[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 3, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6800-S6801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Nomination of Sarah E. Pitlyk

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
nomination of Sarah Pitlyk to the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of Missouri. Ms. Pitlyk's record is extremely 
troubling and raises a number of questions about her ability to be a 
fair and impartial judge.
  Ms. Pitlyk was deemed by the American Bar Association to be Not 
Qualified, one of only 3 percent of people reviewed by the Bar over the 
past 3 years. This is the first that I have had occasion to review in 
total. A district court judge, as you well know, must hit the ground 
running. Ms. Pitlyk's lack of practical knowledge and experience would 
significantly disadvantage the litigants appearing before her.
  I also want to acknowledge the highly unusual nature of a ``Not 
Qualified'' rating by the Bar; 97 percent of President Trump's nominees 
have been rated at least ``Qualified'' by the American Bar Association. 
This means that Ms. Pitlyk falls in the small minority--just 3 
percent--of candidates deemed not qualified by the American Bar 
Association. This shows how rare that rating is. The ABA has been 
reviewing the qualifications, as you already know, of judicial nominees 
since 1989. They know what they are doing, and those of us on the 
committee take their evaluations very seriously.

[[Page S6801]]

  Next, I want to discuss Ms. Pitlyk's record opposing women's 
reproductive rights and limiting access to healthcare. Ms. Pitlyk 
defended a State law banning abortion at 6 weeks, she opposed the 
Affordable Care Act's coverage for contraception, and she defended 
President Trump's Title X gag rule.
  The Trump administration's Title X gag rule prohibits referrals for 
abortion care and imposes onerous requirements on abortion clinics, 
among other things. The rule effectively pushed Planned Parenthood out 
of the Title X program, curtailing access to healthcare for millions of 
low-income women and families.
  Ms. Pitlyk has also filed multiple legal briefs that contain 
misinformation. Last year, she argued without any credible evidence 
that ``racism plays a profound role in the delivery of abortion 
services.''
  In another case, Ms. Pitlyk claimed--again without evidence--that in-
vitro fertilization leads to ``higher rates of birth defects, genetic 
disorders, and other anomalies.''
  I think it is disqualifying for any judicial nominee to make 
unfounded and unsupported claims, especially in a court of law.
  Ms. Pitlyk has also made statements in her personal capacity opposing 
access to healthcare. Just last year, she called the Supreme Court's 
decision upholding the Affordable Care Act ``unprincipled.'' Earlier 
this year, she said that the Supreme Court's reproductive healthcare 
cases have ``gross defects.''
  These statements and Ms. Pitlyk's legal work raise serious concerns 
about her ability to apply the Supreme Court's important precedents 
fairly and impartially. I am deeply troubled by her record, her lack of 
experience, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing her 
nomination.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from Politico 
and a letter from the American Bar Association dated September 24, 
2019, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the POLITICO, Nov. 19, 2019]

             Susan Collins to Oppose Trump Judicial Nominee

                          (By Marianne Levine)

       Sen. Susan Collins will oppose Sarah Pitlyk, President 
     Donald Trump's nominee to become a federal judge for the 
     Eastern District of Missouri.
       In a statement to POLITICO, the Maine Republican voiced 
     concern about Pitlyk's lack of trial experience, as well as 
     her stance on abortion given previous comments on gestational 
     surrogacy and past legal work.
       ``Her lack of trial experience would make it difficult for 
     her to transition to a district court judgeship,'' Collins 
     said.
       She also cited Pitlyk's comments in a brief she co-wrote in 
     2017 as a lawyer for the Thomas More Society, an anti-
     abortion law firm. The brief stated surrogacy leads to the 
     ``diminished respect for motherhood and the unique mother-
     child bond; exploitation of women; commodification of 
     gestation and of children themselves; and weakening of 
     appropriate social mores against eugenic abortion.''
       Collins said Pitlyk is entitled to her personal views on 
     abortion, but she questioned ``given her pattern of strident 
     advocacy, whether she could put aside her personal views on 
     these matters.''
       The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Pitlyk's nomination 
     along party lines in October, and a floor vote is likely in 
     the coming weeks.
       While Collins supported Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to 
     the Supreme Court, she has voted against several Trump 
     judicial nominees this year.
       In addition to Pitlyk, Collins opposed Steven Menashi's 
     nomination to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Chad 
     Readler's nomination to the 6th Circuit, Howard Nielson for 
     the District of Utah, Matthew Kacsmaryk for the Northern 
     District of Texas and Jeffrey Brown for the Southern District 
     of Texas.
       All of those judges were confirmed by the GOP-controlled 
     Senate.
                                  ____

         American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the 
           Federal Judiciary,
                                 Columbia, SC, September 24, 2019.
     Re Nomination of Sarah E. Pitlyk to the United States 
         District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

     Hon. Lindsey Graham,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein: The ABA 
     Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has received a 
     full report on Sarah E. Pitlyk and a supplemental report by a 
     second reviewer. The Committee has unanimously determined 
     that Ms. Pitlyk is ``Not Qualified'' for the position of 
     federal district judge. I write to offer a brief explanation 
     of this rating. Our rating is based on the Standing 
     Committee's criteria as set forth in the Backgrounder. The 
     Standing Committee believes that Ms. Pitlyk does not have the 
     requisite trial or litigation experience or its equivalent. I 
     would like to point out that based on its peer review, the 
     Standing Committee's rating does not rest on questions about 
     Ms. Pitlyk's temperament or integrity.
       The Backgrounder that provides guidance to our evaluation 
     process explains that a nominee to the federal bench 
     ordinarily should have a minimum of 12 years' experience in 
     the practice of law. This 12-year experience guideline is 
     neither a hard-and-fast rule nor an automatic disqualifier. 
     The Standing Committee's criteria provide that a nominee's 
     limited experience may be offset by the breadth and depth of 
     the nominee's experience over the course of his or her 
     career. Nominees with fewer than 12 years at the bar (as is 
     the case with Ms. Pitlyk, both due to the calendar and 
     periods of inactive status), but with substantial trial or 
     courtroom experience and/or compensating accomplishments in 
     the field of law, can and have been found qualified by our 
     Committee. However, Ms. Pitlyk's experience to date has a 
     very substantial gap, namely the absence of any trial or even 
     real litigation experience. Ms. Pitlyk has never tried a case 
     as lead or co-counsel, whether civil or criminal. She has 
     never examined a witness. Though Ms. Pitlyk has argued one 
     case in a court of appeals, she has not taken a deposition. 
     She has not argued any motion in a state or federal trial 
     court. She has never picked a jury. She has never 
     participated at any stage of a criminal matter.
       The Standing Committee believes that a nominee should be 
     professionally competent to manage and resolve the many 
     diverse matters facing a federal judge on a daily basis. The 
     accumulation of experience and legal knowledge that is 
     acquired by a practicing lawyer both inside and outside of 
     the courtroom prepares a lawyer over time to handle a broad 
     spectrum of legal issues in a wide variety of subject matters 
     and to manage a courtroom over which he or she will preside 
     as a judge. The judicial system, the public, the trial bar, 
     and the nominee are not well served by appointing to the 
     bench a lawyer who, despite great intelligence, high 
     character, and experience researching and writing briefs, 
     lacks adequate trial court or equivalent experience.
       While we respect the clerkship for which the nominee served 
     after graduation from law school, her legal practice to date 
     does not compensate for the short time the nominee has 
     actually practiced law and her lack of litigation, trial, and 
     courtroom experience. It is the Standing Committee's judgment 
     that Ms. Pitlyk does not meet the minimum professional 
     competence standard necessary to perform the responsibilities 
     required by the high office of a federal district court 
     judge.
       Thank you for the opportunity to explain our rating to you.
           Very truly yours,
                                               William C. Hubbard.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________