[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9163-9167]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF MARY GEIGER LEWIS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
                     THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

  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 Mary Geiger Lewis, of 
South Carolina, to be United States District Court Judge for the 
District of South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last week, Senate Republicans announced 
they are going to shut down and block the confirmation process for 
qualified and consensus circuit nominees for the rest of the year. That 
is unfortunate, and it does nothing to help the American people or our 
courts. The courts continue to be overburdened while consensus nominees 
for vacancies that could be filled are being stalled. In some cases for 
nominees, we have two Republican Senators from the State supporting 
them and others where we have a Democratic and Republican Senator 
supporting them. They have gone through our committee--usually by voice 
vote--and they are noncontroversial. I have often spoken during the 
last three years of the foot dragging and obstruction by Senate 
Republicans with respect to this President's judicial nominations.
  Just last week we saw the Majority Leader file the 28th cloture 
petition to end another filibuster against another qualified judicial 
nominee. Last week it was a nominee from Arizona supported by Senator 
Kyl and Senator McCain. By their announcement, the Senate Republican 
leadership is saying that it will not agree to proceeding with debate 
and a vote on any of the four circuit court nominees voted on by the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. They include a nominee from Maine strongly 
supported by both Republican Senators from Maine, and a nominee from 
Oklahoma supported by the Republican Senators from that state, as well 
as a nominee from New Jersey and one for the Federal Circuit who was 
approved by all of the Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee, 
except for an unrelated protest vote. This plan to shut down the 
confirmation process is consistent with what the partisan Senate 
Republican leadership did in 1996, when it would not allow any circuit 
nominees to be confirmed, and again at the end of President Clinton's 
presidency, and can be contrasted with how Democrats acted in 1992, 
2004 and 2008. This is really a challenge to the Senators who have said 
that they will not support these filibusters and this kind of 
obstruction.
  It is hard to see how this new application of the Thurmond rule is 
anything more than another name for the stalling tactics we have 
already seen for months and years. I have yet to hear any good reason 
why we should not continue to vote on well-qualified consensus 
nominees, as we did up until September of the last two Presidential 
election years when we had a Republican President. That was supported 
by both Democrats and Republicans--to vote up through September. I have 
yet to hear a good explanation why we can't work to solve the problems 
of high vacancies for the American people. I will continue to work with 
the Senate leadership to try to confirm as many of President Obama's 
qualified judicial nominees as possible because I hear from judges all 
over the country how these judicial vacancies are burdening our courts, 
and American taxpayers are unable to get a court to hear their cases.
  I was heartened to see the senior Senator from Maine has said she 
will continue to work with the bipartisan Senate leadership in an 
effort to bring the Maine nominee to the First Circuit before the 
Senate for a confirmation vote. I trust that many Republican Senators 
who joined Senator Kyl and Senator McCain in opposing the filibuster of 
Justice Hurwitz will now join to oppose the filibusters of William 
Kayatta of Maine, Judge Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma, Judge Shwartz of 
New Jersey, and Richard Taranto for the Federal Circuit. I hope the 
Senators from South Carolina, whose State's nominee we consider today, 
will aid this effort just as we worked with them throughout the

[[Page 9164]]

process to ensure they were consulted by the President. In fact, I 
personally requested the President consult with Republican Senators 
when they were going to have a nominee from their home State. I hope 
they are going to show that same courtesy to other Senators.
  Senate Republicans were talking about shutting down the confirmation 
process from the beginning of this year, as I chronicled in my 
statement on February 7 on their obstruction and delay. They slow 
walked nominees who should have been confirmed last year into May of 
this year. And now, one month later, they announce that they are 
closing the gates on progress. The article by John Stanton in Roll Call 
on June 14 blew the whistle on their plan. The banner headline notes 
the ``GOP . . . Judge Blockade'' but it is not just beginning. It began 
from the moment the President was elected.
  I think this pattern of obstruction--and I say this more out of 
sadness than anything else--has been as transparent as the Senate 
Republican leader's statement that ``the single most important thing 
[Senate Republicans] want to achieve is for President Obama to be a 
one-term President.'' Just as they obstruct his qualified judicial 
nominees, they have also rejected virtually every effort this President 
has made to improve the economy and create jobs. They have become the 
party of no--no help for the American people, no to jobs, no to 
economic recovery, no to police, firefighters, and teachers, no to 
those students who are seeking help to pay for education, no to 
consumer protection, no to assisting State and local governments, no to 
the highway bill, and no to any more judges.
  Never mind that the American people rely on our courts for justice 
and that the courts are overburdened with vacancies and that we have 17 
judicial nominees voted out of the Judiciary Committee waiting for 
Senate confirmation.
  The idea that Senate Republicans would oppose a proposal, bill or 
nomination simply because it comes from this President is sadly no 
surprise. Republicans objected to extending the payroll tax cut even 
though they ultimately supported it. Republicans have also come to 
reject ideas and proposals that originated from their own party simply 
because this President supports them. This was the case with the 
individual mandate for healthcare, which was a Republican idea. So it 
should come as no surprise that Republicans have been obstructing 
President Obama's judicial nominees since the President first took 
office.
  Regrettably, the obstruction of judicial nominations is just one more 
example of Republicans saying no or simply going slow. They are saying 
no to the police, firefighters, teachers, students, consumer 
protection, and to those 50 States that want to go forward with highway 
bills.
  I hear from Vermonters--Republicans and Democrats alike--and they 
cannot wait while politics trump sound policy efforts in Washington. It 
is time for a reality check.
  While our economy is showing some signs of progress since the 
economic collapse four years ago, there is no doubt domestic job growth 
has not been as strong as we had hoped. Even though we have under 5 
percent unemployment in Vermont, we still have too many Vermonters 
looking for work. We have to continue looking for ways to spur job 
growth and economic investment in this country. Unfortunately, efforts 
in Congress to increase jobs, reduce unemployment, and support 
hardworking American families struggling to keep food on their tables 
and roofs over their heads meet with partisan obstruction too.
  While Congress delays, the clock is ticking down for the millions of 
Americans struggling to afford college and those struggling to pay back 
student loans once they have graduated. In less than two weeks, student 
loan interest rates will double, threatening to make student loan debt 
an almost insurmountable obstacle to accessing a college education. 
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans continue to filibuster commonsense 
legislation to address this looming deadline.
  In less than 2 weeks, millions of jobs will be put on hold when 
critical transportation programs, including funding for the highway 
trust fund, expire. Failing to pass a long-term transportation bill 
jeopardizes thousands of construction and development projects, 
impacting millions of jobs in every single State in this country. These 
programs impact every one of our states--which means more jobs lost in 
an already weak economy. The Senate has passed a bill to bring 
certainty to this fund for two years. We are still waiting for the 
House Republican leadership to act on that legislation.
  In a little over 1 month, important legislation to extend the 
National Flood Insurance Program will expire. The failure to 
reauthorize this important program puts at risk the sale of thousands 
of homes at a time when our housing market is still trying to recover. 
The program expired in 2008, and subsists now on a series of short term 
extensions. A five-year extension is pending before Congress; Senate 
Republicans have delayed consideration of that important legislation, 
too.
  Meanwhile, in this election year, Republicans in Congress are more 
intent on extending the Bush-era tax cuts that contributed to the 
financial crisis facing us today than in working together to move 
forward with reasonable policies to bolster economic growth and 
development. Extending to the wealthiest Americans a lower tax rate 
will not lead to job creation. These tax cuts have not led to job 
creation. Meanwhile, businesses continue to shutter their doors, 
costing communities jobs and economic development.
  I know I raised the question at the time when Congress voted to go to 
war in Iraq--a war I voted against--that they were going to do it by 
borrowing the money, the same in Afghanistan. Never before in this 
Nation have we gone to war and borrowed the money. We have had a tax to 
pay for it. So we lose $1 trillion in Iraq and at least $\1/2\ trillion 
so far in Afghanistan.
  If we want to cast partisan politics aside and have a consensus on 
meaningful jobs and job preservation legislation, we can do so. We have 
shown how to do it. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is one of the 
best examples of laws enacted in this Congress to promote our American 
economy and create American jobs. The Republican chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee and I in the Senate brought together Republicans 
and Democrats in both bodies, and we passed the Leahy-Smith America 
Invents Act. Unfortunately, it was only one of the few job-creating 
bills enacted in this Congress.
  The outlook this Congress need not be gloom and doom. Working 
together, we can enact meaningful legislation to close the loopholes 
that incentivize companies to ship jobs overseas. We can bolster the 
middle class, rather than the wealthiest one percent of Americans, by 
promoting job creation through small business development. We can 
ensure that students graduating from school are not saddled with 
student loans, the interest rates on which are simply too high to 
afford. We can do all this, today.
  I am disheartened that the Republican leaders in Congress have said 
they are simply done legislating for the year. The reality check is 
that Vermonters and other Americans of all States cannot wait. 
President Obama has signaled his commitment to moving forward with job-
creating legislation to get Americans back to work and to protect 
America's leadership in the global marketplace. We should move on that. 
Let the two candidates for President argue, let them state their 
positions, and let the voters decide which one they want to vote for. 
In the meantime, when we have legislation to put Americans to work, 
let's put politics aside and focus on the right policies, on the needs 
of the American people. All of us--Republicans and Democrats alike--
should act on behalf of the people who sent us. It is past time for 
that work to begin.
  Shutting down judicial confirmations makes no sense when the judicial 
vacancy rate remains almost twice what it was at this point in the 
first term of President Bush. Senate Republicans were successful in 
keeping it near or above 80 for three years. Nearly one

[[Page 9165]]

out of every 11 Federal courts is currently vacant. As a current report 
from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service confirms, not a 
single one of the last three presidents has had judicial vacancies 
increase after their first term. President Obama will likely be the 
first given partisan obstruction. The same recent CRS report notes that 
the median time circuit nominees have had to wait before a Senate vote 
has skyrocketed from 18 days for President Bush's nominees to 132 days 
for President Obama's. This is the result of Republican foot dragging 
and obstruction. Last year Senate Republicans again refused to act on 
19 judicial nominees and delayed consideration of those nominations an 
extra year.
  Three of the five circuit court judges finally confirmed this year 
after months of unnecessary delays and a filibuster should have been 
confirmed last year. The other two circuit court nominees confirmed 
this year were both subjected to stalling and a partisan filibuster by 
Senate Republicans. So when I hear some Senate Republicans say they are 
invoking the Thurmond Rule and have decided they are not going to allow 
President Obama's judicial nominees to be considered, I wonder how the 
American people can tell the difference. There are longstanding 
vacancies with nominees ready to fill them that Republicans are 
delaying unnecessarily for months. How do we tell the difference 
between the Republican obstruction--that was signaled when they 
filibustered President Obama's very first circuit court nominee, a 
nomination supported by the longest-serving Republican in the Senate 
and the nominee's home state Senator--and this new application of the 
Thurmond Rule?
  Last week we needed to overcome a filibuster to confirm Justice 
Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to the Ninth Circuit despite the strong 
support of his home state Senators, Republicans Jon Kyl and John 
McCain. Last month the Majority Leader had to file cloture to secure an 
up-or-down vote on Paul Watford of California to the Ninth Circuit 
despite his sterling credentials and bipartisan support. The year 
started with the Majority Leader having to file for cloture to get an 
up-or-down vote on Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh 
Circuit even though he was strongly supported by his Republican home 
state Senator. Every single one of these nominees for whom the Majority 
Leader was forced to file cloture was rated unanimously well qualified 
by the nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the 
highest possible rating. And every one of them was nominated to fill a 
judicial emergency vacancy.
  Did Republicans secretly invoke the Thurmond Rule before this year 
even started, when they departed from the Senate's traditional practice 
and would not consent to confirm 19 judicial nominees that were on the 
calendar at the end of last year? Up until last month, we were 
considering nominees that could and should have been confirmed last 
year. Given that we have only confirmed eight judicial nominees that 
were reported by the Committee this year and only two of them circuit 
court nominees it seems oddly premature to declare an artificial cut-
off of confirmations when our work this year has only just begun. Among 
those now being blockaded are nominees waiting since March of this 
year. So by delaying last year's nominees until May, Senate Republicans 
effectively prevented consideration of the Shwartz, Taranto and Kayatta 
nominations for months after being voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee. The Senate Republican leadership is not shutting off circuit 
nominees just after June 12, they are blocking nominees ready for 
consideration since early March of this year.
  In 2004, a Presidential election year, the Senate confirmed five 
circuit court nominees of a Republican President that had been reported 
by the Committee that year. This year we have confirmed only two 
circuit court nominees that have been reported by the Committee this 
year, and both were filibustered. By this date in 2004 the Senate had 
already confirmed 32 of President Bush's circuit court nominees, and we 
confirmed another three that year for a total of 35 circuit court 
nominees in his first term. So far, the Senate has only been allowed to 
consider and confirm 30 of President Obama's circuit court nominees 
five fewer, 17 percent fewer while higher numbers of vacancies remain, 
and yet the Senate Republican leadership wants to artificially shut off 
nominations with no good reason.
  There is no reason that the Senate could not vote on consensus 
circuit court nominees thoroughly vetted, considered and voted on by 
the Judiciary Committee. There is no reason the Senate cannot vote on 
the nomination of William Kayatta of Maine to the First Circuit, a 
nominee strongly supported by both of Maine's Republican Senators and 
reported nearly unanimously by the Committee two months ago. There is 
no reason the Senate cannot vote on the nomination of Judge Robert 
Bacharach of Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit, who was supported by 
Senator Coburn during Committee consideration. Senator Coburn said that 
Judge Bacharach would make a great nominee for a Republican president. 
So why is the Republican leadership playing politics with his 
nomination?
  There is also no reason the Senate cannot vote on Richard Taranto's 
nomination to the Federal Circuit. He was reported almost unanimously 
by voice vote nearly three months ago, and was supported by 
conservatives such as Robert Bork and Paul Clement. The Federal Circuit 
has never been controversial before. The one circuit court nominee who 
was reported out of Committee with a split roll call vote Judge Shwartz 
of New Jersey should not have been controversial, as seen by the 
bipartisan support she has received from New Jersey's Republican 
Governor Chris Christie.
  Every circuit court nominee that Senate Republicans currently refuse 
to consent to vote on have been rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by 
the nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, the 
highest possible rating. These are not controversial nominees. They are 
qualified and should be considered as consensus nominees and confirmed. 
By invoking the Thurmond Rule, Senate Republicans are blocking consent 
to vote on superbly qualified circuit court nominees with strong 
bipartisan support. This is a new and damaging application of the 
Thurmond Rule.
  Senate tradition has been that in Presidential election years, 
nominees receive a vote unless they do not have bipartisan support. In 
the past five presidential election years, Senate Democrats have never 
denied an up or down vote to any circuit court nominee of a Republican 
president who received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. 
In fact, during the last 20 years, only four circuit nominees reported 
with bipartisan support have been denied an up-or-down vote by the 
Senate and all four were nominated by President Clinton and blocked by 
Senate Republicans. While Senate Democrats have been willing to work 
with Republican presidents to confirm circuit court nominees with 
bipartisan support, Senate Republicans have repeatedly obstructed the 
nominees of Democratic presidents. In the previous five presidential 
election years, a total of 13 circuit court nominees have been 
confirmed after June 1. Not surprisingly, 12 of the 13 were Republican 
nominees. Clearly, this is not tit-for-tat as some contend but, rather, 
a one way street in favor of Republican presidents' nominees.
  The precedent for this decision by Senate Republican Leadership to 
shutdown the confirmation process for well-qualified consensus nominees 
is their prior actions obstructing President Clinton's nominees. 
Senator Schumer held a Judiciary Committee hearing in May 2002 to shed 
light on the harmful and damaging practice of stalling and obstructing 
qualified, consensus nominees that had occurred during the last years 
of the Clinton administration. Of course, there was the nomination of 
Bonnie Campbell of Iowa to the Eighth Circuit. Ms. Campbell was the 
first woman ever elected to be Attorney General of Iowa. She was also 
once named by Time Magazine as one of the

[[Page 9166]]

25 most influential people in America. She served as President 
Clinton's head of the Office on Violence Against Women. Despite having 
the support of her home state Senators, Senator Grassley and Senator 
Harkin, she never received a Committee vote after her hearing.
  How ironic that last week the junior Senator from Utah tried to claim 
credit for progress this year by comparing confirmations to the 1996 
session. The Senate Republican majority that year stalled most of 
President Clinton's nominees and would not allow the confirmation of 
any circuit court nominees. That is not a record to be proud of but a 
record that led to Chief Justice Rehnquist criticizing the Senate 
Republicans for their obstruction. This should not be a race to the 
bottom but that seems to be the intent of Senate Republicans.
  By contrast, if we look at the last two presidential election years, 
we will see we were able to bring the number of judicial vacancies down 
to the lowest levels in the past 20 years. In 2004 at the end of 
President Bush's first term, vacancies were reduced to 28 not the 75 at 
which they are today. In 2008, in the last year of President Bush's 
second term, we again worked to fill vacancies and got them down to 34, 
less than half of what they are today. In 2004, 25 nominees were 
confirmed between June and the presidential election, and in 2008, 22 
nominees were confirmed between June and the presidential election.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service recently released a 
report confirming that judicial nominees continue to be confirmed in 
presidential election years, except it seems when there is a Democratic 
President. In five of the last eight presidential election years, the 
Senate has confirmed at least 22 circuit and district court nominees 
after May 31. The notable exceptions were during the last years of 
President Clinton's two terms in 1996 and 2000 when Senate Republicans 
would not allow confirmations to continue. Otherwise, it has been the 
rule rather than the exception. So, for example, the Senate confirmed 
32 in 1980; 28 in 1984; 31 in 1992; 28 in 2004 at the end of President 
George W. Bush's first term; and 22 after May 31 in 2008 at the end of 
President Bush's second term.
  We have heard lots of excuses from Senate Republicans, who have tried 
to shift the blame for the judicial vacancy crisis to the President--
much as they try to blame him for the debt of European countries and 
other matters. They claim that the President has not made enough 
nominations. With last week's announcement that Senate Republicans 
refuse to confirm any more circuit court nominees, that excuse melts 
away. There are nominees ready to be confirmed and the reason they are 
not being considered is Republican obstruction. This is wrong. I wish 
they would not put politics ahead of the needs of the American people.
  The across-the-board obstruction of President Obama's nominees is not 
the product of a Thurmond Rule to limit confirmations at the end of 
presidential election years to nominees with bipartisan support. Rather 
this is a continuation of obstruction that began as soon as this 
President was elected. Senate Republicans insisted that filibusters of 
President Bush's judicial nominees were unconstitutional, yet they 
reversed course and filibustered President Obama's very first judicial 
nomination, that of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, a widely-respected 
15-year veteran of the Federal bench nominated to the Seventh Circuit 
and who had the support of his home state Senator, the longest-serving 
Republican in the Senate. Senate Republicans filibustered the 
nomination of Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia to the Fourth Circuit 
before she was confirmed 99-0, and the nomination of Judge Denny Chin 
of New York to the Second Circuit was filibustered before he was 
confirmed 98-0 after four months of needless delays.
  At a time when judicial vacancies remained historically high for 
three years, with 30 more vacancies and 30 fewer confirmations than at 
this point in President Bush's first term, I would hope the Senate 
Republican leadership would reconsider and work with us on filling 
these longstanding judicial vacancies to help the American people. We 
have well-qualified, consensus nominees with bipartisan support who can 
fill these vacancies. It is only partisan politics and continued 
tactics of obstruction that stand in the way.
  Is it any wonder why Congress is so unpopular? I take no comfort in 
the rise in the congressional approval rating--it is from 9 percent to 
17 percent. This is this kind of obstruction that turns off the 
American people. Stop the senseless obstruction--whether you call it 
the Thurmond Rule or not--and start helping the American people by 
easing the burden on them and the courts around the country.
  Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Mary Geiger Lewis to 
fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
South Carolina. Ms. Lewis has the support of her Republican home state 
Senator Lindsey Graham. Her nomination was voted on and received 
bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee over three months ago. I 
thank the Majority Leader for his work in securing a vote on this 
nomination.
  Mary Lewis has worked in private practice for over 25 years at the 
law firm Lewis & Babcock LLP, and has tried approximately 15 cases to 
verdict or final judgment. Born in Columbia, South Carolina, she earned 
her J.D. from the University of South Carolina and served as a law 
clerk to Judge Owens Taylor Cobb in the South Carolina Judicial 
Department. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary 
unanimously rated Ms. Lewis ``qualified'' to serve on the district 
court. I support Ms. Lewis and hope she will be confirmed.
  I also hope that Senate Republicans will reconsider their wrongheaded 
move to shut down the confirmation of consensus, well-qualified circuit 
court nominees. Given our overburdened Federal courts and the need to 
provide all Americans with prompt justice, we should all be working in 
a bipartisan fashion to confirm these nominees.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate turns to another 
judicial nomination, that of Mary Geiger Lewis, to be U.S. district 
judge for the District of South Carolina. Once again, for the third 
time this month, we have a nonconsensus nominee brought before the 
Senate. I oppose this nomination and urge all Senators to do likewise.
  We continue to confirm the President's nominees at a brisk pace. We 
already confirmed 149 nominees of this President to the district and 
circuit courts. We also have confirmed two Supreme Court nominees 
during President Obama's term.
  For those who claim this President is being treated differently, let 
me put that in perspective for my colleagues, with an apples-to-apples 
comparison. The last time the Senate confirmed two Supreme Court 
nominees was during President Bush's second term. During President 
Bush's entire second term, the Senate confirmed a total of only 119 
district and circuit court nominees. If Ms. Lewis is confirmed today, 
we will have confirmed 31 more district and circuit nominees for 
President Obama than we did for President Bush, in similar 
circumstances.
  During the last Presidential election year, 2008, the Senate 
confirmed a total of 28 judges--24 district and 4 circuit. With a 
confirmation today, we will match that number. We have already 
confirmed five circuit nominees, and this will be the 23rd district 
judge confirmed this year.
  Some have complained about the length of time to confirm these 
judges, focusing only on one phase of the confirmation process.
  In reality, the timeframes are comparable for nomination to 
confirmation. For President Bush, that time frame was around 211 days; 
for President Obama, it is 222 days.
  We take this time for review because our inquiry of the 
qualifications of nominees must be rigorous. At the beginning of this 
Congress, I articulated my standards for judicial nominees. I want to 
ensure that the men and women who are appointed to a lifetime position 
in the Federal judiciary are

[[Page 9167]]

qualified to serve. Factors I consider important include intellectual 
ability, respect for the Constitution, fidelity to the law, personal 
integrity, appropriate judicial temperament, and professional 
competence.
  Last year, I became increasingly concerned about some of the judicial 
nominations being sent to the Senate. In a few individual cases, it was 
very troublesome. The nomination of Ms. Lewis was one of those that 
gave me concern. When applying the standards I have articulated, it is 
my judgment that Ms. Lewis falls short and should not be confirmed.
  The Senate process for reviewing the professional qualifications, 
temperament, background, and character is a long and thorough process. 
These issues need to be fully examined; nominations are not just 
rubberstamped.
  At the conclusion of that lengthy process, a substantial majority of 
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee determined that this nomination 
should not be reported to the Senate.
  Nevertheless, we now have the nomination before us. Even so, there 
are reasons sufficient to oppose this nominee. Ms. Lewis has limited 
courtroom experience and little criminal law experience. Her responses 
in her questionnaire and hearing regarding her legal experience 
indicated her significant cases were handled more than 10 years ago and 
was more of a team effort than individual experience. At her hearing 
she was not prepared to discuss the legal principles involved in a case 
her firm took to the Supreme Court. For these reasons and others, I 
will vote nay on this nomination and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the 
time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. 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. TESTER. I ask that all time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Mary Geiger Lewis, of South Carolina, to be United States District 
Judge for the District of South Carolina?
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Casey), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), and the Senator from 
Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the 
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), 
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 122 Ex.]

                                YEAS--64

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lee
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Casey
     Harkin
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     McCaskill
     Moran
     Rubio
     Toomey
     Vitter
  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.

                          ____________________