else. but there's another aspect of the senate as rarely well advertised and that's when we get a result. and sometimes the results take a long time, involve a lot of people and are very difficult to get to and that is the case with these two bills and had not senator harkin been patient and as well as aggressive at the same time, in working with republicans and democrats, with members of the house we would not have gotten to today. i think it's important to call to the attention of the american people this result, because these two pieces of legislation, one which makes it clear who is in charge as senator harkin said, who's on the flagpole, when it comes to making sure that the sterile drugs that are injected into your back, when you have back pain, are safe so that you don't end up with a horrible death from fungal meningitis, who's responsible for that and the second bill is how are we going to make sure that the four

billion prescriptions we are have every year in this country are safe, that they're not stolen, do what they are supposed to do. how are we going to make sure that we can track them from the manufacturer all the way through to the person who uses them. we've been working on these bills for two years. and lest anyone think that because it was a voice vote in the house and because we're close to unanimous consent in the senate that it was easy to do, it's not that easy to do. in fact, it's worth going through how this happened. before i say just a word to add to what the senator said about the importance of the bills. the f.d.a. became involved in the fungal meningitis issue in february of 2012, a year ago, after reports from tennessee that fungal meningitis was tied to a sterile compounded drug. now, this hits home to many americans, because a great many americans have been injected in

their neck or in their back or in their foot with a drug that's supposed to be sterile and if it's not, it can have terrible consequences. immediately, senator harkin called a hearing, it was november 15 a year ago, that so -- that we had our first hearing. and then within six months, we released draft legislation to address the compounding pharmacy issue. we then had a hearing on that legislation. then we passed the legislation after a lot of comment, all in the open, everyone had a chance to weigh in. we passed it unanimously. now, this committee on which we serve -- health, education, labor and pensions -- probably reflects the widest span of ideological differences we have in the united states senate. the republicans can be very conservative and the democrats can be very progressive or very liberal, so you would think it would be hard to get a unanimous

aagreement but we did. we sent it to the house unanimously. then the house went to work on it and they came up with their own version of the bill, taking our work into account. they passed it by a voice vote and sent it back and so here we are today, mr. president with a piece of legislation that haas hot-lined -- that means that both sides have sent it around to every single office -- and all but one senator has agreed that we can pass it by unanimous consent. now, the senator has that right, has that right, and just as i have that right or the senator from west virginia or the senator from iowa has that right. and sometimes we exercise that right. but later this afternoon, we're going to be having a cloture volvote, a vote to move to this bill, and that cloture vote is going to succeed. there will be sufficient number of republican votes and a sufficient number of democrat votes to say, we're ready to deal with this. and why are we ready to deal

with this? because commissioner hamburg of the food and drug administration told us at our hearing what would happen if we don't. she said this -- quote -- "we have a collective opportunity and responsibility to help prevent further tragedies. if we fail to act," the f.d.a. commissioner said, "this type of incident will happen again." it is a matter of when, not if, i'm afraid. if we fail to act now," she told us, "it will only be a matter of time until we're all back in this room asking why more people have died and what could have been done to prevent it." now, no one is saying that this legislation is going to guarantee that there will never, ever be a tragedy again but it will help prevent future tragedies, it will take up the responsibility that she challenged us to do. and now that we've spent two years on -- a year on it and so many people have been involved,

it's time that we move to do it. so my hope is that after the cloture vote tonight, that very soon thereafter, after everyone's had a chance to speak and to say what they have to say, that we can pass this by unanimous consent, sent it to the president and say to the american people that our differences are well advertised but that our results can be equally important and that we can pass a piece of legislation, when taken with the trade legislation that comes with it, that affects the health and safety of every single american, period. every single american. i know the people of tennessee would welcome a prompt solution to this and that's what i hope we have. senator harkin, as he often does, spoke in very personal terms about this legislation. let me just tell one story from tennessee so that we can know what we're talking about here. diana reid, 56, tennessee.

she had tried massage and acupuncture but neither eased her neck pain. one of the potential cause for her pain was an injury sustained while helping her husband, who has lou gehrig's disease, in and out of the wheelchair. diana reid was healthy, either ran or swam every day in addition to becoming wayne's arms and legs and voice, according to her brother bob. she decided to try a series of epidural steroid injections for her neck problems. and one of them before her health insurance ran out after losing her job at a nonprofit group. this decision ended her life on october 3 of last year. she began receiving injections on august 21 with a total of three scheduled, one every two weeks. she felt pain and nausea for a full day after the first two injections. after the third, she began having headaches. september 23, she finally agreed to go to a doctor. she was quickly diagnosed with

meningitis. while she remained stable for a few days and was mostly concerned about her husband's well-being -- now, remember, he has lou gehrig's disease -- and getting home to him took place as soon as possible, she took a turn for the worse. her speech began to slur, she had trouble seeing and eventually she had a stroke. a day later she was in a coma. a thousand people packed otter creek church for her funeral. among them, the alumni of a child care learning center for inner city preschoolers that she and her husband had founded. the oops found fungal meningitis at the injection site and in mrs. reid's brain. mr. reid has a rain form of a.l.s. that worsens more slowly and his mind has not been affected. diana reid would help him get in and out of bed, a shower, and his wheelchair. she became more instrumental in his accounting business as his

speech worsens. after her death, members of their church brought meals and did laundry and the church accepted donations to hire help to assist mr. reid with his personal care. that is just one story of the tragedy that the commissioner of the f.d.a. says will happen again if we don't act. and we believe this bill will help to prevent such a tragedy. steroid injections last year were meant to ease the pain of hundreds of americans and many tennesseans. and instead it became their worst nightmare. these vials of contaminated medicine, compounded medicine, were contaminated. 64 americans, including 16 from my state, died from the outbre outbreak. it's a horrible way to die. when the help committee held its first hearings on this tragic

outbreak in november of last year, we looked at, how could this possibly happen? it became clear that these contaminated vials were produced in a facility that was nothing like a traditional pharmacy, a corner drugstore, if you will. it operated more like a manufacturer. but it was unclear which regulator was in charge. was the state in charge? office the f.d.a. in charge? i -- or was the f.d.a. in charge? i made it clear at the beginning of the hearing that my priority was to find a way to clarify who is accountable for large-scale drug compounding facilities. who is on the flagpole for overseeing the safety of drugs made in these facilities? i used the example of hyman rickover and the nuclear navy in the 1950's. admiral rickover was doing something new. he was doing something dangerous. he was putting reactors, potentially dangerous. he was putting reactors on

submarines and ships and no one knew quite how that was going to work. so what did he do about it? admiral rickover hired the captain, he interviewed the captain and said first you're responsible for your ship and second you're responsible for your reactor. and if there's ever a problem with the react, your career's over. well, mr. president, the united states navy has never had a death on a nuclear ship as a result of a reactor problem because everyone knew, after admiral rickover made those decisions, who is on the flagpole. there should be no confusion after this bill is passed and signed by the president who is on the flagpole for a particular facility that makes sterile drugs. we should be able to walk into any one of our 60,000 drugstores or pharmacies or to our doctors or pain clinics and not have to worry about whether the medicines we get there are safe. the bill we are voting on represents that year of work

that we talked about to find a solution. today we have drug manufacturers on the one hand and traditional pharmacies, the corner drugsto drugstore, on the other. this legislation creates a new voluntary third category which we call outsourcing facility. if a drugstore chooses to be in this category, they follow one nationwide quality standard and the f.d.a. is responsible for all the drugs made in that facility. f.d.a. is on the flagpole. what's the advantage of this? well, first, it eliminates the confusion. it eliminates the finger pointing. if, heaven forbid, this should happen again, it will be clear whose fault it was, who didn't do their job if regulating. but, second, it provides an option available to doctors and hospitals who, if they choose

to, to choose to buy all their sterile drugs from a facility regulate bide 9 f.d.a. regulate -- regulated by the f.d.a. outsourcing facilities are subject to regular f.d.a. inspections. the new england compounding center that caused these problems was not inspected by the state or the f.d.a. from 2006-2011. outsourcing facilities must report the products made at the facility to the f.d.a.. the ne new england center that caused the problems was making copies of commercially available drugs, which is illegal. outsourcing facilities must report to f.d.a. when things go wrong with a product. currently, large-scale compounders don't have any required reporting to the f.d.a. if they know about a problem with a product. and finally, outsourcing facilities, this new category, must clearly label their product so patients know it's compounded rather than f.d.a. approved.

traditional pharmacy compounders will continue to be primarily regulated by the states, but for outsourcing facilities, the f.d.a. is in charge. during our discussions, we heard a lot with drug shortages, and the senator from iowa and i worked especially to deal with that. we tried to address it, where appropriate, in this legislation. we know that compounded products aren't the answer to drug shortages. we don't want compounded products or -- to be the backup solution to drug shortages. we want a better answer that that. we recognize the -- better answer than that. we recognize the problem and tried to address it here. because of heroic actions of state officials of the tennessee department of health, more people didn't get sick from the outbreak last fall. i don't intend to sit through another hearing where f.d.a. can point the finger at someone else instead of taking responsibility or claim it doesn't have enough authority. and if we pass this legislation, f.d.a. won't be able to.

this legislation also establishes clear rules for outsourcing facilities, puts f.d.a. on the flagpole for drugs made in those facilities. i hope that my colleagues will vote this afternoon to move to the bill and that shortly after that, we will able to move to unanimously approve it, as the house did. now, just one other -- one other comment, mr. president. the chairman, the senator from iowa, as well as senator burr, senator bennet and others, have been working for at least two years on this form of legislation we call track and trace. it's been through the vetting. i think everybody's had a chance to read it, to make a suggestion about it. there have been many changes and adjustments to make sure it works. here's the problem. in the united states today, we have about 4 billion

prescriptions written every ye year. we don't have a uniform system to track and trace these judge -- these drugs once they leave the manufacturer, which makes it easier for counterfeits and substandard products to enter the market and puts patients at risk. the laws governing the tracking of drugs haven't been updated since 1988. in the last two years alone, there have been three cases of counterfeit of vastin, a cancer drug being distributed in the u.s. to physicians and patients when the counterfeit did not contain any of the active ingredient. we've seen an increase in drug theft. we've got no way of knowing if and when these drugs are resold in the u.s. supply chain. in 2009, insulin stolen from a truck months earlier was sold by pharmacies and the insulin was ineffective due to proper storage. -- due to improper storage.

if drugs are not handled correctly throughout the supply chain, the drugs may not work. this legislation would set up a system where over years, ten years, products could be flagg flagged. it represents a consensus on representing a national system for all prescription drugs to have a specific serial number on the bottle. that means whol wholesalers, retailers will be able to check the serial number to see if that number was assigned by the manufacturer. the serial number can be used to determine if anything else has been reported about that bottle, including if the proked was stolen f won't happen overnight. creating a system that traces 4 billion prescriptions made by over 80 manufacturers on over 3,600 manufacturing lines that are disspepsed to patients through have a i think radio of

ways will take some time. but, the path laid out for us over a number of years will assure the u.s. drug supply chain is secure and that consumers receive drugs that work. i want to thank the senator from iowa, as i have already, for his leaner these two extraordinary pieces of legislation. senator burr and senator bennett on the track-and-trace legislation, senator roberts, senator franken worked hard on compounding legislation. let me end where i began: issue the f.d.a. commissioner challenged us, mr. president. she said, if we don't act, this tragedy will happen again. we have an opportunity to act tonight. i hope that we do. the families who were devastated by this tragedy of contaminated sterile injections that created fungal me meningitis expect us o

act. if we do, it will be not as well-advertised as the differences of opinion that we can have in the united states senate, but it will demonstrate how when we work together over a period of a couple of of years that we can take a very big piece of legislation -- in fact, two -- that affect the health and sa safety of every americand come to a consensus that takes a large step forward. i thank the president and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, back in 2005 before some of the current membership of the senate was even here, we had a very important development when it came to judicial nominations and

the advice and consent function of the united states senate. never before the presidency of george w. bush had nominees to the federal court been filibustered, that is, a 60-vote threshold been imposed as opposed to a 51-vote threshold which is of course what the constitution says requiring a majority of the senate. but there was an impasse. a number of judges at the circuit court level and district court level were lcd down in lon this impasse. but as so often happens around the senate, a gang broke out, a gang was created, seven republicans, seven democrats got together and helped work us through this impasse and they did so by adopting a new senate precedent which says, in essence, that there will be no filibusters of -- of federal judges absent extraordinary circumstances.

and, yes, you may say that's a broad standard and it's somewhat subjective, admittedly so, but the point was the default position would be that federal judges would get up or down votes and there -- up-or-down votes and there wouldn't be resort to the 60-vote threshold absent extraordinary circumstances. but point is, that's now become the precedent, basically the rule by which the senate operates when it comes to federal judicial nominations. and it's a precedent that's been upheld and respected by both sides of the aisle ever since president obama took office. now, this afternoon, we will be voting on a third -- a second, excuse me, a second nominee to the d.c. circuit court of appeals, a court that some have called the second most important court in the nation because situation -- situated as it is in the district of columbia here in washington, most of the

administrative reviews, the judicial review of administrative decisions, goes through this court at the appellate level and because the supreme court only considers roughly 80 cases a year, for all practical purposes, the d.c. circuit court becomes the last word on judicial review on many important decisions, particularly those involving agencies like the environmental protection agency or matters of national security or reviewing the regulations associated with the financial services industry, lie dodlike dodd-frank and the a pretty important court. well, unfortunately, the majority leader and the president have determined that they're going to try to jam through three new judges on the d.c. circuit court of appeals even though these judges are clearly not needed and there is demand elsewhere around the country where the workload is far heavier, but because of the special significance of the d.c.

circuit court of appeals, there is a conscious effort being made to pack that court with three additional judges that it doesn't need in order to change the current division 4-4 between -- on a court where republican presidents appointed four, democratic presidents appointed four, and so it is a evenly balanced court. as i said, the d.c. circuit court of appeals doesn't need any more judges so why in the world, at a time when we're looking to make sure that every penny goes as far as it can and we're not spending money we can't -- we don't have, why would you want to appoint three new judges to a court that doesn't need any new judges. well, here's the number, since 2005, the total number of written opinions per active judge actually has gone down since 2005. as of at the particular time 2012, both the -- as of september to 2012, both the total number of appeal appes

filed and the total number of appeals ended in the d.c. circuit per active judge were 61% below the national average. so you might ask yourself, if it carries a 61% reduced caseload compared to the rest of the country, why don't we put the judges where president obama can nominate them and the senate could confirm them in places where they're actually needed rather than this court. well, because of the reduced caseload and the lack of work for the judges to do on the d.c. circuit, one d.c. circuit judge recently told senator grassley, the ranking member on the senate judiciary committee, he said, if any more judges were added now, there wouldn't be enough work to go around. again, why in the world would president obama insist and majority leader reid insist on us confirming judges who aren't needed, when there's not enough work to go around, if there were? well, my friends across the

aisle ton sa continue to say thl they care about is filling judicial vacancies, but the majority leader's made it clear that his real objective is to switch the majority when the court sits en banc. for example, ordinarily circuit courts sit in a three-judge panel but in important decisions, you may have the entire court sit en banc, or all together, and the objective is clear, that the majority leader wants to stack it in favor of president obama's nominees, to transform it into a rubber stamp for the president's big-government overregulatory agenda. indeed, despite all the victories the administration has won before this court, it's apparently not good enough. this administration has won several high-profile victories in environmental cases, for example, but they're still upset with the court because it actually ruled against president obama on cases related to corporate governance, emissions

controls, recess appointments, and nuke yu nuclear waste. so our colleagues are not content to have a court that's balanced and decides cases on a case-by-case basis. they want to stack the courts in a way that is a rubber stamp for the president's agenda. but there's some examples of the cases the court has decided recently. in 2011, the d.c. circuit told the securities and exchange commission to follow the law -- believe that or not -- to follow the law and conduct a property cost-benefit analysis before adopting its regulations. that's what the law required. the security and exchange commission ignored the law and the d.c. circuit said, follow the law and reversed securities and exchange commission. in 2012, the court rejected a environmental protection agency rule that went far beyond the limits of the clean air act. now, these regulatory agency have a lot of power and a lot of authority about it all springs

from a legislative enactment by congress. that's the sort of their pour and their authority and in this case it was the clean air act and the court said the environmental protection agency exceeded the limits of its authority based on the law that congress wrote and the president signed into law. and then in 2013, president obama violated the constitution, the court said, by making recess appointments when the court -- when the senate wasn't actually in recess. now, this is a very important power that goes back to president washington that makes sure that when congress is in recess, that there is still a way for the president to fill vacancies. but that was in the old days when congress would basically leave town for months at a time. and in this case, president obama essentially decided he didn't want to wait around for the advice and consent function or the confirmation function that's given in the constitution to the senate and he jammed

these nominees through using what he called his recess appointment power. well, the d.c. circuit court of appeals said that's unconstitutional. mr. president, you can't do th that. the law does not allow it. but that is another reason why i suggest that the president is eager to stack this court with people he believes will be more ideologically aligned with his big-government agenda. and then there was one more decision i'll mention this past august. the court reminded the nuclear regulatory commission of its legal requirement to make a final decision on whether to use yucca mountain as a nuclear waste repository. now, that sounds of arcane but it is very important. certainly to the people of nevada and to the united states national security interests when you talk about a safe and secure location to put nuclear waste. mr. president, i would submit that each of these were

commonsense rulings for which there was a very sound and broad legal basis and the court was doing what all courts are supposed to do and that is to uphold the law. apparently the administration doesn't think this court should be in a position to do that and they don't think they should have to be in a position to follow the law. they don't seem to care that the d.c. circuit has ruled in favor of the administration on things like stem cell research, health care, greenhouse gas regulation, and other hot-button issued. they don't seem to care that the court's eight active judges are evenly split between republican and democratic appointees. in their view , by upholding the law, the dick circuit has been insufficiently supportive of the obama agenda, so now they're attempting to pack the court with three unneeded judges in order to stack it in the administration's favor.

mr. president, i said last week my colleague from iowa, senator grassley, has offered a commonsense alternative and it's a good compromise. and we've done it before. it would actually real clait two of these seats on the d.c. circuit where they're unneeded to other circuits in the country where they are needed. what makes more sense than that? we've done that once before. we took one of these positions from the d.c. circuit and reallocated it to the 9th circuit, where they needed judges before. so we ought to be putting the resources where they're actually needed, not stocking them in a court where the resources aren't needed in order to pursue an ideological end. unfortunately our friends acontracts on aisle, the majority leader -- unfortunately, our friends across the aisle, the majority leader and others, have rejected the grassley compromise and pushed ahead with their courtpacking maneuver. given their stated desire to make the d.c. circuit a liberal rubber-stamp, democrats have created an extraordinary

circumstance that justifies the filibuster under the 2005 precedent brought about by 9 gang of 14 that i started off w. i wish -- that i starred off w. i wish we had -- started off with. i wish we had resolved this sooner. i wish my friends across the aisle had given serious consideration to the grassley proposal bumplet for now we've reached an -- proposal. but for now we've reached an impasse and so we'll be voted on this nomination this afternoon. mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the rolthe clerkwill . quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from -- the majority whip. mr. durbin: i ask that the quorum call bees suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. dur i have a request that three committees have the aprawfl to meet during today's session of senate. i ask these requests being agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following fume nation, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, cornelia t.l. pillard of the district of columbia to be united states circuit judge. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form. mr. durbin: mr. president, the senate family was stunned yesterday with the news that our colleague, jim inhofe, lost his son per dmi a plane crash -- son perry in a plane crash in oklahoma. i extend my condolences to jim,

the senior senator from oklahoma, and his wife kay and his family on the loss of their son. each year i always look forward to their christmas card. it is an amazing gathering, which grows by the year. it clearly is a strong, large family, which takes great comfort in one another's strength. at this moment, they will need it, having lost one of their own. i extend my condolences, along with those of the senate family, to all of their extended family, and i pray that they will have the strength -- and i'm confident they will -- to face this personal and family tragedy. mr. president, i ask that the following remarks be placed in a separate place in the record. officer sphe without objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: senator cornyn of texas came 2 to the floor to oppose the nominee nation of nina pillard to the d.c. circuit

court. sadly, this did not come as a surprise. it is "no" now clearly a political -- it is now clearly a political strategy on the other side to block president obama's nominees for this important court. there are three vacancies on the d.c. circuit. most people view it as the second-most important court in the land next to the supreme court. the court has eight active judges and is authorized to have 11. when there are vacancies in our federal judiciary, the president has a duty to fill them. president george bush made six nominations to the d.c. circuit during his presidency. four were confirmed. president obama, by contrast, has made five nominations for the d.c. circuit and so far only one has been confirmed, a well-qualified gentleman. two of president obama's nominees have been filibustered by the senate republicans.

indicate lynn hall began and patricia millett, two exceptionally well-qualified women. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it clear that they intend to filibuster two equally well-qualified nominees, georgetown law professor nina pillard and d.c. circuit court judge robert wilkins. this disparity is very obvious for anyone who cares to compare. president bush -- six d.c. circuit court nominees, four of them confirmed. president obama -- five d.c. circuit court nominees, four of them likely filibustered by the republicans. this is a troubling contrast. there is no question that president obama's nominees have the qualifications and integrity to serve on this important court. there are absolutely no -- underline "no" -- extraordinary

circumstances that justify filibustering these nominees. just a few days ago when the senate republicans filibustered patricia millett, they ignored the obvious. she has argued 32 cases before the u.s. supreme court. is someone literally going to come here and say, well, she is not equal tied to serve on a federal court. not only that, she has the overwhelming endorse many of solicitors general of both political parties. clearly, she is well-qualified and has bipartisan support for the job, but it wasn't good enough for the other side of the aisle. they filibustered her, stopping her nomination. for those who are new to the senate, i wish the filibuster was new as well, but it's an old trick, an old procedural gambit. and what happens is that well-qualified people -- and many times substantive legislation -- is held up indefinitely or stopped with the

use of a filibuster. to do it to an amendment or a bill is bad enough. to do it to a human being is really something we should think long and hard about. her nomination, the nomination of patricia millett, was supported by democratic and republican solicitors general and they characterized her as brilliant and unfailing fair-minded. ms. millett deserved an up-or-down vote on the merits. i doubt that there would have been any on the other side of the aisle who would have voted against her. there is no question that she would have served with distinction as a federal judge. it is a shame that she is be filibustered. technically, her nomination is still hanging by a procedural thread, i guess, of the possibility of being reconsidered. but when we hear the statement just recently made by the senior senator from texas, it gives us scant hope of her successful nomination being approved by the senate.

now we're considering another well-qualified nominee to the d.c. circuit, nina pillard. ms. pillard is a distinguished law professor at georgetown law university. she is also one of the most talented appellate attorneys in america. she served with distinction in the solicitors general office and in the justice department's office of legal counsel. she has argued nine cases before the supreme court of the united states. she has written briefs on many more, including u.s. v. virginia, the landmark equal protection case that opened the doors of virginia military institute to female students. there's no question that ms. pillard has the intellect, experience, and integrity to be an excellent federal court judge. she has received strong letters of recommendation from republicans and democrats, from law enforcement and law professors. now it's no secret that she is written a number of academic articles in which she argued for gender equality, that men and

women be treated fairly and the same under the law in america. some find this radical thinking. most americans believe it should be the law of the land. but law professors are supposed to take part in debates and advance academic discourse. that's their role. also, issues of gender equality are important in america. don't we want our daughters to have the same opportunities as our sons? we should want to have our finest legal minds contribute to this conversation about gender equality. we should not penalize them for doing so. some have dismissed her nomination because she has spoken out about equality when it comes to men and women in america. that is shameful. ms. pillard also made clear at her nomination hearing she understands the difference between being a professor and a judge. and when ms. pillard has stood

in judgment of others, as she did on the a.b.a. reviewing committee for then-judge sam alito in 2005, she has been fair and impartial. she probably doesn't share the views of judge alito, but her committee gave him a rating of unanimously "well qualified." thand that helped send him off it the supreme court. former attorney general for the office of legal policy under president bush helped clarify who nina pillard is with a letter he sent. "i know that professor pillard is exceptionally bright, a patient and unbiased listener and a lawyer of great judgment and unquestioned integrity." i would go on to say, i know professor vin, who is a very conservative person. and yet listen to how he concluded his endorsement of nina pillard: "she is fair-minded thinker with enormous respect for the law and

for the limited and essential role of the federal appellate judge, qualities that would make her well-prepared to take on the work of a d.c. circuit judge. i am confident that she would approach the judicial task of applying the law to facts in a fair and meticulous manner." i urge my colleagues to give this well-qualified nominee a chance for a vote on the merits before the senate. some may argue that there are three strikes against professor pillard for this d.c. circuit, and apparently there are. first, she's an overwellcomingly well-qualified woman, and they -- those nominations are not faring well with the other side of the aisle recently. secondly, she has argued that men and women deserve equal and fair treatment in america, and that doesn't sit well with some on the other side of the aisle. and, third, this is a crit clinical important court, and there are some who are determined to maintain these vacancies even if he expense of

exceptionally well-qualified nominees. i think know my republican colleagues like to argue we shouldn't confirm nominees to the court because they just don't work hard enough over there. but does anyone truly believe this caseload argument would stop the republicans if they were in the white house trying to fill the same vacancies? we don't have to guess the answer to that question. we know it. the fact is, the d.c. circuit's caseload is actually greater now than it was when john roberts was confirmed to be the ninth judge on that circuit in 2003. and judge roberts was confirmed by a voice vote. the argument about not enough work on the court didn't seem to come up when it was a republican nominee for a similar vacancy. my republican colleagues have been eager to confirm nominees for the ninth, tenth, and 11th seats on the d.c. circuit when a republican president has been make the nomination. but when it comes to president obama's nominees, it looks like we'll see four times as many filibusters as we do

confirmations. the bottom line is this: under the law there are supposed to be 11 active judges on this circuit. three vacancies exist. the president has the responsibility to fill them. president obama tion nominees are well-qualified. no one questions that. but they're being filibustered by senate republicans. i hope my republican colleagues change their minds about these filibusters and agree to give these nominees an up-or-down vote. these nominees have done nothing to deserve a filibuster. they deserve to be judged on the merits. let me close mr. president, by saying we've gone through this debate for a long time on both sides arguing that well-qualified nominees deserve an up-or-down vote. there have been times when some people have questioned the whole process that would alou this basic unfairness for nominees to the bench that we're seeing happen with the d.c. circuit. we have gone to the brink of talking about change the rules of the united states senate and usually at the very last moment will step up and try to work out

our differences in a fair fashion between the two parties, agreeing that certain nominees will move forward and certain nominees won't. but i will tell you, as i've said to my friends on the other side of the aisle, there comes a tipping point. there reefs a point where we can't a-- there reaches a point where we can't allow this type of injustice to occur. it is not fair to these nominees who submit their names in good fairnlings willinfaith, willinge important judicial assignments and give their best talents and to show their intech gri integre process and thep to be given the back of the hand by a republican filibuster on the floor of the united states senate. it reaches a point where we can't continue do that. and i say to my friends on the other side of the aisle who have said we shouldn't change the rules of the senate, it's time for them to show common sense and to show a basic sense of fairness when it comes to these nominees. i hope that when this matter comes before the senate that my republican friends across the

aisle will relent, will not stop this good nominee from her opportunity to serve, and i hope that we can find her nomination and the others that are pending moving forward in a way that's befitting of this great institution. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: