[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16833-16838]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF CORNELIA T.L. PILLARD TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE 
                  FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which 
the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Cornelia T.L. Pillard, 
of the District of Columbia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
District of Columbia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  Mr. DURBIN. A few moments ago the Republican whip, Senator Cornyn of 
Texas, came to the floor to oppose the nomination of Nina Pillard to 
the D.C. Circuit Court. Sadly, this did not come as a surprise. It is 
now clearly a political strategy on the other side to block President 
Obama's nominees for this important court. There are three vacancies on 
the D.C. Circuit. Most people view it as the second most important 
court in the land, next to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  The court has eight active judges. It is authorized to have 11. When 
there are vacancies in our Federal judiciary, the President has a duty 
to fill them. President George W. Bush made six nominations for the 
D.C. Circuit during his Presidency. Of those six nominees, four were 
confirmed. President Obama, by contrast, has made five nominations

[[Page 16834]]

for the D.C. Circuit and so far only one has been confirmed, a well-
qualified gentleman, Sri Srinivasan. Two of President Obama's nominees 
have been filibustered by the Senate Republicans: Caitlin Halligan and 
Patricia Millett, two exceptionally well-qualified women.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it clear they 
intend to filibuster two more equally well-qualified nominees: 
Georgetown law professor Nina Pillard and D.C. District Court Judge 
Robert Wilkins.
  This disparity is very obvious for anyone who cares to compare. 
President Bush: Six D.C. Circuit Court nominees; four of them 
confirmed. President Obama: Five D.C. Circuit Court nominees; four of 
them likely filibustered by the Republicans.
  This is a troubling contrast. There is no question President Obama's 
nominees have the qualifications and integrity to serve on this 
important court. There are absolutely no--underline no--extraordinary 
circumstances that justify filibustering these nominees. Just a few 
days ago when the Senate Republicans filibustered Patricia Millett, one 
of the most distinguished nominees to ever come before the Senate, they 
ignored the obvious: She has argued 32 cases before the U.S. Supreme 
Court. Is someone literally going to come and say, oh, but she is not 
qualified to serve in a Federal court.
  Not only that, she had the overwhelming endorsement of Solicitors 
General of both political parties. Clearly, she is well qualified and 
has bipartisan support for the job. But it was not good enough for the 
other side of the aisle. They filibustered her, stopping her 
nomination.
  For those who are new to the Senate, the filibuster is an old trick, 
an old procedural gambit. What happens is that well-qualified people, 
and many times substantive legislation, are held up indefinitely or 
stopped with the use of a filibuster. To do it to an amendment or a 
bill is bad enough, to do it to a human being is something we should 
think long and hard about. Her nomination, the nomination of Patricia 
Millett, was supported by Democratic and Republican Solicitors General. 
They characterized her as ``brilliant'' and ``unfailingly fair-
minded.''
  Ms. Millett deserved an up-or-down vote on the merits. I doubt there 
would have been many, if any, on the other side of the aisle who would 
have voted against her. There is no question she would have served with 
distinction as a Federal judge. It is a shame she is being 
filibustered.
  Technically, her nomination is still hanging by a procedural thread, 
I guess, for the possibility of being reconsidered. But when we hear 
the statement just recently made by the senior Senator from Texas, it 
gives us scant hope of her successful nomination being approved by the 
Senate.
  Now we are considering another well-qualified nominee to the D.C. 
Circuit, Nina Pillard. Ms. Pillard is a distinguished law professor at 
Georgetown. She is also one of the most talented appellate attorneys in 
America. She has served with distinction in the Solicitor General's 
office and in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. She has 
argued nine cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. She 
has written briefs on many more, including U.S. v. Virginia, the 
landmark equal protection case that opened the doors of the Virginia 
Military Institute to female students.
  There is no question that Ms. Pillard has the intellect, experience, 
and integrity to be an excellent Federal court judge. She has received 
strong letters of recommendation from Republicans and Democrats, from 
law enforcement and law professors.
  It is no secret that she has written a number of academic articles in 
which she argued for gender equality, that men and women be treated 
fairly and the same under the law in America. Some find this radical 
thinking. Most Americans believe it should be the law of the land. But 
law professors are supposed to take part in debates and advance 
academic discourse. That is their role. Also, issues of gender equality 
are important in America. Do we not want our daughters to have the same 
opportunities as our sons?
  We should want to have our finest legal minds contribute to this 
conversation about gender equality. We should not penalize them for 
doing so. Some have dismissed her nomination because she has spoken out 
about equality when it comes to men and women in America. That is 
shameful.
  Ms. Pillard also made clear at her nomination hearing she understands 
the difference between being a professor and a judge. When Ms. Pillard 
has stood in judgment of others, as she has done when she served on the 
ABA reviewing committee for then-Judge Sam Alito in 2005, she has been 
fair and impartial. She probably does not share the views of Alito, but 
her committee give him a rating of unanimously ``well qualified.'' That 
rating helped send him off to the Supreme Court.
  I think Viet Dinh, former Assistant Attorney General for the Office 
of Legal Policy under George W. Bush, helped clarify who Nina Pillard 
is with a letter he sent in support of her nomination. Here is what he 
said:

       I know that Professor Pillard is exceptionally bright, a 
     patient and unbiased listener, and a lawyer of great judgment 
     and unquestioned integrity.

  I would go on to say, I know Professor Dinh is a very conservative 
person. Yet listen to how he concluded his endorsement of Nina Pillard:

       She is a fair-minded thinker with enormous respect for the 
     law and for the limited, and essential role of the federal 
     appellate judge--qualities that make her well prepared to 
     take on the work of a D.C. Circuit judge. I am confident that 
     she would approach the judicial task of applying law to facts 
     in a fair and meticulous manner.

  I urge my colleagues to give this well-qualified nominee the chance 
for a vote on the merits before the Senate.
  Some may argue there are three strikes against Professor Pillard for 
this D.C. Circuit, and apparently there are.
  First, she is an overwhelmingly well-qualified woman. Those 
nominations are not faring well with the other side of the aisle 
recently.
  Secondly, she has argued that men and women deserve equal and fair 
treatment in America. That does not sit well with some on the other 
side of the aisle.
  Third, this is a critically important court. There are some who are 
determined to maintain these vacancies even at the expense of 
exceptionally well-qualified nominees.
  I know my Republican colleagues like to argue: We should not confirm 
nominees to the court because they just do not work hard enough over 
there. But does anyone truly believe this caseload argument would stop 
the Republicans if they were in the White House trying to fill the same 
vacancies?
  We do not have to guess at the answer to that question, we know it. 
The fact is, the D.C. Circuit's caseload is actually greater now than 
it was when John Roberts was confirmed to be the ninth judge on that 
circuit in 2003. Judge Roberts was confirmed by a voice vote. The 
argument about not enough work in the court did not seem to come up 
when it was a Republican nominee for a similar vacancy.
  My Republican colleagues have been eager to confirm nominees for the 
9th, 10th, and 11th seats on the D.C. Circuit when a Republican 
President has been making the nomination. But when it comes to 
President Obama's D.C. Circuit nominees, it looks as though we will see 
four times as many filibusters as we do confirmations.
  The bottom line is this: Under the law, there are supposed to be 11 
active judges on this circuit. Three vacancies exist. The President has 
the responsibility to fill them. President Obama's nominees are well 
qualified. No one questions that. But they are being filibustered by 
Senate Republicans.
  I hope my Republican colleagues change their minds about these 
filibusters and agree to give these nominees an up-or-down vote. These 
nominees have done nothing to deserve the filibuster. They deserve to 
be judged on the merits.
  Let me close by saying that we have gone through this debate for a 
long time on both sides, arguing that well-qualified nominees deserve 
an up-or-down vote. There have been times when

[[Page 16835]]

some people have questioned the whole process that would allow this 
basic unfairness for nominees to the bench that we are seeing happen 
with the D.C. Circuit. We have gone from the brink of talking about 
changing the rules of the Senate, and usually at the very last moment 
we will step up and try to work out our differences in a fair fashion 
between the two parties, agreeing that certain nominees will move 
forward and certain nominees will not.
  But I will tell you, as I have said to my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, there comes a tipping point. There reaches a point where 
we cannot allow this type of fundamental unfairness and injustice to 
occur. It is not fair to those nominees who submit their names in good 
faith, willing to serve on these important judicial assignments and to 
give their best talents and to show their integrity in the process and 
then to be given the back of the hand by a Republican filibuster on the 
floor of the Senate. It reaches a point where we cannot continue to do 
this.
  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle who have said we 
should not change the rules of the Senate, it is time for them to show 
common sense and to show a basic sense of fairness when it comes to 
those nominees. I hope that when this matter comes before the Senate, 
my Republican friends across the aisle will relent, will not stop this 
good nominee from her opportunity to serve.
  I hope we can find her nomination and the others who are pending 
moving forward in a way that is befitting of this great institution.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are once again taking an unnecessary 
cloture vote on an unnecessary nomination to a court that needs no more 
judges. The only reason for either this nomination or this cloture vote 
is deliberately to provoke a confrontation that the majority hopes will 
be to their partisan political benefit. Perhaps they want to use a fake 
charge of obstruction to again push for rigging the confirmation 
process through the so-called nuclear option. Perhaps they want to give 
their allied grassroots groups something with which those groups can 
raise money. Or perhaps the majority wants to use this to distract from 
disasters like the implementation of Obamacare.
  One thing is for sure, this confrontation is not happening because 
Republicans are genuinely obstructing needed nominations. President 
Obama has appointed more than twice as many judges so far this year 
than at the beginning of either President Bush's or President Clinton's 
second term. President Obama has already appointed nearly one-quarter 
of the entire Federal judiciary.
  Whatever the reason, this stunt will only end up further politicizing 
the confirmation process and undermining the independence of the 
judiciary. As I outlined in the National Law Journal over the weekend, 
it would be hard to make a clearer case that the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the D.C. Circuit needs no more judges. Since 2006, when Democrats 
said that this court needed no more judges, new appeals are down 27 
percent, cases scheduled for argument are down 11 percent, and written 
decisions per active judge are down 18 percent. The D.C. Circuit, as it 
has for years, ranks last among all circuits in virtually every measure 
of caseload.
  Consider just a brief comparison with the next busiest circuit. In 
the Tenth Circuit, new appeals are 87 percent higher, terminated 
appeals are 131 percent higher, and written decisions per active judge 
are 150 percent higher.
  In 2006, Democrats also opposed more D.C. Circuit appointments 
because more pressing ``judicial emergency'' vacancies had not been 
filled. Judicial emergencies are up 90 percent since then, and the 
percentage of those vacancies with nominees is down from 60 percent to 
just 47 percent.
  No matter how you slice it, dice it, or spin it, the D.C. Circuit has 
enough judges while other courts need more. Democrats have not yet said 
that the standard they used in 2006 to oppose Republican appointees was 
wrong, nor have they explained why a different standard should be used 
today to push Democratic appointees.
  The better course would be to stop these fake, partisan 
confrontations and focus on nominees to courts that really need them.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will conclude this debate with the 
following points:
  First, under the Democrats' standard from 2006, the D.C. Circuit 
needs no additional judges. This is why current judges have written 
things like: ``If any more judges were confirmed now, there wouldn't be 
enough work to go around.''
  Second, the President has made clear on a host of issues, such as 
cap-and-trade fee increases, that he will simply go around Congress 
through administrative action rather than do the hard work of passing 
legislation. That is why he wants to stack the deck on this court with 
committed ideologues, as Professor Pillard appears to be. It seems the 
President is confident Professor Pillard would be a reliable rubber 
stamp, considering she is outside the mainstream on a host of issues, 
including religious freedom, abortion, and abstinence-only education.
  So I agree with those Democrats who said during the Bush 
administration: ``The Senate should not be a rubber stamp to this 
President's effort to pack the court with those who would give him 
unfettered leeway.''
  There is simply no justification for spending $1 million per year for 
these lifetime appointments given the lack of workload under the 
Democrats' standard from 2006.
  Accordingly, I urge a ``no'' vote on the cloture motion.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, here we go again. For the third time this 
year, we are debating whether to end a Republican filibuster and allow 
a confirmation vote for a highly qualified woman to the D.C. Circuit. 
In March, it was Caitlin Halligan. Last month, it was Patricia Millet. 
Today, it is Nina Pillard. The qualifications of each of these nominees 
surpass those of many other attorneys who have been confirmed to the 
Federal bench. These are three women who have earned their way to the 
top of the legal profession. They are recognized by legal scholars, 
practitioners, and men and women alike as being at the top of the 
profession. It appears Senate Republicans are going to continue to 
launch filibuster after filibuster at these stellar nominees.
  Like Caitlin Halligan and Patricia Millett, I am confident Nina 
Pillard would be confirmed if Republicans would stop filibustering and 
allow an up-or-down vote on her nomination. She would get well over the 
number needed. If Republicans vote in lockstep to continue their 
filibuster against Nina Pillard, then Senate Republicans will have 
blocked three outstanding women in a row from being confirmed to what 
is considered the second highest court in our country.
  Senate Republicans have an opportunity to make this right by voting 
to end the filibuster of Nina Pillard's nomination today, and by voting 
on the nomination of Patricia Millett once the majority leader brings 
it again before the Senate as he said he intends to do. Confirming 
these two highly qualified nominees is the right thing to do and it 
will make history, once these two extraordinary women are confirmed, 
the D.C. Circuit will be the first Federal appellate court in our 
country to have an equal number of women serving as judges as men.
  Wouldn't that be nice? The D.C. Circuit would actually reflect the 
proportion of women in this country. It would be a nice move. Despite 
having filled nearly half of law school classrooms for the last 20 
years, women are grossly underrepresented on our Federal courts. What 
kind of message are Senate Republicans sending by refusing to

[[Page 16836]]

even allow a vote on three of the most qualified female attorneys in 
this country?
  When Senate Republicans talked about seating John Roberts on one of 
these seats on the D.C. Circuit, every Republican and every Democrat 
supported him. That was no problem for them. Of course, John Roberts 
was nominated by a Republican President.
  We now have women nominees who are equally well qualified, and they 
are filibustered. Of course, they were nominated by a Democratic 
President. I guess if you are a Republican and nominate a qualified 
man, this nominee can be confirmed easily. If you are a Democrat 
nominating an equally qualified woman, this nominee will be 
filibustered. What does this say to people in law school? What does it 
say to our country? What does it say about the impartiality of our 
Federal bench? We need women in our Federal courts. A vote to end this 
filibuster is a vote in the historic direction of having our Federal 
appellate courts more accurately reflect the gender balance of our 
country.
  Nina Pillard is a stellar nominee. She is an accomplished litigator 
whose work includes 9 Supreme Court oral arguments and briefs in more 
than 25 Supreme Court cases. She drafted the Federal Government's brief 
in United States v. Virginia, which after a 7-to-1 decision by the 
Supreme Court made history by opening the Virginia Military Institute's 
doors to women students and expanded educational opportunity for women 
across this country.
  As a father who loves his daughter and his three granddaughters, I 
want to see us start paying attention to the fact that we have both men 
and women in this country. After Nina Pillard's work in U.S. v. 
Virginia, hundreds of women have had the opportunity to attend VMI and 
go on to serve our country. Josiah Bunting III, the superintendent of 
VMI when female cadets were first integrated into the corps, has since 
called VMI's transition to coeducation ``one of its finest hours.'' And 
it was. But it needed somebody like Nina Pillard to bring a case to the 
Supreme Court so they could have their finest hour.
  Nina Pillard has not only stood up for equal opportunities for women 
but for men as well. In Nevada v. Hibbs she successfully represented a 
male employee of the State of Nevada who was fired when he tried to 
take unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to care for 
his sick wife. In a 6-to-3 opinion authored by then-Chief Justice 
William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court ruled for her client, recognizing 
that the law protects both men and women in their caregiving roles 
within the family.
  Nina Pillard has also worked at the Department of Justice's Office of 
Legal Counsel, an office that advises on the most complex 
constitutional issues facing the executive branch. Prior to that 
service, she litigated civil rights cases at the NAACP Legal Defense & 
Education Fund. At Georgetown Law School--a law school this chairman of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee loves, having graduated from there--Nina 
Pillard teaches advanced courses on constitutional law and civil 
procedure, and co-directs the law school's very prestigious Supreme 
Court Institute.
  She has earned the American Bar Association's highest possible 
ranking--Unanimously Well Qualified--to serve as a federal appellate 
judge on the D.C. Circuit. She also has significant bipartisan support. 
Viet Dinh, the former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of 
Legal Policy under President George W. Bush, has written that:

       Based on our long and varied professional experience 
     together, I know that Professor Pillard is exceptionally 
     bright, a patient and unbiased listener, and a lawyer of 
     great judgment and unquestioned integrity Nina . . . has 
     always been fair, reasonable, and sensible in her judgments . 
     . . She is a fair-minded thinker with enormous respect for 
     the law and for the limited, and essential, role of the 
     federal appellate judge--qualities that make her well 
     prepared to take on the work of a D.C. Federal Judge.

  Former FBI Director and Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas, 
William Sessions, has written that her ``rare combination of 
experience, both defending and advising government officials, and 
representing individuals seeking to vindicate their rights, would be 
especially valuable in informing her responsibilities as a judge.''
  Nina Pillard has also received letters of support from 30 former 
members of the U.S. armed forces, including 8 retired generals; 25 
former Federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials; 40 
Supreme Court practitioners, including Laurence Tribe, Carter Phillips, 
and Neal Katyal, among others.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a list of those letters of support 
for Ms. Pillard printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Nina Pillard's nomination does not rise to the level of an 
extraordinary circumstance, which was what the Gang of 14 decided 
should be the standard for filibustering nominees back in 2005. 
According to a Senate Republican who still serves today:

       Ideological attacks are not an `extraordinary 
     circumstance.' To me, it would have to be a character 
     problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the 
     qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent.

  There is no reasonable interpretation of that definition in which one 
could find an extraordinary circumstance with Nina Pillard. She has no 
character problem, no ethics problem, and most importantly, she has 
extraordinary qualifications.
  Rather than debate the merits of President Obama's well-qualified 
nominees to the D.C. Circuit--because it would be impossible to debate 
them, as they are so well qualified--Senate Republicans have made clear 
that partisanship is more important to them than the Federal judiciary, 
the administration of justice, and the needs of the American people. 
With the exception of Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, every 
single Republican Senator voted to filibuster Patricia Millett's 
nomination, arguing that we should not fill existing vacancies because 
suddenly they are concerned about the need for these existing 
judgeships. We know this is just a pretext for two reasons. First, they 
had no such concerns about the unique caseload of the D.C. Circuit when 
a Republican was in the White House and nominated judges to the 9th, 
10th, and 11th seat. In fact, they filled the seat for this court that 
John Roberts was unanimously confirmed to when there was a lower 
caseload. Now, when we have a superbly qualified woman, suddenly she 
has to be filibustered.
  And second, if Republicans actually cared about the cost of hampering 
our Government's functions they would not have shut down our Federal 
Government, which cost billions of dollars and set back our recovering 
economy. Avoiding the needless shutdown of our Government would have 
paid for all these Federal courts for years. So do not stand up and say 
we do not want these women on this court. Be honest about it. Do not 
give me a lot of folderol about numbers and expenses and everything 
else, because that is all it is: it is folderol.
  In 2003, the Senate unanimously confirmed John Roberts by voice vote 
to be the ninth judge on the D.C. Circuit--at a time when its caseload 
was lower than it is today--and, in fact, his confirmation marked the 
lowest caseload level per judge on the D.C. Circuit in 20 years. Not a 
single Senate Republican raised any concerns about whether the caseload 
warranted his confirmation, and during the Bush administration, they 
voted to fill four vacancies on the D.C. Circuit--giving the court a 
total of 11 judges in active service. Today there are only eight judges 
on the court. What has changed? It is not the caseload--that has 
remained fairly constant over the past 10 years. In fact, the cases 
pending per active judge are actually higher today than they were when 
President Bush's nominees were confirmed to the D.C. Circuit. The only 
thing that has changed is the party of the President nominating judges 
to the court.
  We also should not be comparing the D.C. Circuit's caseload with the 
caseload of other circuits, as Republicans have recently done. The D.C. 
Circuit is often understood to be the second most important court in 
the land because of the complex administrative law cases that it 
handles. The court reviews complicated decisions and rulemakings of

[[Page 16837]]

many Federal agencies, and in recent years has handled some of the most 
important terrorism and enemy combatant and detention cases since the 
attacks of September 11. So comparing the D.C. Circuit's caseload to 
other circuits is a false comparison, and those who are attempting to 
make this comparison are not being fully forthcoming with the American 
public.
  The D.C. Circuit should be operating at full strength, as it was when 
President Bush left office. Republicans supported this for President 
Bush but do not for President Obama. That is shameful. That is wrong. 
There are currently three vacancies and President Obama has fulfilled 
his constitutional role by nominating three eminently qualified 
nominees to fill these seats. Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard, and 
Robert Wilkins would fill the ninth, tenth, and eleventh seats on the 
D.C. Circuit. These are the same seats that were filled during 
President Bush's tenure when the caseload was lower. Do not give me 
balderdash; let us deal with reality. Let us judge each nominee based 
on his or her qualifications and not hide behind some pretextual 
argument that most Americans can see through.
  If the Republican caucus continues to abuse the filibuster rule and 
obstruct the President's fine nominees to the D.C. Circuit, then I 
believe this body will need to consider anew whether a rules change 
should be in order. That is not a change that I want to see happen, but 
if Republican Senators are going to hold nominations hostage without 
consideration of nominees' individual merit, drastic measures may be 
warranted. I hope it does not come to that. I hope that the same 
Senators who stepped forward to broker compromise when Republicans shut 
down the government will decide to put politics aside and vote on the 
merits of these exceptional nominees. I also hope the same Senators who 
have said judicial nominations ought not be filibustered barring 
extraordinary circumstances will stay true to their word. Let us not 
have a double standard where one President is treated one way and 
another is treated differently. For the sake of justice in this 
country, for the sake of the independence of our Federal judiciary, let 
us stop the filibuster and consider Nina Pillard's nomination based on 
her qualifications. Let us treat her with the decency that she 
deserves. This Nation would be better off having her serve as a judge 
on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
  I have argued cases before courts of appeal. I know how important it 
is to the administration of justice. I know how important it is for 
litigants who enter the courtroom not caring whether they are 
Republican or Democrat, whether they are plaintiff or defendant, 
whether the State or respondent. I know how important it is to have 
qualified judges. I call on the few Senators in this body who have 
argued cases before courts of appeals or before the U.S. Supreme Court 
to stop this game-playing with our Federal judiciary. Our independent 
judiciary is a model for the rest of the world. We must stop 
politicizing it, and stop using feeble, wrong, and misleading excuses. 
Let us start doing what is right for the country for a change. Stop the 
bumper sticker slogans. Stop the rhetoric that interferes with reality. 
Let us start doing what is right.
  Would this not be a refreshing change in this country? I saw a poll 
this afternoon that showed the Congress at a 9 percent approval rating, 
and I would like to find out who those 9 percent are. Would it not be 
nice if the American people actually saw us doing what is best for 
America, and stopped this pettifoggery? Let us do what is right for 
America.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Letters Received in Support of Cornelia Pillard

       June 4, 2013--William T. Coleman Jr., Attorney
       July 8, 2013--John M. Townsend, Attorney
       July 9, 2013--William S. Sessions, Former Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation
       July 17, 2013--21 Former Office of Legal Counsel Attorneys 
     at the Department of Justice
       July 17, 2013--25 Law School Deans
       July 17, 2013--25 Former Federal Prosecutors and Law 
     Enforcement Officials
       July 17, 2013--40 Members of the Supreme Court Bar
       July 18, 2013--Viet Dinh, Former Assistant Attorney General 
     for the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice 
     and Professor of Law at Georgetown
       July 22, 2013--30 Retired Members of the Armed Forces
       July 22, 2013--Jessica Adler, President, Women's Bar 
     Association of the District of Columbia
       July 23, 2013--Virginia Military Institute Alumni
       July 24, 2013--Pamela Berman, President, National 
     Conference of Women's Bar Associations
       August 7, 2013--Peter M. Reyes, Jr., National President, 
     Hispanic National Bar Association
       September 9, 2013--Douglas T. Kendall, Vice President of 
     the Constitutional Accountability Center
       September 18, 2013--Shanna Smith, President and CEO, 
     National Fair Housing Alliance
       July 23, 2013, September 11, 2013, and November 12, 2013--
     Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on 
     Civil and Human Rights
       July 23, 2013 and November 12, 2013--Nancy Duff Campbell 
     and Marcia Greenberger, Co-Presidents of the National Women's 
     Law Center
       November 12, 2013--Neda Mansoorian, President, California 
     Women Lawyers

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds remains.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield back the remaining 30 seconds.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, pursuant to rule XXII, 
the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative 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, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Cornelia T. L. Pillard, of the District of Columbia, to be 
     United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia 
     Circuit.
         Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Richard J. Durbin, John D. 
           Rockefeller IV, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jon Tester, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Mark R. Warner, Patty Murray, Mazie K. 
           Hirono, Angus S. King, Jr., Barbara Boxer, Jeanne 
           Shaheen, Robert Menendez, Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Richard Blumenthal.

  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 Cornelia T.L. Pillard, of the District of Columbia, to be 
United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit shall 
be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. HATCH (when his name was called). ``Present.''
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Johanns).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 233 Ex.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman

[[Page 16838]]


     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Hatch
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inhofe
     Johanns
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are 
41, 1 Senator responded ``Present.'' Three-fifths of the Senators duly 
chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is 
rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked on the Pillard nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.

                          ____________________