so we could confirm nina pillard right now.no one is saying a single word contrary to her being the quality candidate that we have said she is. she has been district of columbia appeals court. i repeat, some say the most important court in america. most say second only to the supreme court. but instead republicans are insisting that we vote on a nomination many hours from now after they have frittered away 30 hours of the senate's time. there are no objections to her qualifications. the outcome of her vote is a foregone conclusion. so when people around here complain that they aren't home with their families at christmas time, here is the reason. republicans' obstruction. it's hard to imagine a more pointless exercise than spending hour after hour after hour waiting for a vote whose outcome we already know. republicans insist on wasting time simply for the sake of wasting time. is it any wonder, i repeat, that the rule was changed? here is why. it's no wonder americans overwhelmingly support the changes made to the rules last m

i urge my colleagues to oppose the pillard nomination. mr. president, for several years, i have been trying to get the defense department inspector general to do their job, and i have had several investigations. a lot of them implemented because of information that comes to me from whistle-blowers, and i would speak to that point now to talk about two important audits that were bungled by the department of defense inspector general's office. there is something very important that i need to say right up front. a brand-new inspector general, mr. john reimer, is now in place. the events that i am about to describe happened a few years ago. none reflect on his leadership, which i hope will bring about it big change in the inspector general's office at the department of defense. when faced with a frontal assault on its audit authority by the target of one of its audits, senior i.g. officials got a bad case of weak knees and caved under pressure. they trashed high-quality audit work that was critical of a certified public accounting firm and its op

pillard was confirmed just after 1:00 this morning. the reason this is happening dates back to last month when democrats changed the rules when a simple majority was needed to end filibusters for the president's nominations. that weakened republicans so they're fighting pack and trying to use up all of the time they possibly can to consider each and every one of these nominees so reid is responding by saying if you're going to do that we'll keep working right on through until this gets done. live in washington, i'm danielle lee. mara back to you. >> we'll watch and wait to see how it unfolds. >>> also on capitol hill a vote on the bipartisan budget teal we heard so much about wednesday. the house is expected to take up the bill crafted by congressman paul ryan and senator patty murray. it funds the government through 2015 and includes some $85 billion in spending cuts. outside hard line conservatives say it stunts growth and democrats worry it does nothing for expiring unemployment benefits but both sides say that it will pass. >>> the

president, ie to address the nomination of cornelia pillard for the d.c. district court. this nomination's a good example of government yoa government reh that's led by obamacare. let me say to my colleagues who took to the floor to talk about newtown. i had the opportunity to spend an hour with parents of newtown children. what a compelling personal story that they shared. and no parent should have to watch a child die. no parent should have to live and a child die. and my heart still goes out to those that lost children at newtown. mr. president, today, with the affordable care act fresh on my mind, i ventured back to think about what a guy came on the floor in 2009 and said in front of my colleagues in the united states senate and to the american people and i'd like to spend the balance of this second half of hour sort of rehashing some of the things that i came to the floor and talked about. there were numerous opportunities before that legislation was passed, if i remember, very close to christmas in december of 2009. i said this -- "premiums will increase for younge

president, i rise to speak on the topic of the nomination of cornelia pillard to the d.c. circuit. but before i do that specific topic, i want to address a broader topic which is how we got in these circumstances in the first place. now, why we're here today, why we're having this discussion, and how this nuclear option, as it's been described, has come about. now, most immediately, it was november 21, 2013, just a few weeks ago, that the majority party here in the senate unilaterally decided to break the rules of the senate, violate the rules and rewrite the rules themselves. despite the fact that the rules clearly say, it takes a two-thirds majority of the senate to do that. they just decided to disregard that, that they would just change the rules themselves. so they did that on november 21, 2013. and what they specifically did, the specific rule change that they imposed unilaterally on the senate was to completely eliminate the opportunity for the minority party to have any ability to be a check or a balance on the process of selecting and confirming the nominees of a given pre

pillard went to yale and harvard, she also spent six years with american civil liberties union and the naacp legal defense fund. she's a longtime member of the very liberal activist american constitution society, that believes in activist judges and advocates for that. in recent years an activist conservative legal movement has -- and there she has been a professor at georgetown, she's written many controversial articles and has a record exclusively devoted, it seems to me, to very -- a very extreme, progressive judicial philosophy that says judges do not need to be objective and are empowered to redefine the meaning of the words in the constitution to advance an agenda. and seems to be in harmony with president obama's openly stated view about what he looks for in judges, and that is a judge who is empathetic. who has empathy. what does that mean? empathy. what it means is, he wants a judge not committed to law. that's what it means. what is empathy? feelings? ideology? politics? that's what it sounds like to me. the american heritage of law is based on objective criteria, the rule of

by invoking the nuclear option, leading up to tonight's vote on nina pillard to the d.c. circuit, they are attempting to quiet a disaster of their own making. please note that this is a court that will hear the a.c.a. disputes. it was easy enough for them to paint a rosy picture of life after obamacare and for three years, they did it and they did their best to do so. but words can only go so far and no speech will help the failed implementation of the monster they have created. health care premiums for the average american family have already gone up by $2,500 since obamacare has become law. let's say that one more time. the average premium that an american family will have to face and then pay is $2,500. as costs continue to rise for middle-class americans, the median household income has dropped by more than $3,600 under president obama. so if you take $2,500 and you add in the drop of income of $3,600, the difference for the average american household under president obama's watch is significant. that doesn't even take into consideration the skyrocketing costs and the

vote to proceed on confirmation of the pillard nomination. that upon disposition of the pillard nomination, the mandatory quorum required under rule 22 be waived. with respect to the cloture motion on the feldblum anonymous and the senate proceed to vote on the nomination to invoke cloture on the feldblum nomination. if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the senate proceed to vet on the confirms of the feldblum nomination. finally, that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i object, and i'd like to state the reason i object. the presiding officer: the objection's heard. the senator's time has expired. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask consent that the senator be allowed to speak for whatever time he feels appropriate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: the reason i object for the majority -- or for the minority is to moving these votes. i think that we should follow what regular order we

roberts: i rise to address the nomination of cornelia pillard for the d.c. circuit. it appears to me the environment in which we are discussing these nominations is a good example of the new rules of the senate. we're already getting a taste of the new world order around here. it didn't take long. it's only but a few weeks but we are already experiencing life in the new senate. those in the majority who wanted to change the rules are now certainly getting their wish. it should have been obvious that the rule change would impact the senate in many unforeseen ways. we in the minority have had to find other ways to make our voices heard. as we watch the majority use its new power to move whoever it wants through this body, we should realize that we have started down a course from which we will never return. indeed, we should expect more changes in the future. the majority changed the rules because it did not like how they were operating to frustrate ambition, an agenda. if other things come about that frustrate the majority, we may have new changes to get rid of those f

pillard of the district of columbia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 1797, which was submitted earlier today. that the bill be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i want to reserve the right to object. i'm certainly willing to let the good senator make comments. but at this point i want to reserve the right to object. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. hoeven: object. yes, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: first of all, i -- i think it's appropriate to make some comments and i appreciate certainly the senator from north dak

tonight, they are scheduled to take a vote on this non-controversial judicial nominee, her name is nina pillard? never heard of her, no problem, and also not the world's most high profile appointment. and then there are these nine other nominees who are all stacked up and ready for a vote. jay johnson is actually the famous one out of all of them. but he and all the rest of them, none of them are controversial. all of them are likely to eventually be confirmed once they do come up for a vote. but republicans have decided that they're going to take a really long time to do that. and they have decided to mount this kind of amazing and exhausting spectacle for the end purpose of achieving nothing they wouldn't get without it. they're getting nothing in terms of a policy issue. they're getting nothing in terms of stopping or advancing a singularly popular issue. harry reid and the democrats in the senate changed the rules three weeks ago to stop republicans from being able to filibuster nominees. they said they were not opposed to the filibuster on principle, but they said republicans were abusing

last night the most prominent example was nina pillard, law professor at georgetown, now a judge on what's called the second most important court in the land, the d.c. circuit court of appeals here. that couldn't have happened without this change. whether democrats will regret it in the end because that means they will have more conservative republican judges to deal with, if there's a republican president, that may also be. >> well, we shall see. it's going to be an interesting day today, an interesting couple of days toward the end of this term. manu, ruth, always great talking to both of you. thank you. >> thanks, chris. >> thanks, chris. >>> checking the news feed this morning, the sign language interpreter controversy from nelson mandela's memorial service just keeps getting more bizarre. he's blaming schizophrenia for his unintelligible gestures and says he saw angels coming down into the said yum that day. what was scary was his proximity to world leaders, standing right next to barack obama, for example. >> sometimes i will get violent in that place. sometimes i will see, like, thi

take professor pillard, for instance. she has written this about motherhood -- quote -- "productive rights, including rights to contraception and abortion play a central role in freeing women from historically routine conscription into maternity" -- end of quote. now, is that mainstream? she has also argued this about motherhood -- quote -- "antiabortion laws and other restraints on reproductive freedom not only enforce women's incould incubation of unwanted pregnancies but also prescribes a vision of a woman's role as mother and caretaker of children in a way that is at odds with equal protection" -- end of quote. is that mainstream? and what about her views on religious freedom? she argued that the supreme court of an evangelical liewt ral church which challenged the exception to employment discrimination represented a -- quote -- "substantial threat to american rule of law" -- end of quote. now, get this after she says that the supreme court rejected her view 9-0, and the court held that -- quote -- "it is impermissibl

new obama appointees who have been confirmed to that hugely important court because cor cornelia pillardhey made the change, republicans vowed receiptry bugs, hinted at the senate that might reach new levels of dysfunction, blustered that democrats would face the wrath of an angry public . but the story of the post nuclear senate, so far, is that almost none of that happened. democrats changed the rules and they got -- they got actual nominees confirmed. they got people in place in very important agencies and on courts. it raises the question of what's next. what's next for the filibuster, for what's left of the filibuster. there has been a clear reward for democrats so far in getting rid of it on nominations, but what about all legislation? is that the next domino that will fall? are we watching the senate transform itself into the house? where simple majority is the rule on basically everything. and are there unintended, unforeseen consequences when that day comes? if that day comes? here to discuss it, we have back at the table, josh barro, aisha moody mills, lynn sweet, washington bu

circuit, nina pillard, exemplary. were going to do that and they do something on taxes. robinson, you know, three quality judges that they just filibustered. that stuff has got to stop. it's got to stop some way. i hope it stops at the ballot box. i hope that the american people say, we've had enough of this. year and obstructionists. you care more about a political issue than you do about this country. we are going to vote against y you. and barring that, then they did a rules change on appointments. at this point, the president administration, he is five years in. he's got more vacancies than any other president before him. he can't even get normal people appointed to make the government run. now, that is part of the strategy. they want to make the government look bad. you don't want the people and that can make it run so it looks bad so they can say, see how bad it looks like don't put more people than. it's part of the strategy. we've got to just breakthrough that spend i would love to bring into the conversation. take questions, just signal. i want to ask you if you

mcconnell tweeted this -- democrats broke the senate rules to rubberstamp liberal ideologues like nina pillardher nomination was approved this morning around 1:30 in the morning. cnn put out this tweet -- the for her tos 51 to 33 serve in washington. a little color for you about the senate talkathon. cory booker, the senator from new jersey send this tweet out, , late-nighte floor voting for those who can't sleep, fine your antidote to insomnia on c-span. for those of you that know and are watching. they have taken up the of rachel feld bloom who was renominated by the president to be the commissioner of the eeoc. they proved to and that the debate. they got the majority they needed to end the debate. they will vote on her around 9:00 a.m. eastern time for her second term as commissioner. this is her twitter page. lesbian, eeoc commissioner, and with a disability. tweets on civil rights, discrimination buster. deal talking about budget is expected to come to the house floor for a vote. what he think about senator boehner invoicing -- endorsing the deal and those that disagree ? boehner is lyin

the question is on the motion to invoke cloture on the pillard nomination upon reconsideration. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in in accordance with rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the nomination of cornelia t.l. pillard of the district of columbia to be united states district judge for the district of columbia be circuit signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum under rule 22 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 upon reconsideration. the yeas and nays are mandatorye mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: