[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 65 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3305-S3308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



 NOMINATION OF NELSON STEPHEN ROMAN TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nominations of Shelly 
Deckert Dick, of Louisiana, to be United States District Judge for the 
Middle District of Louisiana, and Nelson Stephen Roman, of New York, to 
be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the last month, Senate Republicans 
have failed to refute the facts of what they have done to President 
Obama's judicial nominations. The Senate's work on judicial nominations 
should not be about partisan point-scoring; it should be about ensuring 
the American people have access to justice. I rejected that partisan 
tit-for-tat approach while moving to confirm 100 of President Bush's 
judicial nominees in just 17 months in 2001 and 2002.
  The question for the Senate is, Are we doing enough to ensure that 
hard working Americans have access to justice so that they can have 
their rights protected? At a time when 10 percent of the Federal bench 
remains vacant, I do not think that we are. The standard we set during 
the Bush administration for quickly moving to confirm noncontroversial 
nominees is not being met.
  Senate Republicans who take such pride in the number of nominees 
being confirmed this year ignore how many were needlessly delayed from 
confirmation last year and what they have done during the last 4 years. 
That is why after the 14 confirmations this year, we remain more than 
20 confirmations behind the pace we set for President Bush's circuit 
and district nominees, and vacancies remain nearly twice as high as 
they were at this point during President Bush's second term. For all 
their self-congratulatory statements, they cannot refute the following: 
We are not even keeping up with attrition. Vacancies have increased, 
not decreased, since the start of this year. President Obama's judicial 
nominees have faced unprecedented delays and obstruction by Senate 
Republicans. We have yet to finish the work that could and should have 
been completed last year. There are still a dozen judicial nominees 
with bipartisan support being denied confirmation.
  A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service 
compares the whole of President Obama's first term to the whole of 
President Bush's first term, and the contrast could not be more clear. 
The median Senate floor wait time for President Obama's district 
nominees was five times longer than for President Bush's. President 
Obama's circuit nominees faced even longer delays, and their median 
wait time was 7.3 times longer than for President Bush's circuit 
nominees. The comparison is even worse if we look just at nominees who 
were reported and confirmed unanimously. President Bush's unanimously 
confirmed circuit nominees had a median wait time of just 14 days. 
Compare that to the 130.5 days for President Obama's unanimous 
nominees. That is more than nine times longer. Even the nonpartisan CRS 
calls this a ``notable change.'' There is no good reason for such 
unprecedented delays, but those are the facts.
  The confirmations in the last few months does not change the reality 
of what has happened over the last 4 years. If a baseball player goes 
0-for-9, and then gets a hit, we do not say he is an all-star because 
he is batting 1.000 in his last at bat. We recognize that he is just 1-
for-10 and not a very good hitter.
  So while I welcome the confirmations this year, I note both that 10 
of the 14 could and should have been confirmed last year and that there 
are another dozen nominees pending before the Senate, including four 
who also could have been confirmed last year. We can and must do more 
for Americans who look to our courts for justice. They deserve better 
than long delays and empty courtrooms. With 10 percent of our Federal 
bench vacant and a backlog of nominees on the Senate Executive 
Calendar, it is clear that the Senate is not working up to its full 
capacity on nominations.
  It is true that some vacancies do not have nominees. I wish 
Republican home State Senators would work with President Obama to fill 
these vacancies. Nor do those vacancies excuse their unwillingness to 
complete action on the consensus judicial nominees who are ready to be 
confirmed but whose confirmations are being delayed. Mark Barnett, 
Claire Kelly, Shelly Dick, William Orrick, Nelson Roman, Sheri 
Chappell, Michael McShane, Nitza Quinones Alejandro, Luis Restrepo, 
Jeffrey Schmehl, Kenneth Gonzales, and Gregory Phillips are awaiting 
confirmation and Sri Srinivasan, Ray Chen, and Jennifer Dorsey can be 
reported to the Senate today, without further delay. So long as there 
is a backlog of nominees before the Senate, the fault for failing to 
confirm these nominees lies solely with Senate Republicans.
  The Judicial Conference recently released their judgeship 
recommendations. Based upon the caseloads of our Federal courts, the 
conference recommended the creation of 91 new judgeships. That is in 
addition to the 86 judgeships that are currently vacant. This means 
that the effective vacancy rate on the Federal bench is over 18 
percent. A vacancy rate this high is harmful to the individuals and 
businesses that depend on our courts for speedy justice. The damage is 
even more acute in the busiest district courts, such as those in border 
States that have heavy immigration-related caseloads. In a Washington 
Post article about the CRS report, Jonathan Bernstein wrote: ``Ordinary 
people who just want to get their legal matters taken care of promptly 
have suffered because of all the vacancies on federal courts.'' I ask 
unanimous consent to have the article entitled ``New report confirms 
GOP obstructionism is unprecedented'' printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my statement.
  Unneccessarily prolonged vacancies are not the only way that 
partisanship in Washington is hurting our courts. Sequestration 
continues to affect our justice system. The chief judge of the Fourth 
Circuit, William B. Traxler, Jr., has written: ``The impact of 
sequestration on the Judiciary is particularly harsh because the courts 
have no control over their workload. They must respond to all cases 
that are filed . . . .'' He went on to say:

       [A] significant problem arises when budget cuts impact our 
     responsibilities under the Constitution. This happens when we 
     cannot afford to fulfill the Sixth Amendment right to 
     representation for indigents charged with crimes. The 
     predictable result is that criminal prosecutions will slow 
     and our legal system will not operate as efficiently. This 
     will cost us all in many different ways.

  I share Chief Judge Traxler's concern, and I ask unanimous consent to 
have his statement printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  Our Federal judiciary provides justice to 310 million Americans and 
gives full effect to the laws that we pass here in the Senate. We have 
a constitutional responsibility to those 310 million Americans to make 
sure that they can count on our Federal courts to provide justice. 
Federal courts should not be held hostage to partisan obstruction, and 
we need to keep our courts fully funded so that they can continue to 
meet the promise of timely justice that is embedded in our 
Constitution.
  Shelly Dick is nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court 
for the Middle District of Louisiana. Since 1994, she has been in 
private practice at the Law Offices of Shelly D. Dick, LLC, in Baton 
Rouge and was previously an associate with the law firm of Gary Field 
Landry and Dornier. Additionally, since 2008, she has served as an ad 
hoc hearing officer for the Louisiana Workforce Commission. Shelly Dick 
has the bipartisan support of her home State Senators, Ms. Landrieu and 
Mr. Vitter, and was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee 
over 2

[[Page S3306]]

months ago. She is one of the pending nominees who could have been 
expedited and confirmed last year. When confirmed, Shelly Dick will be 
the first woman to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Middle 
District of Louisiana.
  Nelson Roman is nominated to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the 
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He currently 
serves as an associate justice for the New York State Supreme Court, 
Appellate Division, First Department. He previously served as a justice 
of the New York State Supreme Court, Civil Term, Bronx County, as a 
judge for the New York City Civil Court, Bronx County, and as a judge 
of the housing part of the New York City Civil Court, Bronx County. 
Prior to becoming a judge, he was an assistant district attorney in 
Kings County, NY, as well as a special narcotics assistant district 
attorney in New York City. From 1995 to 1998, Justice Roman served as a 
law clerk to the Honorable Jose A. Padilla, Jr. of the New York County 
Civil Court. He has the support of his home State Senators, Mr. Schumer 
and Mrs. Gillibrand, and was reported unanimously by the Judiciary 
Committee over 2 months ago.
  Senate Republicans have a long way to go to match the record of 
cooperation on consensus nominees that Senate Democrats established 
during the Bush administration, but I hope that the confirmations so 
far this year indicate that they are finally reconsidering their 
wholesale obstruction of President Obama's nominees. After today's 
votes, 10 more judicial nominees remain pending, and all were reported 
with bipartisan support. All Senate Democrats are ready to vote on each 
of them to allow them to get to work for the American people. We can 
make real progress if Senate Republicans are willing to join us.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article and statement to which I 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 3, 2013]

        New Report Confirms GOP Obstructionism is Unprecedented

                        (By Jonathan Bernstein)

       The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has released 
     an important new report that details Barack Obama's record on 
     nominating judges during his first term. It's no surprise: 
     Republican obstruction against his selections was 
     unprecedented. For example:
       ``President Obama is the only one of the five most recent 
     Presidents for whom, during his first term, both the average 
     and median waiting time from nomination to confirmation for 
     circuit and district court nominees was greater than half a 
     calendar year (i.e., more than 182 days).''
       A quick look at the report's summary confirms that Obama's 
     nominees have been treated more roughly than those of 
     Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and the other Bush.
       That's only half the story. George H.W. Bush had to deal 
     with an opposition party Senate for his entire first term, 
     and Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had that during about 
     half of their first terms. It's at least plausibly legitimate 
     for opposite party Senators, when they have the majority, to 
     argue that they should have a larger role in filling judicial 
     vacancies, and to act accordingly. At the very least, if they 
     simply oppose some of those nominees, they will defeat them 
     in ``up or down'' votes.
       But Obama, like Ronald Reagan, had a same-party Senate 
     majority during his first term. He should have had among the 
     best results over any recent president, all things being 
     equal.
       What changed when Obama took office, however, was the 
     extension of the filibuster to cover every single nominee. 
     Republicans didn't always vote against cloture (or even 
     demand cloture votes), but they did demand 60 votes for every 
     nominee. That's brand new. It's true that Democrats 
     filibustered selected judicial nominations during the George 
     W. Bush presidency, but only at the circuit court level, and 
     not every single one.
       That meant that despite solid Democratic majorities and 
     solid support from those Democrats, Obama's judicial approval 
     statistics are basically the worse of any of the recent 
     presidents. He doesn't show up last on every measure--for 
     example, George H.W. Bush had a lower percentage of district 
     court nominees confirmed--but he's fourth or fifth out of 
     five of these presidents on almost every way that CRS slices 
     the numbers, and it adds up to by far the most obstruction 
     faced by any recent president.
       And remember: the losers here aren't just the president and 
     liberals who want to see his judges on the bench. Ordinary 
     people who just want to get their legal matters taken care of 
     promptly have suffered because of all the vacancies on 
     federal courts.
       It's really a disgrace. Especially those picks that were 
     delayed for months, only to wind up getting confirmed by 
     unanimous votes. Especially the foot-dragging on district 
     court nominees. Just a disgrace.
                                  ____


   Statement of Chief Judge William B. Traxler, Jr., Chairman of the 
 Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 
                             April 19, 2013

       1. The Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference is 
     responsible for developing a spending plan for the federal 
     Judiciary's annual Congressional appropriation. This process 
     involves significant input from Conference committees, and 
     under the best of circumstances, is a difficult and complex 
     task.
       The current fiscal year presents unparalleled challenges. 
     Budget sequestration has reduced the Judiciary's overall 
     funding by nearly $350 million from the level provided in 
     Fiscal Year 2012. The impact of sequestration on the 
     Judiciary is particularly harsh because the courts have no 
     control over their workload. They must respond to all cases 
     that are filed, whether they are by individuals, businesses, 
     or the government.
       In February 2013, the Executive Committee implemented a 
     series of emergency measures that were intended to mitigate 
     the impact of sequestration to the best extent possible. 
     Nevertheless, significant shortfalls remain.
       Funds have been reduced for probation and pretrial 
     staffing, which means less deterrence, detection, and 
     supervision of released felons from prison. Related funding 
     for drug testing, drug treatment and mental health treatment 
     were cut by 20 percent. Money for security systems and 
     equipment has been cut 25 percent and court security officer 
     hours have been reduced. Cuts in court staffing and hours 
     threaten to impact public access and slow case processing. 
     National information technology upgrades to improve 
     infrastructure and financial management have been delayed. 
     Sequestration is impacting federal court operations and 
     programs throughout the country, including a $51 million 
     shortfall in the FY 2013 funds in the Defender Services 
     account.
       The Judiciary is committed to doing its part to reduce the 
     fiscal deficit our country faces. However, a significant 
     problem arises when budget cuts impact our responsibilities 
     under the Constitution. This happens when we cannot afford to 
     fulfill the Sixth Amendment right to representation for 
     indigents charged with crimes. The predictable result is that 
     criminal prosecutions will slow and our legal system will not 
     operate as efficiently. This will cost us all in many 
     different ways.
       With regard to the Defender account shortfall, at its April 
     16, 2013, meeting the Executive Committee examined all 
     aspects of this account, scrubbed expenses where possible, 
     and approved a final spending plan. After lengthy discussion, 
     the Committee determined to allocate the available funds in a 
     manner that, without further impacting payments to private 
     attorneys, will at least limit the number of days that any 
     defender organization staff must be furloughed. The result is 
     that some federal defender offices will still be forced to 
     furlough their employees up to 15 days. The Committee also 
     approved deferral of payments to private panel attorneys for 
     the last 15 business days of the fiscal year.
       The defender program has no flexibility to absorb cuts of 
     this magnitude without impacting payments to private counsel 
     appointed under the Criminal Justice Act and Federal Defender 
     Organizations, which pay for government lawyers to provide 
     counsel to eligible defendants. Federal defender offices 
     already have fired and furloughed staff, as well as 
     drastically cut essential services. Criminal prosecutions 
     have been delayed because defender organizations do not have 
     the staff necessary to continue their representation of the 
     defendant or the funds to pay for experts or other cases 
     costs.
       The Executive Committee's allocation of funds is not a 
     solution to the $51 million shortfall. It represents a 
     conscientious effort to mitigate the adverse impact on both 
     personnel and services. It also means that millions of 
     dollars in expenses in this account will be shifted to FY 
     2014, even though they were not part of the Judicial Branch 
     budget submission to Congress. This level of funding is 
     unsustainable without relief from Congress.
       The Judiciary will soon ask the Office of Management and 
     Budget to transmit an FY 2013 emergency supplemental funding 
     request to Congress to help ameliorate the impact of the 
     sequestration cuts to defender services, probation and 
     pretrial services, court staffing, and court security.
       In his 2012 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, the 
     Chief Justice said:
       ``A significant and prolonged shortfall in judicial funding 
     would inevitably result in the delay or denial of justice for 
     the people the courts serve.''
       I share this grave concern.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to present to this Chamber 
the nomination of Shelly Deckert Dick as a nominee for article III 
judge on the U.S. Middle District Court of Louisiana. I was pleased to 
recommend Ms. Dick to President Obama, and I am happy that he sent her 
name to the Senate and that the committee has

[[Page S3307]]

unanimously recommended her for confirmation.
  She is equipped with decades of Federal court litigation experience. 
She brings with her a thorough understanding of the Federal court 
system, having practiced for years before the court. From all 
indications from her peers and colleagues, she is fair and evenhanded. 
I think her temperament is appropriate for the bench.
  She is a current resident of Baton Rouge but was born in El Paso, TX. 
She earned her bachelor's degree in business administration from the 
University of Texas at Austin and graduated on the dean's list with 
honors.
  She brings with her years of experience, not just in the private 
sector. She has worked as a lawyer before the Federal bench. She has 
also been extremely active in community affairs.
  She graduated from Louisiana State University law school, where she 
was a member of the Law Review. Demonstrating her commitment to public 
service early in her legal career, she served as a law clerk to a woman 
who went on--and was actually mentored by the first woman of our 
Supreme Court--Kitty Kimble, who went on, of course, to become chief 
justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
  Following law school, at an early age, she became an associate 
attorney at the firm of Gary, Field, Landry & Bradford before going on 
to become a full partner in one of our strongest and best law firms in 
Baton Rouge, LA.
  She has extensive experience, as I said, in Federal court 
representing both plaintiffs and defendants as well as government and 
nongovernment clients. She has a well-rounded legal career and is very 
active in the community, in her church, and has done missionary work 
for many years throughout the world. She is also very active in the 
American Bar Association, the Louisiana State Bar Association, the 
Louisiana Association of Defense Counsel, and the Baton Rouge bar. She 
was admitted to practice in the district courts of the Western, Middle, 
and Eastern Districts, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 
U.S. Supreme Court. She has written numerous articles for legal 
publications and presented at legal seminars on a wide range of topics.
  I have known Ms. Dick for a few years. She is a friend now. She was 
not a close friend when my search committee went out and looked for the 
most qualified individuals to step up and serve on our bench. She and 
her credentials were brought to my attention by many members of the 
community, and I am very happy to nominate Ms. Dick.
  Ms. Dick will be the first woman to serve in the Middle District of 
Louisiana. I think it is high time, after a couple of hundred years, 
that we have women now qualified and stepping up to assume these 
leadership positions. I have been very proud to help bring diversity 
and excellence to our bench both at the prosecutor level and as judges 
in the courts in Louisiana.
  As I said, Shelly has also volunteered for international missions 
overseas, particularly in Cambodia, South Africa, and Kenya. She has 
worked with her church and other nonprofit organizations.
  I think she is perfectly suited to be a judge with all the 
prerequisite experience and legal degrees and academic degrees 
required. Most importantly, she is enthusiastic and excited about 
serving.
  I am sorry it has taken us so long to get her to this point where the 
Senate will hopefully confirm her--if not acclamation--by a strong and 
overwhelming vote. I know of no opposition to her nomination.
  These days it seems that these nominations seem to be going a lot 
slower than they should. I thank her and her family for their patience 
as they have waited and waited for this day to come. Hopefully she will 
be able to put on that robe and get to that bench in the Middle 
District and do a fine job for us both in Louisiana and around the 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The junior Senator from Louisiana may want to add a word.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from you Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise for two reasons. First of all, I 
look forward to supporting the confirmation of Shelly Dick to become a 
judge in the Middle District of Louisiana, and I look forward to that 
vote in 5 minutes. As I have said before, I believe she will serve 
well.
  Secondly, I also wanted to come to the floor to add my support to the 
Landrieu flood insurance amendment. I am a cosponsor, and we are 
working very hard on clearing a path for an important, substantive 
version of that amendment.
  Senator Landrieu and I have talked, and we have talked to others, 
including Senator Boxer and many other supporters. We are working very 
hard not to get into the weeds but to take care of some technical 
issues, some budget points of order, and some other issues so we can 
clear the path for a strong, substantive version of this amendment.
  This is a big deal. It is a big deal for the country. It is a big 
deal for any coastal area and certainly a big deal for South Louisiana. 
We need to ensure that as the new Flood Insurance Program is 
administered, it is done in a fair and reasonable way and that we don't 
price anybody who has been following the rules out of their home 
because their flood insurance rates increased so astronomically. That 
is the fear, but that has not played out. The new rates are not out, 
but that is the legitimate fear. Senator Landrieu and I are working 
with our entire delegation to make sure we avoid that.
  Right after this vote, I am going to travel to northern Virginia to 
meet with a Louisiana group at the FEMA offices to talk about this very 
issue. I am convinced FEMA has some authority under law already to 
mitigate these issues in many ways but including by making sure they 
get their LAMP process right and take into account all flood barriers 
and protections in a given area as new areas are mapped. I am going 
directly from this judge vote to that important meeting, and we will 
all be following up in important ways to make sure we get it right, 
make sure FEMA gets it right, hopefully including a good, workable 
amendment that can be passed on this bill. We are all working toward 
that goal.
  I thank my colleague from Louisiana for that joint effort.
  I yield back to the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I wish to follow up on the comments 
made by my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter. I am pleased he 
will accompany many of our elected officials to the FEMA office this 
afternoon. I had a chance to meet with the FEMA officials yesterday. At 
my request, they came to the Capitol to meet with me.
  We are both very hopeful that there are some things within the new 
mandates and new authorizations that FEMA can do to mitigate against 
the projected 25-percent increases annually for some of our 
policyholders--not the majority but for some of them. I am anticipating 
that some of these issues are not going to be addressed 
administratively and that it is going to take a change of law.
  Again, the reason I am pushing this issue and pushing this bill is 
because this new law that we are talking about, expressing frustration 
about, and questioning never came to this floor for a vote. I am still 
not clear at this point whether this bill was ever voted on by the full 
House.
  This bill, the flood insurance reform bill of last year, was tucked 
into a larger bill, the national transportation bill, at the last 
minute. The national transportation bill was widely supported. It funds 
billions of dollars' worth of projects for everyone's district. It is a 
very popular bill.
  This relatively small but significant flood insurance bill was tucked 
into a conference report, which is really not that usual, particularly 
if the bill itself had not passed one body. There are lots of times 
when things are put into a conference committee that have not passed 
the Senate, but it passed the House, or it passed the House but not the 
Senate, and there is an indication of broad support. We have to move 
legislation, and sometimes we have to use an expedited means.
  I am still waiting to get clear from the staff whether this bill ever 
got a vote in the House of Representatives. I know it didn't get a vote 
here, and it would probably, in its current form, not pass because the 
delegations from

[[Page S3308]]

Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, California, and any numbers, would have 
insisted on some amendments and some procedures to help our people who 
are going to be affected by these very significant increases in flood 
insurance, to give them more time to meet their obligations.
  I know we are on a judgeship so I am going to yield the floor, but I 
am hoping we can continue to work on this issue.
  I thank Senator Vitter for his support, as well as Senator Boxer, as 
we are continuing to work on the language of this amendment.
  I yield back all time on the nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Shelly Deckert Dick, of Louisiana, to be 
United States District Judge for the Middle District of Louisiana?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Nelson Stephen Roman, of New York, to be 
United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York?
  Mr. COATS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Ex.]

                                YEAS--97

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Barrasso
     Lautenberg
     Murkowski
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________