[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7196-7203]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                   FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF MICHAEL J. McSHANE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
                         THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nominations of Sheri Polster Chappell, 
of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District 
of Florida, and Michael J. McShane, of Oregon, to be United States 
District Judge for the District of Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, it has now been almost 6 months since 
the horrible shooting in my State of Connecticut at Sandy Hook 
Elementary where 20 6- and 7-year-old children lost their lives, and 
another 6 adults, who were protecting them, perished as well.
  We all believed we were going to do something about it here on the 
floor of the Senate. We thought we were going to come to our senses and 
finally realize it is in part the laws of this Nation that allow for 
this kind of senseless killing, whether it be in mass numbers in places 
such as Sandy Hook or Aurora or Tucson or at the Sikh temple in the 
State of the Presiding Officer or in just the everyday, average gun 
violence that has become background noise to this Nation.
  It is not just about bad people doing bad things; it is also about 
the laws of this Nation that have allowed for this to happen because we 
don't have background checks on every gun purchase so that criminals do 
not get guns. We still allow for dangerous military-style weapons, such 
as the AR-15 and 100-round drums of ammunition to be carried on the 
streets of this country. We don't even have a Federal law saying it is 
illegal to traffic in guns, taking them out of gun shows and gun stores 
and then going out and selling them on the streets as straw purchasers 
to people who shouldn't have bought them in the first place. We had 55 
votes in the Senate to do something about that, but we didn't have 60 
votes, which is the law of the land here these days.
  I have promised to come down here every week and do something rather

[[Page 7197]]

simple, which is to tell the stories of the dozens of people who are 
killed every single day by guns, because it is their stories that will 
eventually move this place to action. I know this place has enough 
empathy, enough compassion to not be so callous as to allow month after 
month to go by and do nothing about the 4,243 people, as of today, 
since Newtown who have died in this country at the hands of gun 
violence.
  Let me cite that number again. Since the massacre at Sandy Hook, 
where 28 people died, including the gunman and his mother, 4,243 people 
have died due to gun violence.
  I want to spend the next couple of minutes before we get back to the 
debate on these nominations telling the stories of a few of these 
people.
  On May 15, 2013, about a week ago, five different people were shot in 
Detroit. Halfway through May and there have been 73 shootings in 
Detroit, MI. Ten people have been killed, with 8 of the shooting 
victims being 17 years old or younger.
  On that day, May 15, five people were shot. A 24-year-old man opened 
fire after a pretty simple verbal altercation on the street. What 
happened, apparently, was that one parent of one child told the other 
kids to go home for some reason. Something had happened at their house. 
That youth returned to the house with some of his family members, 
including the 24-year-old man who got so upset over this simple 
altercation about a mom asking some kids to leave her house that he 
opened fire, killing Allmeter Walls and wounding the others.
  It was a pretty bloody 24-hour period in Detroit, where 12 people 
were shot on that day from 6 a.m. on Wednesday until 6 a.m. on 
Thursday. There were 73 shootings halfway through May in 1 city alone.
  On May 15 as well, Newark police said that an 18-year-old high school 
student, a senior, at Weequahic High School in Newark, NJ, was killed. 
He had signed himself out of school because he wasn't feeling well, and 
he was shot.
  Councilman Ras Baraka, who is also the principal of another high 
school, said: ``We are outgunned and outmanned here on the street.'' 
There are so many guns on the streets of Newark that principals and law 
enforcement feel outgunned and outmanned.
  Of the young student who was killed, one of his friends said: ``He 
was a good kid. When he was little, we used to play pool and video 
games around here.''
  In Bridgeport, CT, just before sunrise on Mother's Day, police found 
22-year-old Robert Rivera dead in his car from perhaps a dozen bullet 
wounds. ``He was one in a million,'' a friend said. ``No one will ever 
be like him.'' Chino was his nickname. He was a good kid. His friend 
said, ``The good die young here.'' He was 22 years old and was killed 
in a spray of bullets in his car in Bridgeport, CT.
  These are the ones we don't hear that much about because they are in 
the local papers. But we know there are also these mass killings as 
well, and before I yield the floor, I want to talk about a handful of 
victims from the State of the Presiding Officer who were killed at a 
Sikh temple when someone walked in, in August 2012, and opened fire, 
because people should know who these victims are as well. There are 
victims of everyday gun violence, but we have had a string of mass 
shootings in this country which will not end until we do something 
about it.
  Paramjit Kaur lived for her children. She spent 11 hours a day, 6 
days a week in production at a medical devices firm in order to provide 
for her children. She was praying inside the temple when she learned of 
the active shooter outside the temple. Instead of being afraid, she 
showed great courage, bowed down and prayed one last time before she 
was shot.
  Satwant Singh Kaleka was the founder and president of that Sikh 
temple. He worked 18 hours a day at his family's gas station to provide 
for his family. His hard work as a small businessman paid off and he 
acquired eight stations by the end of his career. His attempts to 
thwart the gunman with a small dull knife gave the group of women, 
including his mother, a chance to escape.
  Suveg Singh Khattra, a former dairy farmer in northern India, came to 
the United States for a better life. He was a humble and loving man who 
was a constant presence at the temple. He was a man of habit, waking 
every morning at 4:30 a.m. to watch a live broadcast from India and 
engage in readings from the holy book. He died at 84.
  Prakash Singh was a pious man with a great sense of humor. He stayed 
in the priest quarters in the temple, and was excited about the fact he 
was about to get an apartment outside the temple. They were due to move 
into their new home at the end of August, a few weeks after he was 
killed.
  Then the two brothers, Ranjit and Sita Singh. They were brothers and 
Sikh priests who left their families behind to move to Oak Creek for a 
better life. Ranjit was the more outgoing of the two. His 
responsibility was to take care of every visitor who came through those 
doors. But his younger brother Sita was just as fun loving and would 
wake up every morning at 5 a.m. to read the Sikh holy book. His 
specialty was to make sure everyone who walked into that temple had 
enough to eat.
  All perished at that Sikh temple. These things are going to happen 
again. There is going to be another mass atrocity. And there will 
continue to be these shootings in Detroit and Bridgeport and Newark if 
we don't do something about it on this floor. I know we have important 
business, whether it be the farm bill this week or our hopeful attempt 
at passing immigration reform, but as soon as that is done, hopefully, 
we will get to come back to this issue of gun violence, because if we 
don't, these everyday urban stories will mount and there will be 
another mass shooting somewhere across this country.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I would say to my colleague from 
Connecticut: Amen.
  And I would say to my colleague from Oregon: Thank you for your 
courtesy in letting me go ahead, in light of the fact we have a Federal 
judge coming up for a vote at 5:30.
  I am very grateful to the Judiciary Committee--to both the Democrats 
and the Republicans--in allowing us to vote, and I urgently implore we 
confirm Judge Sheri Polster Chappell to the United States District 
Court for the Middle District of Florida.
  While I rise to speak in favor of Judge Chappell, I want to express 
my concern for the growing partisanship that is dragging down our 
efforts to fill these judicial vacancies across the Nation. In the past 
we have had qualified consensus judicial nominees who would be 
confirmed in weeks, if not in days. Unfortunately, even the judicial 
nominees who have the support of both Senators from the State--and 
sometimes, as is the case of Florida where we have the Republican 
Senator, Senator Rubio, and myself, the Democratic Senator--we are 
still finding the judges are being held up. We are experiencing waiting 
months for an up-or-down vote only to then have them confirmed 
overwhelmingly.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. NELSON. Of course, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. LEAHY. I would say to my dear friend, the senior Senator from 
Florida, I share his frustration. We put these judges through the 
Senate Judiciary Committee often with a unanimous vote and then they 
wait here months and months to get a vote on the floor. As the 
distinguished Senator from Florida noted, that vote is then virtually 
unanimous.
  This effort where if somebody is nominated by President Obama they 
must be blocked, even if it is somebody everyone supports, is totally 
unfair to the President, it is completely unfair to the country, but it 
is devastating to the judiciary because good men and women are not 
going to be willing to take nominations or appointments to

[[Page 7198]]

be a Federal judge if they think they are going to wait month after 
month after month or even a year before they go on the bench.
  I appreciate the statement of the distinguished senior Senator from 
Florida and I share his frustration.
  Mr. NELSON. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. A good 
example--this isn't even a Federal district judge, this is court of 
appeals--we confirmed the judge 94 to 5, when we finally got a vote. 
That was Judge Adalberto Jordan, the first Cuban-American-born judge, 
from Miami, to serve on the U.S. court of appeals. The Eleventh Circuit 
is one of the busiest circuits in the country. It encompasses the 
Southeastern United States. He was unanimously reported out of the 
Judiciary Committee, but he was blocked by a filibuster of judicial 
nominees after 4 months of waiting on the Executive Calendar.
  Obviously, with a vote of 94 to 5, he was eminently qualified. He was 
not controversial. He had the support of Senator Rubio and myself, a 
unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee. Yet his nomination was 
filibustered.
  In addition, highly qualified district court judge nominees are 
facing the same partisan delays. Obviously, these nominees ought to get 
confirmed without the needless obstacles, facing potential cloture 
motions, just to receive an up-or-down vote. I am told the majority 
leader has had to file cloture on as many as 20 of the Federal district 
court nominees since 2009. It is an indication that we are clearly 
going in the wrong direction in this Senate.
  I will give one other example. Here the judge we are about to 
confirm--and before the chairman came in I thanked him profusely, and 
the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, for bringing Judge Chappell 
up for a vote today. There is no controversy over Judge Chappell. She 
has the support of Senator Rubio and myself. She was voted out of the 
Judiciary Committee twice unanimously. It is a judicial vacancy 
emergency declared in the Middle District of Florida.
  She is waiting. Today is the 329th day.
  She was originally nominated during the 112th Congress, but it has 
taken 329 days to get us to this point today.
  Judge Chappell earned her Bachelor of Arts degree at the University 
of Wisconsin and her juris doctor at Nova Southeastern University. 
Judge Chappell is serving as a United States Magistrate Judge for the 
Middle District of Florida, where she has been since 2003.
  Prior to which she served as a county court judge in the Twentieth 
Judicial Circuit of Florida and she began her legal career as 
prosecutor in Fort Myers. Judge Chappell has also been an active member 
of the community. She has served on the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys 
Association, the Domestic Violence Task Force, and the truancy board. 
Judge Chappell is a true public servant and she will make a fine 
district court judge.
  As of May 20, 2013, according to the United States Administrative 
Office of the Courts, there are 34 judicial emergency vacancies across 
this Nation. Florida is home to four empty benches--two in the middle 
district of Florida and two in the southern district of Florida. In 
total there are 84 judicial vacancies waiting to be filled and 28 
nominees stuck in the pipeline waiting for confirmation. These delays 
in filling vacancies mean that courts are overburdened. It also means 
that our citizens are seeing their day in court delayed.
  The public is concerned as these delays are further exacerbating the 
problem facing the courts. In fact, these delays are a scathing 
indictment of the lack of cooperation and growing partisan nature of 
process for confirming judicial nominations. These delays undermine the 
public trust and are illustrative of the stranglehold that partisanship 
has on Washington and on the rest of the country.
  We cannot have that. It is time to confirm Judge Polster Chappell and 
move with purpose on the rest of these nominations so we can get our 
courts fully staffed and the judicial system working how it is supposed 
to.
  I again thank the Judiciary Committee for bringing up Judge Chappell, 
but it cannot keep going on like this. I hope we are going to see some 
reform and movement quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Today the Senate will finally be allowed to vote on the 
nominations of Judge Sheri Chappell and Judge Michael McShane. For 
Judge Chappell in particular, this day is long overdue. She was 
nominated almost a year ago, and was one of the 11 nominees who Senate 
Republicans refused to vote on before the end of the last Congress. 
They delayed her confirmation even though she had the support of every 
single Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and the bipartisan 
support of her home state Senators, Senator Nelson and Senator Rubio. 
They delayed her confirmation even though she is nominated to fill a 
judicial emergency vacancy that has been vacant for over 400 days. When 
I say that President Obama's qualified, consensus nominees have faced 
unprecedented levels of delay and obstruction, this is precisely what I 
have been talking about.
  Even the Wall Street Journal has taken notice. In an article last 
week, Gerald Seib wrote that the obstruction even of consensus district 
court nominees is an example of ``the Senate's inability to pull out of 
partisan ruts and get beyond an epidemic of filibusters.'' While only a 
few years ago Senate Republicans insisted that filibusters of judicial 
nominees were unconstitutional, or that they should be reserved for 
``extraordinary circumstances,'' this article notes that they ``decided 
in recent years that it is acceptable to mount filibusters not only in 
exceptional cases but to stop even the most routine business.'' I ask 
unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my statement.
  Senate Republicans claim that they have blocked only two of President 
Obama's nominees, but they are not being fair in that characterization. 
They blocked nominees like Robert Chatigny and Louis Butler by refusing 
to allow the Senate to vote on them. They blocked nominees like 
Victoria Nourse, Arvo Mikkanen, and Elissa Cadish by refusing to return 
blue slips. They even blocked Steve Six by rescinding the blue slips 
after the nominee had already had a hearing. This reminds me of the way 
they pocket filibustered dozens of President Clinton's nominees. While 
as Chairman I have protected the rights of home State Senators, that 
right does not extend to allowing them to shirk responsibility for it. 
In all, President Obama has had a significantly lower percentage of his 
circuit and district nominees confirmed at this point in his time in 
office than President Bush did at the same point in his presidency.
  Senate Republicans who take such pride in the number of nominees 
being confirmed this year ignore how many, like Judge Chappell, were 
needlessly delayed from confirmation last year and what they have done 
during the last 4 years. That is why even after the 17 confirmations 
this year, we remain nearly 20 confirmations behind the pace we set for 
President Bush's circuit and district nominees, and vacancies remain 
nearly twice as high as they were at this point during President Bush's 
second term. For all their self-congratulatory statements they cannot 
refute the following: We are not even keeping up with attrition. 
Vacancies have increased, not decreased, since the start of this year. 
President Obama's judicial nominees have faced unprecedented delays and 
obstruction by Senate Republicans. We have yet to finish the work that 
could and should have been completed last year. There are still a dozen 
judicial nominees being denied confirmation.
  A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service 
compares the whole of President Obama's first term to the whole of 
President Bush's first term, and the contrast could not be more clear. 
The median Senate floor wait time for President Obama's district 
nominees was 5 times longer than for President Bush's. President 
Obama's circuit nominees faced even longer delays, and their median 
wait time was 7.3 times longer than for

[[Page 7199]]

President Bush's circuit nominees. The comparison is even worse if we 
look just at nominees who were reported and confirmed unanimously. 
President Bush's unanimously confirmed circuit nominees had a median 
wait time of just 14 days. Compare that to the 130.5 days for President 
Obama's unanimous nominees. That is more than 9 times longer. Even the 
nonpartisan CRS calls this a ``notable change.'' There is no good 
reason for such unprecedented delays, but those are the facts.
  The confirmations in the last few months do not change the reality of 
what has happened over the last four years. If a baseball player goes 
0-for-9, and then gets a hit, we do not say he is an all-star because 
he is batting 1.000 in his last at bat. We recognize that he is just 1-
for-10, and not a very good hitter.
  So while I welcome the confirmations this year, I note both that 13 
of the 17 could and should have been confirmed last year and that there 
are another dozen nominees pending before the Senate, including two who 
also could have been confirmed last year. We can and must do more for 
Americans who look to our courts for justice. They deserve better than 
long delays and empty courtrooms. With 10 percent of our Federal bench 
vacant, and a backlog of nominees on the Senate Executive Calendar, it 
is clear that the Senate is not doing what it should on nominations.
  It is also ridiculous to complain that the Senate does not have 
nominees when Mark Barnett, Claire Kelly, Sheri Chappell, Michael 
McShane, Nitza Quinones Alejandro, Luis Restrepo, Jeffrey Schmehl, 
Kenneth Gonzales, Gregory Phillips, Sri Srinivasan, Ray Chen, and 
Jennifer Dorsey are awaiting confirmation.
  In addition, Senate Republicans need to take responsibility for not 
working with the President to fill vacancies. It is disingenuous of 
Republican Senators not to work with President Obama to pick nominees 
and then blame the President for the lack of nominees. I was interested 
to hear one Senate Republican argue that if Senators do not get 
recommendations in ``expeditiously enough,'' the President ``has the 
prerogative to nominate someone and then we have the responsibility to 
act on it.'' Before President Obama had made a single judicial 
nomination, all Senate Republicans sent him a letter threatening to 
filibuster his nominees if he did not consult Republican home state 
Senators. So the recent statement was either a complete reversal in 
position, or baiting a trap to then block any nominees the President 
sends to us.
  Some Republican Senators have been willing to work with the President 
to find nominees in their States. We recently received nominations for 
district court vacancies in Alabama and Tennessee, and I hope to 
schedule those nominees for hearings soon. In Pennsylvania, the 
Republican Senator is now working with Senator Casey to find nominees 
that they both support. In fact, three such nominees are pending before 
the Senate now, and they would fill three of the six current vacancies 
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The nominees have been pending 
before the Senate for over 2 months after being reported unanimously, 
and I hope Senate Republicans will allow us to complete action on them 
before the Memorial Day recess.
  I remain deeply concerned about the impact of sequestration on our 
Federal courts and our legal system. After 4 years in which Senate 
Republicans have forced our courts to operate shorthanded, with 10 
percent or more of judgeships vacant, these harsh spending cuts are the 
last thing we should be doing. I continue to hear from judges and other 
members of the legal community about the damage of sequestration.
  The Judicial Conference, whose presiding officer is Chief Justice 
Roberts, wrote last week to request emergency funding for fiscal 2013 
in order to ``address critical needs resulting from sequestration 
cuts.'' These indiscriminate cuts have left our Federal judiciary 
``confronting an unprecedented fiscal crisis that could seriously 
compromise the Constitutional mission of the United States courts.'' 
Members of the bar have written in support of this request, stating 
that ``budget cuts have forced diminished court staffing, court 
closures, compromised security, and lengthy trial delays.'' They 
rightly note that ``it is people's lives that are adversely changed'' 
by these unnecessary cuts. I ask unanimous consent that both letters be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. I hope 
Senators read these letters and take these concerns seriously, and that 
we can come together to meet our responsibilities to our coequal branch 
and to the 310 million Americans we all serve.
  Judge Sheri Polster Chappell is nominated to a judicial emergency 
vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 
where she has been serving since 2003 as a Federal Magistrate Judge. 
Prior to her appointment to the Federal bench, she worked as a Lee 
County Court Judge, as an Assistant State Attorney in the Twentieth 
Judicial Circuit of Florida, where she was the first female county 
office head, and as an instructor at the Southwest Florida Criminal 
Justice Academy. Judge Chappell was reported unanimously last year and 
again 2 months ago. The Middle District of Florida has a second 
judicial emergency vacancy, and it is unfortunate that the Senate is 
not being allowed to consider the nominee to that seat, as well. Judge 
Brian Davis received unanimously the ABA Standing Committee on the 
Federal Judiciary's highest rating of ``well qualified,'' and was 
reported favorably almost 1 year ago.
  Judge Michael McShane is nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy on 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Currently a Circuit 
Court Judge on the Multnomah County Circuit Court, Judge McShane has 
served as a State court judge for over 15 years. He previously served 
as a Circuit Judge Pro Tem on the Multnomah County Circuit Court. Prior 
to becoming a judge, Judge McShane spent his entire 9-year legal career 
as a trial attorney in the Metropolitan Public Defender's Office in 
Portland, OR. Judge McShane has the support of his home State Senators, 
Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley, and was reported unanimously by the 
Judiciary Committee over 2 months ago.
  Senate Republicans have a long way to go to match the record of 
cooperation on consensus nominees that Senate Democrats established 
during the Bush administration. After today's votes, 10 more judicial 
nominees remain pending, and all but one were reported unanimously. All 
Senate Democrats are ready to vote on each of them to allow them to get 
to work for the American people. We can make real progress for our 
Federal courts and the American people if Senate Republicans are 
willing to join us.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2013]

                 Open Judgeships Show D.C. Dysfunction

                          (By Gerald F. Seib)

       Jill Pryor of Georgia and Rosemary Marquez of Arizona 
     aren't exactly household names, but they share a distinction 
     with national importance: Both have been waiting exactly 689 
     days for the Senate to act on their nominations to become 
     federal judges.
       Yet they aren't even the most extreme examples of 
     Washington's inability to perform one of its most basic 
     functions, filling the federal judiciary across the land. All 
     told, 85 federal judgeships sit vacant, meaning some 10% of 
     the federal judiciary is empty--and this at a time when those 
     who run the court system think there actually should be new 
     judicial posts created because of an escalating workload.
       Openings on two of the nation's most important federal 
     appeals courts--the Ninth Circuit in the West and the D.C. 
     Circuit in Washington--have been unfilled since 2005.
       There is no current nominee for either seat, not since 
     President Barack Obama's choice for the D.C. slot gave up in 
     frustration after Republican filibusters put her nomination 
     in limbo for 2\1/2\ years.
       The Obama administration must shoulder some blame for this 
     predicament. It has been slower than its predecessors to vet 
     and nominate judicial candidates.
       But the lion's share of the blame lies with the Senate, a 
     body that's becoming an embarrassment to itself and that 
     increasingly infects the rest of government with its 
     paralysis.
       Traditionally, the first step in the process of picking 
     federal judicial nominees is for

[[Page 7200]]

     senators to recommend to the White House candidates to fill 
     vacancies in their home states; the process slows when home-
     state senators of different parties can't agree.
       Senators then can quietly decline to endorse a nominee, or 
     put an unpublicized ``hold'' on nominees they disapprove of, 
     or can stop a nomination by simply threatening a filibuster.
       In today's partisan environment, all those tactics are at 
     work.
       ``There always was a bit of back and forth between the 
     parties on nominations generally, and judicial nominations 
     specifically,'' says Caroline Fredrickson, a former Senate 
     aide and now president of the American Constitution Society, 
     a left-leaning organization that tracks judicial nominations. 
     ``But it's become so extreme that I think we are in a 
     completely different situation now.''
       This problem persists even though the Senate has confirmed 
     more than a dozen judges in the past couple of months. That 
     progress has served mostly to keep the number of vacancies 
     below 100; judges still aren't being confirmed fast enough to 
     keep up with the rate of attrition as older judges retire.
       In recent days, more attention has been devoted to the 
     Senate's unwillingness to confirm Obama administration 
     nominations for senior executive-branch positions, including 
     Thomas Perez as labor secretary and Gina McCarthy as 
     Environmental Protection Agency administrator. Republican 
     senators have buried the nominees with written questions and 
     refused to show up for committee votes on them.
       Yet the backlog of judicial vacancies is a more long-
     standing problem and a better illustration of the Senate's 
     inability to pull out of partisan ruts and get beyond an 
     epidemic of filibusters.
       Both parties know that, while cabinet secretaries come and 
     go, federal judges stay on the scene for years, even decades. 
     So the party out of power is reluctant to let a president 
     fill the judiciary with nominees of his political persuasion, 
     if leaving the positions unfilled creates at least the chance 
     that the opposition party will be able to put a judge of its 
     liking into place a few years hence.
       This political temptation wouldn't matter so much if 
     senators hadn't also decided in recent years that it is 
     acceptable to mount filibusters not only in exceptional cases 
     but to stop even the most routine business.
       Thus, the country now is in the bizarre position of having 
     a chief justice, John Roberts, on the Supreme Court for 
     almost eight years--while his previous position on the D.C. 
     Circuit Court of Appeals has sat empty for the entire time.
       This problem has been building for years. A recent study by 
     the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service shows that 
     even noncontroversial judicial appointments--those that 
     ultimately got bipartisan support and easily passed the 
     Senate--are having to wait longer for confirmation across the 
     past four presidencies of both parties.
       As Republicans note, Democrats set the stage for today's 
     problems by filibustering George W. Bush's judicial nominees. 
     Now the problem has grown worse in the Obama years, as 
     Republicans turn the tables and bottle up Democratic 
     nominations.
       The study found that 35.7% of George W. Bush's 
     noncontroversial circuit-court nominees had to wait more than 
     200 days for confirmation--up from 22.2% for Bill Clinton. 
     During the Obama presidency, that percentage has soared to 
     63.6%. No Obama circuit-court nominee has been confirmed in 
     less than 100 days.
       What's more, previously only more-sensitive appeals-court 
     nominations were filibustered; now it's also less-sensitive 
     district-court nominations.
       It has been clear for a while that Washington has trouble 
     getting big things done. Judicial vacancies show it doesn't 
     do the smaller ones so well either.
                                  ____



                                                          dri,

                                        Chicago, IL, May 16, 2013.
     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy: The operations of the federal 
     judiciary are essential to maintaining the rule of law in 
     this country, the foundation for much of our economic life. 
     This lies in peril now as budget cuts have forced diminished 
     court staffing, court closures, compromised security, and 
     lengthy trial delays. This, of course, means that justice is 
     delayed. Since criminal trials must take priority, already 
     lengthy delays in civil trials become even longer. Perhaps 
     thousands of businesses will not survive the abeyance of 
     lengthy uncertainty over the outcome of litigation. We talk 
     of the effect on justice, we talk of the effect on businesses 
     but, at bottom, it is people's lives that are adversely 
     changed.
       The U.S. Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office 
     of the U.S. Courts have petitioned for emergency funding of 
     $73 million that would replace only a small portion of the 
     $350 million in cuts forced upon them by sequestration. The 
     22,000 members of DRI--The Voice of the Defense Bar with one 
     voice wholeheartedly support their petition and urge that you 
     take whatever action is necessary to realize its fulfillment.
       DRI will remain at the disposal of Congressional and White 
     House leaders to provide any expertise or support needed to 
     move funding forward.
           Sincerely,
                                               Mary Massaron Ross,
     DRI President.
                                  ____

                                               Judicial Conference


                                         of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 2013.
     Hon. Sylvia Mathews Burwell,
     Director, Office of Management and Budget, 17th Street NW, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Director Burwell: We write on behalf of the Judicial 
     Conference of the United States to inform the Administration 
     of the Judiciary's decision to seek $72.9 million in fiscal 
     year 2013 emergency supplemental appropriations to address 
     critical needs resulting from sequestration cuts. The 
     supplemental request includes $31.5 million for the Courts 
     Salaries and Expenses account, and $41.4 million for the 
     Defender Services account. In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 1107, 
     we respectfully request that the President transmit the 
     Judiciary's supplemental requirements to Congress promptly 
     and without change. A detailed summary of this supplemental 
     request is included in Enclosure 1. A funding table and the 
     proposed legislative language are included in Enclosure 2.
       Final enacted appropriations for fiscal year 2013, after 
     sequestration cuts are applied, reduce Judiciary funding 
     overall by nearly $350 million below fiscal year 2012 
     discretionary appropriations. Emergency measures have been 
     implemented throughout the federal court system to address 
     the drastically reduced funding levels under sequestration, 
     but the federal courts do not have the flexibility to absorb 
     such a large cut. The impacts of sequestration are compounded 
     by the fact that 100 percent of the cuts must be absorbed 
     with only six months remaining in the fiscal year. Unlike 
     some Executive Branch entities, the Judiciary has little 
     flexibility to move funds between appropriation accounts to 
     lessen the effects of sequestration. There are no lower-
     priority programs to reduce in order to transfer funds to 
     other Judiciary accounts.
       Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 allows for statutory spending 
     caps to be exceeded under certain conditions, including if 
     Congress and the President designate funding as an emergency 
     requirement. The Judiciary is confronting an unprecedented 
     fiscal crisis that could seriously compromise the 
     Constitutional mission of the United States courts. We 
     believe our supplemental request meets the threshold for 
     receiving an emergency designation.
       The Judiciary's emergency actions to date do not constitute 
     a solution to the budget crisis facing the federal courts as 
     a result of sequestration. Instead, these actions represent a 
     conscientious effort to mitigate the adverse impact of 
     sequestration on court operations in an attempt to ensure 
     continued access to justice for the citizens of this country. 
     However, sequestration cuts have created an unprecedented 
     financial crisis that is impacting all facets of federal 
     court operations.
       Finally, we note that Executive Branch agencies with 
     criminal justice responsibilities have had the flexibility 
     and resources to address their fiscal year 2013 sequestration 
     cuts. As a result, these agencies--which directly impact the 
     workload of the Judiciary--have been able to avoid furloughs. 
     While the Judiciary has the authority to transfer funds 
     between appropriation accounts, it does not have the 
     available funding flexibility needed to do so. Instead, we 
     must ask Congress to approve a supplemental appropriation.
       Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions 
     regarding this supplemental appropriations request.
           Sincerely,
     Julia S. Gibbons,
       Chair, Judicial Conference, Committee on the Budget.
     Thomas F. Hogan,
       Secretary, Judicial Conference of the U.S.
                                  ____


  Summary of Judiciary Fiscal Year 2013 Emergency Supplemental Request


                      COURTS SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       The Courts Salaries and Expenses account funds the bulk of 
     federal court operations including the operations of the 
     appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, and probation and 
     pretrial services offices. This account was cut $239 million 
     below fiscal year 2012 levels under sequestration. Given the 
     decentralized nature of the federal court system, individual 
     courts will decide how to absorb the majority of cuts 
     required by sequestration. To mitigate the impact of 
     sequestration on employees, the courts have slashed non-
     salary budgets but even with these reductions, on a national 
     level, up to 1,000 court employees could be laid off over the 
     remainder of the fiscal year and thousands of employees face 
     furloughs. These staffing losses will come on top of the 
     nearly 2,200 probation and pretrial services officers and 
     clerks' office staff the courts have already lost since the 
     end of July 2011, a 10 percent loss of staff. Cuts to clerks' 
     office staffing

[[Page 7201]]

     will result in the slower processing of civil and bankruptcy 
     cases which will impact individuals, small businesses, and 
     corporations seeking to resolve disputes in the federal 
     courts.
       Sequestration cuts will also impact public safety. Our 
     probation and pretrial services officers are federal law 
     enforcement officers that supervise defendants awaiting trial 
     and offenders on post-conviction release. Cuts to officer 
     staffing levels mean less deterrence, detection, and response 
     to possible resumed criminal activity by federal defendants 
     and offenders in the community. In addition, funding to 
     support GPS and other electronic monitoring of potentially 
     dangerous defendants and offenders has been cut 20 percent. 
     Equivalent cuts to funding for drug testing, substance abuse 
     and mental health treatment of federal defendants and 
     offenders have also been made, increasing further the risk to 
     public safety.
       Of the $31.5 million in fiscal year 2013 supplemental 
     funding requested for Courts Salaries and Expenses, $18.5 
     million will be used to avoid further staffing cuts and 
     furloughs in clerks of court and probation and pretrial 
     services offices during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 
     2013. This funding will save the jobs of approximately 500 
     court employees and avoid 14,400 planned furlough days for 
     3,300 court employees. The remaining $13.0 million will 
     restore half of the sequestration cuts to drug testing, 
     substance abuse, and mental health treatment services for 
     defendants awaiting trial and offenders released from prison. 
     Timely diagnosis and treatment of drug and mental health 
     conditions is critical to defendants/offenders successfully 
     completing their terms of release and ensuring community 
     safety.


                           DEFENDER SERVICES

       The Judiciary's Defender Services program provides 
     financially eligible federal defendants with defense counsel 
     and related services that, under the Sixth Amendment and the 
     Criminal Justice Act, the government must fund in order to 
     prosecute cases. Program costs are essentially comprised of 
     compensation to federal defender organization (FDO) staff, 
     payments to private ``panel'' attorneys, case related 
     expenses (expert witnesses, interpreters, investigations, 
     etc.), space rent, and other fixed costs. Consequently, the 
     primary options for absorbing the $52 million sequestration 
     cut are reducing FDO staffing levels and/or deferring 
     payments to private panel attorneys. Reducing FDO staff 
     results in appointments being shifted to panel attorneys thus 
     increasing those costs, and deferring panel attorney payments 
     into fiscal year 2014 only adds to fiscal year 2014 
     appropriations requirements. Absent supplemental funding, the 
     Judiciary will need to suspend payments to private panel 
     attorneys for the last 15 business days (3 weeks) of the 
     fiscal year, and FDOs will need to further reduce costs 
     through staffing cuts and by furloughing employees for a 
     national average of approximately 15 days for the remainder 
     of the fiscal year.
       We are aware that the U.S. Department of Justice is not 
     furloughing staff so we anticipate the pace at which criminal 
     cases requiring appointment of defense counsel will continue 
     unabated, while resources in the Defender Services program 
     are diminishing. Between October 2012 and April 2013, FDOs 
     downsized by 113 employees and other employees were 
     furloughed. Further FDO cuts and the anticipated suspension 
     of panel attorney payments will create the real possibility 
     that panel attorneys may decline to accept Criminal Justice 
     Act appointments in cases that otherwise would have been 
     represented by FDOs. Delays in the cases moving forward may 
     result in violations of constitutional and statutory speedy 
     trial mandates resulting in criminal cases being dismissed.
       Of the $41.4 million in supplemental funding requested for 
     Defender Services, $27.7 million is required to avoid 
     deferring payments to private attorneys for the last 15 
     business days (3 weeks) of the fiscal year. To address 
     staffing losses, $8.7 million is needed to avoid further 
     staffing cuts and furloughs in FDOs during the fourth quarter 
     of fiscal year 2013. This funding will save the jobs of 
     approximately 50 employees and avoid 9,600 planned furlough 
     days for 1,700 FDO employees. The remaining $5.0 million is 
     for projected defense representation and related expert costs 
     for high-threat trials, including high-threat cases in New 
     York and Boston that, absent sequestration, the Defender 
     Services program would have been able to absorb without the 
     need for supplemental funding.
                                  ____


                                             FEDERAL JUDICIARY--FY 2013 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
                                                                         [$000]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              FY 2012                                         FY 2013
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Appropriation Account                       FY 2012      FY 2013 Full       FY 2013         FY 2013         FY 2013         FY 2013
                                                              Enacted      Year CR (P.L.   Sequestration     Available     Supplemental       Revised
                                                              Approp.        113-6)\1\        Cut\2\       Appropriation      Request      Appropriation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court:
    Salaries & Expenses.................................          74,819          74,684         (3,653)          71,030              --          71,030
    Care of Building and Grounds........................           8,159           8,143           (410)           7,732              --           7,732
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...........          32,511          32,462         (1,509)          30,953              --          30,953
U.S. Court of International Trade.......................          21,447          21,405           (992)          20,412              --          20,412
Courts of Appeals, District Courts & OtherJudicial
 Services (CADCOJS):
    Salaries & Expenses
        Direct..........................................       5,015,000       5,015,955       (239,114)       4,776,841          31,500       4,808,341
        Vaccine Injury Fund.............................           5,000           4,990  ..............           4,990              --           4,990
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total.......................................       5,020,000       5,020,945       (239,114)       4,781,831          31,500       4,813,331
    Defender Services...................................       1,031,000       1,037,920        (51,865)         986,055          41,400       1,027,455
    Fees of Jurors & Commissioners......................          51,908          51,804         (2,611)          49,193              --          49,193
    Court Security......................................         500,000         499,000        (25,153)         473,847              --         473,847
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, CADCOJS...............................       6,602,908       6,609,670       (318,744)       6,290,926          72,900       6,363,826
Administrative Office...................................          82,909          82,743         (4,171)          78,572              --          78,572
Federal Judicial Center.................................          27,000          26,946         (1,358)          25,588              --          25,588
Judicial Retirement Funds (mandatory)...................         103,768         125,464              --         125,464              --         125,464
U.S. Sentencing Commission..............................          16,500          16,467           (830)          15,637              --          15,637
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total, The Judiciary........................       6,970,021       6,997,983       (331,668)       6,666,314          72,900       6,739,214
Sequestration to Judiciary Fees.........................  ..............  ..............        (13,974)
                                                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Judiciary Sequestration...........................  ..............  ..............       (345,642)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Reflects Judiciary appropriations included in the FY 2013 full year CR (P.L. 113-6) as well as the reduction associated with the 0.2 percent across-
  the-board rescission.
\2\Reflects sequestration cuts calculated by the Office of Management and Budget on March 1, 2013.

     Federal Judiciary FY 2013 Supplemental Appropriations Request


    COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

     Bill Language

       For an additional amount for `Courts of Appeals, District 
     Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Salaries and Expenses,' 
     $31,500,000, for emergency expenses of the courts for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, including amounts 
     necessary to minimize staffing reductions and furloughs, and 
     for drug testing, drug treatment, and mental health treatment 
     services of offenders and defendants in the probation and 
     pretrial services program. Provided, That the amount provided 
     herein is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

     Justification

       $18.5 million will be used to avoid further staffing cuts 
     and furloughs in clerks of court and probation and pretrial 
     services offices during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 
     2013. This funding will save the jobs of approximately 500 
     court employees and avoid 14,400 planned furlough days for 
     3,300 court employees.
       $13.0 million will restore half of the sequestration cuts 
     to drug testing, substance abuse, and mental health treatment 
     services for defendants awaiting trial and offenders released 
     from prison. Timely diagnosis and treatment of drug and 
     mental health conditions is critical to defendants/offenders 
     successfully completing their terms of release and ensuring 
     community safety.


                           DEFENDER SERVICES

     Bill Language

       For an additional amount for `Courts of Appeals, District 
     Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Defender Services,' 
     $41,400,000, for

[[Page 7202]]

     emergency expenses related to the representation of 
     defendants under the Criminal Justice Act for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2013, including amounts necessary to 
     minimize staffing reductions and furloughs in federal 
     defender organizations, for the compensation and 
     reimbursement of panel attorneys and experts, and for 
     representation costs associated with high-threat trials. 
     Provided, That the amount provided herein is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

     Justification

       $27.7 million is required to avoid deferring payments to 
     private attorneys representing indigent defendants under the 
     Criminal Justice Act for the last 15 business days (3 weeks) 
     of the fiscal year. Without additional funding, sequestration 
     cuts will necessitate that these expenses shift to fiscal 
     year 2014. These costs were not included in the Judiciary's 
     fiscal year 2014 budget request to Congress.
       $8.7 million will avoid further staffing cuts through 
     layoffs, buyouts and early outs, and furloughs in federal 
     defender organizations during the fourth quarter of fiscal 
     year 2013. This funding will save the jobs of approximately 
     50 employees and avoid 9,600 planned furlough days for 1,700 
     federal defender organization employees.
       The remaining $5.0 million is for projected defense 
     representation and related expert costs for high-threat 
     trials, including high-threat cases in New York and Boston 
     that, absent sequestration, the Defender Services program 
     would have been able to absorb without the need for 
     supplemental funding.

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield to my distinguished colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to speak to the nomination of 
Michael McShane to serve on the U.S. district court of Eugene. Judge 
McShane is an exceptionally qualified nominee and will make a terrific 
addition to the Federal bench in Oregon. Over his entire career, Judge 
McShane has demonstrated a tremendous commitment to the law, to public 
service, and to our State.
  He came to Oregon 30 years ago to serve communities through the 
Jesuit Volunteer Corps. The Jesuit Volunteer Corps, known as JVC, is 
folks, often graduating from college, who dedicate 1 year of direct 
service to the poor, simple living, and spiritual community. They work 
in locations such as food banks and local church programs, to work with 
at-risk youth and work of this nature. They work directly to help make 
the world a better place and do so in an exceptional manner. Anyone who 
comes out of college and dedicates 1 year to such an effort certainly 
starts in a very sound place.
  Since that time, Judge McShane has remained deeply dedicated both to 
Oregon and to serving those in our society most in need. After 
graduating from Lewis & Clark Law School, Judge McShane went to work as 
a public defender in Portland. For more than 10 years, he represented 
those who otherwise would have no voice in our legal system. After his 
time as a public defender, he went to work on the circuit court, first 
as a judge pro tem and then simply as a judge.
  In the approximately 15 years he served on the circuit court, Judge 
McShane has developed an excellent reputation for fairness, 
thoroughness, and accuracy.
  He also continued to serve in the community as a foster parent and 
adjunct law professor at Lewis & Clark College. In one letter of 
support I received, a member of the Portland law community summed up 
his nomination by saying:

       What stands out to me is that Judge McShane lives and 
     conducts his personal life with the same integrity, honor, 
     compassion and diligence as he displays as a judge.

  Judge McShane will make an excellent addition to the U.S. district 
court. I urge my colleagues present tonight to join in support for his 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before we vote on the nominees today, I 
want to update my colleagues on where we stand with judicial 
confirmations. After tonight, the Senate will have confirmed 190 
district and circuit nominees; we have defeated two. That's 190-2; 
which is a .990 batting average. That is an outstanding record. Who can 
complain about achieving 99 percent?
  So far this year, the Senate has confirmed 17 nominees. Today, if 
Judge Chappell and Judge McShane are confirmed, we confirm the 
eighteenth and nineteenth nominees. At this stage in President Bush's 
second term, only 4 were confirmed. That is a record of 19 to 4.
  This President is being treated exceptionally fairly.
  The President has recently submitted a few new nominations. I know I 
have been reminding him that we can't do anything about vacancies 
without him first sending up nominees.
  But again, even with the recent nominations, 58 of 82 nominations 
still have no nominee. And for judicial emergencies, only 6 of 32 
vacancies have a nominee.
  So I just wanted to set the record straight before we vote on these 
nominees. I expect they will both be confirmed tonight and I 
congratulate them on their confirmations.
  Judge Chappell received her B.A. from the University of Wisconsin--
Madison in 1984 and her J.D. from Nova Southeastern University Law 
School in 1987. Upon graduation, Judge Chappell became an assistant 
State Attorney in the Fort Myers Misdemeanor Division. In 1988, she 
began prosecuting felony cases including crimes against children, 
drugs, property crimes, and crimes against persons. In 1991, she was 
promoted to office head of the Hendry and Glades County office where 
she prosecuted cases and supervised the attorneys, secretaries, and 
investigators. From 1993 until 1998, she acted as the supervisor of the 
Fort Myers Circuit Court Trial Division where she served as chair of 
the hiring committee and created a training course for new assistant 
state attorneys. From 1998 to 2000, Judge Chappell served as the office 
head of the Charlotte County office.
  In 2000, Judge Chappell was appointed by then-Governor Jeb Bush as a 
Lee County Court judge for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit. In 2002, she 
was elected to serve a 6-year term for this position. There, she had 
jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases and civil disputes involving 
$15,000 or less. She resigned in 2003 due to her selection as a United 
States magistrate judge for the Middle District of Florida. There she 
handles criminal and civil dockets.
  According to her questionnaire, Judge Chappell has presided over 
approximately 519 cases that have gone to verdict or judgment.
  The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary gave her a Unanimous ``Qualified'' rating.
  Judge McShane received his B.A. from Gonzaga University in 1983 and 
his J.D. from Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College in 
1988. For the first 9 years of his law career, Judge McShane worked as 
a public defender in Portland, OR, representing indigent clients facing 
criminal prosecution, the majority accused of felonies. During this 
time, he held the positions of Senior Felony Attorney and Misdemeanor 
Supervisor. According to his questionnaire, as a practicing attorney, 
Judge McShane tried over 500 trials to verdict.
  In 1997, Judge McShane was appointed as a Multnomah County Circuit 
Court judge pro tem by then-Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, 
Wallace Carson. He presided over misdemeanor trials, criminal 
arraignments, traffic matters, stalking protective orders, probation 
hearings, small claims, and forcible entry and detainer matters.
  In 2001, Judge McShane was appointed to the Multnomah County Circuit 
Court by then-Governor John A. Kitzhaber. In 2002, he was elected to 
the position and re-elected in 2008. He served as a trial judge with 
general jurisdiction and presided over criminal and civil matters. In 
2012, he was assigned to the family law bench. According to his 
questionnaire, Judge McShane has presided over thousands of cases, of 
which approximately 1,600 cases went to verdict.
  The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
Judiciary gave him a Majority ``Qualified'' and Minority ``Well 
Qualified'' rating.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cowan). The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 7203]]

  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. JOHANNS. Mr. President, we yield all time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Sheri Polster 
Chappell, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Middle 
District of Florida?
  Mr. JOHANNS. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. 
Heitkamp), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from 
New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) would each vote ``yea.''
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Dakota 
(Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from 
South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), 
and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 128 Ex.]

                                YEAS--90

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hirono
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Alexander
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Paul
     Pryor
     Scott
     Vitter
     Wicker
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Michael J. 
McShane, of Oregon, to be United States District Judge for the District 
of Oregon?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________