Drug Quality and Security Act-- Motion to Proceed-- Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I come to the floor because there are three extremely talented, well-qualified women nominees who are ready to get to work on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. It is time they are confirmed.
I will be joined this afternoon by several of our colleagues: Senators HIRONO, CANTWELL, KAINE, and BLUMENTHAL, because we all know it is time for the Senate to stop the needless blocking of these women. Enough is enough.
I thank Chairman Leahy for his persistence and the fact that we are not giving up on these three qualified women for the bench.
Our courts need judges in order for the third branch of our government to function. The Senate should not be shutting down another branch of government. Some of my colleagues in the Senate will not even allow an up-or-down vote on these nominees. I don't know if they have even met these nominees, but if they had met them, I don't know how they could come to this floor and not allow an up-or-down vote.
President George W. Bush's candidates to the DC Circuit were confirmed so the DC Circuit could keep running, and our current President's nominees should be considered in the same manner. You can't have justice with an empty courtroom. It is time to stop making excuses. It is time to put judges in their courtrooms, and it is time to get these women on the bench.
One of the very well-qualified nominees is Nina Pillard. Nina Pillard is a talented lawyer and professor. She is the kind of sensible, well-respected person whom we need to fill one of those empty seats in that courtroom. Actually, it is Professor Pillard because she has been a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center for the last 15 years. She graduated magna cum laude from Yale College in 1983 and earned her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1987, again graduating with honors.
In addition to her academic career, Ms. Pillard served in government. From 1998 to 2000, she was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Prior to that she served as an assistant to the Solicitor General, a position held by some of our country's most talented lawyers.
It should be no surprise Ms. Pillard is one of the most accomplished Supreme Court advocates in the Nation. She has argued nine cases before our Nation's highest Court and has briefed 25 cases.
Outside the courtroom, she has spent her time teaching and mentoring young lawyers, serving as the faculty director for Georgetown Law School's Supreme Court Institute.
When the current Supreme Court Justice Alito was nominated by President Bush to fill an open seat on the Supreme Court, Ms. Pillard also donated her time to the committee to help review his writings and make a recommendation on his qualifications. Why? She was the chair of the American Bar Association's Reading Committee at Georgetown Law Center, which found Justice Alito ``well qualified'' to sit on the Supreme Court.
People across the aisle think Ms. Pillard is well qualified too. The head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy under President Bush said that Ms. Pillard is ``a patient and unbiased listener ..... a lawyer of great judgment and unquestioned integrity.''
The deans of 25 law schools, including the University of New Hampshire, the University of Arizona, and the University of Maine, wrote that Ms. Pillard ``has shown an appreciation of nuance and respect for opposing viewpoints, grounded in a profound commitment to fair process and fidelity to the law.''
Twenty-five more former Federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials said Ms. Pillard ``is unquestionably eminently qualified, and is a sensible and fair-minded lawyer.'' The nonpartisan American Bar Association's--this is no surprise--committee that reviews every Federal judicial nominee unanimously gave Ms. Pillard its highest possible rating.
Fairminded, unquestionably qualified, unquestioned integrity--these are the qualities the Senate should be looking for in a person we entrust to decide cases in our Federal courts. Next week the Senate should give Ms. Pillard an up-or-down vote.
My hope for progress next week is in contrast to the reality we saw just 1 week ago when the Senate voted to block another eminently qualified woman to an up-or-down vote. As I stated last week on the floor, Patty Millett would also be an excellent person to fill one of the vacancies on the DC court.
My colleagues have discussed the qualifications of Ms. Millett at length. She is a talented lawyer with extensive appellate experience--32 cases in front of the Supreme Court. I do not understand how anyone in good faith could vote to block an up-or-down vote of someone who has argued 32 cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, who has served as an Assistant Solicitor General, and who spent 15 years as an attorney on the appellate staff of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
With all this experience, Ms. Millett is also one of the most experienced Supreme Court advocates in the Nation. Just as Ms. Pillard did, Ms. Millett also received the highest possible rating from the nonpartisan American Bar Association committee that reviews every Federal judicial nominee. She has done all of this, as we have all learned, while raising a family, with a spouse serving in the military overseas. She has been raising two children while her husband was serving our country overseas and while donating her time to help kids learn how to read and volunteering for the homeless.
How can anyone not allow a vote on this nominee? This is another woman of unquestioned ability. Instead of confirming Ms. Millett last week, sadly, she was filibustered--another woman filibustered, stopped in her tracks.
I see some of my colleagues have gotten to the floor, and so before I talk about Caitlin Halligan I will give them an opportunity to speak. But Caitlin Halligan is yet another woman stopped in her tracks. This has to end. We have been making so much progress for women in the judicial system and for women in the Senate. We are now 20 of 100 Senators. No one filibustered us. We got an up-or-down vote when we came before the American people, win or lose. That is how it should work for judges. They should get an up-or-down vote--and that is what these women deserve.
With that, I will yield the floor for Senator Hirono from the State of Hawaii, who is also a member of the Judiciary Committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, we have also been joined by Senator Kaine of Virginia, who knows a little bit about one of these nominees and is also a strong advocate for more women in the legal profession. That is one of the cases we are making; that this is about the DC Circuit, this is about the repeated gridlock we are seeing in Washington that the people of this country have said they have had enough of, but it is also about the fact our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have now blocked not one, not two but three incredibly qualified women.
So we are starting small on a Thursday afternoon--and maybe there are not a lot of people in the gallery--but this is just the beginning. We are not going to let this go.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Virginia for his well-thought-out argument and the evidence he put out here for the Presiding Officer, a former law professor who believes in evidence. I think it is important that we look at the facts.
I wish to back up some of the facts to why this workload argument doesn't make sense, even when it is put out clearly for the women nominees and it wasn't put out recently for the male nominees. But here are the facts:
When George W. Bush was President, the Senate confirmed his nominees to fill four empty seats on the DC Circuit. That was not long ago. Under President Obama, there have been four vacancies on the court. There were four under Bush and four under Obama. The difference? All of President Bush's nominees were confirmed by the Senate.
It is important to note that one of President Obama's nominees--as was pointed out by my colleague from Virginia--was confirmed by the Senate. I guess that means one guy is confirmed and then these three seats are still open for which women have been put forward.
Some people apparently think there is a problem with the numbers, but let's look at the actual numbers. These same people have supported having more judges on another court that actually has fewer pending cases. The reason we use that standard--pending cases--is those are the active cases. They are not the pro forma orders which are issued quickly. These are the actual cases before the court for which they have to make difficult decisions.
The DC Circuit has 8 active judges, 6 partially retired senior judges, and 1,479 pending cases. The Tenth Circuit has 10 active judges, 10 senior judges, and 1,341 pending active cases. So the Tenth Circuit--to which my colleagues have confirmed multiple nominees--has more judges but fewer pending cases per judge.
Why does the Tenth Circuit have more judges with fewer cases per judge than the DC Circuit? I believe the answer is quite simple: Earlier this year, the Senate confirmed two judges to fill the empty seats on the Tenth Circuit, and the Senate should do the same with the DC Circuit by taking these three well-qualified nominees and confirming them.
I see the Senator from Washington has arrived and I know she has a few remarks about this as well. As I pointed out to the Presiding Officer, this is just the beginning. We are going to continue to fight for these three women judges.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I think there are two interesting facts that Senator Cantwell brought up that I didn't know. The first was the percentage of women in the Federal district courts--in the 30-percent range, 32-percent range. The second was Justice Roberts' belief that, in fact, we should have judges to fill these seats. It is interesting that Justice Roberts actually was on the DC Circuit. I remember looking at the numbers. When he was confirmed to serve on the DC Circuit, there were actually fewer pending cases per judge than there are now--even if these vacancies were filled. I keep bringing that up because it is the one and the only argument we keep hearing against these three women we talk about today. Caitlin Halligan was already filibustered, stopped in her tracks despite trying three or four times and never giving up--1 year, the next year, putting in her name, having to go through a nomination process. We just saw Patty Millett, eminently qualified, filibustered, stopped at the door. I have never seen so many tweets about a judicial nominee. They are not always that well known, but in her case she is a hero of military spouses across the country who cannot believe my colleagues across the aisle are denying her that right to serve on our courts.
Now we have a new nominee before us, Cornelia Pillard, someone, as we noted, who has been unanimously suggested for this job by the nonpartisan American Bar Association. She is someone eminently qualified, with nine Supreme Court arguments, and someone who has so much respect from those she mentors, from her colleagues both Democratic and Republican.
I see the Senator from Connecticut is here, another member of the Judiciary Committee.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source