[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11337-11342]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 F_____
                                 

NOMINATION OF KEVIN McNULTY TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                         DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

  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 Kevin McNulty, of New 
Jersey, to be United States District Judge for the District of New 
Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on the 
nomination, I wish to speak for a moment about the debate we are having 
on the DISCLOSE Act. We read the horror stories of secret money going 
into campaigns. If we can't restrict the amount of money, at least 
let's know where it comes from. It is bad enough the Supreme Court has 
said corporations are people, as though having elected General 
Eisenhower as President, we could now elect General Electric as 
President, or electing yahoos such as Millard Fillmore as Vice 
President means we could elect Yahoo as Vice President.
  There should be only one secret in an election, and that should be a 
secret ballot. That should be knowing you are secretly voting for who 
you want to vote for, and it should be disclosed only if you want it 
disclosed. As far as paying the bills, the American people ought to 
know who is paying the bills, how much, and why. Otherwise, we do not 
have honest elections. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. President, today we will vote on only one of the 18 judicial 
nominations

[[Page 11338]]

voted on by the Judiciary Committee but that are being stalled for no 
good reason. I am sure the people of New Jersey and the New Jersey 
Senators appreciate Senate Republicans finally allowing a vote on this 
nomination even after 3 months of needless delay. I suspect they would 
be more appreciative if the minority were also allowing a vote on the 
nomination of Michael Shipp for another vacancy on the same Federal 
court in New Jersey and who was also voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee virtually unanimously 3 months ago. I am sure they would be 
even more appreciative than that if Senate Republicans would allow a 
vote on the nomination of Judge Patty Shwartz to fill the vacancy on 
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals who was voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee more than 4 months ago, and who has the support of New 
Jersey's Republican Governor, Chris Christie.
  The minority's stalling votes on judicial nominees with significant 
bipartisan support is all to the detriment of the American people. This 
has been a tactic that they have employed for the last 3\1/2\ years, 
despite repeated appeals urging them to work with us to help solve the 
judicial vacancy crisis. We have seen everyone from Chief Justice John 
Roberts, himself appointed by a Republican president, to the 
nonpartisan American Bar Association urging the Senate to vote on 
qualified judicial nominees that are available to administer justice 
for the American public. Sadly, Republicans insist on being the party 
of ``no''.
  What the American people and the overburdened Federal courts need are 
qualified judges to administer justice in our Federal courts, not the 
perpetuation of extended, numerous vacancies. Today vacancies on the 
Federal courts are more than 2\1/2\ times as many as they were on this 
date during the first term of President Bush. The Senate is more than 
40 confirmations off the pace we set during President Bush's first 
term.
  Because they cannot deny the strength of this comparison using apples 
to apples by comparing first terms Senate Republicans instead try to 
draw comfort by making comparisons to President Bush's second term 
after we had already worked hard to reduce vacancies by 75 percent and 
confirmed 205 circuit and district judges. Their effort is unconvincing 
and unavailing. In fact, during President Bush's second term, the 
number of vacancies never exceeded 60 and was reduced to 34 near the 
end of his presidency. In stark contrast, vacancies have long remained 
near or above 80, with little progress made in these last 3\1/2\ years. 
Today, there are still 78 vacancies. Their tactics have actually led to 
an increase in judicial vacancies during President Obama's first term a 
development that is a sad first.
  But the real point is that their selective use of numbers is beside 
the point and does nothing to help the American people. We should be 
doing better. I know that we can because we have done better. During 
President Bush's first term, notwithstanding the 9/11 attacks, the 
anthrax attack on the Senate, the ideologically-driven selections of 
judicial nominees by President Bush, and his lack of outreach to home 
State Senators, we reduced the number of judicial vacancies by almost 
75 percent, down to 29 by this point during his first term and acted to 
confirm 205 circuit and district court nominees by the end of his first 
term.
  Another excuse from the minority comes across more as partisan score 
settling than anything else. They claim that having confirmed two 
Supreme Court Justices, the Senate cannot be expected to reach the 205 
number of confirmations in President Bush's first term.
  The first and most important point is that those proceedings do not 
excuse the Senate from taking the actions it could now on the 18 
judicial nominees voted out of the Judiciary Committee and ready for 
final Senate action. That second Supreme Court confirmation was in 
August 2010. That is almost 2 years ago and it was opposed by most 
Senate Republicans.
  Senate Republicans held down circuit and district court confirmations 
in President Obama's first 2 years in office to historically low 
numbers 12 by the end of 2009 and another 48 in 2010 for a total of 
only 60. We did better last year when Senator Grassley became the 
ranking member and were able to confirm 64 nominees. Had Republicans 
not stalled 19 nominations at the end of last year and dragged those 
confirmations out into May of this year, we, the American people, and 
the Federal courts would be much better off. As it is, however, the 
fact remains there are 18 qualified judicial nominations the Senate 
could be voting on without further delay.
  They refuse to acknowledge that in addition to confirming two Supreme 
Court Justices in President Clinton's first term, the Senate was able 
to confirm 200 circuit and district court judges. And in 1992, at the 
end of President George H.W. Bush's term, the Senate with a Democratic 
majority was able to confirm 192 circuit and district court judges 
despite confirming two Supreme Court Justices. Republicans have kept 
the Senate well back from those numbers by only allowing the Senate to 
proceed to confirm 154 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 function more fairly and to consider 
judicial nominees reported with bipartisan support.
  Nor are the nominees about whom we are concerned recently nominated. 
These are not nominees dumped on the Senate in scores at the end of a 
presidential term. These are, instead, nominations that date back to 
October of last year. Most were nominated before March. In fact the 
circuit court nominees who Republicans are refusing to consider date 
back to October and November of last year and January of this year. 
William Kayatta was voted on by the Committee and placed before the 
Senate by mid April and could have been confirmed then. Richard Taranto 
and Judge Shwartz have been stalled before the Senate even longer, 
since March. As I explained in my last statement, Senate Republicans 
have shut down confirmations of circuit court judges not just in June 
or July but, in effect, for the entire year. The Senate has yet to vote 
on a single circuit court nominee nominated by President Obama this 
year. Since 1980, the only presidential election year in which there 
were no circuit nominees confirmed who were nominated that year was in 
1996, when Senate Republicans shut down the process against President 
Clinton's circuit nominees. The fact that Republican stalling tactics 
have meant that circuit court nominees that should have been confirmed 
in the spring--such as Bill Kayatta, Richard Taranto and Patty 
Shwartz--are still awaiting a vote after July 4 is no excuse for not 
moving forward this month to confirm these circuit nominees. Both Mr. 
Kayatta and Mr. Taranto were voted out of the Judiciary Committee with 
significant bipartisan support, and Judge Shwartz, a Magistrate Judge 
and former Federal prosecutor, has the support of Republican Governor 
Chris Christie.
  The American people who are waiting for justice do not care about 
these 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.
  When Republican Senators try to take credit for the Senate having 
reached what they regard as their ``quota'' for confirmations this 
year, they should acknowledge their strenuous opposition to those 
confirmations for which they now take credit. As recently as 2008, 
Senate Republicans denied there was a Thurmond rule. They used to say 
that any judicial nominee reported to the Senate was entitled to a vote 
and that every judicial nominee was entitled to an up-or-down vote and 
that they would never filibuster judicial nominees. Well, the Majority 
Leader has had to file 28 cloture petitions to end their filibusters of 
judicial nominees. Now they are flip-flopping on their own call for up-
or-down votes.

[[Page 11339]]

  What they are doing now is a first. As I have noted, 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. They are 
denying votes to William Kayatta, a nominee from Maine supported by his 
home State Republican Senators, and Robert Bacharach, a nominee from 
Oklahoma supported by his home State Republican Senators, and Richard 
Taranto, whose nomination to the Federal Circuit received virtually 
unanimous support. Even Judge Patty Shwartz, whose nomination to the 
Third Circuit received a split rollcall vote, has the bipartisan 
support of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.
  As I have noted previously, in the past 5 presidential election 
years, a total of 13 circuit court nominees have been confirmed after 
May 31. It is notable that 12 of the 13 were nominees of Republican 
presidents.
  Today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Kevin McNulty to 
fill a judicial vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
New Jersey. Like all of the judicial nominees voted on by the Judiciary 
Committee, he has the support of his home State Senators. His 
nomination was reported with a nearly unanimous voice vote by the 
Judiciary Committee nearly 3 months ago, with the only objection coming 
from Senator Lee's customary protest vote. He was rated unanimously 
well qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, 
the highest possible rating.
  Kevin McNulty currently serves as a director and head of the 
appellate practice group at Gibbons, P.C., a law firm in New Jersey. He 
served as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
District of New Jersey for more than 10 years, where he was chief of 
the Appeals Division for 3 of those years. After law school, he clerked 
for Judge Frederick B. Lacey of the U.S. District Court for the 
District of New Jersey. Over the course of his 29-year legal career, 
Kevin McNulty has tried 12 cases to verdict and has argued numerous 
cases before the Federal courts of appeal. In 2008, the New Jersey Law 
Journal named him ``Lawyer of the Year.'' I support this well-qualified 
nominee.
  I, again, urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their ill-conceived 
partisan strategy and work with us to meet the needs of the American 
people. With more than 75 judicial vacancies still burdening the 
American people and our Federal courts, there is no 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.
  Anyway, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum, 
with the time equally divided.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his suggestion for a 
quorum?
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course. I am sorry. I didn't see my friend from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Kevin 
McNulty to be district judge in New Jersey. Although it is the practice 
and tradition of the Senate to not confirm circuit nominees in the 
closing months of Presidential election years, we continue to confirm 
consensus district judge nominees. Today's nominee is such a consensus 
nominee, and he will be the 153rd nominee of this President confirmed 
to the district and circuit courts.
  I continue to hear some of my colleagues repeatedly ask the question: 
What is different about this President that he has to be treated 
differently than all of these other Presidents? That is a question we 
often hear.
  I will not speculate as to any inference that might be intended by 
that question, but I can tell my colleagues this President is not being 
treated differently than previous Presidents. By any objective measure, 
this President has been treated fairly and consistently 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. As I mentioned, we have confirmed 152 district and circuit 
court nominees of this President. We have also confirmed two Supreme 
Court nominations during President Obama's first term. Everyone 
understands that Supreme Court nominations take a great deal of 
committee time. When the Supreme Court nominations are pending in the 
committee, all other nomination work is put on hold.
  The last time the Senate confirmed two Supreme Court nominees was 
during President Bush's second term. During that term, the Senate 
confirmed a total of only 119 district and circuit court nominees. With 
Mr. McNulty's confirmation today, we will have confirmed 34 more 
district and circuit court nominees for President Obama than we did for 
President Bush in similar circumstances.
  During the last Presidential election in 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 
circuit nominees, and this will be the 26th district judge confirmed 
this year. Those who say this President is being treated differently 
either fail to recognize history or want to ignore the facts.
  Another statistic that is often misused to allege a campaign of 
Republican obstructionism is the number of days to confirmation. My 
colleagues on the other side want to focus on one particular phase of 
the confirmation process--the time from being reported out of committee 
to actual confirmation on the Senate floor. They ignore the timeline 
for the rest of that process.
  The fact is for both Presidents the average time from nomination to 
confirmation is roughly equivalent: 211 days for President Bush's 
judicial nominees and 224 days for President Obama's judicial nominees.
  There is another issue I wish to turn to that is repeatedly raised; 
that is, the vacancy rate--as if Republicans are to blame for that fact 
as well. Let me review the record and set the facts out for all to 
hear.
  When President Obama took office there were 59 judicial vacancies. I 
note that at the beginning of 2008 there were 43 vacancies. So the 
practice for Democrats who controlled the Senate during that last year 
of President Bush's term was to allow vacancies to increase by more 
than 37 percent.
  By mid-March 2009, when the first Obama judicial nomination was sent 
to the Senate, there were 70 judicial vacancies. Over the next 3 
months, despite the rise in vacancies, only 5 more circuit nominations 
were sent to this body. By the end of June, when the Senate received 
its first district nomination, there were 80 vacancies. The failure or 
delay in submitting nominations for vacancies has been the practice of 
this administration. Yet somehow people want to blame the Senate, and 
particularly Republicans in the Senate, for not moving swiftly enough.
  By the end of 2009 there were 100 vacancies, with only 20 nominees. 
In December 2010, more than half of the 108 vacancies had no 
nomination. At the beginning of this year, only 36 nominees were 
pending for the 82 vacancies. At present, still more than half of the 
78 vacancies have no nominee.
  I remind my colleagues once again that all of this process starts not 
here in the U.S. Senate but in the White House, at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue. So when one wants to complain about judicial 
vacancies, start first by looking there, and then to the Democrats who 
have controlled the Senate during this period.
  Because of those delays in nominations and decisions made by the 
Senate Democratic leadership, only 13 judges were confirmed during 
President Obama's first year. That was the choice of Democrats, who 
controlled the White House and the Senate, not because of anything the 
Republican minority could do. Yet Democrats now argue that President 
Obama is somehow behind in confirmations, and based upon that flawed 
logic there is some

[[Page 11340]]

perceived notion that he is entitled to ``catch up'' on nominations.
  The fact is we have confirmed over 78 percent of President Obama's 
district nominees. At this point in his Presidency 75 percent of 
President Bush's nominees had been confirmed. President Obama is 
running ahead of President Bush on district confirmations as a 
percentage. It is not the fault of the Republicans that this President 
has fewer nominations. How many times do I have to say it? The Senate 
can only act on what comes up here from the White House.
  Finally, let me respond to some criticisms I have heard or read 
lately about the Thurmond rule. Last week, in the Los Angeles Times, 
for example, an editorial with the headline ``Reject the `Thurmond 
Rule''' was based on factual errors and omissions, so I want to correct 
that. This editorial echoed many of the Democratic talking points that 
we hear here on the floor.
  The suggestion that we are operating any differently than Democrats 
did in 2004 and 2008 is simply without merit. Democrats stalled and 
blocked numerous highly qualified circuit nominees during those 
Presidential election years, including even nominations that had 
bipartisan support.
  For instance, the fourth circuit provides a prime example of the 
tactics employed by the majority party. Democrats refused to process 
Judge Robert Conrad, even though he had already been confirmed 
unanimously as a U.S. attorney and district court judge. Democrats 
refused to process Judge Glen Conrad even though he had strong 
bipartisan home-State support. Steve Matthews also had strong home-
State support. Yet the Democrats in committee refused to even give him 
a vote. The Democrats even tried to justify blocking the nomination of 
U.S. attorney Rod Rosenstein to the fourth circuit by claiming he was 
doing ``too good of a job''--that is their words--as U.S. attorney to 
be promoted.
  By refusing to give these nominees a vote in committee, the Democrats 
engaged in what we would refer to as a ``pocket filibuster'' of all 
four of these candidates to the fourth circuit. This was at a time when 
the fourth circuit's vacancy rate was over 25 percent.
  The bottom line is that the Democratic leadership has invoked the 
Thurmond rule repeatedly to justify stalling nominees--even those with 
bipartisan support. And now they do not want us to enforce the rule 
they helped establish.
  But as I have pointed out, this President is not being treated 
differently. In many respects, he is being treated better. We have even 
been more fair. And we cannot have two different sets of rules around 
here. I suppose we could have, but we should not have.
  I will now speak to the biographical information of our nominee, Mr. 
McNulty. Again, I want to make it very clear I support this nomination 
and obviously congratulate him on confirmation, which I anticipate will 
happen with broad support in a few minutes.
  Mr. McNulty received his BA from Yale University in 1976 and his JD 
from New York University School of Law in 1983. Upon graduation, Mr. 
McNulty served as a law clerk to Judge Frederick B. Lacey, U.S. 
district judge for the District of New Jersey. After his clerkship, Mr. 
McNulty began his legal career as a litigation associate at Paul, 
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. From 1984 through 1987, he worked 
at the firm handling civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense 
in both State and Federal court.
  From 1987 to 1998, he was a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's 
Office for the District of New Jersey. From 1987 to 1991, he was a 
member of the Criminal Division, where he prosecuted a variety of 
firearms, narcotics, fraud and immigration offenses. In 1990, he was 
selected to head the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force, 
which handled the largest cases in the Criminal Division, including 
RICO prosecutions. From 1991 to 1992, he prosecuted large white-collar 
fraud cases in the Frauds Division. In 1992, he was appointed deputy 
chief of the Criminal Division. In 1995, he was named chief of appeals. 
In that position, he briefed and argued criminal appeals to the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, supervised other attorneys in 
the division, served as ethics officer, and acted as general legal 
adviser to the office and U.S. Attorney.
  In 1998, he joined Gibbons P.C., where he presently is a director and 
chairs the firm's appellate practice. He is also a member of the 
Business & Commercial Litigation department. His time there is equally 
divided between appeals and trial work. The majority of his clients are 
corporations. He handles litigation between commercial entities, 
typically including anti-trust, securities, patent, and contract 
disputes, while also encompassing constitutional and other claims.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated 
Mr. McNulty as ``Well Qualified.''
  I support the nomination and congratulate Mr. McNulty on his 
confirmation today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this is a privilege and an opportunity 
for me to affirm my support for the confirmation of Kevin McNulty to be 
a U.S. district judge for the District of New Jersey.
  The parties who come before a district court deserve to know that 
they appear before only the most qualified and impartial judges. That 
is why the Constitution gives the Senate a solemn duty to provide the 
President with advice and consent on judicial nominations.
  I take this duty very seriously. Today it is my pleasure to come to 
the floor to confirm my support for Mr. Kevin McNulty for a judgeship 
on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
  Kevin McNulty has had an exceptional career and has dedicated himself 
to the rule of law and public service. That is why I was so proud to 
have recommended him to President Obama.
  I first learned about Mr. McNulty's sterling credentials in 2009, 
when one of New Jersey's most respected jurists, former chief judge of 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit John Gibbons 
recommended him for a position on the district court bench.
  In the years since, I have had the opportunity to meet Mr. McNulty 
multiple times and have gained a great appreciation for his outstanding 
reputation in the legal community in New Jersey.
  Mr. McNulty leads the appellate practice group at an outstanding law 
firm based in Newark. The law firm is called the Gibbons law firm. He 
has argued criminal, commercial, intellectual property, and 
pharmaceutical matters, displaying his prowess as a litigator.
  He is a respected leader with solid judgment. He worked as a 
prosecutor and was known for being hard working and fair. For more than 
a decade, he prosecuted criminal cases as an assistant U.S. attorney in 
New Jersey. He served as the deputy chief of the criminal division and 
earned a well-deserved promotion to chief of the appeals division. 
During his tenure with the U.S. Attorney's Office, he served with a 
number of U.S. attorneys, including a current Supreme Court Justice, 
Samuel Alito.
  Mr. McNulty's academic credentials are as impressive as his 
professional record. After a successful undergraduate career at Yale 
University, he excelled at New York University's School of Law, where 
he was a member of the Law Review.
  A few years ago, in 2008, the New Jersey Law Journal honored him as 
their Lawyer of the Year. I am confident, if confirmed, his work as a 
judge will earn him similar praise.
  This fine nominee is, thank goodness, finally getting the vote he 
deserves. He is going to be great on the bench. He is eminently 
qualified and will make an exceptional judge.
  In Newark, a Federal courthouse carries my name. When it was 
dedicated, I requested an inscription that I authored and believe in so 
deeply be placed on the wall. It reads: ``The true measure of a 
democracy is its dispensation of justice.'' I firmly believe that there 
is where we see the equalizer of

[[Page 11341]]

citizenship in this country. As this quote demonstrates, our country's 
core is a belief in equal and just representation before the law. Our 
system thrives because of fair and evenhanded judges. They are the 
stewards of our democracy, and I know Mr. McNulty will approach this 
position with thoroughness and honor. So I look forward to hearing my 
colleagues vote to confirm Kevin McNulty to the U.S. District Court for 
the District of New Jersey, with the knowledge that we will be sending 
an outstanding judge to the Federal bench, as we so often have in this 
Chamber.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to speak today in support of 
Kevin McNulty, a distinguished New Jerseyan and an outstanding 
candidate for the District Court of New Jersey, and I certainly urge my 
colleagues to vote affirmatively on his confirmation in a few minutes.
  A district judge must possess exemplary analytical skills, a strong 
work ethic, and an extraordinary knowledge of the law. I am proud to 
say Mr. McNulty has demonstrated these qualities on countless 
occasions.
  He has been the chair of the appeals group in the prestigious law 
firm of Gibbons. At Gibbons, he has been directly involved in 
approximately 100 appeals related to a wide variety of legal issues, 
including pharmaceutical, intellectual property, commercial, and 
criminal matters.
  He has tirelessly fought for his clients' interests. His hard work 
and dedication, as you heard Senator Lautenberg describe, earned him 
the New Jersey Law Journal's Lawyer of the Year Award for 2008.
  Before his distinguished time at Gibbons, he served as the chief of 
the appeals division of the U.S. Attorney's Office, where he was also 
the lead attorney for the Organized Crime & Drug Enforcement Task 
Force, as well as the ethics officer and grand jury coordinator. While 
at the U.S. Attorney's Office, he was honored with the Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers Association Award.
  He began his professional career as a law clerk for the Honorable 
Frederick Lacey, U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey.
  He graduated cum laude and was third in his class at the New York 
University School of Law. His academic achievement also earned him 
membership in the New York University Law Review, where he served as 
articles editor, and membership in the honors society Order of the 
Coif.
  While at New York University School of Law, he was awarded the 
American Judicial Society Prize, the Pomeroy Prize, and the Moot Court 
Advocacy Award. It shows the breadth and scope of his intellectual 
ability.
  Outside of his professional career, he has demonstrated an admirable 
commitment to public service. He is a member of the board of trustees 
of the Urban League of Essex County. He is a former member of the Third 
Circuit Lawyers' Advisory Committee. He is coauthor of the Pennsylvania 
Bar Institute Guide to Third Circuit Practice. He has written and 
spoken on a whole host of legal topics. He is also an active member of 
the New Jersey, Federal, and American Bar Associations.
  Throughout his career, Kevin McNulty has demonstrated a strong 
analytical ability, rapid research skills, and an outstanding work 
ethic, and I believe he is well equipped to serve with distinction as a 
district judge for the District of New Jersey.
  In sum, the breadth and scope of Mr. McNulty's experience and 
qualifications make him exceptionally well qualified for the position 
of U.S. district judge.
  Finally, I want to take the opportunity to say I am hopeful that our 
colleagues will agree to move forward on two other New Jersey 
nominations: Michael Shipp, who has been nominated to the third 
district, and Patty Shwartz, who is nominated to the third circuit.
  Michael Shipp is a highly respected magistrate judge in New Jersey 
who has an abiding commitment to the rule of law, a deep knowledge of 
both criminal and civil law, and a long commitment to public service. 
Patty Shwartz is also a well-respected magistrate judge who has handled 
over 4,000 civil and criminal cases. Both of these judges deserve 
immediate consideration. Their qualifications will make them an 
exceptional addition to the Federal bench in New Jersey, and certainly 
I offer my strong support to both of them as we move forward in this 
process.
  I hope after tonight's vote--where we expect this extraordinary 
candidate to be confirmed--we will get the opportunity to do so also 
for Judge Shipp and Judge Shwartz.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                         Law of the Sea Treaty

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise for an announcement. At the 
conclusion of these votes, I will be making what I think is a fairly 
significant announcement in terms of 35 Members of this body who have 
stated they will oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty, which, of course, 
means it would not be able to be passed this session. So I will be 
doing that immediately following the votes that take place momentarily.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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 Kevin McNulty, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the 
District of New Jersey?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER (when his name was called). ``Present.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the 
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Wicker).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 178 Ex.]

                                YEAS--91

     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
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     DeMint
     Lee
     Paul

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Schumer
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

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

[[Page 11342]]



                          ____________________