[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 101 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4101-S4103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

[[Page S4102]]

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Cheryl Ann Krause, of New Jersey, to be United States Circuit 
     Judge for the Third Circuit.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, Patty 
           Murray, Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, Christopher A. 
           Coons, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin, Richard 
           Blumenthal, Benjamin L. Cardin, Angus S. King, Jr., 
           Thomas R. Carper, Debbie Stabenow, Elizabeth Warren, 
           Amy Klobuchar.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will vote to defeat the 
filibuster against the nomination of Cheryl Krause to serve on the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Her nomination has the strong 
bipartisan support of Pennsylvania Senators, Senator Bob Casey and 
Senator Patrick Toomey. The American Bar Association has unanimously 
given her their highest rating of ``well qualified.'' The Senate 
Judiciary Committee reported her unanimously by voice vote to the full 
Senate this past April, nearly 3 months ago.
  Ms. Krause should already have been confirmed and be at work for the 
American people. Instead, Senate Republicans continue to filibuster 
qualified, uncontroversial nominees who in previous years would have 
been confirmed without any delay. This is deeply unfair to all 
Americans seeking access to justice and to the judicial nominees who, 
like Cheryl Krause, have had distinguished careers in the law. Of the 
54 judicial nominees filibustered this year, 30 have been confirmed 
unanimously, without a single vote against them. These filibusters are 
undeserved, and should stop.
  Ms. Krause has worked in private practice for over a decade, 
including as a partner at Dechert LLP and a shareholder at Hangley, 
Aronchick Segal, & Pudlin. Her work has focused on complex criminal 
defense matters in securities fraud, antitrust, and the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act. She has also taught courses on appellate advocacy, cyber 
crime, and judicial decisionmaking at University of Pennsylvania Law 
School and Stanford Law School. Professors from both universities have 
written in strong support for her nomination, and I ask consent that 
these letters be included in the Record.
  From 1997 to 2002, Ms. Krause served as an assistant U.S. attorney in 
the Southern District of New York, where she distinguished herself as 
the lead prosecutor in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. 
Before becoming a prosecutor, she worked as an associate at the 
prestigious firm of Davis, Polk, & Wardwell and as a law clerk at 
Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe LLP. After graduating with honors 
from Stanford Law School, she served as a law clerk to Judge Alex 
Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1993 
to 1994 and to Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court from 
1994 to 1995.
  Her commitment both to the practice of law and to her community in 
Philadelphia has been admirable. In 2011, as part of partnership 
between Dechert LLP and the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, 
Ms. Krause brought a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania on behalf of over 1,000 autistic students within the 
school district of Pennsylvania challenging the school district's 
transfer of these students from school to school without adequate 
notice to parents. After 2 years of litigation, Ms. Krause was 
successful, and the district court required the school district to 
redevelop its policy. Ms. Krause has also helped to launch the 
Philadelphia Project, a program that provides legal services to 
families of children with disabilities in the school district of 
Philadelphia.
  She is well qualified to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Third Circuit. Her record of accomplishments is unquestionable, as is 
her dedication to the rule of law and the Constitution. I urge my 
colleagues to vote to defeat the filibuster against this excellent 
nominee.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Stanford Law School,

                                     Stanford, CA, March 10, 2014.
     Subject: Nomination of Cheryl A. Krause to the U.S. Court of 
         Appeals for the Third Circuit

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chair, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We write 
     as the three former deans and the current dean of Stanford 
     Law School to express our enthusiastic support for Cheryl A. 
     Krause, who has been nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the Ninth Circuit.
       Cheryl Krause graduated at the top of her class at Stanford 
     Law School in 1993. She was first in her class after her 
     first year of law school, and she and her partner were the 
     champions of the school-wide Kirkwood Moot Court Competition. 
     Ms. Krause herself was selected as the best oral advocate in 
     that final round. Following her graduation from law school, 
     she clerked for Judge Kozinski, now the Chief Judge of the 
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and for U.S. 
     Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Following her 
     clerkships, she has pursued a wonderfully varied career--as a 
     law teacher, law firm lawyer and partner, and an Assistant 
     United States attorney. She has been repeatedly recognized as 
     one of the finest lawyers in the United States. Along the 
     way, she has somehow found time to perform an enormous amount 
     of pro bono legal representation and has been repeatedly 
     recognized for those contributions as well.
       We write to tell you about Ms. Krause's reputation at 
     Stanford. That reputation can only be captured through a 
     series of adjectives that faculty use to describe their 
     impression of her: exceptional, stellar, admirable, 
     brilliant, incomparable. She is remembered as an academic 
     stand-out in and out of the classroom, a student leader, a 
     superb young lawyer, and a student who, faculty predicted, 
     would always combine a challenging legal practice with pro 
     bono and public service throughout her career.
       Faculty members describe her as ``brilliant,'' ``among the 
     small handful of top students I have ever taught'' ``the best 
     student oral advocate I have ever seen,'' ``truly possessing 
     a judicial temperament,'' and ``ideally qualified 
     temperamentally and intellectually suited'' to be a judge. 
     Ms. Krause's career after law school has fulfilled these 
     impressions and predictions and more. She has forged a 
     remarkable path as a lawyer, and it is one that has prepared 
     her well for a career on the bench.
       We hope that you will give her your most serious 
     consideration. We are optimistic that you will find her 
     record as impressive as that of her former teachers and 
     mentors at Stanford Law School.
           Sincerely,
     Paul Brest,
       Professor Emeritus and former Dean, Stanford Law School.
     Kathleen M. Sullivan,
       Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, (former Dean, 
     Stanford Law School).
     Larry Kramer,
       President, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, (former 
     Dean, Stanford Law School).
     M. Elizabeth Magill,
       Dean and Richard E. Lang Professor of Law, Stanford Law 
     School.
                                  ____

                                        University of Pennsylvania


                                                   Law School,

                                  Philadelphia, PA, March 7, 2014.
     Re Cheryl Ann Krause.

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: As faculty 
     members at the University of Pennsylvania Law School who have 
     had the privilege of working with Cheryl Ann Krause, we write 
     to express our enthusiastic support of her nomination to the 
     U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
       Since she was first appointed a Lecturer in Law in 2003, 
     Cheryl has taught Penn Law courses in cybercrime, evidence, 
     and appellate advocacy, and has guest-lectured in three 
     courses taught by other faculty. As a partner at the Dechert 
     firm, Cheryl has been the lead person teaching our Federal 
     Appellate Litigation Externship, in which Penn Law students 
     are assigned to litigation teams at Dechert working on pro 
     bono cases pending before the Third Circuit. In the early 
     2000s, Cheryl was a Barrister member of the University of 
     Pennsylvania Law School American Inn of Court (an 
     organization that seeks to promote ethics and professionalism 
     by bringing together law students, practitioners, and judges 
     for periodic discussions on legal issues), and she 
     participated in presenting three Inn of Court programs on 
     different topics.
       In her teaching and mentoring at the Law School, Cheryl has 
     demonstrated the talents that will make her a first-rate 
     judge. Not

[[Page S4103]]

     only does Cheryl bring to her tasks a powerful analytical 
     capacity, but also she has consistently displayed fair-
     mindedness and intellectual curiosity. Her knack for 
     providing students and young lawyers with rigorous yet 
     constructive feedback signals that she would show respect to 
     the lawyers who appear before the Court while subjecting 
     their contentions to penetrating scrutiny. Cheryl possesses 
     excellent judgment and high integrity, and her interpersonal 
     skills would make her a valued and collegial member of the 
     Court.
       In sum, we believe that Cheryl's legal acumen, temperament, 
     and experience make her a superb candidate for a seat on the 
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and we heartily 
     support her nomination.
           Sincerely,
         Stephanos Bibas, Professor of Law and Criminology, 
           Director, Supreme Court Clinic; Jill E. Fisch, Perry 
           Golkin Professor of Law, Co-Director, Institute for Law 
           and Economics; Paul M. George, Associate Dean for 
           Curriculum, Development and Biddle Law Library; Kermit 
           Roosevelt, Professor of Law; Theodore Ruger, Professor 
           of Law, Deputy Dean; Catherine T. Struve, Professor of 
           Law; Christopher S. Yoo, John H. Chestnut Professor of 
           Law, Communication, and Computer & Information Science, 
           Director, Center for Technology, Innovation & 
           Competition; Stephen B. Burbank, David Berger Professor 
           for the Administration of Justice; Michael A. Fitts, 
           Dean and Bernard G. Segal Professor of Law; Seth F. 
           Kreimer, Kenneth W. Gemmill Professor of Law; David 
           Rudovsky, Senior Fellow; Louis S. Rulli, Practice 
           Professor of Law and Clinical Director; Amy L. Wax, 
           Robert Mundheim Professor of Law.

  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 Cheryl Ann Krause, of New Jersey, to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) and 
the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Cochran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 215 Ex.]

                                YEAS--57

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Begich
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Udall (CO)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 57, the nays are 39. 
The motion is agreed to.
  The Republican whip.