[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 96 (Monday, July 8, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5519-S5522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF GREGORY ALAN PHILLIPS TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
FOR THE TENTH 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 assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Gregory Alan
Phillips, of Wyoming, to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth
Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't wish to in any way cut into the
time of the senior Senator from Wyoming, but I hope once he and Senator
Barrasso have finished speaking--once their time is consumed--we might
agree that the vote will still be at 5:30, if possible, or as close to
that time as possible.
Our Constitution provides the Senate an important role to play in
providing advice to the President and in voting on whether to confirm
nominees for our third branch of government. Last month, we were
reminded of the importance of these confirmation votes when the Supreme
Court handed down several narrowly-decided opinions that are already
impacting millions of Americans. As a senior member of this chamber, I
have voted on the confirmation of every one of the nine justices
currently serving. Since only a tiny percentage of cases brought in
Federal court ever end up at the Supreme Court, the Federal courts of
appeal are often the courts of last resort for most disputes. I am glad
that today we are finally voting to confirm another appellate nominee.
Before the Memorial Day recess, the minority leader asked during a
floor debate when Gregory Phillips, the Wyoming nominee to the Tenth
Circuit, would receive a vote. When the majority leader immediately
offered a vote on that nominee, the minority leader demurred without
giving any reason. Senate Republicans have now finally decided to allow
the vote on Gregory Phillips to move forward, but there was no reason
for this delay in his confirmation vote.
Gregory Phillips is currently the attorney general of Wyoming, a
position to which he was appointed by Wyoming's Republican Governor.
From 2010 to 2011 he worked in the Wyoming attorney general's office as
the special assistant to the Governor for legislative affairs. Prior to
working in the Wyoming attorney general's office, he was an assistant
U.S. attorney in Wyoming, and spent 14 years in private practice.
Attorney general Phillips has also served as a part-time deputy county
attorney, an assistant municipal judge and as a state senator.
Following law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Alan B.
Johnson of the U.S. district court for the District of Wyoming. The ABA
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Mr.
Phillips ``well qualified,'' its highest rating.
At his Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Phillips was
introduced by his two Republican home State Senators, Senator Enzi and
Senator Barrasso, both of whom strongly support his nomination. He was
reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee nearly 3 months ago.
While his confirmation vote has not been delayed quite as long as votes
on most of President Obama's nominees, he could and should have been
confirmed last May when the majority leader offered.
With the confirmation of Attorney General Phillips, there will be 10
active judges on the Tenth Circuit. According to the most recent data,
this means that the number of pending appeals per active judge on that
court will drop from 150 to 135. I mention this because another
appellate court, the DC Circuit, currently has 177 pending appeals per
active judge. Despite that higher caseload, some Senate Republicans
argue that the DC Circuit's caseload is too low, and that three of its
judgeships should be eliminated. I suspect that many, if not all, of
these Senators will vote to confirm Attorney General Phillips, even
though his confirmation means that the Tenth Circuit will now have the
lowest caseload in the country, just as earlier this year they
supported the confirmation of Jane Kelly to the Eighth Circuit, which
gave that court the lowest caseload in the country, and just as they
supported the confirmation of Robert Bacharach to the Tenth Circuit,
which gave that court the lowest caseload in the country. I hope those
Senators will reconsider their double standard and not play politics
with an independent branch of government.
Some of the same Senate Republicans who are opposing President
Obama's three nominees to the DC Circuit are also criticizing him for
making too few nominations and somehow claiming that many vacancies
without a nominee cannot possibly be the fault of Senate Republicans. I
recall that before President Obama made a single judicial nomination,
all Senate Republicans sent him a letter threatening to filibuster his
nominees if he did not consult Republican home State Senators. They
cannot have it both ways.
I take very seriously my responsibility to make recommendations when
we have vacancies in Vermont, whether the President is a Democrat or a
Republican, and other Senators should do the same. After all, if there
are not enough judges in our home States, it is our own constituents
who suffer. It should be only a matter of weeks or months, not years,
for Senators to make recommendations.
Unfortunately, in some States it appears as if there is no effort
being made to recommend qualified nominees to the administration. There
are three district vacancies in Georgia without nominees, and the
oldest is over 4 years old. There are three district vacancies in
Kentucky without nominees, and the oldest is over a year and a half
old. There are seven district vacancies in Texas without nominees, and
the oldest is over 4\1/2\ years old. Three months ago the Senators from
Texas announced a nominations commission, but it is my understanding
that it is still not accepting applications. If Senators want new
judgeships in their States, they should be working especially hard to
ensure that all existing ones are filled. Republican Senators who
demanded to be consulted on nominations should live up to their
responsibilities and fulfill their constitutional obligation to advise
the President on nominations. They should follow the example of
Democratic Senators: the administration has received recommendations
for all current district vacancies in States represented by two
Democratic Senators.
Moreover, the failure of some Republican Senators to help fill
vacancies in their own States does not excuse their unwillingness to
complete action on the nominations the President has made. I regret
that I must correct the record, again, on how Senate Republicans have
obstructed judicial nominees over the past 4 years. The continued
assertion by Senate Republicans that 99 percent of President Obama's
nominees have been confirmed is not accurate. President Obama has
nominated 243 individuals to be circuit or district judges, and 197
have been confirmed by the Senate. That is 81 percent, not 99 percent.
By way of comparison, at the same point in President Bush's second
term, July 8 of his fifth year in office, President Bush had nominated
10 fewer people to be circuit or district judges, but had seen 215 of
them confirmed, which is 18 more confirmations. The truth is that 92
percent
[[Page S5520]]
of President Bush's judicial nominees had been confirmed at the same
point, 11 percentage points more than have been allowed for President
Obama. That is an apples-to-apples comparison, and it demonstrates the
undeniable fact that the Senate has confirmed a lower number and a
lower percentage of President Obama's nominees than President Bush's
nominees at the same time in their Presidencies.
I noted at the end of last year, while Senate Republicans were
insisting on delaying confirmations of 15 judicial nominees that should
have taken place in wrap up, we would not likely be allowed to complete
work on them until May. That was precisely the Republican plan. So when
Senate Republicans now seek to claim credit for their confirmations in
President Obama's second term, they are inflating the confirmation
statistics. The truth is that only 11 circuit and district
confirmations have taken place this year that are not attributable to
those nominations Senate Republicans needlessly held over from last
year. To use a baseball analogy, 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, nor would a fair calculation of hits or home
runs allow a player to credit those that occurred in one game to the
next because it would make his stats look better.
If President Obama's nominees were receiving the same treatment as
President Bush's, today's vote would bring us to 215 confirmations, not
198, and vacancies would be far lower. The nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service has noted that it will require 29 more district and
circuit confirmations this year to match President Bush's 5-year total.
Even with the confirmations finally concluded during the first 6 months
of this year, Senate Republicans have still not allowed President Obama
to match even the record of President Bush's first term. Even with an
extra 6 months, we are still eight confirmations behind where we were
at the end of 2004.
The assertion by some Senate Republicans that ``there is no
difference in how this President's nominees are being treated versus
how President Bush's nominees were treated'' is simply not supported by
the facts. Compared to the same point in the Bush administration, there
have been more nominees filibustered, fewer confirmations, and longer
wait times for nominees, even though President Obama has nominated more
people and there are more vacancies. And while Senate Republicans have
taken to comparing President Obama's fifth year to President Bush's
fifth year, the fact is that there were fewer confirmations then
because we had done such good work in President Bush's first term, in
particular the 100 confirmations we achieved during the 17 months in
2001 and 2002 when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In fact,
from June 9, 2005, until October 20, 2005, there were no consensus
judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar. So the only reason there
have been more votes this year than in 2005 is that, contrary to
Republicans' assertions, we have had more nominees this year, mostly
because they were held over from last year by Senate Republicans.
While the routine and sustained delays over the past 4 years are
without precedent, Republicans point to June 2004 as the one time that
there were a number of President Bush's nominees pending on the floor.
I recall that in early 2004, President Bush had bypassed the Senate and
recess appointed two controversial nominees to be circuit judges and
that around that time we learned that Republican committee staff hacked
into a shared server to pilfer Democratic files. Still, we were able to
clear nominations by confirming more than 20 consensus nominees in just
1 month. There is nothing like that to explain the years of backlogged
judicial nominees during this administration.
Context matters. Anyone can point to this example or that example,
but when you look at the whole picture, it is clear that President
Obama's nominees have faced unprecedented delays on the Senate floor
and that his nominees have been less likely to be confirmed than
President Bush's at the same point.
But the context of these statistics also matters. Judicial
nominations should not be about partisan tit for tat. Judicial
vacancies impact millions of people, all across America, who depend on
our Federal courts for justice. When you compare the Senate's record
from 2001 to 2005, and from 2009 to 2013, it is clear that we are not
meeting the standard we set for how quickly the Senate can act to fill
judicial vacancies. Throughout my career, whether as a prosecutor or as
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have fought for justice, and to
ensure that people have access to justice and can have their day in
court. That is why my recent statements have discussed not only the
delays in the nominations process, but also the impact of sequestration
cuts on our legal system. I continue to hear from judges and other
legal professionals about the serious problems sequestration either has
caused or will cause if we do not fix it.
Chief Justice John Roberts recently noted that sequestration ``hit
[the judiciary] particularly hard. . . . When we have sustained cuts
that means people have to be furloughed or worse and that has a more
direct impact on the services that we can provide.'' I ask unanimous
consent that this article titled ``Chief Justice Roberts: Sequester
cuts hitting federal judiciary `hard' '' be printed in the Record at
the conclusion of my statement. We should all be doing everything we
can to help our coequal branch meet the Constitution's promise of
justice for all Americans.
The impact of sequestration on the third branch is compounded by the
high level of judicial vacancies. I know we can do better because we
have done better. Each day that Senate Republicans refuse to confirm
the 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 resolve disputes. Hard-working Americans should not have to
wait years to have their cases decided.
Even if it were true, it is not good enough to say that the Senate is
treating President Obama's nominees the same as it treated President
Bush's. The real question is whether the Senate is meeting its duty to
do everything it reasonably can to ensure the American people have
access to justice. When Senate Republicans refuse to make
recommendations for nominees, and then delay votes on consensus
nominees, they are not somehow hurting the President, they are hurting
the American people and our justice system.
Today, Attorney General Phillips will finally be confirmed by the
Senate, and there are many more nominees the Senate should consider in
the coming weeks. Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear
from James Comey, who President Obama has nominated to serve as FBI
Director. Later this week the committee will begin the process of
considering the first of three current nominees to the DC Circuit. The
Judiciary Committee is also scheduled this week to vote on the
nomination of B. Todd Jones to serve as Director of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. The ATF has been without a
Senate-confirmed Director since 2006. Senate Republicans refused to
allow a vote on President Bush's nominee to lead the ATF and I hope
they will not attempt to do the same again. Nominees to lead the Labor
Department and the Environmental Protection Agency are also awaiting
our consideration. I hope the Senate will be able to come together and
confirm these worthy nominees without the delay that has befallen so
many nominees in the past 4 years.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From The Hill, June 29, 2013]
Chief Justice Roberts: Sequester Cuts Hitting Federal Judiciary
``Hard''
(By Ben Geman)
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday said
the sequester is hurting the judicial branch and that he's
hopeful Congress will provide flexibility.
Roberts, speaking at a conference in West Virginia, noted
that the judicial branch of government overall is less than
one percent of the federal budget.
``You get a whole branch of government under the
Constitution for relative pennies, and the idea that we have
to be swept along because it is good public policy to cut
everybody--I am not commenting on that policy at all--but the
notion that we should just be swept along with it I think is
really unfounded,'' Roberts said of the across-the-board
budget cuts.
[[Page S5521]]
``The cuts hit us particularly hard because we are made up
of people. That is what the judicial branch is. It is not
like we are the Pentagon where you can slow up a particular
procurement program or a lot of the other agencies. When we
have sustained cuts that mean people have to be furloughed or
worse and that has a more direct impact on the services that
we can provide,'' he added, speaking at the Fourth Circuit
Judicial Conference.
Roberts said the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
is working with congressional appropriators ``to get them to
go to bat for us,'' and that he's hopeful. ``I hope we are
able to make an effective case for why need a little bit more
flexibility than others,'' Roberts said.
And, in a bit of humor, he tried some obvious flattery.
``I just want to say publicly, that I think our
appropriators in Congress are the best legislators since
Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, and you can quote me on that
if you'd like,'' Roberts said.
In other remarks, Roberts said the Supreme Court justices
are asking too many questions from the bench during oral
arguments.
``We do overdo it,'' Roberts said. ``The bench has gotten
more and more aggressive.'' He noted that lawyers trying to
present their arguments ``feel cheated sometimes.''
He said that justices do not talk about cases before the
arguments. So they use questions as a way to ``bring out
points that we think our colleagues ought to know about,''
and debate one another through questions to lawyers making
arguments.
But he said, ``That is an explanation. It is not meant as
an excuse.''
``I do think we have gone too far,'' Roberts said. ``It is
too much and I think we do need to address it a little bit.''
Roberts comments came after a busy week for the court, with
justices handing down rulings striking down a key portion of
the Voting Rights Act and ruling the Defense of Marriage Act
unconstitutional.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Gregory Alan
Phillips to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit. This
is the 27th judicial confirmation this year. With today's confirmation,
the Senate will have confirmed 198 lower court nominees; we have
defeated two. That is 198-2, which is an outstanding record. That is a
success rate of 99 percent.
We have been doing these at a fast pace. During the last Congress, we
confirmed more judges than any Congress since the 103rd Congress, which
was 1993-1994.
This year, the beginning of President Obama's second term, we have
already confirmed more judges than were confirmed in the entire first
year of President Bush's second term. Let me emphasize that again--
we've already confirmed more nominees this year than we did during the
entirety of 2005, the first year of President Bush's second term.
After today, only four article III judges remain on the executive
calendar--three district nominees and one circuit nominee. Yet somehow
Senate Democrats cite this as evidence of obstructionism.
Compare that to the calendar of June 2004, when 30 judicial
nominations were on the calendar--10 circuit and 20 district. I don't
recall any Senate Democrats complaining about how many nominations were
piling up on the calendar.
Nor do I remember protestations from my colleagues on the other side
that judicial nominees were moving too slowly. Some of those nominees
had been reported out more than a year earlier and most were pending
for months. Some of them never got an up or down vote.
The bottom line is that the Senate is processing the President's
nominees exceptionally fairly. President Obama certainly is being
treated more fairly in the beginning of his second term than Senate
Democrats treated President Bush in 2005. It is not clear to me how
allowing more votes so far this year than President Bush got in an
entire year amounts to ``unprecedented delays and obstruction.'' Yet
that is the complaint we hear over and over from the other side.
After today's votes, there will be 84 vacancies in the Federal
judiciary. But 53 of those spots are without a nominee. How is it
Republicans' fault that the President has not sent 53 nominees to the
committee? Obviously, common sense ought to tell you that we can't act
on nominees who are not presented to the Senate.
I just wanted to set the record straight--again--before we vote on
this nomination.
Mr. Phillips received his B.S. in 1983 and his J.D. in 1987, both
from the University of Wyoming. Upon graduation, he served as a law
clerk from 1987 to 1989 to the Honorable Alan B. Johnson, U.S. district
judge for the District of Wyoming. After completion of his clerkship,
he worked in private practice in the town of Evanston. There he
practiced a wide variety of civil law, including personal injury, wills
and estates, real property, contracts, worker's compensation,
employment, domestic relations, and bankruptcy. For a few months during
this time, Mr. Phillips served as a part-time deputy county attorney,
mostly prosecuting misdemeanor crimes until a new county attorney could
be elected.
In 1998, Mr. Phillips and Matthew H. Mead, presently serving as
Governor of Wyoming, opened a law practice in Cheyenne, focusing on
Medicaid, insurance, banking, and Federal tort claims law. Mr. Phillips
served as a special attorney general during this period, handling a
Medicaid third-party and estate reimbursement for Wyoming.
Mr. Phillips joined the U.S. Attorney's office in 2003 as an
assistant U.S. attorney, where he first worked on both civil and
criminal issues before shifting to exclusively criminal work. In 2011,
Mr. Phillips was appointed by Governor Mead to be attorney general of
the State of Wyoming. As attorney general, he manages five law
divisions, overseeing arguments before the Wyoming Supreme Court and
the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. LEAHY. So I can help speed up things, I yield back all time on
the Democratic side and yield to the senior Senator from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee for expediting the confirmation of Greg Phillips.
I rise this afternoon to add strong support for the confirmation of
Gregory Alan Phillips to serve as a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals. I believe Mr. Phillips has all the characteristics necessary
to serve as a Federal appellate judge. I worked with Mr. Phillips in
the Wyoming Legislature and can say with confidence that he is
recognized throughout the Wyoming legal community as a talented,
respected, and thoughtful attorney.
This vote is also important because the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals has experienced a number of judicial vacancies recently. In
February the Senate confirmed Judge Bacharach of Oklahoma to the panel,
and we now have the opportunity to fill another vacancy so the Tenth
Circuit can continue its work.
Mr. Phillips has served as Wyoming's attorney general since 2011. The
attorney general is not an elected position in Wyoming, and it is
important to note that Mr. Phillips was appointed by Governor Mead,
although they do not share the same party affiliation. This speaks
tremendously to Mr. Phillips' talent and legal reputation. Governor
Mead and former U.S. attorney comments that Greg is a ``first-rate
legal thinker, a tireless worker and has an abiding sense of fair
play.'' Governor Mead goes on to say that if confirmed, all those who
appear before Mr. Phillips will find ``a judge fully prepared, engaged,
and respectful to all.''
Mr. Phillips was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with
a unanimous vote on April 18. The fact that he now stands for a vote
after only being nominated in January is a credit to his abilities and
strong bipartisan support. I thank Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member
Grassley, and members of the Judiciary Committee for reviewing and
moving this nomination along so quickly.
It is no surprise that the American Bar Association unanimously gave
Mr. Phillips its highest rating. Greg has extensive experience
practicing law as a deputy county attorney and in private practice.
Before becoming Wyoming's attorney general, Mr. Phillips served 7 years
as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Wyoming, handling
criminal prosecutions and appeals. Greg has extensive experience
arguing in Federal court, including taking nearly 20 cases before the
Tenth Circuit.
Mr. Phillips studied economics at the University of Wyoming and
graduated with honors from the Wyoming College of Law, where he was on
the Law Review. Immediately following law school
[[Page S5522]]
Mr. Phillips served as a clerk for U.S. district judge Alan Johnson of
Wyoming. Judge Johnson writes that Greg is ``devoted to the rule of law
and will honor the remarkable judicial officers who preceded him.''
Specifically, Judge Johnson notes that Mr. Phillips' thorough study of
the U.S. sentencing guidelines, experience as a Federal criminal
prosecutor, and understanding of State and Federal legal issues will
serve him well on the Tenth Circuit.
Mr. Phillips also has strong support from his colleagues from around
the Nation. Thirty-four attorneys general wrote the Senate Judiciary
Committee in March expressing their support for the nomination. I am
told there would have been more signatures on that letter, but the
nomination was advanced so diligently that some did not get a chance to
sign the letter before Greg's hearing.
I would like to conclude by saying that I can personally attest to
Mr. Phillips' qualifications to serve as a Federal judge. Greg was on
the senate Judiciary Committee when we served together in the Wyoming
Legislature. On the senate floor, we sat across the aisle from each
other--and I do not mean just across the Republican-Democratic aisle, I
mean right next to each other across the aisle--and got to visit a lot.
He was a part of formulating my 80 percent rule for legislating.
Greg and his family are highly respected in their Wyoming community,
and Wyoming is proud to call Greg one of our own. He will be an
outstanding judge to follow Terry O'Brien, another longtime friend of
mine. Terry and I, when he was a Wyoming District Court judge and I was
in the Wyoming State senate, used to have dinner together to solve the
world's problems. Then I became a U.S. Senator and he became a U.S.
circuit court judge. I know his successor will honorably fill that
seat.
Mr. Phillips is highly qualified to serve on the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals, and I call on my colleagues to also support his
confirmation. Let's get this man to work in his new job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I join Senator Enzi in strongly
supporting the nomination of Greg Phillips to a seat on the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Greg Phillips will be an outstanding judge.
He graduated with honors, as you heard from Senator Enzi, from the
University of Wyoming College of Law. He has worked in private
practice, he has worked in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for Wyoming,
and he currently serves as attorney general for the State of Wyoming.
The breadth of his experience, his understanding of the law and the
role of a judge, as well as the thoroughness with which he approaches
his responsibilities--well, they will serve him well.
The people who know him best--his peers--uniformly praise his
intellect, his diligence, and his fairness. His former boss, U.S.
district judge Alan Johnson, said this in a recent letter to Senator
Enzi:
Again and again, local defense attorneys have expressed
their appreciation for the fair handed, respectful, and even
tempered treatment they have received from Greg Phillips.
We are very fortunate in Wyoming to have Greg Phillips nominated for
the bench. I have no doubt that as his career continues, he will become
a successful and a respected member of the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals. I strongly encourage all Members of the Senate to join Senator
Enzi and me in voting to confirm Greg Phillips.
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. ENZI. 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. ENZI. I yield back the remainder of any of our time and ask for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
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 Gregory Alan Phillips, of Wyoming, to be United States Circuit Judge
for the Tenth Circuit?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms.
Cantwell), the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), and the
Senator from Maine (Mr. King) are necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz),
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the
Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Toomey).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 169 Ex.]
YEAS--88
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Chiesa
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cowan
Crapo
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heinrich
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--12
Cantwell
Coats
Cruz
Flake
Graham
Heitkamp
Inhofe
King
McCain
Murkowski
Rubio
Toomey
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President
shall be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________