[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 38 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1586-S1590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
F_____
NOMINATION OF JAMES EMANUEL BOASBERG TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
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 James Emanuel Boasberg,
of the District of Columbia, to be United States District Judge.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour
of debate, equally divided and controlled between the two leaders and
their designees.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will finally consider a
judicial nomination I have been talking about since last year. Judge
Boasberg is one of four nominees to the vacancies that have plagued the
district court for the District of Columbia, this Nation's Capital for
some time. This is another of the nominations that could--and in my
view should--have been considered and confirmed last year. Instead, it
was unnecessarily returned to the President without final Senate action
despite the nominee's qualifications and the needs of the American
people to have judges available to hear cases in the Federal courts.
The President has had to renominate Judge Boasberg, the Senate
Judiciary Committee has had to reconsider him and now, finally, the
Senate is being allowed to consider him.
I suspect the Senate will now confirm him unanimously or nearly so.
Judge Boasberg has outstanding credentials. He was appointed to be a
judge in DC by President George W. Bush in 2002. He has a wealth of
experience, having presided over approximately 500 cases. He is a
former assistant U.S. attorney, and received the highest peer review
rating of well qualified from the Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary of the American Bar Association.
Yet as we proceed with this nomination, Senate Republicans have
objected to proceeding to the nomination of Amy Jackson. Both Judge
Boasberg and Ms. Jackson were reported without opposition by the
Judiciary Committee last year and, again, earlier this year. I have
spoken about the vacancies in the District of Columbia on numerous
occasions, including as recently as last week. I noted the criticism
from Chief
[[Page S1587]]
Judge Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senate leaders last November urging
action by the Senate to fill the vacancies that exist on the district
court for the District of Columbia. We could and should have acted on
both these nominations last year in response to that request. They were
reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last year. These two
judicial nominees to fill longstanding vacancies have been waiting too
long for final consideration by the Senate.
While I am glad we are ending the wait for Judge Boasberg, the
refusal to proceed on the Jackson nomination is just another example of
the needless delays on considering outstanding nominees. Ms. Jackson is
a former assistant U.S. attorney with outstanding credentials and
experience. She, too, received the Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary of the American Bar Association's highest peer review rating
of well qualified. Representative Norton has called her one of the top
practitioners in one of the District's top law firms, and has strongly
endorsed her nomination.
In addition to Judge Boasberg, there are still 10 judicial nominees
left waiting for Senate consideration having been reviewed by the
Judiciary Committee: nominees to fill two judicial emergency vacancies
in New York, a judicial emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit, a
judicial emergency vacancy in California and vacancies on the Federal
and DC Circuit, a vacancy in Oregon, and two vacancies in Virginia.
They should be debated and confirmed without delay as well. I urge the
Senate leadership to proceed to debate and vote on them before the
upcoming recess. We should be working to clear the calendar before the
recess and not unnecessarily extend these vacancies. That is what a
return to regular order entails.
The Judiciary Committee is holding hearings every 2 weeks and we hope
finally to begin to bend the curve and start to lower judicial
vacancies across the country.We can do that if the Senate continues to
consider judicial nominations in regular order as they are reported by
the Judiciary Committee.
Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many,
and they have persisted for too long. That is why Chief Justice
Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and
many others--including the President of the United States--have spoken
out and urged the Senate to act.
Nearly one out of every nine Federal judgeships remains vacant. This
puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to have a fair
hearing in court. The real price being paid for these unnecessary
delays is that the judges that remain are overburdened and the American
people who depend on them are being denied hearings and justice in a
timely fashion. When Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senator Reid and
Senator McConnell last November, he noted that Senate action to fill
the vacancies in DC was needed so that ``the citizens of the District
of Columbia and the Federal Government and other litigants'' who rely
on the Court could receive ``the high quality of justice they
deserve.'' The Chief Judge wrote about the ``severe impact'' these
judicial vacancies were having and observed that the ``challenging
caseload'' of the court ``includes many involving national security
issues, as well as other issues of national significance.''
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Chief Judge's letter be
printed in the record at the end of my statement.
I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end
of my statement recent articles from the Palm Beach Post and the
Associated Press about the delays in judicial confirmation and some
additional examples of difficulties being caused. The Florida paper
reports on the crisis in south Florida and the watch list for Federal
courts with high caseloads and high vacancies. The Associated Press
report is on the situation in Rhode Island where dozens of cases have
had to be reassigned to judges in New Hampshire and Massachusetts
because the Senate continues to delay consideration of the nomination
of Jack McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
(see exhibits 1 and 2.)
Mr. LEAHY. Regrettably, the progress we made during the first 2 years
of the Bush administration has not been duplicated, and the progress we
made over the 8 years from 2001 to 2009 to reduce judicial vacancies
from 110 to a low of 34 was reversed. The vacancy rate we reduced from
10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term to less than 4
percent in 2008 has now risen back to over 10 percent. In contrast to
the sharp reduction in vacancies we made during President Bush's first
2 years when the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 100 of his
judicial nominations, only 60 of President Obama's judicial nominations
were allowed to be considered and confirmed during his first 2 years.
We have not kept up with the rate of attrition, let alone brought the
vacancies down. By now they should have been cut in half. Instead, they
continue to hover around 100. After tonight's confirmation, they will
still number 96.
The Senate must do better. The Nation cannot afford further delays by
the Senate in taking action on the nominations pending before it.
Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal
judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a
backlog of cases that prevents people from having their day in court.
This is unacceptable.
We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the
Federal bench in a timely manner. President Obama has worked with
Democratic and Republican home State Senators to identify superbly
qualified, consensus nominations. The nominations on the Executive
Calendar should not be controversial. They all have the support of
their home State Senators, Republicans and Democrats. All have a strong
commitment to the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the
Constitution.
During President Bush's first term, his first 4 tumultuous years in
office, we proceeded to confirm 205 of his judicial nominations. We
confirmed 100 of those during the 17 months I was chairman during
President Bush's first 2 years in office. So far in President Obama's
third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 72
of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well
short of the benchmark we set during the Bush administration. When we
approach it we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels
at which they have remained throughout these first 3 years of the Obama
administration to the historically low level we reached toward the end
of the Bush administration.
I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee,
Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I was pleased to see
him taking credit for what he called ``our rapid pace.'' I was
encouraged by his commitment to ``continue to move consensus nominees
through the confirmation process.'' That should be good news to Ms.
Jackson and the other judicial nominees now available and ready to be
confirmed without further delay.
My friend from Iowa is fond of pointing to the vacancies for which
there are not nominees. Of course, some of that is attributable to a
lack of cooperation by certain home State Senators with the White
House. Nonetheless, I agree with the Senator from Iowa that we can do
little about confirming nominations we do not have. What we can do is
proceed expeditiously with the qualified nominations the President has
sent to the Senate.
In that regard, I would temper my friend's extolling our achievements
this year by observing that every judge confirmed so far this year
could and should have been confirmed last year. Every one of them was
unanimously reported last year and would have been confirmed had
Republicans not objected and created a new rule of obstruction after
midterm elections. We have long had the ``Thurmond rule'' to describe
how Senator Thurmond shut down the confirmation process in advance of
the 1980 Presidential election. Last year's shutdown was something new.
I cannot remember a time when so many consensus nominees were left
without Senate action at the midterm point of a Presidency. That new
level of obstruction has contributed to our being so far behind and
judicial vacancies having been perpetuated at so high a level for too
long.
[[Page S1588]]
Exhibit 1
U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC, November 4, 2010.
Re Judicial Vacancies--United States District Court for the
District of Columbia
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the
judges of the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, I request that the Senate act soon to fill the
vacancies that exist at our Court.
Of our 15 authorized judgeships, we currently have four
vacancies. One has been vacant since January 2007. With the
additional vacancy that will result from Judge Ricardo M.
Urbina's assumption of senior status, effective January 31,
2011, this Court faces the prospect of having only 10 of its
15 authorized judgeships filled. The severe impact of this
situation already is being felt and will only increase over
time. The challenging caseload that our Court regularly
handles includes many involving national security issues, as
well as other issues of national significance. A large number
of these complex, high-profile cases demand significant time
and attention from each of our judges.
Without a complement of new judges, it is difficult to
foresee how our remaining active judges will be able to keep
up with the heavy volume of cases that faces us. A 33 percent
vacancy ratio is quite extraordinary.
Two nominees (Beryl Howell and Robert Wilkins) have been
reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and await
floor votes; two nominees (James Boasberg and Amy Jackson)
have had their hearings and hopefully will soon be reported
out of Committee.
We hope the Senate will act quickly to fill this Court's
vacancies so the citizens of the District of Columbia and the
Federal Government and other litigants who appear before us
continue to enjoy the high quality of justice they deserve.
Sincerely,
Royce C. Lamberth,
Chief Judge.
____
Exhibit 2
[From the Palm Beach Post, Mar. 6, 2011]
Federal Judge Vacancies: Confirmation Lag Keeping Benches Cool in South
Florida
(By Jane Musgrave)
U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley has been waiting 741
days--about two years--for his replacement to be named.
Although the genial 67-year-old former Palm Beach County
circuit judge planned to remain on the bench in a limited
capacity, he said the delay is worrisome.
``One of the great concerns for the court as an institution
is that over time we'll have other vacancies, and if the
vacancies aren't filled in a timely manner,'' legal logjams
eventually will prevent people from getting their day in
court, he said.
With two of his colleagues--U.S. District Judges Alan Gold
in January and Paul Huck in July--joining him on what is
known as senior status, his concern is more than academic.
The glacial speed of the U.S. Senate's judicial
confirmation process, blamed on partisan politics, has
hobbled courts throughout the country.
In January, a judicial emergency was declared in Arizona.
To help judges deal with burgeoning immigration and border
security cases, the declaration lets them waive 70-day
speedy-trial requirements and not bring criminal defendants
to trial for as long as six months.
Although spurred by the shooting rampage that left Chief
Judge John Roll dead and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
wounded, the situation in Arizona was dire even before Roll's
death.
South Florida is in danger of a similar crisis. Like 26
district and appellate courts throughout the country, it is
on a federal watch list because of the high caseloads and
disappearing judges.
Today, a person filing a civil lawsuit in federal court can
expect to wait two years to get to trial, according to the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Such delays have
widespread and unintended ripple effects, said Ian Millhiser,
a policy analyst for the left-leaning Center for American
Progress.
``It has serious consequences for business,'' he said.
``Imagine you're a corporation with a multimillion- dollar
lawsuit hanging over your head. Even if you think you can win
it, you're not going to be hiring until it is resolved, and
it could take years.''
The number of seats that have remained vacant since
President Obama took office two years ago is unprecedented,
he said. Obama's predecessors enjoyed confirmation rates as
high as 93 percent, but less than 60 percent of his nominees
have been confirmed. George W. Bush had a 76 percent
confirmation rate during his first two years in office.
Though the Senate confirmed six federal judges last month,
98 seats are vacant, says the Office of U.S. Courts. More
vacancies are expected.
``Federal judges are now retiring faster than they are
being replaced,'' Millhiser said.
Further, he said, 81 of the vacancies are district
judgeships, appointments that have historically never
generated controversy. Unlike appellate judges, who often
establish law, the work of the lower-court judges--drug and
immigration violations, job discrimination and defective-
product lawsuits--is generally routine.
``It's not ideological,'' he said. 'There's no Democratic
or Republican way to set a summary judgment hearing.''
Rachel Brand, who oversaw judicial appointments as an
associate counsel to Bush, pointed out that Bush made
judicial appointments a priority. Although Obama initially
made a flurry of nominations, it slowed, she said in a panel
discussion in November sponsored by the American Constitution
Society for Law and Policy. Of the 98 vacancies, only 46
nominations are pending.
Other priorities, such as getting two U.S. Supreme Court
justices confirmed, seemed to distract Obama's
administration, she said.
Further, she said the delays can't be blamed solely on
Senate Republicans. ``You'd think (59) senators could do
something,'' she said of the Democratic majority that existed
until the party lost six seats in the November elections.
The problem, Millhiser said, is that Senate rules empower
``the extreme fringes.'' Though Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,
recently cut a deal to speed nominees through floor votes,
that agreement means nothing if more ideological wills
prevail.
``The Senate rules allow an single senator to allow 30
hours of debate,'' he said. ``The extreme fringe can prevent
a significant amount of progress. It creates a minority-rule
situation.''
Senate Judiciary Committee approval of Kathleen Williams,
the lawyer tapped to replace Hurley, has been delayed despite
the bipartisan support she received from Florida Sens. Marco
Rubio, a Republican, and Bill Nelson, a Democrat. Obama
submitted her name to the committee in July.
Local attorneys said they are flummoxed by the delay in
confirming Williams, the federal public defender for
Florida's Southern District since 1995.
Other candidates have enjoyed bipartisan support. Of the 38
candidates who cleared the Judiciary Committee last year, 29
were endorsed unanimously but never presented for
confirmation to the full Senate, Millhiser said.
Among local attorneys, the conclusion seems obvious: ``it's
just partisan politics,'' Val Rodriguez said.
Miami attorney Neal Sonnett, a former president of the
American Judicature Society, which focuses on promoting an
independent judiciary, agreed. Last year Republican senators
blocked the confirmation process, hoping they would seize
control of the Senate in the November elections, he said. Now
it appears some are intent on stalling nominations until
after the 2012 elections, when they hope to put one of their
own back in the White House, he said.
So far, attorneys said they haven't seen lengthy delays in
getting cases heard and resolved in South Florida. Chief U.S.
District Judge Federico Moreno said the district is lucky
because seven senior judges still handle some cases. Further,
Hurley said, case filings have slowed, in part, because of
the economy.
While he credits the 15 full-time judges with moving cases
quickly, attorney Ted Babbitt says eventually something has
to give.
``The average person is going to get hurt because they're
going to have to wait to have their cases heard,'' he said.
____
[From the Associated Press, Mar. 7, 2011]
RI Judge Holdup Sends 2 Dozen Cases to NH, MA
(By Ian MacDougall)
Providence, RI.--Rhode Island's top federal judge says a
four-year judicial vacancy left open amid partisan bickering
in the U.S. Senate has prompted her court to take the unusual
step of reassigning more than two dozen civil cases to judges
in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
In an interview, Chief Judge Mary M. Lisi told The
Associated Press the vacancy has left her and Rhode Island's
other federal judge, William E. Smith, with a growing
caseload that has begun to reach a critical mass.
The vacancy ``has had a major impact on the business of the
court,'' Lisi said. ``We have an increasing caseload being
handled by only two people where three judges are
authorized.''
Lisi said her primary reason for moving the cases was that
she worried a lag in rendering decisions at key points in the
litigation would leave plaintiffs and defendants in the
lurch. She said she chose to reassign cases with important
motions pending.
``Our job is to resolve cases and to do so in as timely and
efficient a manner as we can. And when our ability to do so
is hampered, I don't think that's good for any participants
in the process,'' she said.
A third judge, Ronald R. Lagueux, who is a senior judge,
has volunteered to help to ease the burden on Lisi and Smith.
The case reassignment is one example of a real effect and a
real cost, to travelling litigants, lawyers and judges of the
often-snarled judicial appointment process whose unknotting
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts called for in
December.
``Each political party has found it easy to turn on a dime
from decrying to defending
[[Page S1589]]
the blocking of judicial nominations, depending on their
changing political fortunes,'' Roberts wrote in his 2010
report on the federal judiciary. ``There remains . . . an
urgent need for the political branches to find a long-term
solution to this recurring problem.''
Twenty-five of the Rhode Island civil lawsuits were
reassigned to New Hampshire and two to Massachusetts in late
January, about two weeks after President Barack Obama
nominated Jack McConnell, a Rhode Island trial attorney, to
the state's vacant judgeship for the third time. The
nomination has faced resistance from some Senate Republicans
and staunch opposition from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The
chamber claims McConnell's track record, which includes suing
former lead paint companies, evinces a bias against business
defendants.
McConnell declined to comment on his nomination.
In November 2007 almost a year after the vacancy opened
then-President George W. Bush nominated Lincoln Almond, a
federal magistrate judge in Rhode Island. His candidacy
fizzled after a lukewarm reception from U.S. Sens., Jack Reed
and Sheldon Whitehouse.
Normally, cases are assigned to judges elsewhere, who
follow the rules of the originating court, only when all
judges in a given district recuse themselves. Lisi says the
current situation is unique in recent state history.
Other districts facing stalled appointments have not yet
taken similar steps.
However, Peter Oppeneer, court clerk for the Western
District of Wisconsin, said that court might need to look to
other districts for help if a vacancy there takes a long time
to fill. Some Senate Republicans have opposed Obama's nominee
to that judgeship, Louis Butler.
The Rhode Island reassignment has generated some confusion
and consternation among state lawyers.
George Babcock, who's suing on behalf of more than a dozen
clients in a foreclosures case transferred to New Hampshire,
says the move is upsetting to some of his clients and
potentially expensive. He says the court has told him the
case, if it goes to trial, will be heard in Concord, N.H.
``I want to work on my cases in my office, not in a Motel
6,'' Babcock said. ``And with all these clients, I'm going to
have to rent a whole wing at the Motel 6.''
Other lawyers with reassigned cases say New Hampshire
judges have offered to travel to Providence. It is ultimately
up to each individual judge to decide where the case should
be heard, according to David DiMarzio, clerk for federal
court in Rhode Island.
There are just over 2,500 civil cases and 205 criminal
cases pending in Rhode Island, according to court figures. Of
the civil cases, over 1,600 are part of multi-district
litigation that Lisi says the court accepted before realizing
it would be faced with an extended vacancy.
For now, Lisi says, she does not plan to transfer more
cases to other districts.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am about to suggest the absence of a
quorum, but I ask unanimous consent that when I suggest the absence of
a quorum, the time be equally divided between both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
speak as in morning business
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida are printed in today's Record
under ``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, we will confirm yet another of
President Obama's judicial nominees. After today's vote, we will have
confirmed five judicial nominees in the last 5 legislative days. We are
moving swiftly in committee and on the Senate floor. Notwithstanding
our quick pace, we hear from some that we are not moving fast enough.
As I have said before, our side will continue to work in good faith to
process consensus nominees. But we will not place quantity confirmed
over quality confirmed. These lifetime appointments are too important
to the Federal judiciary and the American people to simply rubberstamp
them.
Today we will vote on Judge James Boasberg to sit on the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Boasberg is not the
first individual nominated to fill this vacancy. This seat became
vacant in May 2008, when Judge Thomas F. Hogan took senior status.
President Bush nominated Jeffrey Adam Rosen in June 2008. He was
unanimously rated well qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the
Federal Judiciary. He had over 20 years of experience in private
practice, principally involved in complex business litigation matters.
He had more than 5 years of public service, having served as general
counsel at the Office of Management and Budget and at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Despite his qualifications, Mr. Rosen's
nomination languished in committee for over 6 months.
While I am disappointed Mr. Rosen was not given any consideration, I
am pleased to be able to support Judge Boasberg. He was nominated last
June and had his hearing in September. He was reported out of committee
last December, during the lameduck session, and the Senate was unable
to complete action on the nomination. The committee moved quickly on
his renomination this year, reporting him out of committee last month.
Judge Boasberg presently serves as an associate judge of the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia. Following the Senate's unanimous
confirmation, President George W. Bush appointed him to this position
in August, 2002.
Judge Boasberg earned his B.A., magna cum laude, from Yale College,
his master of studies from Oxford University, and his juris doctor from
Yale Law School. After completing law school, he clerked for the
Honorable Dorothy W. Nelson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. He then went into private practice, working as a litigator on
complex business and white-collar defense matters.
Judge Boasberg also served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the
District of Columbia. There he prosecuted criminal matters and
specialized in homicide cases. He has received a unanimous well
qualified rating from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary.
I am pleased this seat is being filled with someone who has concrete
knowledge of what it takes to be a judge, and I hope Judge Boasberg
continues to work hard to serve the American people.
I congratulate the nominee and his family on this important lifetime
appointment.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time
on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of James Emanuel Boasberg, of the District of Columbia, to be United
States District Judge for the District of Columbia?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), and
the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 39 Ex.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
[[Page S1590]]
Casey
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Chambliss
Crapo
Harkin
Risch
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table.
Under the previous order, the President shall be immediately notified
of the Senate's action.
____________________