[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18763-18775]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF EDGARDO RAMOS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                     SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF JAMES RODNEY GILSTRAP TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                   FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF DANA L. CHRISTENSEN TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nominations of Edgardo Ramos, of Connecticut, 
to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New 
York; Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of New York, to be United States District 
Judge for the Southern District of New York; James Rodney Gilstrap, of 
Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of 
Texas; and Dana L. Christensen, of Montana, to be United States 
District Judge for the District of Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Today the Senate will finally consider nominations to fill 
four vacancies on Federal district courts, all of which were reported 
by the Judiciary Committee unanimously in September and early October. 
All four nominees Edgardo Ramos and Andrew Carter, nominated to the 
Southern District of New York, James Rodney Gilstrap, nominated to fill 
a judicial emergency vacancy in the Eastern District of Texas, and Dana 
Christensen, nominated to the District of Montana are superbly 
qualified nominees with the strong support of their home state 
Senators. It should not have taken three months or more for the Senate 
to vote on their nominations.
  I thank the Majority Leader for securing a vote on these nominations, 
but I am disappointed that the Senate Republican leadership would not 
agree to a vote on the nomination of Jesse Furman to fill a third 
vacancy on the Southern District of New York. Like Edgardo Ramos, 
Andrew Carter and James Gilstrap, his nomination was reported by the 
Judiciary Committee on September 15 without opposition from a single 
member of the Committee, Democratic or Republican. Mr. Furman, an 
experienced Federal prosecutor who served as Counselor to Attorney 
General Michael Mukasey for two years during the Bush Administration, 
is a nominee with an impressive background and bipartisan support. 
There is no reason or explanation for why the Senate could not also 
consider his nomination today.
  There is also no reason or explanation why Republican leadership will 
not consent to consider the other 20 judicial nominations waiting for 
final Senate action, all but four of which were reported by the 
Committee without any opposition, all but two of them with significant 
bipartisan support. Senator Grassley and I have worked together to 
ensure that each of the 25 nominations now on the Senate Calendar was 
fully considered by the Judiciary Committee after a thorough, fair 
process, including completing our extensive questionnaire and 
questioning at a hearing. Before each of these nominees was selected by 
the President, the White House worked with the nominees' home state 
Senators who support them, the FBI completed an extensive background 
review, and each nominee was peer reviewed by the American Bar 
Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. When the 
nominations have been favorably reported by the Judiciary Committee 
after this extensive and thorough process, there is no reason for 
months and months of further delay before they can start serving the 
American people.
  It is now December 5, with only weeks left in the Senate's 2011 
session. I am concerned that we are not able to move more quickly at a 
time when we continue to hear from chief judges around the country 
about the overburdened courts in their districts and circuits. We need 
to consider at least eight judges every week in order to begin to catch 
up and erase the backlog that has developed from the delays in the 
consideration of consensus nominees caused by the Senate Republican 
leadership.
  We should not repeat the mistakes of last year, when the Senate 
Republican leadership refused to consent to consider 19 judicial 
nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee, an exercise in 
unnecessary delay I believe to be without precedent with respect to 
such consensus nominees. It took us until June of this year, halfway 
into 2011, to consider and confirm 17 of these nominations that could 
and should have been considered before the end of 2010. Before we 
adjourn this year, there is certainly no reason the Senate cannot at 
least consider the 17 judicial nominations reported unanimously by the 
Committee this session, who are by any measure consensus nominees.
  I hope that we do not see a repeat of the damaging decision by Senate 
Republican leadership at the end of last year to refuse to agree to 
votes on those nominations. That decision stood in stark contrast to 
the practice followed by the Democratic majority in the Senate during 
President Bush's first two years. Last year, Senate Republicans refused 
to use the same standards for considering President Obama's judicial 
nominees as we did when the Senate gave up or down votes to all 100 of 
President Bush's judicial nominations reported by the Committee in his 
first two years. All 100 were confirmed before the end of the 107th 
Congress, including two controversial circuit court nominations 
reported and then confirmed during the lame duck session in 2002. The 
Senate last year should not have been forced to adjourn with 19 
judicial nominations still on the Senate calendar.
  With vacancies continuing at harmfully high levels, we cannot afford 
to repeat these unnecessary and damaging delays. There is no reason we 
cannot make significant progress this month and consider all of the 
consensus nominations now pending on the Senate calendar. That is what 
we did at the end of President Reagan's third year in office and 
President George H.W. Bush's third year in office, when no judicial 
nominations were left pending on the Senate Calendar. That is what we 
did at the end of the 1995 session, President Clinton's third year in 
office, when only a single nomination was left pending on the Senate 
calendar. That is also what we did at the end of President George W. 
Bush's third year, when seven of the nine judicial nominations left on 
the calendar by the Senate's Republican majority were among President 
Bush's most extreme ideological picks and had previously been debated 
extensively by the Senate. The standard has been that noncontroversial 
judicial nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee get Senate action 
before the end of the year. That is the standard we should follow this 
year.
  We remain well behind the pace set by the Senate during President 
Bush's first term. By the end of his first term, the Senate had 
confirmed 205 district and circuit nominees, and had already confirmed 
167 by this point in his third year. So far, the Senate has confirmed 
only 119 of President Obama's district and circuit nominees. Senate 
action before adjournment on all 25 judicial nominations that are 
before the Senate today would go a long way to help resolve the 
longstanding judicial vacancies that are delaying justice for so many 
Americans in our Federal courts across the country.

[[Page 18764]]

  The 100 circuit and district court nominations we confirmed in 
President Bush's first two years leading to a vacancy total of 60 at 
the beginning of his third year is almost a complete reverse of the 60 
the Senate was allowed to confirm in President Obama's first two years, 
leading to nearly 100 vacancies at the start of 2011. Yet, even 
following those years of real progress, in 2003 we proceeded to confirm 
more judicial nominations than there were vacancies at the start of 
that year, and reduced vacancies even further, down to 5 percent, half 
of where they stand today.
  Chief Justice Roberts, the Attorney General and the White House 
counsel have all spoken about the serious problems created by 
persistent judicial vacancies. More than half of all Americans over 167 
million live in districts or circuits that have a judicial vacancy that 
could be filled today if Senate Republicans just agreed to vote on the 
nominations now pending on the Senate calendar. As many as 23 states 
are served by Federal courts with vacancies that would be filled by 
these nominations. Millions of Americans across the country are harmed 
by delays in overburdened courts. The Republican leadership should 
consent to vote on the qualified, consensus candidates nominated to 
fill these extended judicial vacancies before we adjourn for the year 
and not unnecessarily delay their consideration until next spring.
  The four nominees we consider today will all be confirmed, I expect, 
with significant bipartisan support. Edgardo Ramos is nominated to fill 
a vacancy on the District Court for the Southern District of New York. 
Since 2002, Mr. Ramos has been in private practice after serving for 
ten years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New 
York, where he was promoted to Deputy Chief of the Narcotics Section. 
The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated 
him ``well qualified'' to serve, its highest possible rating. The 
nomination of Mr. Ramos has the strong support of both his home state 
Senators, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand, and was reported by 
the Judiciary Committee by voice vote with no dissent on September 15.
  The nomination of Judge Andrew Carter to fill a vacancy on the 
District Court for the Southern District of New York also has the 
strong support of the New York Senators and was also reported 
unanimously by voice vote on September 15. Since 2009, Judge Carter has 
been a Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of New York. Prior to 
joining the bench, Judge Carter served for 13 years as a public 
defender in New York state and Federal and spent two years at the Ford 
Foundation as a Program Assistant in its Rights and Social Justice 
Program.
  James Rodney Gilstrap is nominated to fill a vacancy on the District 
Court for the Eastern District of Texas determined by the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to be a judicial emergency 
vacancy. His nomination has the support of both his Republican home 
state Senators, Senator Cornyn and Senator Hutchison. For 27 years Mr. 
Gilstrap has been a partner at the law firm of Smith & Gilstrap in 
Marshall, Texas. He has also served as a part-time County Judge for 
Harrison County, Texas. His nomination was reported unanimously by the 
Judiciary Committee by voice vote on September 15.
  Dana Christensen is nominated to fill a vacancy on the District Court 
for the District of Montana. Mr. Christensen has spent his 34-year 
legal career in private practice and is currently the president of the 
law firm of Christensen, Moore, Cockrell, Cummings & Axelberg, P.C. in 
Kalispell, Montana. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary 
unanimously rated Mr. Christensen ``well qualified'' to serve, its 
highest possible rating. His nomination has the support of both his 
home state Senators, Senator Baucus and Senator Tester, and was 
reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote with no dissent on 
October 6.
  I hope the Senate can build on today's progress to fulfill its 
constitutional duty and ensure the ability of our Federal courts to 
provide justice to Americans around the country.


                     Nomination of Caitlin Halligan

  Tomorrow the Senate should be holding an up-or-down vote on the long-
delayed nomination of Caitlin Halligan to fill one of three vacancies 
on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Instead, for the seventh 
time since President Obama took office 34 months ago, we are required 
to overcome a Republican filibuster for the Senate to consider one of 
President Obama's superbly qualified judicial nominees.
  Ms. Halligan, President Obama's first nominee to the important D.C. 
Circuit, is the former Solicitor General for the State of New York. 
With an impressive record in private practice and public service, she 
is widely respected for the quality of her work as an advocate. Indeed, 
Ms. Halligan's nomination was greeted with bipartisan support and has 
since garnered endorsements from law enforcement officials and 
organizations, women's organizations, law school deans and professors, 
judges and preeminent lawyers from across the political spectrum. The 
Judiciary Committee favorably reported Ms. Halligan's nomination nearly 
nine months ago.
  By any traditional standard, she is the kind of superbly qualified 
nominee who should easily have been confirmed by the Senate months ago 
with the support of both Republicans and Democrats. I am disappointed 
that yet again instead of seeing bipartisan cooperation we are required 
to seek cloture.
  From the beginning of the Obama administration, we have seen some 
Senate Republicans shift significantly away from the standards they 
used to apply to the judicial nominations of a Republican President. 
During the administration of the last President, a Republican, 
Republican Senators insisted that filibusters of judicial nominees were 
unconstitutional. They threatened the ``nuclear option'' in 2005 to 
guarantee up-or-down votes for each of President Bush's judicial 
nominations. Senator McConnell, then the Republican whip, said: ``Any 
President's judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But 
after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It's 
time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and 
consent. The stakes are high. . . . The Constitution of the United 
States is at stake.''
  Many Republican Senators declared that they would never support the 
filibuster of a judicial nomination--never. Yet, only a few years 
later, Senate Republicans reversed course and filibustered President 
Obama's very first judicial nomination, that of Judge David Hamilton of 
Indiana.
  David Hamilton was a widely respected 15-year veteran of the Federal 
bench. President Obama nominated Judge Hamilton in March 2009, after 
consultation with the most senior and longest-serving Republican in the 
Senate, Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana, who strongly supported the 
nomination. Rather than welcome the nomination as an attempt by 
President Obama to step away from the ideological battles of the past, 
some Senate Republicans ignored Senator Lugar's support, caricatured 
Judge Hamilton's record and filibustered his nomination. After the 
Senate rejected that filibuster, Judge Hamilton was confirmed.
  The partisan delays and opposition to President Obama's judicial 
nominations have continued since. Senate Republicans have required 
cloture motions to be filed on judicial nominations that ultimately won 
unanimous support from the Senate. Earlier this year they filibustered 
the nomination of Professor Goodwin Liu of California, who was 
supported by both his home state Senators to fill a judicial emergency 
vacancy on the Ninth Circuit. That successful filibuster of a brilliant 
lawyer and a good man prevented the Senate from having an up-or-down 
vote on his nomination and prevented an outstanding nominee from 
serving the American people on the Federal bench. They attempted to 
justify that filibuster on ideological grounds. There is no such 
justification here, in connection with the nomination of Caitlin 
Halligan who is a mainstream lawyer and public servant from New York. 
Senate Republican leadership took the virtually unprecedented step this 
year of requiring cloture to be filed on a district court nomination. 
That effort to

[[Page 18765]]

ratchet up the judge wars was rejected when 11 Republican Senators 
joined to ensure an up-or-down vote on the nomination of Jack McConnell 
to the District of Rhode Island.
  With their latest filibuster, the Senate Republican leadership seeks 
to set yet another new standard, one that threatens to make 
confirmation of any nominee to the D.C. Circuit virtually impossible 
for the future. Caitlin Halligan is well-qualified nominee with a 
mainstream record as a brilliant advocate on behalf of the State of New 
York and in private practice. I have reviewed her record carefully in 
the course the Judiciary Committee's thorough process, including her 
response to our extensive questionnaire and her answers to questions at 
her hearing and in writing following the hearing. In my view, there is 
no legitimate reason or justification for filibustering her nomination.
  Caitlin Halligan is the kind of nominee who has demonstrated not only 
legal talent but also a dedication to the rule of law throughout her 
career. We should encourage nominees with the qualities of Ms. Halligan 
to engage in public service and we should welcome them on the Federal 
bench, not denigrate them. Concocted controversies and a blatant 
misreading of Ms. Halligan's record as an advocate are no reason to 
obstruct this outstanding nomination.
  We must reject these misguided arguments. This filibuster against 
this qualified woman will set a standard that could not be met by 
judicial nominees of Presidents of either party. I trust that, as with 
the nomination of Jack McConnell, sensible Republican Senators will, 
again, join in preventing such an outcome. It is time to edge away from 
this dangerous precipice.
  When Democratic Senators cooperated to confirm John Roberts to the 
D.C. Circuit in 2003, it broke the stalemate created by the Republicans 
refusal for years to even consider President Clinton's nominees to that 
Court. Like John Roberts, Caitlin Halligan is a highly regarded 
appellate advocate with the kind of impeccable credentials in both 
public service and private practice that make her unquestionably 
qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit. She should be confirmed, not 
unjustifiably filibustered.
  Ms. Halligan served for nearly six years as Solicitor General of New 
York and has been a leading appellate lawyer in private practice. She 
is currently General Counsel at the New York County District Attorney's 
Office, an office that investigates and prosecutes 100,000 criminal 
cases annually in Manhattan. Ms. Halligan has served as counsel of 
record in nearly 50 matters before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing five 
cases before that court and many cases before Federal and state 
appellate courts. Just as John Roberts had served in government and 
clerked for the Supreme Court, she clerked for Supreme Court Justice 
Stephen Breyer. She also clerked for Judge Patricia Wald on the D.C. 
Circuit, the court to which she has been nominated. The American Bar 
Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which 
Republican Senators often cite, unanimously rated Ms. Halligan ``Well-
Qualified'' to serve on the D.C. Circuit. That is the highest rating 
that can be received from its non-partisan peer review.
  The letters of support we have received for Ms. Halligan's nomination 
from a broad range of people and organizations is a testament both to 
her exceptional qualifications to serve and to the fact that this 
should be a consensus nomination, not a source of controversy and 
contention.
  Twenty-one prominent appellate advocates from across the political 
spectrum who have worked with Caitlin Halligan, including Miguel 
Estrada and Carter Phillips, endorsed her nomination, writing:

       ``We believe that Caitlin is an outstanding selection for 
     the D.C. Circuit. She is a first-rate lawyer and advocate. 
     She is well respected and highly regarded as a leader of the 
     profession. Caitlin has an ideal judicial temperament. She 
     brings reason, insight and judgment to all matters. Even 
     those of us who have been on the opposite sides of Caitlin in 
     litigation have been greatly impressed with her ability and 
     character. We have no doubt she would serve with distinction 
     and fairness.''

  When Ms. Halligan was nominated, Carter Philips, a preeminent Supreme 
Court advocate who served as Assistant to the Solicitor General during 
the Reagan administration, described her as ``one of those extremely 
smart, thoughtful, measured and effective advocates'' and concluded 
that she ``will be a first-rate judge.'' Judge Albert Rosenblatt, who 
was appointed to serve on New York's highest court by former Republican 
Governor George Pataki, wrote in praise of Ms. Halligan's work as New 
York's Solicitor General, concluding that ``her sense of fairness and 
balance is among the best--if not the best--that I have ever seen in my 
34 years as a judge and a prosecutor.'' This is not a nomination that 
should be filibustered. To do so will set a destructive standard that 
no one will be able to meet. If someone of Caitlin Halligan's 
outstanding credentials, character and experience cannot be confirmed, 
no one can be.
  The nomination of Ms. Halligan has likewise received significant 
support from law enforcement officials and organizations. The National 
District Attorneys Association has called Caitlin Halligan's background 
``impressive,'' stating that she ``would be an outstanding addition'' 
to the D.C. Circuit. District Attorneys from the State of New York, 
including Republicans Derek Champagne, Daniel Donovan, Jr., William 
Fitzpatrick, James Reams and Scott Burns, support her nomination, as do 
the New York Association of Chiefs of Police and the New York State 
Sheriff's Association. New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly 
has said that Ms. Halligan has the ``three qualities important for a 
nominee: intelligence, a judicial temperament, and personal 
integrity.'' Legendary New York County District Attorney Robert 
Morgenthau, endorsing her nomination in the ``strongest of terms,'' 
described Ms. Halligan as ``qualified in terms of intellect, ability 
and temperament.'' This is not someone to be filibustered and blocked 
from serving as a Federal judge.
  More than 20 former United States Supreme Court clerks, including 
clerks who worked for conservative Justices such as former Chief 
Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy, wrote that they 
``retain a distinct appreciation of Caitlin's sharp intelligence and 
her ability to cooperate with others in resolving difficult legal 
problems.'' They concluded their letter of support by praising her 
``reasonableness and collegiality,'' and calling her a ``fair-minded 
colleague who was a pleasure to work with in a sophisticated and 
demanding legal setting.'' This is not a closed minded ideologue. 
Caitlin Halligan is an outstanding lawyer who will be an outstanding 
judge.
  Ms. Halligan's nomination has received support from numerous women's 
law enforcement, business, and legal organizations, including the New 
York Women in Law Enforcement, the National Center for Women and 
Policing, the National Conference of Women's Bar Associations, and the 
Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia. The U.S. Women's 
Chamber of Commerce asked the Senate to confirm Ms. Halligan, 
describing her as ``exceptionally well-qualified'' with ``outstanding 
legal credentials and legal experience that is both broad and deep.'' 
The National Conference of Women's Bar Associations, which supports Ms. 
Halligan because her ``broad experience, public service and intellect 
make her well suited to the federal appellate bench,'' also notes that 
``her appointment would add much needed diversity to the federal court, 
where only three women are among the active judges on the D.C. 
Circuit.'' More than 100 women who are deans and professors at top law 
schools throughout the country strongly support the nomination because 
``Ms. Halligan has won accolades for her judgment, legal acumen, and 
expertise in appellate litigation,'' and because her ``legal 
credentials, experience and accomplishments make her exceptionally 
well-qualified to serve'' on the D.C. Circuit. They also echo the need 
for bringing gender diversity to this critical court, noting that, 
``women have been historically underrepresented on this court, as only 
five

[[Page 18766]]

of the fifty-seven judges to serve there have been women.'' This 
outstanding nominee is a leader and role model whose career should not 
be short-circuited by petty partisanship.
  I ask unanimous consent that some of these letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                               Exhibit 1

                                                    March 4, 2011.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley: We write in 
     enthusiastic support of the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to 
     be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit. We are lawyers who have worked 
     with Caitlin in various capacities. We believe that Caitlin 
     is an outstanding selection for the D.C. Circuit. She is a 
     first-rate lawyer and advocate. She is well respected and 
     highly regarded as a leader of the profession. Caitlin also 
     has an ideal judicial temperament. She brings reason, insight 
     and judgment to all matters. Even those of us who have been 
     on opposite sides of Caitlin in litigation have been greatly 
     impressed with her ability and character. We have no doubt 
     that she would serve with distinction and fairness.
           Sincerely yours,
         Clifford M. Sloan, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 
           LLP; Sri Srinivasan, O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Miguel A. 
           Estrada, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Carter G. 
           Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP; Seth P. Waxman, 
           WilmerHale; Walter Dellinger, O'Melveny & Myers LLP; 
           David C. Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans 
           & Figel, P.L.L.C.; Andrew J. Levander, Dechert LLP; 
           Richard J. Davis, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP; Michele 
           Hirshman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; 
           Dietrich L. Snell, Proskauer Rose LLP; Paul M. Smith. 
           Jenner & Block LLP; Patricia Ann Millett, Akin Gump 
           Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; Kathleen M. Sullivan, Quinn 
           Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Stanford Law School; 
           Thomas W. Brunner, Wiley Rein LLP; Meir Feder, Jones 
           Day; Evan M. Tager, Mayer Brown LLP; Philip K. Howard, 
           Covington & Burling LLP; Ira M. Millstein, Weil, 
           Gotshal & Manges LLP; Roy L. Reardon, Simpson Thacher & 
           Bartlett LLP; Michael H. Gottesman, Georgetown 
           University Law Center.
                                  ____

                                                McCabe & Mack LLP,


                                             Attorneys at Law,

                               Poughkeepsie, NY, December 1, 2011.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley: I am a retired 
     member of New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, a 
     position to which I was appointed by Governor George Pataki. 
     Caitlin Halligan appeared frequently before me on behalf of 
     the State of New York in her capacity as Solicitor General. 
     The quality of her work was exemplary and serves as a model 
     of how to deal with important issues. Her sense of fairness 
     and balance is among the best--if not the best--that I have 
     ever seen in my 34 years as a judge and as a prosecutor 
     before that. In her appearances before our court, there is no 
     one who commanded more respect and who had greater 
     credibility. If I had to choose a candidate to serve on a 
     federal appeals court I can think of no one better. I 
     emphasize: No one. I urge the Senate to act expeditiously to 
     confirm her to this position.
       Most respectfully I hope the Senate sees fit to act 
     expeditiously to confirm her for service on the U.S. Court of 
     Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
       Please feel free to contact me, if you wish, by phone or 
     email. I recall fondly, Senator Leahy, that we met many years 
     ago at a convention when I was an assistant DA in New York 
     and you were a prosecutor in Vermont.
           Very truly yours,
     Albert M. Rosenblatt.
                                  ____

                                                 National District


                                        Attorneys Association,

                                     Alexandria, VA, June 2, 2011.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: On behalf 
     of the National District Attorneys Association, the oldest 
     and largest organization representing over 39,000 of 
     America's state and local prosecutors, we would like to offer 
     our full support for the nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan 
     for the position of United States Circuit Judge for the 
     District of Columbia.
       Ms. Halligan has an impressive background which developed 
     her into an extremely impressive and qualified candidate to 
     serve as an U.S. Circuit Judge. Ms. Halligan currently serves 
     as General Counsel of the New York County District Attorney's 
     Office, where she helps to supervise more than 500 lawyers 
     handling a wide range of criminal investigations and 
     prosecutions. Prior to joining the District Attorney's Office 
     in 2010, Ms. Halligan was a partner and head of the appellate 
     practice at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, a leading New York 
     law firm. From October 2001 until January 2007, Ms. Halligan 
     served as the Solicitor General of New York State, where she 
     represented the State in the federal and state appellate 
     courts and headed an office of 45 appellate attorneys.
       The National District Attorneys Association believes that 
     Ms. Halligan would be an outstanding addition to the United 
     States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. We are 
     happy to offer our full support for Ms. Halligan's nomination 
     and encourage her swift confirmation by the Senate.
           Sincerely,
     James Reams,
       President.
     Scott Burns,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                      The Police Commissioner,

                                       New York, NY, May 26, 2011.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley: I am writing in 
     support of the nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 
     I am familiar with the work of Ms. Halligan in her capacity 
     as Counsel to the New York County District Attorney.
       Ms. Halligan possesses the three qualities most important 
     for a nominee: intelligence, a judicial temperament, and 
     personal integrity. Ms. Halligan is without question an 
     attorney with a keen legal intellect. Indeed, the rapid 
     successes of her career since graduating from law school in 
     1995 provide ample evidence of her intelligence and 
     abilities. With regard to her temperament, the interactions 
     between Ms. Halligan and my staff consistently demonstrate an 
     even-handed disposition in navigating potential conflicts 
     between police and prosecutors in New York City. Lastly, Ms. 
     Halligan's personal integrity is simply without question.
       In sum, Ms. Halligan possesses all the qualities required 
     for a successful federal appellate judge, and I highly 
     recommend her for such a position.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Raymond W. Kelly,
     Police Commissioner.
                                  ____



                               Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz,

                                     New York, NY, March 23, 2011.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley: I write this 
     letter in support of the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit. I have known Caitlin personally a short 
     time, but her reputation for even-handedness and excellence 
     as an attorney are well-known in New York's legal community.
       I will not belabor her exemplary record as an attorney: 
     Georgetown Law Review, clerk to Justice Patricia Wald of the 
     D.C.: Circuit, to Justice Stephen Breyer of the United States 
     Supreme Court, adjunct faculty member of Columbia University 
     Law School and Georgetown University Law Center, Solicitor 
     General of the State of New York, Partner and Head of 
     Appellate Practice Group at the firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges 
     LLP, and most recently, General Counsel to the District 
     Attorney of New York County. Certainly this is a resume and 
     career that is grounded solidly in the law, and I submit that 
     her legal qualifications are beyond question.
       More recently, I have worked with Caitlin in her capacity 
     as General Counsel to my former office. She is well-known and 
     well-regarded as a lawyer's lawyer. She follows the law and 
     holds herself to the highest ethical standards. She is as 
     intellectually honest as she is tough--she does not take 
     short cuts and she does not pull her punches; both necessary 
     attributes for her to be effective in her current position.
       At the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, she handles 
     some of the toughest issues that a lawyer has to address; 
     issues that go to the core of law enforcement authority;

[[Page 18767]]

     issues that involve claims of wrongful conviction and the use 
     of prosecutorial discretion. I can speak from experience to 
     tell you that these are weighty issues that can keep any 
     lawyer awake at night. A District Attorney needs counsel who 
     is tough but fair, and counsel who can advise the district 
     attorney on these weighty issues not from a gut feeling or 
     personal agenda, but based solely on the law and the facts. 
     She meets these high standards. I cannot stress enough the 
     difficulties of the issues that Ms. Halligan has to address 
     every day. And, based on both my personal observation and 
     accounts I hear from my former colleagues at the D.A.'s 
     Office--Caitlin handles these pressures with grace and poise, 
     and is a tough proponent of the core mission of the Manhattan 
     D.A.'s Office--to keep the citizenry safe, to enforce the law 
     without fear or favor, and to hold accountable those who 
     break the law. She brings solid law enforcement perspective 
     to her work, and upholds the highest standards of my former 
     office.
       In sum, Caitlin Halligan is qualified in terms of 
     intellect, ability and temperament, and I endorse her in the 
     strongest of terms.
           Sincerely,
     Robert M. Morgenthau.
                                  ____

                                                February 28, 2011.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We write 
     as former clerkship colleagues of Caitlin Halligan in support 
     of her nomination for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
     the District of Columbia Circuit. All of us worked alongside 
     Caitlin as law clerks at the U.S. Supreme Court during the 
     1997-98 Term. Our shared experience left us with an indelible 
     impression of Caitlin's brilliant legal mind, her 
     collegiality and fair-mindedness, and her abiding respect for 
     the rule of law. Even now, almost a decade and a half later, 
     as we have moved on to disparate careers in the government, 
     private sector, and the legal academy, we retain a distinct 
     appreciation of Caitlin's sharp intelligence and her ability 
     to cooperate with others in resolving difficult legal 
     problems.
       As you well know, the work of the Supreme Court is intense 
     and eclectic, encompassing a vast array of intricate legal 
     matters, a host of overlapping deadlines, and a variety of 
     formal and informal procedures for internal deliberation and 
     discussion among the Justices and their clerks. Our work on 
     the difficult cases the Court decided during the 1997-98 Term 
     generated among our group an unending discussion of legal 
     issues, both in connection with our specific law clerk tasks 
     and in more freewheeling conversations in the clerks' dining 
     room and related settings. In this milieu Caitlin stood out 
     for her ability to meaningfully discuss and explicate tough 
     legal questions with an open mind and a willingness to 
     consider multiple perspectives on the law. Throughout the 
     year, Caitlin displayed a keen ability to listen to and 
     accommodate the views of others, all the while simultaneously 
     expressing and justifying her own view of the law. Although 
     the Court during the 1997 Term issued an unusually high 
     proportion of unanimous decisions, Caitlin's demeanor as a 
     law clerk exuded reasonableness and collegiality even in 
     those areas where we law clerks-- and the Justices for whom 
     we worked--disagreed.
       In sum, we hold Caitlin Halligan in high regard as a 
     talented and fair-minded colleague who was a pleasure to work 
     with in a sophisticated and demanding legal setting. We have 
     no doubt that if she is confirmed by the Senate, her 
     colleagues on the federal bench will soon arrive at a similar 
     conclusion, and we appreciate your attention to her 
     nomination.
           Respectfully submitted,
         Samuel R. Bagenstos, Professor of Law, University of 
           Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI; J. Scott Ballenger, 
           Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Rachel 
           E. Barkow, Professor of Law, New York University School 
           of Law, New York, NY; Paul Schiff Berman, Dean and 
           Foundation Professor of Law, Sandra Day O'Connor 
           College of Law, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ;
         Stephanos Bibas, Professor of Law and Criminology, 
           Director, Supreme Court Clinic, University of 
           Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, PA; Elizabeth 
           Cavanagh, Adjunct Professor, American University 
           Washington College of Law, Washington, DC; Thomas 
           Colby, Professor of Law, George Washington University 
           Law School, Washington, DC; Laura A. Dickinson, 
           Foundation Professor of Law, Faculty Director, Center 
           for Law and Global Affairs, Sandra Day O'Connor College 
           of Law, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ; David 
           Friedman, Senior Vice President/Special Counsel, Boston 
           Red Sox, Boston, MA; Lisa Kern Griffin, Professor of 
           Law, Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC; Deborah 
           Hamilton, Trial Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity 
           Commission, Chicago, IL; Rachel A. Harmon, Associate 
           Professor, University of Virginia School of Law, 
           Charlottesville, VA; Sarah O. Jorgensen, King & 
           Spalding, Atlanta, GA; John P. Kelsh, Partner, Sidley & 
           Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Jeremy Maltby, Partner, 
           O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC;
         Christopher Meade, Washington, DC; Gillian E. Metzger, 
           Professor of Law, Columbia Law School, New York, NY; 
           Charles Moore, Partner, Trilantic Capital Partners, New 
           York, NY; John B. Owens, Assistant United States 
           Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division, Southern District 
           of California, San Diego, CA; Mary-Rose Papandrea, 
           Associate Professor, Boston College Law School, Boston, 
           MA; Theodore W. Ruger, Professor of Law, University of 
           Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, PA; Sri 
           Srinivasan, Partner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, 
           DC; Silvija A. Strikis, Partner, Kellogg, Huber, 
           Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC Washington, DC; Harry 
           P. Susman, Partner, Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX; 
           Christopher S. Yoo, Professor of Law, Director, Center 
           for Technology, Innovation and Competition, University 
           of Pennsylvania Law School, Philadelphia, PA.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Women's


                                          Chamber of Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, June 28, 2011.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: On behalf 
     of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, I write in 
     enthusiastic support of the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to 
     be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit. Ms. Halligan is exceptionally 
     well-qualified, and would be an excellent addition to that 
     court. She would not only bring extraordinary legal talents 
     but also increase the gender diversity of that court, 
     increasing the representation of women on what has been 
     called the second-highest court in the land.
       Her resume speaks for itself. Ms. Halligan has outstanding 
     legal credentials and legal experience that is both broad and 
     deep. Over the course of her career, she has developed 
     significant expertise in appellate litigation, including 
     before the U.S. Supreme Court. She has also generously 
     contributed of her own time to pro bono service.
       We ask that the Senate vote to confirm Caitlin Halligan to 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Margot Dorfman,
     CEO.
                                  ____

                                            National Conference of


                                     Women's Bar Associations,

                                      Portland, OR, June 23, 2011.
     Re Nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan to the United States 
         Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chair,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley, Ranking Member,
     Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: On behalf 
     of the National Conference of Women's Bar Associations, we 
     write to express our enthusiastic support for the nomination 
     of Caitlin J. Halligan to the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the District of Columbia Circuit.
       Ms. Halligan's broad experience, public service and 
     intellect make her well suited to the federal appellate 
     bench, and her appointment would add much needed diversity to 
     the federal court, where currently only three women are among 
     the active judges on the D.C. Circuit.
       We join with many other organizations such as the National 
     District Attorneys Association, the New York Women in Law 
     Enforcement and the Women's Bar Association of the District 
     of Columbia in urging the speedy confirmation of this 
     outstanding nominee.
           Very truly yours,
                                                    Mary E. Sharp,
                                                        President.

[[Page 18768]]

     
                                  ____
                                                November 15, 2011.
     Re Nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan to United States Court 
         of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: 
     We, the undersigned law school deans and professors, write in 
     strong support of the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit. Ms. Halligan's legal credentials, experience, and 
     accomplishments make her exceptionally well-qualified to 
     serve on this court. We also note that women have been 
     historically underrepresented on this court, as only five of 
     the fifty-seven judges to serve there have been women, and 
     only three of the court's eight active judges are women.
       Ms. Halligan graduated from Georgetown University Law 
     Center with honors, including Order of the Coif. She clerked 
     for Judge Patricia M. Wald on the D.C. Circuit Court, and for 
     Justice Stephen G. Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court. Ms. 
     Halligan's career includes public service, private practice, 
     and legal education. She worked for the Attorney General of 
     the State of New York, including as Solicitor General of the 
     State of New York, and currently serves as General Counsel to 
     the New York County District Attorney's office. She was a 
     partner and head of the appellate practice at Weil, Gotshal 
     and Manges, LLP. In addition, she has taught as an adjunct 
     professor at Georgetown University Law Center and Columbia 
     Law School. In all of these capacities, Ms. Halligan has won 
     accolades for her judgment, legal acumen, and expertise in 
     appellate litigation, which includes five arguments before 
     the Supreme Court. Throughout her career, she has also 
     contributed significant pro bono services.
       Ms. Halligan received a unanimous ``Well-Qualified'' rating 
     from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. She 
     has been endorsed by numerous organizations, including the 
     District Attorneys Association of the State of New York, the 
     National District Attorneys Association, the New York State 
     Association of Chiefs of Police, the New York State Sheriffs 
     Association, the New York Women in Law Enforcement, the 
     Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia, the 
     National Conference of Women's Bar Associations, the U.S. 
     Women's Chamber of Commerce, and the National Center for 
     Women & Policing.
       We likewise offer our strong support of Ms. Halligan, and 
     urge you to support her nomination to the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. If you have 
     questions or if we can be of assistance, please contact 
     Columbia Law School Professor Gillian Metzger at (212) 854-
     2667 or at [email protected].
           Sincerely,
       (Signed by 107 women law professors).

  Mr. LEAHY. I fear that what is behind this misguided filibuster 
attempt is a continuation of a decades-long attempt by some Senate 
Republicans to play politics with the Federal court and, in particular, 
to engage in a rear guard action to preserve the D.C. Circuit as a 
Republican bastion, despite the fact that the American people elected a 
Democratic President. A recent Washington Post editorial urging the 
Senate to confirm Ms. Halligan's confirmation, suggested as much, 
stating: ``GOP senators are grasping at straws to block Ms. Halligan's 
ascension, perhaps in hopes of preserving the vacancy for a Republican 
president to fill.'' Yet again, we see some Senate Republicans shifting 
the standards they use and the arguments they make based on the party 
of the President making the nominations. They say one thing when 
President Clinton is in office, flip when the President is a 
Republican, and flop when the American people elect President Obama.
  When President Clinton nominated qualified moderates to vacancies on 
the D.C. Circuit, Republicans refused to proceed. The last of three 
Clinton nominees to the D.C. Circuit was confirmed in 1997, after being 
nominated in 1995 and stalled through the 1996 session when not a 
single circuit nominee was confirmed by the Senate Republican majority. 
When Senate Republicans stalled the nomination of Merrick Garland to 
the D.C. Circuit beyond the 1996 election, even Senator Hatch became 
frustrated, and in March 1997 he proclaimed that the way that 
Republicans were opposing judicial nominees was ``playing politics with 
judges,'' was ``unfair'' and that he was ``sick of it.'' He was right. 
Merrick Garland, like Caitlin Halligan, was superbly qualified, and was 
only being obstructed for partisan political gain.
  But once the blockade against Judge Garland was broken by President 
Clinton's reelection, Senate Republicans erected an impenetrable wall 
around the D.C. Circuit. Neither of President Clinton's two other 
nominees were allowed a Senate vote, or even Judiciary Committee 
consideration. That escalation in the judge wars was untoward, it was 
wrong. It hurt the court and was unfair to both Allen Snyder and Elena 
Kagan, President Clinton's outstanding nominees. Allen Snyder had 
served as a clerk to Justice Rehnquist and was an experienced and 
respected litigator. Elena Kagan went on to become Dean of the Harvard 
Law School and win confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. 
These were unquestionably qualified nominees. The fact is that for the 
rest of President Clinton's second term, virtually his entire second 
four years, given that Judge Garland had actually first been nominated 
in his first term, Senate Republicans would not consider another 
nominee to the D.C. Circuit. They just blocked and pocket filibustered 
outstanding nominees because they could.
  Republican Senators pretended to justify their refusal to proceed on 
President Clinton's D.C. Circuit nominees not by arguing against the 
nominees, but by arguing that the caseload of the D.C. Circuit did not 
justify the confirmation of any more judges. They were contending that 
the 11th and 12th judgeships on the D.C. Circuit should not be filled. 
They argued that 10 judges were enough.
  But what happened when George W. Bush became President? Republican 
Senators set aside those arguments when considering the nominations of 
a Republican President to the same court even as the caseload numbers 
went down, Senate Republicans abandoned their hollow caseload arguments 
to press for confirmation of multiple Bush nominees to the D.C. 
Circuit. Their actions showed that they were not really concerned with 
a caseload justification. Their reversal now to readopt a caseload 
argument is not consistency of principle, but relates to the principal 
who is making the nomination and appears political.
  Despite the unwillingness of Senate Republicans to act on President 
Clinton's nominees to the D.C. Circuit for years, Senate Democrats did 
proceed to consider President Bush's nominations. The first 
confirmation, for which I voted, was of now-Chief Justice John Roberts 
to be a judge on the D.C. Circuit. At the time, John Roberts had been 
Allen Snyder's junior and his partner at Hogan and Hartson. He was the 
first judge confirmed to the circuit in six years.
  The Senate then confirmed a series of questionable nominees to the 
D.C. Circuit: Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh. 
The same Republican Senators who blocked President Clinton's 
nominations from even being considered by the Judiciary Committee 
supported every nomination of President Bush's to the D.C. Circuit, as 
they filled the ninth seat, twice filled the 10th seat on the court and 
went on to fill the 11th seat that they had said was unnecessary when a 
Democratic President was doing the nominating. With the change of 
administration, Republican Senators have now dusted off an old 
obstructionist argument about the D.C. Circuit's caseload, something 
they ignored for eight years as President Bush's nominees were 
confirmed to fill the 10th seat twice and also the 11th judgeship. But 
they have ratcheted up their partisan opposition and now oppose even 
filling the ninth judgeship. With three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit, 
that is the judgeship that Caitlin Halligan would be filling not the 
11th that Senate Republicans filled just recently, or the 10th that 
they voted twice to fill, but the ninth. This is not a basis on which 
to oppose as qualified a nominee as Caitlin Halligan, who has 
widespread support from law enforcement and the legal community.
  The so-called ``caseload'' concern is no justification for 
filibustering this nomination. The D.C. Circuit is now more than one-
quarter vacant, with three judicial vacancies. In fact, the

[[Page 18769]]

Senate has acted on the so-called caseload argument. We have already 
eliminated effective in 2008 the 12th judgeship on that court. In so 
doing, the Senate and the Congress reaffirmed the authorization of 11 
judges needed for the important D.C. Circuit. This court is often 
considered the second most important court in the land because of the 
complex cases that it handles. The court reviews complicated decisions 
and rulemaking of many Federal agencies, and in recent years has 
handled some of the most important terrorism and enemy combatant and 
detention cases since the attacks of September 11. As noted in the 
recent Washington Post editorial: ``[Caseload numbers do] not take into 
account the complexity and scope of the cases that land at the court. 
They include direct appeals involving federal regulatory decisions and 
national security matters, including cases stemming from the detentions 
at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.''
  The D.C. Circuit's cases have only increased in importance and the 
court's caseload has not gone down since Republican Senators supported 
every one of President Bush's nominations to that court. According to 
the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the caseload per active judge 
has increased by one third since 2005, when the Senate confirmed 
President Bush's nomination of Thomas Griffith to fill the 11th seat on 
the D.C. Circuit. That is right--the D.C. Circuit's caseload has 
actually increased. Judge Griffith's confirmation resulted in there 
being approximately 121 pending cases per active D.C. Circuit judge. 
There are currently 161 pending cases for each active judge on the D.C. 
Circuit, one-third higher. If Ms. Halligan were confirmed to the ninth 
seat, there would be approximately 143 pending cases for each active 
D.C. Circuit judge, still significantly higher than after the Senate 
confirmed President Bush's nominee to the 11th seat in 2005. In 
addition, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 
written decisions per active judge have risen 20 percent since 2007. By 
any objective measure the work of the D.C. Circuit has grown and the 
multiple vacancies should be filled, not preserved and extended for 
partisan purposes.
  Of course, if Republican Senators seeking to use caseload figures to 
justify their opposition to this nomination were serious, they would 
not be continuing their refusal to consent to the Senate considering 
the nominations of Morgan Christen of Alaska to the Ninth Circuit, and 
Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit, the two 
circuits with the highest number of cases per active judge. They would 
not be doing everything they can to delay filling vacancies on the 
Ninth Circuit, a court burdened by multiple vacancies and the largest 
caseload in the Nation, and we would instead take up and confirm the 
nomination of Jacqueline H. Nguyen who is nominated to fill the 
judicial emergency vacancy that remains open after the Republican 
filibuster of Goodwin Liu. I have repeatedly urged the Senate to take 
up and consider these nominations, which are supported by home state 
Senators, yet Republicans have refused to consider them for months. In 
fact, courts throughout the country are in need of more confirmed 
judges and more judgeships to handle high and increasingly complicated 
caseloads, yet we currently have 25 judicial nominations favorably 
reported by the Judiciary Committee awaiting final action by the 
Senate. Republicans concerned about caseload should join with us to 
consider these nominations.
  The Senate should not filibuster but should be voting to confirm the 
nomination of Caitlin Halligan to fill a vacancy on a critical court 
that is one quarter vacant with only eight active judges and higher 
caseloads than when Republicans voted to confirm President Bush's 
nominees fill the ninth, 10th and 11th judgeships on this court just a 
couple of years ago.
  Some have sought to criticize Ms. Halligan for positions she 
advocated on behalf of the State of New York while serving as its 
Solicitor General. At her confirmation hearing, Ms. Halligan made clear 
she filed briefs under the direction of New York's Attorney General, 
arguing on behalf of the State of New York, not based on her personal 
views. Yet some outside groups and even some Senators ignore this and 
seek to use those advocacy positions as a basis to filibuster her 
nomination.
  These arguments are particularly hard to accept for anybody who 
understands the role of advocates in our legal system. Our legal system 
is an adversary one, predicated upon legal advocacy for both sides. 
Nominees such as Chief Justice John Roberts have said lawyers do not 
stand in the shoes of their clients. Since when do we impose a litmus 
test for nominees that they can never have been legal advocates? If we 
were to do that, we would have no judges. Almost every nominee who had 
been a practicing lawyer would be disqualified by one side or the 
other. This is especially hard to understand for any Senators who 
support the rights of states to defend their interests in courts, the 
duty Caitlin Halligan owed to New York as its Solicitor General.
  Some have pointed to her role as New York's Solicitor General acting 
at the direction of New York's Attorney General in tort lawsuits 
against gun manufacturers as suggesting that she will not uphold the 
Second Amendment if confirmed as a judge. As a strong supporter of the 
Second Amendment, I asked her during her hearing whether as a judge she 
would faithfully follow and apply the Supreme Court's precedent from 
District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, which held that 
the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms 
for self defense. She testified that she would. When asked by Senator 
Grassley whether the rights conferred under the Second Amendment are 
fundamental, Ms. Halligan answered: ``That is clearly what the Supreme 
Court held and I would follow that precedent, Senator.''
  In her personal capacity, Ms. Halligan has never challenged or 
otherwise criticized the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 
(PLCAA) or been critical of the Second Amendment. As New York State's 
Solicitor General, she prepared an amicus brief at the direction of the 
New York Attorney General in a case where New York City challenged the 
PLCAA, seeking to safeguard New York's police powers. The arguments 
made in the brief were made on behalf of New York State. In the amicus 
brief, New York State argued that the PLCAA should be struck down as an 
unconstitutional exercise of Congress's legislative power that 
infringed on states' rights to exercise the police power within their 
borders. The amicus brief did not make a single reference to the Second 
Amendment. Any criticism of the PLCAA in New York State's brief or in 
the speech she gave as a surrogate for and on behalf of New York 
Attorney General Spitzer reflected New York State's federalism 
concerns. It is hardly surprising that New York State--like many other 
states--advocated for a position that supported state powers.
  As Solicitor General for the State of New York, Caitlin Halligan 
vigorously advocated for New York's interests, in particular the right 
to govern in traditional state law areas. For example, in the Grutter 
v. Bollinger affirmative action case, New York joined 20 other states 
in arguing that they ``must have the freedom and flexibility'' to set 
their own education policy. I assume that position does not raise 
concerns for those seeking a basis for opposing her nomination. Nor I 
assume did her defense as New York's Solicitor General of the 
constitutionality of the death penalty.
  Indeed, Ms. Halligan's time as Solicitor General shows all the 
hallmarks of serious advocacy consistent with the interests of her 
``client''. When New York municipal attorneys requested advice as to 
whether clerks could issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Ms. 
Halligan carefully analyzed New York's statutory law and concluded that 
the state legislature did not intend to authorize marriage licenses to 
be given to same-sex couples, even though the statutory language is 
gender neutral. After observing that this interpretation raised 
``constitutional questions,'' she outlined the current

[[Page 18770]]

case law and stated that it was for the courts to resolve the issue. 
This measured response is no basis on which to caricature her record.
  Most disconcerting of all are the attacks from some on the outside 
suggesting that Ms. Halligan lacked candor in the answers she provided 
to the Judiciary Committee. I hope that we do not see any Senators 
repeating these baseless charges to create another false controversy. 
Ms. Halligan has been honest and forthcoming throughout the 
confirmation process, providing the Committee with her entire record 
and giving detailed, accurate, and clear answers to over 150 questions 
from Judiciary Committee members at her hearing and in written follow-
up questions on a wide range of topics, such as judicial philosophy, 
constitutional interpretation, the Tenth Amendment, the Second 
Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the Eighth Amendment and the death 
penalty, military commissions and indefinite detention, tort liability, 
Federal preemption, and standing. In my view, Ms. Halligan's answers to 
questions from Committee members were detailed and substantive, and 
show an impressive depth and breadth of knowledge on complex legal 
issues. There is no lack of record or failure to respond as there was, 
unfortunately, when the Bush administration would not make information 
available to Senators in connection with the nomination of Miguel 
Estrada. There is no lack of forthrightness, as there was when Brett 
Kavanaugh was manipulating the confirmation process as a political 
crony and insider during the Bush administration.
  Those concerned with a 2004 report that questioned the indefinite 
detention of enemy combatants issued by the Association of the Bar of 
the City of New York's Committee on Federal Courts at a time when she 
served on the Committee continue to ignore Ms. Halligan's repeated 
testimony that she had no role in preparing the report, that she was 
not aware of the report until preparing for her nomination and that 
report ``does not reflect [her] views.'' At no time during Ms. 
Halligan's hearing or in the Committee's consideration of her 
nomination did any Senator question Ms. Halligan's candor or 
thoroughness in answering questions. I hope that no Senator does so now 
to attempt to justify this unjustifiable filibuster.
  Given Caitlin Halligan's impeccable credentials and widespread 
support, this should be the kind of consensus nomination supported by 
Senators of both parties who seek to ensure that the Federal bench 
continues to attract the best and brightest. Certainly, her nomination 
should not be subject to a filibuster. Regrettably, however, the 
Senate's Republican leadership seems intent on continuing with the 
practices they began when President Obama first took office, engaging 
in narrow, partisan attacks on his judicial nominations. They seem 
intent on setting a new standard that could not be met by the judicial 
nominees of Presidents of either party.
  Republican Senators who just a few years ago protested that the 
filibuster of any judicial nomination was unconstitutional, Republican 
Senators who joined in a bipartisan memorandum of understanding to head 
off the ``nuclear option'' and agreed that nominees should only be 
filibustered under ``extraordinary circumstances,'' abandoned all that 
they said they stood for and joined together in an attempt to prevent 
an up-or-down vote on President Obama's very first judicial nominee, 
David Hamilton. There were certainly no ``extraordinary circumstances'' 
to justify the Republican filibuster of Judge Hamilton, and several 
Republican Senators joined together with Democratic Senators in 
rejecting that filibuster. I trust that they will do so, again, and 
reject this unjustifiable filibuster of Caitlin Halligan.
  By the standard utilized in 2005 to end filibusters and vote on 
President Bush's controversial nominees, this filibuster should be 
ended and the Senate should vote on the nomination. Those Senators who 
claim to subscribe to a standard that prohibits filibusters of judicial 
nominees except in ``extraordinary circumstances'' cannot support this 
filibuster. There are no ``extraordinary circumstances'' here. The 14 
Senators who signed the Memorandum of Understanding in 2005, the then 
``Gang of 14,'' wrote about their ``responsibilities under the Advice 
and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution'' and that 
fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities in good faith meant 
that nominations `` should only be filibustered under extraordinary 
circumstance.'' Here there are none.
  In 2005, Senator Graham, a member of the ``Gang of 14'' described his 
view of what comprises the ``extraordinary circumstances'' justifying a 
filibuster. He said: ``Ideological attacks are not an `extraordinary 
circumstance.' To me, it would have to be a character problem, an 
ethics problem, so allegations about the qualifications of a person, 
not an ideological bent.'' Caitlin Halligan has no ``character 
problem,'' no ``ethics problem,'' and there is no justification for 
this filibuster. Caitlin Halligan is a superbly qualified nominee whose 
personal integrity, temperament and abilities have been attested to by 
lawyers and judges from both sides of the aisle. The many leading 
lawyers who have worked with Ms. Halligan, law enforcement officials 
and organizations supporting her nomination have all attested to Ms. 
Halligan's ``temperament,'' ``fairness'' and ``balance'' in addition to 
her legal judgment and qualifications for the D.C. Circuit. Hollow 
contentions about the caseload of the quarter-vacant D.C. Circuit fall 
well short of any standard of ``extraordinary circumstances.''
  The signers of that 2005 Memorandum of Understanding, and the Senate, 
demonstrated what they thought that agreement entailed when they 
proceeded to invoke cloture on a number of controversial nominations. 
The Senate invoked cloture on the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to 
the D.C. Circuit, the circuit to which Caitlin Halligan has been 
nominated.
  As a Justice on the California Supreme Court, Janice Rogers Brown was 
a nominee with a consistent and extensive record, both on the bench and 
off, of using her position as a member of the court to put her views 
above the law. This was not a question of one case or one issue on 
which Democrats differed with the nominee--I have voted for hundreds of 
nominees of Republican and Democratic Presidents which whom I differ on 
many issues. But this was a nominee with views so extreme she was 
opposed not just by her home state Senators, but also by more than 200 
law school professors from around the Nation who wrote to the Committee 
expressing their opposition.
  Her record in numerous decisions as a judge showed that she was 
willing to put her personal views above the law on issue after issue, 
including a willingness to roll back the clock 100 years on workers' 
and consumers' rights, to undermine clean air and clean water 
protections for Americans and their communities, laws providing 
affordable housing, zoning laws that protect homeowners, and 
protections against sexual harassment, race discrimination, employment 
discrimination, and age discrimination. In fact, while serving on the 
California Supreme Court, Justice Brown had argued that Social Security 
is unconstitutional, a position clearly at odds with well established 
law. She went so far as to say ``today's senior citizens blithely 
cannibalize their grandchildren.''
  Despite her ideological extremism and willingness to implement her 
radical personal views as a judge without regard to the existing law, 
she was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, her nomination judged not to 
present ``extraordinary circumstances'' supporting a filibuster. There 
is no justification under the standard applied to the nomination of 
Janice Rogers Brown for a filibuster of the nomination of Caitlin 
Halligan, a widely respected nominee with a clear devotion to the rule 
of law and no record of ideological extremism.
  Under the Gang of 14's Memorandum of Understanding, the Senate also 
agreed to invoke cloture on the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the 
Fifth Circuit, a nominee whose rulings on

[[Page 18771]]

the Texas Supreme Court were so extreme they drew the condemnation of 
other conservative judges on that court. Alberto Gonzales, President 
Bush's White House counsel and later his Attorney General, went so far 
as to describe one of her opinions as advocating ``an unconscionable 
act of judicial activism.'' Her nomination was determined not to 
present ``extraordinary circumstances.''
  Neither was the nomination of Thomas Griffith to the D.C. Circuit, 
despite his decision to practice law without a license for a good part 
of his career, which I felt should be disqualifying. Yet his nomination 
was not judged to present ``extraordinary circumstances'' and he was 
confirmed to fill the 11th seat on the D.C. Circuit. There is no 
question under the standard Republicans applied to the nomination of 
Thomas Griffith, Caitlin Halligan should be confirmed to fill the ninth 
judgeship on that court.
  I urge Republican and Democratic Senators to come together and end 
this misguided filibuster of Caitlin Halligan's nomination to the D.C. 
Circuit. There is no basis under any standard for blocking her 
nomination from having an up-or-down vote. To the contrary, Caitlin 
Halligan's impeccable credentials and record as an accomplished 
advocate make her nomination worthy of bipartisan support. I look 
forward to ending this filibuster and voting to confirm Caitlin 
Halligan to the D.C. Circuit.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum but ask unanimous 
consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Henry Clay once said:

       Of all the properties which belong to honorable men, not 
     one is so highly priced as that of character.

  It is my distinct privilege to rise today to speak on a nominee that 
possesses such character, Dana Christensen. The Senate will soon take 
up Dana's nomination for U.S. district judge for the District of 
Montana. To ensure the most ethical and qualified attorney was 
appointed as district judge, I created an advisory selection panel made 
up of five Montana lawyers with diverse legal backgrounds from across 
our State and across party lines.
  I said to them: You just get me the best, the four or five best 
people I can choose from. I do not care if they are Republicans or 
Democrats or liberals or conservatives, you just get me the very best 
qualified.
  That is what they did. From them I chose Dana Christensen, and the 
panel unanimously and enthusiastically recommended the nomination of 
Dana Christensen. I was proud to pass this recommendation on to the 
President.
  Dana is a fourth generation Montanan, raised in Missoula, MT. He 
graduated from Stanford University in 1973, received his law degree 
from the University of Montana Law School in 1976. Dana started his 
legal career at the Billings, MT, law firm of Moulton, Belingham, Longo 
& Mather, and then moved to Kalispell in 1981 to join the law firm of 
Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn & Phillips. In 1998, Dana and two of his 
partners formed a new firm in Kalispell, MT, which has become one of 
the leading firms in Montana for civil defense, business law, real 
estate, and estate planning. Dana has tried more than 50 trials in 
State and Federal courts. He has an active mediation and arbitration 
practice. Outside of the office, Dana has been an active member of his 
community: a member of the board of directors of his local chamber of 
commerce, a member of the University of Montana School of Law board of 
visitors, and a member of the faculty of the University of Montana 
Advanced Trial Advocacy Program.
  Over the past 35 years, Dana has commanded the respect of his 
colleagues across the State of Montana and elsewhere. Dana has received 
the highest rankings from peer review organizations, Chambers USA and 
Super Lawyers. He is also a member of the selective American Board of 
Trial Advocates and the American College of Trial Lawyers.
  Upon his nomination in May, Montana's legal community lent their 
strong support for Dana's selection. U.S. District Judge Richard 
Cebull, who was appointed by President George Bush in 2001, said:

       I do not think there is a better prospect in the whole 
     State.

  U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon, also appointed by President Bush, 
echoed his colleague. Judge Haddon said:

       He's a good lawyer, a good man, and in my opinion, 
     ethically totally qualified. The district will be well served 
     by him.

  I have gotten to know Dana over the past several decades. I could not 
agree more with Judge Sebold and Judge Haddon. Dana embodies those 
qualities that Montana and America need on the Federal bench: 
intellect, extensive experience in the courtroom, commitment to public 
service, integrity, and respect for precedent and the rule of law.
  I congratulate Dana, his wife Stephanie, and his wonderful children, 
Cassidy and Ben, on this extraordinary achievement. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate is expected to confirm 
four additional judicial nominees. With these votes, we will have 
confirmed 61 article III nominees this Congress.
  I want to note that in the first session of the 112th Congress we 
have now confirmed more nominees than during the entire 111th Congress. 
So I think we can declare real progress. Over 72 percent of President 
Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed.
  Despite this record of confirmations, we continue to hear complaints 
about the way this President's nominees are being treated. So I point 
out that in only six sessions of Congress in the last 30 years have 
more nominees been confirmed in a single session. Furthermore, given 
the cooperation we have shown, I am disappointed that the Senate 
majority wants to turn to a controversial nomination next rather than 
continue on the path of cooperative confirmations.
  The Senate majority leader has scheduled a cloture vote for tomorrow 
on the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the 
District of Columbia Circuit. I will speak more about the merits of 
that nomination Tuesday. But I wanted to put that vote in some context.
  It seems to me that the scheduling of such a controversial vote in 
the closing days of a session of Congress is designed to simply heat up 
the partisanship of judicial nominations. Perhaps that is the 
objective. The result may well be that such a divisive vote might have 
a chilling effect on reaching agreement on additional judicial 
nomination votes. I hope that is not the case. But everyone knows the 
final weeks of a session are often filled with unpredictable actions 
and outcomes.
  With regard to the vote tomorrow, there will be some who say this 
nomination has been vacant for too long and that this nominee is being 
treated unfairly, needlessly waiting on the calendar for too many 
weeks. Well, such arguments fail to consider the history of this 
particular seat of the DC Circuit and of the record established by my 
colleagues on the other side regarding the consideration of nominations 
for this very same DC Circuit.
  This seat has been vacant for over 6 years. It became vacant upon the 
elevation of John Roberts as Chief Justice. That was back in September 
2005. Following Justice Robert's appointment, Peter Keisler was 
nominated to fill the vacancy in June 2006, with a hearing held August 
1, 2006.
  With a Republican majority in the 109th Congress, one would wonder 
why he never made it out of committee. Well, it is not that he did not 
have the votes in committee. The fact is, the Democratic minority would 
not allow a vote. This was accomplished by holding him over at his 
first markup, which the

[[Page 18772]]

rules permit and is a legitimate exercise of the right of a minority 
and a right that this minority on our side exercised quite frequently 
this very year.
  However, for the remaining executive sessions in September of that 
year, prior to final adjournment they either made sure the committee 
did not have a quorum so we could not vote or they took the 
extraordinary step of invoking the 2-hour rule so the committee could 
not meet. I note that a quorum was present early in one meeting but 
evaporated when Mr. Keisler's nomination was the pending business. So 
basically the opponents ran out the clock on this nomination. He did 
not get a committee vote. He did not get the courtesy of floor 
consideration, not even a cloture vote like the nominee tomorrow will 
have.
  Mr. Keisler was renominated in June 2007 when the Democrats assumed 
control of the Senate. But his nomination sat in committee with no 
action until it was returned to the President in January 2009. He was 
the recipient of a pocket filibuster. This was despite being rated 
``unanimously well qualified'' by the ABA Standing Committee of the 
Federal judiciary and possessing outstanding qualifications to fill 
this position. So complaints about this seat being vacant for too long 
just ring hollow with this Senator.
  Likewise, when one considers the treatment of previous nominees to 
the DC Circuit, it is evident that the nomination of Ms. Halligan is 
not being treated in an unfair manner. In fact, her nomination is 
proceeding far better than many nominated to this court. I would remind 
my colleagues that previous nominees were subjected to delay or 
multiple hearings, to extensive delays in committee, and to multiple 
filibusters on the Senate floor.
  These include the nomination of Estrada, a Hispanic immigrant with a 
compelling personal story and outstanding judicial qualifications, who 
was subject to seven cloture votes; Janice Brown, an African-American 
female who had two cloture votes; Brett Kavanaugh; and Thomas Griffin. 
While all of these individuals were eventually confirmed, the 
procedural tactics used in their nominations made the confirmations 
very difficult.
  I am not suggesting this is a pattern to follow, but it is relevant 
to the arguments that Ms. Halligan is being treated quite differently 
or in an unfair manner than other nominees.
  With regard to the nomination before us today, I will say a few words 
about, first, Mr. Ramos, who is nominated to be U.S. District Judge for 
the Eastern District of New York. Mr. Ramos earned a BA from Yale in 
1982; JD Harvard, 1987. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Ramos 
worked as an associate at the law firm of Simpson, Thatcher & Bartlett 
in New York City.
  In 1992, Mr. Ramos joined the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the 
Eastern District of New York, where he prosecuted a variety of Federal 
crimes, including white-collar crime, defense contractor fraud, money 
laundering, narcotics trafficking, labor racketeering, and violation of 
the Arms Export Control Act. In June 2000, he was promoted to Deputy 
Chief of the Narcotics Section, where he supervised assistant U.S. 
attorneys prosecuting international narcotics trafficking and 
racketeering cases.
  In 2002, the nominee joined the law firm of Day, Berry & Howard LLP, 
predecessor to the firm Day Pitney LLP, as a partner in the government 
investigations practice group. Currently, he represents corporations 
and individuals in connection with criminal and regulatory 
investigations involving antitrust, bank fraud, public corruption, 
securities fraud, and government program fraud.
  The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary has rated Mr. Ramos with a unanimous ``well qualified'' 
rating.
  We are also considering the nomination of Judge Andrew L. Carter to 
be U.S. District judge, Southern District of New York. Judge Carter 
earned his B.A. from the University of Texas in 1991 and his J.D. from 
Harvard Law School in 1994.
  Judge Carter's legal career began in 1996 as a staff attorney for the 
criminal defense division, Legal Aid Society, in New York, NY. In 2000, 
he became staff attorney for the Federal defenders division. The 
nominee became affiliated with the Federal Defenders of New York in 
2005, first as staff attorney and, 1 year later, as a supervising 
attorney. His Federal practice included drug cases, gun cases, and 
immigration fraud.
  In 2009, Judge Carter was appointed to his current position of U.S. 
magistrate judge for the Eastern District of New York, where he is 
primarily responsible for handling civil matters.
  The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary has rated Judge Carter with a unanimous ``qualified'' rating.
  The third nominee we are considering is James Rodney Gilstrap to be a 
district judge for the Eastern District of Texas, a seat deemed to be a 
judicial emergency. Mr. Gilstrap received his B.A. from Baylor in 1978 
and his J.D. from Baylor University School of Law 1981.
  Mr. Gilstrap served as an associate attorney for Abney, Baldwin & 
Searcy from 1981 to 1984. In 1984, he left to begin his own legal 
practice, Smith & Gilstrap, where he currently practices representing 
individuals, corporations, and local governments on civil matters.
  From 1989 to 2002, Mr. Gilstrap served as a county judge for Harrison 
County, where he had both administrative and judicial responsibilities.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Mr. 
Gilstrap with a unanimous ``qualified'' rating.
  Then we have the distinguished nominee from Montana, whom Senator 
Baucus just spoke about, Dana L. Christensen, to be U.S. District Judge 
for the District of Montana.
  Mr. Christensen earned his B.A. from Stanford University in 1973 and 
his J.D. from the University of Montana School of Law in 1976.
  Earlier in his legal career, Mr. Christensen practiced natural 
resources law, representing coal mining and oil and gas companies in 
litigation in administrative matters. He went on to practice general 
insurance defense litigation and medical malpractice cases.
  In 1996, he founded his own firm and continues to represent these 
entities and practices in this area. He has also represented defendants 
in large class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Montana.
  In addition to his litigation practices, Mr. Christensen has also 
represented at least 15 physicians in confidential disciplinary matters 
before the Montana Board of Medical Examiners. He has also represented 
health care providers in more than 200 matters before the Montana 
Medical Legal Panel.
  The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary has rated Mr. Christensen with a unanimous ``well qualified'' 
rating.
  I intend to vote for all these candidates. I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Casey pertaining to the introduction of S. 1944 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 18773]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I am proud to support Caitlin 
Halligan's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
  Caitlin Halligan's impeccable career spans public and private 
practice, similar to that of John Roberts when he was confirmed 
unanimously to the DC Circuit. Ms. Halligan served as solicitor general 
of New York, a leading appellate lawyer at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, and 
currently as general counsel at the New York County district attorney's 
office, which investigates and prosecutes 100,000 criminal cases 
annually.
  She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Breyer and Judge Patricia Wald 
on the DC Circuit. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Halligan ``well qualified'' to serve on 
the DC Circuit.
  Ms. Halligan has support from across the political spectrum, 
including Miguel Estrada, Carter Phillips, and officials in Democratic 
and Republican administrations. Twenty-three former U.S. Supreme Court 
clerks, the National District Attorneys Association, the National 
Conference of Women's Bar Associations, and the U.S. Women's Chamber of 
Commerce are supporting her nomination.
  New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly has said Ms. Halligan has 
three qualities that are important for a nominee--intelligence, 
judicial temperament, and personal integrity.
  Unfortunately, it appears some of my colleagues are determined to 
criticize Caitlin Halligan regardless of the facts.
  One of the criticisms of Ms. Halligan is positions she advocated for 
while serving as solicitor general. She filed briefs at the direction 
of New York's attorney general and argued on behalf of the State. That 
was her job. She was not promoting her personal views.
  Ms. Halligan testified she would faithfully follow and apply the 
Supreme Court's precedent from Heller and McDonald. When asked whether 
the rights conferred under the second amendment are fundamental, she 
answered: ``That is clearly what the Supreme Court held, and I would 
follow that precedent.''
  Let me also address the workload concerns brought up by some of my 
fellow Senators. There are currently only eight active judges on the DC 
Circuit, making it one-quarter vacant. Miss Halligan has been nominated 
to fill the ninth seat--one of three current vacancies on the court. 
The Senate confirmed four of President Bush's nominees for the DC 
Circuit; however, the court's caseload is higher now than it was when 
President Bush's nominees were confirmed. If Ms. Halligan was confirmed 
today, it would reduce the caseload from its current level of 161 cases 
to approximately 143 cases per judge.
  Women have been woefully underrepresented by the DC Circuit, often 
characterized as the second most important court in our entire Nation. 
Only 5 of the 57 judges serving throughout the history of the DC 
Circuit have been women. Ninety-one percent of the judges on this court 
throughout its 41-year history have been men.
  If we continue down this road of filibustering nominees simply 
because their nomination originates across the aisle, we will establish 
an impossible standard that no nominee could or would ever meet.
  Caitlin deserves an up-or-down vote, just as the Republicans 
advocated for their past judicial nominees. The bottom line is that 
there is no credible opposition to her nomination or her confirmation. 
Caitlin Halligan has distinguished herself throughout her career. She 
has established a commitment to fairness, reasoned intellect, steadfast 
integrity, and profound respect for the law.
  I look forward to supporting Caitlin Halligan's confirmation to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and I urge my 
fellow colleagues to support her nomination.


                  Nomination of James Rodney Gilstrap

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to support 
the nomination of Mr. James Rodney Gilstrap to serve as a Federal 
district judge for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall, TX.
  Mr. Gilstrap attended Baylor University where he graduated magna cum 
laude with a bachelor of arts degree in religion. Following his 
graduation, Mr. Gilstrap continued his studies at Baylor University Law 
School, where he served as associate editor of the Baylor Law Review 
and received his juris doctor in 1981.
  Mr. Gilstrap began his professional career in Marshall, TX, where he 
still resides today. In August of 1989, Mr. Gilstrap was appointed 
county judge of Harrison County and was then elected to the same 
position for the next three terms. In 2002, he retired as a county 
judge and returned to private practice at Smith & Gilstrap, where he 
still practices today.
  Mr. Gilstrap has earned the respect and esteem of the legal community 
he has served and his professional credentials will continue the strong 
history of the Federal bench in Texas.
  Mr. Gilstrap's impressive career is complemented by his dedication to 
his community. In addition to serving for years as county judge, Mr. 
Gilstrap has served on the board for the Harrison County Historical 
Society, the United Way for Harrison County, and the Trinity Episcopal 
Day School. He also served for 16 years on the Courthouse Preservation 
Council to help with the renovation of the Marshall courthouse that was 
completed in 2009. Mr. Gilstrap's passion for his work and his 
community will be a tremendous asset to the Marshall bench.
  I join his family in congratulating him on all his outstanding 
accomplishments: his wife Sherry Sullivan Gilstrap, his daughter 
Lauren, who is continuing her medical studies at Harvard Medical 
School, and his son Stephen, who graduated from Yale Law School this 
year.
  I am pleased to recommend his confirmation to my colleagues.


                     Nomination of Caitlin Halligan

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of 
Caitlin Halligan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C. Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  As the first woman to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee--a 
committee on which I have served for 18 years--it is my great pleasure 
to speak in support of Ms. Halligan, who has excelled at every turn 
during her distinguished legal career.
  She graduated cum laude from Princeton University in 1988. She 
received her law degree, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University 
Law Center, where she was managing editor of the Georgetown Law Journal 
and inducted into the Order of the Coif.
  She began her legal career with a clerkship with Judge Patricia Wald 
on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit--the first woman to 
serve on that Court.
  She then spent a year in private practice at the Washington, DC firm, 
Wiley, Rein, and Fielding, followed by a clerkship with Supreme Court 
Justice Stephen Breyer.
  After another year in private practice, Ms. Halligan began work in 
the office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, first as 
Chief of the Internet Bureau.
  She rose to become Solicitor General of the State of New York, the 
State's top appellate lawyer. She served in that role from 2001 through 
2007.
  During nearly all of Ms. Halligan's time as Solicitor General, George 
Pataki--a Republican--was Governor. Her job was to represent the State 
of New York zealously, and by all accounts she did so with skill and 
dignity.
  Judith Kaye, the former Chief Judge of New York's highest court, 
writes on behalf of the Court's entire bench that ``it was invariably a 
treat'' to have Ms. Halligan argue before the Court.
  In fact, the National Association of Attorneys General awarded Ms. 
Halligan the ``Best Brief Award'' for five consecutive years, 2001, 
2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
  Ms. Halligan left the Solicitor General post in 2007 to become the 
head of the appellate practice at the prestigious New York law firm, 
Weil, Gotshal, and Manges.
  She has now returned to public service as the General Counsel of the 
New

[[Page 18774]]

York County District Attorney's Office--one of the largest prosecutor's 
offices in the country.
  Over the course of her distinguished career, Halligan has served as 
counsel for a party or amicus in the Supreme Court more than 45 times.
  She has argued in the Supreme Court herself in five cases, most 
recently in March of this year. She also has argued or participated in 
numerous other cases before State and Federal appellate courts, 
including the New York Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit.
  In short, Ms. Halligan is an accomplished woman whose sterling 
qualifications for the bench are unassailable.
  Ms. Halligan was first nominated more than 14 months ago. She was 
approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee nearly 9 months ago. She has 
been waiting for an up-or-down vote on the floor ever since.
  It is an unfortunate sign of the times that my colleagues on the 
other side have held up her confirmation.
  I understand that the National Rifle Association is opposed to Ms. 
Halligan's confirmation.
  Behind the NRA's opposition is the fact that, while she was New 
York's Solicitor General, the State of New York pursued public nuisance 
litigation against gun manufacturers.
  Think about that--any time a person represents a State or local 
government, or the Federal Government, and takes a controversial 
position, that may jeopardize a later confirmation vote.
  That is not fair. A government lawyer's job is to pursue the 
government's interest vigorously and to do justice.
  Ms. Halligan was appointed by the Attorney General to represent the 
State of New York, while the State had a Republican Governor, George 
Pataki. Her job was to advance New York's interest, and she did so with 
vigor. She should not be penalized for it.
  Senator Sessions made this point when the Senate was considering 
Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. He said that ``[s]uggesting that service 
in an elective branch of Government somehow tarnishes a lawyer's 
reputation would be a terrible message for this body to send to the 
legal community and to all citizens.''
  I couldn't agree more.
  My Republican colleagues might also say that the D.C. Circuit's 
caseload does not support another judge, but they have short memories.
  There are now three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit. That means that 
Ms. Halligan would only fill the ninth seat, out of 11 on the Court. 
Two seats would remain vacant.
  However, my colleagues were not so concerned about this issue when 
President Bush's appointees were before the Senate. In fact, my 
Republican colleagues supported filling the 10th seat on the Court 
twice, and the 11th seat once.
  I will conclude by simply saying that Ms. Halligan is a woman with 
sterling credentials, an exemplary record, and a wealth of experience.
  She is President Obama's first and only nominee to the D.C. Circuit. 
She should be confirmed.


          Nominations of Edgardo Ramos and Andrew Carter, SDNY

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today I rise to support two outstanding 
nominees to the federal bench in the Southern District of New York.
  Over the years, I have had the great good fortune to support many 
outstanding candidates to the federal bench.
  Rarely, however, have I come across two nominees who are as 
qualified, in every possible way, to be federal judges as Edgardo Ramos 
and Judge Andrew Carter.
  Ramos is the quintessential example of the American dream--he was 
born in Puerto Rico and was 1 of 7 children raised by a single mother 
in Newark, NJ. He excelled in school, earning his bachelor's degree 
from Yale and his law degree from Harvard.
  After graduating, he was an associate at the New York firm Simpson, 
Thatcher & Bartlett, and then served for 10 years as an Assistant U.S. 
Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, including as Deputy Chief 
of the Narcotics Section. Since 2002, he has been a partner in the New 
York law firm Day Pitney. Ramos has earned an outstanding reputation 
among his fellow lawyers, prosecutors, and judges and in the Hispanic 
community. I have complete confidence that he will make an excellent 
judge.
  Magistrate Judge Andrew Carter was born in Albany, GA and he came to 
New York after graduating from the University of Texas at Austin and 
Harvard Law School. After law school, he worked for two years at the 
Ford Foundation and became a public defender in New York courts, both 
state and federal. He spent nine years at the New York office of the 
Legal Aid Society, and then four years at the Federal Defenders of New 
York.
  Since 2009, he has served as a United States magistrate judge in the 
Eastern District of New York, a position for which he was selected by a 
vote of the sitting district judges. And that is terrific training to 
be a Federal judge. Judge Carter is widely respected as a fair and 
mild-mannered magistrate judge who understands the courtroom and the 
needs of litigants.
  Both Ramos and Judge Carter embody the three criteria that I look for 
in a federal judge--excellence, moderation, and diversity.
  Both have consistently risen to the top, academically and 
professionally.
  Both are entirely non-ideological--they are lawyers who are respected 
by all of their peers, and who have approached the law with respect and 
humility.
  And, both increase the diversity of a bench that serves one of the 
most diverse populations in the country. I have always said that, all 
other things being equal, diversity of backgrounds, experience, and 
ethnicity is an important consideration for federal judges. So, I am 
pleased to have recommended two nominees to the federal bench who are 
outstanding in every way.
  The bench of the Southern District of New York has been one of the 
hardest hit by judicial vacancies--currently, 21 percent of its seats 
are open. With the addition of Edgardo Ramos and Judge Andrew Carter, 
this important court will be closer to firing on all cylinders.
  I look forward, with all New Yorkers, to their joining the bench.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are soon going to a rollcall vote on 
Edgardo Ramos, of Connecticut, to be U.S. district judge for the 
Southern District of New York. We also have three others on here: 
Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of New York, to be U.S. district judge for the 
Southern District of New York; James Rodney Gilstrap, of Texas, to be 
U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Texas; and Dana L. 
Christensen, of Montana, to be U.S. district judge for the District of 
Montana.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the rollcall vote for Edgardo 
Ramos, Andrew L. Carter, Jr., James Rodney Gilstrap, and Dana L. 
Christensen be considered by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ramos nomination.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Edgardo Ramos, of Connecticut, to be United States District Judge 
for the Southern District of New York?
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the

[[Page 18775]]

Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. 
Merkley) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), 
the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. 
Lugar), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Ex.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--11

     DeMint
     Enzi
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Landrieu
     Lugar
     Merkley
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Andrew L. 
Carter, Jr., of New York, to be United States District Judge for the 
Southern District of New York?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of James Rodney 
Gilstrap, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern 
District of Texas?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Dana L. 
Christensen, of Montana, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Montana?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________