Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source