[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9719-9727]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF M. HANNAH LAUCK TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 
                    THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF LEO T. SOROKIN TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                       DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF RICHARD FRANKLIN BOULWARE II TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
                    JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, 
which the clerk will now report.
  The bill clerk read the nominations of M. Hannah Lauck, of Virginia, 
to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of 
Virginia, Leo T. Sorokin, of Massachusetts, to be United States 
District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, and Richard Franklin 
Boulware II, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Nevada.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we vote to confirm nominees to 
District Courts in Virginia, Massachusetts, and Nevada.
  Although I will be supporting the nominees from Virginia and 
Massachusetts, unfortunately I will be unable to support the nomination 
of Richard Boulware II when the Senate considers his nomination and 
wanted to explain the reasons for my vote. As an initial matter, Mr. 
Boulware received a partially ``not qualified'' rating from the 
American Bar Association. Some of us on this side of the aisle have 
raised concerns over the years with what we view as an inconsistent 
application of the ABA's rating system. I have viewed the ABA's ratings 
with suspicion for many years. They always seemed to be harder on 
Republican Presidents than Democrats. Because of that, I tend to 
consider their ratings with a grain of salt. On the other hand, given 
their history, in my view, of treating Republican nominees more 
harshly, it gives me pause when I see a partial ``not qualified'' 
rating from the ABA for a nominee from an administration the ABA has 
been so aligned with on many issues.
  Of course, ABA ratings are only one factor in my assessments of 
nominees. Unfortunately, there are other aspects of Mr. Boulware's 
record that concern me.
  He has limited legal experience, especially in comparison to other 
nominees. He has only been practicing law since 2002, and that includes 
a clerkship. Additionally, his entire career has been in criminal law. 
He has no experience in any of the complex civil matters that would 
come before him if he is confirmed.
  I am also concerned that over the course of his career he has taken 
very aggressive policy positions on a number of different issues in 
testimony before the Nevada Legislature. For example, he has spoken 
against updating the antiquated paper-based pool book system to a more 
efficient system of processing voters because he believes voter 
identification laws unfairly impact poor and minority communities. He 
has testified that solitary confinement is a reduction of due process 
rights for prisoners. He has opposed taking DNA samples from arrested 
persons. And he has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in 
writing letters to the legislature on several issues relating to police 
conduct.
  If Mr. Boulware had more experience, it would be easier to give him 
the benefit of the doubt. But when I consider the entirety of his 
record, his lack of experience as an attorney and his zealous advocacy 
for many controversial policy positions, it is with reluctance that I 
will vote no on his nomination. I anticipate Mr. Boulware will be 
confirmed, and it is my sincere hope that he proves me wrong.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on three 
nominees to serve on the U.S. district courts. This includes Judge 
Hannah Lauck, to serve in the Eastern District of Virginia; Judge Leo 
Sorokin, to serve in the District of Massachusetts; and Richard 
Boulware, to fill an emergency vacancy in the District of Nevada. The 
Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported two of these nominees 
unanimously to the full Senate and the third nominee with bipartisan 
support. All of these nominees are qualified to serve on the Federal 
bench, and the nominations of both Judge Lauck and Judge

[[Page 9720]]

Sorokin unanimously received the American Bar Association's highest 
rating of ``well qualified.''
  Yesterday, the Senate was once again forced to invoke cloture on 
these qualified judicial nominees, all of whom have demonstrated legal 
excellence during their already impressive careers. With yesterday's 
votes, the Senate will have voted for cloture on 47 judicial nominees 
so far this year. During all 8 years of the Clinton administration, the 
Senate voted four times for cloture on circuit and district court 
nominees. During all 8 years of the Bush administration, the Senate 
voted 29 times for cloture on circuit and district court nominees. 
After today, we will have already voted 47 times for cloture in just 
the last 6 months. These votes do nothing to further what should be our 
collective goal of an efficient and fair justice system, accessible to 
all. I can only hope that Senate Republicans soon put an end to this 
obstruction. Today, we will vote on the confirmation of the following 
judicial nominees.
  Judge Hannah Lauck has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on 
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. She has 
served since 2005 as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Eastern District 
of Virginia. During her judicial service, she has handled hundreds of 
criminal and civil cases and has presided over 150 bench trials. She 
has served as an adjunct professor of law at the University of Richmond 
from 1996 to 2006 and from 2010 to 2013. She worked in private practice 
as a supervising attorney at Gentworth Financial from 2004 to 2005 and 
previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District 
of Virginia from 1994 to 2004, where she worked in both the Criminal 
and Civil Divisions. She worked as an associate at Anderson, Kill, 
Olick & Oshinsky from 1992 to 1994. After graduating from law school, 
she served as a law clerk to Judge James Spencer of the U.S. District 
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Her nomination unanimously 
received the American Bar Association's highest rating of ``well 
qualified.'' She has the support of her home State Senators, Senator 
Warner and Senator Kaine. The Judiciary Committee reported her 
nomination favorably by voice vote to the full Senate on March 27, 
2014.
  Judge Leo Sorokin has been nominated to fill a judicial vacancy on 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. He has 
served since 2005 as a U.S. magistrate judge in the District of 
Massachusetts and as the chief magistrate judge since 2012. During his 
judicial service, he has presided over 60 criminal and civil cases that 
have gone to verdict or judgment and 15 cases that have gone to trial. 
He has served since 2013 as an adjunct professor at Boston University 
Law School and previously served as an assistant Federal public 
defender in Boston from 1997 to 2005 and as an assistant attorney 
general in the Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts from 
1994 to 1997. He worked in private practice as an associate at Mintz 
Levin from 1992 to 1994. After graduating from law school, he served as 
a law clerk to Judge Rya Zobel of the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Massachusetts. Judge Sorokin's nomination unanimously 
received the American Bar Association's highest rating of ``well 
qualified.'' He has the support of his home State Senators, Senator 
Warren and Senator Markey. The Judiciary Committee reported his 
nomination favorably by voice vote to the full Senate on March 27, 
2014.
  Richard Boulware has been nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Nevada that has been designated as a 
judicial emergency vacancy by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of 
the U.S. Courts. Since 2003, Mr. Boulware has served as a Federal 
public defender for the District of Nevada. Following law school, he 
served as a law clerk to Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court 
for the Southern District of New York and as a litigation associate at 
Covington & Burling in New York City.
  Mr. Boulware's nomination has the strong bipartisan support of both 
his home State Senators, the majority leader, and Senator Heller. There 
is no question that the Senate should confirm Mr. Boulware. However, 
some in committee raised concerns about his qualifications, citing his 
minority ``not qualified'' rating by the ABA's Standing Committee on 
the Federal Judiciary. I note he received a rating by a substantial 
majority of the ABA Committee of ``qualified.'' I also note that Mr. 
Boulware's ABA rating is higher than or on par with 33 of President 
Bush's nominees who were confirmed despite partial ``not qualified'' 
ratings, including two nominees to the Eastern District of Kentucky who 
received majority ``not qualified'' ratings by the ABA's Standing 
Committee but were nevertheless confirmed by the Senate by voice vote.
  I support Mr. Boulware's nomination without reservation and hope that 
Senators from both sides of the aisle will join me in voting to confirm 
this worthy nominee. If confirmed, he will be the first African-
American man to serve as a Federal judge in the District of Nevada. I 
am proud to be a part of this important historic milestone and am glad 
that the majority leader continues to make judicial nominations a 
priority.
  There are seven additional judicial nominees reported by the 
Judiciary Committee currently pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. 
Five of these nominees are nominated to fill judicial emergency 
vacancies, and I hope the Senate will act quickly to confirm these 
nominations.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of a fellow 
Virginian as President Obama's nominee to the U.S. District Court for 
the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Hannah Lauck. When confirmed, 
Hannah will become the first woman judge on the Federal trial bench in 
Richmond, VA.
  Hannah is exceptionally well qualified to carry out the duties and 
responsibilities of a Federal district judge.
  Hannah earned her bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, in 1986 from 
Wellesley College, where she was also elected to Phi Beta Kappa.
  She went on to receive her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1991. While 
in law school she directed the Homelessness Clinic and served on the 
board of the Initiative for Public Interest Law.
  Hannah began her legal career in the Eastern District of Virginia 
serving as a clerk for Judge James Spencer. Judge Spencer--a Reagan 
appointee to the bench--is extremely well-regarded in Richmond for his 
legal acumen, honest nature, and service to the community and will be 
taking senior status this year.
  Coming full circle, Hannah has now been selected to fill the seat of 
Judge Spencer, her mentor and for whom she clerked right out of law 
school.
  From 1994 to 2004, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the 
Eastern District of Virginia where she handled both civil defense 
matters as well as criminal prosecutions.
  Following a brief stint in the private sector, Hannah became a U.S. 
magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, where she has 
served since 2005.
  As a magistrate judge, she helped begin one of the first Federal 
reentry courts, which is designed to reduce recidivism of individuals 
released from prison who have serious addictions. These reentry courts 
are crucial to our efforts to reduce prison overcrowding and ensure we 
are helping people who have made mistakes in life become productive 
members of society.
  She is also an active member of her community where she has helped 
train the next generation of legal experts. For many years, she has 
taught at the University of Richmond T.C. Williams School of Law.
  Hannah serves on the board of the Federal Bar Association and is an 
active member and former board member of the Richmond Bar Association 
and the Metropolitan Richmond Women's Bar Association.
  She comes highly recommended by the Virginia State Bar, the Virginia 
Bar Association, has been recognized as one of Virginia's leaders in 
the Law and has received the strong support of many of her legal 
colleagues.
  Hannah has an exemplary record as a prosecutor and a magistrate judge 
and

[[Page 9721]]

all of her peers praise her character and integrity. I am pleased to 
strongly support her nomination to the Federal bench and thank all of 
you for joining me in supporting her nomination. This body, and our 
Nation, will all be well served by her presence on this court.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of M. Hannah 
Lauck, of Virginia, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern 
District of Virginia?
  Mr. CRAPO. 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. 
Landrieu), and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and 
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 179 Ex.]

                                YEAS--90

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Begich
     Blunt
     Carper
     Cochran
     Corker
     Graham
     Landrieu
     McCaskill
     Moran
     Scott
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
noon shall be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  Who yields time? If neither side yields time, both sides will be 
equally charged.


                   Recognition of The Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                          Veterans Health Care

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Americans across the Nation have been 
truly shocked by the way our veterans have been mistreated. The fact 
that 18 veterans died in Phoenix alone while waiting for care is, as we 
all know, a national tragedy. This should be reason enough for 
Washington to take decisive action to reform a system that has allowed 
this tragedy to occur and action to hold those responsible accountable.
  Yet, as we know, the scandal extends well beyond Phoenix. In the 
words of the government's own inspector general report, the kind of 
problems we saw there are systemic and extend throughout the 
administration's facilities.
  A new internal audit released just yesterday found that the scandal 
has spread to 76 percent of the VA facilities that were surveyed. It 
also found that about 100,000 veterans continue to wait for VA 
appointments and that many veterans have already had to wait 3 months 
or more. This is a national disgrace.
  I recently received a message from a disabled veteran who lives in 
West Liberty, KY. He said he has experienced delay after delay in the 
VA system, and he is understandably fed up. He said every time he 
thinks he is getting somewhere, he finds that some VA employee has 
changed a date in his file or posted a ``no show'' for appointments he 
was not aware of.
  ``I suppose I will become a casualty of the war with the VA,'' he 
wrote, ``before I ever receive a decision on my appeal or ever receive 
proper treatment.''
  We know this is not right. That is not the promise this country made 
to our veterans, and there is no good reason to make veterans wait 
another day longer. There is no reason for the majority leader to 
prioritize partisan bills aimed at boosting Democratic turnout in 
November over bipartisan legislation that is aimed at fixing the 
problems at the VA.
  We will have a vote tomorrow on one of these partisan bills that is 
going nowhere, when we know the Sanders-McCain bill is ready. It has 
been filed and that is what we ought to be moving to. Veterans have 
been made to wait long enough at these hospitals. Congress should not 
keep them in the waiting room by putting partisan games ahead of 
solutions. Fixing this problem is where the Senate's focus should be 
right now.
  As the Acting VA Secretary recently said, the extent of the problems 
at the VA ``demand immediate actions.'' He is certainly right about 
that.
  I know the majority leader is going to have us turn to another one of 
these political show votes tomorrow, written by people over at the 
campaign committee, but we will have plenty of time to consider bills 
designed to fail later. Instead, now is the time for the Senate to act 
like the Senate again--to be serious and more than just a campaign 
studio for one political party.
  Senators Burr, Coburn, and McCain have been working extremely hard on 
the issue, along with the chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We 
all know there is no one in this Chamber better suited to tackle this 
crisis than John McCain. He understands the experience and needs of our 
veterans.
  We should give Senator McCain and the rest of this group the space 
and support they need to get effective and bipartisan reform through 
the Senate. Given that their legislation contains provisions similar to 
a bill that has already passed the House overwhelmingly, I think we 
will get there as well, but we need to give the effort the attention it 
deserves first, and that means putting the designed-to-fail bills off 
to the side for a minute because, look, this is what the American 
people actually sent us to do--to legislate.
  I am calling on the majority leader and the President to hit the 
pause button on the never-ending campaign. Veterans have been denied 
care. Veterans have actually died. This is an issue that deserves the 
Senate's immediate attention.
  If our colleagues are serious about getting to the bottom of the 
scandal, holding the perpetrators accountable, and enacting reform to 
fix it, then they will actually focus on helping our veterans instead 
of worrying about saving their own seats this November.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Republican leader for his 
comments on the veterans situation. I believe everybody in this body 
agrees, on a bipartisan basis, that we should move this bill forward as 
quickly as possible and address the real crisis. This is an issue I 
have been talking about for a long time. No one who serves our country 
should wait in line to get the health care they need when they come 
home.
  I am delighted both sides are working very expeditiously to move this 
legislation forward, and I hope we can take that up as soon as possible 
and move it without it becoming political on either side.

[[Page 9722]]




                           Highway Trust Fund

  Having said that, I come to the floor to talk about a different 
topic; that is, about the highway trust fund. As we know, right now 
States across the country are working on transportation projects to 
repair bridges and relieve traffic on our Nation's roads and highways.
  Kentucky, for example, has started to widen Interstate 65 between 
Bowling Green and Elizabethtown. Local officials tell us it is an 
important project to ease their traffic and help ambulances and 
firetrucks get to the scene of emergencies quickly, but earlier this 
year Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear said that project might be at risk 
because of a shortfall in our highway trust fund.
  A crisis in the highway trust fund could jeopardize thousands of 
important transportation projects--such as the example I gave in 
Kentucky--around the country if Congress doesn't act. So I am on the 
floor again to call on our colleagues to work together to avert a 
crisis in the highway trust fund.
  I wish to call attention to specific wasteful tax loopholes that 
Congress could eliminate to actually shore up the trust fund--loopholes 
that actually both Democrats and Republicans have in the past said we 
should close.
  There can be no question that the highway trust fund is facing a 
revenue problem. The Department of Transportation has been warning us 
for months that it expects the trust fund to reach critically low 
levels as early as this summer. If that happens, the Department might 
have to delay reimbursements to our States.
  This crisis is no longer a hypothetical. It has already caused States 
to plan for a construction shutdown if Congress does not act. In 
Georgia, more than 70 transportation projects could be delayed 
indefinitely, according to their State officials. In North Carolina, an 
engineer from the State's department of transportation says, if the 
trust fund runs dry, ``that essentially stops our construction 
program.''
  This crisis is having a serious impact on construction jobs. If 
States are not able to enter into new construction contracts, as many 
as 700,000 jobs could be at risk, according to the Department of 
Transportation.
  The construction industry was particularly hard hit during the 
economic downturn. Allowing the highway trust fund to reach critically 
low levels would be another blow to an industry that has already seen 
more than its fair share of job loss and uncertainty.
  For all of these reasons, Congress must act to avoid a potential 
construction shutdown this summer.
  In the past few weeks I have been very encouraged that Members on 
both sides of the aisle agree we do need to replenish the highway trust 
fund with revenue. Allowing the trust fund to run dry is not an option. 
Putting construction jobs at risk is not an option. Failing to make 
much needed investments in our roads and bridges is not an option.
  House Republicans have offered a proposal to cut mail delivery down 
to a modified 5-day delivery system to temporarily fund the highway 
trust fund, but I believe that is the wrong way to go. There are better 
ways to address both Postal Service reform and the highway trust fund 
shortfall.
  But I do think there is now an opportunity to solve this looming 
crisis in a way that actually should have bipartisan support. We all 
know our Tax Code is riddled with wasteful tax loopholes that benefit 
the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, and many of those 
loopholes that both Democrats and Republicans have proposed closing are 
available for this fund.
  For example, Republican Congressman Dave Camp, who chairs the House 
Ways and Means Committee, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and Senator 
Levin of Michigan have all proposed eliminating the so-called stock 
option loophole. Right now corporations claim the largest tax breaks by 
compensating their executives with stock options instead of a regular 
paycheck. That is so the corporation can skirt a tax rule that limits 
deductible cash compensation to $1 million per year for each of a 
handful of corporate officers. Closing that loophole alone would save 
us as much as $50 billion over the next 10 years.
  Another loophole allows some wealthy business owners to 
mischaracterize their income as business profits instead of salary to 
avoid paying their fair share of payroll taxes. Putting a stop to that 
unfair practice, as both Republican Chairman Camp and Democrats have 
proposed, could save us more than $15 billion over the next 10 years.
  Those are just two wasteful and unfair tax loopholes that both 
Democrats and Republicans have proposed closing. The list of loopholes 
goes on and on. We can use that kind of revenue generated by closing 
just a few of them to avoid an unnecessary crisis, shore up our highway 
trust fund, and make the critical investments we need in our roads and 
bridges across the country.
  I know that for many people around the country this looming highway 
trust fund crisis is all too familiar. For them it is just another 
example of Congress lurching from crisis to crisis. Just last week the 
director of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department said he 
reminds people that just last year Congress shut down the entire 
Federal Government. That is how he knows there is a real threat that 
Congress will shut down investments in our roads and bridges. So States 
such as Arkansas aren't taking any chances. State officials there 
recently delayed 10 highway projects, and they said they might have to 
delay even more if we--Congress--don't act.
  So I believe our States need certainty in the highway trust fund. 
Commuters are counting on transportation projects to ease congestion. 
Construction workers are counting on jobs to repair roads and bridges. 
I believe we should build some common ground that Democrats and 
Republicans share to replenish the highway trust fund. Let's work 
together to show commuters and businesses and workers and States that 
Congress can come together to solve this crisis. I hope we will work 
together to prevent a construction shutdown this summer.
  Mr. President, before I yield, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during any quorum calls prior to noon be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Student Loan Debt

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, life is about choices. We make them all 
the time, the choice about where you are going to school, what you are 
going to study, what you are going to do with the rest of your life, 
what kind of job you want, your car, a lot of other choices we make.
  Tomorrow the Senate gets to make a choice. It is going to affect some 
people. Here is the choice: We have in this country a serious problem 
with college loan debt. It has grown dramatically over the last several 
decades. Now we estimate the total amount of college loan debt in 
America is over $1.2 trillion. What does that mean? How big is that?
  More college loan debt than the sum total of all credit card debt in 
America. More college debt than the sum total of all automobile debt in 
America. The only other debt larger--mortgage debt.
  This is growing, the college student loan debt. Forty million 
families are affected by student loan debt out of a nation of 300 
million. So we are dealing with somewhere in the range of 14, 15 
percent of America making payments on college student loans.
  The amount of debt has grown dramatically. I will not come to the 
floor and tell you what I borrowed to go to

[[Page 9723]]

school because it makes me sound ancient. But I will tell you this: 
When I graduated from law school, my student debt equaled one-half of 
my gross income the first year, just to put it in perspective. Not so 
anymore.
  What we are finding is that most students are so deeply in debt 
coming out of college that they are making life decisions based on 
their debt. I get emails in my office from young men and women who 
always wanted to be teachers. They love teachers. They want to be a 
teacher. They tell me they cannot be a teacher, because the cost of 
getting an education to become a teacher is so high, that the starting 
pay of a teacher is so low, and so they are going to do something else. 
What a loss for this country, when someone who desperately wants to 
teach does not get that chance.
  Now 25 million of the 40 million Americans with student loan debt can 
get a break tomorrow morning, because we have a bill coming to the 
floor which will allow 25 million of these student loanholders to 
refinance their debt. Ever own a home with a mortgage? I have. You 
heard there was a lower interest rate available. You called the bank 
and said: Hey, can I knock that interest rate down from 8 percent to 6 
percent? Yes, let's do it, because a lower interest rate means a lower 
monthly payment, or the same monthly payment is going to pay off more 
principal on your debt.
  So we are going to give college students tomorrow an opportunity, 25 
million of them, to refinance their college student loans to lower 
interest rates at 3.8 percent for undergraduate education. Currently 
many of these students are paying 6 percent, 7 percent, 8 percent, 10 
percent, and higher. Is this a good thing? You bet it is. For many of 
these students, this is the lifeline they have been looking for.
  That is one possibility. That is one of the choices: Help 25 million 
in debt. But to pay for this, if we are responsible, we had to come up 
with a source of revenue to make up for the lost interest payments to 
the Federal Government when the debts are refinanced. We came up with 
it. It is called the Buffett rule. It is named after Warren Buffett, 
this seer of Berkshire Hathaway, a fellow I have come to know a little 
bit through his family. He came to us a few years ago and he said, 
something is wrong with the Tax Code. Here I am, Warren Buffett said, 
one of the wealthiest men in America, and my income tax rate is lower 
than my secretary's income tax rate. How can that be? Why would my 
secretary pay a higher income tax rate than me, a billionaire? So we 
created what we called the Buffett rule. It said: If you are one of the 
fortunate few in America who makes over $1 million a year, you are 
going to have a minimum income tax rate of 30 percent, which at least 
puts you on par with the people who work for you. You are going to pay 
an income tax rate at least as high as they do, 30 percent.
  How many Americans are like Warren Buffett, making over $1 million a 
year? How many would have to pay this new income tax rate? Twenty-two 
thousand Americans make over $1 million a year in 2009 and paid less 
than a 15 percent effective tax rate. Okay, Senate, here is your 
choice: Do you help 25 million students refinance their college debt 
and reduce their loan payments by an average of $2,000, or do you 
protect 22,000 millionaires from paying more in income tax? That is our 
choice tomorrow. I think it is a pretty easy choice.
  I do not have anything against wealthy people. If they made their 
money honestly, God bless them. But I do not think it is unreasonable 
to say to the wealthiest people in America: Count your blessings, 
buddy. You are living in the greatest Nation in the world that gave you 
a chance to get rich. Now give something back to that country. Give 
something back to that next generation that wants to build this country 
even to a higher standard and more success for more people. That is 
what we face tomorrow.
  I go around my State. I have had hearings at college campuses. Some 
of these are worth repeating. Casey Graham Barrette at North Central 
College up near Chicago graduated in 2010, got married, has an infant 
boy she is very proud of. She and her husband both have jobs. His 
paycheck pays living expenses, her paycheck pays student loans. She is 
working to pay the student loans in her household. She worries about 
the future of her family until she gets these loans paid off.
  Joshua Schipp. I recently met him. He told me he graduated with a 
student loan debt of $80,000--from a good school, do not get me wrong. 
But $80,000. His interest rates on his debt range from 4\1/4\ percent 
to 9\1/4\ percent. They could come down to as low as 3.8 percent under 
our bill coming up tomorrow. That is the range of his current interest 
rates on a variety of loans he has.
  Joshua, at one point, said his student loan payment was $700 a month. 
Now stick with me for basic math and forgive me if I miss this a little 
bit but I think I have got it. Joshua has got a job making $11 an 
hour--$11 an hour, 40 hours a week, $440 a week, 50 weeks a year. I 
know there are 52, but let's assume 50 weeks a year. He is making 
somewhere in the range of $22,000 a year.
  His gross pay of $440 times four makes that right at $1,800--I am 
rounding it off, $1,800. Let's assume after you take the taxes and all 
of that out, he has about $1,200 net that he makes each month. Do you 
remember what I said he paid in student loans? Seven hundred dollars a 
month. Twelve hundred dollars net, seven hundred dollars on your 
student loan. How could you possibly make it? That is Joshua, who stuck 
it out, finished with his college diploma, did what he was told to do. 
Now there he sits with that debt hanging over his shoulder.
  Here is a story I know well because I met this young lady several 
times, Hannah Moore from the city of Chicago. Hannah got off to a great 
start. She was not sure what she wanted to do, so she went to a 
community college. Affordable community colleges, I recommend them to 
everybody. The hours can be transferred to universities. You have a lot 
of different courses you can take, and it is affordable. That is where 
Hannah started.
  Everything was going well. Then she stumbled and made a bad decision 
and did not even know it. She transferred from community college to a 
for-profit college. For-profit colleges are different than public 
universities. They are different than private schools. They are 
different than not-for-profit schools. They are out to make money. 
Hannah did not know it. She thought she was signing up for a real 
college and a real education.
  She went to something called the Harrington College of Design in 
Chicago. Their parent company, Career Education Corporation, is under 
investigation by 17 different State attorneys general. They have got 
big problems. They create big problems for people such as Hannah.
  So Hannah went to this Harrington College of Design and got her 
``degree.'' Do you know, when it was all over, how much student debt 
she had for her time at Harrington College of Design, the for-profit 
school? It was $124,570. She cannot keep up with the payments. She has 
fallen behind. And the debt from the interest keeps adding up. She is 
now up to $150,000, lives in her parents' basement. Her dad came out of 
retirement to try to help her pay off her college loans.
  This for-profit college and university issue is a separate one I will 
save for another day. But this outrageous sector of our higher 
education economy accounts for 46 percent of all student loan default. 
They overcharge their students and provide them with diplomas and 
degrees which, in many cases, are worthless. But having said that, 
there sits Hannah. Did I mention she is 32 years old and $150,000 in 
debt, with a worthless diploma from a for-profit college run by the 
Career Education Corporation? That is what she is up against.
  This bill will help her some. It is not going to eliminate her 
problem, because there is one point you cannot overlook when it comes 
to college student loans. This is not like the mortgage on your home. 
This is not like the money you borrow to buy a car. It is

[[Page 9724]]

not like a line of credit you might take out to start a business. A 
college student loan is in a rare category of debt and loans in 
America, a rare category of debts that cannot be discharged in 
bankruptcy, no matter how bad things get for you, no matter how 
terrible your circumstances, your economic circumstances. You go into 
court and say: I have got to declare bankruptcy. They will help you 
with everything, but they cannot do anything about your college student 
loan. It is with you for a lifetime.
  We are hearing the horror stories. Grandma decides her granddaughter 
needs to go to college, cannot get the money to go through. Grandma 
says: Let me cosign the note with you, honey. I want you to finish 
college. The granddaughter finishes school, defaults on the loan. They 
levy grandmother's Social Security check. That is the reality.
  I just left a press conference where a young woman who was trying to 
pay off her college student loan fell behind. Then she said: Well, at 
least I have got my income tax refund coming back. It was claimed. She 
did not get any of it. That is what these loans do to you. That is what 
the collection agencies do to you.
  So the question tomorrow morning for the Senate is: Whose side are 
you on? Take your pick here. Are you on the side of 22,000 or so 
millionaires in America? Do you want to protect them from paying a 
penny more in taxes, or are you on the side of 25 million college 
students and their families who are struggling, just like the ones I 
have told you about? The choice is pretty clear to me. A college 
diploma ought to open the door of opportunity.
  It shouldn't open the door to debtors' prison, and that is what is 
happening to thousands of students across America right now.
  The first step here is to pass this bill. There is more to do, but 
the first step is to pass this bill.
  The President helped us yesterday. The President said he was going to 
give 5 million of those paying off college student loans a chance to 
really organize their debts and to limit the amount of money they had 
to pay out to 10 percent of their income. That gives some relief to 5 
million, but we can do more. We can help 25 million, and that is what 
we ought to do tomorrow.
  When you go back home and talk to people around the Senate, a lot of 
them start gazing at the ceiling and saying: I don't know about you 
politicians in the Senate. All you do is give speeches, put out press 
releases, and take up valuable time on television. What do you do to 
help us? What are you doing for working families?
  Well, I have a speech--and it is pretty good--about what we try to do 
with minimum wage and making sure people--women and men--are paid 
fairly in the workplace, but this college student loan thing haunts me. 
It haunts me to think that these young people, who are convinced they 
are doing the right thing, who are borrowing money for the right 
reason--higher education--are getting so trapped in debt that their 
lives are compromised. People make speeches about, well, it affects the 
economy. If you have a lot of student debt, you may not buy a new car, 
a new home, get married, or have children once married because of your 
debt. That is all true. That looks at the big picture. But I can't get 
away from those smaller photographs in my mind of the people I have met 
in Chicago and all over my State who are trying to pay off these debts.
  It comes down to this: We have 55 Democrats and there are 45 
Republicans in the Senate. My job is to count votes. I think we are 
going to get all of the Democrats. I think every one of them will vote 
for it. But that is not enough. Fifty-five out of one hundred is not 
enough. Tomorrow we need at least five Republicans to join us--five. 
None of them have cosponsored the bill yet to refinance college student 
loans, but they can get into this conversation and join us tomorrow in 
an effort to help. If five will cross the aisle to make this a 
bipartisan effort, we can get this moving.
  I know the House of Representatives has been a dead end. So many 
things have gone over there to die--immigration reform and a long 
list--but I sense this is different. I sense that Members of the House 
of Representatives in both political parties, if they go home, wherever 
they live, if they have a real town meeting, if they invite real 
people, real families, they are going to hear about this issue. Forty 
million Americans are living with this issue.
  Let's do our job in the Senate. Let's pass this college refinance 
bill. Let's give these students a break, a chance. Let's do the right 
thing for them. They did the right thing and went to school. Their debt 
should not compromise their future.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I rise this morning to discuss the very pressing 
challenge that too many of our young people are facing; that is, the 
issue of college affordability.
  As I travel throughout New Hampshire, I continue to hear young people 
and their families express their deep concerns about the high cost of 
college and about their student loans.
  In New Hampshire this problem is especially significant because New 
Hampshire ranks second highest in the Nation for the proportion of 
students who are graduating from college with debt and also for the 
average amount of debt per graduate. Seventy-four percent of students 
in New Hampshire graduate with debt, and that debt is an average of 
$33,000 per student. I have talked to some young people who worry that 
they are never going to be able to get out from under that student debt 
burden.
  We all know that obtaining a college education has been viewed as a 
step that can propel Americans into the middle class, allowing them to 
pursue goals such as starting a family, opening a business, or 
purchasing a home.
  Unfortunately, education costs have increased at four times the rate 
of inflation from 1985 to 2011. This is a problem that has both short-
term and long-term implications for our citizens who want to continue 
their education after high school. It is also a problem that has 
serious implications for the Nation's economy. According to the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, approximately 40 million 
Americans hold more than $1.2 trillion in student loan debt. The agency 
also indicates that student loan debt has exceeded credit card debt in 
the country and is exceeded only by home mortgages in terms of total 
amount of debt. So we have more student loan debt than credit card 
debt, and only home mortgages exceed the student loan debt.
  While Americans are struggling to pay back this staggering debt, it 
is projected that the Federal Government will earn $66 billion in 
profits from its role in student lending between 2007 and 2012. That is 
just not right.
  Clearly it is time for Congress to take action to help individuals 
with student debt. It is time to help them reclaim their American 
dream, to help them have a chance at pursuing the goals that drove them 
to college in the first place.
  To this end I am very pleased to join with so many of my colleagues 
in supporting the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. This 
legislation would allow eligible borrowers who took out student loans 
before July 1, 2013, to refinance those loans at rates currently being 
offered to new borrowers.
  It is clear that Congress needs to come together to work to reduce 
the cost of college for aspiring students throughout the country, but 
we also need to provide relief to those who have already borrowed to 
pursue their education, many of whom have interest rates for their 
student loans that are much higher than they would be if they were 
purchasing a home or a car.
  This action is also way overdue. The extent to which young people are 
feeling this pressure really came home to

[[Page 9725]]

me when I visited a veteran from New Hampshire named Calvin, who served 
in Afghanistan. I first met Calvin at Walter Reed Medical Center, where 
he was recovering after losing his leg from stepping on an IED. He was 
married, had a young child, and he was talking about the challenges he 
faced after he recovered from his injuries. But what impressed me the 
most was his No. 1 concern was how he and his wife were going to repay 
their student loans. That is why I think we have to do something about 
this problem. We have to make sure young people such as Calvin don't 
spend their professional lives worrying about how to pay back student 
loans.
  I plan to file an amendment today as we take up the Bank on Students 
Emergency Loan Refinancing Act that will address the challenge young 
people have as they look at how to keep track of their student loans. I 
think they need to have a portal that gives them a one-stop shop so 
they can view all of their student loan information, public and 
private, in one central online location.
  I have heard stories from young people in New Hampshire about this 
concern, from people like Kim, who is from Nashua. She is a 30-year-old 
woman, and she has student debt from obtaining her bachelor's and two 
master's degrees. Her student loan payments cost her more per month 
than a home mortgage. She recently found a job that is helping her make 
her loan payments, but before she got that offer she felt overwhelmed 
by her debt and she found it difficult to communicate and work with her 
lenders.
  By providing a one-stop online shop for debt management, the 
amendment I will be offering will give people like Kim an easier way to 
track and understand their loans and their repayment options.
  I am pleased that just yesterday the President announced a number of 
initiatives to help borrowers, including plans similar to the 
provisions in my Simplifying Access to Student Loan Information Act, so 
we can encourage the use of innovative methods to communicate with 
borrowers, but as we all know, we need to do more in this Congress to 
ensure that we can help borrowers who are struggling to repay their 
student loans.
  I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Warren, for her work 
on this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with her and my 
other colleagues to ensure that student loan borrowers finally see some 
relief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                              The Economy

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as every Member of Congress knows, 
Americans are hurting, and after 5\1/2\ years of the Obama economy, 
they are getting pretty discouraged, as a recent CNN poll reported.
  That ``pessimism,'' Erin Currier, director of the Economic Mobility 
Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts, stated in a recent CNNMoney 
article, ``is reflective of the financial realities a lot of families 
are facing. They are treading water, but their income is not 
translating into solid financial security.''
  Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have responded to the economic 
instability facing so many Americans by essentially doing nothing. 
Instead of legislation to create jobs and expand opportunity, Democrats 
have tied up the Senate this year with politically motivated show votes 
designed to go nowhere.
  Back in March the New York Times reported that Democrats planned to 
spend the spring and summer on messaging votes ``timed to coincide with 
campaign-style trips by President Obama.''
  The Times reported:

       . . . Democrats concede that making new laws is not really 
     the point. Rather, they are trying to force Republicans to 
     vote against them.

  Democrats have certainly been following that playbook. This week, in 
their latest election-year political stunt, they will take up a 
designed-to-fail student loan bill. According to plan, it will be 
accompanied by some ``campaign-style'' stops by President Obama.
  The Democrats' bill would do nothing to make college more affordable 
or reduce the amount of money students have to borrow, and it would do 
nothing to address the real problem facing recent college graduates; 
that is, the lack of jobs.
  The Democrats' student loan bill would provide some former students 
with old loans a taxpayer subsidy which, based on Congressional 
Research data, would be worth about $1 a day. To provide this, their 
bill would raise income taxes by $72 billion.
  Meanwhile, Democrats have conveniently ignored the fact that student 
loan repayment plans that could lower monthly payments by more than 
their proposal are already available to all students with Federal 
loans.
  Republicans have student debt solutions, such as simplifying the 
student loan process so more students can take advantage of the 
affordable repayment options that already exist in current law, but 
young Americans need a lot more than student debt solutions. The best 
thing we can do for graduates is to help create jobs.
  Young people in particular are suffering in the Obama economy. The 
current unemployment rate for those 16 to 24 years old is 13.2 
percent--more than twice the national average. Unemployment among those 
16 to 34 years old is 9.2 percent--significantly higher than the 
overall unemployment rate of 6.3 percent. Nationally, 6.1 million 18- 
to 24-year-olds are living below the poverty line, and 36 percent of 
young adults are living at home with their parents.
  It is no wonder that CNNMoney reports that ``young adults, age 18 to 
34, are most likely to feel the [American] dream is unattainable.''
  What young people need is not a government subsidy but access to 
jobs, good-paying, full-time jobs with the opportunity for advancement, 
but those jobs are few and far between in the Obama economy.
  While young people may be having the hardest time finding jobs, no 
one in the Obama economy is doing well. Nationwide, nearly 10 million 
Americans are unemployed, almost one-third of them for 6 months or 
longer.
  The unemployment rate has hovered at recession-level highs for the 
entire Obama Presidency. Since the President took office, the average 
length of unemployment has increased from 19.8 weeks to 34.5 weeks. 
Approximately 14 million Americans have been forced to join the Food 
Stamp Program since President Obama took office, bringing the total 
number of Americans receiving food stamps to more than 46 million.
  Meanwhile, everywhere families look prices are going up. Gas prices 
have almost doubled during the Obama Presidency. Food prices have 
increased, and the President's policies are just making things worse. 
Chief among the President's policy disasters, of course, is ObamaCare, 
which has driven up the price of everything from premiums to 
pacemakers.
  The President told the American people his health care law would 
drive down health care premiums by $2,500. Instead, prices have risen 
by almost $3,700, and they are still going up.
  ObamaCare has meant new burdens for just about everyone: higher 
premiums and deductibles, more expensive medications, fewer doctors and 
hospitals from which to choose, lost jobs, and increased taxes on 
businesses both large and small. Millions of Americans were forced off 
their health plans--the plans they were promised they could keep--and 
into the health exchanges, where they were frequently forced to pay 
more for plans they liked less.
  Not content with the high health care bills, now the President is 
adding insult to injury by putting in place EPA regulations that will 
drive up electricity bills for all American families. The President's 
de facto energy tax will hit low-income families and seniors on fixed 
incomes the hardest. It will also slash tens of thousands, if not 
hundreds of thousands, of jobs. Coal plants will close, leaving their 
workers unemployed, and manufacturers will send jobs in America 
overseas to countries with more affordable energy.
  The worst part is that President Obama's EPA regulations will 
devastate family budgets and the economy

[[Page 9726]]

for nothing because the President's proposals will do almost nothing to 
reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. As long 
as our country is acting unilaterally, there will be no meaningful 
effect on global emissions, but the President is pressing on anyway and 
apparently Americans will have to get used to their massive new energy 
bills.
  The President's policies are having a devastating effect on American 
students, families, and the middle class, but instead of trying to make 
things better, the Democratic leadership in the Senate has chosen to 
take up gimmicky legislation, not to help Americans but to get 
Democrats reelected.
  Yesterday a bipartisan veterans bill, which would address the 
systemwide VA crisis, was introduced in the Senate. The failures at the 
VA are a national embarrassment and a betrayal of our compact with our 
veterans. Congress has an obligation to make sure nothing like this 
ever happens again.
  Today we could be discussing the best ways to fix our VA system. 
Instead, we are going to be discussing a bill designed not to improve 
things for Americans but to win the Democrats a few votes. Instead of 
proceeding to a student loan bill that was designed to fail, we should 
proceed directly to the VA reform bill.
  The House of Representatives acted decisively to bring greater 
accountability to the VA 3 weeks ago. Today they are moving forward on 
a VA reform bill that includes many of the provisions of the bill that 
was introduced in the Senate last night. Now that we have a bipartisan 
VA reform bill in the Senate, we should be acting with the same sense 
of urgency.
  If Democratic leaders in the Senate truly wanted to make things 
better for American families, they wouldn't be focused on gimmicky show 
votes. Instead, they would be working with Republicans to fix the VA 
crisis. They would back a repeal of the ObamaCare medical device tax, 
which has already cost tens of thousands of jobs and will cost many 
more if it isn't repealed. They would support Republican efforts to 
repeal the ObamaCare 30-hour workweek rule, which has resulted in lost 
hours and decreased wages for way too many workers in this country, and 
they would embrace legislation to halt the devastating EPA rules the 
President has proposed and protect millions of American families from 
crippling energy bills.
  They would push--they would push for job-creating measures such as 
the Keystone XL Pipeline and the 42,000 jobs it would support or trade 
promotion authority for the President to open new markets to American 
farmers, workers, and businesses, and create those good-paying jobs.
  We throw around a lot of statistics in the Congress--1 million people 
this, 10 million people that. It is important for us to remember the 
faces behind the numbers: the parents trying to figure out how they 
will afford to pay both their daughters' tuition and their new 
ObamaCare premiums, the college graduate who can't find a job and is 
currently living in his parents' basement, the single mother whose 
working hours have suddenly been cut because her employer can't afford 
to pay the ObamaCare mandate, a father who has been out of a job for 
months and can't get an interview anywhere.
  These Americans need help, and the President's policies are not 
helping. The good thing is it doesn't have to stay that way. We can get 
America working again, but it is going to take something different than 
the policies of the last 5\1/2\ years.
  I challenge my Democratic colleagues to join us in passing real jobs 
legislation, the kind of legislation that will open a future of 
opportunity and economic security for all American families.
  What college graduates don't need are political gimmicks. What 
college graduates need more than anything else are good-paying jobs 
with opportunities for advancement. That is what we should be focused 
on, not political show votes, not election-year sloganeering but real 
meaningful policies that will grow and expand our economy in this 
country and create the good-paying jobs our young college graduates 
need and that will lift more lower income families into the middle 
class.
  That is what this Senate ought to be focused on. We can change to 
that focus, and we can start doing some things that will make this 
country stronger and provide a better and more prosperous and a more 
secure future for middle-income families.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Sorokin Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Leo T. Sorokin, 
of Massachusetts, to be United States District Court Judge for the 
District of Massachusetts?
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), 
the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from California 
(Mrs. Feinstein), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Kaine) would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. 
Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Scott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 180 Ex.]

                                YEAS--91

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Kaine
     McCaskill
     Moran
     Scott
     Warner
  The nomination was confirmed.


                      Vote on Boulware Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Richard 
Franklin Boulware II, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for 
the District of Nevada?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Kaine), 
the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), and the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

[[Page 9727]]

  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Kaine) would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from 
South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 181 Ex.]

                                YEAS--58

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cochran
     Graham
     Kaine
     McCaskill
     Moran
     Scott
     Warner
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to 
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table.
  The President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________