[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16087-16090]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF ANN DONNELLY TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

  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 Ann 
Donnelly, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the 
Eastern District of New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11 
a.m. will be equally divided for debate in the usual form.
  The assistant Democratic leader.


    Refugee Crisis in Greece, Nomination of Gayle Smith, and Ukraine

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I had the privilege of joining Senators 
Shaheen, Klobuchar, and Warren during the recess that just concluded to 
travel to Europe to assess the refugee flow that is spilling into 
Greece and ongoing Russian aggression during our visit to Ukraine.
  I will start with the visit to one of our most important NATO 
European allies, Greece. Greece is struggling, as we all know, with its 
own economic challenges, but now it is facing an overwhelming flow of 
refugees across its border.
  Almost half a million refugees have flown into Greece just this year. 
The bulk of the refugees come from across the Aegean Sea from Turkey. 
They are fleeing war and economic instability in the region. Most are 
from Syria, but there are many others from Afghanistan, Iraq, and other 
countries in peril. Many are middle-class families who are simply 
exhausted from years of horrific war in Syria.
  I met many of them and had a chance to speak to them. Their stories 
are heartbreaking. They are fleeing with their children and whatever 
they can carry. Their destination is uncertain, but they know they 
can't stay in the camps or in Syria. They are the victims of smugglers 
and exploitation. Some of these desperate people are charged 1,000 
euros just to cross a 2-mile stretch of ocean between Turkey and 
Greece.
  We were on the island of Lesbos, and those who were able to watch 
``60 Minutes'' this week saw a presentation of what is happening on 
that small island of about 80,000 people where more than 400,000 
refugees have come through in the last several weeks. Many of these 
refugees are unaccompanied children.
  At one of the camps, I met a young man who said he was 17--probably 
15--who had come across that stretch of water with his 8-year-old 
sister. Think for a moment what that family must have gone through in 
deciding that it was safer for this 15-year-old to take his 8-year-old 
sister and try to find their way to a safe place in Europe rather than 
stay in war-torn Syria. That is the reality of many of these refugees 
and the plight that they face.
  On this island of Lesbos, 2,000 refugees are arriving every single 
day. The Greek Coast Guard showed us stacks of discarded rubber rafts. 
These rubber rafts are made to hold about 20 people as they cross this 
3-mile stretch of ocean. They packed them with over 50 people. They 
charge 1,000 euros for each adult and 500 euros for each child.
  We saw these rafts stacked up and piles of life preservers. Some of 
them are the types of life preservers and jackets that you might 
expect, but others are ridiculous. Some of them are literally pool 
toys, and they say so. They have written right on them that they are 
not to be used as life preservers. These pool toys are strapped to 
those little kids who are put in these rafts that come across that 
stretch of ocean. There were rows upon rows of cheap outboard motors 
that were used to propel these rafts across the straits.
  Incidentally, the smugglers picked someone in the raft and told them 
that they were in charge. They would ask if they knew how to operate 
the motor. If they didn't know how to operate it, they would show them 
how to use it and point them in the right direction. The refugees would 
then head out in the hope that they would make it across safely, and 
many times they didn't.
  Despite Greece's economic hardship, I was impressed with how the 
Greek people were handling this refugee crisis. Processing registration 
centers had been established, and many refugees were quickly on their 
way to resettlement in Europe.
  I mentioned the 15-year-old with his 8-year-old sister. I ran into 
four others who spoke English, and all of them were college graduates 
in their 20s. One of them was a pre-med student who said: We just 
couldn't live any longer with war in Syria. We were ready to risk our 
lives to find a safer place.
  The mayor of Lesbos has been generous and thoughtful in addressing 
the suffering. He told me he often thought he was handling a ticking 
time bomb with this refugee crisis. Instead, this island has become an 
example of what the rest of the world can do.
  In Athens, we visited with an impressive NGO known as Praksis that is 
giving unaccompanied minors a safe, nurturing place to stay while they 
attempt to place them with families.
  The United States leads the world in financial assistance for this 
Syrian refugee effort, but we have a moral obligation to do that and 
more. I have called on the administration to accept 100,000 Syrian 
refugees. I am a cosponsor of the emergency supplemental bill 
addressing refugee assistance, recently introduced by Senators Graham 
and Leahy.
  Allow me to put the 100,000 number in perspective. Germany has agreed 
to accept 800,000 of these Syrian refugees. It is estimated that there 
are 4 million total. The United States accepted 750,000 Vietnamese 
refugees and over 500,000 Cuban refugees after the Castro regime took 
over. Those Cuban refugees included the fathers of two sitting U.S. 
Senators, one of whom is running for President of the United States. We 
accepted over 200,000 Soviet Jews who were being persecuted in that 
country. We have accepted refugees from Somalia and from different 
places around the world, such as Bosnia. We have assimilated them into 
America, and we can do it again.
  When we go through this process of accepting refugees, we carefully 
check their backgrounds to make sure that they are not a threat to the 
United States or anybody who lives here. I think we should continue to 
do that, but the fact that only 1,700 have made it to our Nation in the 
last 4 years tells us that we need to do more.
  I will continue to be a strong advocate for humanitarian safe zones 
in Syria so the people there can have a safe place to be treated for 
their illnesses and to at least live until this war comes to an end.
  Let me say something else. It is embarrassing for me to stand before 
the Senate and note that on our Executive Calendar, which is on the 
desks of Senators, there includes one nominee, Gayle Smith, who has 
been nominated to be administrator of the United States Agency for 
International Development. She has been sitting on this calendar since 
July 29 of this year.
  The USAID, which she seeks to head, is the premier frontline agency 
for helping refugees. Yet this good woman with a lifetime of experience 
is being held up in the Senate for entirely political reasons. There 
are no objections to her personally, and there are no objections to her 
background.
  One Senator is holding up her nomination because the Senator stated 
publicly that he objects to the President's Iran nuclear agreement. 
Gayle Smith had nothing to do with that. The USAID had nothing to do 
with that. Shouldn't we appoint this good person to manage this agency 
to deal with this international refugee crisis?

[[Page 16088]]

  While we are at it, they are asking that Thomas Melia of Maryland be 
the assistant administrator. Wouldn't we want competent management when 
we are talking about billions of American tax dollars being spent 
wisely in this humanitarian effort? Yet they languish on this calendar.
  If there are objections to these nominees, state them. If not, 
approve them.
  After Greece, we had a visit to Ukraine. I believe what is happening 
there is deeply important to us in the United States, and I am 
committed to seeing that Ukraine succeed as a Democratic sovereign 
nation. It is hard to describe what has happened there in a year and a 
half. A shamefully corrupt regime which is deeply influenced by Russia 
was rejected by the Ukrainian people. As the country tried to get back 
on its feet and build a more transparent and Democratic future, Russia 
and Vladimir Putin staged an invasion first by taking over Crimea and 
then by invading eastern Ukraine.
  The Russians have turned eastern Ukraine into a dysfunctional, grim, 
and abandoned wasteland, somehow under the illusion that it would be 
the new Russia. More than a million people have been displaced in 
eastern Ukraine and thousands have been killed. The captured land was 
even used as a base to shoot down a civilian airliner, killing 
hundreds. A recent Dutch investigation showed that this was done with 
Russian weaponry. If only President Putin would try to help with the 
investigation of the Malaysian plane that was shot down instead of 
nakedly blocking the effort of the U.N. Security Council, we would have 
even more information about this horrible tragedy.
  Despite agreeing in Minsk to a pullback of heavy weapons, exchange of 
prisoners, and return of border control in the east, Russia has dragged 
its feet on every term of the agreement, incorrectly hoping that the 
world will not notice. We notice.
  Yet amid all this transparent and barbaric effort to undermine 
Ukraine, the country has found a new unity and determination. It has 
taken on significant reforms. During my visit with my fellow Senators, 
I was struck by how many dedicated Ukrainians are working for a better 
future. They are now members of Parliament and local officials coming 
right out of the Maidan demonstration. They are giving everything they 
can for the future of their country.
  I have been a strong supporter of President Obama's efforts to 
support Ukraine to train and equip its military and provide significant 
assistance for their courageous effort. As the world's attention is 
distracted to many other challenges, let's not lose sight of the 
ongoing struggle in Ukraine. The United States and Europe must remain 
united on sanctions against Russia as long as it continues to invade 
and occupy a sovereign nation like Ukraine.
  I will conclude by recognizing the many dedicated Foreign Service 
officers working in our embassies that we meet with on our trips. They 
are on the frontlines of American leadership and generosity. Ambassador 
Geoffrey Pyatt in Ukraine and Ambassador David Pearce in Greece are two 
we worked with during our recent visit.
  As the Republicans threaten government shutdown after government 
shutdown, let us not forget that these men and women and many like them 
literally risk their lives every single day standing up and 
representing the United States around the world.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


           Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Bill

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again in strong support of the Stop 
Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, which we will be voting 
on later today. I was here on the floor yesterday laying out the strong 
case in support of that, talking to many colleagues before this vote 
today, as I have been for the past several days.
  Today I rise to focus on some arguments from the other side that are 
erroneous and misleading, quite frankly, and to debunk those arguments 
so everyone has the full, true, and clear picture of why this 
legislation is so needed.
  First, I have heard a few of my colleagues talk about the need for 
Federal and local authorities to do a better job of working together. 
For instance, Senator Durbin, who just left the floor, said: ``Federal 
and local authorities must do a better job of communicating and 
coordinating so that undocumented immigrants with serious criminal 
records are detained and deported, period.''
  Similarly, Senator Feinstein said: ``It is very clear to me that we 
have to improve cooperation between local, State, and Federal law 
enforcement.''
  Let me say that I completely agree with them, and they are laying out 
a strong case for this legislation, not against it, because we need to 
do something about the cause of the noncooperation, the obstacle 
between that full cooperation, which absolutely needs to happen every 
day. Simply wishing for a better outcome isn't going to make it happen.
  The fact is, there are dozens of sanctuary cities--jurisdictions that 
have those policies--that were cooperating in the past and that want to 
cooperate, but they have been faced with lawsuits from the ACLU and 
others and court decisions wherein local law enforcement officials 
could be held liable for violating an individual's constitutional 
rights simply for honoring a detainer request from ICE. That is 
ridiculous. That is an abusive threat. Our legislation on the floor 
today is going to remove that threat.
  The Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act allows for that 
cooperation between local and Federal authorities to resume again 
because section 4 of the bill will facilitate State and local 
compliance with the ICE detainer and remove that onerous and 
unreasonable threat. Cooperation has been stifled by lawsuits aimed at 
bullying local law enforcement, and this bill will grant local law 
enforcement the authority to clearly comply with ICE detainers without 
threat of liability. It will protect them from that liability for 
simply complying with ICE detainers.
  I will remind my colleagues that it will do nothing to infringe on an 
individual's civil or constitutional rights. They still have the same 
ability to pursue those against ICE or anyone else they choose.
  That is why this legislation is supported by people who know 
something about what needs to happen for local and Federal authorities 
to cooperate. Who am I talking about? The Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Association--they know what they are talking about. The 
International Union of Police Associations--they live it every day. The 
National Association of Police Organizations and the National Sheriffs' 
Association--don't my colleagues think they know what is needed on the 
ground? They do. And because they do, they strongly support this 
legislation.
  Second, some colleagues on the other side argue that this bill won't 
do anything; instead, we need so-called comprehensive immigration 
reform such as the Gang of 8 bill. But the Gang of 8 bill that my 
colleagues are pushing--1,200 pages long when it passed the Senate--
didn't do anything to resolve this issue of sanctuary cities. It didn't 
do anything to change the abusive lawsuits I am speaking about. It 
didn't do anything to encourage Federal and local authorities to 
cooperate in real time--absolutely nothing. That is just the fact, once 
we read the 1,200 pages. All the Gang of 8 bill does is lead with a big 
amnesty--an amnesty overnight--for about 11 million illegal immigrants 
in our country today. So that comprehensive immigration reform bill--
the Gang of 8 bill or whatever we want to call it--does nothing in this 
area that is so crucial to fix, does nothing about sanctuary cities, 
does nothing to remove these abusive lawsuits as obstacles to the clear 
and full cooperation between Federal, State, and local authorities, 
which even folks on the other side of the bill admit needs to happen 
and is a problem right now.
  There are lots of myths about our bill versus the facts.
  With that in mind, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a myth v. fact sheet that lays out clearly the myths, the 
arguments made against this legislation, and the real

[[Page 16089]]

facts of the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, S. 
2146.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Myth v. Fact--Stop Sanctuary Policies Act (S. 2146)

       1. S. 2146 does not punish illegal immigrants who come 
     forward to report crimes.
       Myth: Under S. 2146, ``reporting crimes or otherwise 
     interacting with law enforcement could lead to immigration 
     detention and deportation.''\1\
       Fact: S. 2146 provides that if a jurisdiction has a policy 
     that local law enforcement will not inquire about the 
     immigration status of crime victims or witnesses, such 
     jurisdiction will not be deemed a sanctuary jurisdiction and 
     will not lose any federal funds. See section 3(e).
       2. S. 2146 does not require local law enforcement to carry 
     out federal immigration responsibilities.
       Myth: S. 2146 would ``require[e] state and local law 
     enforcement to carry out the federal government's immigration 
     enforcement responsibilities,'' and thus ``the federal 
     government would be substituting its judgment for the 
     judgment of state and local law enforcement agencies.''\2\
       Fact: The bill does not require local law enforcement ``to 
     carry out federal immigration responsibilities.'' Removing 
     illegal immigrants remains the exclusive province of the 
     federal government. The bill simply withholds certain federal 
     funds from jurisdictions that prohibit their local law 
     enforcement officers from cooperating with federal officials 
     in the limited circumstance of honoring an immigration 
     detainer.
       It is politicians in sanctuary jurisdictions who, by tying 
     the hands of local law enforcement, are ``substituting 
     [their] judgment for the judgment of state and local law 
     enforcement.''
       3. S. 2146 is necessary to keep dangerous criminals off of 
     the streets.
       Myth: ``Congress should focus on overdue reforms of the 
     broken immigration system to allow state and local law 
     enforcement to focus their resources on true threats--
     dangerous criminals and criminal organizations.''\3\
       Fact: Sanctuary cities are the ones preventing local law 
     enforcement from focusing on dangerous criminals and criminal 
     organizations--by forbidding local law enforcement officers 
     from holding such criminals.
       The illegal immigrant who killed Kate Steinle explained 
     that he chose to live in San Francisco because it was a 
     sanctuary city, and he knew San Francisco would not take 
     action against him He was right. Three months before Kate's 
     death, the federal government asked San Francisco officials 
     to hold him, but San Francisco refused.
       4. S. 2146 does not force the U.S. to bear liability for 
     unconstitutional actions by local law enforcement.
       Myth: S. 2146 includes ``provisions requiring DHS to absorb 
     all liability in lawsuits brought by individuals unlawfully 
     detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.''\4\
       Fact: If a lawsuit alleges that a local officer knowingly 
     violated Fourth Amendment or other constitutional rights, 
     under S. 2146, the individual officer, not the federal 
     government, will bear all liability. See section 4(c).
       For some lawsuits, the U.S. will be substituted as 
     defendant--specifically, suits alleging that that the 
     immigration detainer should not have been issued. But such a 
     claim could already be brought against the U.S. under 
     existing law; thus, S. 2146 does not create a new source of 
     liability for the federal government. S. 2146 simply provides 
     that if the federal government made the error, the federal 
     government should be the defendant.
       5. S. 2146 is fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment 
     and preserves individuals' rights to sue for constitutional 
     violations.
       Myth: ``The Fourth Amendment provides that the government 
     cannot hold anyone in jail without getting a warrant or the 
     approval of a judge.''\5\
       Fact: The Constitution requires probable cause to detain an 
     individual, which can be established by a judicial a warrant 
     issued before the arrest or by a demonstration of probable 
     cause after the arrest. Otherwise police could never arrest 
     someone whom they see committing a crime.
       S. 2146 does not alter the requirement for probable cause. 
     In fact, S. 2146 explicitly preserves an individual's ability 
     to sue if he or she is held without probable cause or has 
     suffered any other violation of a constitutional right.

                                Endnotes

       1. Email from Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service 
     (Oct. 19, 2015).
       2. Letter from Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force (Oct. 
     15, 2015).
       3. Letter from Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force (Oct. 
     15, 2015).
       4. Letter from ACLU (Oct. 19, 2015).
       5. Letter from ACLU (Oct. 19, 2015).

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, let me highlight the two biggest ones. The 
first one is that our legislation would somehow punish and make it more 
difficult for illegal persons to report crimes and cooperate with local 
law enforcement. That is a pure myth. What is the fact? Well, read the 
bill, as the American people suggest. Read the bill. Our bill, S. 2146, 
specifically provides that if a jurisdiction has a policy that local 
law enforcement will not inquire about the immigration status of crime 
victims or witnesses, such jurisdiction will not be deemed a sanctuary 
jurisdiction and it will not lose Federal funds over that. So that 
argument is simply a myth.
  The second argument often made is that somehow this legislation is 
requiring local law enforcement to carry out Federal immigration 
responsibilities. Again, that is a pure myth, a purely erroneous 
argument, and if we read the bill, S. 2146, we will see it is simply 
not true. The bill does not require local law enforcement ``to carry 
out Federal immigration responsibilities'' in any way, shape, or form. 
Removing illegal immigrants remains the exclusive province of the 
Federal Government. The bill simply withholds certain Federal funds 
from jurisdictions that prohibit exactly the cooperation that our 
opponents on the other side say is so necessary and correctly say is so 
necessary. So that, again, is the fact versus the myth that is being 
propagated.
  Again, we have several myths versus facts as part of the record, and 
I urge everyone, starting with our colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, to study it carefully.
  This is an important issue. Sanctuary cities are a real problem, and 
we need to fix that problem to move forward. So I urge my colleagues to 
look carefully at this issue of what is driving these sanctuary cities 
policies. Our legislation will take up those drivers, those obstacles, 
will solve those problems, and will result in the cooperation at all 
levels of law enforcement that we desperately need.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes later today so we can push forward 
with this important and critical legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will finally vote on the 
nomination of Judge Ann Donnelly to be a Federal district judge in the 
Eastern District of New York. She was first nominated for this judicial 
emergency vacancy nearly a year ago, back in November 2014. She was 
voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote over 4 
months ago on June 4, but since then she has been blocked from 
receiving a vote on the Senate floor. Senator Schumer has twice sought 
to secure a vote for Judge Donnelly through unanimous consent requests 
in July and September, but was blocked by Republicans both times. No 
substantive reason was given for this obstruction, which is hurting 
both our justice system and the people who seek justice in those 
courts.
  Judge Donnelly is not the only New York nominee ready for a vote 
today on the Executive Calendar. LaShann Hall, a partner at a prominent 
national law firm, was nominated to the other judicial emergency 
vacancy in the Eastern District of New York last November as well. She 
was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote at the 
same time as Judge Donnelly, and she is still awaiting a vote.
  Also waiting for a vote is Lawrence Vilardo, who has been nominated 
to the vacancy in the Western District of New York in Buffalo. The 
Western District of New York has one of the busiest caseloads in the 
country and handles more criminal cases than Washington, DC, Boston, or 
Cleveland; yet there is not a single active Federal judge in that 
district, and the court is staying afloat only through the voluntary 
efforts of two judges on senior status who are hearing cases in their 
retirement. Despite these circumstances, Republicans continue to hold 
Mr. Vilardo's nomination up as well. There is no good reason why these 
two other noncontroversial New York nominees could not be confirmed 
today. The same goes for the rest of the noncontroversial judicial 
nominees on the Executive Calendar.
  In the Judiciary Committee, I have continued to work with Chairman 
Grassley to hold hearings on judicial

[[Page 16090]]

nominees. We will hold a hearing tomorrow for four more judicial 
nominees. But the pattern we have seen over the last 9 months is that, 
once nominees are voted out of committee and awaiting confirmation on 
the floor, the Republican leadership refuses to schedule votes. So far 
this year, we have only confirmed seven judges. That is not even one 
judge per month. Some Republicans claim that this is reasonable, but by 
any measure, it is not. By this same point in 2007, when I was chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee and we had a Republican President, the 
Senate had already confirmed 33 judges. At this current rate, by the 
end of the year, the Senate will have confirmed the fewest number of 
judges in more than a half century.
  This pattern is especially egregious in light of the rising number of 
judicial vacancies. In fact, as a direct result of Republican 
obstruction, vacancies have increased by more than 50 percent, from 43 
to 67. That means there are not enough judges to handle the 
overwhelming number of cases in many of our Federal courtrooms. 
Additionally, the number of Federal court vacancies deemed to be 
``judicial emergencies'' by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of 
the U.S. Courts has increased by 158 percent since the beginning of the 
year. There are now 30 judicial emergency vacancies that are affecting 
communities across the country.
  The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights recently issued a 
memorandum documenting the real life impact of the Senate Republicans' 
obstruction on the judicial confirmation process. Three States where 
communities are most hurt are Texas, Alabama, and Florida. Texas, for 
example, has nine judicial vacancies--with seven of them deemed to be 
judicial emergencies. Incredibly, one of the district court positions 
has been vacant for over 4 years, and a fifth circuit position in Texas 
has been vacant for more than 3 years. The memorandum reports that, in 
the Eastern District of Texas, the delays caused by the vacancy in that 
court has placed greater pressure on criminal defendants to forego 
trials and simply plead guilty to avoid uncertain and lengthy pretrial 
detentions. That is not justice.
  Similarly, Alabama has five current vacancies that remain unfilled, 
and Florida has three. These rising vacancies are leading to an 
unsustainable situation in too many states. As Chief Judge Federico 
Moreno of the Southern District of Florida noted, ``It's like an 
emergency room in a hospital. The judges are used to it and people come 
in and out and get good treatment. But the question is, can you sustain 
it? Eventually you burn out.''
  I urge the majority leader to schedule votes for the 14 other 
consensus judicial nominees on the Executive Calendar without further 
delay. If the Republican obstruction continues and if home State 
Senators cannot persuade the majority leader to schedule a vote for 
their nominees soon, then it is unlikely that even highly qualified 
nominees with Republican support will be confirmed by the end of the 
year. These are nominees that members of the leader's own party want 
confirmed. Let us work together to confirm nominees and help restore 
our third branch to full strength.
  Shortly we will begin voting on Judge Ann Donnelly to fill a judicial 
emergency vacancy in the Federal District Court for the Eastern 
District of New York. Since September 2014, she has served as a judge 
on the New York County Supreme Court. Judge Donnelly previously 
presided on the Kings County Supreme Court from 2013 to 2014 and in the 
Bronx County Supreme Court from 2009 to 2013. Prior to becoming a 
judge, she worked at the New York County District Attorney's Office for 
25 years as an assistant district attorney, senior trial counsel, and 
as chief of the Family Violence Child Abuse Bureau. She has the support 
of her two home State Senators, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand. 
She was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote on 
June 4, 2015. I will vote to support her nomination.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Ann Donnelly, 
of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern 
District of New York?
  Mr. FRANKEN. 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 South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Rubio).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. 
Shaheen) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Ex.]

                                YEAS--95

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Blunt
     Sullivan
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

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

                          ____________________