[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12936-12943]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF RAYMOND T. CHEN TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 
                            FEDERAL CIRCUIT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read the nomination of Raymond T. Chen, of 
Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 1 hour for debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Vermont
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 3 months ago, I noted in my statement on 
April 18 that it had taken the Senate almost 1 year longer to confirm 
150 of President Obama's district court nominees

[[Page 12937]]

than it took the Senate to confirm the same number of President Bush's 
district court nominees. Unfortunately, we have not picked up the pace, 
and we remain almost 1 year behind the record we set from 2001 to 2005. 
Today, the Senate confirms the 200th of President Obama's circuit and 
district nominees. Thanks to Senate Republicans' concerted effort to 
filibuster, obstruct and delay his moderate judicial nominees, it took 
almost 1 year longer to reach this milestone than it did when his 
Republican predecessor was serving as President--over 10 months, in 
fact. I have repeatedly asked Senate Republicans to abandon their 
destructive tactics. Their continued unwillingness to do so shows that 
Senate Republicans are still focused on obstructing this President 
rather than helping meet the needs of the American people and our 
judiciary.
  Earlier this month, the senior Senator from Tennessee observed that 
at the time there were only three circuit and district nominees on the 
Executive Calendar. He said, correctly, that we could clear those three 
nominees in just one afternoon. Weeks later, we are now being permitted 
to vote on just one of those nominees. As Senator Alexander said, we 
could very easily be voting on several others as well. There are now 12 
circuit and district nominees pending before the Senate. The only 
reason we are not voting on all 12 is the refusal of Senate Republicans 
to give consent. This refusal means that by the time the Senate returns 
in September, our district courts will once again be facing a period of 
what the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service calls 
``historically high'' vacancy levels, which they last experienced 2 
years ago. So the Republicans' effort to obstruct and delay the 
confirmations of President Obama's nominees means that we have 
essentially not been permitted to make any net progress in filling 
vacancies. We have barely kept up with attrition.
  Over the past month, some Senate Republicans have been claiming that 
``at this same point in their presidenc[ies]'' President Obama has had 
more circuit and district nominees confirmed than President Bush did. 
Of course, these Senators fail to mention that they are referring only 
to the fifth year of those presidencies, and ignoring both presidents' 
first terms. Such comparisons are misleading--the reason President Bush 
had so few confirmations in his fifth year is that we had made such 
good progress already in his first term--but I appreciate the Ranking 
Member of the Judiciary Committee for at least being honest when he 
makes this comparison by saying that it is between fifth years, and not 
entire Presidencies.
  The assertion by some Senate Republicans that ``there is no 
difference in how this President's nominees are being treated versus 
how President Bush's nominees were treated'' is simply not supported by 
the facts. Compared to the same point in the Bush administration, there 
have been more nominees filibustered, fewer confirmations, and longer 
wait times for nominees, even though President Obama has nominated more 
people and there are more vacancies. Anyone can point to this example 
or that example, but when one looks at the whole picture, it is clear 
that President Obama's nominees have faced unprecedented delays on the 
Senate floor and that his nominees have been less likely to be 
confirmed than President Bush's at the same point.
  But if Senators wish to claim that there is no obstruction of the 
Senate's consideration of judicial nominees, or that we are matching or 
even exceeding the pace of confirmations from the Bush administration, 
let us make it a reality. According to the nonpartisan Congressional 
Research Service, it would require 27 additional circuit and district 
confirmations this year to reach the same number of confirmations as 
President Bush had achieved by the end of his fifth year in office. 
That means we must pick up the pace, since we have had only 26 circuit 
and district confirmations so far this year, and just two confirmations 
in the past month.
  Fortunately, the Senate had already received more than enough 
judicial nominees to make this happen. There are eight circuit and 
district nominees pending on the calendar today, and another four were 
reported this morning. One of the nominees reported today is Patricia 
Millett, one of three well-qualified nominees for the vacancies on the 
D.C. Circuit. I hope Senate Republicans will end their misguided 
attempt to strip the D.C. Circuit of three seats and that we will be 
allowed to consider her nomination on the merits of the nominee. Five 
more nominees had a hearing last week, as the Judiciary Committee 
continues to do its job. If we do confirm 27 more nominees this year, 
we might even bring the number of vacancies below 70 for the first time 
in more than 4 years.
  However, even if we do bring the number of vacancies down to 70, that 
number is still far too high. These vacancies impact millions of people 
all across America who depend on our Federal courts for justice. In 
addition to the 87 current vacancies, the Judicial Conference has 
identified the need for 91 new judgeships, so that the people who live 
in the busiest districts can nonetheless have access to speedy justice. 
Earlier this week, Senator Coons and I introduced a bill to create 
those judgeships, and I hope we can pass this long-overdue legislation 
into law. The Nation's growing demands on our courts also shows how 
important it is that we reverse the senseless cuts to our legal system 
from sequestration. I continue to hear from judges and other legal 
professionals about the serious problems sequestration either has 
caused, or will cause, if we do not fix it. Last week the Judiciary 
Committee's Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts held a hearing on 
the impact of sequestration and highlighted how it is devastating our 
public defender service. This was an important and timely hearing, and 
I commend Chairman Coons for chairing it.
  Today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Raymond Chen, who is 
nominated for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit. Mr. Chen currently serves as Deputy General Counsel for 
Intellectual Property Law and Solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor 
at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, a position he has 
held since 2008. Prior to 2008, he was an Associate Solicitor in the 
Office of the Solicitor at the USPTO, a Technical Assistant for the 
Federal Circuit, and an Associate at Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear. 
Before practicing law, Mr. Chen was a scientist at Hecker & Harriman. 
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously gave 
him its highest rating of ``well qualified.'' Mr. Chen was reported by 
the Senate Judiciary Committee over 3 months ago by voice vote.
  We must work to reduce the number of judicial vacancies so that 
Americans seeking justice are not faced with delays and empty 
courtrooms. So let us act quickly on consensus nominees. And if Senate 
Republicans have concerns about a nominee, let us debate that nominee, 
for however long is necessary, and then have an up-or-down vote. Eleven 
of the twelve circuit and district nominees currently pending before 
the Senate were reported by voice vote. There is no reason we cannot 
consider all 12 today. If Senators are willing to work together to 
focus on meeting the needs of the Federal judiciary, then I am 
confident that we will be able to make real progress for the millions 
of Americans who depend on our courts for justice.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.


                            Power Nomination

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, let me express my thanks to Senator 
Sanders for his willingness to yield to me and give me this time.
  I am here very briefly to commend Samantha Power to the entire Senate 
as President Obama's nominee to be the U.N. ambassador representing the 
United States.
  I do so proudly because of the great work she has done against 
genocide and atrocities around the world, because she has been an 
outspoken leader in terms of doing what is right, and I think she has 
the courage to represent our country on the Security Council better 
than anyone I know.

[[Page 12938]]

  I got to know Samantha Power by reading her book, ``A Problem from 
Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.'' It is the story about Rwanda 
and the genocide where 1 million people died while the rest of the 
world turned and looked away, and her calling on all people of 
democracies and freedom around the world to not let that happen again.
  When she came to the White House, she created the Commission on 
Atrocities for President Obama to focus on that and see to it that it 
didn't happen again. It was through her leadership that she forced 
President Obama and the administration to engage in Libya and end what 
would have been a genocide in Libya by Muammar Qadhafi.
  She is smart, she is intelligent, she is tough, and she has a Georgia 
tie of which I am very proud. She graduated from a high school in 
DeKalb County, GA, in the 1980s called Lakeside High School. She did an 
internship between her first and second year at Yale University in 
Atlanta, GA, for a sports broadcaster on a sports station in the city. 
He was asked a few days after she left to give some description of what 
kind of person Samantha Power was, and I want to read that quote 
because it reflects the kind of person we want representing us as an 
ambassador at the U.N. He said:

       Oh, my God, was she bright. Acerbic, lightening-witted, and 
     the depth of the Mariana Trench.

  That is a quote from Jeff Hullinger, the first person she worked for 
in 1988.
  Samantha Power is the right person, at the right time, to represent 
the right country in the U.N. on the Security Council. I commend her to 
the Senate and hope she receives a unanimous vote.
  I yield back the remainder of my time and thank the Senator from 
Vermont.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.


                            The Minimum Wage

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate hundreds and 
hundreds of young people throughout the country who are standing up for 
justice, who are putting a spotlight on one of the major economic 
crises facing this country.
  Today--this week and in recent weeks--we have had young people in New 
York City, in Chicago, in Washington, DC, in St. Louis, in Kansas City, 
in Detroit, in Flint, MI, and other areas around this country who are 
fast-food workers--the people who work at Burger King and McDonald's 
and Popeye's; the ones who give us the hamburgers and the french 
fries--saying that workers all over this country cannot make it on 
$7.25 an hour, $7.50 an hour. Often they are unable even to get 40 
hours of work and, in most cases, they get no or very limited benefits.
  So all over the country these workers, often young people, are 
walking out of their establishments, their fast-food places, and are 
educating consumers about the economic injustice taking place in these 
fast-food establishments. What they are saying is that we need to raise 
the minimum wage in this country; that American workers cannot exist on 
$7.25 an hour, which is the national minimum wage now, or $8 an hour or 
$9 an hour.
  My own view is, at the very least, we should be raising the minimum 
wage to $10 an hour. Just do the arithmetic, with somebody making $7.25 
an hour, and if they are lucky enough to be getting 40 hours a week--
and many workers are not.
  I was in Detroit a couple of months ago talking to fast-food workers, 
and what they are saying is they get 20 hours a week in one place to 
make a living and then they have to work at another place. One young 
man I talked to is working at three separate locations, having to 
travel, in order to cobble together what, in fact, is by far less than 
a livable income. So just do the arithmetic. If you make $7.25 an hour, 
and if you are lucky enough to be working 40 hours a week, you are 
making about $15,000 a year. Then, of course, your Social Security 
taxes are coming out of that and your Medicare taxes are coming out of 
that, and maybe some local taxes. You can't survive on $14,000 or 
$15,000 a year.
  The point is these fast-food workers are educating the Nation about 
the fact that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people are working 
hard every single day and are falling further and further behind 
economically. We have to stand with them and we have to raise the 
minimum wage in this country.
  While workers at fast-food establishments and other places such as 
Walmart are earning the minimum wage, I should mention that the CEOs of 
these large corporations are, in many cases, making exorbitant 
compensation packages. The CEO of Burger King, a corporation with over 
191,000 mostly low-wage workers gave its CEO Bernardo Hees a 61-percent 
pay raise last year, boosting his total compensation to $6.5 million in 
2012.
  Well, if a millionaire can get a 65-percent pay raise, maybe it is 
time to get a pay raise for the workers who are making $7.25 an hour.
  Last year, McDonald's, a corporation with over 850,000 mostly low-
wage employees, more than tripled the compensation of its CEO Don 
Thompson. In 2011, Mr. Thompson received a mere, paltry $4.1 million. 
But last year, because of his significant raise, the CEO of McDonald's 
received $13.8 million.
  Well, if Mr. Thompson can make $13.8 million as the head of 
McDonald's, surely the workers at McDonald's can make at least $10 an 
hour, not $7.25 an hour, not $8 an hour.
  David Novak, the CEO of Yum! Brands--the owners of Taco Bell, Pizza 
Hut, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Long John Silvers--was paid $11.3 
million last year and received over $44 million in stock options.
  Well, if this company has enough money to give this gentleman $44 
million in stock options, maybe we can end starvation wages at Yum! 
foods.
  In terms of the minimum wage, since 1968, the real value of the 
Federal minimum wage has fallen by close to 30 percent. The purchasing 
power of the minimum wage has gone down by some 30 percent since 1968. 
If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be 
worth approximately $10.56 per hour today.
  The issue our young people working at these fast-food places are 
highlighting goes beyond the fast-food industry. The reality is that 
many of the new jobs being created in America today are low-wage jobs.
  I think we all recognize, even some of my Republican colleagues 
understand, we have made significant economic gains since the collapse 
of the economy at the end of President Bush's tenure in 2008 when we 
were losing 700,000 jobs a month--an unsustainable reality, 700,000 
jobs a month. Now we are gaining jobs, and that is a good thing, but 
not enough jobs. Unemployment remains much too high. Real unemployment 
today is close to 14 percent. But in the midst of understanding the job 
creation process in this country, we need to know that nearly two-
thirds of the jobs gained since 2009 are low-wage jobs that pay less 
than $13.80 an hour.
  So the good news is we are now creating some jobs--not enough jobs; 
unemployment remains much too high--but we cannot lose track of the 
fact that most of the new jobs being created are not paying working 
people a living wage. While most of the new jobs being created are low-
wage jobs, we should remember that nearly two-thirds of the jobs lost 
during the Wall Street recession were middle-class jobs that paid up to 
$21 an hour. So the economic trend is not good. The Wall Street crash 
resulted in mass unemployment, and though we are gaining new jobs, many 
of the jobs we are gaining are low-wage jobs. Yet the jobs we have lost 
are higher wage jobs.
  Also, while we discuss the state of the economy, let us never ever 
forget that middle-class families have seen their incomes go down by 
nearly $5,000 since 1999, after adjusting for inflation.
  Opponents, and there are many--the entire fast-food industry and all 
the big-money interests, the guys who make millions and millions of 
dollars a year, the people who have unbelievable pensions, who have all 
kinds of benefits, the CEOs--are working very hard to tell us in 
Congress not to raise the minimum wage, which is $7.25. Among many 
other arguments they say: Well, if you raise the minimum wage, it is 
going to be a job killer. It will kill jobs.

[[Page 12939]]

  Let me say this on a personal basis. I represent the State of 
Vermont. The State of Vermont has the third highest minimum wage in the 
country; it is $8.60 an hour. Meanwhile, with an $8.60-an-hour minimum 
wage, I am happy to say that the State of Vermont has the fourth lowest 
unemployment rate in the United States at 4.4 percent. And to be very 
honest, I have not bumped into many employers who tell me: I would be 
hiring more people if we lowered the minimum wage in Vermont. It does 
not happen. I think that is a bogus argument.
  The State of Washington, if my memory is correct, has the highest 
minimum wage in the country. Their unemployment rate is lower than the 
national average.
  There is another point I would like to make that needs to be made 
over and over. We talk a lot in this country about welfare reform. I 
think that in general, when people use that expression, what they are 
talking about is lower income people who may be breaking the law and 
taking advantage of programs for which they are not quite eligible.
  Let me say a word about the need for welfare reform but in a somewhat 
different tone, and let me say that the biggest welfare recipient in 
this country happens to be the wealthiest family in the United States 
of America; that is, the Walton family, who owns Walmart, a family that 
is worth $100 billion--more wealth, by the way, than the bottom 40 
percent of the American people. The wealthiest family in America is the 
largest welfare recipient in America. How is that? Well, the reason 
they are so wealthy, the reason that family is worth $100 billion is 
they make huge profits because they pay their workers starvation wages. 
But in order to keep their workers going, the taxpayers of this 
country--through Medicaid, through nutrition programs, through 
affordable housing--give assistance to Walmart so that their workers 
can keep coming to work. So somebody who works at Walmart for $7.25 or 
$8 an hour, more often than not their children are on Medicaid paid for 
by the taxpayers of this country. They and their kids are on food 
stamps paid for by the taxpayers of this country. Many of their 
employees live in affordable housing subsidized by the taxpayers of 
this country.
  So the Walton family becomes the wealthiest family in this country 
while working-class and middle-class taxpayers provide assistance to 
their workers so they can continue going to work. Let me make the very 
radical suggestion that maybe the wealthiest family in America might 
want to pay their employees a living wage so that the taxpayers of this 
country do not have to subsidize them.
  I would conclude by telling those young people in major cities around 
this country that many of us respect and appreciate the courage they 
are showing. It is not easy to walk out of a job when you don't have 
any money, because your employer may say: You are out of here; you are 
fired. But these young people have the courage to stand and say: No. We 
are human beings. We live in the greatest country on Earth. We have to 
earn a living wage. We can't make it on starvation wages.
  So I thank those young people for standing for justice not only for 
themselves but for all Americans, and I hope that Members of Congress 
listen carefully to what they are saying and that we go forward as soon 
as possible in passing a minimum wage that will provide dignity for 
millions of workers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we know what is ahead of us the next hour or 
so. I ask unanimous consent that we change that.
  In between the vote on Chen, the judge, and the next vote, I ask that 
there be 10 minutes, and 2 minutes of that would be 1 minute on each 
side, and 8 minutes would be given to the comanager of that bill, Susan 
Collins. That would be for debate only.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          THUD Appropriations

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have spent the last 2 weeks here on 
the Senate floor talking about our bipartisan transportation and 
housing bill. This is a bill that is all about creating jobs, investing 
in our families and in our communities, and laying down a strong 
foundation for a long-term and broad-based economic growth. This bill 
is not exactly a bill I would have written on my own. I know it is not 
exactly a bill Senator Collins would have written on her own. But it is 
a compromise bill that reflects the deep cuts we made when we set 
spending levels in the Budget Control Act as well as the best ideas 
from both sides of the aisle of ways we can improve and reform our 
transportation and housing investment.
  The transportation and housing investments in this bill have a direct 
impact on the families and communities we represent, from improving our 
roads, to reducing traffic and helping Main Street businesses, to 
making sure our bridges are safe so we do not see more collapses like 
the one back home in my State of Washington, to supporting our most 
vulnerable families, seniors, and veterans with a roof over their heads 
when they need it the most and making investments in our communities 
that mayors across our country use to create local jobs in their 
hometowns and so much more.
  Senator Collins and I worked very hard together to write a bipartisan 
bill to invest in programs that should not be partisan. I think we 
succeeded. Six Republicans voted for this bill in committee; 73 
Senators voted to bring this bill to the floor for a debate. That 
debate was a full and open one, with amendments and votes from 
Democrats and Republicans.
  I wish to personally thank Senator Collins for her hard work on this 
bill, and I also thank all of our staff on the appropriations 
subcommittee: Alex Keenan, Dabney Hegg, Meaghan McCarthy, Rachel 
Milberg, and Dan Broder; as well as the staff of Senator Collins, who 
spent endless hours: Heideh Shahmoradi, Kenneth Altman, Jason Woolwine, 
and Rajat Mathur--all of whom worked so hard and put in so many hours 
and late nights on this strong bipartisan bill.
  After 2 weeks of debate and discussion and a bipartisan bill before 
us, we are now going to move very shortly to a final vote. I want to be 
clear. This bill has the support of the majority of the caucus. In the 
House of Representatives, what did we see happen yesterday? They pulled 
their transportation and housing bill off the floor. The Republican 
leadership would not even allow a vote on their bill because they did 
not have a majority in their caucus. The chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee said that showed that sequestration is 
unworkable and needs to be replaced. That is the House Republican 
chairman. But here in the Senate we have a majority, and we should move 
to pass this bill.
  The only thing that can block the passage of this bill, the only way 
a bipartisan bill with the support of the majority could be stopped is 
if Republican leaders whip their own Members into filibustering a jobs 
and infrastructure bill that many of those Republicans actually 
support. That is the only way.
  The choice before us is clear, and I urge my colleagues to make the 
right one. This vote is not about whether you support this exact bill 
or agree with the exact spending level. As Senator Collins has made 
clear again and again, you can think the spending level is too high and 
still support this process in which we pass a bill in the Senate and 
work with the House bill on a compromise. You can certainly disagree 
with the bill and not think it should be subjected to a filibuster.
  The bottom line is that a vote to wrap up and vote on this bill is a 
vote for jobs and the economy and for bipartisan solutions to the 
problems facing

[[Page 12940]]

our Nation. A vote to filibuster this bill is a vote for more gridlock, 
more obstruction, more partisanship, and more political games.
  I know when I go home to Washington State I want to be able to tell 
my constituents that Democrats and Republicans worked together to solve 
some problems, help them, and grow the economy. I know there are many 
Democrats and Republicans here today who want to be able to say the 
same to their constituents, and I hope they will stand with me and 
Senator Collins and vote against a filibuster of our bipartisan bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.


                   Unaminous Consent Request--S. 101

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand today to discuss and strongly 
support my bill, S. 101, the State and Local Government Bailout 
Prevention Act. I urge all of us to unite to pass this bill 
expeditiously. Let me briefly explain what it is about.
  I first introduced this bill in early 2011, February 2011, because 
two things were happening. First of all, several significant State and 
local entities were teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. At the same 
time, the Federal Government--things in Washington--was in a horrible 
state fiscally, such that we could clearly not afford to take on more 
spending, more debt, more responsibility. I wanted to pass legislation 
that would make it crystal clear that neither we, the Congress, nor the 
Treasury Department, nor the Federal Reserve, nor any other Federal 
entity was going to bail out State or local governments that had acted 
irresponsibly and tipped into bankruptcy.
  Things have not gotten better since then. In fact, in many ways 
things have gotten worse, and very recently, just in the last few 
weeks, the city of Detroit filed for bankruptcy--the largest municipal 
bankruptcy in U.S. history. Other large States and local communities 
are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Many States are in a horrible 
fiscal situation, such as California and Illinois.
  Meanwhile, we are not in a fundamentally more sound place here in 
Washington at the Federal level. Even if we stick to the Budget Control 
Act numbers--and that is very much up in the air, but even if we stick 
to those numbers, Congress will spend $967 billion in discretionary 
money this year, and that will result in a $810 billion deficit--almost 
a $1 trillion deficit this year.
  This Nation, total, is almost $17 trillion in debt. The balance sheet 
of the Federal Reserve has swollen from $800 billion in August of 2007 
to over $3.5 trillion today.
  Now more than ever, S. 101, the State and Local Government Bailout 
Prevention Act, is appropriate, is needed. That is why I come to the 
floor today to urge expeditious passage of S. 101. This bill is very 
simple, basic, straightforward, but important. It would simply do four 
things: First, it would prohibit the use of Federal funds to bail out 
State and local government budgets. Second, it would prevent the 
Federal Reserve from providing assistance to or creating a facility to 
help, again, State and local governments in a bailout situation. Third, 
it would prevent Congress and the Treasury Department from bailing out 
State and local governments. Fourth, there is specific language so we 
do not create any confusion that this is not intended to stop or deter 
or interfere with appropriate assistance in declared disaster areas.
  That is the sum and substance of S. 101, the State and Local 
Government Bailout Prevention Act. When you look at situations such as 
Detroit--the largest ever municipal bankruptcy--and when you look at 
our fiscal situation in Washington at the Federal level, this clear bar 
of the Fed bailing out State and local governments is very much needed.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Development be discharged from further consideration of S. 101 
and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration and that the bill 
be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very clear. First, I say to my 
colleague from Louisiana, he and I have worked together often on a 
whole host of issues. He is on Environment and Public Works; I chair 
Energy. I want him to know I am happy to continue working with him on 
this and other issues. The reason I have to object at this time is that 
the language as it is written would deal a huge body blow to more than 
700 rural and heavily forested counties across the country in more than 
40 of our States. It, in effect, could prohibit payments under the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
  This legislation, which was a bipartisan bill--Senator Larry Craig 
and I authored this legislation--is a lifeline for these hard-hit rural 
communities that are walking on a tightrope. They are trying to 
balance, for example, how they are going to keep the schools open and 
how they are going to have law enforcement in their communities. 
Declining revenues from Federal forests spurred the creation of this 
program to compensate for the loss of receipts from the Federal 
forests. Suffice it to say that without this legislation we could have 
school perhaps 3 days a week in a big chunk of rural America. I 
mentioned law enforcement. The question of how you maintain 24-hour law 
enforcement in a lot of these areas has been drawn into question. I 
think that without this assistance we might have some counties facing 
bankruptcy.
  Given the fact that this language does not clarify the status of the 
Secure Rural Schools Program, I have to object. I am going to continue 
to object until the legislation does clarify that it will not prohibit 
payments under that legislation, which is a lifeline for rural America.
  We have had a number of recorded votes on that particular legislation 
here in the Senate. It has received overwhelming bipartisan support. It 
was authorized on a bipartisan basis.
  I am going to yield the floor. I know colleagues want to speak on 
this issue. I want it understood how concerned I am about the 
legislation in its present form. That is why I have to object at this 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I too join with our colleague from 
Oregon in raising great concern about what this proposal would do. This 
is a proposal--we have seen, actually, three of them now--that would 
cut all Federal funding for any community that has either defaulted or, 
more important, is at risk, has problems financially. What does that 
mean? It means that any city, any county, any local unit of government 
that is struggling with a tight budget could potentially lose all 
Federal funding. We are not talking about a bailout here. We are 
talking about the same Federal funds that go to every community--no 
funding for emergency services such as police departments and fire 
departments; no funding for transportation, for roads and bridges; 
cutting off funding for special education and for our schools; no 
funding for economic development to help these communities that are 
challenged because of, possibly, economic circumstances such as a 
shifting manufacturing base or other economic issues beyond their 
control.
  This is extremely broad. According to some legal definitions, 
``default'' could mean anything--late payments on any kind of an 
obligation. It makes absolutely no sense.
  Let me also indicate that one of the real concerning problems here is 
that it would exempt emergency spending for a natural disaster. I 
appreciate that the Senator from Louisiana would want to do that given 
the fact that we had Hurricane Katrina hit in New Orleans and our whole 
country came together. People in Detroit raised money to help with 
Hurricane Katrina. But I suggest that for the 41 cities and counties 
that filed bankruptcy over the last 20 years or the hundreds from 
Texas, to

[[Page 12941]]

Kentucky, to Alabama, and beyond who now have troubled bond ratings and 
are considered at risk--this is really a slap in the face to every city 
and community across our country.
  This is not about stopping a bailout for Detroit. We are working 
hard. People are coming together. This is a community that is coming 
back thanks to a tremendous amount of grit, hard work, and leadership 
from the business community, religious community, community leaders, 
and so on. This is about whether we are going to support communities 
that need some help.
  Think about this: If a city is doing well and has a wealthy tax base 
and an upper middle-income community with high-powered lobbyists, then 
they should get Federal money--taxpayer money? Children with 
disabilities can get special education. We are going to help build 
roads and bridges in communities. But if a community is having some 
financial difficulty, then, unfortunately, we would say we would not 
allow the same ordinary Federal funding every community gets to be 
available for that community. That is not the right values for America.
  That is why the International City/County Management Association, the 
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Government Finance Officers Association 
strongly oppose this effort.
  I have one final statement to make before turning to our 
distinguished senior Senator from Michigan.
  When we are looking at what is happening right now in Detroit and 
around the country, once again we are seeing workers and retirees on 
the frontline who have lost their pensions and their wages. In the auto 
rescue, we saw Delphi retiree pensions were not protected. Now in the 
city of Detroit, police, fire, and city workers are not protected. So 
when we talk about the middle class of this country--people working 
hard every day--we need to put them first. We need to make sure nobody 
loses their pension. We need to make sure we stand as a country with 
cities that are in distress and working hard to become vibrant and 
strong again.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I too object to the unanimous consent 
request. While the sponsor says it is aimed at bailouts, no one I know 
of is seeking a bailout from the communities that would be impacted. 
Despite the stated intention, the effect of this bill is to endanger 
the financial health of hundreds of cities and counties in every corner 
of this country. It would weaken the safety and security of countless 
Americans who call those communities home. I don't know of anyone 
seeking a bailout. Yet bailout is the word that is used frequently here 
by the sponsor of this legislation.
  What is the definition? Communities at risk of defaulting. Hundreds 
and hundreds of communities are ``at risk of defaulting.'' It is 
unclear what that means. But the strains on local governments in the 
last few years--particularly following the financial crisis we had--are 
real. To say that any community, city, or State, for that matter, that 
is at risk of defaulting is to be challenged in terms of getting 
regular support from the Federal Government.
  This is not limited to loans. This bill affects grants as well as 
loans. In the words of the bill, ``grants and aid'' would be prevented. 
All sorts of Federal funding, in other words, besides those kind of 
actions of the Federal Government involving credit or reliance on 
credit of the donor or for repayment.
  The Congressional Research Service says this, again, applies not just 
to loans but to grants as well. Why in Heaven's name would struggling 
communities--whether it is my hometown of Detroit or any other 
community in this country--be denied the ability to seek grants is 
beyond me. It is not limited to loans but grants as well. This bill 
goes way beyond the bailouts that no one is seeking and would have a 
severe impact on cities and towns across the country.
  Standard & Poor's lists more than 250 securities offered by Louisiana 
municipalities that are below investment grade. One State has 250 
communities with securities below investment grade, which presumably 
means there is a significant credit risk in those communities. Under 
this bill, are those communities not eligible to seek regular grants? I 
am afraid so, and that is not just me saying that. Again, that is from 
the CRS.
  Finally, Senator Stabenow has made reference to a letter that we 
received from the National League of Cities, National Association of 
Counties, the United States Conference of Mayors, and others, opposing 
this legislation because it goes way beyond its stated purpose of 
preventing bailouts.
  Again, my town--and I don't know of any town that has--has not asked 
for a bailout. I am proud to have been living in Detroit all of my 
life. It doesn't need this kind of legislation poking at it to stop 
something from going to Detroit, which it has not applied for.
  I know this legislation was introduced before this recent bankruptcy 
application on the part of the city of Detroit, but nonetheless to seek 
a unanimous consent in this context and in this moment to pass 
legislation--apparently without even a hearing--seems to me to be 
beyond the pale.
  As a lifelong resident of Detroit, I oppose this proposal. I oppose 
it because thousands of municipalities that have suffered in the 
aftermath of the recent recession would be negatively affected. Our 
residents, their residents, our employees, their employees, and 
retirees around the country deserve better.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the two Senators from 
Michigan being the only ones on the floor right now objecting and 
saying this has nothing to do with Detroit, but, of course, it does.
  I am very sorry to hear this objection. There is no objection on the 
Republican side. Of course there would be an objection if, in fact, 
this legislation would bar normal Federal grants and normal Federal 
loans unrelated to a bailout of a State or a municipality in bankruptcy 
mode, but it doesn't do that.
  The legislation is very specific and very targeted. It is about a 
bailout of a State or locality in bankruptcy mode, and that is what it 
is about. It is not about normal routine Federal funding, and that is 
why there is no Republican objection.
  One of the distinguished Senators from Michigan makes the point that 
Detroit has not formally asked for a bailout. That is true so far. But 
when the mayor talked to the Wall Street Journal about this, he ``left 
the door open for a Federal bailout after the city's bankruptcy 
filing.'' When asked directly whether Detroit would seek a Federal 
bailout, Mayor Bing said, ``Not yet.''
  Similarly, the Governor of Michigan Rick Snyder didn't support a 
bailout but said on CBS's ``Face the Nation:'' ``If the Federal 
Government wants to do that, that's their option.'' That is not exactly 
not opening the door and considering that opportunity.
  Again, I didn't file this bill in the last 2 weeks. I originally 
filed this bill in February of 2011. Unfortunately, Detroit isn't the 
only municipal or State bankruptcy on the maps. States can't formally 
file bankruptcy, but in laymen's terms they can essentially go 
bankrupt. Detroit is not the only issue on the map. Many States face a 
horrible fiscal situation as well, such as California and Illinois. 
There is a real danger of these States and localities seeking a Federal 
bailout. This bill is about that. It is not about normal Federal 
funding. It is not about the safe and secure rural schools program. It 
is not about any of that routine stuff. It is about a bailout of a 
State. It is about a bailout of the municipality or other local 
jurisdiction. Of course, Detroit, unfortunately, is the most obvious 
example after its historic bankruptcy filing very recently.
  Again, I am sorry to hear their objection. I am sorry the two 
Senators from Michigan are here on the floor about this. I don't think 
that is a coincidence because this is a bill about bailouts. I

[[Page 12942]]

think we should pass it, and be very crystal clear at the Federal level 
that we are not going to take on that bailout role and responsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. On line 7, page 1: ``Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law''--and then after talking about Federal funds not being used to 
purchase or guarantee obligations, it then says:

     no Federal funds may be used . . . or provide direct or 
     indirect grants-and-aid, to any State government, municipal 
     government, local government, or county government which, on 
     or after January 26, 2011, has defaulted on its obligations.

  It is very clear. It is line 7, page 1, and lines 1 and 2 on page 2: 
``direct or indirect grants-and-aid to'' may not be provided to any 
city which has defaulted on its obligations. This is the language of 
the bill.
  It also says on line 12 of page 2 that the funds of the United States 
may not be used ``to assist such government entity.'' ``Assist any such 
government entity.''
  Hundreds of governments would be covered by this legislation. It is 
no coincidence that the Senators from Michigan are here on the floor 
because we are the most current victims of this language if it were 
ever passed. There are hundreds of others who would be victimized by 
this language because of its breadth, and that is what the Senator from 
Oregon was very dramatically pointing out.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the language from the 
bill be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 101

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO PAY 
                   STATE AND LOCAL OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no Federal funds may be used to purchase or guarantee 
     obligations of, issue lines of credit to, or provide direct 
     or indirect grants-and-aid to, any State government, 
     municipal government, local government, or county government 
     which, on or after January 26, 2011, has defaulted on its 
     obligations, is at risk of defaulting, or is likely to 
     default, absent such assistance from the United States 
     Government.
       (b) Limit on Use of Borrowed Funds.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall not, directly or indirectly, use general fund 
     revenues or funds borrowed pursuant to title 31, United 
     States Code, to purchase or guarantee any asset or obligation 
     of any State government, municipal government, local 
     government, or county government, or otherwise to assist such 
     government entity, if, on or after January 26, 2011, that 
     State government, municipal government, or county government 
     has defaulted on its obligations, is at risk of defaulting, 
     or is likely to default, absent such assistance from the 
     United States Government.
       (c) Prohibition on Federal Reserve Assistance.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall not provide or 
     extend to, or authorize with respect to, any State 
     government, municipal government, local government, county 
     government, or other entity that has taxing authority or 
     bonding authority, any funds, loan guarantees, credits, or 
     any other financial instrument or other authority, including 
     the purchasing of the bonds of such State, municipality, 
     locality, county, or other bonding authority, or to otherwise 
     assist such government entity under any authority of the 
     Board of Governors.
       (d) Limitation.--Subsections (a) through (c) shall not 
     apply to Federal assistance provided in response to a natural 
     disaster.

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Raymond T. 
Chen, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal circuit. This 
is the 29th judicial confirmation this year. With today's confirmation, 
the Senate will have confirmed 200 lower court nominees; we have 
defeated two. That's 200 to 2. That is an outstanding record. That's a 
success rate of 99 percent.
  We have been doing that at a fast pace. During the last Congress, we 
confirmed more judges than any Congress since the 103rd Congress, which 
was 1993 to 1994.
  So far this year, the first of President Obama's second term, we've 
already confirmed more judges than were confirmed in the entire first 
year of President Bush's second term. At a similar stage in President 
Bush's second term, only 10 judicial nominees had been confirmed. We 
are now at a 29-to-10 comparison with President Obama clearly ahead of 
where President Bush was. And, as I said, we have already confirmed 
more nominees this year--29--than we did during the entirety of 2005, 
the first year of President Bush's second term, when 21 lower court 
judges were confirmed.
  With regard to hearings, the record shows that President Obama is 
being treated much better than President Bush during his second term.
  Last week we held the 11th judicial nominations hearing this year. In 
those hearings we we have considered a total of 33 judicial nominees. 
Compare this favorable treatment of President Obama during the 
beginning of his second term versus the first year of President Bush's 
second term. At this stage in President Bush's second term, the 
Committee had held not 11 hearings with 33 judicial nominees, but only 
3 hearings for 5 nominees, and all of those were hold-overs from the 
previous Congress.
  In fact, for the entire year of 2005, Senate Democrats only allowed 7 
hearings for a grand total of 18 judicial nominees.
  It is hard to believe, but no nomination hearings on judicial 
nominees were held during April, May, June, or July. Four months with 
no judicial nomination hearings. Yet, we recently rushed through 
hearings on nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, plus a 
number of District nominations. In fact, in just the last few weeks, we 
have held hearings for 14 judicial nominees. That's not very far behind 
the entire output of 2005--7 hearings, 18 nominees.
  Again, we have already exceeded that number--11 hearings and 33 
judicial nominees. The bottom line is that the Senate is processing the 
President's nominees exceptionally fairly.
  President Obama certainly is being treated more fairly in the first 
year of his second term than Senate Democrats treated President Bush in 
2005. It is not clear to me how allowing more votes and more hearings 
than President Bush got in an entire year amounts to ``unprecedented 
delays and obstruction.'' Yet, that is the complaint we hear over and 
over from the other side. So I just wanted to set the record straight--
again--before we vote on this nomination.
  Raymond T. Chen is nominated to be United States Circuit Judge for 
the Federal circuit. He received his B.S. from the University of 
California, Los Angeles, in 1990 and his J.D. from New York University 
School of Law in 1994. Upon graduation, Mr. Chen worked at Knobbe, 
Martens, Olson & Bear in California from 1994 to 1996. As an associate, 
he drafted district court briefs and legal memoranda on specific patent 
and trademark issues as well as several patent applications spanning 
various technologies.
  In 1996, Mr. Chen joined the senior technical assistant's office at 
the Federal circuit in Washington as one of three technical assistants. 
There, he researched and wrote memoranda, commenting on drafts of court 
opinions for both legal and technical accuracy as well as 
identification of conflicting legal precedent, occasionally writing for 
individual judges.
  From 1998 to 2008, Mr. Chen served as an associate solicitor in the 
Office of the Solicitor at the United States Patent and Trademark 
Office. During that time, he was first or second chair on several dozen 
Federal Circuit briefs defending the agency's patent and trademark 
decisions, and he presented approximately 20 arguments in the Federal 
Circuit.
  He regularly appeared in district court defending the agency against 
lawsuits brought under the Administrative Procedure Act. He was also a 
legal advisor on several patent policy and legal issues within the 
agency, occasionally prosecuting patent attorneys in administrative 
proceedings for violating the agency's code of professional 
responsibility.

[[Page 12943]]

  In 2008, Mr. Chen became the Deputy General Counsel of Intellectual 
Property Law and Solicitor. There he supervises other lawyers in the 
Solicitor's Office and has presented oral arguments in some of the 
seminal patent cases before the Federal circuit.
  In addition, Mr. Chen deals with higher-level patent and trademark 
policy issues within the agency. He also coordinates the determination 
of what positions the United States should take as an amicus in 
intellectual property cases before both the Supreme Court and the 
Federal circuit.
  Lastly, Mr. Chen is responsible for the review and clearance of all 
new regulations and amendments to existing regulations for the Office 
of the Solicitor.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him a 
unanimous ``well qualified'' rating.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). All time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask my colleagues to vote for this nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I believe we should act quickly on a number of judicial 
vacancies. Eleven of the twelve circuit and district nominees currently 
pending before the Senate were reported by voice vote. All Democrats, 
all Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted together. There is no 
reason why we couldn't consider all 12 today, along with Mr. Chen. If 
we work together, then we can fulfill the needs of the Federal 
judiciary.
  Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. LEAHY. I request the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Raymond T. Chen, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for 
the Federal Circuit?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Ex.]

                                YEAS--97

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Inhofe
     Landrieu
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________