[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 102 (Tuesday, July 10, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4800-S4804]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF JOHN THOMAS FOWLKES, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
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 assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of John Thomas
Fowlkes, Jr., of Tennessee, to be United States District Judge for the
Western District of Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from
Tennessee on the floor, and I will make sure he has plenty of time to
speak. If not, I will ask unanimous consent for extra time for him.
Today we will vote on only 1 of the 16 judicial nominations reported
favorably by the Judiciary Committee that have been stalled for no
reason from receiving a Senate vote. Regrettably, Senate Republicans
are following through on their partisan opposition to the President by
seeking to slam the door on qualified, consensus judicial nominees who
have bipartisan support. In doing so, they seek to take advantage of
the delaying tactics that they have been employing for the last 3\1/2\
years. This is all to the detriment of the American people.
I am disappointed that Senate Republicans are choosing politics over
the needs of the American people and seek to justify their actions with
a warped sense of payback. This is not the time for settling imaginary
scores. Their self-interested approach is what contributes to the low
opinion the American people have of Congress. What the American people
and the overburdened Federal courts need are qualified judges to
administer justice. They are not helped by these partisan games.
Following the most extended period of historically high vacancy rates
in the history of our district courts, nearly 1 in every 11 Federal
judgeships remains vacant. This is more than twice the vacancy rate by
this date during the first term of President Bush.
This chart, available at http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
BushObama%20-%20Judicial%20-%207-10-12%20-%20Area%20-%201st%20term
.pdf, should help people understand how far behind we remain in filling
the judicial vacancies to provide the Federal judges that the American
people need to get justice in our Federal courts. This compares
judicial vacancies during the first terms of President Bush and
President Obama. It shows the stark contrast to the way in which we
moved to reduce judicial vacancies during the last Republican
Presidency.
This chart shows that the Senate can do better because it has done
better. During President Bush's first term we reduced the number of
judicial vacancies by almost 75 percent. When I became chairman in the
summer of 2001, there were 110 vacancies. As chairman, I worked with
the administration and Senators from both sides of the aisle to confirm
100 judicial nominees of a conservative Republican President in 17
months.
We continued when in the minority to work with Senate Republicans and
confirm President Bush's consensus judicial nominations well into 2004,
a Presidential election year. At the end of that Presidential term, the
Senate had acted to confirm 205 circuit and district court nominees. By
July 2004 we had reduced judicial vacancies to 29.
By comparison, vacancies have long remained near or above 80, while
little comparative progress has been made during the 4 years of
President Obama's first term. There are still 77 vacancies as of July
2012--that is more than 2\1/2\ times the number of vacancies at this
point in President Bush's first term.
Each day that Senate Republicans refuse because of their political
agenda to confirm these qualified judicial nominees who have been
reviewed and voted on by the Judiciary Committee is another day that a
judge could have been working to administer justice. Every week lost is
another in which injured plaintiffs are having to wait to recover the
costs of medical expenses, lost wages, or other damages from
wrongdoing. Every month is another drag on the economy as small
business owners have to wait to have their contract disputes resolved.
Hard-working and hard-pressed Americans should not have to wait years
to have their cases decided. Just as it is with the economy and with
jobs, the American people do not want to hear excuses about why
Republicans in Congress will not help them. More importantly, they do
not want to hear that the supposed justification is partisan. This is
precisely the reason why Congress's approval rating among the American
people is so low.
The nonpartisan American Bar Association has been sounding the alarm
for some time that we need to do better with respect to the judicial
vacancy crisis. The president of the ABA wrote the Senate leaders again
on June 20 urging them to work together to schedule votes for three
consensus, qualified circuit court nominees awaiting Senate
confirmation so that they may serve the American people. The response
was more excuses from the Republican leadership rather than any
positive action. In the past, the Senate has worked together to confirm
consensus circuit court nominees, especially during times of high
vacancies. For example, Senate Democrats confirmed 11 circuit court
nominees of President George H.W. Bush in 1992. The only exception to
the practice of confirming consensus circuit court nominees in
Presidential elections years with high vacancies was when Senate
Republicans shut down the process of a Democratic President in 1996.
The Republican leadership is apparently planning to stick with its
shutdown of confirmations just as it did in 1996 when they prevented
the confirmation of circuit court nominees for an entire year-long
session of the Senate. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
Since May 31, Senate Republicans have consented to consideration of
only five judicial nominees. That is a far cry from the 30 confirmed in
the last months of 2004 at the end of President Bush's first term that
brought his total of circuit and district court confirmations to 205.
It is also a far cry from the 22 confirmed in the last months of 2008
at the end of President Bush's second term. They are continuing the
obstruction that has unnecessarily delayed confirmation of consensus
circuit and district court nominees for months and resulted in our
being more than 40 confirmations behind the pace we set in President
Bush's first term.
Like so many matters on which they have flip-flopped since the
American people elected President Obama--everything from the individual
mandate for private health insurance that they originated and used to
favor to the deficit reduction commission--they now contend that they
are invoking the Thurmond rule even though they denied its existence
when President Bush was in office. Just 4 years ago the current
Republican leader said that ``there is no Thurmond rule'' and the
current ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee called it ``plain
bunk.'' The Senate Republican caucus held a forum to demonstrate that
no such practice or rule existed and that judicial confirmations should
continue in the last several months of a Presidential term. With
President Obama, they have chosen to flip-flop and use the so-called
[[Page S4801]]
Thurmond rule as an excuse for shutting down Senate confirmations.
Election year politics should not trump the needs of Americans seeking
to obtain justice in our Federal courts. Senate Republicans' newly
stated reliance on the Thurmond rule is really just another excuse for
more of the stalling tactics that we have been seeing since President
Obama was elected.
Nor is this the first time that they have been urged to work with us
to confirm consensus judicial nominees to address the vacancy crisis.
In his 2010 year-end report on the federal judiciary, Chief Justice
Roberts called attention to the problem of overburdened courts across-
the-country and the need to fill judicial vacancies. That followed in
the tradition of Chief Justice Rehnquist who called out the obstruction
of President Clinton's judicial nominees. These are not Democratic
partisans. Each served in Republican administrations and was appointed
by a Republican President because of their conservative credentials and
each has been a deeply conservative Supreme Court Justice.
What Senate Republican leaders now contend has been ``exceptionally
fair treatment'' of President Obama's judicial nominees has, in fact,
amounted to months of unnecessary delays and their having expanded
contentiousness to include judicial nominees who should be
noncontentious. Their practice has been a virtual across-the-board
stalling of judicial nominees. That is what has led to the backlog in
confirmations and the months of delays in the consideration of
consensus nominees, which has been demonstrated over and over again.
Let us take a look at how they have been stalling circuit court
nominees. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in its recent
report confirms what I have been saying. I also have prepared this
chart, which is taken from the CRS report, and is available at http://
www.leahy.senate
.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20chart%20-%20my%20version.pdf.
They report that the median time circuit court nominees have had to
wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President
Bush's circuit court nominees to 132 days for President Obama's circuit
court nominees. Any objective observer would concede that President
Obama has made a significant effort to work with home State Senators
from both parties and that his nominees have been less ideological and
should be less controversial than his predecessor's. Yet the result of
Republican foot dragging and obstruction is that they are nonetheless
delayed and stalled. They have filibustered nominations that they then
turn around and support like that of Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia
to the Fourth Circuit who was ultimately confirmed 99 to 0 and Judge
Denny Chin of New York to the Second Circuit, who was filibustered for
4 months before he was confirmed 98 to 0.
Those interested in the Tennessee nominee today will remember how
hard we had to work for almost 10 months, despite the support of
Senator Alexander and Senator Corker, to get Senate Republicans to
allow consideration of the nomination of Judge Jane Stranch to the
Sixth Circuit. Despite being approved by a bipartisan majority of the
Judiciary Committee, Judge Stranch's nomination nevertheless languished
on the floor for nearly 10 months because of Republican obstruction. I
personally had to come before the Senate to take the extraordinary step
of propounding a unanimous consent request to consider her nomination,
with the support of the senior Senator from Tennessee. So it is hard to
see any difference between this supposed application of the Thurmond
rule and how Senate Republicans have treated nearly all of President
Obama's circuit court nominees since the President took office--
including those with support of Republican home State senators.
Among the circuit court nominees they are blockading now are two from
States with Republican home State Senators' support: William Kayatta
from Maine and Judge Robert Bacharach from Oklahoma, as well as a
nominee to the Federal Circuit who had the support of virtually all the
Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee.
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 including those with the support of Republican
home State Senators. During the last 20 years, only 4 circuit nominees
reported with bipartisan support have been denied an up-or-down vote
during a Presidential election year by the Senate. All four were
nominated by President Clinton and blocked by Senate Republicans.
Senate Republicans are threatening to add the current circuit nominees
pending before the Senate to that list. In the previous 5 Presidential
election years, a total of 13 circuit court nominees has been confirmed
after May 31. It is notable that 12 of the 13 were nominees of
Republican Presidents.
When Republican Senators try to take credit for the Senate having
reached what they regard as their ``quota'' for circuit confirmations
this year, they should remember that the Senate would not even have had
an up-or-down vote on three of the five of them without the majority
leader first having to file for cloture to overcome Republican
obstruction--Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit, Paul
Watford of California to the Ninth Circuit and Andrew Hurwitz of
Arizona to the Ninth Circuit. And the other two, Stephanie Dawn Thacker
of West Virginia to the Fourth Circuit and Jacqueline Nguyen of
California to the Ninth Circuit, were unnecessarily stalled since last
year until the leader forced the issue by filing for cloture on 17
judicial nominees, ultimately reaching a deal with the Republican
leader to vote on only some of the many long-stalled nominees. That is
not cooperation. That is stalling, and it is why the Senate has yet to
vote on a single circuit court nominee nominated by President Obama
this year.
Adalberto Jordan, Stephanie Thacker and Jacqueline Nguyen had all
been reported with bipartisan support from the Judiciary Committee last
year but their confirmations were stalled by Republicans into this
year. In my view, they could and should have been confirmed last year.
Senate Republicans broke from the longstanding tradition of confirming
consensus judicial nominees at the end of last year. Indeed, Senate
Republicans broke from this tradition the last 2 years. When it comes
to confirming consensus judges for the benefit of the American people,
they choose to ignore tradition.
The two other circuit nominees who were confirmed this year--Paul
Watford and Andrew Hurwitz of the Ninth Circuit had their hearings and
committee votes delayed at the request of Senate Republicans. If not
for this stalling by Senate Republicans, these circuit nominees could
also could have been confirmed last year.
Since 1980, the only Presidential election year in which no circuit
nominee who was nominated that year and confirmed that year was in
1996, when Senate Republicans shut down the process against President
Clinton's circuit nominees. So when the American people hear Senate
Republicans crowing about how they have cooperated to confirm five
circuit court nominees this year, they should know the truth.
The fact that Republican stalling tactics have meant that circuit
court nominees that should have been confirmed in the spring are still
awaiting a vote after July 4 is no excuse for not moving forward this
month to confirm the circuit nominees who were voted out of the
Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. That was the point of the
letter to Senate leaders from the ABA last month when the Republicans'
partisan plan to stall out the rest of the year was first publicly
acknowledged.
We remain far behind in filling judicial vacancies to provide the
Federal judges that American people need to get justice in our Federal
courts, as the previous chart demonstrates. Comparisons of judicial
vacancies during the first terms of President Bush and President Obama
show just how far behind we really are.
Judicial vacancies during President Obama's first term long remained
near or above 80, while little comparative progress was made for years.
There are still 77 vacancies as of July 2012. By this time during
President Bush's first term we had reduced 110 vacancies down to 29. By
this time during President Bush's first term the Senate had
[[Page S4802]]
confirmed 44 more circuit and district court nominees than the Senate
has during this Presidential term.
Despite these facts, certain Senate Republicans contend that their
resistance should be excused because two Supreme Court justices, who
most of them opposed, were confirmed in President Obama's first term.
This is another hollow excuse and is no justification for not moving
ahead with the confirmations of William Kayatta, Judge Bacharach, Judge
Shwartz, and Richard Taranto to circuit vacancies or with the nearly
two dozen judicial nominees that we could easily consider and confirm
this year. The American people who are waiting for justice do not care
about excuses. They do not care about some false sense of settling
political scores. They want justice. Just as they want action on
measures the President has suggested to help the economy and create
jobs rather than political calculations about what will help Republican
candidates in the elections in November.
Indeed, despite confirming two Supreme Court justices in President
Clinton's first term, the Senate was able to confirm 200 circuit and
district court judges by the end of 1996. And in 1992, at the end of
President George H.W. Bush's term, the Senate was able to confirm 192
circuit and district court judges despite confirming two Supreme Court
Justices. At this point, Republicans have allowed the Senate to confirm
only 153 of President Obama's circuit and district court nominees. That
is a far cry from what we have been able to achieve in addition to our
consideration of Supreme Court nominations when the Senate was being
allowed to proceed to consider judicial nominees reported with
bipartisan support. This artificial ceiling on confirmations is
Republicans imposing a new standard for partisan purposes.
Likewise, Republicans' newfound affection for the Thurmond rule
ignores the facts. In the Presidential election year of 1992, for
example, with a Republican President, the Democratic majority in the
Senate proceeded to confirm 66 new judges including 11 circuit judges.
Republicans have no good justification for not proceeding to confirm
the judicial nominees reported with bipartisan support by the Judiciary
Committee this year. We can and we should be doing more to help the
American people.
The American people do not want to hear excuses from Senate
Republicans about why the Senate cannot proceed to confirm judges who
are well-qualified and have received significant bipartisan support.
There is no good reason that the Senate should not vote on the 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 2 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, and also by the State's other
Republican Senator, Senator Inhofe.
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 3 months ago, and is supported by conservatives
such as Robert Bork and Paul Clement. He is also nominated to the
Federal Circuit, which has never before been a controversial court.
The one circuit court nominee who was reported out of committee with
a split rollcall vote--Judge Patty Shwartz of New Jersey--should not
have been controversial. She has been a Federal magistrate judge for
the last 8 years and was a Federal prosecutor for 14 years, where she
rose to become chief of the Criminal Division. She also has the
bipartisan support of New Jersey's Republican Governor, Chris Christie.
Each of these circuit court nominees has been rated unanimously well
qualified by the nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, the highest possible rating. These are not controversial
nominees. Senate Republicans are blocking consent to vote on superbly
qualified circuit court nominees with strong bipartisan support.
Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of John Fowlkes to fill
a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Tennessee. Judge Fowlkes has the support of his home State
Republican Senators, Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Bob Corker.
His nomination was reported with near unanimous voice vote by the
Judiciary Committee nearly 3 months ago, with the only objection coming
from Senator Lee's customary protest vote. Judge Fowlkes was rated
unanimously well-qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, the highest possible rating.
Judge Fowlkes currently serves as a criminal court judge in the 30th
Judicial District at Memphis, Tennessee, where he has been a judge for
approximately 5 years. He previously held several positions in public
service, including as a Federal prosecutor for 13 years and as an
assistant district attorney general in Shelby County for 10 years.
Judge Fowlkes also served briefly as an assistant public defender at
the Shelby County Public Defender's Office. His diverse range of
experience makes him particularly well qualified to serve on the
Federal bench.
Once we confirm Judge Fowlkes, I hope that Senate Republicans will
reconsider their ill-conceived partisan strategy and work with us to
meet the needs of the American people. There is no reason the Senate
cannot vote to confirm the other 15 well-qualified judicial nominees
reported by the Committee. There is no good reason we cannot work
together to help solve the problem of high judicial vacancies and
better serve the American people.
I see the two distinguished Senators from Tennessee on the floor.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) The senior Senator from
Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chairman of
the Judiciary Committee for his courtesy in allowing Senator Corker and
me a chance to speak about Judge Fowlkes from Tennessee. I do not
intend to get into a lengthy dispute with the Senator from Vermont
about the relative merits of the two political parties approving
judges. But I do have to admire his persistence and creativity in
always coming up with a way in how Democrats approve more Republican
judges than Republicans approved Democratic judges.
I notice that our ranking member, Senator Grassley, will put a
statement in the Record today making a clear statement about what the
record is. But if I may borrow from that: Today's vote will be the
152nd nominee of President Obama confirmed to district and circuit
judges. We have also confirmed two Supreme Court nominees during
President Obama's term. 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. With Judge Fowlkes'
confirmation today, we will have confirmed 33 more district and circuit
nominees for President Obama than we did for President Bush in similar
circumstances.
That is according to Senator Grassley's comments, which will be
printed in the Record. I would have to say to my friend from Vermont,
my memory is good enough that about this time 4 years ago, when we had
a Republican President, I think I remember the majority leader of the
Senate, Senator Reid, and Senator Leahy both suggesting it was time
that we slowed things down and not confirm any more circuit judges
until we saw how the election came out in November. So we are
basically, in our opinion, applying, in the fairest possible way in the
Senate, the Thurmond-Leahy rule that has been developed over time.
If there are excellent nominees by the President to the circuit
courts, well, the election is only 4 months away. If he is reelected,
they can be confirmed in November and December. If he is not, then his
successor will have a chance to make those nominations.
Let me speak today about a matter that I believe we have great
agreement on in the Senate, with the President,
[[Page S4803]]
and that is the nomination of the President of Judge John Fowlkes to
fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.
As the Governor of Tennessee, I had the responsibility of appointing
about 50 judges over 8 years. I looked for good intelligence, good
temperament, good understanding of the law, and respect for those who
came before the court. I did not feel it was my responsibility ever to
inquire how a judge might decide on a particular case before he took
the position.
So I took some time to look into Judge Fowlkes' background when
President Obama nominated him. I was delighted with what I found. I am
pleased to recommend him to our colleagues. His performance has been
praised throughout his career in the community of Memphis and Shelby
County where he is best known. His leadership, his citizenship, his
high professionalism, his courtesy to others are the words I often
hear. I have letters from bar association members who say he has a
creative and independent mind; from others in Memphis who say he is
passionate about the community in which he lives, appearing at civic
events repeatedly, committing over 50 hours of service annually to the
Memphis Area Legal Services, and actively supporting the Boy Scouts.
So it is with great pleasure that I recommend to our colleagues today
President Obama's nominee, Judge John Fowlkes, to fill a vacancy on the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to second what the great Senator
from Tennessee Lamar Alexander said. I want to speak for a moment about
the same nomination, with the same amount of energy, and the fact that
I am very excited about this person being nominated.
When the White House began looking for someone to fill this position,
I talked to numbers of people down in Shelby County about Judge
Fowlkes, and people whom I respected, people who have been involved in
the community for years. I can tell you, from every single person I
talked to, they talked not only about his record but also the kind of
person he was. He has served in many positions.
He has been a public defender, a district attorney, a U.S. Attorney,
he was the chief administrative officer for the largest and most
populous county in the State of Tennessee. Now he serves as a criminal
court judge. At every stop, he has excelled and earned a reputation for
professionalism and integrity. I think his experience certainly makes
him very well-prepared for this position and the responsibilities he
will carry out.
I am glad to join with Senator Alexander, Senator Leahy, and others.
I hope we have an overwhelming vote today for this nominee, who I
believe will be an outstanding Federal judge. I ask all of my
colleagues to join us in supporting this person, who, again, I think
will be exemplary on the bench, as he has been throughout his entire
life.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the nomination of John Thomas
Fowlkes, to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of
Tennessee.
Although it is the practice and tradition of the Senate to not
confirm circuit nominees in the closing months of a Presidential
election year, we continue to confirm consensus district judge
nominees. Today's vote will be the 152nd nominee of this President
confirmed to the district and circuit courts. We also have confirmed
two Supreme Court nominees during President Obama's term.
I continue to hear some Members repeatedly ask the question, ``What
is different about this President that he has to be treated differently
than all these other Presidents?'' I won't speculate as to any
inference that might be intended by that question, but I can tell you
that this President is not being treated differently than previous
Presidents. By any objective measure, this President has been treated
fairly and consistent with past Senate practices.
For example, with regard to the number of confirmations, 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. And during President
Bush's entire second term the Senate confirmed a total of only 119
district and circuit court nominees. With Judge Fowlkes' confirmation
today, we will have confirmed 33 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. Today, we
will exceed the number of district court judges confirmed. We have
already confirmed 5 circuit nominees, and this will be the 25th
district judge confirmed this year. Those who say that this President
is being treated differently either fail to recognize history or want
to ignore the facts.
Judge Fowlkes received his B.A. from Valparaiso University in 1975
and his J.D. from University of Denver School of Law in 1977. From 1978
to 1979 he worked as an assistant public defender at the Shelby County
Public Defender's Office, where he represented indigent defendants. In
1979, he joined the Shelby County District Attorney General's Office
and served as an assistant district attorney for the next 10 years.
There he tried nearly 150 jury trials, handling homicide, assault, sex
offense, robbery, and burglary cases. In 1989, he became an assistant
U.S. attorney, trying criminal cases until 2002. As an AUSA, he tried
over 100 jury trials and handled all appellate level work. During his
time at the attorney's office, Judge Fowlkes was a first assistant for
several years, directing day-to-day operations of the office. From 2002
to 2007, Judge Fowlkes was the chief administrative officer for Shelby
County. He was not engaged in the practice of law during this period.
In 2007, then-Governor Phil Bredesen appointed Judge Fowlkes to be a
criminal court judge for Division VI of the 30th Judicial District at
Memphis. In November 2008, he was elected to a full, 8-year term. In
2011, he was elected by judges of the 30th Judicial District to serve
as presiding judge.
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated
Judge Fowlkes as ``well qualified.''
I support the nomination and congratulate Judge Fowlkes on his
confirmation today.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant 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, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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.
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.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of John Thomas Fowlkes, Jr., of Tennessee, to be United States District
Judge for the Western District of Tennessee.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 2, as follows:
[[Page S4804]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 173 Ex.]
YEAS--94
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--2
DeMint
Lee
NOT VOTING--4
Burr
Chambliss
Kirk
Sanders
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________