[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.

                          ____________________