[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4004-4007]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF DAVID NUFFER TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                            DISTRICT OF UTAH

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF RONNIE ABRAMS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                     SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF RUDOLPH CONTRERAS 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 nominations 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nominations of David Nuffer, of Utah, to be 
United States District Judge for the District of Utah; Ronnie Abrams, 
of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern 
District of New York; and Rudolph Contreras, of Virginia, to be United 
States District Judge for the District of Columbia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the Senate is about to vote on the 
nomination of David Nuffer to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the 
Federal trial court for Utah. This is not a nomination that should have 
been filibustered or required the filing of a cloture motion in order 
to be scheduled for consideration by the Senate. This is a nomination, 
reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over 5 months ago, that 
we should have voted on and confirmed last year.
  Today's consideration was facilitated when the majority leader and 
the republican leader came to an understanding last week. With a 
judicial vacancies crisis that has lasted years, and nearly one in 10 
judgeships across the Nation vacant, the Senate needs to work to reduce 
judicial vacancies significantly before the end of the year.
  Unlike the nearly 60 district court nominees of President Bush who 
were confirmed within a week of being reported by the Judiciary 
Committee during President Bush's first term, qualified, consensus 
nominees to fill vacancies on our Federal courts have been needlessly 
stalled during President Obama's first term. The five-month delay in 
the consideration of Judge Nuffer is another example of the needless 
delays that were occasioned by Republicans' unwillingness to agree to 
schedule the nomination for a vote. The application of the ``new 
standard'' the junior Senator from Utah conceded Republicans are 
applying to President Obama's nominees continues to hurt the America 
people all over the country who are being forced to wait for judges to 
fill these important Federal trial court vacancies and hear their 
cases. Justice is being delayed for millions of Americans.
  This nomination is one of the 20 circuit and district court 
nominations ready for Senate consideration and a final confirmation 
vote. They were all reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee after 
thorough review. All but a handful are by any measure consensus 
nominations, as is Judge Nuffer. There was never any good reason for 
the Senate not to proceed to votes on these nominations. It should not 
have taken cloture motions to get agreement to schedule votes on these 
qualified, consensus judicial nominations.
  Judge Nuffer has been serving over the last 17 years as a magistrate 
judge for the very court to which he was nominated by the President. By 
any sensible standard he should be confirmed. No ``new standard'' 
should be used to oppose his confirmation. Like Judge Nuffer, the other 
nominees awaiting votes by the Senate are qualified judicial nominees. 
They are nominees whose judicial philosophy is well within the 
mainstream. These are all nominees supported by their home State 
Senators, both Republican and Democratic. The consequence of these 
months of delays is borne by the millions of Americans who live in 
districts and circuits with vacancies that could be filled as soon as 
Senate Republicans allow votes on the judicial nominations currently 
before the Senate awaiting their final consideration.
  We must continue with the pattern set by last week's agreement. The 
Senate needs to make progress beyond the 14 nominations in that 
agreement and beyond the 20 nominations currently on the calendar. 
There are another eight judicial nominees who have had hearings and are 
working their way through the committee process. There was another 
needless delay when Republicans boycotted the Judiciary Committee 
meeting last week and prevented a quorum while insisting on a meeting 
to hold over nominees. We will overcome that and have those nominations 
before the Senate this spring.
  I hope the committee will hold hearings on another 11 nominations in 
the next few weeks. One of those nominees, Robert Shelby, is to fill 
the other vacancy on the United States District Court for the District 
of Utah. Whether he is included depends in large measure on the 
Senators from Utah.
  I have assiduously protected the rights of the minority in this 
process. I have only proceeded with judicial nominations supported by 
both home State Senators. That has meant that we are not able to 
proceed on current nominees from Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Florida, 
Oklahoma and Utah. I even stopped proceedings on a circuit court 
nominee from Kansas when the Kansas Senators reversed themselves and 
withdrew their support for the nominee.
  I have been discussing with the junior Senator from Utah whether he 
will support the nomination of Robert Shelby. I have yet to receive 
assurance that he will. His vote today on the Nuffer nomination may 
provide a clue.
  When the Judiciary Committee considered the nomination of David 
Nuffer, both Republican home State Senators, Senator Hatch and Senator 
Lee, strongly supported the President's nomination. This is another 
nomination on which President Obama reached out and consulted with 
Republican home State Senators. The Senators from Utah supported this 
nomination when the President made it last year and when after hearing 
and study it was voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee. They both 
serve on the Committee. Had either of them opposed this nomination, I 
would not have proceeded with it. They supported it. I hope this will 
not be another occasion on which either switches his vote from yes to 
no. That is another new practice and new standard that Senate 
Republicans have seemed to adopt.
  By working steadily and by proceeding with the regular consideration 
of judicial nominations, I hope the Senate ensures that the Federal 
courts have the judges they need to provide

[[Page 4005]]

justice for all Americans without needless delay. In the two most 
recent presidential election years, 2004 and 2008, we worked together 
to reduce judicial vacancies to the lowest levels in decades. In 1992, 
with a Republican President and a Democratic Senate majority, we 
confirmed 66 judicial nominees.
  Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are 
to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their 
day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to 
their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured 
plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, 
that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge hears the 
case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they 
should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.
  I went back and checked my recollection of how we considered 
consensus Federal trial court nominees in President Bush's first term. 
Nearly 60 were confirmed within a week of being voted on by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. By contrast there have only been two judicial 
nominees voted on so promptly since President Obama took office. I said 
at the time we were able to vote on the Alabama nominee supported by 
Senator Sessions, who was at that time the Committee's Ranking 
Republican member, and on Judge Reiss of Vermont, that I hoped they 
would become the model for regular order. Instead, they stand out as 
isolated exceptions to the months of delay Senate Republicans have 
insisted on before considering consensus Federal trial court nominees 
of this President. Today, the Senate will vote on the nominations of 
Ronnie Abrams and Rudolph Contreras to fill judicial vacancies in the 
U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the 
District of Columbia. These are both nominations that were reported 
unanimously by the Judiciary Committee over 4 months ago. They are 
among the many nominations that could and should have been voted on and 
confirmed last year.
  Today's votes are pursuant to the agreement reached by the majority 
leader and the Republican leader last week. Although I commend the step 
forward, the Senate must continue to vote on judicial nominations 
reported by the Judiciary Committee beyond the dozen encompassed by 
that agreement, if we are to make significant progress in reducing the 
vacancies across the Nation that number nearly one in 10.
  Just yesterday, I read an article about the crushing caseload that 
the Federal courts in Arizona currently face. I will ask unanimous 
consent to include a copy of the article, entitled ``Federal courts in 
Arizona face crushing caseload,'' in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks. In the article, the chief judge of Arizona's Federal trial 
court noted that they are in ``dire circumstances'' and that they are 
``under water'' from all the cases on their docket. The report notes 
that the Federal court not having its full complement of judges 
``lessens the quality of justice for all parties involved.'' They are 
relying on visiting judges from other courts around the country to 
assist with their court proceedings. In too many places around the 
country, our Federal courts have to rely on senior judges. Their 
dedication is commendable but they should not be carrying such heavy 
workloads.
  The needless 4-month delays in the consideration of Ronnie Abrams and 
Rudolph Contreras are just more examples of the delays that have been 
occasioned by Republicans' unwillingness to agree to schedule the 
nominations for a vote. The Senate must return to the practice of 
moving forward on consensus nominees and of ``build[ing] bridges 
instead of burn[ing] them,'' as Senator Coburn urged.
  The nominations today are two of the 20 circuit and district court 
nominations ready for Senate consideration and a final confirmation 
vote. They were all reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee after 
thorough review. All but a handful are by any measure consensus 
nominations, as are Ms. Abrams and Mr. Contreras. There was never any 
good reason for the Senate not to proceed to votes on these 
nominations. It should not have taken cloture petitions to secure 
agreement to schedule votes on these qualified, consensus judicial 
nominations.
  Ronnie Abrams is nominated to serve as a Federal trial judge on the 
Southern District of New York. She is an experienced attorney who spent 
10 years as a Federal prosecutor in the district to which she has been 
nominated. She served as Chief of the General Crimes Unit and Deputy 
Chief of the Criminal Division. Since 2008, Ms. Abrams has worked as 
Special Counsel for Pro Bono at the New York law firm Davis Polk & 
Wardwell, where she began her legal career after clerking for Chief 
Judge Thomas Griesa in the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of New York.
  Rudolph Contreras is nominated to serve as a Federal trial judge in 
the District of Columbia. Born to Cuban immigrants, Mr. Contreras has 
devoted his career to public service for the last 17 years. He worked 
as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia and in 
Delaware. He has risen to be the chief of the Civil Division of the 
U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, where he currently 
serves. The delay in considering his nomination recalls the 4-month 
filibuster against the nomination of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida. 
On that nomination, Senate Republicans delayed the vote for another 2 
days after cloture was invoked and the filibuster brought to an end. 
Judge Jordan was then finally confirmed as the first Cuban-American to 
serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
  The consequences of these months of delays are borne by the nearly 
160 million Americans who live in districts and circuits with vacancies 
that could be filled as soon as Senate Republicans agree to up or down 
votes on the 20 judicial nominations currently before the Senate 
awaiting a confirmation vote.
  The Senate must continue the actions allowed by last week's 
agreement. The Senate needs to make progress beyond the nominations 
included in that agreement, and beyond the 20 nominations currently on 
the calendar. There are another eight judicial nominees who have had 
hearings and are working their way through the Committee process. 
Several of those were needlessly delayed last week when Republicans 
boycotted the Judiciary Committee meeting and prevented a quorum after 
insisting on a meeting only to hold over nominees. There are another 11 
nominations on which the Committee should be holding additional 
hearings during the next several weeks. By working steadily and by 
continuing the regular consideration of judicial nominations 
represented by last week's understanding between the leaders, the 
Senate can do its part to ensure that the Federal courts have the 
judges they need to provide justice for all Americans without needless 
delay.
  Our courts need qualified Federal judges, not vacancies, if they are 
to reduce the excessive wait times that burden litigants seeking their 
day in court. It is unacceptable for hardworking Americans who turn to 
their courts for justice to suffer unnecessary delays. When an injured 
plaintiff sues to help cover the cost of his or her medical expenses, 
that plaintiff should not have to wait 3 years before a judge hears the 
case. When two small business owners disagree over a contract, they 
should not have to wait years for a court to resolve their dispute.
  Today's votes are steps in the right direction.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article I referenced be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From YumaSun.com, Mar. 17, 2012]

            Federal Courts in Arizona Face Crushing Caseload

                          (By Victoria Pelham)

       Federal courts in Arizona are still in ``dire 
     circumstances'' as an emergency declaration that was supposed 
     to help judges keep pace with a crushing caseload is set to 
     expire.
       The judicial emergency declared last year in the wake of 
     the shooting death of Chief

[[Page 4006]]

     Judge John Roll runs out Monday, but officials say the U.S. 
     District Court for the state still faces many of the same 
     challenges.
       ``The reason that existed last year still prevails this 
     year,'' Chief Judge Roslyn Silver said recently. ``We are 
     still in dire circumstances. We are under water.''
       The judicial emergency more than doubled the time allowed 
     for the government to bring a case to trial, giving the court 
     some relief from a rising caseload and judicial vacancies in 
     the district.
       Through ``lots of hard work'' and the help of visiting 
     judges, the district court has managed to stay within the 
     original 70-day time frame for cases to come to trial under 
     the Speedy Trial Act and has not had to invoke the 180-day 
     limit allowed under the emergency.
       But that balancing act could be thrown off, Silver said, 
     without the extra help the court has been receiving.
       ``If we don't have that, which is the fail-safe, then we're 
     in big trouble, because there's just no way we could handle 
     this caseload,'' Silver said.
       Arizona had the highest number of per-judge felony filings 
     in the nation in fiscal 2011, at 554 criminal felony filings 
     for each district court judge, according to the U.S. District 
     Court Judicial Caseload Profile for Arizona. That load was 
     fueled in part by the large number of immigration cases 
     handled in the court, experts said.
       The court also saw the total number of cases per judge grow 
     by 22 percent in the fiscal year, from 793 to 969, the 
     fourth-highest judicial caseload in the country, the report 
     said.
       It came as three of the 13 district judgeships allotted to 
     the state were vacant. Two were empty last January when Roll 
     was killed in the shooting spree at a Tucson supermarket that 
     killed five others and wounded 13, including former Rep. 
     Gabrielle Giffords.
       The judicial emergency was declared by Silver after Roll's 
     death. It was extended last February to this March by the 
     Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, in an effort to buy 
     the district some breathing room.
       President Barack Obama nominated two candidates in June to 
     fill the vacancies, but only one, Judge Jennifer Guerin 
     Zipps, has been appointed. The other nominee, attorney 
     Rosemary Marquez, has been stalled in the Senate.
       Brian Karth, the clerk for the district, said filling those 
     vacancies is the minimum needed. He claimed that, according 
     to judicial standards, the district's caseload is high enough 
     to warrant 10 additional judgeships.
       In the meantime, the district has had to rely on visiting 
     judges from other districts across the country, Karth said. 
     One to two judges come each week to assist with court 
     proceedings.
       ``We continue to struggle to keep within standards, and 
     everybody's basically forced to work harder and try to be 
     resourceful in pulling together resources, sometimes from 
     outside our district, to perform well,'' Karth said.
       ``There's certainly a wear and tear on anybody who has to 
     sustain that sort of a pace for lengthy periods,'' he said.
       Walter Nash, a trial lawyer and partner with Nash & 
     Kirchner in Tucson, said the ``crushing'' caseload in the 
     district is having a serious impact on trials.
       ``It lessens the quality of justice for all parties 
     involved,'' Nash said.
       Prosecutors have less time to prepare arguments, while 
     victims' cases aren't resolved ``as fast as they should be.'' 
     And judges could be rushed into a decision, meaning some 
     guilty defendants may be acquitted, he said.
       The need for new judges will be even greater when Speedy 
     Trial Act provisions are reinstated next week after the 
     emergency expires, Nash said.
       ``You get the best result . . . if everyone has time to 
     handle a case properly,'' Nash said.
       Silver agreed that slow trials affect all sectors of the 
     public and courts have an ``obligation to ensure justice for 
     all.'' But with limited resources, space problems in 
     courtrooms, large numbers of criminal cases and other 
     concerns, trials could suffer, with civil trials in 
     particular lagging behind or not getting the attention they 
     deserve.
       ``So far we're OK, but it will present a problem at some 
     time,'' Silver said. ``We are required to act fairly in every 
     criminal case, but there's only so much we can do.''
       The emergency cannot be renewed for six months after it 
     expires. Silver said that if things don't improve, officials 
     will have to consider the possibility of renewing.
       ``There was a reason for it last year, and I expect 
     there'll be a reason for it this year,'' she said.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, again, we are moving forward under the 
regular order and procedures of the Senate. This year, we have been in 
session for about 32 days, including today. During that time we will 
have confirmed 12 judges. That is an average of better than 1 
confirmation for every 3 days. With the confirmations today, the Senate 
will have confirmed nearly 74 percent of President Obama's Article III 
judicial nominations.
  Today, we turn to three more judicial nominations. Ronnie Abrams is 
nominated to be United States District Judge for the Southern District 
of New York. She graduated with a B.A. from Cornell University in 1990. 
She received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1993. Upon law school 
graduation, she clerked for Honorable Thomas P. Griesa of the United 
State District Court for the Southern District of New York. From 1994 
to 1998 she worked as an associate on civil matters at David Polk and 
Wardwell. In 1998, Ms. Abrams joined the United States Attorney's 
Office for the Southern District of New York as an Assistant United 
States Attorney in the Criminal Division. She handled a variety of 
criminal cases, including ones involving the sexual exploitation of 
children, bank robbery, immigration, identity theft and money 
laundering. She also served in the Narcotics, Violent Crime and Public 
Corruption Units. From 2004 to 2008, Ms. Abrams served in a supervisory 
role at the United States Attorney's Office, as either Deputy Chief or 
Chief of the Criminal Division. In 2008, Ms. Abrams returned to David 
Polk and Wardwell as Special Counsel for Pro Bono and represents those 
without means to represent themselves.
  Rudolph Contreras is nominated to be United States District Judge for 
the District of Columbia. He is a 1984 graduate from Florida State 
University and received his J.D. in 1991 from the University of 
Pennsylvania Law School. After graduating from law school, Mr. 
Contreras joined the litigation department of the law firm Jones Day. 
In 1994, he became an Assistant United States Attorney in the District 
of Delaware and the District of Columbia. In that capacity, he has 
represented the United States and its departments at both the trial 
level and appellate levels in civil actions. In 2003, Mr. Contreras 
became Chief of the Civil Division in the District of Delaware. There, 
he supervises 40 Assistant United States Attorneys, 6 Special Assistant 
United States Attorneys, and 31 support staffers.
  David Nuffer is nominated to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Utah. He received his B.S. in 1975 and his J.D. in 1978 
from Brigham Young University. He began his legal career as an 
associate at Allen Thompson & Hughes. From 1982 to 1992, Judge Nuffer 
practiced both criminal prosecution and criminal defense. From 1995 to 
2002, he represented municipalities, individuals and businesses in 
civil litigation. He also served as a part-time United States 
Magistrate Judge during this time. In 2003, he was appointed to serve 
as a full-time magistrate judge. In 2009, he became Chief Magistrate 
Judge. He has presided over 30 cases that have gone to verdict or 
judgment. While some may complain about the time it has taken to 
confirm Judge Nuffer, I would note that the President took over a year 
and a half--576 days--to submit this nomination, once the vacancy 
occurred.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate today will 
confirm U.S. Magistrate Judge David Nuffer to the U.S. District Court 
in Utah. Two of the five judicial positions on that busy court have 
been vacant for some time, and Judge Nuffer will be a welcome addition.
  Judge Nuffer has been involved in virtually all aspects of the legal 
community in Utah. He was in private practice for more than 20 years 
and has been an adjunct professor at Brigham Young University's J. 
Reuben Clark Law School since 2001. He has chaired the Utah Judicial 
Conduct Commission and served on advisory and study committees, task 
forces, and councils appointed by the Utah Supreme Court. This 
diversity of experience and commitment to both the bar and the bench 
make him well qualified to join the U.S. District Court.
  Judge Nuffer has also worked to promote the rule of law 
internationally, as a consultant and lecturer with the Ukraine Rule of 
Law Project. I was pleased last year to meet with a group of judges 
from Ukraine who were in the United States, both Washington and in 
Utah, as part of this educational program. Our independent judicial 
system and commitment to the rule of law is unparalleled anywhere in 
the world.

[[Page 4007]]

  I also want to note Judge Nuffer's efforts to promote access to the 
courts through technology. He has definitely been ahead of the curve on 
this issue. Back in the 1990s, Judge Nuffer directed the Utah 
Electronic Law Project and served on the Utah Supreme Court's Ad Hoc 
Committee on Access to Electronic Court Records. As Chairman of the 
Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, I appreciate how such cutting 
edge efforts can benefit all Americans at low cost.
  As I travel throughout Utah talking to lawyers and judges, the 
unanimous opinion is that Judge Nuffer has the experience, temperament, 
and integrity to be a great Federal judge. It was no surprise when the 
American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating. I 
thank my colleagues for their support of this fine nominee.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would note, on this side, at least--I know we have to 
have a rollcall on this first nominee. I will have no objection if 
there are voice votes on the next two. That would be up to others. But 
on the first one I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of David Nuffer, of Utah, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Utah.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nevada (Mr. Heller) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 57 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     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
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     DeMint
     Lee
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Heller
     Kirk
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be now be 
2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the 
Abrams nomination.
  Who yields time?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we expect this to be the last vote. I am 
told that we have worked something out so the next judge we can do by 
voice. This will be the last vote of the week.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I am honored to offer my strong 
support for the nomination of Ronnie Abrams to the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of New York. I also want to 
thank President Obama for acting on my recommendation and nominating 
another superbly qualified woman jurist to the Federal bench.
  I have had the privilege of knowing Ms. Abrams for many years. I know 
her as a fairminded woman of great integrity. Throughout her 
distinguished legal career, she has proven herself as an exceptional 
attorney. As Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the United 
States Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York, she 
supervised hundreds of prosecutions, including violent crime, organized 
crime, white-collar crime, public corruption, drug trafficking, and 
crimes against children.
  Her record shows her commitment to justice. I can tell you she has a 
deep and sincere commitment to public service. There is no question 
that Ms. Abrams is extremely well qualified and well suited to be a 
Federal judge.
  I strongly believe our Nation needs more women such as her serving on 
the Federal judiciary, an institution that I believe needs more 
exceptional women. I believe it is incredibly important that we do 
reach the point of balance in the judiciary. I recommend her most 
highly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Ronnie Abrams, of New York, to be United States District Judge for 
the Southern District of New York?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nevada (Mr. Heller) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Ex.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     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
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     DeMint
     Lee
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Heller
     Kirk
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the nomination 
of Rudolph Contreras, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge 
for the District of Columbia.
  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.

                          ____________________