[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 154 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11796-S11799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF RONALD LEE GILMAN, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
go into executive session and proceed to the consideration of the
nomination of Ronald Lee Gilman, of Tennessee, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Ronald Lee
Gilman, of Tennessee, to be U.S. circuit judge for the sixth circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 10 minutes debate on the
nomination.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand that on the nomination, there
is 5 minutes reserved to a side, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't see the distinguished chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, so I will take the 5 minutes on this side.
Obviously, this is a case where, I assume, Ronald Gilman will be
confirmed, and I congratulate him.
I am pleased that the majority leader has decided to take up the
nomination of Ronald L. Gilman to be a judge for the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Mr. Gilman currently works as a partner for Farris,
Mathews, Gilman, Branan & Hellen, P.L.C. in Memphis, TN, an adjunct
professor of trial advocacy for the University of Memphis Law School,
an arbitrator and mediator for the American Arbitration Association in
Nashville, TN, an arbitrator and mediator for the National Association
of Securities Dealers in Chicago, IL, and as a dalkon shield referee
for the Private Adjudication Center in Cary, NC. The ABA gave Mr.
Gilman its highest evaluation--a unanimous well qualified rating.
In addition to his paid legal service, Mr. Gilman currently
volunteers on behalf of the Memphis, TN and American Bar Associations,
the Association of Attorney-Mediators and the Commercial Law
Affiliates.
I congratulate Mr. Gilman and his family, and I look forward to his
service on the Sixth Circuit of the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals.
I am also delighted that the Judiciary Committee plans to consider 15
judicial nominations at its executive business meeting today. I am
hopeful that these nominations may be considered by the full Senate
before we adjourn for the year.
Mr. President, we have seen this time and time again where judges are
held up because people are concerned about them, we are told, and then
we have a rollcall vote on them and virtually every Senator votes for
them. I mention this because no matter how many times we are told that
we have to look very carefully at these judges, that they have concerns
about them, it is obvious the Senate is not concerned about them and
the Senate votes for them.
The same thing has happened with Bill Lann Lee. It is a case where
the whole Senate would vote for Bill Lann Lee, that he would be
confirmed overwhelmingly as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil
Rights Division, but a small ideological group has decided that while
they could not defeat Bill Lann Lee on the floor, a minority of the
minority would try to defeat him and vote to block him in committee.
It seems the Republican leadership is determined to sacrifice Bill
Lann Lee to narrow ideological politics. If the Republican leadership
were to allow the Senate to vote on this outstanding nominee, a
majority of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, would vote to
confirm him. Unfortunately, the press accounts this morning are that
conservative Republicans have decided to block him by a minority of the
minority. They have vowed not to allow this nomination to be considered
by the Senate before adjournment this year.
This is not democracy. This is not the Senate at its best. This is
the Senate at its worst, twisting the rules. The reason the Republican
leadership gives for trying to kill this nomination is that Bill Lann
Lee agrees with the President. It is not so much about Bill Lee as Bill
Clinton. The President won election, and he won reelection. For the
Senate to refuse to proceed to this nomination because Mr. Lee honestly
testified that he would adhere to policies of equal justice consistent
with those of the President is wrong.
Mr. President, can we have order, please? I cannot hear myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the body. Any
conversations will please be taken off the floor. The Senator may
proceed.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. The Republican leaders were prodded
into this by the narrow ideological extreme right of their party and
its allies. They have not brought forward their own bill on affirmative
action. They want to talk about it, but they have not brought it
forward because they know a majority of Republicans and Democrats would
not vote for it.
The Proposition 209 case is over. The Supreme Court has ruled on
that. The good people of Houston rejected efforts to abandon those
previously discriminated against. So there is nothing left for the
extreme right except one trophy, and that trophy is Bill Lann Lee.
What kind of an example does this set? What kind of signal does this
send? Bill Lee's life story is an American success story. He is the son
of immigrants who struggled against discrimination. His father fought
with the American forces in World War II. He spent his professional
career working to solve civil rights problems and diffuse conflict. His
record of achievement is exemplary. He is a man of integrity and honor,
as even those opposing him have to concede.
When he said to the Judiciary Committee that quotas are illegal and
wrong and he would enforce the law, no one should have any doubt about
his resolve to do what is right. He is a person with great problem-
solving skills. Such matters are too important to be used for political
purposes or as wedge issues to divide people. What is promising about
this nomination is that Bill Lee is the person with the credentials,
credibility and creativity to help move America and all Americans
forward.
Any fairminded review of his 23-year career shows him to be well-
suited to head the Civil Rights Division. It shows where he has been
and where the law has been and how we have moved forward to refine
remedial approaches to discrimination and its vestiges. One measure of
this extraordinary individual are the testimonies of support provided
by so many of his litigation opponents over the years, support based on
his fairness and good sense, support from Democrats and Republicans
alike.
Just this summer, the Senate moved forward to confirm another
Assistant Attorney General, someone who had expressly declined to
follow the language of the Telecommunications Act House-Senate
conference report and raised concerns among a number of Senators. We
were told that the standard to be employed in evaluating these nominees
was not to hold a nominee hostage to policy differences with the
administration but to vote for the nominee, if well-qualified, to
permit the Justice Department to proceed with a confirmed division
chief, and for us in Congress to move forward and work with the
administration in the formulation and implementation of effective
policies.
Unfortunately, with this nomination, that of the first Asian-American
to head the Civil Rights Division, the rules are being changed and the
standards are being moved. First, it appeared that the Republicans
wished to raise their concerns with the nominee and point out their
differences with administration policy, as is traditionally done. Then
the focus was on Mr. Lee's possible involvement in Supreme Court
consideration of the California proposition 209 case. When Mr. Lee came
forward and recused himself from involvement in that case, the
suggestion was made that the Department of Justice abstain from filing
a brief in that case should certiorari be granted.
That suggestion was properly rejected. Indeed, I would think that the
Supreme Court would be likely to request the views of the U.S.
Government if they were not tendered in an amicus brief. Surely
imposition of this suggested gag rule on the United States on issues of
significance and concern in
[[Page S11797]]
order to confirm a nominee who would not even be involved in
formulating the U.S. position would have been ill-advised.
This week the Supreme Court denied review in the California
proposition 209 case. If Bill Lee's recusal did not clear the way for
his confirmation surely, one would have thought, this action by the
Supreme Court removed the immediate obstacle that had been fastened on
by the opposition. Instead, the grounds for opposition shifted. It now
appears that in order to be confirmed to lead the Civil Rights
Division, the nominee must not only commit to uphold the law but
disavow the President who has nominated him to serve in this
administration. Before we are done I expect that the nominee would be
required to endorse S. 950, a bill that the Senate has not considered
nor the Congress enacted.
I think it beneath Senators to suggest that this fine nominee ought
be rejected because a previous, unqualified Republican nominee had been
rejected by the committee. Tit for tat may be the rule in the alley,
but should not govern the actions of the U.S. Senate. Nonetheless,
there seems to be a lot of pay back motivating those opposing this fine
man.
I regret that a narrow, ideological litmus test is being proposed
that would require nominees to disavow remedies and approaches that the
Supreme Court has held to be constitutional and necessary to enforce
our commitment to equal opportunity. It is the administration's
commitment to affirmative action and equal justice that would have to
be sacrificed. I know that Bill Lee would not compromise his commitment
to enforce the law and to seek equal justice for all Americans.
Moreover, if accepted by a partisan majority, that political litmus
test will know no natural limit. It could infect the confirmation of
the Associate Attorney General, the Solicitor General and all other
nominations.
I regret that some have decided to oppose this good man. He would, in
my view, enforce the law, use his problem-solving skills and proven
ability to move the country forward and build on the progress that we
have been able to make in remedying past discrimination over the last
several years. It appears now that for this nomination to prevail in
Committee it will take a profile in courage by a couple Republican
members. I urge each member to consider his or her vote carefully and
what it means for this nomination, for the country and for standards
being created for future nominations.
There is a place to consider the important issues involved in the
debate over race relations in the country and the constitutionality of
affirmative action that the Supreme Court has held to be
constitutional. That should not be the issue with respect to the vote
on this nominee, however.
When Bill Lee appeared before the Committee with his family he
testified candidly about his views, his work and his values. He
articulated to us that he understands that as the Assistant Attorney
General for the Civil Rights Division his client is the United States
and all of its people. He told us poignantly about why he became a
person who has dedicated his life to equal justice for all when he
spoke of the treatment that his parents received as immigrants. Mr. Lee
told us how in spite of his father's personal treatment and
experiences, William Lee remained a fierce American patriot,
volunteered to serve in the United States Army Air Corps in World War
II and never lost his belief in America.
He inspired his son just as Bill Lee now inspires his own children
and countless others across the land. They are the kind of everyday
heroes to whom we sing praises.
Mr. Lee told us:
``My father is my hero, but I confess that I found it
difficult for many years to appreciate his unflinching
patriotism in the face of daily indignities. In my youth, I
did not understand how he could remain so deeply grateful to
a country where he and my mother faced so much intolerance.
But I began to appreciate that the vision he had of being an
American was a vision so compelling that he could set aside
the momentary ugliness. He knew that the basic American tenet
of equality of opportunity is the bedrock of our society.''
I know that Bill Lee will remain true to all that his father taught
him and hope that the momentary ugliness of people opposing his
nomination based on an ideological litmus test of people distorting his
achievements and beliefs and of some succumbing to narrow partisanship
will not be his reward for a career of good works. Such treatment
drives good people from public service and distorts the role of the
Senate.
I have often referred to the Senate as acting at its best when it
serves as the conscience of the Nation. In this case, I am afraid that
the Senate may show no conscience.
I call on the Senate's Republican leadership to end their targeting
of Bill Lann Lee and to work with us to bring this nomination to the
floor without obstruction so that the Senate may vote and we may
confirm a fine person to lead the Civil Rights Division into the next
century.
Why this exemplary Asian-American is singled out, a man who has shown
far more qualities than most people and could easily be confirmed, I
cannot understand. To allow somebody's career, to allow somebody who
has lived the American dream, to allow somebody who has demonstrated
what is best about this country, to allow the Senate to react to what
is worst about this country in defeating him is absolutely wrong. It is
a shame on the Senate. It is a shame on the country. It is a shame on
all of us if we allow this to happen. The worst part of that shame, Mr.
President, is that if the Senate were allowed to vote on Bill Lann Lee,
he would be confirmed, because most Senators in both parties would not
allow this shame to go on. Why an ideological ultraright would stop it
I cannot understand.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that recent editorials on this
matter from the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the
Washington Post be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 6, 1997]
Politics of the Partisan Kill--Hatch Plays the Executioner in the Bill
Lee Confirmation Process
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch's manipulation of Bill Lann Lee's
confirmation process was a callous performance, nearly a
political beheading for no apparent reason beyond the fact
that Lee is President Clinton's choice as the nation's top
civil rights official.
The Utah Republican himself acknowledged Tuesday that Lee,
nominated to head the Justice Department's civil rights
division, is ``an able civil rights lawyer with a profoundly
admirable passion to improve the lives of many Americans.''
The GOP game seems to be to torpedo even the most
outstanding appointments out of petulance that the Democrat
in the White House has the nominating power. The Senate
Judiciary Committee, headed by Hatch, has turned to stalling
or harassment in the cases of many worthy nominees to the
federal bench, for instance; this continues at a time when
one in nine judgeships are vacant.
Lee, with 23 years of experience in civil rights law, is
well respected and qualified to do the job, but Hatch painted
the Los Angeles attorney as a poster boy for affirmative
action. Ridiculous.
The senator says that much of Lee's work has been devoted
to ``constitutionally suspect, race-conscious public policies
that ultimately distort and divide citizens by race.''
Distorted view of the law? Lee has worked long and
vigorously within the civil rights statutes to uphold the
law. He opposed California's Proposition 209 but has said he
would support the law of the land, including this week's
controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision to let stand
Proposition 209, California's ban on race and gender
preferences in public hiring and university admissions.
Hatch's opposition could doom Lee's appointment unless two
Republicans join the committee's eight Democrats in today's
scheduled vote on Lee, who would be the first Asian American
to manage the 250-lawyer division. Even if the Judiciary
Committee does not recommend Lee, the full Senate should get
the opportunity to vote on the nomination. Clinton
administration officials, who belatedly mounted a full-court
press for their nominee, believe that Lee could be confirmed
by a floor vote.
Barring that, Clinton could courageously circumvent the
Senate and put Lee in the job by making a ``recess
appointment'' after Congress shuts down Friday for its annual
Christmas break. Lee warrants Senate confirmation. He should
not be made a political scapegoat.
____
[From the New York Times Nov. 6, 1997]
Affirmative Action in Play
The Supreme Court's most momentous decision of the current
term may turn out to be its refusal this week to hear a
challenge to the constitutionality of California's anti-
affirmative-action initiative, Proposition 209. The Court's
sidestep allows California to proceed unimpeded with its
rollback of remedies that are, regrettably, still needed to
[[Page S11798]]
address the nation's persistent problem of race and gender
discrimination. It may also encourage other states to follow
California.
Had it taken the case, this Court might well have agreed
with the Ninth Circuit's decision upholding Proposition 209,
which applies to affirmative action programs in public
education, employment and contracting. But the opposing
arguments are also weighty and deserved a timely and
respectful airing by the justices.
In the absence of any guidance from the Supreme Court, the
nation is now embarking on a far-reaching legal and social
experiment that holds as much potential to exacerbate racial
differences as to minimize them. Clearly, many fair-minded
Americans are uncomfortable with race-based preferences. But
they cannot feel sanguine that alternative steps, such as
basing affirmative action on income instead of race, will be
adequate to preserve black access to the elite public
universities, and the career opportunities and higher pay
that follow from it.
The only encouraging development on this contentious issue
was seen in Houston, the nation's fourth-largest city, in
Tuesday's elections when voters defeated a measure similar to
Proposition 209 that would have prohibited affirmative action
in Houston's contracting and hiring. The heavy minority
turnout for the city's mayoral election was evidently a big
factor in mobilizing opposition, as was a clearly worded
measure that avoided inflammatory and misleading language.
Houston's retiring Mayor, Bob Lanier, a wealthy white
developer, did the nation a service by emphasizing the unfair
result if affirmative action were eliminated. ``Let's not
turn back the clock to the days when guys who look like me
got all the city's business,'' he urged voters.
It was hoped that the Supreme Court's refusal to take up
Proposition 209 would at least persuade Senator Orrin Hatch
to clear President Clinton's nomination of Bill Lann Lee as
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Earlier Mr.
Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, broached
the idea of trading Mr. Lee's confirmation for a promise from
the Administration not to file a brief with the Court in
support of the challenge. Once the 209 challenge was dead,
however, Mr. Hatch announced he would vote against Mr. Lee
anyway, based on his affirmative-action views.
Yet those views are also the President's, and no one, not
even Senator Hatch, disputes that Mr. Lee is well qualified.
Mr. Hatch seems to be abusing the confirmation process to
bolster his standing with the right wing of his party.
Sensible Republican senators need to join quickly with their
Democratic colleagues to make sure that Mr. Lee's nomination
survives this offensive kind of end-of-session maneuvering.
____
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 24, 1997]
The Lee Nomination
In July, the president nominated Bill Lann Lee, western
regional counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, to be assistant attorney general for civil rights. The
post had then been vacant for half a year. On Wednesday, Mr.
Lee had his confirmation hearing. The nomination now should
be approved.
The choice of Mr. Lee has drawn some limited opposition, as
civil rights nominations by either party almost always seem
to do these days. In this case, however, even opponents, some
of them, have acknowledged that, from a professional
standpoint, Mr. Lee is qualified. The issue is not his
professional competence. The objection is rather to the views
of civil rights that he shares with the president, and which,
in the view of the critics, should disqualify him.
Mr. Lee's views appear to us to be well inside the bounds
of accepted jurisprudence. He is an advocate of affirmative
action, as you would expect of someone who has spent his
entire professional career--23 years--as a civil rights
litigator. The president has likewise generally been a
defender of such policies against strong political pressures
to the contrary. But Mr. Lee himself observed that the
assistant attorney general takes an oath to uphold the law as
set forth by the courts, and so he would. The range of
discretion in a job such as this is almost always less than
the surrounding rhetoric suggests.
Mr. Lee over his career has brought a considerable number
of lawsuits in behalf of groups claiming they were
discriminated against, and has sought and won resolutions
aimed at making the groups whole, somehow defined. It is that
kind of group resolution of such disputes that some people
object to, on grounds that the whole object of the exercise
should be to avoid labeling and treating people as members of
racial and other such groups. There is surely some reason for
the discomfort this group categorizing generates. But the
court's themselves continue to uphold such actions in limited
circumstances. And Mr. Lee has won a reputation for resolving
such cases sensibly. Los Angeles's Republican Mayor Richard
Riordan is one who supports the nomination. ``Mr. Lee first
became known to me as opposing counsel in an important civil
rights case concerning poor bus riders in Los Angeles,'' he
has written. ``The work of my opponents rarely evokes my
praises, but the negotiations could not have concluded
successfully without Mr. Lee's practical leadership and
expertise . . . Mr. Lee has practiced mainstream civil rights
law.''
There are lots of legitimate issues to be argued about in
connection with civil rights law. Mr. Lee's nomination is not
the right vehicle for resolving them. Senators, including
some who no doubt disagree with some of his views, complain
with cause about the continuing vacancies in high places at
the Justice Department. This is one they should fill before
they go home.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired as far as the amount of
time allocated on this nomination. There are 5 minutes controlled by
the majority. But the 5 minutes to the Senator's side has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. Is there time in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the nomination of Mr. Gilman of
Tennessee.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the
Senator from Vermont. This is a sad day. I have only been a Member of
this body for less than a year.
I cannot remember, though, any nominee who has come before the Senate
Judiciary Committee who had a more compelling personal story about his
life and his family. Bill Lann Lee is an extraordinary man, the son of
Chinese immigrants. His parents came to this country penniless and
started a hand laundry in New York.
His mother, who sat with him at the confirmation hearing, sat in the
window of that hand laundry her entire life in front of a sewing
machine. His father, working in that hand laundry, refused to teach
Bill Lann Lee and his brother the skill of ironing clothes because he
was determined they would not follow him in his footsteps in that
laundry.
As Senator Leahy has said, Bill Lee's father, who could have been
deferred because of age from serving in World War II, volunteered, put
his life on the line, and came back with the experience of being
treated, as he said, ``as an American.'' That is what Bill Lee told us.
Then Bill Lee, given a chance to attend Yale and Columbia Law School,
graduated with high honors and, instead of going with a prestigious law
firm and making a lot of money, he devoted his life to finding
opportunity and education and employment for everyone in this country.
That this Senate--that the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a small
group in that body, would turn down this opportunity for such a fine
man to serve this country is truly disgraceful.
I believe that we owe it to Mr. Lee to give him a chance to serve, as
he has already served this country in so many ways. To take out on Mr.
Lee some feelings about President Clinton is totally unfair. I hope the
Senate Judiciary Committee will give him this opportunity to serve.
Just last week or so, we all queued up to talk about human rights to
the President of China. Now we have a chance to vote on human rights in
putting a well-qualified person in the job as Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights. We are going to determine whether those
speeches that were given by Republicans and Democrats were only tourist
fare for President Jiang.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking
up the nomination of Ronald L. Gilman of Memphis to be United States
circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I
want to thank Chairman Hatch of the Judiciary Committee for taking up
and reporting this nomination so promptly and the majority leader for
scheduling a vote on it so soon after the nomination was reported to
the Senate. The Sixth Circuit currently has two vacancies, so it is
important to my State and the others in the circuit that this vacancy
get filled quickly.
Ron Gilman is a native of Memphis, where he was raised. After
attending the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard Law
School, he returned to Memphis in 1967 and since then has spent his
entire legal career at the leading Tennessee law firm of Ferris,
Mathews, Gilman, Branan and Hellen. I might point out that the Mathews
in that firm name is former Senator Harlan Mathews.
Mr. Gilman rapidly became established as a leader of the Memphis bar,
[[Page S11799]]
serving as president of the Young Lawyers Division of the Memphis Bar
Association and president of the Young Lawyers Conference of the
Tennessee Bar Association. He subsequently served a term as president
of both the Memphis and Tennessee Bar Associations.
Mr. Gilman is eminently qualified to serve as a judge. His legal
career has been as distinguished as it has been multifaceted. He has
practiced criminal law, civil litigation, particularly commercial
litigation, general business law, and estate planning. Most recently,
he has spent a good deal of his practice involved in alternative means
of dispute resolution, often serving as an arbitrator and mediator.
From a background such as his, I think we can safely expect that Mr.
Gilman will bring to the bench the legal practitioner's bent for common
sense and careful application of the law rather than an ideological
approach to the law.
Mr. Gilman is not only one of Tennessee's most distinguished lawyers,
but a leader in the Memphis community as well, having served leadership
roles with the Boy Scouts, the Memphis Jewish Home, and Memphis Senior
Citizens Services, among other groups. He is a recipient of the Sam A.
Myar, Jr. Memorial Award for outstanding service to the legal
profession and the Memphis community.
This nomination enjoys widespread and bipartisan support. Both
Republican Representative Ed Bryant and Democratic Representative
Harold Ford, Jr., support the nomination. The entire Tennessee legal
community supports the nomination. I have heard not a single negative
word about Mr. Gilman's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this nomination.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield back the time on this side. I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Ronald Lee Gilman, of Tennessee, to be
U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit? On this question the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 295 Ex.]
YEAS--98
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
Faircloth
NOT VOTING--1
Mikulski
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________