[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 113 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6150-S6154]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          THUD Appropriations

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we have spent the last 2 weeks here on 
the Senate floor talking about our bipartisan transportation and 
housing bill. This is a bill that is all about creating jobs, investing 
in our families and in our communities, and laying down a strong 
foundation for a long-term and broad-based economic growth. This bill 
is not exactly a bill I would have written on my own. I know it is not 
exactly a bill Senator Collins would have written on her own. But it is 
a compromise bill that reflects the deep cuts we made when we set 
spending levels in the Budget Control Act as well as the best ideas 
from both sides of the aisle of ways we can improve and reform our 
transportation and housing investment.
  The transportation and housing investments in this bill have a direct 
impact on the families and communities we represent, from improving our 
roads, to reducing traffic and helping Main Street businesses, to 
making sure our bridges are safe so we do not see more collapses like 
the one back home in my State of Washington, to supporting our most 
vulnerable families, seniors, and veterans with a roof over their heads 
when they need it the most and making investments in our communities 
that mayors across our country use to create local jobs in their 
hometowns and so much more.
  Senator Collins and I worked very hard together to write a bipartisan 
bill to invest in programs that should not be partisan. I think we 
succeeded. Six Republicans voted for this bill in committee; 73 
Senators voted to bring this bill to the floor for a debate. That 
debate was a full and open one, with amendments and votes from 
Democrats and Republicans.
  I wish to personally thank Senator Collins for her hard work on this 
bill, and I also thank all of our staff on the appropriations 
subcommittee: Alex Keenan, Dabney Hegg, Meaghan McCarthy, Rachel 
Milberg, and Dan Broder; as well as the staff of Senator Collins, who 
spent endless hours: Heideh Shahmoradi, Kenneth Altman, Jason Woolwine, 
and Rajat Mathur--all of whom worked so hard and put in so many hours 
and late nights on this strong bipartisan bill.
  After 2 weeks of debate and discussion and a bipartisan bill before 
us, we are now going to move very shortly to a final vote. I want to be 
clear. This bill has the support of the majority of the caucus. In the 
House of Representatives, what did we see happen yesterday? They pulled 
their transportation and housing bill off the floor. The Republican 
leadership would not even allow a vote on their bill because they did 
not have a majority in their caucus. The chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee said that showed that sequestration is 
unworkable and needs to be replaced. That is the House Republican 
chairman. But here in the Senate we have a majority, and we should move 
to pass this bill.
  The only thing that can block the passage of this bill, the only way 
a bipartisan bill with the support of the majority could be stopped is 
if Republican leaders whip their own Members into filibustering a jobs 
and infrastructure bill that many of those Republicans actually 
support. That is the only way.
  The choice before us is clear, and I urge my colleagues to make the 
right one. This vote is not about whether you support this exact bill 
or agree with the exact spending level. As Senator Collins has made 
clear again and again, you can think the spending level is too high and 
still support this process in which we pass a bill in the Senate and 
work with the House bill on a compromise. You can certainly disagree 
with the bill and not think it should be subjected to a filibuster.
  The bottom line is that a vote to wrap up and vote on this bill is a 
vote for jobs and the economy and for bipartisan solutions to the 
problems facing our Nation. A vote to filibuster this bill is a vote 
for more gridlock, more obstruction, more partisanship, and more 
political games.
  I know when I go home to Washington State I want to be able to tell 
my constituents that Democrats and Republicans worked together to solve 
some problems, help them, and grow the economy. I know there are many 
Democrats and Republicans here today who want to be able to say the 
same to their constituents, and I hope they will stand with me and 
Senator Collins and vote against a filibuster of our bipartisan bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.


                   Unaminous Consent Request--S. 101

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand today to discuss and strongly 
support my bill, S. 101, the State and Local Government Bailout 
Prevention Act. I urge all of us to unite to pass this bill

[[Page S6151]]

expeditiously. Let me briefly explain what it is about.
  I first introduced this bill in early 2011, February 2011, because 
two things were happening. First of all, several significant State and 
local entities were teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. At the same 
time, the Federal Government--things in Washington--was in a horrible 
state fiscally, such that we could clearly not afford to take on more 
spending, more debt, more responsibility. I wanted to pass legislation 
that would make it crystal clear that neither we, the Congress, nor the 
Treasury Department, nor the Federal Reserve, nor any other Federal 
entity was going to bail out State or local governments that had acted 
irresponsibly and tipped into bankruptcy.
  Things have not gotten better since then. In fact, in many ways 
things have gotten worse, and very recently, just in the last few 
weeks, the city of Detroit filed for bankruptcy--the largest municipal 
bankruptcy in U.S. history. Other large States and local communities 
are teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Many States are in a horrible 
fiscal situation, such as California and Illinois.
  Meanwhile, we are not in a fundamentally more sound place here in 
Washington at the Federal level. Even if we stick to the Budget Control 
Act numbers--and that is very much up in the air, but even if we stick 
to those numbers, Congress will spend $967 billion in discretionary 
money this year, and that will result in a $810 billion deficit--almost 
a $1 trillion deficit this year.
  This Nation, total, is almost $17 trillion in debt. The balance sheet 
of the Federal Reserve has swollen from $800 billion in August of 2007 
to over $3.5 trillion today.
  Now more than ever, S. 101, the State and Local Government Bailout 
Prevention Act, is appropriate, is needed. That is why I come to the 
floor today to urge expeditious passage of S. 101. This bill is very 
simple, basic, straightforward, but important. It would simply do four 
things: First, it would prohibit the use of Federal funds to bail out 
State and local government budgets. Second, it would prevent the 
Federal Reserve from providing assistance to or creating a facility to 
help, again, State and local governments in a bailout situation. Third, 
it would prevent Congress and the Treasury Department from bailing out 
State and local governments. Fourth, there is specific language so we 
do not create any confusion that this is not intended to stop or deter 
or interfere with appropriate assistance in declared disaster areas.

  That is the sum and substance of S. 101, the State and Local 
Government Bailout Prevention Act. When you look at situations such as 
Detroit--the largest ever municipal bankruptcy--and when you look at 
our fiscal situation in Washington at the Federal level, this clear bar 
of the Fed bailing out State and local governments is very much needed.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Development be discharged from further consideration of S. 101 
and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration and that the bill 
be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very clear. First, I say to my 
colleague from Louisiana, he and I have worked together often on a 
whole host of issues. He is on Environment and Public Works; I chair 
Energy. I want him to know I am happy to continue working with him on 
this and other issues. The reason I have to object at this time is that 
the language as it is written would deal a huge body blow to more than 
700 rural and heavily forested counties across the country in more than 
40 of our States. It, in effect, could prohibit payments under the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act.
  This legislation, which was a bipartisan bill--Senator Larry Craig 
and I authored this legislation--is a lifeline for these hard-hit rural 
communities that are walking on a tightrope. They are trying to 
balance, for example, how they are going to keep the schools open and 
how they are going to have law enforcement in their communities. 
Declining revenues from Federal forests spurred the creation of this 
program to compensate for the loss of receipts from the Federal 
forests. Suffice it to say that without this legislation we could have 
school perhaps 3 days a week in a big chunk of rural America. I 
mentioned law enforcement. The question of how you maintain 24-hour law 
enforcement in a lot of these areas has been drawn into question. I 
think that without this assistance we might have some counties facing 
bankruptcy.
  Given the fact that this language does not clarify the status of the 
Secure Rural Schools Program, I have to object. I am going to continue 
to object until the legislation does clarify that it will not prohibit 
payments under that legislation, which is a lifeline for rural America.
  We have had a number of recorded votes on that particular legislation 
here in the Senate. It has received overwhelming bipartisan support. It 
was authorized on a bipartisan basis.
  I am going to yield the floor. I know colleagues want to speak on 
this issue. I want it understood how concerned I am about the 
legislation in its present form. That is why I have to object at this 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I too join with our colleague from 
Oregon in raising great concern about what this proposal would do. This 
is a proposal--we have seen, actually, three of them now--that would 
cut all Federal funding for any community that has either defaulted or, 
more important, is at risk, has problems financially. What does that 
mean? It means that any city, any county, any local unit of government 
that is struggling with a tight budget could potentially lose all 
Federal funding. We are not talking about a bailout here. We are 
talking about the same Federal funds that go to every community--no 
funding for emergency services such as police departments and fire 
departments; no funding for transportation, for roads and bridges; 
cutting off funding for special education and for our schools; no 
funding for economic development to help these communities that are 
challenged because of, possibly, economic circumstances such as a 
shifting manufacturing base or other economic issues beyond their 
control.
  This is extremely broad. According to some legal definitions, 
``default'' could mean anything--late payments on any kind of an 
obligation. It makes absolutely no sense.
  Let me also indicate that one of the real concerning problems here is 
that it would exempt emergency spending for a natural disaster. I 
appreciate that the Senator from Louisiana would want to do that given 
the fact that we had Hurricane Katrina hit in New Orleans and our whole 
country came together. People in Detroit raised money to help with 
Hurricane Katrina. But I suggest that for the 41 cities and counties 
that filed bankruptcy over the last 20 years or the hundreds from 
Texas, to Kentucky, to Alabama, and beyond who now have troubled bond 
ratings and are considered at risk--this is really a slap in the face 
to every city and community across our country.
  This is not about stopping a bailout for Detroit. We are working 
hard. People are coming together. This is a community that is coming 
back thanks to a tremendous amount of grit, hard work, and leadership 
from the business community, religious community, community leaders, 
and so on. This is about whether we are going to support communities 
that need some help.
  Think about this: If a city is doing well and has a wealthy tax base 
and an upper middle-income community with high-powered lobbyists, then 
they should get Federal money--taxpayer money? Children with 
disabilities can get special education. We are going to help build 
roads and bridges in communities. But if a community is having some 
financial difficulty, then, unfortunately, we would say we would not 
allow the same ordinary Federal funding every community gets to be 
available for that community. That is not the right values for America.
  That is why the International City/County Management Association, the 
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Government

[[Page S6152]]

Finance Officers Association strongly oppose this effort.
  I have one final statement to make before turning to our 
distinguished senior Senator from Michigan.
  When we are looking at what is happening right now in Detroit and 
around the country, once again we are seeing workers and retirees on 
the frontline who have lost their pensions and their wages. In the auto 
rescue, we saw Delphi retiree pensions were not protected. Now in the 
city of Detroit, police, fire, and city workers are not protected. So 
when we talk about the middle class of this country--people working 
hard every day--we need to put them first. We need to make sure nobody 
loses their pension. We need to make sure we stand as a country with 
cities that are in distress and working hard to become vibrant and 
strong again.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I too object to the unanimous consent 
request. While the sponsor says it is aimed at bailouts, no one I know 
of is seeking a bailout from the communities that would be impacted. 
Despite the stated intention, the effect of this bill is to endanger 
the financial health of hundreds of cities and counties in every corner 
of this country. It would weaken the safety and security of countless 
Americans who call those communities home. I don't know of anyone 
seeking a bailout. Yet bailout is the word that is used frequently here 
by the sponsor of this legislation.
  What is the definition? Communities at risk of defaulting. Hundreds 
and hundreds of communities are ``at risk of defaulting.'' It is 
unclear what that means. But the strains on local governments in the 
last few years--particularly following the financial crisis we had--are 
real. To say that any community, city, or State, for that matter, that 
is at risk of defaulting is to be challenged in terms of getting 
regular support from the Federal Government.
  This is not limited to loans. This bill affects grants as well as 
loans. In the words of the bill, ``grants and aid'' would be prevented. 
All sorts of Federal funding, in other words, besides those kind of 
actions of the Federal Government involving credit or reliance on 
credit of the donor or for repayment.
  The Congressional Research Service says this, again, applies not just 
to loans but to grants as well. Why in Heaven's name would struggling 
communities--whether it is my hometown of Detroit or any other 
community in this country--be denied the ability to seek grants is 
beyond me. It is not limited to loans but grants as well. This bill 
goes way beyond the bailouts that no one is seeking and would have a 
severe impact on cities and towns across the country.
  Standard & Poor's lists more than 250 securities offered by Louisiana 
municipalities that are below investment grade. One State has 250 
communities with securities below investment grade, which presumably 
means there is a significant credit risk in those communities. Under 
this bill, are those communities not eligible to seek regular grants? I 
am afraid so, and that is not just me saying that. Again, that is from 
the CRS.
  Finally, Senator Stabenow has made reference to a letter that we 
received from the National League of Cities, National Association of 
Counties, the United States Conference of Mayors, and others, opposing 
this legislation because it goes way beyond its stated purpose of 
preventing bailouts.
  Again, my town--and I don't know of any town that has--has not asked 
for a bailout. I am proud to have been living in Detroit all of my 
life. It doesn't need this kind of legislation poking at it to stop 
something from going to Detroit, which it has not applied for.
  I know this legislation was introduced before this recent bankruptcy 
application on the part of the city of Detroit, but nonetheless to seek 
a unanimous consent in this context and in this moment to pass 
legislation--apparently without even a hearing--seems to me to be 
beyond the pale.
  As a lifelong resident of Detroit, I oppose this proposal. I oppose 
it because thousands of municipalities that have suffered in the 
aftermath of the recent recession would be negatively affected. Our 
residents, their residents, our employees, their employees, and 
retirees around the country deserve better.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the two Senators from 
Michigan being the only ones on the floor right now objecting and 
saying this has nothing to do with Detroit, but, of course, it does.
  I am very sorry to hear this objection. There is no objection on the 
Republican side. Of course there would be an objection if, in fact, 
this legislation would bar normal Federal grants and normal Federal 
loans unrelated to a bailout of a State or a municipality in bankruptcy 
mode, but it doesn't do that.
  The legislation is very specific and very targeted. It is about a 
bailout of a State or locality in bankruptcy mode, and that is what it 
is about. It is not about normal routine Federal funding, and that is 
why there is no Republican objection.
  One of the distinguished Senators from Michigan makes the point that 
Detroit has not formally asked for a bailout. That is true so far. But 
when the mayor talked to the Wall Street Journal about this, he ``left 
the door open for a Federal bailout after the city's bankruptcy 
filing.'' When asked directly whether Detroit would seek a Federal 
bailout, Mayor Bing said, ``Not yet.''

  Similarly, the Governor of Michigan Rick Snyder didn't support a 
bailout but said on CBS's ``Face the Nation:'' ``If the Federal 
Government wants to do that, that's their option.'' That is not exactly 
not opening the door and considering that opportunity.
  Again, I didn't file this bill in the last 2 weeks. I originally 
filed this bill in February of 2011. Unfortunately, Detroit isn't the 
only municipal or State bankruptcy on the maps. States can't formally 
file bankruptcy, but in laymen's terms they can essentially go 
bankrupt. Detroit is not the only issue on the map. Many States face a 
horrible fiscal situation as well, such as California and Illinois. 
There is a real danger of these States and localities seeking a Federal 
bailout. This bill is about that. It is not about normal Federal 
funding. It is not about the safe and secure rural schools program. It 
is not about any of that routine stuff. It is about a bailout of a 
State. It is about a bailout of the municipality or other local 
jurisdiction. Of course, Detroit, unfortunately, is the most obvious 
example after its historic bankruptcy filing very recently.
  Again, I am sorry to hear their objection. I am sorry the two 
Senators from Michigan are here on the floor about this. I don't think 
that is a coincidence because this is a bill about bailouts. I think we 
should pass it, and be very crystal clear at the Federal level that we 
are not going to take on that bailout role and responsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. On line 7, page 1: ``Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law''--and then after talking about Federal funds not being used to 
purchase or guarantee obligations, it then says:

     no Federal funds may be used . . . or provide direct or 
     indirect grants-and-aid, to any State government, municipal 
     government, local government, or county government which, on 
     or after January 26, 2011, has defaulted on its obligations.

  It is very clear. It is line 7, page 1, and lines 1 and 2 on page 2: 
``direct or indirect grants-and-aid to'' may not be provided to any 
city which has defaulted on its obligations. This is the language of 
the bill.
  It also says on line 12 of page 2 that the funds of the United States 
may not be used ``to assist such government entity.'' ``Assist any such 
government entity.''
  Hundreds of governments would be covered by this legislation. It is 
no coincidence that the Senators from Michigan are here on the floor 
because we are the most current victims of this language if it were 
ever passed. There are hundreds of others who would be victimized by 
this language because of its breadth, and that is what the Senator from 
Oregon was very dramatically pointing out.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the language from the 
bill be printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S6153]]



                                 S. 101

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO PAY 
                   STATE AND LOCAL OBLIGATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no Federal funds may be used to purchase or guarantee 
     obligations of, issue lines of credit to, or provide direct 
     or indirect grants-and-aid to, any State government, 
     municipal government, local government, or county government 
     which, on or after January 26, 2011, has defaulted on its 
     obligations, is at risk of defaulting, or is likely to 
     default, absent such assistance from the United States 
     Government.
       (b) Limit on Use of Borrowed Funds.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall not, directly or indirectly, use general fund 
     revenues or funds borrowed pursuant to title 31, United 
     States Code, to purchase or guarantee any asset or obligation 
     of any State government, municipal government, local 
     government, or county government, or otherwise to assist such 
     government entity, if, on or after January 26, 2011, that 
     State government, municipal government, or county government 
     has defaulted on its obligations, is at risk of defaulting, 
     or is likely to default, absent such assistance from the 
     United States Government.
       (c) Prohibition on Federal Reserve Assistance.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall not provide or 
     extend to, or authorize with respect to, any State 
     government, municipal government, local government, county 
     government, or other entity that has taxing authority or 
     bonding authority, any funds, loan guarantees, credits, or 
     any other financial instrument or other authority, including 
     the purchasing of the bonds of such State, municipality, 
     locality, county, or other bonding authority, or to otherwise 
     assist such government entity under any authority of the 
     Board of Governors.
       (d) Limitation.--Subsections (a) through (c) shall not 
     apply to Federal assistance provided in response to a natural 
     disaster.

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Raymond T. 
Chen, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal circuit. This 
is the 29th judicial confirmation this year. With today's confirmation, 
the Senate will have confirmed 200 lower court nominees; we have 
defeated two. That's 200 to 2. That is an outstanding record. That's a 
success rate of 99 percent.
  We have been doing that at a fast pace. During the last Congress, we 
confirmed more judges than any Congress since the 103rd Congress, which 
was 1993 to 1994.
  So far this year, the first of President Obama's second term, we've 
already confirmed more judges than were confirmed in the entire first 
year of President Bush's second term. At a similar stage in President 
Bush's second term, only 10 judicial nominees had been confirmed. We 
are now at a 29-to-10 comparison with President Obama clearly ahead of 
where President Bush was. And, as I said, we have already confirmed 
more nominees this year--29--than we did during the entirety of 2005, 
the first year of President Bush's second term, when 21 lower court 
judges were confirmed.
  With regard to hearings, the record shows that President Obama is 
being treated much better than President Bush during his second term.
  Last week we held the 11th judicial nominations hearing this year. In 
those hearings we we have considered a total of 33 judicial nominees. 
Compare this favorable treatment of President Obama during the 
beginning of his second term versus the first year of President Bush's 
second term. At this stage in President Bush's second term, the 
Committee had held not 11 hearings with 33 judicial nominees, but only 
3 hearings for 5 nominees, and all of those were hold-overs from the 
previous Congress.
  In fact, for the entire year of 2005, Senate Democrats only allowed 7 
hearings for a grand total of 18 judicial nominees.
  It is hard to believe, but no nomination hearings on judicial 
nominees were held during April, May, June, or July. Four months with 
no judicial nomination hearings. Yet, we recently rushed through 
hearings on nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, plus a number 
of District nominations. In fact, in just the last few weeks, we have 
held hearings for 14 judicial nominees. That's not very far behind the 
entire output of 2005--7 hearings, 18 nominees.
  Again, we have already exceeded that number--11 hearings and 33 
judicial nominees. 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 first 
year of his second term than Senate Democrats treated President Bush in 
2005. It is not clear to me how allowing more votes and more hearings 
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. So I just wanted to set the record straight--
again--before we vote on this nomination.
  Raymond T. Chen is nominated to be United States Circuit Judge for 
the Federal circuit. He received his B.S. from the University of 
California, Los Angeles, in 1990 and his J.D. from New York University 
School of Law in 1994. Upon graduation, Mr. Chen worked at Knobbe, 
Martens, Olson & Bear in California from 1994 to 1996. As an associate, 
he drafted district court briefs and legal memoranda on specific patent 
and trademark issues as well as several patent applications spanning 
various technologies.
  In 1996, Mr. Chen joined the senior technical assistant's office at 
the Federal circuit in Washington as one of three technical assistants. 
There, he researched and wrote memoranda, commenting on drafts of court 
opinions for both legal and technical accuracy as well as 
identification of conflicting legal precedent, occasionally writing for 
individual judges.
  From 1998 to 2008, Mr. Chen served as an associate solicitor in the 
Office of the Solicitor at the United States Patent and Trademark 
Office. During that time, he was first or second chair on several dozen 
Federal Circuit briefs defending the agency's patent and trademark 
decisions, and he presented approximately 20 arguments in the Federal 
Circuit.
  He regularly appeared in district court defending the agency against 
lawsuits brought under the Administrative Procedure Act. He was also a 
legal advisor on several patent policy and legal issues within the 
agency, occasionally prosecuting patent attorneys in administrative 
proceedings for violating the agency's code of professional 
responsibility.
  In 2008, Mr. Chen became the Deputy General Counsel of Intellectual 
Property Law and Solicitor. There he supervises other lawyers in the 
Solicitor's Office and has presented oral arguments in some of the 
seminal patent cases before the Federal circuit.
  In addition, Mr. Chen deals with higher-level patent and trademark 
policy issues within the agency. He also coordinates the determination 
of what positions the United States should take as an amicus in 
intellectual property cases before both the Supreme Court and the 
Federal circuit.
  Lastly, Mr. Chen is responsible for the review and clearance of all 
new regulations and amendments to existing regulations for the Office 
of the Solicitor.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him a 
unanimous ``well qualified'' rating.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). All time has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask my colleagues to vote for this nomination.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I believe we should act quickly on a number of judicial 
vacancies. Eleven of the twelve circuit and district nominees currently 
pending before the Senate were reported by voice vote. All Democrats, 
all Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted together. There is no 
reason why we couldn't consider all 12 today, along with Mr. Chen. If 
we work together, then we can fulfill the needs of the Federal 
judiciary.
  Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. LEAHY. I request 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 question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of

[[Page S6154]]

Raymond T. Chen, of Maryland, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
Federal Circuit?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  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. 198 Ex.]

                                YEAS--97

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     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

     Inhofe
     Landrieu
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________