[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15639-15643]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF DALE A. DROZD TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                     EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Dale A. 
Drozd, of California, to be United States District Judge for the 
Eastern District of California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30 
minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as the distinguished chair pointed out, 
we are going to vote on the nomination of Judge Dale Drozd to be a 
Federal District Judge for the Eastern District of California. That is 
the good news.
  Unfortunately, the bad news is that so far this year, we have only 
confirmed six judges since the Republicans took back the majority in 
January. That is not even a judge per month. Some would claim this is 
reasonable, but I don't believe it is.
  President Bush, in the last 2 years of his term, had a Republican 
majority for up to that point, but during the last years of his term he 
had a Democratic majority. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at 
that time. I did not want to do what the Republicans had done to 
President Clinton in blocking 75 of his judges. I said we have to go 
with the regular order, because if we didn't go with the regular order, 
we were going to be politicizing the judiciary.
  So we had a Democratic majority, a Republican President, and by this 
time we had confirmed 33 judges hoping it would set a precedent and 
stop what was happening when the Republicans blocked 75 of President 
Clinton's judges. I wanted to set a different pattern. I wanted to take 
at least judicial confirmations out of politics.
  Well, it went back to the same old, same old, doing just exactly what 
they did to President Clinton. They have allowed only six judges to be 
confirmed so far this year under the Obama administration, as opposed 
to 33 whom we had confirmed during the Bush administration. In fact, at 
this rate, by the end of the year, the Senate will have confirmed the 
fewest number of judges at any time any one of us have been in this 
body--the fewest number of judges in more than half a century--even 
though we have a much larger population, we have a lot more vacancies, 
and we have a number of judicial emergencies.
  This has had a devastating effect on Americans across the country. I 
hear all the time from individuals and from small businesses about how 
they go into our Federal courts seeking justice; they want the Federal 
courts to hear these claims and these courts are saying: We can't. We 
have so many vacancies in the judiciary, it will be years before we can 
hear your case.
  Last week, I spoke about the Associated Press report on Latino 
migrant farmworkers who have waited more than three years just to learn 
whether they can proceed with their claim for stolen wages. The lengthy 
wait time is due to the fact that there are too many cases and not 
enough judges in that California Federal court. An empty judgeship in 
that court has remained unfilled for almost three years. The long 
overdue vote today to confirm Judge Drozd will finally fill that 
vacancy.
  The Wall Street Journal highlighted a case in the same California 
Federal court brought by a former Navy technician who alleged that he 
had been discriminated against by his employer. That lawsuit has been 
pending for eight years. The technician has not been able to find 
steady work since filing his suit and does not know how he will manage 
financially as he waits for a day in court that seems never to come.
  One of the Federal judges in that court, Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, 
gave the Wall Street Journal this devastating assessment: ``Over the 
years I've received several letters from people indicating, `Even if I 
win this case now, my business has failed because of the delay. How is 
this justice?' And the simple answer, which I cannot give them, is 
this: It is not justice. We know it.''
  Today, Nancy Kaufman, the CEO of the National Council of Jewish 
Women, authored an op-ed which said: ``what matters to the average 
person or business with a case in the federal courts is whether the 
lower courts are, in fact, able to dispense justice in a timely manner 
with so many empty seats on the bench. And that is where the majority 
in the Senate has strangled the process by running up the number of 
judicial vacancies.''
  I ask unanimous consent that Ms. Kaufman's op-ed be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Huffington Post, Oct. 5, 2015]

             The Disgraceful State of Judicial Nominations

      (By Nancy K. Kaufman, CEO, National Council of Jewish Women)

       The first Monday in October marks the beginning of a new 
     term for the U.S. Supreme Court and a good time to reflect on 
     the state of the nation's judicial branch of government. This 
     year the capacity of the federal court system to keep up with 
     its caseload is seriously in question. Judicial vacancies are 
     rising and the Senate is likely to confirm the smallest 
     number of nominees since 1953. The confirmation of federal 
     judges by the Senate has all but come to a halt. Furthermore, 
     the pattern of behavior by senators to slow the process 
     appears quite deliberate. Critics have charged that the 
     delays in the process are intended to deny President Obama 
     the ability to appoint judges in the last two years of his 
     term, unlike the pace of confirmations experienced by other 
     presidents at this point in their tenure.
       How has this happened? Judicial nominations proceed through 
     the Senate in a sort of formal dance, in which individual 
     senators have an unusual role. By tradition the president 
     consults senators in whose states the judicial vacancies 
     occur prior to nominating anyone. Then the nominees go before 
     the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings and a vote. But 
     individual senators can delay a Senate Judiciary Committee 
     hearing indefinitely without stating why. Some have

[[Page 15640]]

     done so even when they agreed to the nomination in the first 
     place. A nomination can be held hostage due to another matter 
     altogether or another piece of legislation. After the hearing 
     and the committee vote, the Senate majority leader is then 
     supposed to schedule a floor vote, and that too can be 
     delayed almost indefinitely.
       In fact, during the current two-year session of Congress 
     which began in January, only five judges were confirmed by 
     the Senate in the first eight months--the slowest pace since 
     1953. A sixth judge was confirmed in September, the first 
     nominee in 2015 from a state with a Democratic senator--
     Missouri's Claire McCaskill. These weren't controversial 
     nominees. All six were voted out of committee with bipartisan 
     support and ultimately confirmed unanimously on the Senate 
     floor, and yet were forced to wait an average of 80 days for 
     a floor vote.
       Such a slow confirmation rate is without precedent. Most 
     recently, when Republican president George W. Bush had two 
     years left, the Democratic Senate confirmed 68 judges. During 
     the last two years of Democratic president Bill Clinton's 
     term in office, the Republican Senate confirmed 73 judges. In 
     both cases, the nominees confirmed in the last two years 
     accounted for about one-fifth of the total for each 
     president. At the current snail's pace, less than one in 20 
     of Obama's confirmations will come during his final two 
     years.
       What's at stake? A situation where ``justice delayed is 
     justice denied.'' While the Supreme Court is rightly regarded 
     as the pinnacle of the US legal system, it is nonetheless a 
     very small part of it. Its nine justices often set landmark 
     precedents with their decisions, or at least clarify existing 
     law, but typically the court now handles only 80 cases or 
     less per term. In contrast, a total of 376,536 civil and 
     criminal cases were filed in US district courts in 2014. Of 
     those, the majority--nearly 300,000--were civil cases. That 
     year, about 55,000 cases were appealed from the district 
     courts to the 11 US Courts of Appeals. During the last 
     Supreme Court term, 7,376 cases were appealed to the Supreme 
     Court. (It is important to remember that cases generally 
     don't reach the appeals stage in the same year they were 
     originally filed.) In other words, on average about one-tenth 
     of one percent of appeals cases make it all the way to the 
     top of the judicial branch--making the lower federal courts 
     critical decision-makers.
       So what matters to the average person or business with a 
     case in the federal courts is whether the lower courts are, 
     in fact, able to dispense justice in a timely manner with so 
     many empty seats on the bench. And that is where the majority 
     in the Senate has strangled the process by running up the 
     number of judicial vacancies. Since January 1, that number 
     has increased by 56 percent, from 43 to 67.
       When the courts lack enough judges, a judicial emergency is 
     declared by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the 
     national policy-making body for the federal courts created by 
     federal law. A judicial emergency is a situation defined by 
     strict criteria--it is not just an off-the-cuff opinion. 
     Since January 1, the number of such declared emergencies has 
     increased by 158 percent, from 12 to 31, affecting districts 
     with millions of people. Two judicial nominees pending for 
     over six months have not yet had a confirmation hearing--
     although if confirmed, both would end a judicial emergency.
       As a country that presents itself as a leader among nations 
     when it comes to rule of law, the corruption of the process 
     of selecting judges in a partisan manner ought to be an 
     international embarrassment. And the only way that 
     embarrassment will motivate change is if American voters 
     organize to call on their senators to end the charade of 
     pretense that surrounds confirming judges today--the pretense 
     that in effect says, ``Nothing to worry about, just move 
     along.'' What needs to move along is the Senate confirmation 
     process with a much greater degree of transparency, or the 
     damage to our system of justice and, more importantly, to 
     those individuals depending on it, will only intensify.

  Mr. LEAHY. This is not just occurring in one or two courts across the 
country. Judicial vacancies have dramatically risen in courts 
throughout the country because of Senate Republicans' virtual shut down 
of the confirmation process. Mr. President, in fact, because of the 
unprecedented nature of Republican obstruction, vacancies have 
increased by more than 50 percent, from 43 to 68. Additionally, the 
number of Federal court vacancies deemed to be ``judicial emergencies'' 
by the non-partisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has 
increased by 158 percent since the beginning of the year. There are now 
31 judicial emergency vacancies that are affecting communities across 
the country.
  The women and men who have been nominated are all highly qualified, 
outstanding public servants. Many of them have the support of both 
Republican and Democratic Senators in their States. In fact, those 
pending on the floor were all voted out of the Judiciary Committee in 
voice votes. Every single Republican and every single Democrat was 
supported. Those home State Republican Senators who have issued press 
releases and have publicly supported their judicial nominees should 
take the next step and ask their leader to schedule up-or-down votes.
  Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo was nominated last year to fill an 
emergency vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 
Pennsylvania. If confirmed, Judge Restrepo will be the first Hispanic 
judge from Pennsylvania to ever serve on the appellate court and only 
the second Hispanic judge to serve on the Third Circuit. In fact, the 
Senate unanimously confirmed him 2 years ago to serve as a district 
court judge, but Judge Restrepo, who is highly qualified, is being 
blocked by the Republican majority from being confirmed.
  He has bipartisan support from both Pennsylvania Senators. He was 
voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. He has the strong 
endorsement of the nonpartisan Hispanic Bar Association. In fact, at 
his confirmation hearing Senator Toomey stated: ``There is no question 
[Judge Restrepo] is a very well qualified candidate to serve on the 
Third Circuit.'' Senator Toomey described Judge Restrepo's life story 
as ``an American Dream'' and recounted how Judge Restrepo came to the 
United States from Columbia and rose to the top of his profession by 
``virtue of his hard work, his intellect, his integrity.''
  So given these remarkable credentials, his wealth of experience and 
strong bipartisan support, the Senate should have confirmed him months 
ago. Instead, for 10 months, since Judge Restrepo's nomination back in 
November, 2014, he has been denied a vote of confirmation. Every single 
Senate Democrat has said they will vote for him, but he is being denied 
a confirmation vote by Senate Republican leadership. No one doubts he 
will be confirmed once the majority leader decides to schedule this 
vote. If he would take the time to schedule the vote, he could be 
voice-voted 5 minutes later.
  I have heard Senator Toomey indicate his strong support and that he 
would like to see Judge Restrepo receive a vote, but I have yet to see 
him ask for a firm commitment on a vote. I have a feeling that people 
in Pennsylvania are wondering when this longstanding and emergency 
vacancy of the appeals court will be filled, when this body will stop 
turning its back on Pennsylvania, when the Republican leadership will 
allow Pennsylvania to have their voice on the circuit court.
  Besides Judges Drozd and Restrepo, there are 14 other highly 
qualified judicial nominees with bipartisan support pending on the 
Executive Calendar. We should be voting on all of them today. Instead, 
we will only vote on Judge Drozd.
  Judge Dale Drozd is nominated to a judicial emergency vacancy in the 
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Since 1997, 
he has served as a Magistrate Judge in that same court, and has been 
serving as the Chief Magistrate since 2011. Over his 18-year career as 
a Magistrate Judge, he has presided over 1,100 cases. Prior to that, 
Judge Drozd was in private practice at two different law firms for 
approximately 14 years. While in private practice, Judge Drozd earned 
an ``AV Preeminent'' rating from Martindale-Hubbell from 1990 to 1997, 
and was also listed in The Best Lawyers in America publication from 
1995 to 1997.
  He was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote and has the 
support of his two home State Senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator 
Boxer. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously 
rated Judge Drozd ``well qualified'' to serve on the U.S. District 
Court for the Eastern District of California, its highest rating. I 
will vote to confirm Judge Drozd.
  After we confirm Judge Drozd today, I would urge the Senate 
Republican leadership to schedule votes for the remaining 15 consensus 
judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar without further delay. But 
the Republican leadership continues with this obstruction. If

[[Page 15641]]

home State Senators cannot persuade the leader to schedule a vote for 
their nominee soon, it is unlikely that even the highly qualified 
nominees who have Republican support are going to be confirmed by the 
end of the year.
  This would certainly be the case with Judge Restrepo of Pennsylvania, 
who was first nominated back in November 2014, nearly a year ago. This 
would also be the case with two Tennessee district court nominees, one 
of whom was also first nominated in November 2014, and another who was 
first nominated in February 2015. These are nominees from states with 
Republican home state Senators, and who would fill vacancies where they 
are very much needed.
  Let's stop this obstruction. Let's follow what I did with President 
Bush, stop the needless delays, schedule Judge Restrepo's confirmation 
vote this week and the other 14 pending nominees without further delay. 
If you did that, you would be up to two-thirds of what we did for 
President Bush at this time in 2007.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are having a lot of trouble moving 
judges, but today we are moving a judge, Judge Dale Drozd for the 
Eastern District Court of California.
  It has taken a year since his nomination. It will be a year in 
November to get to this point. The Eastern District Court of California 
is in a state of judicial emergency, so I am so glad we are going to 
add this good man to the court. Cases are piling up because we don't 
have enough judges to review them, so Judge Drozd's leadership is 
desperately needed.
  This position on the Eastern bench, again, has been vacant since 
October of 2012, and Judge Drozd is an excellent candidate to fill it. 
He received his bachelor's degree in 1977 from California State 
University at San Diego and his law degree from the University of 
California at Los Angeles, where he was a member of the Order of the 
Coif.
  He began his legal career as a law clerk for a district judge in the 
same judicial district where he now serves. Following his clerkship, he 
worked in private practice in Sacramento and San Francisco for 15 
years.
  In 1997, he was appointed to serve as a magistrate judge in the 
Eastern District of California. Four years later he became the chief 
magistrate judge.
  Judge Drozd's 18 years on the bench serving the people of the Eastern 
District and his previous years in private practice make him an 
excellent candidate to fill this vacancy. He also received a unanimous 
``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association.
  He is a noncontroversial nominee who has bipartisan support, 
including praise from two judges in the Eastern District who were both 
appointed by President George W. Bush. Judge Lawrence O'Neill wrote to 
me and said:

       At this point of desperation in the Eastern District of 
     California, every day of delay makes an enormous difference. 
     . . . Needing help is a severe understatement.

  This is what a judge who was appointed by George W. Bush said.

       Any person in a position of authority relating to the 
     confirmation of this nominee should focus on his bipartisan 
     support.

  I think that is important. This nominee has broad support from both 
political parties. Chief Judge Morrison C. England said Judge Drozd 
``has all the attributes needed to be an outstanding addition to the 
district court bench in Fresno.'' He continues: ``I know he has 
bipartisan support and I certainly support and encourage his 
confirmation at the earliest possible time.''
  I am glad we are voting to confirm Judge Drozd today. The people of 
the Eastern District of California need his leadership, and the 
overworked judges of the Eastern District need his help. I hope maybe 
we can start to move these nominees forward.


              Mass Shooting In Oregon and Gun Legislation

  Mr. President, if I might speak on another topic at this time.
  I just wanted to send my condolences to those who were impacted by 
the tragic mass shooting in Oregon. As many have said, as we pray for 
those who are fighting to survive and for the families who are 
grieving, we have to do more than pray. We have to stop this.
  I know we can't stop every single tragedy from happening, but I have 
to say, if you look at my home State, we have passed some very 
commonsense laws. We don't have a gun show loophole. That is important. 
If it is important to get a background check from a federally licensed 
dealer, it is important to get a background check at a gun show. It is 
important to get a Federal background check online.
  We have to make it harder for people who want to get guns for 
nefarious reasons--not to protect their families but sometimes to harm 
their families, harm their communities.
  I want to say that after Senator Feinstein and I went through one of 
these horrible experiences with some of our communities, we introduced 
a bill which would give parents and families of mentally disturbed 
young people a chance to go to court and intervene so that individual 
would not have this weaponry, because we knew in the last incident in 
California where a gunman came down and shot up people sitting in a 
cafe, that the mother was desperate to try and warn law enforcement 
that this was going to happen and to intervene, but there was no 
pathway for her to go.
  This bill that we call the Gun Violence Intervention Act is very 
simple. It says if a family member knows and believes someone in their 
family is mentally unstable, is buying a gun, and may well use it, give 
that family member a pathway forward to intervene in the situation.
  I don't know who could be against this because a judge will be 
objective. If somebody is doing it or if a mom is doing it just out of 
whole cloth and there is no reason, the judge will not allow it.
  I am proud to say that California has passed a nearly identical bill 
and it will go into effect in 2016. Then, in California, if you see 
someone in your family who you know is acting strange, who you know is 
making threats, who you know is buying weapons, you have the ability to 
intervene and take your story to a judge and prevent these kinds of 
tragedies. That is just one example of some of the commonsense measures 
we should be taking up.
  My heart goes out to the families, but I have to say I agree with the 
critics who say don't just come to the Senate floor and say your heart 
goes out to the families. That is not enough. So I am calling on this 
Senate to do something.
  Wednesday we are going to have a press conference that Senator 
Blumenthal has organized to talk about a very important but small 
loophole-closing he is recommending.
  At this time I yield the floor, and the remaining time I would give 
to Senator Nelson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I am certainly going to help Senator 
Boxer. On the question about guns, I am an old country boy. I grew up 
on a ranch and grew up with guns, but guns should be for hunting, not 
for killing. One of the most commonsense measures is a measure that you 
ought to have background checks, such as in gun shows, where guns are 
sold to get around the background check law.


        Transpacific Trade Agreement and Tobacco Warning Labels

  Mr. President, this Senator came to the floor on a happier note, to 
congratulate our Ambassador, the U.S. Trade Representative, for 
successfully completing the negotiations with 11 other nations in the 
Pacific Rim on this transpacific agreement.
  One of the items in there I had dug my heels in because we heard in 
Australia they had a law that required tobacco companies selling 
cigarettes to put a warning label on the cigarette

[[Page 15642]]

package, just like we have to do in America--a warning about the 
hazardous effects of smoking.
  Lo and behold, it is now in a tribunal called the Investor-State 
Dispute Settlement, which had basically governed trade agreements 
between countries, and they were throwing out Australia's law that said 
you had to have a warning on a cigarette package.
  So having been involved from the beginning in Florida with the return 
of money from the tobacco companies to the government of Florida for 
all of the medical expenses Florida had borne under Medicaid, having 
removed tobacco stocks, as one of the three trustees of what governed 
the Florida pension plan, and removed tobacco stocks from the Florida 
pension fund, I am here to say hallelujah.
  The fact is that our Pacific trade agreement is going to honor the 
laws of countries that want to cut down on tobacco use. As they 
referred to it in the trade agreement, it will exempt from the 
investor-state dispute settlement mechanism anything in a country with 
regard to tobacco control. This is a win for the health care advocates 
who are trying to keep our people informed about the hazards, what 
smoking tobacco will do to their health.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
nomination of Dale Drozd to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 
District of California.
  Judge Drozd earned his bachelor's degree magna cum laude from San 
Diego State University in 1977 and his law degree from UCLA in 1980, 
where he was inducted into the Order of the Coif.
  He began his legal career as a law clerk for a district judge in the 
same judicial district where he now serves.
  Following his clerkship, Judge Drozd worked as a criminal and civil 
litigator in Federal and State courts at the trial and appellate levels 
for 14 years.
  Then, in 1997, Judge Drozd was appointed to serve as a magistrate 
judge in the Eastern District of California.
  In 2011, he became the chief magistrate judge in that court.
  Over his 18-year career as a magistrate judge, he has presided over 
thousands of cases.
  He is well regarded in the legal community and among those who appear 
before him on a daily basis. The ABA has rated Judge Drozd ``well 
qualified,'' its highest rating.
  Five different U.S. attorneys who served under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations over more than 20 years have endorsed his 
nomination.
  Those former U.S. attorneys include David F. Levi, who later served 
on the district court and is now dean of Duke law school, as well as 
George O'Connell, Charles Stevens, Paul Seave, and McGregor Scott.
  Their letter states: ``[w]e have all known Judge Drozd for many years 
and are also aware of his judicial reputation in the community. He is 
an effective, productive, fair, and balanced jurist who is widely 
respected in this district.''
  Their letter further recognized Judge Drozd as ``an outstanding 
magistrate judge,'' and went on to state that ``he will be equally 
effective as a district judge.''
  The president of the Sacramento chapter of the Federal Bar 
Association wrote to the Judiciary Committee in support of this 
nomination.
  That letter notes that, although it is not typical for the Federal 
Bar Association ``to endorse a particular candidate or nomination,'' 
Judge Drozd's nomination is ``uniquely easy to support.''
  The letter further stated that Judge Drozd ``is widely respected in 
our district and commands a high level of respect from attorneys who 
appear before him.''
  I would also add a point from the U.S. attorneys' letter about the 
crushing caseload in this district.
  Their letter states: ``[o]ur district has an extremely heavy case 
load and has been operating with a vacant judgeship for two and a half 
years. It is vitally important to the fair administration of justice 
that the long-vacant judicial vacancy in our Fresno district be 
promptly filled.''
  This is a point that bears repeating: the caseload in the Eastern 
District of California is extraordinarily large, and has been for many 
years.
  This district covers Sacramento and California's Central Valley, 
including Fresno and Bakersfield--it covers 55 percent of California's 
land area.
  The district has only six judgeships for a population of nearly 8 
million people, and it has almost two times as many people per 
judgeship as the average U.S. district court.
  Over the last 6 years, the court has had nearly three times as many 
pending cases per judgeship--more than 1,400--than the national 
average, 569.
  These numbers translate into lengthy times for cases to be resolved. 
Over the last several years, it has taken between 38 and 51 months for 
civil cases to get to trial--well above the national average of 26 
months.
  Criminal cases now take over 20 months to be resolved currently, 
almost three times the national average of 7.4 months.
  The point is this: the Eastern District of California is in serious 
need of additional judges. I have worked for many years to create those 
positions, and I believe very strongly that they are needed.
  I am pleased that the Senate is taking the small step of voting on 
this nomination.
  I urge my colleagues to confirm Judge Drozd to the Eastern District 
of California.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back all 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Dale A. Drozd, of California, to be United States District Judge for 
the Eastern District of California?
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. 
Cruz), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator 
from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), 
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 274 Ex.]

                                YEAS--69

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--21

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Lankford
     McConnell
     Moran
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sasse
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Burr
     Carper
     Cruz
     Enzi
     McCain
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott
     Toomey
     Vitter
  The nomination was confirmed.

[[Page 15643]]

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

                          ____________________