quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: well, madam president, here we go again. for the third time this year, third time this year, we're debating whether to end a republican filibuster and allow a confirmation vote for a highly qualified woman to the d.c. circuit. in march, it was caitlin halligan. last month it was patricia millett. today it's nina pillard. what a highly qualified nominee.

argued nine cases before the supreme court, unanimously rated well qualified, the highest rating the american bar association can give any judicial nominee. supported by a bipartisan group of 40 supreme court practitioners, republicans, democrats, people who have actually argued before the supreme court. and, of course, highly esteemed now, the qualifications of the three who have been filibustered, caitlin halligan, patricia millett, nina pillard, each of these nominees surpass those of many other attorneys who have been confirmed to the federal bench. these are three women who have earned their way, earned their way to the top of the legal profession, recognized by legal

scholars, practitioners, men and women alike as being at the top of the profession. and it appears the senate republicans are going to continue to launch filibuster after filibuster at these stellar nominees. caitlin halligan, patricia millett, i'm confident that nina pillard would be confirmed if republicans would stop filibustering and allow an up-or-down vote on her nomination. she would get well over the number needed. and if republicans vote in lock step to continue the filibuster against her, then senate republicans will have blocked three outstanding tbhim a row from being confirmed to what is considered the second highest court in our country. three in a row. now, senate republicans have an opportunity to make this right by voting to end the filibuster of nina pillard's nomination

today, and by voting on the nomination of patricia millett once the majority brings it -- majority leader brings it before the senate as intends to do. confirming these two highly qualified nominees is the right thing to do and will make history because once these two extraordinary women are confirmed, the d.c. circuit will be the first federal appellate court in our country to have an equal number of women serving as judges as men. wouldn't that be nice. they'd actually reflect the proportion of women in this country. it would be a nice move. despite having filled nearly half of law school classrooms the last 20 years, women are grossly underrepresented on our federal courts. so what kind of message are senate republicans sending by refusing to allow a vote on three of the most qualified

female attorneys in this country they talk about sitting john roberts in one of these seats on the d.c. circuit, every republican, every democrat supported him. that was no problem for them. he was, of course, nominated by a republican president. now we have women who are equally well qualified and they get filibustered. of course, they were nominated by a democratic president. i guess if you're a republican, nominate a qualified man, they go through easily. if you're an ul equally qualified woman, they're going to be filibustered. what does this say? what does this say to people in law school, what does this say to our country, what does this say to the impartiality of our

federal bench? we need women in our federal courts. and a vote to end this filibuster is a vote in the historic direction of having a federal appellate courts more accurately reflect the gender balance of our country. nina pillard is a stellar nominee. her work includes nine supreme court oral arguments, briefs in more than 25 supreme court cases. she drafted the government the federal government's briefing in united states versus virginia which made history by opening the virginia military institute's doors to female students, but also expanded educational opportunity for women across this country. as a father who loves his daughter and loves his three granddaughters, i want to see us start paying attention to the fact that we have both men and

women in this country. and after what she did with the u.s. versus virginia, hundreds of women have had the opportunity to attend v.m.i. and go on to serve our country. the superintendent of v.m.i. when female cadets since called the transition to coeducation one of its finest hours and it was but it needed somebody lying this to bring it to the supreme court so they could have the finest hour. she's not only served for equal opportunities for women but men as well. in nevada versus hibbs she successfully represented an employee who was fired when he tried to take unpaid leave under the family leave act to care for his sick life, probably by the same people who said we have to have family values but not if you're trying to take care of

your sick wife. in a 6-3 opinion authored by chief justice william rehnquist, the supreme court ruled for her client, recognizing the law protects both men and women in their caregiver roles within the family. she's also worked at the department of justice's office of legal counsel, an office that advises on the most complex constitutional issues facing the executive branch. part of that she litigates civil rights cases at the end -- at the naacp legal defense and education fund. and at georgetown law school, law school this chairman of the senate judiciary committee really loves, having graduated from there, nina pillard teaches advanced courses on constitutional law and civil procedure. but she also codirects the law school's very prestigious supreme court institute. she has received letters of support from 30 former members

of the u.s. armed forces including eight retired generals, 25 former federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials. 40 supreme court practitioners, including lawrence tribe and cardiff phillips, among others. in fact, i ask unanimous consent to include a list of those letters of support for ms. pillard in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: now, rather than debate the merits of president obama's well qualified nominees for d.c. circuit because it would be impossible to debate them, they're so well qualified, senate republicans have made clear that partisanship is more important to them than the federal judiciary and the administration of justice than -- the needs of the american people. with the exception of senators lisa murkowski and susan collins, every single

republican senator voted to filibuster patricia millett's nomination, arguing that she should not fill existing vacancies because suddenly they're concerned about the need for these existing judgeships. oh, come on. that doesn't pass the giggle test. we know it's just a pretext for two reasons. first, they had no such concerns about the unique case of the d.c. circuit when a republican was in the white house and nominating judges to the ninth and the tenth and the 11th seat. in fact, they filibustered as i said, the seat that john roberts was unanimously confirmed to when it was a lower caseload and now when we have a superbly qualified woman, suddenly she has to be filibustered.

and then they said but we're doing this to save money. oh, come on. give me a break. these are the same people who shut down our federal government, caused -- cost billions of dollars, sent back our recovering economy, the needless shutdown of our government would have paid for all these federal courts for years. so don't -- don't, just to up and say we don't want women on this court, be honest about it. don't give me a lot of folderol about numbers and spoinses and everything else -- ex expenses and everything else because that's all it is, is folderol. the d.c. court should be, as it was when president bush left office, something they supported. they supported it for president bush but not for president obama. shame on you. that's wrong. there are currently three vacancies. president obama has fulfilled

his constitutional role by nominating three eminently qualified nominees to fill these seats. the same seats were filled during president bush's tenure when the caseload was lower. don't give me balderdash. let's deal with reality. let us judge each nominee based on his or her qualifications and not hide behind some predecrees -- pretext or argument most americans can see through. the republican caucus donts abuse the filibuster rule and strike the president's fine nominees to the d.c. circuit i believe this body will need to consider anew whether a rules change should be in order. that is not a change that i've wanted to see happen but if republican senators are going to hold nominations hostage without consideration of nominees' individual merit, drastic measures may be warranted.

i hope it doesn't come to that. i hope that the same senators who stepped forward to broker a compromise when republicans shut down the government would decide to put politics aside and vote on the merits of these exceptional nominees. i also hope the same senators who said the judicial nomination should not be filibustered barring extraordinary circumstances, something they said when there was a republican president, will keep their word with a democratic president. let's not have a double standard, say one president is going to be treated one way, another one is going to be treated another way. for the sake of justice in this country, for the sake of the independence of our federal judiciary, let's stop the filibustering. let's consider nina pillard's nomination based on her qualifications. let us treat her with the decency that she deserves.

madam president, i've argued cases before courts of appeals. i know how important it is to the administration of justice. i know how important it is for litigants to come in, not caring whether they're republicans or democrats, whether of the or defendant, whether -- plaintiff or defendant, whether state or respondent. i know how important it is to have the most qualified judges there. at least there are a few senators in this body who have argued cases before courts of appeals or before the u.s. supreme court. they know how important it is. stop, stop this game playing with our federal judiciary. we are the model for the rest of the world with our eu7bd judiciary. -- independent judiciary. stop politicizing it, stop politicizing it, stop using feeble and wrong and misleading excuses. let's start doing what's right for the country for a change. stop the bumber sticker

sloganning. stop the rhetoric that interferes with reality. let's start doing what's right. wouldn't that be a refreshing change in this country, and maybe the poll this afternoon that showed that congress had 9% approval rating and i'm trying to figure find out who those 9% are, wouldn't it be nice if theyual saw us doing what is best for america and not do this petty foggery it is that we're seeing here. let's do what's best for america. i yield the floor. i kwr50e8d back the remaining 30 seconds. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we is the undersigned senators in accordance with the provision of

rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of cornelia t.l. pillard of the district of columbia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of cornelia t.l. pillard of the district of columbia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to change votes? if not, on this vote the yeas are 56. the nays are 41. one senator responded "present." three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the pilllard nomination. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. under the previous order, -- under the previous order, the senate will resume legislative. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 236, h.r. 3204,

an act to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act with respect to human drug compounding and drug supply, chain security and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 3204, an act to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act with respect to human drug compounding and drug supply chain security, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any support wishing to change their vote? 3/5 of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: