[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18959-18969]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF CAITLIN JOAN HALLIGAN TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE 
                  FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Caitlin Joan 
Halligan, of New York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
District of Columbia Circuit.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be time for debate until noon, equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, some of the people I have heard who 
oppose Ms. Halligan were also some of the same people who successfully 
opposed an effort in the Congress to actually protect police officers a 
few years ago. So I want to put the opposition in context. It is 
probably why so many law enforcement groups support Ms. Halligan, 
because she stood up for law enforcement, unlike some of the groups we 
have heard about who oppose her, who sought to make the life of police 
officers more dangerous.
  Be that as it may, the Senate stands at a crossroads today. Voting to 
end the partisan filibuster of this judicial nomination is as important 
as it was when the Senate did so in connection with the nomination of 
Judge McConnell to the United States District Court of Rhode Island 
earlier this year. If we allow the partisan filibuster to go forward, 
then the Senate will be setting a new standard that no nominee can meet 
if they wish to be confirmed to the D.C. Circuit.
  Republican Senators who just a few years ago argued that filibusters 
against judicial nominees were unconstitutional and said that they 
would never support such a filibuster, and those who care about the 
judiciary in the Senate, need to step forward and do the right thing. 
You cannot say that filibusters against judicial nominees are 
unconstitutional when you have a Republican President but suddenly 
support a filibuster when you have a Democratic President. This goes 
even beyond the standards that have driven the approval rating of 
Congress to an all-time low for hypocrisy. We ought to end the 
filibuster now and proceed to vote on this extraordinarily well-
qualified nominee.
  Ms. Halligan, nominated to fill one of three vacant seats on the 
important D.C. Circuit, is a highly regarded appellate advocate. She 
has the kind of impeccable credentials in both public service and 
private practice that have been looked for in the past by both 
Democratic and Republican Presidents. Her nomination reminds me of John 
Roberts, when he was confirmed by every single Democrat and every 
single Republican to the D.C. Circuit in 2003. I certainly did not 
agree with every position he had taken or argument he had made as a 
high-level lawyer in several Republican administrations, but I 
supported his nomination to the D.C. Circuit, as I did to the Supreme 
Court, because of his legal excellence and ability.
  It is frustrating to have Senators tell me privately they know Ms. 
Halligan is just as qualified as John Roberts was, but this lobby and 
that lobby are against her. Lobbyists come and go. The court is 
supposed to be the epitome of justice in this country.
  I trusted John Roberts' testimony that he would fairly apply the law 
if confirmed. If the standard we used for him is applied to Ms. 
Halligan, there is no question this filibuster will end and Caitlin 
Halligan will be confirmed.
  By any traditional standard, Caitlin Halligan is the kind of superbly 
qualified nominee who should easily be confirmed by the Senate. Yet, 
the Senate Republican leadership's filibuster of this nomination 
threatens to set a new standard that could not be met by anyone. It 
would not have been met by John Roberts. If this is the new standard, 
it is wrong, it is unjustified and it is dangerous. Overcoming it will 
take a handful of sensible Senate Republicans willing to buck their 
leadership and some single-issue lobbyists. They have done it before 
and they should again now. Those who care about the judiciary--and as 
important, those who care about the Senate--need to come forward and 
end this filibuster.
  From the beginning of the Obama administration, we have seen too many 
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, they 
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.
  Many Republican Senators declared that they would never support the 
filibuster of a judicial nomination. 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. They tried to prevent an up or down vote on his nomination 
even though he was nominated by President Obama after consultation with 
the most senior and longest-serving Republican in the Senate, Senator 
Dick Lugar of Indiana, who strongly supported the nomination. The 
Senate rejected that unjustified filibuster and Judge Hamilton was 
confirmed with Senator Lugar's support.
  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 a well-qualified nominee with a 
mainstream record as a brilliant advocate on behalf of the State of New 
York and in private practice. She served for nearly six years as 
Solicitor General of New York and has been a leading appellate lawyer 
in private practice, currently serves as General Counsel at the New 
York County District Attorney's Office, and 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. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer 
and for Judge Patricia Wald on the D.C. Circuit, the court to which she 
has been nominated. No Senator has or can question her qualifications. 
I have reviewed her record carefully in the course of 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.
  Yesterday, I put into the Record some of the many letters of support 
we have received from across the political spectrum for Ms. Halligan's 
nomination. These letters are a testament to both her exceptional 
qualifications to serve and to the fact that this should be a consensus 
nomination, not a source of controversy and contention. They attest to 
the fact she is not a closed-minded idealogue, but 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. We should welcome people like her to serve 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.
  I also demonstrated yesterday that any so-called ``caseload'' concern 
is no justification for filibustering this nomination. This was not a 
concern we heard from Republicans when they voted to confirm President 
Bush's nominees to fill not only the 9th seat, but also the 10th seat 
and the 11th seat on this court a couple of years ago. They should not 
now use caseload as an excuse to filibuster President Obama's 
nomination to fill the ninth seat when the D.C. Circuit's caseload has 
increased. There are only two differences today than when President 
Bush's nominees to the D.C. Circuit were confirmed in 2005 and 2006: 
One, the caseload per active judge has increased, not

[[Page 18960]]

decreased; and we have a Democratic President, not a Republican 
President.
  The D.C. Circuit is often considered the second most important court 
in the land because of the complex cases that it handles, cases that 
have grown in importance since the attacks of September 11. As noted in 
a 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.'' I ask 
unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial and one from today's 
Boston Globe be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, 
along with letters to the editor of the Washington Post in support of 
Ms. Halligan's nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1)
  Mr. LEAHY: Yet the D.C. Circuit is now more than one-quarter vacant, 
with three judicial vacancies. The caseload per active judge has gone 
up 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. 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. The ``extraordinary circumstance'' that exists here 
is the more than one-quarter vacancy level on this court, with only 
eight active judges.
  If caseloads were really a concern of Republican Senators, they would 
not be standing by while their leadership delays Senate consideration 
of the nominations of Morgan Christen of Alaska and Jacqueline Nguyen 
of California to the Ninth Circuit, and Judge Adalberto Jordan of 
Florida to the Eleventh Circuit. These two circuits have the highest 
number of cases per active judge. The Ninth Circuit is burdened by 
multiple vacancies and the largest caseload in the nation. Judge Nguyen 
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. Anyone truly concerned about courts' 
caseloads should join with me to consider the other 20 judicial 
nominations still pending on the Senate calendar and awaiting final 
action.
  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 the brightest. Certainly, 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'' should keep their word and 
not support this filibuster. There are no ``extraordinary 
circumstances'' to justify the filibuster.
  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 the many 
leading lawyers who have worked with her and against her. They all 
attest to her integrity and temperament and abilities.
  The signers of the 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 nominations of Janice Rogers Brown 
and Thomas Griffith 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 was 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 was 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.
  The nomination of Thomas Griffith to the D.C. Circuit was also 
determined not to present ``extraordinary circumstances'' despite his 
decision to practice law without a license for a good part of his 
career, which I felt should be disqualifying. He was confirmed to fill 
the 11th seat on the D.C. Circuit. There is no question that 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 appropriate 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.

                               Exhibit 1

                 [From the Boston Globe, Dec. 6, 2011]

                      Outrage Machine Grinds Away

                              (Editorial)

       Discrediting perfectly qualified nominees to the federal 
     judiciary is a dreary, familiar business--one whose latest 
     target is Caitlin Halligan, a former New York solicitor 
     general who once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Stephen 
     Breyer. Ever since President Obama nominated her for the D.C. 
     Circuit Court of Appeals last year, critics have been combing 
     her record for evidence of dangerous radicalism.
       They haven't found any. But in the crude world of judicial-
     nomination fights, a nuanced discussion of New York's 
     marriage laws becomes a self-evident slant toward same-sex 
     marriage. Others depict her as anti-gun because she signed a 
     brief in a liability suit against gun manufacturers. The

[[Page 18961]]

     group Gun Owners of America has conveniently pre-written an 
     e-mail, which members can robo-send to their senators, 
     denouncing Halligan's nomination as ``inconceivable.''
       Halligan may not be GOP senators' first choice for an 
     appellate-court seat. And if a Republican president had 
     chosen a former Texas solicitor general who'd clerked for 
     Antonin Scalia, some of the same groups now defending 
     Halligan would surely be scraping around for reasons why the 
     nominee was utterly unsuitable for the job. But the Senate 
     need not dignify these tactics.
       In a way, Halligan is lucky; rather than stringing her 
     along endlessly, the Senate has scheduled a vote today to end 
     debate on her nomination. GOP senators--including Scott 
     Brown--should acknowledge that her views appear to be well 
     within the legal mainstream, and vote to end the filibuster 
     against her. Her nomination deserves, at the least, an up-or-
     down confirmation vote.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 22, 2011]

    Senate Should Confirm Caitlin Halligan to the D.C. Circuit Court

                              (Editorial)

       When Caitlin J. Halligan was nominated in 2010 to a seat on 
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the 
     prestigious 11-member court had two vacancies. Today, there 
     are three, after Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg took senior status 
     this fall.
       Yet some Senate Republicans argue that there is no need to 
     install Ms. Halligan because the court's caseload has shrunk. 
     Others look suspiciously on her purported views on 
     antiterrorism policy. 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. 
     These lawmakers rightly objected to such tactics when 
     deployed by Democrats to stall or defeat well-qualified 
     Republican nominees; they should not revert to them now when 
     a Democrat controls the White House.
       Ms. Halligan has had a distinguished career and deserves to 
     be confirmed. A graduate of the Georgetown University Law 
     Center, she clerked for D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia M. Wald 
     and later for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. She has 
     served as head of the appellate practice at a top New York 
     law firm, as solicitor general in that state and now as 
     general counsel for the New York County District Attorney's 
     Office in Manhattan. The American Bar Association gave Ms. 
     Halligan a unanimous well-qualified rating. The Senate 
     Judiciary Committee approved her nomination seven months ago; 
     she has been waiting for a floor vote ever since.
       While it is true that caseloads have been inching downward 
     at the D.C. Circuit, the decline does 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.
       Critics note that Ms. Halligan's name appears on a 2004 
     report by the New York City Bar Association that lambasted 
     the Bush administration for asserting the legal authority to 
     hold enemy combatants without trial until the cessation of 
     hostilities; the Supreme Court ultimately endorsed the 
     administration's position. Ms. Halligan acknowledges that she 
     was a member of the committee that wrote the report but 
     testified that she was not involved in its development or 
     writing and said she learned of it only in 2010, while 
     gathering material for the confirmation process. Ms. Halligan 
     testified that she did not agree with the report's 
     conclusions.
       Some critics suggest that Ms. Halligan's repudiation is a 
     ``confirmation conversion.'' Yet no evidence to dispute her 
     account has emerged during the eight months since her 
     hearing. The report episode is odd but should not disqualify 
     Ms. Halligan, given the mountain of evidence that she is a 
     smart and well-qualified candidate.
                                  ____



                                              Franklin County,

                                    Malone, NY, February 14, 2011.
     Senator Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: I once discussed on a plane ride to 
     Washington with you your time as a Prosecutor. Today it is my 
     pleasure and honor to write a letter supporting the 
     nomination of a fellow prosecutor, Caitlin J. Halligan, for 
     the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
       In my service as District Attorney of Franklin County in 
     rural upstate New York and as President of the District 
     Attorneys Association of the State of New York, I have had 
     the distinct privilege of working closely with Ms. Halligan 
     during the past year. In her position as General Counsel to 
     Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., she has 
     consistently demonstrated her unconditional support of the 
     interests of law enforcement and has lent her exceptional 
     expertise as an advocate for the rule of law to the complex 
     issues that confront our state across its many varied 
     interests.
       Having first heard of Ms. Halligan's remarkable legal 
     abilities during her tenure as Solicitor General of New York 
     State under Governor George Pataki, I am delighted now to 
     have learned firsthand that she is a consummate ``lawyer's 
     lawyer''. She has unparalleled legal reasoning skills and a 
     firm commitment to our constitutional values.
       Thank you for this opportunity to express my support for 
     this exceptional judicial candidate.
           Very truly yours,
                                               Derek P. Champagne,
     District Attorney.
                                  ____



                                           County of Onondaga,

                                  Syracuse, NY, February 16, 2011.
     Re Caitlin Halligan.

     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I write this letter in support of the 
     President's nomination of Caitlin Halligan for the United 
     States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
       By way of a brief introduction, I am a career prosecutor, 
     having served twenty years as the elected District Attorney 
     of Onondaga County (just under a half a million population) 
     in Upstate New York and ten years as an assistant district 
     attorney prior to that. I am the New York State 
     representative to the National District Attorneys Association 
     and serve on that body's Executive Committee. I am also co-
     chairman of the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice 
     Section's Committee on Science and Technology and I have been 
     appointed by Governors Pataki, Spitzer and Cuomo to serve on 
     New York State's Forensic Science Commission. I am a past 
     President of the New York State District Attorneys 
     Association and currently serve on its Board of Directors. I 
     am also a life long Republican, but nobody's perfect.
       Cy Vance is the current District Attorney of New York 
     county having succeeded the legendary Bob Morgenthau. Cy is a 
     good friend and has quickly established himself in New York 
     as an outstanding prosecutor and a resource for his sixty-one 
     other colleagues throughout the State. And one of the really 
     great things that Cy does is surround himself with quality 
     people. A perfect example of one of those quality people is 
     Caitlin Halligan, currently Cy's General Counsel at the 
     Manhattan District Attorney's Office.
       Caitlin's resume makes it hard to believe she is only 
     forty-four years old. Educated at Princeton with a law degree 
     from Georgetown, Caitlin served as law clerk to two of 
     America's most illustrious jurists. Her service to my home 
     State of New York has been both distinguished and invaluable. 
     As a member of the Attorney General's Internet Bureau, 
     Caitlin helped develop initiatives to battle on-line fraud 
     and protect individual privacy. Many of those initiatives are 
     still employed by local offices. Rising through the ranks of 
     the Attorney General's Office, Caitlin for five years served 
     as our State's Solicitor General, arguing cases before all 
     appellate levels, including the United States Supreme Court. 
     Caitlin's reputation was nothing short of outstanding which 
     is one of many reasons my friend Cy Vance was lucky enough to 
     entice her back into public service as his General Counsel.
       I fully understand the political give and take of the 
     nomination process, particularly when the position is of such 
     import. Words uttered and position papers written decades 
     earlier take on greater significance. Each party would prefer 
     to have a nominee whose judicial philosophy is most closely 
     attuned to their core beliefs. Ultimately, it is the 
     President's choice and frankly I do not think any President, 
     Democrat or Republican, could find a more qualified, a more 
     honorable or a finer candidate than Caitlin Halligan.
           Sincerely,
                                           William J. Fitzpatrick,
     District Attorney.
                                  ____



                                              Richmond County,

                             Staten Island, NY, February 25, 2011.
     Re Caitlin J. Halligan.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I write in support of the nomination of 
     Caitlin J. Halligan for a seat on the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Ms. Halligan's experience and 
     accomplishments as an appellate lawyer make her an ideal 
     appointee to that Court.
       Ms. Halligan, currently employed by the New York County 
     District Attorney's Office as General Counsel, has served as 
     First Deputy Solicitor General, then Solicitor General of the 
     State of New York and as head of the appellate practice 
     section at the New York law firm of Weil, Gotshal and Manges 
     LLP. In her time as First Deputy and then Solicitor General, 
     she was responsible not only for briefing and arguing her own 
     cases, but for supervising the appellate litigation conducted 
     by New York State's Attorney General as well.
       In her time in private practice and in the Office of the 
     New York State Solicitor General, Ms. Halligan has briefed 
     and argued cases at all levels of appellate courts in the 
     United States, ranging from the United States Supreme Court 
     to New York State's intermediate appellate court, the 
     Appellate

[[Page 18962]]

     Division and has also supervised briefs filed in those 
     courts. The cases in which she has been involved, either as 
     principal attorney or supervisor, span such diverse areas as 
     prisoner civil rights matters, environmental, voting rights 
     and free speech issues, and commerce clause matters. This 
     breadth of practice areas--both in terms of the courts in 
     which Ms. Halligan has appeared and the nature of the cases 
     in which she has been involved--certainly has provided Ms. 
     Halligan with the background necessary for success as a 
     Circuit Court judge, particularly in view of the wide variety 
     of matters that will come before Ms. Halligan should she be 
     confirmed to a seat on the D.C. Circuit.
       In short, Ms. Halligan's experience as an appellate 
     practitioner and the wide variety of issues with which she 
     has dealt will serve her well in her capacity as a Circuit 
     Judge and I am pleased to offer my support for her 
     confirmation.
           Sincerely,
                                           Daniel M. Donovan, Jr.,
     District Attorney.
                                  ____

                                     New York State Association of


                                       Chiefs of Police, Inc.,

                                  Schenectady, NY, April 27, 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: On behalf of the 
     New York State Association of Chiefs of Police, I am writing 
     to express our unqualified support for the nomination of 
     Caitlin J. Halligan for the position of United States Circuit 
     Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.
       Our Association was founded in 1901 and has almost 600 
     active members including Police Chiefs, Commissioners, 
     Superintendents and other command level officers. Our primary 
     purpose is to provide training for our members and to serve 
     as an information hub for them as well. We take great pride 
     in helping to advance the cause of professional policing and 
     take very seriously our obligations to support individuals 
     who we believe will serve our nation's criminal justice 
     system well.
       An examination of Ms. Halligan's credentials clearly 
     indicates to us that she is one of those individuals She has 
     demonstrated an understanding of the need for strong law 
     enforcement to protect those in our communities least able to 
     protect themselves. She has extensive experience as an 
     appellate lawyer and has worked on many important cases being 
     handled by the most senior courts in our judicial system.
       Our Board of Governors who represent police agencies across 
     the State from the largest to the smallest have unanimously 
     voted to endorse her nomination. We urge you to give her the 
     most serious consideration for this most important 
     appointment.
       Thank you for your attention to our interests and please 
     feel free to contact us if we may ever be of assistance.
           Respectfully,
                                                  John P. Grebert,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                          New York


                                     Women in Law Enforcement,

                                         Albany, NY, May 31, 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: On behalf of the 
     New York, Women in Law Enforcement (NYWLE), I am writing to 
     express our support for the nomination of Caitlin J. Halligan 
     for the position of United States Circuit Judge for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit.
       The primary mission of NYWLE is to support the recruitment, 
     retention and promotion of women within the criminal justice 
     system. It is with enthusiasm that we support the appointment 
     of Ms. Halligan, a person of nobility and integrity to this 
     honorable position.
       Her vast experience arguing cases before both state and 
     federal appellate courts coupled with her rapid advancement 
     in her career speak to her elevated level of intelligence and 
     integrity. Her pro bono work on the memorial for the World 
     Trade Center demonstrates her noble commitment to doing what 
     is right for individuals in need. She exemplifies all the 
     characteristics of a person we would want to serve the people 
     of this country in such a crucial judgeship.
       In summary, the Board of the NYWLE, whose 19 names and 
     positions are outlined on this letterhead, highly recommends 
     Ms. Halligan as a Federal Circuit Judge. We thank you for 
     your consideration in this matter.
           Respectfully,
                                              Deborah J. Campbell,
     President.
                                  ____

                                               National Center for


                                             Women & Policing,

                                                    Arlington, VA.
     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: On behalf of the 
     National Center for Women and Policing (NCWP), I am writing 
     to express our utmost support for the nomination of Caitlin 
     J. Halligan for the position of United States Circuit Judge 
     for the District of Columbia Circuit.
       A division of the Feminist Majority Foundation, the NCWP 
     has been working since 1995 to educate criminal justice 
     policy makers, the media and the public about the impacts of 
     increasing the representation of women in policing. Our goals 
     include ensuring that gender is always considered during the 
     analysis of contemporary policing issues, and that law 
     enforcement agencies strive for gender balancing their 
     departments. We take great pride in helping to advance the 
     cause of professional policing and take very seriously our 
     obligations to support individuals who we believe will serve 
     our nation's criminal justice system overall.
       Ms. Halligan is clearly an individual we would want to 
     support to serve our criminal justice system at the national 
     level. Her extensive experience either representing cases 
     before the Supreme Court or arguing cases before the state 
     and federal appellate courts whether as the Solicitor General 
     for New York State, the Counsel for New York County's 
     District Attorney Office or for private practice is 
     impressive. Her pro bono work on the memorial for the World 
     Trade Center is honorable. She is clearly a person of solid 
     standing and integrity a person we would want serving the 
     people at one of our highest courts.
       We are confident she would provide fair and equal justice 
     and therefore respectfully request your consideration for Ms. 
     Halligan for this critical appointment.
           Respectfully,
                                                   Margaret Moore,
     Director.
                                  ____

                                               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, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, 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.
                                  ____

                                           Women's Bar Association


                                  of the District of Columbia,

                                    Washington, DC, June 16, 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, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     Ranking Member, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.

       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: On behalf 
     of the Women's Bar Association of the District of Columbia 
     (WBA), we write to express the WBA's enthusiastic support for 
     Caitlin J. Halligan's nomination to the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
       Ms. Halligan is exceptionally well-qualified for the 
     position to which she has been nominated. Her confirmation 
     would add not only superior intellect, but also much needed 
     diversity to the federal appellate courts.
       The WBA's principal goal in supporting judicial candidates 
     is to ensure the appointment of qualified judges and, 
     consistent with that goal, to increase the number of judges 
     who support the mission of the WBA. We give priority in our 
     recommendations to candidates with extensive litigation 
     experience,

[[Page 18963]]

     a demonstrated commitment to the equality of all litigants, 
     and an attention to women's needs and concerns. The WBA 
     evaluates each candidate for endorsement by reviewing his or 
     her resume and other supporting documentation, and by 
     discussing, with references the candidate's qualifications, 
     integrity, temperament, experience, and commitment to the 
     concepts of equal opportunity and equal justice under law.
       Ms. Halligan is without question eminently qualified to 
     join the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Her academic and 
     legal credentials are of the highest caliber. Ms. Halligan's 
     legal career began at Georgetown University Law Center, where 
     she graduated Order of the Coif and was Managing Editor of 
     the Georgetown Law Review. She subsequently clerked for Judge 
     Patricia M. Wald on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and 
     later for Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the United States 
     Supreme Court. The majority of her outstanding legal career 
     has been focused upon public service. From 2001-2006, she 
     served as Solicitor General of the State of New York, and she 
     currently serves as General Counsel to the New York County 
     District Attorney's office. In between, Ms. Halligan headed 
     the appellate practice at Weil, Gotshal and Manges, LLP. She 
     has served as counsel of record for a party or amicus at the 
     certiorari or merits stage in more than 40 matters in the 
     United States Supreme Court. She has also argued five cases 
     before the Court, including as recently as March 2011, and 
     won awards from the National Association of Attorneys General 
     in five consecutive years as New York's Solicitor General.
       Ms. Halligan's contributions to the legal profession have 
     extended well beyond her day job. She has taught as an 
     adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and as 
     a Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School. Ms. Halligan has 
     also made significant pro bono contributions, serving as a 
     member of the Boards of Directors of the National Center for 
     Law and Economic Justice and the Fund for Modern Courts, as 
     pro bono counsel to the Board of Directors of the Lower 
     Manhattan Development Corporation, and as counsel for 
     Hurricane Katrina and Rita evacuees before the Fifth Circuit. 
     Through her activities, Ms. Halligan has demonstrated a 
     commitment to the concepts of equal opportunity and equal 
     justice under law both inside and outside the courtroom.
       Given her record of achievement and breadth of experience, 
     it is not surprising that Ms. Halligan has received a 
     unanimous rating of Well-Qualified from the ABA's Standing 
     Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the highest rating 
     available. She has the support of 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, and the National Center for Women & Policing. In 
     addition, a bi-partisan group of prominent appellate 
     practitioners that includes Cliff Sloan, Sri Srinivasan, 
     Miguel Estrada, Carter Phillips and numerous others has 
     submitted an enthusiastic letter praising the abilities and 
     character of Ms. Halligan and expressing their unanimous 
     belief that ``Caitlin is an outstanding selection for the 
     D.C. Circuit.''
       Beyond Ms. Halligan's obvious qualifications, we must note 
     that her confirmation would add much needed diversity to the 
     federal bench. Out of 179 seats on the federal appellate 
     courts, only 50 are currently held by women. The D.C. Circuit 
     has eleven authorized judgeships, with two current vacancies, 
     but only three women are among the active judges. Ms. 
     Halligan possesses impeccable credentials and would be a 
     worthy addition to the D.C. Circuit.
       For all of these reasons, the WBA is proud to support 
     Caitlin Halligan's nomination, and strongly urges the Senate 
     to vote to confirm her to the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the District of Columbia Circuit. She is a superlative 
     lawyer with a broad range of experience, and her commitment 
     to fairness, stellar intellect, judicious temperament, and 
     principled nature make Ms. Halligan a superb nominee. If you 
     have any questions regarding this letter of support, please 
     contact the WBA office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Monica G. Parham,
     President.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Dec. 5, 2011]

          Put Caitlin Halligan and Others on the D.C. Circuit

       The Nov. 23 editorial ``Time to Pass Judgment'' argued that 
     the Senate should confirm Caitlin J. Halligan to a seat on 
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I fully 
     agree. Ms. Halligan has excellent qualifications and appears 
     to be an extremely bright and capable judicial candidate. It 
     seems, however, that Senate Republicans have one major 
     problem with Ms. Halligan: She looks too much like a future 
     Supreme Court nominee. That is the same problem Senate 
     Democrats had with Miguel A. Estrada when they blocked his 
     appointment to the D.C. Circuit.
       The Halligan and Estrada nominations are just two examples 
     of the petty and unnecessary charade that is the current 
     Senate judicial confirmation process. Though this problem is 
     decades old, perhaps President Obama could make a bold effort 
     at bilateral disarmament and prove his bipartisan bona fides 
     at the same time.
       Assuming Ms. Halligan is confirmed, the D.C. Circuit will 
     still have two open seats, to which Obama should nominate Mr. 
     Estrada and Goodwin Liu. Both Mr. Estrada (a Bush nominee) 
     and Mr. Liu (an Obama nominee) are brilliant lawyers, and 
     both were blocked by tit-for-tat Senate politics. Such a move 
     by Mr. Obama could soften the gridlock that has plagued 
     judicial nominations for so many years.
                                                       Jeff Luoma,
                                                   North Bethesda.

       In addition to all of the reasons that The Post's editorial 
     cited in urging that the Senate confirm Caitlin J. Halligan, 
     one other important factor is that this outstanding nominee 
     would be only the sixth female judge in the 118-year history 
     of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, thus 
     adding to the court's diversity.
       Eight months is far too long to deprive the D.C. Circuit of 
     a nominee of Ms. Halligan's talents; the Senate should vote 
     Tuesday to cut off debate on her nomination and vote 
     immediately afterward to confirm her.
                                            Marcia D. Greenberger,
                                                       Washington.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally 
divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I see the distinguished Senator from New York on the 
floor, and I have a feeling that she will have a statement of support 
of this superb nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I am very proud to support the 
nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia.
  Caitlin Halligan has distinguished herself through her commitment to 
fairness, reasoned intellect, personal ethics, and a profound respect 
for the law. Unfortunately, it appears that some of my colleagues are 
determined to criticize her, regardless of the facts or her record. The 
major concern seems to be the workload demands for the D.C. Circuit. 
This is not a reason to oppose this candidate's nomination.
  In 2008, the Senate acted to reduce the number of seats on the D.C. 
Circuit from 12 to 11, increasing the caseload for each of the judges. 
Currently, there are only eight active judges on the D.C. Circuit, 
leaving the bench more than 27 percent vacant. That means the U.S. 
Circuit Court currently has three vacancies--three vacancies on a court 
that is currently handling more than 1,200 cases; three vacancies on a 
court that handles some of the most complicated decisions, including 
terrorism cases.
  Today we have the opportunity to fill one of these vacancies on the 
D.C. Circuit, often called the second most important court in the 
entire United States. The caseload of the D.C. Circuit has remained 
consistent since 2005, while the number of cases per judge has 
increased by 33 percent. If Ms. Halligan is confirmed, it will reduce 
that caseload from its current level of approximately 161 pending cases 
to approximately 143 per judge, still substantially higher than during 
the previous administration.
  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reviews complicated decisions and 
rulemaking of many Federal agencies and in recent years has handled 
some of the most important terrorism and detention cases since the 
horrific attacks on September 11. These cases are complex, requiring 
additional time to allow for the consideration they demand.
  Many of my colleagues have raised concerns with positions Ms. 
Halligan advocated while solicitor general of New York. She filed 
briefs at the direction of the Attorney General. She was not promoting 
her own personal views. Many of these cases focused explicitly on New 
York State's rights to govern in traditional State law areas.

[[Page 18964]]

  Caitlin Halligan is a woman of superb intellect, a history of 
laudable achievements, and a record of outstanding public service. Not 
only does she deserve an up-or-down vote, but on the merits she 
deserves the full support of the Senate. I ask my colleagues to allow 
for an up-or-down vote on Caitlin Halligan's nomination. Let's debate 
Ms. Halligan on her merits. She deserves nothing less.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise to speak today in opposition to the 
nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be a judge in the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
  The D.C. Circuit is arguably the most important Federal appellate 
court in our Federal judicial system, with primary responsibility to 
review administrative decisions made by countless Federal departments 
and agencies. It has also served in many instances as a steppingstone 
for judges who are later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a 
result, the Senate has historically very closely scrutinized nominees 
to the D.C. Circuit.
  When evaluating particular nominees, we have also carefully 
considered the need for additional judges on that court.
  In July 2006, President Bush nominated an eminently qualified lawyer, 
Peter Keisler, to fill a seat on the D.C. Circuit. Mr. Keisler is among 
the very finest attorneys in the country. Because of his nonideological 
approach to the law, Mr. Keisler enjoys broad bipartisan support 
throughout the legal profession. Despite these unassailable legal 
qualifications, Democratic Senators blocked his nomination. He did not 
receive any floor consideration whatsoever, not even a cloture vote, 
and his nomination languished in the Judiciary Committee. At the time, 
a number of Democratic Senators sent a letter to the Judiciary 
Committee chairman arguing that a nominee to the D.C. Circuit ``should 
under no circumstances be considered, much less confirmed, before we 
first address the very need for that judgeship''--the judgeship he 
would occupy. These Senators specifically argued that a D.C. Circuit's 
comparatively moderate caseload in 2006 simply did not justify the 
confirmation of an additional judge to that court.
  Five years have now passed and Ms. Halligan has been nominated to 
that very same seat on the D.C. Circuit. But the court's caseload 
remains as minimal as it did then. According to the Administrative 
Office of U.S. Courts, the D.C. Circuit caseload per judge is 
approximately one-fourth that of most other Federal courts of appeals. 
In each of the past 2 years, the D.C. Circuit has cancelled regularly 
scheduled argument dates due to lack of pending cases. For several 
years the court has experienced a decline in workload in terms of total 
filings, actions per active judge, and pending appeals. Almost every 
metric indicates the same direction. Indeed, since 2006, when Democrats 
blocked Mr. Keisler's nomination, the total number of appeals filed in 
the D.C. Circuit has decreased--decreased--by 12 percent.
  According to the Democrats' own standards, and particularly when 
there are judicial emergencies in other courts across the country, now 
is not the time to confirm another judge to the D.C. Circuit. It is 
most certainly not the time for us to consider confirming a 
controversial nominee with a record of extreme views of the law and the 
Constitution. Many of my colleagues have discussed these views, so I 
will limit myself this morning to one example.
  In 2003, while serving as solicitor general of New York, Ms. Halligan 
approved and signed a legal brief arguing that handgun manufacturers, 
wholesalers, and retailers should be held liable for criminal actions 
that individuals commit with those guns. Three years later, in 2006, 
Ms. Halligan filed a brief alleging that handgun manufacturers were 
guilty of creating a public nuisance--that they, themselves, were 
guilty of creating a public nuisance. Such an activist approach is both 
bewildering and inconsistent with the original understanding of the 
second amendment and the rights under the second amendment that 
American citizens enjoy.
  In conclusion, as measured by the Democrats' own standards and their 
prior actions, now is not the time to confirm another judge to the D.C. 
Circuit, and it is certainly not the time to consider such a 
controversial nominee for that important court.
  For these reasons, I cannot support Ms. Halligan's nomination, and 
urge my colleagues to oppose her confirmation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be divided 
equally.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEE. I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I believe 
we have a set number of minutes left to discuss the nominee, Caitlin 
Joan Halligan, which is the subject here?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SCHUMER. How much time does the majority have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask that the final 8 minutes before we 
vote be reserved for that and that the Senator from Illinois be allowed 
to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.


                            Social Security

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business to 
talk about the big issue pending before the Senate, which is the 
potential legislation by Republicans or Democrats to cut contributions 
to Social Security. I am very worried because in the legislation we 
considered last week, we had proposals to cut contributions to Social 
Security by $250 billion. This was legislation proposed by Democratic 
leaders and then a separate piece of legislation by Republican leaders. 
I think that legislation was a mistake on both sides.
  We have precious few bipartisan institutions or contacts in this 
Senate. Senator Manchin and I--one Democratic and one Republican 
Senator, both freshmen--meet every Thursday for lunch. At our Thursday 
lunch last week, Senator Manchin initially said: I am having 
difficulty. I don't think I am going to be able to vote for the 
Democratic bill to cut Social Security contributions.
  I said: I join you in that because I am not going to be able to vote 
for the Republican bill that cuts Social Security contributions.
  So the two of us voted pro-Social Security and against the 
legislation before us.
  I am very worried that we are forgetting the lessons that are 
currently playing out in Europe on this subject. As Margaret Thatcher 
said, ``Eventually socialists run out of other people's money.'' The 
collapse of European socialism underscores the lesson that you cannot 
run a retirement system without contributions.
  We know already that the Social Security system is running slightly 
in the red. Contributions into the system are going to run $10 billion 
behind the cost of honoring benefits to seniors. But under this 
legislation we would

[[Page 18965]]

underfund Social Security by $250 billion. We would increase the tide 
of red ink to Social Security by 20 times. I think that is a mistake.
  AARP tells us that Social Security is not a welfare program, it is a 
retirement security program paid by the contributions of workers and we 
should run this program with the contribution of workers.
  Remember, if we make this decision to cut contributions to Social 
Security, we replace those contributions with government bonds, but the 
government bonds we would ask seniors to trust no longer have a triple-
A credit rating from Standard & Poor's. It is basically asking seniors 
to trust us.
  When you look at the details of the Democratic bill and the 
Republican bill, you see another disturbing trend. The Democratic and 
Republican bills both depend on revenue streams that take many years to 
repay what is lost to Social Security. Under the Republican bill, there 
are promised cuts which could be reversed by a future administration or 
Congress. It takes until 2018 to repay the senior citizens what has 
been lost in Social Security contributions under the trust fund. Under 
the Democratic bill, there was a political tax on millionaires, and it 
takes until 2021 to repay seniors.
  The message that Senator Manchin and I had, as one Democrat and one 
Republican, is, how about not charging seniors? How about not causing a 
tide of red ink to Social Security? How about making sure we maintain 
contributions to that program? Seniors have enough to worry about right 
now. They should not have to worry about the future solvency of Social 
Security.
  One analyst described how, under the legislation, it requires 
temporary borrowing of an additional $240 billion for the Federal 
budget. I am worried that kind of borrowing could trigger an earlier 
loss of the debt limit of the United States, so we could trigger the 
battle we all expect for next January to actually happen--ominously for 
the President, prior to the election--if this legislation would pass.
  Common sense should prevail, that we should run a retirement security 
system with adequate contributions to maintain benefits, that we should 
agree on a bipartisan basis that Social Security is one of the most 
successful Federal programs ever signed, that we should say to seniors: 
Among all the other worries you have, you should not worry about 
Congress underfunding the trust fund for Social Security. We should say 
to seniors: We are not replacing solid contributions coming in from 
workers with bonds that no longer have a AAA credit rating from 
Standard & Poor's.
  I urge members of AARP to reach out to their leaders and say: We urge 
you to forcefully advocate for maintaining adequate contributions to 
Social Security; that we don't think promises of a millionaire's tax 
that repays the debts until 2021 or spending cuts that repay the debts 
until 2018 are something we can fully trust.
  So I urge Members of this body to maintain adequate contributions to 
Social Security, to defeat both the Republican and Democratic bills, to 
learn the lessons of Europe that we need to maintain a retirement 
security system with adequate contributions, and that we should not 
sink the Social Security trust fund in a wave of red ink on gimmick 
legislation which already would impinge the credit of the United States 
to a degree that it should not be impinged any further.
  With that I yield the floor, and I thank my senior colleague from New 
York.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination 
of Caitlin Halligan to be a judge of the U.S. Circuit Court for the 
District of Columbia.
  I have carefully considered the background of this nominee and 
undertaken a full review of her public record as well as the records of 
the Judiciary Committee hearings. I have also looked closely at the 
actual staffing needs of the court to which she has been nominated. 
While my review leads me to conclude that Ms. Halligan is well 
qualified, I am not convinced that the workload of the court justifies 
filling the seat, and on that basis, I oppose the nomination.
  This vacancy has existed since 2005 when then-Judge John Roberts was 
elevated to the Supreme Court. In June 2006, President Bush nominated 
Peter Keisler to fill the seat. Despite Mr. Keisler's strong 
qualifications, Democrats held up his nomination for a total of 918 
days; it eventually had to be withdrawn.
  Central to their objection to Mr. Keisler's nomination was their 
contention that the court's caseload did not justify filling the 
vacancy. As expressed by a Democratic Judiciary Committee member during 
Mr. Keisler's confirmation hearing and later reiterated by all eight 
committee Democrats in a letter to the chairman urging the nomination 
be put on hold:

       We are putting the cart before the horse here. . . . Here 
     are the questions that just loom out there. Is there a 
     genuine need to fill this seat? Has not the workload of the 
     D.C. Circuit gone down? Should taxpayers be burdened with the 
     cost of filling that seat? . . . We have been told repeatedly 
     that to fill this seat would be a waste of taxpayer money and 
     a shameful triumph of big government. Why then are we 
     speeding towards confirmation here?

  Since that statement, even with this seat still vacant, statistics 
from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts show that the 
caseload of the D.C. Circuit has actually continued to decrease 
markedly over the last several years and that, with a smaller court, 
more appeals were terminated during this same period
  This decrease is evident in both the total number of appeals filed 
and the total number of appeals pending. Specifically, the total number 
of appeals filed in the D.C. Circuit decreased by more than 14 percent 
between 2005, when 1,379 appeals were filed, and 2010--the latest 
complete year for which statistics are available--when 1,178 appeals 
were filed. Meanwhile, with a smaller court, more appeals were 
terminated during this period. The total number of appeals pending was 
reduced from 1,463 appeals to 1,293 appeals. This is a decrease of 
nearly 12 percent.
  The shrinking workload is also demonstrated in the per-panel and per-
judge statistics. Filings per panel and filings per judge show a 
decline of nearly 7 percent during this period as well. Pending appeals 
per panel dropped over 9 percent. Interestingly, the D.C. Circuit ranks 
last among the circuit courts in 2010 in this category. That means it 
has the lightest workload per panel.
  Given the declining workloads, the Senate should be debating reducing 
the staffing for this court, not filling a vacancy. With our massive 
deficit, belts being tightened everywhere, and critical vacancies 
existing on other Federal courts, why should we spend the resources--
estimated at over $1 million a year--to fill this seat? Why are we 
eating up legislative time debating a nominee we likely don't need, 
instead of moving forward to nominees for vacancies that have become 
judicial emergencies and demand more immediate attention?
  It is discouraging to note that now that the candidate for this seat 
is a Democratic nominee and not a Republican, all of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle seem to have forgotten their concerns about the 
caseload, even though the court's own statistics show it has markedly 
declined. In fact, when the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, recently 
sought to amend a judicial staffing bill before the Judiciary Committee 
this last October to cut a seat on the D.C. Circuit, Committee 
Democrats voted it down.
  Mr. President, given the facts, I firmly believe that filling this 
vacancy before we determine whether the position is or is not 
superfluous to the court's needs, is indeed, as Judiciary Committee 
Democrats noted in 2006, ``putting the cart before the horse.'' Until 
that determination is made, I cannot support filling this vacancy 
regardless of the nominee's qualifications. Consequently, I will oppose 
cloture on the nomination.
  Mr. HATCH. I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Caitlin 
Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I reached 
this conclusion after applying the same standard I use for all judicial 
nominations.

[[Page 18966]]

The Senate owes some deference to the President regarding judicial 
nominees who are qualified by virtue of their legal experience and, 
more importantly, their judicial philosophy. I want to briefly mention 
a few of the reasons why this controversial nominee fails to meet this 
standard.
  One hallmark of an activist judicial philosophy is trying to use the 
courts to solve problems or address issues that properly belong in the 
legislative branch. Both as solicitor general of New York and in 
private practice, Ms. Halligan argued that gun manufacturers should be 
held liable for the illegal use of their products. She argued that 
illegally possessed handguns are a so-called public nuisance for which 
manufacturers should be held responsible. The New York Court of Appeals 
rejected this radical theory and properly concluded that such social 
problems should be addressed by the legislative or executive branches 
rather than the judicial branch.
  Undeterred, Ms. Halligan next went to Federal court to challenge the 
constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. 
Congress enacted that statute so that manufacturers would not be held 
liable for the illegal use of their products. That measure passed the 
House and the Senate by at least a 2-to-1 margin. In this body, 14 
Democrats voted for the bill, including 10 who still serve today. As 
had the New York Court of Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Second Circuit rejected Ms. Halligan's position, upholding the statute 
and dismissing the litigation.
  Ms. Halligan has also taken extreme positions regarding the war on 
terrorism. I know that liberals do not even want to call it that today, 
but the reality is that we remain at war against foreign terrorists 
bent on murdering American civilians. Ms. Halligan would give captured 
terrorists, who are making war on the United States, access to civilian 
courts, a right never before recognized in American history. Ms. 
Halligan was a member of a New York City bar committee that issued a 
report on the indefinite detention of enemy combatants. This is 
particularly important because the D.C. Circuit, to which Ms. Halligan 
has been nominated, is the most important lower court for terrorism 
cases. She did not abstain from signing the report, as four other 
committee members did, and so its content and conclusions can be 
attributed to her.
  She argued in that report that the authorization for use of military 
force, or AUMF, does not authorize long-term detention of enemy 
combatants and that alien terrorists should be tried in civilian courts 
rather than in military commissions. The Supreme Court and the Obama 
administration have since rejected or abandoned such positions. After 
the Supreme Court held, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that the AUMF does 
authorize military detention of resident aliens, Ms. Halligan 
coauthored a brief arguing otherwise. Not until her Judiciary Committee 
hearing this year did Ms. Halligan even try to distance herself from 
these extreme positions, something that my friends on the other side of 
the aisle would call a confirmation conversion if she were a 
Republican.
  Unfortunately, this was not the only example of Ms. Halligan getting 
behind novel rights that have no grounding in our Constitution or legal 
traditions. Ms. Halligan filed a brief in Roper v. Simmons arguing that 
evolving standards of decency today forbid the execution of individuals 
who committed murder before the age of 18. This is judicial activism at 
its worst, giving judges complete control of the Constitution that they 
are supposed to follow. America's Founders insisted that the meaning of 
the Constitution does not change until the people change it and that 
even judges are bound to follow that meaning. Today, in contrast, the 
Supreme Court says that the meaning of the Constitution is evolving and 
that judges are in charge of that evolution.
  The fact that Ms. Halligan appears to be solidly in that judicial 
activist camp is bad enough and is alone grounds to oppose her 
nomination. Perhaps sensing that such activism is deeply unpopular 
among the American people and their elected representatives, she did an 
about-face at her confirmation hearing and said that the Constitution 
should be interpreted based on the people's original meaning rather 
than on judges' evolving understandings. So it is legitimate to ask 
which Ms. Halligan is the real Ms. Halligan--the Ms. Halligan who would 
create new rights, while ignoring the clear language of the 
Constitution that protects the right to bear arms, or the Ms. Halligan 
who at the last minute has become a convert to originalism?
  I think her record speaks for itself.
  Ms. Halligan also filed a brief in Scheidler v. National Organization 
for Women arguing that pro-life protesters should be prosecuted under 
the Federal racketeering statute because they somehow commit extortion. 
Her argument would require the courts literally to rewrite both the 
racketeering statute and the extortion statute and is another example 
of Ms. Halligan seeking to pursue her political agenda in the judicial 
rather than in the legislative branch. I believe instead that the 
political ends do not justify the judicial means and, thankfully, the 
Supreme Court voted 8 to 1 to reject her position.
  In addition to her troubling record, it is worth noting that the 
position to which Ms. Halligan has been nominated hardly fits the 
category of a judicial emergency. The Senate has this year already 
confirmed nearly 20 percent more judges than the annual average over 
the past couple of decades, with, I am sure, more to come. We have paid 
particular attention to filling long-term vacancies in jurisdictions 
with heavy caseloads. Yet, between 1993 and 2010, annual case filings 
in the D.C. Circuit decreased by twice the percentage that filings 
increased in other circuits. The D.C. Circuit's caseload per judge is 
literally one-fourth what it is for other circuits. It has ranked last 
for years among all circuits in the number of appeals filed per three-
judge panel, even after one of its seats was transferred to the Ninth 
Circuit and even with multiple vacancies. The D.C. Circuit's caseload 
is lower today than when Democrats used this caseload argument to block 
the nomination to this court of Peter Keisler, who waited more than 900 
days without a committee vote.
  As my colleagues know, I do not oppose judicial nominees often or 
lightly. While Ms. Halligan appears to be an experienced lawyer and I 
am sure is a fine person, those are insufficient qualifications for 
judicial service. The most important qualification is her judicial 
philosophy, or the kind of judge she would be. The record shows that 
she embraces the activist judicial approach that I believe is 
incompatible with the power and proper role of judges in our system of 
government under a written Constitution. For these and for additional 
reasons that my colleagues will discuss further, I cannot support her 
appointment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for Caitlin 
Halligan, who has been nominated to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit. Ms. Halligan has an impressive background and broad support, 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture and allow this nominee to 
receive an up-or-down confirmation vote.
  Ms. Halligan has had a distinguished career in both the private and 
public sectors. She has served as the solicitor general of New York and 
as general counsel of the New York County District Attorney's Office. 
She has also been a senior appellate lawyer at the nationally 
recognized law firm of Weil Gotshal. She has argued five cases before 
the Supreme Court, where she also clerked after law school. It is no 
wonder the ABA unanimously rated her ``well-qualified''--the highest 
ranking to serve on the D.C. Circuit.
  In addition to impressive credentials, Ms. Halligan has broad 
support. The National District Attorneys Association and district 
attorneys from the State of New York, including Republicans Derek 
Champagne, Daniel Donovan, and William Fitzpatrick, support her 
nomination. She is also supported by the New York Association of Chiefs 
of Police and the New York State Sheriff's Association.

[[Page 18967]]

  Confirming a well-qualified nominee like Ms. Halligan would also be 
another step toward expanding the diversity of our Federal bench. 
Today, women hold 30 percent of Federal judicial seats--from district 
courts to the Supreme Court--the most at any time in this Nation's 
history. While this progress is to be celebrated, these words from 
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor remind us there is more to do:

       About half of all law graduates today are women, and we 
     have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country 
     who are serving as lawyers. So they ought to be represented 
     on the Court.

  I am proud to support the nomination of Ms. Halligan and hope that my 
colleagues will join me in voting for cloture today.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, today Republicans filibuster a judicial 
nominee whose colleagues call her a ``brilliant legal mind'' with an 
``abiding respect for the law.''
  This nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 
Caitlin Joan Halligan, has outstanding credentials and strong support 
from across the political spectrum.
  She enjoys the support of a bipartisan group of appellate lawyers, 
former judges, law enforcement officials, and more than 20 former 
Supreme Court clerks. And she has been endorsed by the National 
District Attorneys Association, the New York Association of Police 
Chiefs and the New York State Sheriffs Association.
  She graduated with honors from Princeton and Georgetown University 
Law, where she was managing editor of the Georgetown Law Journal. She 
served as a law clerk to Judge Patricia Wald on the D.C. Circuit, the 
court to which she was nominated, and to Justice Stephen Breyer on the 
Supreme Court.
  She has served New York and this Nation well as a public servant for 
more than a decade.
  Yet Republicans filibustered her nomination.
  I ask my colleagues, if this truly exceptional candidate isn't 
qualified to be a judge in the United States of America, who is?
  In 2005, a bipartisan group of Senators came to an agreement to 
protect the Senate as an institution and the right of the minority to 
influence debate. Democrats and Republicans averted the so-called 
nuclear option by agreeing that the minority's right to block judicial 
nominees would be preserved but it would be exercised only in 
extraordinary circumstances.
  I am concerned that today the Senate is backing away from that 
agreement. Ms. Halligan's nomination does not meet the standard of an 
extraordinary circumstance that agreement envisioned.
  Republicans, now in the minority, will block a talented, experienced 
nominee with broad bipartisan support to please a few ideological 
extremists.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for the remainder of the time if no one from the minority side is here 
to speak against this nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise this morning in support of the 
President's first and only nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit.
  Caitlin J. Halligan is a nominee any president of any party would be 
proud of. I know from speaking to her and from getting to know her over 
the last year--and it has been over a year since she was nominated--
that she has earned this honor. She has earned it through dint of hard 
work and native intelligence. Importantly, Halligan has dedicated most 
of her professional life to government service.
  I challenge anyone in this Chamber to think hard about what we are 
looking for in a judge to the second most important court in the land. 
If they do, they must conclude that Caitlin Halligan deserves an up-or-
down vote.
  Does the President have to nominate a political conservative to clear 
the hurdle? Halligan is clearly a moderate--far more moderate than many 
on my side would choose if they were nominating on their own without an 
advise-and-consent process. Does the President have to nominate a 
lawyer who has practiced law in the shadows, never addressing a major 
legal issue of importance to the Nation in her entire career? Because 
the only arguments against Caitlin Halligan are ``gotcha'' arguments 
that simply take little snippets of what she did in past law practice 
representing clients, not her own views, and say ``gotcha.''
  In 2005, 14 of my colleagues formed what was called the Gang of 14. 
In order to reduce filibusters and overcome the push to change Senate 
rules to get rid of the filibuster, this bipartisan group agreed not to 
filibuster any nominees who did not present ``extraordinary 
circumstances.''
  Now, ``extraordinary circumstances'' was not defined. But my 
colleague, Senator Graham, a leader in that Gang of 14 effort, to his 
credit, said on the floor at the time--completely reasonably--that it 
meant no ideological attacks. Senator Graham 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 does not have a character problem or an ethics 
problem. No one has alleged she does. It is that simple. So if this 
body cannot invoke cloture on her nomination today, the Gang of 14 
agreement, it would seem to me, would be violated.
  The approach taken by Senate Republicans will have lasting 
consequences beyond this one nomination. It seems to me that a vote 
against this nominee is a vote that declares the Gang of 14 agreement 
null and void. I was not a party to that agreement, but it would be 
impossible to deny that it has guided this body's consideration of 
judges since 2005 under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. If 
Republicans are going to suddenly junk that 6-year armistice, it could 
risk throwing the Senate into chaos on judicial nominees. Senate 
Republicans seem to want to declare open season for filibusters again--
at least at the court of appeals level. Admittedly, and gladly, things 
as of late have gotten much better at the district court level. But the 
defeat of Caitlin Halligan would throw into chaos nominations at the 
circuit court level for a long time to come.
  Any attempt to paint Caitlin Halligan as so far out of the mainstream 
that she presents an ``extraordinary circumstance'' is twisting her 
record far beyond recognition. Any attempt to do so would make any 
nominee, by a Democratic or a Republican President, susceptible to that 
unfair charge.
  I have always said ideology matters, but I have also said candidates 
need only to be mainstream--not too far right, not too far left. I 
don't like nominees who are at the extremes, left or right, because 
they tend to be ideologues who want to make law not interpret and 
follow law. Well, Halligan fits the bill of a moderate, mainstream 
nominee precisely, to a ``T.''
  Halligan has spent her career in government in both political and 
plenty of nonpolitical positions. She has worked as a lawyer's lawyer 
and has expressed few views on public issues. She has written virtually 
nothing, but at her hearing she did answer questions. She acknowledged 
that Executive power extends to indefinite detention of enemy 
combatants during time of war--something that might be disputed among 
mainstream Members of this body, particularly if they were citizens 
picked up on American soil. We just had that debate.
  She acknowledged she would act with fealty to text and original 
intent in interpreting laws and the Constitution. She acknowledged she 
believes the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear 
arms, thereby vindicating the Heller case, and she acknowledged that 
the eighth amendment protects the constitutionality of the death 
penalty.
  Some of my colleagues have tried to paint Halligan because she has 
filed briefs on behalf of clients, and they say that somehow indicates 
she would be

[[Page 18968]]

an activist judge. First, I wish to point out that she is not the first 
nominee to come before the Senate and state that the views in the 
briefs she writes of her clients are not her own. Guess who did it 
regularly and repeatedly. Now-Chief Justice Roberts.
  Did Democrats filibuster Justice Roberts because he did that? Did we 
say the views he wrote on behalf of clients had to be attributed to his 
own views? Of course not.
  I wish to rebut some of the things I heard on this floor this morning 
about particular cases. First, while she did represent the State of New 
York against gun manufacturers, those cases were made moot by 
congressional law. In her hearing, Halligan recognized this and said 
unequivocally that she supports the individual right to bear arms.
  Second, it is simply wrong to suggest that Caitlin Halligan is 
somehow outside the mainstream on immigration because she filed a brief 
advocating that businesses should not be rewarded for hiring illegal 
immigrants by getting out of the requirement that backpay should be 
awarded when the workers are exploited. Again, this was a brief filed 
on behalf of a client, not representing her own view.
  Third, in the case of al-Marri, there is no argument that Halligan 
did anything other than make arguments on behalf of a client that were 
well within the mainstream. The administration abandoned the case and 
then charged al-Marri in civilian court--no different than the argument 
Halligan was making.
  Why are we arguing about whether she deserves an up-or-down vote? 
Because, frankly, as with the Supreme Court, this is part of the 
attempt of the far right to pull the D.C. Circuit further and further 
away from the mainstream. Many conservatives tend to decry ``liberal 
judicial activism.'' But what they really want is judicial activism of 
the right. They don't want lawyers to be down the middle and interpret 
law; they want to change the way the whole government has operated for 
decades through the one unelected body, the article III body, the 
judiciary.
  A truly moderate judicial philosophy shows respect for Congress, for 
executive agencies that interpret the law, and for well-settled 
understandings that the American people commonly hold about democracy. 
There is not a single question that Halligan adheres to these 
principles. She has extensive government experience. She understands 
the demands and rolls of the other branches.
  She has been a responsible and rigorous advocate for all of her 
clients, including the people of New York. I have no doubt that as a 
judge she will be a responsible and rigorous advocate for the rule of 
law. Anyone who has listened to her answer an hour of questions in the 
committee and read her responses to the 150 questions that were 
submitted for the record cannot doubt but that she has an even and 
modest temperament and philosophy in her approach to legal questions.
  Let me cite one example: When she was asked by Senator Grassley her 
view of deference to the legislative branch, here is how she responded:

       I think that the job of a judge is to examine the 
     constitutionality of a statute when a constitutional 
     challenge is presented, but I think that authority has to be 
     exercised very sparingly and very carefully.

  Time and time again she answered similarly with clear and unambiguous 
answers.
  Some of my colleagues have accused Halligan of lacking candor in her 
answers. Well, I have sat through a lot of hearings for nominees to 
Federal courts of appeals, and I know evasion when I see it. Halligan 
was not evasive. Some of the same people who say she lacked candor 
still defend Miguel Estrada who didn't answer a single question because 
he might come before them as a judge.
  She answered questions thoughtfully and forthrightly and explained 
the context of any past statements that might have seemed to have 
contradicted her current views.
  This morning, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
pointed to two things that she did not write to try to indicate she has 
activist views. First, she gave a speech in 2003 on behalf of her boss, 
Elliott Spitzer, that she did not write herself. In fact, she stepped 
in at the last minute to give the speech when he could not make it. She 
did not write it, and she clarified at the time that it did not reflect 
her personal views.
  Second, she was a member of a committee that issued a report on 
Executive power and enemy combatants. She explained in the committee 
she hadn't seen the report and didn't agree with either its content or 
its tone. In her hearing she clearly stated her views on Executive 
power. This should have cleared up any doubt about her ability to 
recognize and respect the current state of law.
  Finally, I wish to say a word about a red herring argument that has 
been raised today--that the workload of the D.C. Circuit is too low to 
confirm Halligan. I have expressed this concern, too, and, in fact, in 
2008 we voted to take away one of the seats in the D.C. Circuit. It now 
has 11 judges rather than 12; but I, as well as many of my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle have in the past reserved our concern for 
nominees of the 11th seat and what was then the 12th seat. Halligan has 
been nominated for the 9th seat. There are only 8 members on that court 
which now has a roster of 11. The 10th and 11th seats remain vacant. No 
one ever until now, on either side of the aisle, has ever argued that 
the D.C. Circuit should have only eight judges.
  I wonder, if control of the body changes, which I don't think it 
will, or we get a Republican President, which I don't think we will, 
how quickly our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will abandon 
that foolish and specious argument.
  I am concerned that we are hearing it now for the first time because 
the current makeup of the court happens to have five Republican 
appointees and three Democratic nominees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 
1\1/2\ more minutes to finish this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. When we confirmed President Bush's nominee to the 11th 
seat in 2005, Thomas Griffith, his confirmation resulted in there being 
121 pending cases per judge. We did not hear a peep out of the other 
side that that was too low. Yet today there are 161 cases per judge. 
With Halligan's confirmation, it would go down to 143--far more than 
the 121 when all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for 
Mr. Griffith, the Republican nominee of President Bush. So there is no 
reason to argue about caseload.
  The fact is, if we cannot confirm Halligan, this will not go down as 
a vote about caseload, this will be recorded as a new bar for nominees.
  In conclusion, when Caitlin Halligan drove with her father from her 
home in Kansas City to Harvard or when she was a standout student at 
Georgetown Law School or when she started her work for the New York 
Attorney General's Office, I am sure she could not have imagined that 
someday she would be the topic of a debate in the U.S. Senate about 
whether she was too radical or lacked the candor to be a judge.
  I hope that when we vote and the debate is over, my colleagues 
recognize the truth here: Halligan is a sterling example of a public 
servant who has worked hard, earned every honor she has received, and 
fits squarely within the mainstream of judicial thought. She deserves 
an up-or-down vote today, and I will be proud to cast my vote for 
cloture on Caitlin Halligan's nomination.
  I thank the Chair.


                             Cloture Motion

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

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Caitlin Joan Halligan, of New

[[Page 18969]]

     York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Charles E. Schumer, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Amy Klobuchar, Al Franken, 
           Richard Blumenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard J. 
           Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Herb Kohl, Kirsten E. 
           Gillibrand, Tom Udall, Ron Wyden, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Sherrod Brown, Jeanne Shaheen.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Caitlin Joan Halligan, of New York, to be United States 
Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, shall be brought to 
a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. HATCH (when his name was called). Present.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Ex.]

                               YEAS -- 54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Hatch
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are 
45, and 1 Senator responded ``present.''
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having not voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

                          ____________________