[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15532-15533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume executive session.
  Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Moss 
nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we return from recess for the remaining 
days of the 113th Congress, I begin by congratulating my friend Senator 
Chuck Grassley who will become chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
beginning in the 114th Congress. We have a very good working 
relationship, and I hope this will continue when he assumes the 
chairmanship in January.
  We still have several weeks left in this Congress with much work left 
to be done. As history shows, when both sides work together, the 
lameduck session can be a productive one for filling vacancies on our 
courts. In 2002, after the midterm elections, Senate Democrats worked 
to confirm 20 of President Bush's judicial nominees--all but one by 
voice vote. In the 2006 lameduck session, after Senate Democrats won 
the majority in the elections, Democrats agreed to confirm the 14 
judicial nominations pending on the floor, but this package was blocked 
by a Republican Senator. In the most recent lameduck sessions, in 2010 
and 2012, a total of 32 judicial nominees were confirmed. With the 2014 
midterm elections behind us, I hope we will, as the incoming majority 
leader suggests, ``clear the decks'' on pending business so that we can 
start fresh next year.
  Currently, there are 16 district court nominations that have been 
pending

[[Page 15533]]

before the full Senate for months and another eight district court 
nominations and one Court of International Trade nomination that will 
be reported out of the Judiciary Committee before the end of the month. 
There are also six nominees pending before the Senate to fill vacancies 
on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, two nominees to fill vacancies on 
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and three nominees to 
fill vacancies on the U.S. Tax Court.
  Today, we will vote to overcome the needless filibuster of just two 
of the district court nominations that have been pending before the 
full Senate since June, one of which will fill a judicial emergency 
vacancy in Georgia.
  Randolph Moss is nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Columbia. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary unanimously rated Mr. Moss ``well qualified'' to serve on 
that court--its highest rating. Since 2001, he has been a partner at 
the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP. He has 
also served in various capacities for the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Upon graduating from Yale Law School, Mr. Moss clerked for Judge Pierre 
N. Leval on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New 
York and for Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Leigh May is nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the 
Northern District of Georgia. She is currently a partner at the law 
firm of Butler, Wooten & Fryhofer, LLP, in Atlanta, GA, where she has 
practiced since 2000. After graduating magna cum laude from the 
University of Georgia Law School, she served as a law clerk to the 
Honorable Judge Dudley H. Bowen, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for 
the Southern District of Georgia.
  We still have much work to do to fill the 64 current judicial 
vacancies and 27 known upcoming vacancies on our Federal district and 
circuit courts. Before the end of this Congress we could cut the number 
of vacancies on our district and circuit courts by one-third. To get 
this done, however, we must stop delaying for delay's sake votes for 
consensus nominees. Unless there is cooperation from Republican 
Senators, we will not have time to clear the Executive Calendar before 
adjournment. At the very least, I would hope that the Republican 
Senators who recommended many of the pending judicial nominees to the 
President will work within their caucus to get consent to confirm their 
nominees.
  I hope all Senators will vote to put an end to the filibuster of 
these nominations.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  unanimous consent agreement--S. 2280

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the leader's remarks on Tuesday, November 18, the Senate proceed to 
consideration of Calendar No. 371, S. 2280, a bill to approve the 
Keystone XL Pipeline; that there be up to 6 hours of debate equally 
divided between opponents and proponents; that upon the use or yielding 
back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to 
vote on passage of S. 2280; that no amendments, motions, or points of 
order be in order to the bill prior to the vote on passage; that the 
vote on passage be subject to a 60 affirmative-vote threshold. And I 
will include something. I ask that unanimous consent as in legislative 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. President, we have been trying to get the Keystone Pipeline 
approved and on the President's desk since 2012. The leader on our side 
has been the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven. We have all 
supported this effort because we believe the State Department estimate 
that roughly 42,000 jobs would be created once the pipeline is 
approved. If the oil doesn't come to the United States and is not 
turned into fuel here, it will be shipped to China.
  Unfortunately, the majority has blocked this pipeline several times. 
It has been stalled for way too long, so I am glad to see some progress 
is being made, albeit at this late date, after a dramatic election on 
November 4.
  I ask the Senator to modify her request so that if the Senate passes 
S. 2280 and receives a bill from the House that is identical to S. 
2280, then the House bill will be read three times and passed with no 
intervening action or debate, and thus we can send this bill directly 
to the President without further action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to modify the request?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object.
  I thank the Senator from Texas engaging on this matter today. I 
appreciate it. Most importantly, I appreciate the comments he made 
earlier on the floor about rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. 
He was one of the first speakers this morning when our Senate convened, 
and I was here when he spoke. I wish to thank him for his very 
insightful and courageous words that said we should roll up our sleeves 
and get to work.
  He knows very well that I, and about 12 to 15 Members on our side, 
have been working very hard with him and his leadership and all the 
Members of the Republican side to move the Keystone Pipeline bill 
forward.
  I think the Senator also knows the bill that Senator Hoeven and I 
drafted respects this process, wanted to see the process complete, and 
acknowledges that the process is now complete and it is time to move.
  So because the House heard these words today and has decided to 
introduce the identical language in the Hoeven-Landrieu bill--and I 
think the Senator will agree with me it is good news--it looks to me as 
if they are prepared to pass it. I can see no reason to object to what 
the Senator from Texas is asking for, and I consider it extraordinary 
progress.
  I am very happy that I came to the floor at 2:00 p.m. to get the ball 
rolling and that I was here in time to hear the Senator's remarks: 
Let's get to work.
  So let's get it done. We can get it done in the lameduck session, and 
I will accept the Senator's counter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request has been modified.
  Is there an objection to the modified request?
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, a point of clarification. It is my 
understanding the Senator from Louisiana is not objecting to my amended 
request and has not posed another modification. I believe the question 
is, is there an objection to my modified request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I will clarify. I want the record to reflect my 
remarks. The Senator from Louisiana has absolutely no objection to the 
House of Representatives taking the exact language from my bill with 
Senator Hoeven and passing it. Why would I object? I have been working 
on this for 4 years. Why would I object to that? The record should 
reflect that. The Senator from Louisiana has no objection whatsoever--
and I am encouraged that the House is taking the exact language of the 
bill that I carefully drafted with Senator Hoeven. He is the lead on 
this bill. I am not. It is his bill. He is the lead. I am just the 
Chair of the energy committee.
  I wish to thank Senator Tester and others who helped to craft a bill 
that the House would accept, and so I have no objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modified request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________