 
from us.
  I urge my colleagues to set aside partisanship and politics and allow 
an up or down vote on Patricia's nomination. Through her distinguished 
career and public service, Patricia Millett has earned not only our 
admiration and respect, but our support. Join me in supporting this 
nominee who is eminently qualified to serve as a United States Circuit 
Judge.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
nomination of Patricia Millett to be a Circuit Judge for the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
  As my colleagues have noted, Patricia Millett will bring a wealth of 
experience and skill to the bench. She is a nationally recognized 
appellate attorney. She has argued 35 cases in nearly all of the 
Federal appellate courts and 32 cases at the Supreme Court. Patricia 
Millett is unquestionably qualified to serve as a judge on the D.C. 
Circuit Court.
  I am proud to serve on the Senate Armed Services and Veterans' 
Affairs Committees, and I have been moved by Patricia Millett's 
experience as part of a military family.
  Her husband, Robert King, served in the Navy and as a Navy reservist 
until his retirement last year. In 2004, he was deployed to Kuwait as 
part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and was called up again in the fall of 
2009 for Afghanistan, while Patricia cared for their 2 children, 
maintained the household, and continued her career, arguing before the 
Supreme Court.
  Patricia and her husband have faced what so many military families 
have, the difficulties of deployment, the challenges of separation and 
single parenting at home, and the process of reintegration when a 
servicemember returns. They have shown the deepest commitment to 
serving our Nation.
  Patricia Millett will bring these important experiences and the 
devotion to this country unique to military families with her to the 
bench, a vital contribution to the D.C. Circuit given the distinct role 
it plays in adjudicating military and defense issues.
  Much of Patricia's life has been devoted to public service, and her 
desire to serve as an appellate judge for the important D.C. Circuit is 
a reflection of that commitment to serve in the public interest. I am 
disappointed that our colleagues have blocked a vote to confirm Ms. 
Millett. I urge Senators to reconsider and support her nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The majority leader.


                       Senator-elect Cory Booker

  Mr. REID. Madam President, in a few minutes we are going to have the 
good fortune of welcoming a fine young man to be the next Senator from 
the State of New Jersey. I trust that serving in the Senate will be 
among the most rewarding experiences of his life, and he has had many 
of them.
  I urge my fellow Senators, Democrats and Republicans, to get to know 
this good man. I feel so elated that he is going to be here. Of course, 
I loved Frank Lautenberg. We served together for all those many years. 
But we are going to find that Cory Booker is going to be a great asset 
to this Nation and to the Senate.
  He has had a tough time the last few months. His parents moved to Las 
Vegas in early August. And as things happen in life, his dad was 
stricken with a very violent stroke. His aunt lives there, his mom's 
sister. She is a retired dentist from California. I was there because 
of the August recess and

[[Page 16590]]

I had the good fortune of meeting all three of them. His dad, of 
course, was not able to communicate and, sadly, he died not too long 
after that. But this was right before his election was completed, and 
it was very difficult for Senator-elect Booker going to Nevada, 
campaigning with all the national publicity he had in that election, 
but he, during this time of fire, did extremely well. I am very proud 
of him.
  He had a demanding year, no doubt, with all the things he was doing 
and his deciding to run for the Senate. But he traveled to Nevada on 
various occasions, as I indicated, to be with his family and to support 
them. This quality he has was apparent early in life--his love of 
family and dedication to his parents, now especially his mom, who is 
going to be here today. He is not only a devoted son but a brilliant 
scholar and a dedicated public servant.
  Think about this man's academic record: Stanford undergraduate, 
senior class president at Stanford. That fine institution also allowed 
him to study even more there and he earned a master's degree in 
sociology, which has served him well in the work he has done. His 
having this advanced degree in sociology helped him in his work with 
the people of the State of New Jersey and the city of Newark. But with 
him, one Stanford degree wasn't enough; he got two. And then, if that 
weren't enough--and it wasn't--he was chosen to be a Rhodes scholar and 
then got another advanced degree at Oxford.
  If that wasn't enough, he went to Yale Law School. This is quite a 
record. He has been a city councilman and mayor for more than a decade. 
He has lived with his constituents and kept in touch with them like no 
mayor with whom I have ever come in contact. We are so fortunate to 
have him here. He has been with his constituents in the inner city of 
Newark. I commend him for his dedicated service to the people of New 
Jersey and the people of Newark.
  Part of his job was to highlight the difficulties of working poor 
families, and he did that and he did it very well. He has done 
everything he can to highlight to everyone who would listen to him and 
watch him to indicate that many Newark residents are struggling to know 
where their next meal will come from. At a time in the history of this 
country when we have so many people needing so much, where the rich are 
getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is 
being squeezed, we are very fortunate to have this good man in the 
Senate. I am confident he will treasure his memories in this historic 
legislative body and serve his Nation and State with distinction.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Before we have this ceremony, I wish to say one thing about 
Cory Booker. I have talked about his great academic record. But for me, 
a frustrated wannabe athlete, his most impressive qualification, as far 
as I am concerned, is that he was a tight end for one of the great 
Stanford football teams.

                          ____________________