[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 74 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3809-S3816]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



NOMINATION OF SRIKANTH SRINIVASAN TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR 
                    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

  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 Srikanth Srinivasan, of 
Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of 
Columbia Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I will conclude for those who are 
expecting to do that, but these are timely remarks.
  So, Mr. Srinivasan, nominated on June 11, 2012--no hearing by the 
Democratic majority and the executive committee, I wonder why; 
nominated January 4 by President Obama this year again, no hearing 
until April 10. If there is any delay there, it has no fault anywhere 
on the Republican side. May 6, questions returned; no nominee is 
considered by the committee until his questions come back; marked up 
May 16 last week, 18 to 0, unanimous; came to the floor on Monday and 
the Republican leader moved yesterday to ask unanimous consent that we 
consider an up-or-down vote for Mr. Srinivasan when we return after a 
week, which means he would have been fully considered then, to which 
the majority leader put down a cloture motion.
  Now he has removed the cloture motion but there was no need for the 
cloture motion. The only suggestion may be he did it, he made it so it 
would look as though there was some delay over here, but there is no 
delay. Mr. Srinivasan has broad support. We are ready to vote for him 
up or down. I think it is time we got away from this idea of 
manufacturing a crisis about nominations when in fact we have made it 
easier for any President to offer his nominations, and the majority 
leader and Republican leader agreed at the beginning of this year when 
we did that, that that was the end of the rule changes for the Congress 
in this Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes on the Feinstein amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, let me first say about the comments of 
Senator Alexander, you see why he is a former university president, a 
Governor, a Secretary of Education, a candidate for President, and now 
some would call him a Senator. I think you would call him a statesman, 
because he tries to lay it out in a way we can all understand it, with 
facts and not hyperbole, and this is an opportunity for us on both 
sides to step back from the brink and actually do the people's 
business, to get something done, to solve big problems.
  I came to the floor to talk on the Feinstein amendment, knowing it is 
not up for an hour--and I will be very brief, to my colleague from 
Virginia, because I know he wants to talk about judges--primarily 
because there is some misinformation that has been stated. Let me recap 
the tobacco industry in a very brief summary.
  Tobacco, like many agricultural products, for years received a price 
support system that the Federal Government, the Congress of the United 
States, put in place. A number of years ago, Members of Congress said, 
for obvious reasons, the Federal Government probably should not have a 
price support on something we consider not to be best for people's 
health. At that time farmers reluctantly listened to Members of 
Congress who said the international market should be open to you and we 
should do our best to make it unlimited, and we did. At that time we 
eliminated the price support system.
  Senator Feinstein came to the floor--I do not think she did this 
intentionally--and she said it costs the American taxpayer $10 billion. 
In fact, there was not one dime of American taxpayer money that went to 
the tobacco buyer; 100 percent of the cost of the elimination of that 
program was absorbed by the tobacco companies. So, yes, if the purchase 
of a pack of cigarettes and the profit that goes to a tobacco company 
and the $1.01 in Federal taxes they pay per pack of cigarettes is the 
American taxpayer paying the price of the buyout, she is right. I am 
not sure you can make that connection.
  But I want to state for my colleagues: The Federal Treasury did not 
pay $10 billion to buy out tobacco farmers. It was the companies, the 
ones that understand they have to have a viable, abundant source of 
product. Sixty percent of what we grow in the United States is shipped 
for export. It does not go to the domestic market.
  Let me say to my colleague, if the intention of this is to be 
punitive to this product, for gosh sakes, come to the floor; change 
your amendment; let's vote up or down as to whether tobacco is going to 
be legal. If the purpose here is to suggest we are going to save 
taxpayer money, let me suggest if you put every tobacco farmer out of 
business--and this is the commodity that achieves, actually, our best 
balance of trade in agricultural products--you would make a real long-
term mistake. The only thing this commodity, this agricultural 
commodity, asks is let us participate in the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program. Without that protection it is impossible for my neighbor, your 
neighbor, the backbone of the community--a farmer--to go to a bank and 
say: Can you lend me enough money to plant my crop this year? And if 
Mother Nature is good and I work hard I am going to be able to sell 
this product, I am going to be able to pay you back, and I am going to 
be able to make a profit to feed my family. Without that assurance of a 
safety net they would never get the bank to loan the money.
  This is about availability of capital, this one cost. Why in the 
world we would pick one commodity out of the entire agricultural 
industry and say everybody else can participate in the crop insurance 
program but you can't is insane.
  Let me say to my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, I 
don't think this was intentional. I think she either got bad staff 
information or she made a gaffe.
  To my colleagues, let me encourage you, vote against this amendment. 
Don't do this to a piece of the agricultural community that is 
profitable, that works hard, but, more importantly, contributes a lot 
to the backbone of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to support the nomination of 
Srikanth Srinivasan to be judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
D.C. Circuit. This matter will be before us for a vote later today. I 
want to talk for a bit about Sri's significant qualifications. I am 
going to discount the fact that he was born in Kansas and raised in 
Kansas, as I was. I will not take that into account. I will discount 
the fact he lives in Virginia as I do, and focus on other 
qualifications because he has them by the boatload.
  Sri has a wonderful background that equips him for this most 
important judicial position, and this has been a position that has been 
vacant since June of 2008. He was an undergraduate and then law degree 
and then business degree, MBA at Stanford after he grew up in Lawrence, 
KS. Like many law graduates, his next step was to work in a clerkship 
with appellate judges. He

[[Page S3810]]

worked first for a wonderful Virginia jurist, Judge J. Harvie 
Wilkinson, who was the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit Court of 
Appeals headquartered in Richmond. Judge Wilkinson is well known as a 
superb legal scholar and judge.
  After he completed that clerkship, he had the honor of being selected 
to work as a clerk for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, also a tremendous 
honor for a young lawyer. I talked at length with Mr. Srinivasan and 
heard about the fact that he learned a great deal from both of these 
judges about judicial temperament and the importance of so many aspects 
to be a good judge.
  Sri had the expertise developed in private practice at one of 
America's major firms, O'Melveny and Myers. O'Melveny and Myers has had 
a very significant pro bono practice for years, headed by Bill Coleman, 
who was a long-time official--one of the lawyers who worked on the 
Brown v. Board of Education case in the 1950s. Sri eventually became 
the leader of the appellate practice in O'Melveny and Myers, in that 
capacity doing good work. He has been a teacher at Harvard Law School.
  Probably most specific to the needs of the D.C. Circuit, Sri has had 
a long career working in the Solicitor General's Office, the key legal 
office of the United States, charged with representing the United 
States on important matters before the Supreme Court and the Federal 
appellate courts. He has worked two stints in the Solicitor General's 
Office, having worked both under the Solicitor General's Office during 
President Bush 43's tenure, and then again returning to work as the 
principal deputy solicitor general under President Obama. In that 
capacity he has had extensive arguments, more than 20 arguments before 
the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous appellate court arguments in the 
Federal appellate courts, including the D.C. Circuit Court for which he 
is nominated.
  Srikanth Srinivasan enjoys broad support. Numerous officials in the 
Solicitor General's Office under both Democratic and Republican 
administrations have weighed in on behalf of his candidacy. The ABA, 
American Bar Association, which looks at candidates and scrutinizes 
their qualifications, has given him the ``most qualified'' award, their 
highest recommendation. He comes with significant support in this body 
and others with whom he has practiced.
  The area I probably spent most time with him on as I was interviewing 
him was the whole notion of judicial temperament. These are important 
positions, and under the Constitution we grant them to people for life. 
You can have all the intellectual qualifications, but if you do not 
have the life experience to enable you to understand situations and 
pass judgment on matters important to people, and if you do not have 
the temperament to work in a collegial body--circuit courts, as you 
know, hear cases generally in panels of three and then occasionally 
hear cases en banc, the entire list of the circuit court judges for the 
D.C. Circuit would sit together--it is not enough to be a scholar; you 
have to be a good listener, you have to be a good colleague. Srikanth 
Srinivasan's career is a track record of his dedication and ambition, 
but his temperament is a real tribute to his humility, to his ability 
to listen not only to litigants but to other judges.
  I think these credentials, both his formal credentials--his work 
experience and temperament--would make him an excellent choice. For 
that reason I am proud to stand up as one of his home State Senators. I 
am proud to acknowledge the Judiciary Committee's unanimous vote on his 
behalf and urge my colleagues today as we move to the vote to support 
his nomination. None of us will be disappointed in his work as a D.C. 
Circuit judge.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I voted for this nominee out of 
committee. I will vote for this nominee on the floor of the Senate. He 
is well qualified for this position.
  I come to the floor not to repeat what a lot of other people have 
said about this nominee, but the process that was connected with 
arranging the vote for today's vote. Basically I want to speak about 
the needless shenanigans that have gone on before we get to this point 
where we vote at 2 o'clock.
  Today's nominee for the D.C. Circuit was voted out of committee 1 
week ago, on May 16, a unanimous vote of 18 to 0. He was placed on the 
Executive Calendar 3 days ago, on Monday, May 20. One day later, on May 
21, the Republicans cleared this nominee to have an up-or-down vote 
when we returned from the Memorial Day recess, but the majority leader 
was not content to take yes for an answer. One day after this nominee 
was placed on the Executive Calendar and after Republicans agreed to an 
up-or-down vote, the majority leader chose to file cloture.
  Why file cloture? Why would the majority leader do that on a nominee 
whom the minority party, the Republicans, were ready and willing to 
vote on, backed up by the fact that every Republican on the committee 
voted for this nominee?
  There is only one plausible answer: That is part of the majority's 
attempt to create the appearance of obstruction where no obstruction 
ever existed. It is pure nonsense. It is a transparent attempt to 
manufacture a crisis, a crisis that does not exist. The fact of the 
matter is there is no obstruction and particularly no obstruction on 
this nominee, and the other side knew it before they filed cloture.
  This morning in his opening remarks the majority leader tried to 
argue he has had to file cloture 58 times. But what the majority leader 
did this week illustrates precisely why that claim is completely 
without merit.
  What the Majority Leader did fits neatly into the Democratic 
Majority's playbook.
  First, file cloture for no apparent reason, none whatsoever. And then 
immediately turn around and claim: See, look everybody, we had to file 
cloture.
  The fact is, we are confirming the President's nominee--all 
nominees--at a near-record pace. After today, the Senate will have 
confirmed 193 lower court nominees. We have defeated only two. That is 
193 to 2, which in baseball terms is a .990 batting average. Anybody 
would agree that is an outstanding record. Who could complain about 99 
percent?
  After today--this year alone, the first year of the President's 
second term--the Senate will have confirmed 22 judicial nominees. Let's 
compare that to the previous President's first year of his second 
term--President Bush--when there was a Democratic Congress. In that 
same period of time in 2005, the Senate had only confirmed four 
nominees. So that is a record of 22--the first year of this President's 
second term--compared to only 4 for the first year of President Bush's 
second term.
  If we were treating this President in the same way the Senate 
Democrats treated President Bush in 2005, we would not be confirming 
the 22nd nominee, we would be confirming only the 4th. So it should be 
clear to everyone that these are needless shenanigans.
  Anyway, based on that record, what can the Senate Democrats possibly 
complain about? The bottom line is they can't complain--or they 
shouldn't complain. That is not based upon rhetoric but based on the 
record of 22 so far this year and 193 total confirmations for this 
President versus 2 disapprovals.
  Of course, because the record is so good, the other side needs to 
manufacture a crisis, and that is why the other side filed cloture on 
this nomination just 1 day after it appeared on the Executive Calendar.
  Yesterday, when the majority leader was pressed on why he chose to 
file cloture 1 single day after his nomination appeared on the 
Executive Calendar, he pointed to the fact that the nominee was first 
nominated in the year 2012. But apparently the majority leader was 
unaware that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee made no effort to 
schedule a hearing on this nominee until late last year.
  Apparently, the majority leader was unaware that by January of this 
year, we learned the nominee was potentially involved in the quid pro 
quo that Mr. Perez--the President's nominee for Labor Secretary--
orchestrated between the Department of Justice and the city of St. 
Paul.
  I spoke on this issue last week regarding the deal Mr. Perez struck, 
where he agreed the Department would decline two False Claims Act cases 
in exchange for the city of St. Paul withdrawing a case from the 
Supreme

[[Page S3811]]

Court. I am not going to go into those details again, but that is a 
very serious issue. The Department--and as it turns out Mr. Perez in 
particular--bartered away a case worth about $200 million of taxpayers' 
money to come back into the Federal Treasury under the False Claims 
Act. To have that case withdrawn is a pretty serious matter.
  As it turns out, the nominee before us today happened to be the 
lawyer in the Solicitor General's Office who handled the case Mr. Perez 
desperately wanted withdrawn from the Supreme Court.
  So, as would be expected, any Member of the Senate--particularly 
those who have the responsibility in the minority--needed to know what 
the nominee knew about the quid pro quo and what Mr. Perez told the 
committee about that deal.
  We needed the documents about this issue, and we needed to speak with 
the witnesses involved, but the Department was desperate to keep those 
documents from Congress. They were desperate to keep the witnesses from 
being involved and interviewed.
  The bottom line is that the Department of Justice dragged its feet 
for months. If the Department of Justice had turned over those 
documents and made witnesses available way back when we asked for them, 
the hearing for this nominee could have been one of the first we had 
this year. Instead, the Department of Justice chose to try their best 
to keep Congress from getting to the bottom of that quid pro quo, and, 
frankly, Mr. Perez's involvement in that matter.
  If the majority wishes to complain about the nominee having his 
hearing in April rather than February, they should pick up the phone 
and call those in charge at the Department of Justice and ask: Why 
didn't you give Congress the information they needed?
  It wasn't the Senate Republicans who withheld the documents, it was 
the Department of Justice. It wasn't Senate Republicans who held up the 
nominee's hearing, it was the Department of Justice.
  The bottom line is that the Senate is processing the President's 
nominees exceptionally fairly. I will not repeat those statistics 
because I have already gone through them in this speech and in previous 
speeches.
  This President is being treated much more fairly than Senate 
Democrats treated President Bush in 2005.
  The fact is this: Filing cloture on this nominee--who will probably 
pass unanimously--was nothing but a transparent attempt to create the 
appearance of obstruction.
  As I said, I intend to support this nominee, just as I did in 
committee, and I encourage my colleagues to support the nomination as 
well.
  But as we move forward on these nominees, I wish we could stop these 
needless shenanigans. I wish the other side would stop shedding those 
crocodile tears. The statistics of approval by this Senate of judicial 
nominees, which is 193 to 2, is no justification for any crocodile 
tears whatsoever.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, today this body will have the chance to 
vote on the nomination of the highly qualified Sri Srinivasan for the 
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
  I am a member of the Judiciary Committee and have had the honor and 
privilege of chairing Mr. Srinivasan's confirmation hearing. I can say, 
without question, he has the background, skills and, perhaps most 
importantly, the temperament to serve as a circuit court judge.
  He is one of the single most qualified judicial nominees I have seen 
in my years in this body, and he deserves better than the games which 
have been played with his confirmation. He already has bipartisan 
support. Now let's work together and give him a strong bipartisan vote.
  The Constitution of the United States gives the Senate the 
responsibility to advise and consent to the President's nominations for 
important posts, such as the bench of the D.C. Circuit Court of 
Appeals. It is certainly our responsibility to review and vet 
candidates--nominees--who come over from the President. We should not 
simply serve as a rubberstamp but neither should we be a firewall, 
unreasonably blocking qualified nominees from service at the highest 
levels of our government.
  Our Nation's courts should be above politics. When the President 
submits a highly qualified candidate of good character and sound legal 
mind, as that of Mr. Srinivasan, then absent exceptional circumstances 
that candidate should be entitled to a rollcall vote.
  Up to this point in President Obama's administration--nearly 1,600 
days--the Senate has failed to live up to its responsibility and to 
confirm any nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals is often called the second most important 
court in the Nation.
  Similar to the Supreme Court, the D.C. Court of Appeals handles cases 
that impact Americans all over the country and from all walks of life. 
It regularly hears cases that range very broadly from terrorism and 
detention to the scope of Federal agency power. Yet today it is 
critically understaffed. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has not seen 
a nominee confirmed since President George W. Bush's fourth nominee to 
that court was confirmed in 2006--7 years ago.
  Republicans in this Chamber filibustered President Obama's nominee, 
Caitlin Halligan, until she ultimately--after hundreds and hundreds of 
days of waiting across several Congresses--gave up and withdrew. Her 
opponents said the caseload at the D.C. Circuit was too low and that it 
did not deserve another judge.
  Such concerns about caseload did not prevent the Republican-led 
Senate from confirming two nominees to the 10th seat on the D.C. 
Circuit and one to the 11th. Mr. Srinivasan is not nominated for the 
10th or 11th seat on the D.C. Circuit but for the 8th.
  We need to confirm Mr. Srinivasan and we need to act quickly on the 
President's next nominee for that court and the one after that.
  I believe we have a chance to start fresh with Mr. Srinivasan, who 
would serve equally well and ably on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 
as might Ms. Halligan.
  Mr. Srinivasan has a razor-sharp legal mind. He served in the 
Solicitor General's Office for both Republican and Democratic 
administrations and has earned the bipartisan support of his 
colleagues. Twelve former Solicitors General and Principal Deputy 
Solicitors General wrote a letter supporting his nomination--6 
Democrats and 6 Republicans.
  The letter, which is signed by conservative legal luminaries such as 
Paul Clement and Ted Olson, notes that Mr. Srinivasan is ``one of the 
best appellate lawyers in the country.'' They commented further in the 
letter and said that he has an ``unsurpassed'' work ethic and is 
``extremely well prepared to take on the intellectual rigors of serving 
as a judge on the D.C. Circuit.''
  My point is a simple one: Sri is a capable and, in fact, highly 
accomplished attorney, with the character and demeanor to serve 
admirably on this bench, which has sat without a nominee from the Obama 
administration for the entire time our current President has served.
  Sri Srinivasan has earned bipartisan support. Today, let's give him a 
bipartisan vote.
  I thank the Chair.
  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. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any time 
during quorum calls leading up to the vote be charged equally to both 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S3812]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. 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. MORAN. Mr. President, I certainly recognize that providing advice 
and consent of Presidential nominees is one of our most important 
responsibilities as Members of the Senate, and it is a responsibility 
that I expect and believe all of us take very seriously.
  On a number of occasions, I have had the opportunity to meet Sri 
Srinivasan, whom President Obama has now nominated to fill a vacancy on 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I have 
found Sri to be a highly qualified candidate who has a distinguished 
career in the private sector and in the Department of Justice of both 
Republican and Democratic administrations, for President Bush and 
President Obama. I announced my support for his confirmation in advance 
of the Judiciary Committee realizing the same circumstance I realized, 
which is that we have a very highly qualified individual of integrity 
who has been nominated by the President. Of course, the Judiciary 
Committee unanimously supported that nomination to confirm him.
  Sri is a fellow Kansan and is one of our State's most accomplished 
legal minds. He was born in India and moved with his parents to 
Lawrence, KS, where he graduated valedictorian from Lawrence High 
School in 1985. As do most Kansans, he enjoyed basketball and at one 
point in time was a guard on the high school basketball team playing 
alongside one of our State's most famous athletes, Danny Manning.
  After high school, he went to Stanford University, earning a 
bachelor's degree, an MBA, and a law degree.
  Sri served as a clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court and served with 
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and later worked in the Solicitor General's 
Office under President George W. Bush. He became the Principal Deputy 
Solicitor General in 2011.
  Sri has argued more than two dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme 
Court, and his nomination is supported by 12 former Solicitors General 
and Principal Deputy Solicitors General evenly split among political 
parties.
  If confirmed today, Sri would become the first South Asian to serve 
on a Federal circuit court.
  I wish to indicate to my colleagues how proud Kansans are of Sri and 
his success, his accomplishments, and I am pleased to support his 
nomination. He is one of our Nation's leading appellate lawyers, and I 
believe he will serve our Nation well on the U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit has primary responsibility to review administrative actions 
taken by countless Federal departments and agencies. The court's 
decisions--including its recent invalidation of President Obama's 
unconstitutional ``recess'' appointments--often have significant 
political implications. As a result, this body--the Senate--has a 
longstanding practice and tradition of scrutinizing nominees to the 
D.C. Circuit very carefully. When evaluating those nominees, we have 
also carefully considered the need for additional judges on that court.
  In July 2006 President Bush nominated an eminently qualified 
individual, Peter Keisler, to fill a seat on the D.C. Circuit. I know 
Peter Keisler. Peter Keisler is among the very finest attorneys I have 
ever worked with. In fact, most who know him would agree he is among 
the very finest attorneys in the entire country. He is one who happened 
to have enjoyed bipartisan support throughout the legal profession at 
the time of his nomination. Nevertheless, Democratic Senators blocked 
Mr. Keisler's nomination, and his nomination simply languished in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  At the time a number of my Democratic colleagues signed a letter 
arguing that a nominee to the D.C. Circuit ``should under no 
circumstances be considered--much less confirmed--before we first 
address the very need for that judgeship.'' Those Senators argued that 
the D.C. Circuit's modest caseload simply did not justify the 
confirmation of any additional judge to that court.
  More than 6 years have elapsed from that moment, but the D.C. 
Circuit's caseload remains just as minimal as it was back then. The 
court's caseload has actually decreased since the time Democrats 
blocked Mr. Keisler. The total number of appeals filed is down over 13 
percent, and the total number of appeals pending is down over 10 
percent. With just 359 pending appeals per panel, the D.C. Circuit's 
average workload is less than half of other Federal appellate courts.
  Some have sought to make much of the fact that since 2006 two of the 
court's judges have taken senior status, leaving only seven active 
judges on the D.C. Circuit. But the court's caseload has declined so 
much in recent years that even filings per active, nonsenior, sitting 
judge are roughly the same as they were back then.
  Of course, this doesn't account for the six senior judges on the D.C. 
Circuit who continue to hear appeals and author opinions. Their 
contributions are such that the actual work for each active, nonsenior 
judge has declined and the caseload burden for the D.C. Circuit judges 
is less than it was when the Democrats blocked Mr. Keisler on the basis 
of declining caseload in the D.C. Circuit. Indeed, the average filings 
per panel--perhaps the truest measure of actual workload per judge--is 
down almost 6 percent since the time Democrats blocked Mr. Keisler. And 
those who work at the court suggest that in reality, the workload isn't 
any different today than it was back at the time the Democrats blocked 
Mr. Keisler's nomination to that court.
  Much like Mr. Keisler, the D.C. Circuit nominee before us today, Mr. 
Srinivasan, is exceptionally qualified, and I am pleased to say he 
enjoys broad bipartisan support from throughout the legal profession.
  Unlike what the Democrats did to Mr. Keisler, I will vote to confirm 
Mr. Srinivasan. I do not believe in partisan retribution and hope that, 
moving forward, the Senate--whether controlled by Democrats or 
Republicans at any moment in the future--will rise above such past 
differences and disputes.
  The D.C. Circuit is one area in which we share common ground. Both 
Democrats and Republicans have argued repeatedly that the D.C. Circuit 
has too many authorized judgeships. Indeed, while other Federal circuit 
courts throughout the country struggle to keep up with rising 
caseloads, in each of the last several years the D.C. Circuit has 
canceled regularly scheduled argument dates due to a lack of pending 
cases.
  For these reasons I am an original cosponsor of S. 699, the Court 
Efficiency Act, which was introduced last month. The bill does not 
directly impact today's nominee, but it will reallocate unneeded 
judgeships from the D.C. Circuit to other Federal appellate courts 
where caseloads are many times higher than that of the D.C. Circuit.
  Especially after we have confirmed Mr. Srinivasan, I hope Members on 
both sides of the aisle will join me in ensuring that these unnecessary 
D.C. Circuit judgeships are reallocated to courts that need those judge 
slots.
  I certainly hope neither the White House nor my Democratic colleagues 
will instead decide to play politics and seek--without any legitimate 
justification--to pack the D.C. Circuit with unneeded judges simply in 
order to advance a partisan agenda.
  Now, importantly, it was stated earlier in debate that we should stop 
``playing games'' with this nomination. We agree. In fact, we could not 
agree more. Unfortunately, the only game played was by the majority 
leader in manufacturing a false impression by filing cloture one day 
after the nominee was listed on the Executive Calendar and after Senate 
Republicans agreed to a vote.
  It has also been suggested that Senate Republicans have somehow 
refused to fill this seat or any other on the D.C. Circuit since 2006. 
Apparently, this is representative of a memory lapse or perhaps they 
want to rewrite history.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

[[Page S3813]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The nomination of Srikanth Srinivasan to the 
D.C. Circuit Court.
  Mr. LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am glad to hear what my friend from Utah said about voting for this 
nominee because this is the second time this year the majority leader 
had to file cloture on one of President Obama's well-qualified nominees 
to the D.C. Circuit. Sri Srinivasan is not a nominee who should require 
cloture, and I am glad he is not going to now that cooler heads have 
prevailed, but neither was Caitlin Halligan. Caitlin Halligan is a 
woman who is extraordinarily well qualified and amongst the most 
qualified judicial nominees I have seen from any administration. It was 
shameful that Senate Republicans blocked an up or down vote on her 
nomination with multiple filibusters and procedural objections that 
required her to be nominated five times over the last three years.
  Had she received an up or down vote, I am certain she would have been 
confirmed and been an outstanding judge on the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia. Instead, all Senate Republicans 
but one supported the filibuster and refused to vote up or down on this 
woman, who is highly-qualified and would have filled a needed judgeship 
on the D.C. Circuit. Senate Republicans attacked her for legal advocacy 
on behalf of her client, the State of New York. It is wrong to 
attribute the legal positions a lawyer takes when advocating for a 
client with what that person would do as an impartial judge. That is 
not the American tradition. That is not what Republicans insisted was 
the standard for nominees of Republican Presidents but that is what 
they did to derail the nomination of Caitlin Halligan.
  Also disconcerting were the comments by Republicans after their 
filibuster in which they gloated about payback. That, too, is wrong. It 
does our Nation and our Federal Judiciary no good when they place their 
desire to engage in tit-for-tat over the needs of the American people. 
I rejected that approach while moving to confirm 100 of President 
Bush's judicial nominees in just 17 months in 2001 and 2002.
  Like Caitlin Halligan, Sri Srinivasan has had an exemplary legal 
career and has the support of legal professionals from across the 
political spectrum. Born in Chandigarh, India, he grew up in Lawrence, 
KS, and earned his B.A., with honors and distinction, from Stanford 
University. He also earned his M.B.A. from the Stanford Graduate School 
of Business along with his J.D., with distinction, from Stanford Law 
School, where he was inducted to the Order of the Coif. At Stanford Law 
School, Sri Srinivasan served as the Note Editor of the Stanford Law 
Review. After completing law school, he clerked for Judge J. Harvie 
Wilkinson III on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and 
for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Sri Srinivasan has experience in private practice, where he served as 
a partner and chaired the Appellate Practice at O'Melveny & Myers LLP. 
He has also served in the Office of the Solicitor General during both 
the Bush and Obama administrations, where he is currently the Principal 
Deputy Solicitor General. He has argued more than 25 cases before the 
U.S. Supreme Court and several cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeal. 
The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated 
him ``well qualified'' to serve on the D.C. Circuit, its highest 
rating. The Judiciary Committee reported him a week ago by a unanimous 
18-to-0 vote. That means every single Republican on the committee who 
had a chance to review the nominee's record and to ask him questions 
supported him.
  He was first nominated almost 1 year ago--a longer wait than any 
other current judicial nomination. His Committee hearing was delayed by 
4 months from when I first planned on holding it, at the request of the 
Republicans. Sri Srinivasan has waited long enough, and, given his 
unanimous support in Committee, there was no reason to delay his 
confirmation. The Senate confirmed 18 of President Bush's circuit 
nominees within a week of being reported by the Judiciary Committee, 
while not a single one of President Obama's circuit nominees has 
received a floor vote within a week of being reported. Senate Democrats 
even allowed a vote on a controversial Fourth Circuit nominee within 
just 5 days of being reported. By that standard, there is no reason not 
to vote now on Sri Srinivasan. When confirmed, he will be the first 
Asian American in history to serve on the D.C. Circuit, and the first 
South Asian American to serve as a Federal circuit judge.
  But, regrettably, even after their unwarranted filibuster of Caitlin 
Halligan, and even after their efforts to delay Sri Srinivasan's 
confirmation, Senate Republicans are expanding their efforts through a 
``wholesale filibuster'' of nominations to the D.C. Circuit by 
introducing a legislative proposal to strip three judgeships from the 
D.C. Circuit.
  I am almost tempted to suggest they amend their bill to make it 
effective whenever the next Republican President is elected. I say that 
to point out they had no concerns with supporting President Bush's four 
Senate-confirmed nominees to the D.C. Circuit. They did this even 
though for the previous President--a Democrat--they said we had too 
many judges there. But as soon as a Republican came in they suddenly 
found the need and did confirm four judges to the D.C. Circuit. Those 
nominees filled the very vacancies for the 9th, 10th, and even the 11th 
judgeship on the court that Senate Republicans are demanding be 
eliminated now that President Obama has been reelected by the American 
people. In other words, filling those seats was okay with a Republican 
President but not okay with a Democratic President. The target of this 
legislation seems apparent when its sponsors emphasize that it is 
designed to take effect immediately and acknowledge that 
``[h]istorically, legislation introduced in the Senate altering the 
number of judgeships has most often postponed enactment until the 
beginning of the next President's term'' but that their legislation 
``does not do this.'' It is just another one of their concerted efforts 
to block this President from appointing judges to the D.C. Circuit.

  In support of this effort, Senate Republicans are citing a 
subcommittee hearing they held back in 1995 on the D.C. Circuit's 
caseload in an attempt to eliminate the 12th seat during President 
Clinton's tenure. They are fond of citing the testimony of Judge 
Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee, that he felt the 12th seat was 
not necessary. What Senate Republicans do not mention is that Judge 
Silberman believed that 11 judgeships was the proper number on that 
Circuit, and that the notion that the D.C. Circuit should have only 
nine judges was ``quite farfetched.'' I would echo those comments, and 
note that it is beyond farfetched that the same Senate Republicans who 
cite Judge Silberman's view on the 12th seat are ignoring the rest of 
his statement and seeking to reduce the court to eight seats. In fact, 
we have already acted to eliminate the 12th seat from the D.C. Circuit. 
What Senate Republicans are now proposing during this President's 
tenure is the elimination of the 11th, 10th, and 9th seats, as well.
  In its April 5, 2013 letter, the Judicial Conference of the United 
States, chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts, sent us recommendations 
``based on our current caseload needs.'' They did not recommend 
stripping judgeships from the D.C. Circuit but state that they should 
continue at 11. Four are currently vacant. According to the 
Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the caseload per active judge for 
the D.C. Circuit has actually increased by 50 percent since 2005, when 
the Senate confirmed President Bush's nominee to fill the 11th seat on 
the D.C. Circuit. When the Senate confirmed Thomas Griffith--President 
Bush's nominee to the 11th seat in 2005--the confirmation resulted in 
there being approximately 119 pending cases per active D.C. Circuit 
judge. There are currently 188 pending cases for each active judge on 
the D.C. Circuit, more than 50 percent higher.
  This falls into a larger pattern that we have seen from Senate 
Republicans over the past 20 years. While they had no problem adding a 
12th seat to the D.C. Circuit in 1984, and voting for President Reagan 
and President George H.W. Bush's nominees for that seat, they suddenly 
``realized'' in 1995, when a Democrat served as President, that the 
court did not need that judge. When Judge Merrick Garland was finally 
confirmed in 1997, many Senate

[[Page S3814]]

Republicans voted against him, because they had decided that the 11th 
seat was also unnecessary. Senate Republicans then refused to act on 
President Clinton's final two nominees to the D.C. Circuit, one of whom 
now serves on the Supreme Court.
  In 2002, during the George W. Bush administration, the D.C. Circuit's 
caseload had dropped to its lowest level in the last 20 years. During 
that Republican administration, Senate Republicans had no problem 
voting to confirm President Bush's nominees to the 9th, 10th, and 11th 
seats. These are the same seats they wish to eliminate now that Barack 
Obama is President, even though the court's current caseload is 
consistent with the average over the past 10 years. Maybe they are 
suggesting people work harder and more effectively if there is a 
Democrat in the White House than a Republican, but I suspect they may 
have a different motive. Even on its own terms, it is apparent this has 
nothing to do with caseload; it has everything to do with who is 
President.
  Contrary to what Senate Republicans are arguing, the D.C. Circuit 
does not even have the lowest caseload in the country. The circuit with 
the lowest number of pending appeals per active judge is currently the 
Eighth Circuit, to which the Senate recently confirmed a nominee from 
Iowa, supported by the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. I do not recall seeing any bills from Senate Republicans to 
eliminate that seat.
  So I think it depends more on politics than on judicial independence, 
and that is not a path to follow. The Federal courts have been too 
politicized as it is. There have been more filibusters and more 
blocking of judicial nominations by President Obama, than of 
nominations by any President of either party in the past. It makes me 
wonder, what is different about this President from all these other 
Presidents that he is given such a more difficult time--even the 
blocking, the filibustering of judges supported by home State 
Republican Senators.
  This kind of political falderal with our Federal judiciary has come 
at a price. The Federal judiciary is losing the perception of 
independence it had before because it is being seen as being 
politically manipulated, even though virtually every Federal judge I 
have met--almost every Federal judge I have met--nominated by either a 
Republican or a Democratic President has shown independence.
  The public gets a view otherwise, especially when they see a number 
of judicial vacancies where nominations have been made and even 
nominees who get through the Judiciary Committee unanimously or 
virtually unanimously then have to wait for months and months, even a 
year, to finally get a vote, and then only after we have either had a 
cloture vote or a threat of a cloture vote.
  As I have said, I was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee for 
17 months at the beginning of President George Bush's term, and we put 
through 100 of his nominees. Now, in the other 30 months of his first 
term, with Republicans in charge, they did better. They put through 
105. My point being, of course, that we actually moved his judges 
faster even than Republicans did when they were in the majority. But 
now the willingness to cooperate demonstrated there has broken down. 
Now the rules that worked for a Republican President, we are told, 
cannot apply for a Democratic President--especially this President.

  Moreover, the unique character of the D.C. Circuit's caseload means 
that it is misleading to compare its caseload to that of the other 
Circuits as part of this effort to eliminate its judgeships. The D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals is often considered ``the second most 
important court in the land'' because of its special jurisdiction and 
because of the important and complex cases that it decides. The Court 
reviews complicated decisions and rulemaking of many Federal agencies, 
and in recent years has handled some of the most important terrorism 
and enemy combatant and detention cases since the attacks of September 
11. These cases make incredible demands on the time of the judges 
serving on this Court. It is misleading to cite statistics or contend 
that hardworking judges have a light or easy workload. All cases are 
not the same and many of the hardest, most complex and most time-
consuming cases in the Nation end up at the D.C. Circuit.
  Former Chief Judge Harry Edwards has said:

       [R]eview of large, multi-party, difficult administrative 
     appeals is the staple of judicial work in the D.C. Circuit. 
     This alone distinguishes the work of the D.C. Circuit from 
     the work of other Circuits; it also explains why it is 
     impossible to compare the work of the D.C. Circuit with other 
     Circuits by simply referring to raw data on case filings.

  Former Chief Judge Patricia Wald has written:

       The D.C. Circuit hears the most complex, time-consuming, 
     labyrinthine disputes over regulations with the greatest 
     impact on ordinary Americans' lives: clean air and water 
     regulations, nuclear plant safety, health-care reform issues, 
     insider trading and more. These cases can require thousands 
     of hours of preparation by the judges, often consuming days 
     of argument, involving hundreds of parties and interveners, 
     and necessitating dozens of briefs and thousands of pages of 
     record--all of which culminates in lengthy, technically 
     intricate legal opinions . . . The nature of the D.C. 
     Circuit's caseload is what sets it apart from other courts.

  Judge Laurence Silberman has said: ``I very much agree . . . as to 
the unique nature of the D.C. Circuit's caseload, and therefore do not 
believe a direct comparison to the other circuits is called for.''
  And Chief Justice Roberts, who formerly served on the D.C. Circuit, 
has noted that ``about two-thirds of the cases before the D.C. Circuit 
involve the federal government in some civil capacity, while that 
figure is less than twenty-five percent nationwide,'' and that less 
time-consuming ``prisoner petitions which make up a notable portion of 
the docket nation-wide on other courts of appeals--are a less 
significant part of its work.'' He also described the ``D.C. Circuit's 
unique character, as a court with special responsibility to review 
legal challenges to the conduct of the national government.''
  The arguments now being made by Senate Republicans to eliminate three 
seats on the D.C. Circuit are not based on the reality of that court's 
caseload. Even if we do make these misleading comparisons to other 
circuits, the arguments ultimately do not withstand scrutiny since 
other circuits have caseloads that are lower than the D.C. Circuit's. 
And most do not have the complexity of the cases that come to the D.C. 
Circuit. So the D.C. Circuit's need for judges will not be met by Sri 
Srinivasan alone. We must work hard to fill the three additional 
vacancies currently on that court so the D.C. Circuit can have its full 
complement of judges to decide some of the most important cases to the 
American people.
  Some have called the D.C. Circuit a court second only to the Supreme 
Court in its importance. Let's not politicize it. Let's not say here is 
this rule that applies to a Republican President, and we want an 
entirely different one with a Democratic President. That does not do 
the court any good, it does not do the country any good, and it 
actually is beneath this great body, the U.S. Senate.
  Sri Srinivasan is a superbly-qualified, consensus nominee. I am glad 
the Republican filibuster has come to an end and the Senate is being 
permitted to vote on this nomination. I will, again, vote in favor of 
confirmation.
  Mr. President, I understand we have a vote scheduled for 2 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of 
the nomination of Sri Srinivasan to the D.C. Circuit Court.
  Mr. Srinivasan is an exemplary nominee to the Federal bench, and I am 
here to encourage my colleagues to confirm him without delay.
  Sri Srinivasan is currently the Principal Deputy Solicitor General at 
the Department of Justice and was previously a partner at the law firm 
of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
  Born in India, Mr. Srinivasan grew up in Lawrence, KS, and earned his 
B.A., with honors and distinction, his M.B.A, and his J.D., Order of 
the Coif, all from Stanford University. After completing law school, 
Mr. Srinivasan served as a clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit, and then for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
  Mr. Srinivasan has extensive Federal appellate court experience 
representing pro bono clients, private sector clients, and, in his 
current post, the U.S. government.

[[Page S3815]]

  Over the course of his 17-year legal career, Mr. Srinivasan has 
argued an impressive 24 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and 9 cases 
in the Federal courts of appeal. His arguments before the Supreme Court 
include a wide range of subject matters ranging from the First 
Amendment, criminal procedure, and foreign sovereign immunity to 
banking, immigration, and Native American law.
  If confirmed, Mr. Srinivasan will be the first Asian American in 
history to serve on the D.C. Circuit, and the first South Asian 
American to serve as a Federal circuit judge, which is a very 
significant milestone.
  The non-partisan American Bar Association committee that reviews 
every Federal judicial nominee gave Mr. Srinivasan its highest possible 
rating. And a group of solicitors general and principal deputy 
solicitors general of the United States wrote a letter saying that 
``Sri has first-rate intellect, an open-minded approach to the law, a 
strong work ethic, and an unimpeachable character.''
  In addition to his professional accomplishments, Mr. Srinivasan has 
dedicated substantial time to teaching, mentoring and pro bono 
representation.
  His achievements as a public servant and a private attorney are 
outstanding, and if confirmed, I have no doubt that he will serve as a 
committed and distinguished member of the Federal bench.
  Mr. Srinivasan has received considerable praise from all parts of the 
legal community including former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day 
O'Connor.
  In an interview with The New Yorker last year, Ms. O'Connor said she 
remembers Sri, ``as a very skilled, intellectually gifted clerk.'' She 
went on to say that Mr. Srinivasan deserves a smooth ride to 
confirmation. She said, ``he's not anybody who's been politically 
active, he's been very serious in his work habit, and people have had 
an ample opportunity to see his work.''
  With a strong vote of confidence from Sandra Day O'Connor, an 
esteemed former Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Srinivasan has garnered the 
one of greatest endorsements any nominee to the Federal bench can 
receive in my view.
  Not only is Mr. Srinivasan remarkably credentialed and widely 
supported, he is nominated to serve on one of the most important courts 
in the Nation, a court that currently has four of its eleven judgeships 
vacant.
  The D.C. Circuit is widely regarded as the second-most important 
court in the United States, behind only the U.S. Supreme Court, because 
of the complexity and significance of the cases it decides.
  The court has significant responsibility in deciding cases regarding 
the balance of powers of the branches of government and actions by 
Federal agencies that affect our health, safety, and industry.
  With the court's current vacancies, the D.C. Circuit caseload per 
active judge has increased 50 percent from 2005, when the Senate 
confirmed a nominee to fill the eleventh seat on the D.C. Circuit 
bench.
  Vacancies on this court should only be filled by the best and the 
brightest legal minds in the country--those who have demonstrated the 
most sophisticated legal and analytical skills, those who have 
committed their careers to justice, and those who personify 
professional excellence and impeccable character.
  Based on his impressive qualifications and stature in the legal 
community, it is clear that Mr. Srinivasan embodies those ideals. I 
strongly support his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
nomination of Sri Srinivasan to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  There is no question that Mr. Srinivasan has the qualifications and 
experience to be an outstanding Federal judge. He earned undergraduate, 
business and law degrees from Stanford. He clerked for Supreme Court 
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. He worked at the prestigious law firm 
O'Melveny & Myers where he chaired the firm's appellate practice group. 
He has worked for nearly a decade in the United States' Solicitor 
General's office, where he currently serves as the Principal Deputy 
Solicitor General. He has argued 20 cases before the United States 
Supreme Court and worked on many more briefs before that court.
  Mr. Srinivasan has also been praised for his independence and his 
integrity. He has worked for the Solicitor General's office under both 
Democratic and Republican administrations. His nomination has been 
strongly endorsed by former Democratic Solicitors General such as 
Walter Dellinger, Seth Waxman and Neal Katyal, and by former Republican 
Solicitors General such as Paul Clement, Ted Olson and Ken Starr.
  Mr. Srinivasan was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in a 
unanimous vote. Democrats and Republicans from across the ideological 
spectrum came together to support his nomination.
  I would also note that Mr. Srinivasan's nomination is a historic one. 
Upon confirmation he will be the first Indian-American to serve on a 
Federal circuit court. I am glad that the Senate is soon going to vote 
on Mr. Srinivasan's nomination. This vote is coming not a moment too 
soon.
  The D.C. Circuit urgently needs the Senate to confirm judges to serve 
on that court. Right now, there are only 7 active status judges on the 
D.C. Circuit. There are supposed to be 11.
  This vacancy situation is untenable. Retired D.C. Circuit Judge 
Patricia Wald, who served as the chief judge of the Circuit for 5 
years, recently wrote in the Washington Post that ``There is cause for 
extreme concern that Congress is systematically denying the court the 
human resources it needs to carry out its weighty mandates.''
  In 2010 the President nominated another well-qualified attorney, 
former New York solicitor general Caitlin Halligan, to serve on the 
D.C. Circuit, but she was filibustered twice by Senate Republicans.
  There were no legitimate questions about Ms. Halligan's 
qualifications, her judgment, her temperament, or her ideology. She was 
filibustered simply because some lobbying interests--mainly the gun 
lobby--did not agree with positions she argued on behalf of her client. 
She eventually withdrew her nomination.
  It is truly unfortunate that Ms. Halligan's nomination was 
filibustered to death. She deserved better. She would have served with 
distinction on the Federal bench.
  The Senate urgently needs to address the vacancy situation on the 
D.C. Circuit. We can start by confirming Mr. Srinivasan. We should then 
work to confirm other qualified nominees to fill vacancies in the D.C. 
Circuit and across the Federal judiciary.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Mr. Srinivasan's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do not see anyone else seeking 
recognition.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Srikanth Srinivasan, of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge 
for the District of Columbia Circuit?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) 
and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  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. 136 Ex.]

                                YEAS--97

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt

[[Page S3816]]


     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     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
     Murkowski
     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

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

                          ____________________