[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 92 (Monday, June 18, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4226-S4230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF MARY GEIGER LEWIS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
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 Mary Geiger Lewis, of
South Carolina, to be United States District Court Judge for the
District of South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, Senate Republicans announced
they are going to shut down and block the confirmation process for
qualified and consensus circuit nominees for the rest of the year. That
is unfortunate, and it does nothing to help the American people or our
courts. The courts continue to be overburdened while consensus nominees
for vacancies that could be filled are being stalled. In some cases for
nominees, we have two Republican Senators from the State supporting
them and others where we have a Democratic and Republican Senator
supporting them. They have gone through our committee--usually by voice
vote--and they are noncontroversial. I have often spoken during the
last three years of the foot dragging and obstruction by Senate
Republicans with respect to this President's judicial nominations.
Just last week we saw the Majority Leader file the 28th cloture
petition to end another filibuster against another qualified judicial
nominee. Last week it was a nominee from Arizona supported by Senator
Kyl and Senator McCain. By their announcement, the Senate Republican
leadership is saying that it will not agree to proceeding with debate
and a vote on any of the four circuit court nominees voted on by the
Senate Judiciary Committee. They include a nominee from Maine strongly
supported by both Republican Senators from Maine, and a nominee from
Oklahoma supported by the Republican Senators from that state, as well
as a nominee from New Jersey and one for the Federal Circuit who was
approved by all of the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee,
except for an unrelated protest vote. This plan to shut down the
confirmation process is consistent with what the partisan Senate
Republican leadership did in 1996, when it would not allow any circuit
nominees to be confirmed, and again at the end of President Clinton's
presidency, and can be contrasted with how Democrats acted in 1992,
2004 and 2008. This is really a challenge to the Senators who have said
that they will not support these filibusters and this kind of
obstruction.
It is hard to see how this new application of the Thurmond rule is
anything more than another name for the stalling tactics we have
already seen for months and years. I have yet to hear any good reason
why we should not continue to vote on well-qualified consensus
nominees, as we did up until September of the last two Presidential
election years when we had a Republican President. That was supported
by both Democrats and Republicans--to vote up through September. I have
yet to hear a good explanation why we can't work to solve the problems
of high vacancies for the American people. I will continue to work with
the Senate leadership to try to confirm as many of President Obama's
qualified judicial nominees as possible because I hear from judges all
over the country
[[Page S4227]]
how these judicial vacancies are burdening our courts, and American
taxpayers are unable to get a court to hear their cases.
I was heartened to see the senior Senator from Maine has said she
will continue to work with the bipartisan Senate leadership in an
effort to bring the Maine nominee to the First Circuit before the
Senate for a confirmation vote. I trust that many Republican Senators
who joined Senator Kyl and Senator McCain in opposing the filibuster of
Justice Hurwitz will now join to oppose the filibusters of William
Kayatta of Maine, Judge Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma, Judge Shwartz of
New Jersey, and Richard Taranto for the Federal Circuit. I hope the
Senators from South Carolina, whose State's nominee we consider today,
will aid this effort just as we worked with them throughout the process
to ensure they were consulted by the President. In fact, I personally
requested the President consult with Republican Senators when they were
going to have a nominee from their home State. I hope they are going to
show that same courtesy to other Senators.
Senate Republicans were talking about shutting down the confirmation
process from the beginning of this year, as I chronicled in my
statement on February 7 on their obstruction and delay. They slow
walked nominees who should have been confirmed last year into May of
this year. And now, one month later, they announce that they are
closing the gates on progress. The article by John Stanton in Roll Call
on June 14 blew the whistle on their plan. The banner headline notes
the ``GOP . . . Judge Blockade'' but it is not just beginning. It began
from the moment the President was elected.
I think this pattern of obstruction--and I say this more out of
sadness than anything else--has been as transparent as the Senate
Republican leader's statement that ``the single most important thing
[Senate Republicans] want to achieve is for President Obama to be a
one-term President.'' Just as they obstruct his qualified judicial
nominees, they have also rejected virtually every effort this President
has made to improve the economy and create jobs. They have become the
party of no--no help for the American people, no to jobs, no to
economic recovery, no to police, firefighters, and teachers, no to
those students who are seeking help to pay for education, no to
consumer protection, no to assisting State and local governments, no to
the highway bill, and no to any more judges.
Never mind that the American people rely on our courts for justice
and that the courts are overburdened with vacancies and that we have 17
judicial nominees voted out of the Judiciary Committee waiting for
Senate confirmation.
The idea that Senate Republicans would oppose a proposal, bill or
nomination simply because it comes from this President is sadly no
surprise. Republicans objected to extending the payroll tax cut even
though they ultimately supported it. Republicans have also come to
reject ideas and proposals that originated from their own party simply
because this President supports them. This was the case with the
individual mandate for healthcare, which was a Republican idea. So it
should come as no surprise that Republicans have been obstructing
President Obama's judicial nominees since the President first took
office.
Regrettably, the obstruction of judicial nominations is just one more
example of Republicans saying no or simply going slow. They are saying
no to the police, firefighters, teachers, students, consumer
protection, and to those 50 States that want to go forward with highway
bills.
I hear from Vermonters--Republicans and Democrats alike--and they
cannot wait while politics trump sound policy efforts in Washington. It
is time for a reality check.
While our economy is showing some signs of progress since the
economic collapse four years ago, there is no doubt domestic job growth
has not been as strong as we had hoped. Even though we have under 5
percent unemployment in Vermont, we still have too many Vermonters
looking for work. We have to continue looking for ways to spur job
growth and economic investment in this country. Unfortunately, efforts
in Congress to increase jobs, reduce unemployment, and support
hardworking American families struggling to keep food on their tables
and roofs over their heads meet with partisan obstruction too.
While Congress delays, the clock is ticking down for the millions of
Americans struggling to afford college and those struggling to pay back
student loans once they have graduated. In less than two weeks, student
loan interest rates will double, threatening to make student loan debt
an almost insurmountable obstacle to accessing a college education.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans continue to filibuster commonsense
legislation to address this looming deadline.
In less than 2 weeks, millions of jobs will be put on hold when
critical transportation programs, including funding for the highway
trust fund, expire. Failing to pass a long-term transportation bill
jeopardizes thousands of construction and development projects,
impacting millions of jobs in every single State in this country. These
programs impact every one of our states--which means more jobs lost in
an already weak economy. The Senate has passed a bill to bring
certainty to this fund for two years. We are still waiting for the
House Republican leadership to act on that legislation.
In a little over 1 month, important legislation to extend the
National Flood Insurance Program will expire. The failure to
reauthorize this important program puts at risk the sale of thousands
of homes at a time when our housing market is still trying to recover.
The program expired in 2008, and subsists now on a series of short term
extensions. A five-year extension is pending before Congress; Senate
Republicans have delayed consideration of that important legislation,
too.
Meanwhile, in this election year, Republicans in Congress are more
intent on extending the Bush-era tax cuts that contributed to the
financial crisis facing us today than in working together to move
forward with reasonable policies to bolster economic growth and
development. Extending to the wealthiest Americans a lower tax rate
will not lead to job creation. These tax cuts have not led to job
creation. Meanwhile, businesses continue to shutter their doors,
costing communities jobs and economic development.
I know I raised the question at the time when Congress voted to go to
war in Iraq--a war I voted against--that they were going to do it by
borrowing the money, the same in Afghanistan. Never before in this
Nation have we gone to war and borrowed the money. We have had a tax to
pay for it. So we lose $1 trillion in Iraq and at least $\1/2\ trillion
so far in Afghanistan.
If we want to cast partisan politics aside and have a consensus on
meaningful jobs and job preservation legislation, we can do so. We have
shown how to do it. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is one of the
best examples of laws enacted in this Congress to promote our American
economy and create American jobs. The Republican chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee and I in the Senate brought together Republicans
and Democrats in both bodies, and we passed the Leahy-Smith America
Invents Act. Unfortunately, it was only one of the few job-creating
bills enacted in this Congress.
The outlook this Congress need not be gloom and doom. Working
together, we can enact meaningful legislation to close the loopholes
that incentivize companies to ship jobs overseas. We can bolster the
middle class, rather than the wealthiest one percent of Americans, by
promoting job creation through small business development. We can
ensure that students graduating from school are not saddled with
student loans, the interest rates on which are simply too high to
afford. We can do all this, today.
I am disheartened that the Republican leaders in Congress have said
they are simply done legislating for the year. The reality check is
that Vermonters and other Americans of all States cannot wait.
President Obama has signaled his commitment to moving forward with job-
creating legislation to get Americans back to work and to protect
America's leadership in the global marketplace. We should move on that.
Let the two candidates for President argue, let them state their
positions, and let the voters decide which one they want to vote for.
In the meantime, when we have legislation to put Americans to work,
let's
[[Page S4228]]
put politics aside and focus on the right policies, on the needs of the
American people. All of us--Republicans and Democrats alike--should act
on behalf of the people who sent us. It is past time for that work to
begin.
Shutting down judicial confirmations makes no sense when the judicial
vacancy rate remains almost twice what it was at this point in the
first term of President Bush. Senate Republicans were successful in
keeping it near or above 80 for three years. Nearly one out of every 11
Federal courts is currently vacant. As a current report from the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service confirms, not a single one
of the last three presidents has had judicial vacancies increase after
their first term. President Obama will likely be the first given
partisan obstruction. The same recent CRS report notes that the median
time circuit nominees have had to wait before a Senate vote has
skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees to 132 days for
President Obama's. This is the result of Republican foot dragging and
obstruction. Last year Senate Republicans again refused to act on 19
judicial nominees and delayed consideration of those nominations an
extra year.
Three of the five circuit court judges finally confirmed this year
after months of unnecessary delays and a filibuster should have been
confirmed last year. The other two circuit court nominees confirmed
this year were both subjected to stalling and a partisan filibuster by
Senate Republicans. So when I hear some Senate Republicans say they are
invoking the Thurmond Rule and have decided they are not going to allow
President Obama's judicial nominees to be considered, I wonder how the
American people can tell the difference. There are longstanding
vacancies with nominees ready to fill them that Republicans are
delaying unnecessarily for months. How do we tell the difference
between the Republican obstruction--that was signaled when they
filibustered President Obama's very first circuit court nominee, a
nomination supported by the longest-serving Republican in the Senate
and the nominee's home state Senator--and this new application of the
Thurmond Rule?
Last week we needed to overcome a filibuster to confirm Justice
Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit despite the strong
support of his home state Senators, Republicans Jon Kyl and John
McCain. Last month the Majority Leader had to file cloture to secure an
up-or-down vote on Paul Watford of California to the Ninth Circuit
despite his sterling credentials and bipartisan support. The year
started with the Majority Leader having to file for cloture to get an
up-or-down vote on Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh
Circuit even though he was strongly supported by his Republican home
state Senator. Every single one of these nominees for whom the Majority
Leader was forced to file cloture was rated unanimously well qualified
by the nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the
highest possible rating. And every one of them was nominated to fill a
judicial emergency vacancy.
Did Republicans secretly invoke the Thurmond Rule before this year
even started, when they departed from the Senate's traditional practice
and would not consent to confirm 19 judicial nominees that were on the
calendar at the end of last year? Up until last month, we were
considering nominees that could and should have been confirmed last
year. Given that we have only confirmed eight judicial nominees that
were reported by the Committee this year and only two of them circuit
court nominees it seems oddly premature to declare an artificial cut-
off of confirmations when our work this year has only just begun. Among
those now being blockaded are nominees waiting since March of this
year. So by delaying last year's nominees until May, Senate Republicans
effectively prevented consideration of the Shwartz, Taranto and Kayatta
nominations for months after being voted out of the Judiciary
Committee. The Senate Republican leadership is not shutting off circuit
nominees just after June 12, they are blocking nominees ready for
consideration since early March of this year.
In 2004, a Presidential election year, the Senate confirmed five
circuit court nominees of a Republican President that had been reported
by the Committee that year. This year we have confirmed only two
circuit court nominees that have been reported by the Committee this
year, and both were filibustered. By this date in 2004 the Senate had
already confirmed 32 of President Bush's circuit court nominees, and we
confirmed another three that year for a total of 35 circuit court
nominees in his first term. So far, the Senate has only been allowed to
consider and confirm 30 of President Obama's circuit court nominees
five fewer, 17 percent fewer while higher numbers of vacancies remain,
and yet the Senate Republican leadership wants to artificially shut off
nominations with no good reason.
There is no reason that the Senate could not vote on consensus
circuit court nominees thoroughly vetted, considered and voted on by
the Judiciary Committee. There is no reason the Senate cannot vote on
the nomination of William Kayatta of Maine to the First Circuit, a
nominee strongly supported by both of Maine's Republican Senators and
reported nearly unanimously by the Committee two months ago. There is
no reason the Senate cannot vote on the nomination of Judge Robert
Bacharach of Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit, who was supported by
Senator Coburn during Committee consideration. Senator Coburn said that
Judge Bacharach would make a great nominee for a Republican president.
So why is the Republican leadership playing politics with his
nomination?
There is also no reason the Senate cannot vote on Richard Taranto's
nomination to the Federal Circuit. He was reported almost unanimously
by voice vote nearly three months ago, and was supported by
conservatives such as Robert Bork and Paul Clement. The Federal Circuit
has never been controversial before. The one circuit court nominee who
was reported out of Committee with a split roll call vote Judge Shwartz
of New Jersey should not have been controversial, as seen by the
bipartisan support she has received from New Jersey's Republican
Governor Chris Christie.
Every circuit court nominee that Senate Republicans currently refuse
to consent to vote on have been rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by
the nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the
highest possible rating. These are not controversial nominees. They are
qualified and should be considered as consensus nominees and confirmed.
By invoking the Thurmond Rule, Senate Republicans are blocking consent
to vote on superbly qualified circuit court nominees with strong
bipartisan support. This is a new and damaging application of the
Thurmond Rule.
Senate tradition has been that in Presidential election years,
nominees receive a vote unless they do not have bipartisan support. In
the past five presidential election years, Senate Democrats have never
denied an up or down vote to any circuit court nominee of a Republican
president who received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee.
In fact, during the last 20 years, only four circuit nominees reported
with bipartisan support have been denied an up-or-down vote by the
Senate and all four were nominated by President Clinton and blocked by
Senate Republicans. While Senate Democrats have been willing to work
with Republican presidents to confirm circuit court nominees with
bipartisan support, Senate Republicans have repeatedly obstructed the
nominees of Democratic presidents. In the previous five presidential
election years, a total of 13 circuit court nominees have been
confirmed after June 1. Not surprisingly, 12 of the 13 were Republican
nominees. Clearly, this is not tit-for-tat as some contend but, rather,
a one way street in favor of Republican presidents' nominees.
The precedent for this decision by Senate Republican Leadership to
shutdown the confirmation process for well-qualified consensus nominees
is their prior actions obstructing President Clinton's nominees.
Senator Schumer held a Judiciary Committee hearing in May 2002 to shed
light on the harmful and damaging practice of stalling and obstructing
qualified, consensus nominees that had occurred during the last years
of the Clinton administration. Of course, there was the nomination of
Bonnie Campbell of Iowa to the Eighth
[[Page S4229]]
Circuit. Ms. Campbell was the first woman ever elected to be Attorney
General of Iowa. She was also once named by Time Magazine as one of the
25 most influential people in America. She served as President
Clinton's head of the Office on Violence Against Women. Despite having
the support of her home state Senators, Senator Grassley and Senator
Harkin, she never received a Committee vote after her hearing.
How ironic that last week the junior Senator from Utah tried to claim
credit for progress this year by comparing confirmations to the 1996
session. The Senate Republican majority that year stalled most of
President Clinton's nominees and would not allow the confirmation of
any circuit court nominees. That is not a record to be proud of but a
record that led to Chief Justice Rehnquist criticizing the Senate
Republicans for their obstruction. This should not be a race to the
bottom but that seems to be the intent of Senate Republicans.
By contrast, if we look at the last two presidential election years,
we will see we were able to bring the number of judicial vacancies down
to the lowest levels in the past 20 years. In 2004 at end of President
Bush's first term, vacancies were reduced to 28 not the 75 at which
they are today. In 2008, in the last year of President Bush's second
term, we again worked to fill vacancies and got them down to 34, less
than half of what they are today. In 2004, 25 nominees were confirmed
between June and the presidential election, and in 2008, 22 nominees
were confirmed between June and the presidential election.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service recently released a
report confirming that judicial nominees continue to be confirmed in
presidential election years, except it seems when there is a Democratic
President. In five of the last eight presidential election years, the
Senate has confirmed at least 22 circuit and district court nominees
after May 31. The notable exceptions were during the last years of
President Clinton's two terms in 1996 and 2000 when Senate Republicans
would not allow confirmations to continue. Otherwise, it has been the
rule rather than the exception. So, for example, the Senate confirmed
32 in 1980; 28 in 1984; 31 in 1992; 28 in 2004 at the end of President
George W. Bush's first term; and 22 after May 31 in 2008 at the end of
President Bush's second term.
We have heard lots of excuses from Senate Republicans, who have tried
to shift the blame for the judicial vacancy crisis to the President--
much as they try to blame him for the debt of European countries and
other matters. They claim that the President has not made enough
nominations. With last week's announcement that Senate Republicans
refuse to confirm any more circuit court nominees, that excuse melts
away. There are nominees ready to be confirmed and the reason they are
not being considered is Republican obstruction. This is wrong. I wish
they would not put politics ahead of the needs of the American people.
The across-the-board obstruction of President Obama's nominees is not
the product of a Thurmond Rule to limit confirmations at the end of
presidential election years to nominees with bipartisan support. Rather
this is a continuation of obstruction that began as soon as this
President was elected. Senate Republicans insisted that filibusters of
President Bush's judicial nominees were unconstitutional, yet they
reversed course and filibustered President Obama's very first judicial
nomination, that of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, a widely-respected
15-year veteran of the Federal bench nominated to the Seventh Circuit
and who had the support of his home state Senator, the longest-serving
Republican in the Senate. Senate Republicans filibustered the
nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit
before she was confirmed 99 0, and the nomination of Judge Denny Chin
of New York to the Second Circuit was filibustered before he was
confirmed 98 0 after four months of needless delays.
At a time when judicial vacancies remained historically high for
three years, with 30 more vacancies and 30 fewer confirmations than at
this point in President Bush's first term, I would hope the Senate
Republican leadership would reconsider and work with us on filling
these longstanding judicial vacancies to help the American people. We
have well-qualified, consensus nominees with bipartisan support who can
fill these vacancies. It is only partisan politics and continued
tactics of obstruction that stand in the way.
Is it any wonder why Congress is so unpopular? I take no comfort in
the rise in the congressional approval rating--it is from 9 percent to
17 percent. This is this kind of obstruction that turns off the
American people. Stop the senseless obstruction--whether you call it
the Thurmond Rule or not--and start helping the American people by
easing the burden on them and the courts around the country.
Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Mary Geiger Lewis to
fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina. Ms. Lewis has the support of her Republican home state
Senator Lindsey Graham. Her nomination was voted on and received
bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee over three months ago. I
thank the Majority Leader for his work in securing a vote on this
nomination.
Mary Lewis has worked in private practice for over 25 years at the
law firm Lewis & Babcock LLP, and has tried approximately 15 cases to
verdict or final judgment. Born in Columbia, South Carolina, she earned
her J.D. from the University of South Carolina and served as a law
clerk to Judge Owens Taylor Cobb in the South Carolina Judicial
Department. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary
unanimously rated Ms. Lewis ``qualified'' to serve on the district
court. I support Ms. Lewis and hope she will be confirmed.
I also hope that Senate Republicans will reconsider their wrongheaded
move to shut down the confirmation of consensus, well-qualified circuit
court nominees. Given our overburdened Federal courts and the need to
provide all Americans with prompt justice, we should all be working in
a bipartisan fashion to confirm these nominees.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate turns to another
judicial nomination, that of Mary Geiger Lewis, to be U.S. district
judge for the District of South Carolina. Once again, for the third
time this month, we have a nonconsensus nominee brought before the
Senate. I oppose this nomination and urge all Senators to do likewise.
We continue to confirm the President's nominees at a brisk pace. We
already confirmed 149 nominees of this President to the district and
circuit courts. We also have confirmed two Supreme Court nominees
during President Obama's term.
For those who claim this President is being treated differently, let
me put that in perspective for my colleagues, with an apples-to-apples
comparison. The last time the Senate confirmed two Supreme Court
nominees was during President Bush's second term. During President
Bush's entire second term, the Senate confirmed a total of only 119
district and circuit court nominees. If Ms. Lewis is confirmed today,
we will have confirmed 31 more district and circuit nominees for
President Obama than we did for President Bush, in similar
circumstances.
During the last Presidential election year, 2008, the Senate
confirmed a total of 28 judges--24 district and 4 circuit. With a
confirmation today, we will match that number. We have already
confirmed five circuit nominees, and this will be the 23rd district
judge confirmed this year.
Some have complained about the length of time to confirm these
judges, focusing only on one phase of the confirmation process.
In reality, the timeframes are comparable for nomination to
confirmation. For President Bush, that time frame was around 211 days;
for President Obama, it is 222 days.
We take this time for review because our inquiry of the
qualifications of nominees must be rigorous. At the beginning of this
Congress, I articulated my standards for judicial nominees. I want to
ensure that the men and women who are appointed to a lifetime position
in the Federal judiciary are qualified to serve. Factors I consider
important include intellectual ability, respect for the Constitution,
fidelity to the law, personal integrity, appropriate judicial
temperament, and professional competence.
[[Page S4230]]
Last year, I became increasingly concerned about some of the judicial
nominations being sent to the Senate. In a few individual cases, it was
very troublesome. The nomination of Ms. Lewis was one of those that
gave me concern. When applying the standards I have articulated, it is
my judgment that Ms. Lewis falls short and should not be confirmed.
The Senate process for reviewing the professional qualifications,
temperament, background, and character is a long and thorough process.
These issues need to be fully examined; nominations are not just
rubberstamped.
At the conclusion of that lengthy process, a substantial majority of
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee determined that this nomination
should not be reported to the Senate.
Nevertheless, we now have the nomination before us. Even so, there
are reasons sufficient to oppose this nominee. Ms. Lewis has limited
courtroom experience and little criminal law experience. Her responses
in her questionnaire and hearing regarding her legal experience
indicated her significant cases were handled more than 10 years ago and
was more of a team effort than individual experience. At her hearing
she was not prepared to discuss the legal principles involved in a case
her firm took to the Supreme Court. For these reasons and others, I
will vote nay on this nomination and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the
time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TESTER. 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. TESTER. I ask that all time be yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. All time is yielded back.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Mary Geiger Lewis, of South Carolina, to be United States District
Judge for the District of South Carolina?
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Casey), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from
Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio),
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 27, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 122 Ex.]
YEAS--64
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--27
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Lee
McConnell
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
NOT VOTING--9
Casey
Harkin
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
McCaskill
Moran
Rubio
Toomey
Vitter
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________