Mr. Leahy mr. President , i ask the call of the quorum be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection, so ordered. The senator from vermont. Mr. Leahy mr. President , today were debating whether the senate is allowed to vote on the confirmation of patricia millett. Shes nominated to fill the vacancy that our current chief justice, john roberts, previously occupied on the United States the United States court of appeals for the d. C. Circuit. Now, if shes confirmed as of course she should be, shell be only the sixth woman to serve on the d. C. Circuit in its more than 1020year history. Shes be a 120year history. She is an extraordinary nominee, she has impeccable credentials for this important appellate court. I like so many others across this country hope that her confirmation is not going to suffer from the partisanship and gridlock that consumed Congress Earlier this month. Patricia millett has had a brilliant legal career. Shes argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court. Actually holding the record until recently for the most Supreme Court arguments by a woman attorney before the court. Shes argued dozens of cases in the federal courts of appeals. Shes briefed new mexico qiews rust cases in the Supreme Court and also Appellate Courts across the nation. She served for 15 years in the u. S. Department of justice in both the democratic and republican administrations. She worked for four years in the appellate staff of the civil division. She argued cases in federal and state Appellate Courts. Including the successful constitutional defense of the religious freedom restoration act and the inclusion of the in god we trust on federal currency. She spent over a decade in the solicitor generals office. Her stellar reputation led a bipartisan a Bipartisan Group of seven former solicitors general to praise her as unfailingly fairminded. In 2004, Republican Attorney general John Ashcroft awarded ms. Millet the attorney generals distinguished Service Award for representing the interests of the United States before the Supreme Court. And since 2007, shes led the Supreme Court practice in the washington, d. C. Office of akingump. Her work in are private practice spans commercial litigation and administrative law, constitutional matters, strat industry tri construction, even criminal appeals. Shes represented Army Reservists and business interests including the chamber of commerce as well as civil rights plaintiffs. Ms. Millet is a nominee with unquestionable integrity and character. Shes committed herself to pro bono work. She has done this throughout her career and has engaged in Significant Community service. Its interesting at a press conference i held yesterday, we had spouses of people in the military and we talked about another aspect of her career. Her husband is now retired navy reservist, but as a Military Spouse when he was called up, ms. Millet has a personal understanding of the sacrifice we ask of our Service Members and their families. At the very height of her legal career, her husband was called on to deploy as part of Operation Iraqi freedom. He left, of course, as those who are called to serve do, but shes left at home with two young children. And what did she do 12347 she did what spouses all over this country do, she filled the role of both parents at home while her husband served in the navy overseas. In fact, just the other day the Senate Passed the bipartisan resolution to honor families like ms. Millets, we commemorate october 26 as the day of the deployed. So not only is she committed to her own military family, shes helped to secure employment protection for members of our National Guard and reserve through her Pro Bono Legal work. Mr. President , i know that the distinguished presiding officer is concerned about the guard and reserve in his state of massachusetts as i am in my state of vermont. You should also know the strains that they face, and in a case decided by the Supreme Court in 2011, ms. Millet represented an Army Reservist who was fired in part because some of his coworkers who stayed at home didnt like his military absences. She stood up for every guard member, every reservist in vermont or massachusetts or any other state in this country. And the successful arguments that ms. Millet helped craft made it easier for all members of our reserve and National Guard to protect their rights under the union formed Services Employment and reemployment act. Through her legal work she has earned broad bipartisan support. That includes the support of Peter Keisler and Kenneth Starr and paul clement, the Bipartisan Group of 110 appellate practitioners as well as 37 deputies solicitors general and assistant solicitors yen general from both republican and democratic administrations. She is supported by both the president of the fraternal order of police and the Deputy Commissioner of the new york police department. She has the support of the military community including Major General clark mcnair, u. S. Army retired, michael hall, command major, Blue Star Families and the gallant few. The list is so long i ask unanimous consent to include a list of those letters of support for her in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. The presiding officer without objection, so ordered. Mr. Leahy you know, if a president was to be given a textbook about the type of nominee to send to the United States senate or if United States senators were given a textbook of the type of person to confirm, this would be the golden standard right here. We shouldnt even be having this debate as she should have been confirmed unanimously weeks ago. Shes the kind of nominee we should support because hers is a Great American story of dedication, diligence, patriotism, and extraordinary professional ability. So i hope nobody is going to get involved in partisan politics and choose to filibuster. She deserves to be confirmed. I might say incidentally in the same seat, the same seat on the court when a republican president nominated a man named john roberts to that seat, came here on the senate floor, as i recall, all democrats and all republicans supported him. For the d. C. Circuit. For the seat that shes been nominated for. It was he was supported not because the democrats agreed with him philosophically on all issues but we knew he was highly qualified so he was confirmed to that seat. I dont think its any stretch to say shes just as qualified. The same seat, the only difference is, its a democratic president who has nominated her. Standards should be the same. Same standards that allowed john roberts to be confirmed to that seat with a republican president are the same standards that should allow her to be confirmed to the same seat with a democratic president. She should be confirmed there. And, you know, mr. President , some have talked about what the caseload is. Well, president bush when the caseload was 121 cases per judge , Republican Controlled Senate had no problem in confirming 11 confirming seats to fill 11 seats. You know, when the case load is 185 instead of 121, but a democratic president , were told gosh, we got to cut back. We got too many judges. It doesnt pass the giggle test. The fact is, this is what republican senate, we voted for people for these 11 seats. Now when three of those seats are vacant and were trying to fill one, the same one that john roberts had, some are saying maybe we have too many judges. Back then we had 121 cases per judge, now we have 185. No matter how you do it, the issue comes down to simply is this nominee qualified. Mr. President , ive had the great privilege of serving in this body for almost 40 years. I voted on thousands of judges nominated by both republicans and democrats. I voted to confirm the vast majority of them, whether theyre republican or whether they are a republican president or a democratic president. I have a hard time thinking back through all those thousands of judges to find even a handful as well qualified as this woman is or as much of a need to have somebody in there. So, you know, this is important. This is not only important on the merits ant on, and on the merits it is an easy case. There should be no delay based on politics. At a time when the American People are looking at the congress and saying what are you people doing first the shutdown and other things dont give one more example that would bring upon the scorn of the American People toward this great body by saying no to somebody that every single person, no matter what their politics are, no matter what part of the country theyre from, they know how qualified she is. They know how qualified. You know, i was thinking yesterday when the Group Representing spouses of the military spoke about what she did to maintain her legal career, first and foremost, take care of her family while her husband was abroad and then help with such things as help provide food to food kitchens to those less able and less fortunate, it is almost when you see a background like this, you say its too good to be true. But in this case its all true. Lets confirm her. Mr. President , what is the what is the parliamentary situation . The presiding officer the senate right now is considering the estevez nomination. And the time right now is equally divided between both sides. Mr. Leahy mr. President , i would then i would yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum and ask the time be equally divided. The presiding officer without objection, so ordered. And the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call mr. Blumenthal madam president . The presiding officer the senator from connecticut. Mr. Blumenthal thank you, madam president. I ask that the quorum call be vitiated. The presiding officer without objection. Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The clerk we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of alan f. Estevez of the District Of Columbia to be Principal Deputy undersecretary of defense signed by 17 senators. 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 alan f. Estevez of the District Of Columbia to be Principal Deputy undersecretary of defense shall be brought to a close. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote the presiding officer any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote . If not, on this vote the ayes are 91. The nays are 8. Threefifths of the senate duly chosen and sworn have voted in the aif i were alternative, and the in the affirmative and the motion is agreed to. Pursuant to the provisions of s plt resolution 15 of the 113th congress there will be up to eight hours of postcloture consideration of the nomination equally divided in the usual form. The presiding officer the senator from alaska. Mr. Begich i ask unanimous consent that at 12 00 noon today all time on the estevez nomination be yielded back and the senate proceed to the nomination, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no further action or debate, no further motions be in order, any statements be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senates action. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Begich for the information of all senators, we expect a voice vote on the estevez confirmation. The next vote in order will be cloture on the archuleta nomination. So senators should expect a roll call vote at noon. I yield the floor. A senator madam president . The presiding officer the republican whip. Mr. Cornyn madam president , i know we are on the postcloture time on the estevez nomination, and i wanted to explain why it was necessary for me to put a hold on this nomination this last march, for a very important porks as the secondranking abg very important position as the second ranking acquisition position at the department of defense. The reason i put a hold on the nomination was so i could try to get the department of defenses attention to protest their the presiding officer the senate will be in order. Mr. Cornyn i did so, madam president , in order to protest the department of defenses business relationship with the notorious russian arms dealer for the last few years the pentagons been buying helicopters, mi17 helicopters from roso boron export to supply the Afghan Military. But this is the same arms dealer that is supplying Bashar Alassad to kill his own innocent population, innocent civilians. The pentagon itself has confirmed that Bashar AlassadSecurity Force have used these very same russianmade weapons to massacre untold number of civilians. And yet, the department of defense has stubbornly refused and i dont think arrogant is too strong a word stubbornly and arrogantly refused to end its relationship with assads personal arms supplier. In fact, since 2011 the pentagon has given more than 1 billion 1 billion to roso boron export in nobid contracts and is planning to spend another 345 million on the companys mi17 helicopters in 2014. Let me be clear, madam president. By purchasing mi17 from roseau boron export our department of defense is subsidizing the mass murder of syrian civilians which is by all accounts simply outrageous. To make matters worse, the mi17 program is apparently plagued by internal corruption. According to published news reports, there are at least two separate ongoing criminal investigations into the u. S. Army office that manages a procurement and sustainment contracts for the mi17s. Last month, i joined 31 of my Congressional Colleagues in a bipartisan letter to the attorney general of the United States urging him to utilize all available resources to support these criminal investigations. For that matter, ive also joined with 12 of my Senate Colleagues in a bipartisan letter to general dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at the pentagon asking him for assurances that his contracts with rosoboron export are not being abused by corrupt russian officials. Americans have good reason to be concerned. After all, its their tax dollars used to buy these helicopters from russia to for the Afghan Military. But russia has a particularly bad track record. Theyve received an abysmal grade of dminus in the anticorruption index. Back in 2011, russias chief military prosecutor publicly stated 20 of his countrys annual military equipment budget is being stolen by corrupt officials and contractors. One independent watchdog believes that figure could be as high as 40 . In short, there are plenty of legitimate reasons about and questions about exactly why american tax dollars are going to rosoboron export. On a peraircraft basis, the u. S. Army is paying more than double what the Russian Military itself is paying to buy nearly identical helicopters. About a year ago, i convinced the pentagon to conduct a formal audit of the armys 2011 nobid contract. Unfortunately, that audit went nowhere due to persistent stonewalling by you guessed it rows owe bore on export. We still have a lot of questions and rosoboron export still owe us answers which we dont yet have. But heres one question, what prompted the department of defense to buy Russian Helicopters in the first place . To my knowledge there are plenty of american manufacturers of helicopters that would be anxious to compete for this nobid contract. By relying upon moscow to supply the Afghan Military with essential equipment, weve given the kremlin significant leverage over u. S. Foreign policy. Moreover, equipping the afghans with Russian Helicopters will make it virtually impossible to achieve any real level of interoperability between the u. S. And afghan helicopter fleets. The department of defense has repeatedly and disingenuously claimed that a 2011 study of a began afghanistans helicopter requirements shows the necessity of buying mi17 helicopters from russia. In fact, the unclassified portion of that study found that the ideal aircraft for the Afghan Military was a particular americanmade helicopter. So why are we buying Russian Helicopters when there are american manufacturers that can meet that very same requirement . Makes no sense whatsoever, and the department of defense has steadfastly refused to cooperate with reasonable inquiries into why in the world they continue to persist along this pathway. The reality is the department of defense has plenty of alt