[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18187-18191]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF CHRISTOPHER DRONEY TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR 
                           THE SECOND 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 Christopher Droney, of 
Connecticut, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes for debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we in the Senate will confirm 
Judge Christopher Droney to be U.S. Circuit Judge, Second Circuit. This 
will be the fifth nominee of President Obama to be confirmed to this 
circuit, the Second Circuit. In just 3 years, President Obama has 
matched the number of President Bush's nominees confirmed to the Second 
Circuit over his entire 8 years in office.
  With this vote, the Senate will have confirmed 57 article III 
judicial nominees during this Congress. This is a great accomplishment 
considering only six sessions of Congress in the last 30 years have 
confirmed more judicial nominees. In total, over 71 percent of 
President Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed.
  The seat to which Judge Droney is nominated has been deemed to be a 
judicial emergency. This will be the 31st judicial emergency nominee to 
be confirmed this year. This seat became vacant in July 2009 when Judge 
Calabresi took senior status. The President first nominated Judge 
Chatigny to this vacancy. Judge Chatigny is a sitting U.S. district 
judge in Connecticut. However, after reviewing his record the Senate 
determined that Judge Chatigny should not be elevated, and his 
nomination was returned to the White House at the end of the 111th 
Congress. The

[[Page 18188]]

President did not renominate Judge Chatigny and instead sent us the 
nomination of the person we are considering today, Judge Droney.
  I raise this bit of history to remind the Senate and those who watch 
our proceedings of the importance of the role of advice and consent by 
the Senate, necessary for someone to become a judge. We in the Senate 
and historically are not here to simply rubberstamp the President's 
nominees. Even as we give the President's nominees a thorough review, 
we are doing so in a very reasonable timeframe. During President Bush's 
administration, circuit nominees were forced to wait on average 247 
days for a hearing. President Obama's circuit court nominees have had 
their hearings on average in just 66 days. The same can be said of 
President Bush's district court nominees, who waited 120 days compared 
to only 79 days for President Obama's district court nominees.
  In addition, we have reported nominees in a more timely manner. 
Circuit court nominees have been reported on average in just 113 days 
compared to 369 days for President Bush's nominees. President Obama's 
district court nominees have been reported in just 128 days compared to 
148 days for President Bush's nominees.
  Furthermore, for those who still contend that President Bush's 
nominees are being treated unfairly, let me point out that we have 
reported a higher percentage of judicial nominees to the full Senate 
compared to this point in President Bush's Presidency. Seventy-six 
percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have been reported to 
date. At this point in President Bush's Presidency only 71 percent were 
reported.
  Having set the record straight on the work and progress of this 
committee, I will tell my colleagues why they should vote for Judge 
Droney to be a circuit judge for the Second Circuit.
  Upon graduation from the University of Connecticut School of Law, and 
that was in 1979, Judge Droney joined the Hartford firm of Day, Berry & 
Howard and was responsible for civil matters such as personal injury 
defense, product liability, antitrust and corporate disputes. In 1981, 
Judge Droney joined the law department of Aetna Life & Casualty for a 
brief period, working on investment matters.
  Following his time at Aetna, he joined the private law firm of 
Budkley & Santos, which specialized in complex civil and criminal trial 
work. In 1984, Judge Droney joined the Hartford law firm of Reid and 
Reige. He became a stockholder and officer in 1987 and was a member of 
the firm's trial department for 9 years.
  As U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut from 1993 to 1997, 
Judge Droney personally tried two cases, including the prosecution of 
the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan in Connecticut, and argued three 
appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  President Clinton nominated Judge Droney to be U.S. district judge 
for the District of Connecticut June 5, 1997. The Senate voted 100 to 0 
to confirm his nomination on September 11, 1997. As a U.S. district 
judge, he has presided over approximately 3,600 cases and over 
approximately 60 trials. All in all, Judge Droney's legal career 
includes 14 years in private practice litigation, 4 years as U.S. 
attorney, and 14 years as a Federal judge.
  The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary has rated Judge Droney with a unanimous ``well qualified'' 
rating. I ask my colleagues to support the nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Iowa. I appreciate his help in getting the Droney nomination 
moving forward. I do appreciate his help moving these forward.
  Today, I am especially pleased that the Senate will have the 
opportunity to vote on the nomination of Judge Christopher Droney of 
Connecticut to fill a longstanding vacancy on the Second Circuit, which 
handles appeals from Federal courts in Vermont, Connecticut and New 
York. Senator Blumenthal deserves special praise for his efforts to 
move this nomination through the Committee process. Both Senator 
Blumenthal and Senator
Lieberman support this nomination.
  I thank the majority leader for securing a vote on this nomination. I 
have been urging a vote on this consensus nominee for weeks; his 
nomination has been stalled and has been repeatedly skipped over for no 
good reason. Despite the long standing judicial emergency, Senate 
Republicans have refused until now to consent to take up Judge Droney's 
nomination, delaying the Senate from considering it for more than 4 
months.
  Judge Droney will fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Second 
Circuit, a vacancy that has existed for well over 2 years. The 
Republican members of the Judiciary Committee opposed President Obama's 
first nominee to fill this vacancy and effectively ended the nomination 
of Judge Bob Chatigny when they voted against him on a party-line basis 
last year and insisted that his nomination be returned to the President 
without Senate confirmation. I regret that because I know Judge 
Chatigny to be an outstanding Federal district court judge and am sure 
he would have been an outstanding circuit judge, as well. That 
opposition was not only unfair to Judge Chatigny, but it served to 
perpetuate this vacancy for an additional year.
  Judge Droney's nomination was considered at a hearing of the 
Judiciary Committee in June and then reported unanimously by the 
Committee to the Senate in July. It has been needlessly stalled since 
then, despite the fact that all Republican, as well as all Democratic, 
members of the Committee support this nomination. Now that the 
Republican leadership is finally allowing consideration of this 
nomination after a needless, additional 4-month delay, I am certain the 
Senate will act to confirm Judge Droney.
  Judge Droney is an experienced jurist with nearly 15 years of 
experience as a Federal judge in the District of Connecticut, a court 
to which he was confirmed by the Senate in 1997. He has handled 
thousands of cases, and has frequently sat by designation on the 
circuit court to which he is nominated. Prior to joining the Federal 
bench, Judge Droney was the U.S. Attorney for the District of 
Connecticut, where he helped the office achieve over 150 gang-related 
convictions and received national recognition for his efforts to 
support community crime-prevention programs. He spent 14 years as a 
litigator in private practice, and was mayor of West Hartford, 
Connecticut. Judge Droney received the highest possible rating from the 
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, 
unanimously ``well qualified.'' As I have already noted, he is 
supported by both his home State Senators.
  While we will vote tonight on Judge Droney's nomination, I am 
disappointed that the Senate Republican leadership would not agree to a 
vote on the other 22 judicial nominees waiting for final Senate action. 
All of the judicial nominees on the Senate calendar are qualified and 
have the support of their home State Senators. They include other 
judicial emergency vacancies. One of those and one on which I have been 
urging immediate action would be filled by a vote on the nomination of 
Morgan Christen of Alaska. She is nominated to fill one of the many 
vacancies on the Ninth Circuit. Her nomination, too, was reported 
unanimously and has the support of her home state Senators--one a 
Republican, the other a Democrat. The almost 2 months that action on 
her nomination has been delayed is inexcusable and damaging.
  We continue to hear from chief judges about the overburdened courts 
in their districts and circuits. Most recently, we heard from Chief 
Judge Audrey Collins of the Central District of California and Chief 
Judge Anne Conway of the Middle District of Florida. In a recent letter 
to Senate leaders, Bill Robinson, the president of the American Bar 
Association, warned of the detrimental effect of excessive vacancies 
and high caseloads. Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Chief Justice

[[Page 18189]]

Roberts, the Attorney General and the White House counsel have also 
warned of the serious problems created by persistent judicial 
vacancies. This is an issue affecting millions of hardworking Americans 
who are denied justice when their cases are delayed by overburdened 
courts.
  Despite the high number of vacancies that has persisted throughout 
President Obama's term, some Republican Senators have tried to excuse 
their delay in taking up nominations by suggesting that the Senate is 
doing better than we did during the first 3 years of President Bush's 
administration. That is simply not true. It is wrong to suggest that 
the Senate has achieved better results than we did in 2001 through 
2003.
  As I have pointed out, in the 17 months I chaired the Judiciary 
Committee in 2001 and 2002, the Senate confirmed 100 of President 
Bush's Federal circuit and district court nominees. By contrast, after 
the first 2 years of President Obama's administration, the Senate was 
allowed to proceed to confirm only 60 of his Federal circuit and 
district court nominees. This lack of progress led to the longest 
period of historically high vacancies in the last 35 years.
  The 58 circuit and district court nominations we have confirmed thus 
far this year is still behind the 68 we confirmed in the third year of 
President George W. Bush's first term. What makes the claim of progress 
even more misleading is that of the nominations confirmed this year, 17 
could have and should have been confirmed when they were reported by 
the Judiciary Committee last year. Instead, it took us until June of 
this year to consider and finally confirm those nominees. Even 
including these nominees on this year's total, the Senate's progress 
this year barely cracks the top 10 years for confirmed nominees in the 
last 35 years.
  The truth is that the actions of the Senate Republican leadership in 
stalling judicial nominations during President Obama's first 2 years 
led to confirmation of fewer judges, leading to high vacancy numbers 
across the country. The Republican leadership allowed the Senate to 
confirm only 47 circuit and district court nominations last year and 
set the modern record for fewest nominations confirmed with only 13 the 
year before--a total of 60 nominees confirmed in President Obama's 
first two years in office--leading to judicial vacancies that stood at 
97 at the start of this year. In stark contrast, at the start of 
President Bush's third year, 2003, judicial vacancies stood at only 60 
because the Senate had confirmed 72 of his circuit and district court 
nominations the year before, and 28 in his first year in office, a 
total of 100 in the 17 months prior to 2003 with a Democratic majority.
  The 100 circuit and district court nominations we confirmed in 
President Bush's first 2 years leading to a vacancy total of 60 at the 
beginning of his third year is almost a complete reverse of the 60 the 
Senate was allowed to confirm in President Obama's first 2 years, 
leading to nearly 100 vacancies at the start of 2011. Yet, even 
following those years of real progress, in 2003 we proceeded to confirm 
more judicial nominations than there were vacancies at the start of 
that year, and reduced vacancies even further.
  By the end of President Bush's first term, the Senate had confirmed 
205 district and circuit nominees. So far, the Senate has confirmed 
only 118 of President Obama's district and circuit nominees. To make 
real progress this year, the Senate needs to consider the other 22 
judicial nominations pending on the Senate calendar and the 4 
additional judicial nominees who can be reported by the Judiciary 
Committee in December after participating in our hearings in November. 
Senate action on those 26 nominees before adjournment would go a long 
way to help resolve the longstanding judicial vacancies that are 
delaying justice for so many Americans in our Federal courts across the 
country.
  With less than 4 weeks left before Senate adjourns for the year, we 
need to consider at least 7 judges every week in order to begin to 
catch up and erase the backlog that has developed from the delays in 
the consideration of consensus nominees caused by the Senate Republican 
leadership.
  We should not end another year with the Senate Republican leadership 
refusing to give final consideration to qualified judicial nominees and 
insisting that those nominations be returned to the President to begin 
the process all over again. Such delaying tactics are a disservice to 
the American people. The Senate should fulfill its constitutional duty 
and ensure the ability of our Federal courts to provide justice to 
Americans around the country.


                         Violence Against Women

  Mr. President, I am pleased that on Wednesday, Senator Crapo and I 
will introduce the bipartisan Violence Against Women Reauthorization 
Act of 2011. For almost 18 years, the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, 
has been the centerpiece of the Federal Government's commitment to 
combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
stalking. I am honored to help lead the effort to see it reauthorized.
  Since its passage in 1994 no other piece of legislation has done more 
to stop domestic and sexual violence in our communities. The resources 
and training provided by VAWA have changed attitudes toward these 
reprehensible crimes. They have improved the response of law 
enforcement and the justice system. They have provided essential 
services for victims struggling to rebuild their lives. It is a law 
that has saved countless lives and it is an example of what we can 
accomplish when we work together.
  Years ago, when I was a prosecutor in Vermont, I saw firsthand the 
destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence. Those were the days 
before VAWA when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a 
joke and there were few if any services for victims. I looked around 
desperately trying to find somewhere to help the victims. There were no 
services. I had to call people to volunteer. My wife and I oftentimes 
paid for the expenses of taking care of victims.
  It was the same everywhere around the country. We have come a long 
way since then, but there is much more that we can do. I would love to 
say there is no more domestic violence, and we do not need this, but we 
know there are thousands upon thousands of cases that have to be 
resolved.
  Over the last few years the Judiciary Committee has held several 
hearings on VAWA in anticipation of this reauthorization. We have heard 
from people from all over the country. They have told us the same 
things I hear from service providers, experts and law enforcement 
officials in Vermont: While we have made great strides in reducing 
domestic violence and sexual assault, these difficult problems remain. 
There is more work to be done.
  The victim services funded by VAWA play a particularly critical role 
in these difficult economic times. The economic pressures of a lost job 
or home can add stress to an already abusive relationship and can make 
it harder for victims to rebuild their lives.
  At the same time, State budget cuts are resulting in fewer available 
services. Just this summer, Topeka, KS, took the drastic, almost 
unbelievable step of decriminalizing domestic violence because the city 
did not have the funds needed to prosecute these cases. In other words, 
no matter how badly someone is beaten or abused or violated, they say: 
Sorry we cannot prosecute this case. We cannot afford to.
  We have to do better than that. How do we tell a battered, bruised 
and beaten victim: Sorry, change the locks on your door or try not to 
stay at home because they usually come back and do it again; but there 
is nothing we can do to help you? I cannot believe this country has 
come to that.
  Budgets are tight, but it is unacceptable to turn our backs on these 
victims. For many, the programs funded by the Violence Against Women 
Act are nothing short of a lifeline. I mean just that, a lifeline, 
because it has saved lives.
  The reauthorization that Senator Crapo and I will introduce on 
Wednesday will reflect the ongoing commitment of Congress to end 
domestic and sexual violence. It seeks to expand the law's focus on 
sexual assault to assure

[[Page 18190]]

access to services for all victims of domestic and sexual violence and 
to address the crisis of domestic and sexual violence in tribal 
communities, among other important steps.
  It also responds to these difficult economic times by consolidating 
programs, reducing authorization levels, and adding accountability 
measures to ensure that Federal funds are used efficiently and 
effectively.
  The Violence Against Women Act has been successful because it has 
consistently had strong bipartisan support for nearly two decades. I am 
honored to work with Senator Crapo to build on that foundation. I hope 
Senators from both parties will vote to quickly pass this critical 
reauthorization to provide safety and security for victims across 
America.
  All anyone has to do is read the transcripts of some of the hearings 
we have had on this issue. Where people like the distinguished 
Presiding Officer and myself and others who served in law enforcement 
or served as prosecutors--we know it goes way beyond just statistics. 
These are people who have been violated, who turn to their country, to 
their government for help, for safety. Don't let the Senate say: No. We 
are going to close the door in your face.
  I see the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut, and I will 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend and 
colleague, the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, for his 
kindness.
  Mr. President, as the Speaker sometimes says in the House, it is 
really a high honor and great personal privilege--with the emphasis on 
``personal''--to come to the floor of the Senate to give my strong 
support to the nomination of Judge Christopher Droney of West Hartford, 
CT, to serve as U.S. Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Second Circuit. I say it is a high honor because I have profound 
confidence based on Judge Droney's service as a private attorney, a 
U.S. attorney, and now for quite a while as a member of the district 
court in Connecticut. I have great confidence that he will make an 
excellent addition to this very important court, the U.S. court for the 
Second Circuit.
  I say it is a great personal privilege to be able to speak on behalf 
of his nomination because, as the occupant of the chair, my colleague 
from Connecticut, knows well, I have known Chris Droney for a long time 
now. He and his brother John have been very good friends of mine, great 
supporters, great sources of counsel, great friends. Both are graduates 
of the College of Holy Cross. The older brother John, who has less of a 
judicial temperament than the younger brother Chris--fortunately, we 
are approving Chris here for the court, not John. But John tells me, 
having been to Holy Cross, it is still politically acceptable to note 
that the graduates of Holy Cross consider themselves Crusaders. Both 
John and Chris Droney have been crusaders for what is right in the best 
sense of the word. I value their personal friendship. We have gone 
through a lot together, not just in politics, but I have seen their 
families grow.
  I have gotten to know their families. I know what they are made of. 
We have gone through the natural lifecycle tragedies of losing parents, 
et cetera, together.
  Chris Droney is a person of real depth and real ability and will make 
an excellent judge. So I stress the personal part because it adds a 
dimension that you and I both, Mr. President, have had the opportunity 
to have, which is, beyond the resume of Chris Droney, which I am going 
to mention in a moment, there is a person here, and he is a person who 
exemplifies what we mean when we talk about a judicial temperament, who 
we know has a great intellect, tremendous legal acumen, who we know is 
hard-working, and who we know brings common sense to everything he has 
done.
  I mentioned John Droney just because they go together as brothers, 
and there is nothing that matters more to John--the older and obviously 
less attractive of the two--than the pride he has in his brother's 
achievements, though John himself, of course, has been a very 
successful and distinguished member of the bar in Connecticut. So let 
me focus on the younger brother, who is the subject of our 
consideration today.
  I mentioned that Judge Droney attended the College of Holy Cross in 
Massachusetts, from which he graduated magna cum laude in 1976. He went 
on to attend the University of Connecticut Law School, where he was the 
notes and comments editor on the Law Review, and earned his J.D.--
doctor of jurisprudence--in 1979.
  After graduating from law school, he worked in private practice as a 
litigation associate handling a range of matters, mostly civil at that 
point. In 1983, he became a partner at the well-respected law firm of 
Reid and Riege in Hartford, where he represented clients in a wide 
range of civil matters, including commercial disputes, personal injury 
actions, property claims, and intellectual property matters. Judge 
Droney personally tried cases in the Connecticut Superior Court, the 
U.S. district court in Connecticut, and argued appeals in the 
Connecticut Appellate and Supreme Courts and in the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court for which he is being 
considered today.
  During this period, Judge Droney, like his brother, was involved in 
public life in Connecticut and served, in his case, on the town council 
of West Hartford as deputy mayor from 1983 to 1985 and as mayor from 
1985 to 1989.
  In 1993, President Clinton nominated Chris Droney to be the U.S. 
attorney for the District of Connecticut, where he served with great 
distinction and affect until 1997. As U.S. attorney, he initiated new 
cooperative law enforcement efforts against gangs, health care fraud, 
and financial fraud, in addition to personally trying some major cases 
in Connecticut and across New England and successfully arguing cases 
before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals--again, the court he is 
being considered for today in a vote that will occur shortly.
  Judge Droney was selected by then-Attorney General Janet Reno to 
serve on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys in 
which he was one of 17 U.S. attorneys selected to assist the Department 
of Justice on a range of pressing matters.
  In 1997, after 4 years as U.S. attorney, Chris Droney was nominated 
to the district court in Connecticut by President Clinton and I might 
say for the second time was confirmed unanimously by this Senate. Since 
then, as a district court judge, he has presided over numerous Federal, 
civil, and criminal trials and has consistently demonstrated sound 
judgment and great legal acumen in his many decisions covering an array 
of complex and sensitive matters. Judge Droney's career speaks to a 
profound commitment to the rule of law and the credibility of the legal 
system.
  I know there is a tendency to want to find out, is this judge a 
liberal, is he a conservative, is he a conservative? I don't think you 
can put a label on Judge Droney. Some might say he is a moderate. 
Others might say he is an Independent. I think he is known as somebody 
who is fair and will take every case as it comes along and decide it on 
the merits.
  So now he has been nominated to serve on the Second Circuit Court of 
Appeals. I want to personally express my thanks first to President 
Obama for submitting his nomination for this very esteemed court and 
secondly to our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, both of whom 
have been kind enough to be on the floor and speak on his behalf, 
Senator Leahy, who is chairman of the committee, and Senator Grassley, 
the ranking member. I was particularly grateful for Senator Grassley's 
comments about Judge Droney's capabilities. This is a good man who 
believes in the law and is tremendously experienced.
  Incidentally, he sat as a visiting judge on the Second Circuit Court 
of Appeals and has actually written, I believe, five opinions for the 
Second Circuit Court of Appeals already. So this is somebody who will 
hit the ground running with the support of the Senate this afternoon.

[[Page 18191]]

  I will repeat what I said at the beginning. It is not only a high 
honor and one that I don't take lightly but also a great personal 
privilege to urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Judge 
Christopher Droney of Connecticut to be a member of the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I ask that the order for the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow the senior 
Senator from Connecticut--rising now as the junior Senator from 
Connecticut--for the same purpose: to urge my colleagues to approve 
Christopher Droney as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I 
also would like to join in thanking the chairman and ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee for bringing this nomination to the floor.
  Incidentally, I wish to join in Senator Leahy's very eloquent remarks 
on the Violence Against Women Act, which I too will support after it is 
introduced. The reauthorization is very much needed, particularly at 
this point in our history, and I thank him for taking the leadership on 
this issue as on so many.
  I thank the senior Senator from Connecticut for championing this 
nomination, and I thank our colleague, the majority leader, Harry Reid, 
who is extraordinarily insightful and sensitive to the importance of 
judicial nominations since he is a lawyer himself--and a very skilled 
and able one--and has supported this nomination.
  Today is a very meaningful one for me personally, almost a magical 
and very momentous moment to stand in this historic and hallowed place 
and participate in the approval of a man whom I have known for more 
than 30 years to a position of the utmost importance, a position of 
trust and responsibility as important as any in this land, and a person 
of supremely well-recognized qualifications and experience for this 
position. Indeed, his life has been almost a preparation for this 
chapter in his career.
  I am privileged and honored to have been a colleague and friend and 
professional ally of his for more than 30 years. I have known him since 
his graduation from law school in 1979. We were in litigation together 
in private practice. When I was U.S. attorney for Connecticut and later 
attorney general, we worked together. Indeed, when he was U.S. 
attorney, following my service, we were partners in law enforcement in 
a number of cases. I had the direct and immediate experience of seeing 
many of his prosecutions, his intensity of commitment not just to a 
successful investigation and prosecution but his commitment to doing 
justice, which is the highest calling of a prosecutor--indeed, of any 
lawyer.
  When he became a judge, I had the honor of appearing before him, 
presenting witnesses, arguing cases, and to have firsthand experience 
again with the quality of his professional work.
  I have to admit my office as attorney general did not win every case. 
We lost some. But whether we won or lost, we emerged from those 
experiences with an unqualified respect for the quality of his fact-
finding, his scholarship and, again, his commitment to doing justice.
  He has demonstrated as a district court judge the qualities I know he 
will bring to the court of appeals: extraordinary scholarship and 
intellect, an adherence to precedent, a careful analysis of the law, a 
thoughtfulness and responsiveness in the questions he asks, and an 
insight into the factual record as well as the truthfulness of 
witnesses. He has what I consider to be the most important 
qualification for any judge, which is a capacity for growth, for 
learning and listening. He is, above all, a good listener, a sensitive 
and responsive listener. He has indeed the qualities that are 
exemplified by the man he will be replacing--Guido Calabresi--a judge 
known to the senior Senator from Connecticut as well as myself; indeed, 
a teacher of mine when I was at Yale Law School and I believe very 
possibly of the senior Senator as well--a person of exquisite 
sensitivity and sensibility and common sense. Those are the qualities 
of Christopher Droney: sensibility, sensitivity and common sense, and 
he shares with Guido Calabresi the grace of writing and sense of 
history that are so important to the Court of Appeals for the Second 
Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All debate time has expired.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I am proud to join in supporting this nomination. I 
wish him well, and I ask my colleagues to join in approving him when 
the vote is taken. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the nomination of Judge 
Christopher Droney.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I 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 Christopher Droney, of Connecticut, to be United States Circuit 
Judge for the Second Circuit?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. 
Landrieu), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Alaska 
(Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and 
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 209 Ex.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Begich
     Blunt
     DeMint
     Harkin
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker
  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 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________