[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10906-10910]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF JOHN THOMAS FOWLKES, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
              JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

  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 assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of John Thomas 
Fowlkes, Jr., of Tennessee, to be United States District Judge for the 
Western District of Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see the distinguished senior Senator from 
Tennessee on the floor, and I will make sure he has plenty of time to 
speak. If not, I will ask unanimous consent for extra time for him.
  Today we will vote on only 1 of the 16 judicial nominations reported 
favorably by the Judiciary Committee that have been stalled for no 
reason from receiving a Senate vote. Regrettably, Senate Republicans 
are following through on their partisan opposition to the President by 
seeking to slam the door on qualified, consensus judicial nominees who 
have bipartisan support. In doing so, they seek to take advantage of 
the delaying tactics that they have been employing for the last 3\1/2\ 
years. This is all to the detriment of the American people.
  I am disappointed that Senate Republicans are choosing politics over 
the needs of the American people and seek to justify their actions with 
a warped sense of payback. This is not the time for settling imaginary 
scores. Their self-interested approach is what contributes to the low 
opinion the American people have of Congress. What the American people 
and the overburdened Federal courts need are qualified judges to 
administer justice. They are not helped by these partisan games. 
Following the most extended period of historically high vacancy rates 
in the history of our district courts, nearly 1 in every 11 Federal 
judgeships remains vacant. This is more than twice the vacancy rate by 
this date during the first term of President Bush.
  This chart, available at http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
BushObama%20-%20Judicial%20-%207-10-12%20-%20Area%20-%201st%20term
.pdf, should help people understand how far behind we remain in filling 
the judicial vacancies to provide the Federal judges that the American 
people need to get justice in our Federal courts. This compares 
judicial vacancies during the first terms of President Bush and 
President Obama. It shows the stark contrast to the way in which we 
moved to reduce judicial vacancies during the last Republican 
Presidency.
  This chart shows that the Senate can do better because it has done 
better. During President Bush's first term we reduced the number of 
judicial vacancies by almost 75 percent. When I became chairman in the 
summer of 2001, there were 110 vacancies. As chairman, I worked with 
the administration and Senators from both sides of the aisle to confirm 
100 judicial nominees of a conservative Republican President in 17 
months.
  We continued when in the minority to work with Senate Republicans and 
confirm President Bush's consensus judicial nominations well into 2004, 
a Presidential election year. At the end of that Presidential term, the 
Senate had acted to confirm 205 circuit and district court nominees. By 
July 2004 we had reduced judicial vacancies to 29.
  By comparison, vacancies have long remained near or above 80, while 
little comparative progress has been made during the 4 years of 
President Obama's first term. There are still 77 vacancies as of July 
2012--that is more than 2\1/2\ times the number of vacancies at this 
point in President Bush's first term.
  Each day that Senate Republicans refuse because of their political 
agenda to confirm these qualified judicial nominees who have been 
reviewed and voted on by the Judiciary Committee is another day that a 
judge could have been working to administer justice. Every week lost is 
another in which injured plaintiffs are having to wait to recover the 
costs of medical expenses, lost wages, or other damages from 
wrongdoing. Every month is another drag on the economy as small 
business owners have to wait to have their contract disputes resolved. 
Hard-working and hard-pressed Americans should not have to wait years 
to have their cases decided. Just as it is with the economy and with 
jobs, the American people do not want to hear excuses about why 
Republicans in Congress will not help them. More importantly, they do 
not want to hear that the supposed justification is partisan. This is 
precisely the reason why Congress's approval rating among the American 
people is so low.
  The nonpartisan American Bar Association has been sounding the alarm 
for some time that we need to do better with respect to the judicial 
vacancy crisis. The president of the ABA wrote the Senate leaders again 
on June 20 urging them to work together to schedule votes for three 
consensus, qualified circuit court nominees awaiting Senate 
confirmation so that they may serve the American people. The response 
was more excuses from the Republican leadership rather than any 
positive action. In the past, the Senate has worked together to confirm 
consensus circuit court nominees, especially during times of high 
vacancies. For example, Senate Democrats confirmed 11 circuit court 
nominees of President George H.W. Bush in 1992. The only exception to 
the practice of confirming consensus circuit court nominees in 
Presidential elections years with high vacancies was when Senate 
Republicans shut down the process of a Democratic President in 1996. 
The Republican leadership is apparently planning to stick with its 
shutdown of confirmations just as it did in 1996 when they prevented 
the confirmation of circuit court nominees for an entire year-long 
session of the Senate. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
  Since May 31, Senate Republicans have consented to consideration of 
only five judicial nominees. That is a far cry from the 30 confirmed in 
the last months of 2004 at the end of President Bush's first term that 
brought his total of circuit and district court confirmations to 205. 
It is also a far cry from the 22 confirmed in the last months of 2008 
at the end of President Bush's second term. They are continuing the 
obstruction that has unnecessarily delayed confirmation of consensus 
circuit and district court nominees for months and resulted in our 
being more than 40 confirmations behind the pace we set in President 
Bush's first term.
  Like so many matters on which they have flip-flopped since the 
American people elected President Obama--everything from the individual 
mandate

[[Page 10907]]

for private health insurance that they originated and used to favor to 
the deficit reduction commission--they now contend that they are 
invoking the Thurmond rule even though they denied its existence when 
President Bush was in office. Just 4 years ago the current Republican 
leader said that ``there is no Thurmond rule'' and the current ranking 
Republican on the Judiciary Committee called it ``plain bunk.'' The 
Senate Republican caucus held a forum to demonstrate that no such 
practice or rule existed and that judicial confirmations should 
continue in the last several months of a Presidential term. With 
President Obama, they have chosen to flip-flop and use the so-called 
Thurmond rule as an excuse for shutting down Senate confirmations. 
Election year politics should not trump the needs of Americans seeking 
to obtain justice in our Federal courts. Senate Republicans' newly 
stated reliance on the Thurmond rule is really just another excuse for 
more of the stalling tactics that we have been seeing since President 
Obama was elected.
  Nor is this the first time that they have been urged to work with us 
to confirm consensus judicial nominees to address the vacancy crisis. 
In his 2010 year-end report on the federal judiciary, Chief Justice 
Roberts called attention to the problem of overburdened courts across-
the-country and the need to fill judicial vacancies. That followed in 
the tradition of Chief Justice Rehnquist who called out the obstruction 
of President Clinton's judicial nominees. These are not Democratic 
partisans. Each served in Republican administrations and was appointed 
by a Republican President because of their conservative credentials and 
each has been a deeply conservative Supreme Court Justice.
  What Senate Republican leaders now contend has been ``exceptionally 
fair treatment'' of President Obama's judicial nominees has, in fact, 
amounted to months of unnecessary delays and their having expanded 
contentiousness to include judicial nominees who should be 
noncontentious. Their practice has been a virtual across-the-board 
stalling of judicial nominees. That is what has led to the backlog in 
confirmations and the months of delays in the consideration of 
consensus nominees, which has been demonstrated over and over again.
  Let us take a look at how they have been stalling circuit court 
nominees. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service in its recent 
report confirms what I have been saying. I also have prepared this 
chart, which is taken from the CRS report, and is available at http://
www.leahy.senate
.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20chart%20-%20my%20version.pdf.
  They report that the median time circuit court nominees have had to 
wait before a Senate vote has skyrocketed from 18 days for President 
Bush's circuit court nominees to 132 days for President Obama's circuit 
court nominees. Any objective observer would concede that President 
Obama has made a significant effort to work with home State Senators 
from both parties and that his nominees have been less ideological and 
should be less controversial than his predecessor's. Yet the result of 
Republican foot dragging and obstruction is that they are nonetheless 
delayed and stalled. They have filibustered nominations that they then 
turn around and support like that of Judge Barbara Keenan of Virginia 
to the Fourth Circuit who was ultimately confirmed 99 to 0 and Judge 
Denny Chin of New York to the Second Circuit, who was filibustered for 
4 months before he was confirmed 98 to 0.
  Those interested in the Tennessee nominee today will remember how 
hard we had to work for almost 10 months, despite the support of 
Senator Alexander and Senator Corker, to get Senate Republicans to 
allow consideration of the nomination of Judge Jane Stranch to the 
Sixth Circuit. Despite being approved by a bipartisan majority of the 
Judiciary Committee, Judge Stranch's nomination nevertheless languished 
on the floor for nearly 10 months because of Republican obstruction. I 
personally had to come before the Senate to take the extraordinary step 
of propounding a unanimous consent request to consider her nomination, 
with the support of the senior Senator from Tennessee. So it is hard to 
see any difference between this supposed application of the Thurmond 
rule and how Senate Republicans have treated nearly all of President 
Obama's circuit court nominees since the President took office--
including those with support of Republican home State senators.
  Among the circuit court nominees they are blockading now are two from 
States with Republican home State Senators' support: William Kayatta 
from Maine and Judge Robert Bacharach from Oklahoma, as well as a 
nominee to the Federal Circuit who had the support of virtually all the 
Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee.
  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 including those with the support of Republican 
home State Senators. During the last 20 years, only 4 circuit nominees 
reported with bipartisan support have been denied an up-or-down vote 
during a Presidential election year by the Senate. All four were 
nominated by President Clinton and blocked by Senate Republicans. 
Senate Republicans are threatening to add the current circuit nominees 
pending before the Senate to that list. In the previous 5 Presidential 
election years, a total of 13 circuit court nominees has been confirmed 
after May 31. It is notable that 12 of the 13 were nominees of 
Republican Presidents.
  When Republican Senators try to take credit for the Senate having 
reached what they regard as their ``quota'' for circuit confirmations 
this year, they should remember that the Senate would not even have had 
an up-or-down vote on three of the five of them without the majority 
leader first having to file for cloture to overcome Republican 
obstruction--Adalberto Jordan of Florida to the Eleventh Circuit, Paul 
Watford of California to the Ninth Circuit and Andrew Hurwitz of 
Arizona to the Ninth Circuit. And the other two, Stephanie Dawn Thacker 
of West Virginia to the Fourth Circuit and Jacqueline Nguyen of 
California to the Ninth Circuit, were unnecessarily stalled since last 
year until the leader forced the issue by filing for cloture on 17 
judicial nominees, ultimately reaching a deal with the Republican 
leader to vote on only some of the many long-stalled nominees. That is 
not cooperation. That is stalling, and it is why the Senate has yet to 
vote on a single circuit court nominee nominated by President Obama 
this year.
  Adalberto Jordan, Stephanie Thacker and Jacqueline Nguyen had all 
been reported with bipartisan support from the Judiciary Committee last 
year but their confirmations were stalled by Republicans into this 
year. In my view, they could and should have been confirmed last year. 
Senate Republicans broke from the longstanding tradition of confirming 
consensus judicial nominees at the end of last year. Indeed, Senate 
Republicans broke from this tradition the last 2 years. When it comes 
to confirming consensus judges for the benefit of the American people, 
they choose to ignore tradition.
  The two other circuit nominees who were confirmed this year--Paul 
Watford and Andrew Hurwitz of the Ninth Circuit had their hearings and 
committee votes delayed at the request of Senate Republicans. If not 
for this stalling by Senate Republicans, these circuit nominees could 
also could have been confirmed last year.
  Since 1980, the only Presidential election year in which no circuit 
nominee who was nominated that year and confirmed that year was in 
1996, when Senate Republicans shut down the process against President 
Clinton's circuit nominees. So when the American people hear Senate 
Republicans crowing about how they have cooperated to confirm five 
circuit court nominees this year, they should know the truth.
  The fact that Republican stalling tactics have meant that circuit 
court nominees that should have been confirmed in the spring are still 
awaiting a vote after July 4 is no excuse for not

[[Page 10908]]

moving forward this month to confirm the circuit nominees who were 
voted out of the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support. That was 
the point of the letter to Senate leaders from the ABA last month when 
the Republicans' partisan plan to stall out the rest of the year was 
first publicly acknowledged.
  We remain far behind in filling judicial vacancies to provide the 
Federal judges that American people need to get justice in our Federal 
courts, as the previous chart demonstrates. Comparisons of judicial 
vacancies during the first terms of President Bush and President Obama 
show just how far behind we really are.
  Judicial vacancies during President Obama's first term long remained 
near or above 80, while little comparative progress was made for years. 
There are still 77 vacancies as of July 2012. By this time during 
President Bush's first term we had reduced 110 vacancies down to 29. By 
this time during President Bush's first term the Senate had confirmed 
44 more circuit and district court nominees than the Senate has during 
this Presidential term.
  Despite these facts, certain Senate Republicans contend that their 
resistance should be excused because two Supreme Court justices, who 
most of them opposed, were confirmed in President Obama's first term. 
This is another hollow excuse and is no justification for not moving 
ahead with the confirmations of William Kayatta, Judge Bacharach, Judge 
Shwartz, and Richard Taranto to circuit vacancies or with the nearly 
two dozen judicial nominees that we could easily consider and confirm 
this year. The American people who are waiting for justice do not care 
about excuses. They do not care about some false sense of settling 
political scores. They want justice. Just as they want action on 
measures the President has suggested to help the economy and create 
jobs rather than political calculations about what will help Republican 
candidates in the elections in November.
  Indeed, despite confirming two Supreme Court justices in President 
Clinton's first term, the Senate was able to confirm 200 circuit and 
district court judges by the end of 1996. And in 1992, at the end of 
President George H.W. Bush's term, the Senate was able to confirm 192 
circuit and district court judges despite confirming two Supreme Court 
Justices. At this point, Republicans have allowed the Senate to confirm 
only 153 of President Obama's circuit and district court nominees. That 
is a far cry from what we have been able to achieve in addition to our 
consideration of Supreme Court nominations when the Senate was being 
allowed to proceed to consider judicial nominees reported with 
bipartisan support. This artificial ceiling on confirmations is 
Republicans imposing a new standard for partisan purposes.
  Likewise, Republicans' newfound affection for the Thurmond rule 
ignores the facts. In the Presidential election year of 1992, for 
example, with a Republican President, the Democratic majority in the 
Senate proceeded to confirm 66 new judges including 11 circuit judges. 
Republicans have no good justification for not proceeding to confirm 
the judicial nominees reported with bipartisan support by the Judiciary 
Committee this year. We can and we should be doing more to help the 
American people.
  The American people do not want to hear excuses from Senate 
Republicans about why the Senate cannot proceed to confirm judges who 
are well-qualified and have received significant bipartisan support. 
There is no good reason that the Senate should not vote on the 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 2 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, and also by the State's other 
Republican Senator, Senator Inhofe.
  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 3 months ago, and is supported by conservatives 
such as Robert Bork and Paul Clement. He is also nominated to the 
Federal Circuit, which has never before been a controversial court.
  The one circuit court nominee who was reported out of committee with 
a split rollcall vote--Judge Patty Shwartz of New Jersey--should not 
have been controversial. She has been a Federal magistrate judge for 
the last 8 years and was a Federal prosecutor for 14 years, where she 
rose to become chief of the Criminal Division. She also has the 
bipartisan support of New Jersey's Republican Governor, Chris Christie.
  Each of these circuit court nominees has been rated unanimously well 
qualified by the nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary, the highest possible rating. These are not controversial 
nominees. Senate Republicans are blocking consent to vote on superbly 
qualified circuit court nominees with strong bipartisan support.
  Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of John Fowlkes to fill 
a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the Western District 
of Tennessee. Judge Fowlkes has the support of his home State 
Republican Senators, Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator Bob Corker. 
His nomination was reported with near unanimous voice vote by the 
Judiciary Committee nearly 3 months ago, with the only objection coming 
from Senator Lee's customary protest vote. Judge Fowlkes was rated 
unanimously well-qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary, the highest possible rating.
  Judge Fowlkes currently serves as a criminal court judge in the 30th 
Judicial District at Memphis, Tennessee, where he has been a judge for 
approximately 5 years. He previously held several positions in public 
service, including as a Federal prosecutor for 13 years and as an 
assistant district attorney general in Shelby County for 10 years. 
Judge Fowlkes also served briefly as an assistant public defender at 
the Shelby County Public Defender's Office. His diverse range of 
experience makes him particularly well qualified to serve on the 
Federal bench.
  Once we confirm Judge Fowlkes, I hope that Senate Republicans will 
reconsider their ill-conceived partisan strategy and work with us to 
meet the needs of the American people. There is no reason the Senate 
cannot vote to confirm the other 15 well-qualified judicial nominees 
reported by the Committee. There is no good reason we cannot work 
together to help solve the problem of high judicial vacancies and 
better serve the American people.
  I see the two distinguished Senators from Tennessee on the floor.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) The senior Senator from 
Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee for his courtesy in allowing Senator Corker and 
me a chance to speak about Judge Fowlkes from Tennessee. I do not 
intend to get into a lengthy dispute with the Senator from Vermont 
about the relative merits of the two political parties approving 
judges. But I do have to admire his persistence and creativity in 
always coming up with a way in how Democrats approve more Republican 
judges than Republicans approved Democratic judges.
  I notice that our ranking member, Senator Grassley, will put a 
statement in the Record today making a clear statement about what the 
record is. But if I may borrow from that: Today's vote will be the 
152nd nominee of President Obama confirmed to district and circuit 
judges. We have also confirmed two Supreme Court nominees during 
President Obama's term. The last time the Senate confirmed two Supreme 
Court nominees was during President Bush's second term. During 
President Bush's entire second term,

[[Page 10909]]

the Senate confirmed a total of only 119 district and circuit court 
nominees. With Judge Fowlkes' confirmation today, we will have 
confirmed 33 more district and circuit nominees for President Obama 
than we did for President Bush in similar circumstances.
  That is according to Senator Grassley's comments, which will be 
printed in the Record. I would have to say to my friend from Vermont, 
my memory is good enough that about this time 4 years ago, when we had 
a Republican President, I think I remember the majority leader of the 
Senate, Senator Reid, and Senator Leahy both suggesting it was time 
that we slowed things down and not confirm any more circuit judges 
until we saw how the election came out in November. So we are 
basically, in our opinion, applying, in the fairest possible way in the 
Senate, the Thurmond-Leahy rule that has been developed over time.
  If there are excellent nominees by the President to the circuit 
courts, well, the election is only 4 months away. If he is reelected, 
they can be confirmed in November and December. If he is not, then his 
successor will have a chance to make those nominations.
  Let me speak today about a matter that I believe we have great 
agreement on in the Senate, with the President, and that is the 
nomination of the President of Judge John Fowlkes to fill a vacancy on 
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
  As the Governor of Tennessee, I had the responsibility of appointing 
about 50 judges over 8 years. I looked for good intelligence, good 
temperament, good understanding of the law, and respect for those who 
came before the court. I did not feel it was my responsibility ever to 
inquire how a judge might decide on a particular case before he took 
the position.
  So I took some time to look into Judge Fowlkes' background when 
President Obama nominated him. I was delighted with what I found. I am 
pleased to recommend him to our colleagues. His performance has been 
praised throughout his career in the community of Memphis and Shelby 
County where he is best known. His leadership, his citizenship, his 
high professionalism, his courtesy to others are the words I often 
hear. I have letters from bar association members who say he has a 
creative and independent mind; from others in Memphis who say he is 
passionate about the community in which he lives, appearing at civic 
events repeatedly, committing over 50 hours of service annually to the 
Memphis Area Legal Services, and actively supporting the Boy Scouts.
  So it is with great pleasure that I recommend to our colleagues today 
President Obama's nominee, Judge John Fowlkes, to fill a vacancy on the 
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to second what the great Senator 
from Tennessee Lamar Alexander said. I want to speak for a moment about 
the same nomination, with the same amount of energy, and the fact that 
I am very excited about this person being nominated.
  When the White House began looking for someone to fill this position, 
I talked to numbers of people down in Shelby County about Judge 
Fowlkes, and people whom I respected, people who have been involved in 
the community for years. I can tell you, from every single person I 
talked to, they talked not only about his record but also the kind of 
person he was. He has served in many positions.
  He has been a public defender, a district attorney, a U.S. Attorney, 
he was the chief administrative officer for the largest and most 
populous county in the State of Tennessee. Now he serves as a criminal 
court judge. At every stop, he has excelled and earned a reputation for 
professionalism and integrity. I think his experience certainly makes 
him very well-prepared for this position and the responsibilities he 
will carry out.
  I am glad to join with Senator Alexander, Senator Leahy, and others. 
I hope we have an overwhelming vote today for this nominee, who I 
believe will be an outstanding Federal judge. I ask all of my 
colleagues to join us in supporting this person, who, again, I think 
will be exemplary on the bench, as he has been throughout his entire 
life.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the nomination of John Thomas 
Fowlkes, to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of 
Tennessee.
  Although it is the practice and tradition of the Senate to not 
confirm circuit nominees in the closing months of a Presidential 
election year, we continue to confirm consensus district judge 
nominees. Today's vote will be the 152nd nominee of this President 
confirmed to the district and circuit courts. We also have confirmed 
two Supreme Court nominees during President Obama's term.
  I continue to hear some Members repeatedly ask the question, ``What 
is different about this President that he has to be treated differently 
than all these other Presidents?'' I won't speculate as to any 
inference that might be intended by that question, but I can tell you 
that this President is not being treated differently than previous 
Presidents. By any objective measure, this President has been treated 
fairly and consistent with past Senate practices.
  For example, with regard to the number of confirmations, 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. And during President 
Bush's entire second term the Senate confirmed a total of only 119 
district and circuit court nominees. With Judge Fowlkes' confirmation 
today, we will have confirmed 33 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. Today, we 
will exceed the number of district court judges confirmed. We have 
already confirmed 5 circuit nominees, and this will be the 25th 
district judge confirmed this year. Those who say that this President 
is being treated differently either fail to recognize history or want 
to ignore the facts.
  Judge Fowlkes received his B.A. from Valparaiso University in 1975 
and his J.D. from University of Denver School of Law in 1977. From 1978 
to 1979 he worked as an assistant public defender at the Shelby County 
Public Defender's Office, where he represented indigent defendants. In 
1979, he joined the Shelby County District Attorney General's Office 
and served as an assistant district attorney for the next 10 years. 
There he tried nearly 150 jury trials, handling homicide, assault, sex 
offense, robbery, and burglary cases. In 1989, he became an assistant 
U.S. attorney, trying criminal cases until 2002. As an AUSA, he tried 
over 100 jury trials and handled all appellate level work. During his 
time at the attorney's office, Judge Fowlkes was a first assistant for 
several years, directing day-to-day operations of the office. From 2002 
to 2007, Judge Fowlkes was the chief administrative officer for Shelby 
County. He was not engaged in the practice of law during this period.
  In 2007, then-Governor Phil Bredesen appointed Judge Fowlkes to be a 
criminal court judge for Division VI of the 30th Judicial District at 
Memphis. In November 2008, he was elected to a full, 8-year term. In 
2011, he was elected by judges of the 30th Judicial District to serve 
as presiding judge.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated 
Judge Fowlkes as ``well qualified.''
  I support the nomination and congratulate Judge Fowlkes on his 
confirmation today.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
nomination.

[[Page 10910]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of John Thomas Fowlkes, Jr., of Tennessee, to be United States District 
Judge for the Western District of Tennessee.
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss), 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 94, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 173 Ex.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     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
     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--4

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

                          ____________________