[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3878-3882]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 F_____
                                 

NOMINATION OF JAMES EMANUEL BOASBERG TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  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 James Emanuel Boasberg, 
of

[[Page 3879]]

the District of Columbia, to be United States District Judge.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
of debate, equally divided and controlled between the two leaders and 
their designees.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will finally consider a 
judicial nomination I have been talking about since last year. Judge 
Boasberg is one of four nominees to the vacancies that have plagued the 
district court for the District of Columbia, this Nation's Capital for 
some time. This is another of the nominations that could--and in my 
view should--have been considered and confirmed last year. Instead, it 
was unnecessarily returned to the President without final Senate action 
despite the nominee's qualifications and the needs of the American 
people to have judges available to hear cases in the Federal courts. 
The President has had to renominate Judge Boasberg, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee has had to reconsider him and now, finally, the 
Senate is being allowed to consider him.
  I suspect the Senate will now confirm him unanimously or nearly so. 
Judge Boasberg has outstanding credentials. He was appointed to be a 
judge in DC by President George W. Bush in 2002. He has a wealth of 
experience, having presided over approximately 500 cases. He is a 
former assistant U.S. attorney, and received the highest peer review 
rating of well qualified from the Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary of the American Bar Association.
  Yet as we proceed with this nomination, Senate Republicans have 
objected to proceeding to the nomination of Amy Jackson. Both Judge 
Boasberg and Ms. Jackson were reported without opposition by the 
Judiciary Committee last year and, again, earlier this year. I have 
spoken about the vacancies in the District of Columbia on numerous 
occasions, including as recently as last week. I noted the criticism 
from Chief Judge Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Columbia. Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senate leaders last November 
urging action by the Senate to fill the vacancies that exist on the 
district court for the District of Columbia. We could and should have 
acted on both these nominations last year in response to that request. 
They were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last year. 
These two judicial nominees to fill longstanding vacancies have been 
waiting too long for final consideration by the Senate.
  While I am glad we are ending the wait for Judge Boasberg, the 
refusal to proceed on the Jackson nomination is just another example of 
the needless delays on considering outstanding nominees. Ms. Jackson is 
a former assistant U.S. attorney with outstanding credentials and 
experience. She, too, received the Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary of the American Bar Association's highest peer review rating 
of well qualified. Representative Norton has called her one of the top 
practitioners in one of the District's top law firms, and has strongly 
endorsed her nomination.
  In addition to Judge Boasberg, there are still 10 judicial nominees 
left waiting for Senate consideration having been reviewed by the 
Judiciary Committee: nominees to fill two judicial emergency vacancies 
in New York, a judicial emergency vacancy on the Second Circuit, a 
judicial emergency vacancy in California and vacancies on the Federal 
and DC Circuit, a vacancy in Oregon, and two vacancies in Virginia. 
They should be debated and confirmed without delay as well. I urge the 
Senate leadership to proceed to debate and vote on them before the 
upcoming recess. We should be working to clear the calendar before the 
recess and not unnecessarily extend these vacancies. That is what a 
return to regular order entails.
  The Judiciary Committee is holding hearings every 2 weeks and we hope 
finally to begin to bend the curve and start to lower judicial 
vacancies across the country.We can do that if the Senate continues to 
consider judicial nominations in regular order as they are reported by 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Federal judicial vacancies around the country still number too many, 
and they have persisted for too long. That is why Chief Justice 
Roberts, Attorney General Holder, White House Counsel Bob Bauer and 
many others--including the President of the United States--have spoken 
out and urged the Senate to act.
  Nearly one out of every nine Federal judgeships remains vacant. This 
puts at serious risk the ability of all Americans to have a fair 
hearing in court. The real price being paid for these unnecessary 
delays is that the judges that remain are overburdened and the American 
people who depend on them are being denied hearings and justice in a 
timely fashion. When Chief Judge Lamberth wrote to Senator Reid and 
Senator McConnell last November, he noted that Senate action to fill 
the vacancies in DC was needed so that ``the citizens of the District 
of Columbia and the Federal Government and other litigants'' who rely 
on the Court could receive ``the high quality of justice they 
deserve.'' The Chief Judge wrote about the ``severe impact'' these 
judicial vacancies were having and observed that the ``challenging 
caseload'' of the court ``includes many involving national security 
issues, as well as other issues of national significance.''
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Chief Judge's letter be 
printed in the record at the end of my statement.
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end 
of my statement recent articles from the Palm Beach Post and the 
Associated Press about the delays in judicial confirmation and some 
additional examples of difficulties being caused. The Florida paper 
reports on the crisis in south Florida and the watch list for Federal 
courts with high caseloads and high vacancies. The Associated Press 
report is on the situation in Rhode Island where dozens of cases have 
had to be reassigned to judges in New Hampshire and Massachusetts 
because the Senate continues to delay consideration of the nomination 
of Jack McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  (see exhibits 1 and 2.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Regrettably, the progress we made during the first 2 years 
of the Bush administration has not been duplicated, and the progress we 
made over the 8 years from 2001 to 2009 to reduce judicial vacancies 
from 110 to a low of 34 was reversed. The vacancy rate we reduced from 
10 percent at the end of President Clinton's term to less than 4 
percent in 2008 has now risen back to over 10 percent. In contrast to 
the sharp reduction in vacancies we made during President Bush's first 
2 years when the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed 100 of his 
judicial nominations, only 60 of President Obama's judicial nominations 
were allowed to be considered and confirmed during his first 2 years. 
We have not kept up with the rate of attrition, let alone brought the 
vacancies down. By now they should have been cut in half. Instead, they 
continue to hover around 100. After tonight's confirmation, they will 
still number 96.
  The Senate must do better. The Nation cannot afford further delays by 
the Senate in taking action on the nominations pending before it. 
Judicial vacancies on courts throughout the country hinder the Federal 
judiciary's ability to fulfill its constitutional role. They create a 
backlog of cases that prevents people from having their day in court. 
This is unacceptable.
  We can consider and confirm this President's nominations to the 
Federal bench in a timely manner. President Obama has worked with 
Democratic and Republican home State Senators to identify superbly 
qualified, consensus nominations. The nominations on the Executive 
Calendar should not

[[Page 3880]]

be controversial. They all have the support of their home State 
Senators, Republicans and Democrats. All have a strong commitment to 
the rule of law and a demonstrated faithfulness to the Constitution.
  During President Bush's first term, his first 4 tumultuous years in 
office, we proceeded to confirm 205 of his judicial nominations. We 
confirmed 100 of those during the 17 months I was chairman during 
President Bush's first 2 years in office. So far in President Obama's 
third year in office, the Senate has only been allowed to consider 72 
of his Federal circuit and district court nominees. We remain well 
short of the benchmark we set during the Bush administration. When we 
approach it we can reduce vacancies from the historically high levels 
at which they have remained throughout these first 3 years of the Obama 
administration to the historically low level we reached toward the end 
of the Bush administration.
  I have thanked the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Grassley, for his cooperation this year. I was pleased to see 
him taking credit for what he called ``our rapid pace.'' I was 
encouraged by his commitment to ``continue to move consensus nominees 
through the confirmation process.'' That should be good news to Ms. 
Jackson and the other judicial nominees now available and ready to be 
confirmed without further delay.
  My friend from Iowa is fond of pointing to the vacancies for which 
there are not nominees. Of course, some of that is attributable to a 
lack of cooperation by certain home State Senators with the White 
House. Nonetheless, I agree with the Senator from Iowa that we can do 
little about confirming nominations we do not have. What we can do is 
proceed expeditiously with the qualified nominations the President has 
sent to the Senate.
  In that regard, I would temper my friend's extolling our achievements 
this year by observing that every judge confirmed so far this year 
could and should have been confirmed last year. Every one of them was 
unanimously reported last year and would have been confirmed had 
Republicans not objected and created a new rule of obstruction after 
midterm elections. We have long had the ``Thurmond rule'' to describe 
how Senator Thurmond shut down the confirmation process in advance of 
the 1980 Presidential election. Last year's shutdown was something new. 
I cannot remember a time when so many consensus nominees were left 
without Senate action at the midterm point of a Presidency. That new 
level of obstruction has contributed to our being so far behind and 
judicial vacancies having been perpetuated at so high a level for too 
long.

                               Exhibit 1

                                               U.S. District Court


                                 for the District of Columbia,

                                 Washington, DC, November 4, 2010.
     Re Judicial Vacancies--United States District Court for the 
         District of Columbia

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell: On behalf of the 
     judges of the United States District Court for the District 
     of Columbia, I request that the Senate act soon to fill the 
     vacancies that exist at our Court.
       Of our 15 authorized judgeships, we currently have four 
     vacancies. One has been vacant since January 2007. With the 
     additional vacancy that will result from Judge Ricardo M. 
     Urbina's assumption of senior status, effective January 31, 
     2011, this Court faces the prospect of having only 10 of its 
     15 authorized judgeships filled. The severe impact of this 
     situation already is being felt and will only increase over 
     time. The challenging caseload that our Court regularly 
     handles includes many involving national security issues, as 
     well as other issues of national significance. A large number 
     of these complex, high-profile cases demand significant time 
     and attention from each of our judges.
       Without a complement of new judges, it is difficult to 
     foresee how our remaining active judges will be able to keep 
     up with the heavy volume of cases that faces us. A 33 percent 
     vacancy ratio is quite extraordinary.
       Two nominees (Beryl Howell and Robert Wilkins) have been 
     reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and await 
     floor votes; two nominees (James Boasberg and Amy Jackson) 
     have had their hearings and hopefully will soon be reported 
     out of Committee.
       We hope the Senate will act quickly to fill this Court's 
     vacancies so the citizens of the District of Columbia and the 
     Federal Government and other litigants who appear before us 
     continue to enjoy the high quality of justice they deserve.
           Sincerely,
                                                Royce C. Lamberth,
     Chief Judge.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                [From the Palm Beach Post, Mar. 6, 2011]

Federal Judge Vacancies: Confirmation Lag Keeping Benches Cool in South 
                                Florida

                           (By Jane Musgrave)

       U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley has been waiting 741 
     days--about two years--for his replacement to be named.
       Although the genial 67-year-old former Palm Beach County 
     circuit judge planned to remain on the bench in a limited 
     capacity, he said the delay is worrisome.
       ``One of the great concerns for the court as an institution 
     is that over time we'll have other vacancies, and if the 
     vacancies aren't filled in a timely manner,'' legal logjams 
     eventually will prevent people from getting their day in 
     court, he said.
       With two of his colleagues--U.S. District Judges Alan Gold 
     in January and Paul Huck in July--joining him on what is 
     known as senior status, his concern is more than academic.
       The glacial speed of the U.S. Senate's judicial 
     confirmation process, blamed on partisan politics, has 
     hobbled courts throughout the country.
       In January, a judicial emergency was declared in Arizona. 
     To help judges deal with burgeoning immigration and border 
     security cases, the declaration lets them waive 70-day 
     speedy-trial requirements and not bring criminal defendants 
     to trial for as long as six months.
       Although spurred by the shooting rampage that left Chief 
     Judge John Roll dead and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords 
     wounded, the situation in Arizona was dire even before Roll's 
     death.
       South Florida is in danger of a similar crisis. Like 26 
     district and appellate courts throughout the country, it is 
     on a federal watch list because of the high caseloads and 
     disappearing judges.
       Today, a person filing a civil lawsuit in federal court can 
     expect to wait two years to get to trial, according to the 
     Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Such delays have 
     widespread and unintended ripple effects, said Ian Millhiser, 
     a policy analyst for the left-leaning Center for American 
     Progress.
       ``It has serious consequences for business,'' he said. 
     ``Imagine you're a corporation with a multimillion- dollar 
     lawsuit hanging over your head. Even if you think you can win 
     it, you're not going to be hiring until it is resolved, and 
     it could take years.''
       The number of seats that have remained vacant since 
     President Obama took office two years ago is unprecedented, 
     he said. Obama's predecessors enjoyed confirmation rates as 
     high as 93 percent, but less than 60 percent of his nominees 
     have been confirmed. George W. Bush had a 76 percent 
     confirmation rate during his first two years in office.
       Though the Senate confirmed six federal judges last month, 
     98 seats are vacant, says the Office of U.S. Courts. More 
     vacancies are expected.
       ``Federal judges are now retiring faster than they are 
     being replaced,'' Millhiser said.
       Further, he said, 81 of the vacancies are district 
     judgeships, appointments that have historically never 
     generated controversy. Unlike appellate judges, who often 
     establish law, the work of the lower-court judges--drug and 
     immigration violations, job discrimination and defective-
     product lawsuits--is generally routine.
       ``It's not ideological,'' he said. 'There's no Democratic 
     or Republican way to set a summary judgment hearing.''
       Rachel Brand, who oversaw judicial appointments as an 
     associate counsel to Bush, pointed out that Bush made 
     judicial appointments a priority. Although Obama initially 
     made a flurry of nominations, it slowed, she said in a panel 
     discussion in November sponsored by the American Constitution 
     Society for Law and Policy. Of the 98 vacancies, only 46 
     nominations are pending.
       Other priorities, such as getting two U.S. Supreme Court 
     justices confirmed, seemed to distract Obama's 
     administration, she said.
       Further, she said the delays can't be blamed solely on 
     Senate Republicans. ``You'd think (59) senators could do 
     something,'' she said of the Democratic majority that existed 
     until the party lost six seats in the November elections.
       The problem, Millhiser said, is that Senate rules empower 
     ``the extreme fringes.'' Though Senate Majority Leader Harry 
     Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., 
     recently cut a deal to speed nominees through floor votes, 
     that agreement means nothing if more ideological wills 
     prevail.
       ``The Senate rules allow an single senator to allow 30 
     hours of debate,'' he said. ``The

[[Page 3881]]

     extreme fringe can prevent a significant amount of progress. 
     It creates a minority-rule situation.''
       Senate Judiciary Committee approval of Kathleen Williams, 
     the lawyer tapped to replace Hurley, has been delayed despite 
     the bipartisan support she received from Florida Sens. Marco 
     Rubio, a Republican, and Bill Nelson, a Democrat. Obama 
     submitted her name to the committee in July.
       Local attorneys said they are flummoxed by the delay in 
     confirming Williams, the federal public defender for 
     Florida's Southern District since 1995.
       Other candidates have enjoyed bipartisan support. Of the 38 
     candidates who cleared the Judiciary Committee last year, 29 
     were endorsed unanimously but never presented for 
     confirmation to the full Senate, Millhiser said.
       Among local attorneys, the conclusion seems obvious: ``it's 
     just partisan politics,'' Val Rodriguez said.
       Miami attorney Neal Sonnett, a former president of the 
     American Judicature Society, which focuses on promoting an 
     independent judiciary, agreed. Last year Republican senators 
     blocked the confirmation process, hoping they would seize 
     control of the Senate in the November elections, he said. Now 
     it appears some are intent on stalling nominations until 
     after the 2012 elections, when they hope to put one of their 
     own back in the White House, he said.
       So far, attorneys said they haven't seen lengthy delays in 
     getting cases heard and resolved in South Florida. Chief U.S. 
     District Judge Federico Moreno said the district is lucky 
     because seven senior judges still handle some cases. Further, 
     Hurley said, case filings have slowed, in part, because of 
     the economy.
       While he credits the 15 full-time judges with moving cases 
     quickly, attorney Ted Babbitt says eventually something has 
     to give.
       ``The average person is going to get hurt because they're 
     going to have to wait to have their cases heard,'' he said.
                                  ____


               [From the Associated Press, Mar. 7, 2011]

             RI Judge Holdup Sends 2 Dozen Cases to NH, MA

                          (By Ian MacDougall)

       Providence, RI.--Rhode Island's top federal judge says a 
     four-year judicial vacancy left open amid partisan bickering 
     in the U.S. Senate has prompted her court to take the unusual 
     step of reassigning more than two dozen civil cases to judges 
     in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
       In an interview, Chief Judge Mary M. Lisi told The 
     Associated Press the vacancy has left her and Rhode Island's 
     other federal judge, William E. Smith, with a growing 
     caseload that has begun to reach a critical mass.
       The vacancy ``has had a major impact on the business of the 
     court,'' Lisi said. ``We have an increasing caseload being 
     handled by only two people where three judges are 
     authorized.''
       Lisi said her primary reason for moving the cases was that 
     she worried a lag in rendering decisions at key points in the 
     litigation would leave plaintiffs and defendants in the 
     lurch. She said she chose to reassign cases with important 
     motions pending.
       ``Our job is to resolve cases and to do so in as timely and 
     efficient a manner as we can. And when our ability to do so 
     is hampered, I don't think that's good for any participants 
     in the process,'' she said.
       A third judge, Ronald R. Lagueux, who is a senior judge, 
     has volunteered to help to ease the burden on Lisi and Smith.
       The case reassignment is one example of a real effect and a 
     real cost, to travelling litigants, lawyers and judges of the 
     often-snarled judicial appointment process whose unknotting 
     U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts called for in 
     December.
       ``Each political party has found it easy to turn on a dime 
     from decrying to defending the blocking of judicial 
     nominations, depending on their changing political 
     fortunes,'' Roberts wrote in his 2010 report on the federal 
     judiciary. ``There remains . . . an urgent need for the 
     political branches to find a long-term solution to this 
     recurring problem.''
       Twenty-five of the Rhode Island civil lawsuits were 
     reassigned to New Hampshire and two to Massachusetts in late 
     January, about two weeks after President Barack Obama 
     nominated Jack McConnell, a Rhode Island trial attorney, to 
     the state's vacant judgeship for the third time. The 
     nomination has faced resistance from some Senate Republicans 
     and staunch opposition from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The 
     chamber claims McConnell's track record, which includes suing 
     former lead paint companies, evinces a bias against business 
     defendants.
       McConnell declined to comment on his nomination.
       In November 2007 almost a year after the vacancy opened 
     then-President George W. Bush nominated Lincoln Almond, a 
     federal magistrate judge in Rhode Island. His candidacy 
     fizzled after a lukewarm reception from U.S. Sens., Jack Reed 
     and Sheldon Whitehouse.
       Normally, cases are assigned to judges elsewhere, who 
     follow the rules of the originating court, only when all 
     judges in a given district recuse themselves. Lisi says the 
     current situation is unique in recent state history.
       Other districts facing stalled appointments have not yet 
     taken similar steps.
       However, Peter Oppeneer, court clerk for the Western 
     District of Wisconsin, said that court might need to look to 
     other districts for help if a vacancy there takes a long time 
     to fill. Some Senate Republicans have opposed Obama's nominee 
     to that judgeship, Louis Butler.
       The Rhode Island reassignment has generated some confusion 
     and consternation among state lawyers.
       George Babcock, who's suing on behalf of more than a dozen 
     clients in a foreclosures case transferred to New Hampshire, 
     says the move is upsetting to some of his clients and 
     potentially expensive. He says the court has told him the 
     case, if it goes to trial, will be heard in Concord, N.H.
       ``I want to work on my cases in my office, not in a Motel 
     6,'' Babcock said. ``And with all these clients, I'm going to 
     have to rent a whole wing at the Motel 6.''
       Other lawyers with reassigned cases say New Hampshire 
     judges have offered to travel to Providence. It is ultimately 
     up to each individual judge to decide where the case should 
     be heard, according to David DiMarzio, clerk for federal 
     court in Rhode Island.
       There are just over 2,500 civil cases and 205 criminal 
     cases pending in Rhode Island, according to court figures. Of 
     the civil cases, over 1,600 are part of multi-district 
     litigation that Lisi says the court accepted before realizing 
     it would be faced with an extended vacancy.
       For now, Lisi says, she does not plan to transfer more 
     cases to other districts.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am about to suggest the absence of a 
quorum, but I ask unanimous consent that when I suggest the absence of 
a quorum, the time be equally divided between both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, we will confirm yet another of 
President Obama's judicial nominees. After today's vote, we will have 
confirmed five judicial nominees in the last 5 legislative days. We are 
moving swiftly in committee and on the Senate floor. Notwithstanding 
our quick pace, we hear from some that we are not moving fast enough. 
As I have said before, our side will continue to work in good faith to 
process consensus nominees. But we will not place quantity confirmed 
over quality confirmed. These lifetime appointments are too important 
to the Federal judiciary and the American people to simply rubberstamp 
them.
  Today we will vote on Judge James Boasberg to sit on the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Boasberg is not the 
first individual nominated to fill this vacancy. This seat became 
vacant in May 2008, when Judge Thomas F. Hogan took senior status. 
President Bush nominated Jeffrey Adam Rosen in June 2008. He was 
unanimously rated well qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the 
Federal Judiciary. He had over 20 years of experience in private 
practice, principally involved in complex business litigation matters. 
He had more than 5 years of public service, having served as general 
counsel at the Office of Management and Budget and at the U.S. 
Department of Transportation. Despite his qualifications, Mr. Rosen's 
nomination languished in committee for over 6 months.
  While I am disappointed Mr. Rosen was not given any consideration, I 
am pleased to be able to support Judge Boasberg. He was nominated last 
June and had his hearing in September. He was reported out of committee 
last December, during the lameduck session, and the Senate was unable 
to complete

[[Page 3882]]

action on the nomination. The committee moved quickly on his 
renomination this year, reporting him out of committee last month.
  Judge Boasberg presently serves as an associate judge of the Superior 
Court of the District of Columbia. Following the Senate's unanimous 
confirmation, President George W. Bush appointed him to this position 
in August, 2002.
  Judge Boasberg earned his B.A., magna cum laude, from Yale College, 
his master of studies from Oxford University, and his juris doctor from 
Yale Law School. After completing law school, he clerked for the 
Honorable Dorothy W. Nelson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit. He then went into private practice, working as a litigator on 
complex business and white-collar defense matters.
  Judge Boasberg also served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the 
District of Columbia. There he prosecuted criminal matters and 
specialized in homicide cases. He has received a unanimous well 
qualified rating from the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary.
  I am pleased this seat is being filled with someone who has concrete 
knowledge of what it takes to be a judge, and I hope Judge Boasberg 
continues to work hard to serve the American people.
  I congratulate the nominee and his family on this important lifetime 
appointment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time 
on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.
  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 James Emanuel Boasberg, of the District of Columbia, to be United 
States District Judge for the District of Columbia?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), and 
the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 39 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chambliss
     Crapo
     Harkin
     Risch
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table.
  Under the previous order, the President shall be immediately notified 
of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________