[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 168 (Thursday, December 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12472-S12475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF HARRIS L. HARTZ TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE
TENTH CIRCUIT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11:40
a.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to executive session to
consider the nomination of Harris Hartz, to be U.S. Circuit Judge. The
clerk will state the nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Harris L. Hartz, of New
Mexico, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for
3 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is there some reason for 3 minutes or is
it assumed I asked for 3 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was under the impression the Senator
wanted 3 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Can I do this, so I will not feel too pressed: I ask
unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up to 5 minutes, which I
probably will not use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to pay credit to a very
distinguished lawyer and judge. His name is Harris Hartz. Today when we
vote, if a majority votes for him--and I do not see why we would not;
it might be a unanimous vote--he will become the U.S. Circuit Judge for
the Tenth Circuit.
To the extent a Senator, based upon observing and asking other
people, can fill himself or herself with knowledge about a person, I
have to say he is probably one of the most qualified persons I have
ever asked the President to put on the bench.
His academic background is so superb that no one can challenge it. If
Harvard Law School is a good law school, and he was among its best
students--magna cum laude--all of the attributes of a great mind that
was being moved and melded into a great leader mind, that happened to
him. From that time on, he has been engaged in various activities that
have made him a broad-based lawyer to take this job.
He was a circuit judge in New Mexico, which caused him over time to
publish 300 opinions, Mr. President. If people do not know him, they
have not bothered to read his opinions.
Whether it is being scholarly, whether he understands, whether he
plays no favorites, whether he is truly a good judge, in what judges do
besides knowing the law--adding all that together, the Senator from New
Mexico recommended him to the President. He was thoroughly vetted at
the executive branch, and obviously the background checks have
occurred, and he came forth with all the right pluses attendant his
name.
Today, the 5- or 6-month ordeal which all candidates face--families
worrying, wives and children wondering how much longer--will come to an
end, and he will be sitting on the bench in the southwestern United
States.
I ask unanimous consent that his vitae and the Department of Justice
analysis of his background be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Harris L. Hartz
biography
Harris L. Hartz is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard
Law School, where he was selected as Case and Developments
Editor of the Harvard Law Review. He received his AB degree
from Harvard College summa cum laude in physics. At Harvard
he was one of 9 members of his class elected to Phi Beta
Kappa in their junior year.
From 1989 to 1999, Hartz served as a judge on the New
Mexico Court of Appeals for eleven years. During that time he
authored approximately 300 published opinions. In 1997, Judge
Hartz was elevated to the position of Chief Judge. During his
last year on the Court, he was a member of the Executive
Committee of the American Bar Association Council of Chief
Judges.
In 1999 Judge Hartz resigned from the Court of Appeals to
join the law firm of Stier, Anderson & Malone as special
counsel to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. He has
worked with the Union to develop a Code of Conduct and an
internal system for compliance and enforcement.
Before becoming a judge, most of Judge Hartz's legal career
was as a lawyer in Albuquerque, New Mexico. During his first
three years after law school he was an Assistant United
States Attorney for the District of New Mexico. After
teaching for a semester in 1976 at the University of Illinois
College of Law, he spent three years with the New Mexico
Governor's Organized Crime Prevention Commission, first as
its attorney and then as Executive Director. For the
following nine years he was in private practice, primarily in
civil litigation.
Judge Hartz has been active in the American Law Institute
since 1993 and now serves as an Adviser for the Restatement
of the Law (Third) Agency. He has also participated in
activities of the American Bar Association, including
membership on the Appellate Practice Committee of the
Appellate Judges Conference and the Advisory Committee to the
ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security.
His past civic activities have included being Chair of the
New Mexico Racing Commission, where his efforts against
drugging of racehorses led to his nomination for the Joan Pew
Award and his being appointed co-chair of the Quality
Assurance Committee of the National Association of State
Racing Commissioners. For the past two years Judge Hartz has
been chair of the New Mexico Rhodes Scholarship Selection
Committee and chair of the Selection Committee for the New
Mexico Ethics in Business Awards. He is active in Rotary, and
has served as President of the Rotary Club of Albuquerque.
____
Harris L. Hartz
resume
Birth: January 20, 1974, Baltimore, Maryland
Legal Residence: New Mexico
Education: 1963-1967--Harvard College, A.B. degree, summa cum
laude; 1969-1972--Harvard Law School, J.D. degree, magna
cum laude
Bar Admittance: 1972--New Mexico; 2000--District of Columbia
Experience: 1972-1975--U.S. Attorney's Office for the
District of New Mexico, Assistant U.S. Attorney; 1976--
University of Illinois College of Law, Visiting Assistant
Professor of Law; 1976-1979--New Mexico Governor's
Organized Crime Prevention Commission, Counsel, 1976-1977
& Executive Director, 1977-1979; 1979-1982--Poole, Tinnin
& Martin, PA Associate; 1982-1988--Miller, Stratvert &
Torgerson, Associate, 1982-83 & Shareholder, 1983-88;
1988-1999--New Mexico Court of Appeals Judge (Chief
Judge, 1997-99); 1999-present--Stier, Anderson & Malone,
LLC Special Counsel
____
Harris L. Hartz
support
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico
``I have known Harris Hartz for many years, and I consider
him to be qualified for this position.''--The Albuquerque
Journal, June 22, 2001.
Senator Peter Domenici, Republican from New Mexico
``I am extremely pleased President Bush has nominated
Harris, who has an impressive record of achievement.''--The
Daily Times, June 22, 2001.
``He has truly outstanding credentials and will make New
Mexico proud as a new fixture on the 10th Circuit.''--The
Albuquerque Journal, June 22, 2001.
Editorial, The Santa Fe New Mexican
``The cerebral and academic Hartz is everything America
wants in its judiciary.''
``But even though appointment-killing has become a popular
sport among both parties, Hartz has the credentials--and the
class--to overcome any political pettifoggery that might
arise in the course of his confirmation.''
``Hartz will be making `case law' at a high level, setting
precedents to which lawyers look as they build their own
cases. Both are daunting tasks--but both are well within
Hartz's grasp.''--June 23, 2001.
Lance Liebman, Professor at Columbia Law School
``I have seen his contributions to half a dozen different
areas of law. Just as he was
[[Page S12473]]
as a student, Harris is smart, serious, balanced, and
interesting. I am sure he was a good state judge and I am
certain he will be a great addition [to the federal bench].
. .''--Excerpt from letter to Senators Leahy and Hatch,
August 3, 2001.
Roberta Ramo, Former President of the American Bar
Association
``As a former president of the American Bar Association, I
have had the honor of knowing many of our finest judges.
Among the elements of American democracy of which I am most
proud stands the quality of our Federal Judiciary. Should he
be confirmed by the United States Senate, I believe Mr. Hartz
will, in his service, make each of us proud that we had a
part in placing him on the 10th circuit.''--Excerpt from
letter to Senator Hatch, August 9, 2001.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to share a quote from an
editorial in one of our State's leading newspapers, the Santa Fe New
Mexican:
The cerebral and academic Hartz is everything America wants
in its judiciary.
Before becoming a judge, most of Judge Hartz's legal career was as a
lawyer in Albuquerque, NM. During his first 3 years after law school he
was an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico.
After teaching for a semester in 1976 at the University of Illinois
College of Law, he spent 3 years with the New Mexico Governor's
Organized Crime Prevention Commission, first as its attorney and then
as executive director.
I believe Judge Hartz will be an excellent U.S. circuit judge because
above all he is a person with great strength of character. He has the
courage to render decisions in accordance with the Constitution and the
laws of the United States. More important, I believe Judge Hartz will
respect both the rights of the individual and the rights of society and
will be dedicated to providing equal justice under the law. He
understands and appreciates the genius of our Federal system and the
delicate checks and balances among the branches of our National
Government.
Judge Hartz also understands New Mexico because he was raised in
Farmington. Judge Hartz's 29 years of experience both as a lawyer and a
judge have prepared him well for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. I
believe Judge Hartz will be a fine circuit judge. I count him among my
friends, and I recommend him highly to the Senate.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is taking final action on
three additional judicial nominations. There are a total of nine
judicial nominees who have been voted out of committee and are awaiting
final action by the Senate. Today's confirmation of 1 circuit court and
2 district court judges will bring the total number of judges confirmed
this year to 21. When the Senate completes its action on the nomination
of the remaining 6 district court judges, we will have confirmed 27
judges since July, including 6 to the Courts of Appeals.
I congratulate today's nominees and their families on their
nominations, confirmations, and what is soon to be their appointments
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the
United States District courts for Kentucky and the District of
Oklahoma. I also commend each of the Senators who worked with the
committee and the majority leader to help bring these nominations
forward and to have the Senate act to confirm them.
The nominee to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Harris Hartz,
comes to us with the strong support of both Senator Domenici and
Senator Bingaman. He was the first nominee to a Court of Appeals
received by the Senate this June. His nomination is an example of the
sort of progress we can make on consensus nominees with bipartisan
support. The Tenth Circuit is one of many Courts of Appeals with
multiple vacancies, and which has had multiple vacancies long before
this summer. My recollection is that President Clinton had at least two
nominees for vacancies on the Tenth Circuit pending in 1999 and for
several months last year, but neither was ever accorded a hearing or a
vote before the Judiciary Committee or before the Senate. Had they and
other previous nominees been acted upon promptly and favorably in years
just past, of course, the circumstances in the Tenth Circuit and many
other courts around the country would be different today. During 6\1/2\
years, the Republican majority in the Senate allowed only 46 nominees
to be confirmed to the Courts of Appeals and left dozens of vacancies
unfilled.
Just as we recently proceeded to confirm the first judge to the Fifth
Circuit in 7 years, we are proceeding with Judge Hartz to provide some
immediate relief to the Tenth Circuit. When confirmed, Judge Hartz will
be the first new member of the Tenth Circuit in the last 6 years--since
judges were confirmed to that Court in 1995 from Utah and Colorado.
Over the past 6\1/2\ years the average time it has taken for the
Senate to consider and confirm Court of Appeals nominees had risen to
almost 350 days. The time it has taken for Judge Hartz's nomination is
about half of that, if measured from his initial nomination in June
2001. Of course, that nomination was returned to the White House when
the Republican leader objected to keeping judicial nominations pending
over the August recess. Accordingly, the nomination on which the Senate
acts today was not received until this September. If measured from the
time the committee received his ABA peer review to the time of his
confirmation today, the process has taken only 112 days. He
participated in one of the many October hearings and, having answered
the written questions following his hearing, was reported by the
committee in November.
The strong bipartisan support he has received from his Senate
delegation paved the way for prompt action in one-third to one-half the
time it used to take on average to consider Court of Appeals nominees.
Both of the district court nominees, Danny Reeves from the Eastern
District of Kentucky and Joe Heaton for the Western District of
Oklahoma, whom I supported at the committee and am pleased to support
today, have moved through the process with the support of Democrats and
Republicans relatively quickly.
Since July 2001, when the Senate was allowed to reorganize and the
committee membership was set, we have maintained a strong effort to
consider judicial and executive nominees. There are a total of nine
judicial nominees who have been voted out of committee and are awaiting
final action by the Senate. Today's confirmation of one circuit court
and two district court judges will bring the total number of judges
confirmed to 21. When the Senate completes its action on the nomination
of the remaining six district court judges, we will have confirmed 27
judges since July, including six to the Courts of Appeals. That will be
almost twice the total number of judges that were confirmed in all of
1989, the first year of the first Bush administration, and will include
twice as many judges to the Courts of Appeals as were confirmed in the
first year of the Clinton administration. It is also more judges that
were confirmed in all of the 1996 session. Thus, despite all the
obstacles, we exceeded the number of confirmations of judges during the
first year of the first Bush administration by six, the last year of
the first Clinton term by four, and we are on pace to confirm as many
judges as were confirmed in the first year of the Clinton
administration.
Our total of six Court of Appeals confirmations doubles the number of
appellate court judges confirmed in the entire first year of the
Clinton administration, one more than the number of appellate court
judges confirmed in the first full year of the first Bush
administration, and six more than were confirmed in the entire 1996
session, the last year of President Clinton's first term.
When I assumed the chairmanship, the number of vacancies on the
Federal Bench was over 100 and quickly rose to 111. Since July, we have
made significant progress. In spite of the upheavals we have
experienced this year with the shifts in chairmanship, the vacancies
that have arisen since this summer, and the need to focus our attention
on responsible action in the fight against international terrorism,
with the confirmation of these 9 nominees we will have reduced the
number of vacancies to below 100 for the first time since early this
year.
During the time a Republican majority controlled the process over the
past 6\1/2\ years, the vacancies rose from 65 to at least 103, an
increase of almost 60 percent. We are making strides to improve on that
record. The President has yet to send nominations to fill more than
half of the current vacancies. This is a particular problem with
[[Page S12474]]
the 71 district court vacancies, for which 49--that's 69 percent--do
not have nominations pending.
We have been able to reduce vacancies over the last 6 months through
hard work and a rapid pace of scheduling hearings. Until I became
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, no judicial nominees had been
given hearings this year. No judicial nominees had been considered by
the Judiciary Committee or been voted upon by the Senate. After almost
a month's delay in the reorganization of the Senate in June while
Republicans sought leverage to change the way the judicial nominations
had traditionally been considered and abruptly abandoned the practices
that they had employed for the last 6\1/2\ years, I noticed our first
hearing on judicial nominees within 10 minutes of the reorganization
resolution being adopted by the Senate.
I have previously noted that during the 6\1/2\ years the Republican
majority most recently controlled the confirmation process, in 34 of
those months they held no confirmations for any judicial nominees at
all, and in 30 other months they conducted only a single confirmation
hearing involving judicial nominees. Since the committee was assigned
its members in early July 2001, I have held confirmation hearings every
months, including two in July, two during the August recess and three
hearings during October. Only once during the previous 6\1/2\ years has
the committee held as many as three hearings in a single month.
On the other hand, on at least three occasions during the past 6\1/2\
years the committee had gone more then 5 months without holding a
single hearing on a pending judicial nominee. We have held more
hearings involving judicial nominees since July 11, 2001, than our
Republican predecessors held in all of 1996, 1997, 1999, or 2000. In
the last 6 months of this extraordinarily challenging year, the
committee has held 10 hearings involving judicial nominees. Just this
week the committee held our tenth hearing on judicial nominations since
I became chairman, when the Senate was allowed to reorganize and this
committee was assigned its membership on July 10, 2001. Since September
11, the Judiciary Committee has held six judicial confirmation
hearings.
We have held hearings on 33 judicial nominees, including 7 to the
Courts of Appeals. Since September 11 we have held hearings on 26
judicial nominees, including 4 to the Courts of Appeals. Within 2 days
of the terrible events of September 11, I chaired a confirmation
hearing for the 2 judicial nominees who drove to Washington while air
travel was still disrupted. Then on October 4, 2001, we held another
confirmation hearing for five judicial nominees, which included a
nominee from Nebraska who was unable to attend the earlier hearing
because of the disruption in air travel.
On October 18, 2001, in spite of the closure of Senate office
buildings in the wake of the receipt of a letter containing anthrax
spores and in spite of the fact that Senate staff and employees were
testing positive for anthrax exposure, the committee proceeded under
extraordinary circumstances in the U.S. Capitol to hold a hearing for
five more judicial nominees. The building housing the Judiciary
Committee hearing room was closed, as were the buildings housing the
offices of all the Senators on the committee. Still we persevered.
On October 25, 2001, while the Senate Republicans were shutting down
the Senate with a filibuster preventing action on the bill that funds
our Nation's foreign policy initiatives and provides funds to help
build the international coalition against terrorism, the Judiciary
Committee nonetheless proceeded with yet another hearing for four more
judicial nominees. On November 7, 2001, we convened another hearing for
judicial nominees within 8 extraordinary weeks--weeks not only
interrupted by holidays, but by the aftermath of the terrorist attacks
of September 11, the receipt of anthrax in the Senate, and the closure
of Senate office buildings. The hearing on November 7 was delayed by
another unfortunate and unforeseen event when one of the family members
of a nominee grew faint and required medical attention. With patience
and perseverance, the hearing was completed after attending to those
medical needs.
On December 5, 2001, we convened another hearing for another group of
five judicial nominees. I thank Senator Durbin for volunteering to
chair that hearing for nominees from Alabama, Colorado, Georgia,
Nevada, and Texas. We have previously considered and reported other
nominees from Alabama, Georgia, and Nevada, as well. We have
accomplished more, and at a faster pace, than in years past. Even with
the time needed by the FBI to follow up on the allegations that arose
regarding Judge Wooten in connection with his confirmation hearing, we
have proceeded much more quickly than at any time during the last 6\1/
2\ years. Thus, while the average time from nomination to confirmation
grew to well over 200 days for the last several years, we have
considered nominees much more promptly. Measured from receipt of their
ABA peer reviews, we have confirmed the judges this year, including the
Court of Appeals nominees, on average in less than 60 days. So, we are
working harder than ever on judicial nominations despite the
difficulties being faced by the Nation, the Senate, and a number of
members on the committee.
We have also completed work on a number of judicial nominations in a
more open manner than ever before. For the first time, this committee
is making public the ``blue slips'' sent to home State Senators. Until
my chairmanship, these matters were treated as confidential materials
and restricted from public view. We have moved nominees with little or
no delay at all from hearing, on to the committee's business meeting
agenda, and then out to the floor, where nominees have received timely
rollcall votes and confirmations.
The past practices of extended unexplained anonymous holds on
nominees after a hearing have not been evident in the last 6 months of
this year as they were in the past. Indeed over the past 6\1/2\ years
at least eight judicial nominees who completed a confirmation hearing
were never considered by the committee but left without action. Just
last year two of the three Court of Appeals nominees reported to the
Senate, Bonnie Campbell of Iowa and Allen Snyder of the District of
Columbia, were both denied committee consideration from their May
hearings until the end of the year. Likewise the extended, unexplained,
anonymous holds on the Senate Executive Calendar that characterized so
much of the last 6\1/2\ years have not slowed the confirmation process
this year.
Majority Leader Daschle has moved swiftly on judicial nominees
reported to the calendar. And once those judicial nominees have been
afforded a timely rollcall vote, the record shows that the only vote
against any of President Bush's nominees to the Federal courts to date
was cast by the Republican leader.
In addition to our work on judicial nominations, during the recent
period since September 11, the committee also devoted significant
attention and effort to expedited consideration of antiterrorism
legislation. Far from taking a ``time out'' as some have suggested, the
Judiciary Committee has been in overdrive since July and we have
redoubled our efforts after September 11, 2001. With respect to law
enforcement, I have noted that the administration was quite slow in
making U.S. attorney nominations, although it had called for the
resignations of U.S. attorneys early in the year.
Since we began receiving nominations just before the August recess,
we have been able to report, and the Senate has confirmed, 57 of these
nominations. We have only a few more U.S. attorney nominations received
in November, and await approximately 30 nominations from the
administration. These are the President's nominees based on the
standards that he and the Attorney General have devised.
I note, again, that it is most unfortunate that we still have not
received even a single nomination for any of the U.S. marshal
positions. U.S. marshals are often the top Federal law enforcement
officer in their district. They are an important front-line component
in homeland security efforts across the country. We are near the end of
the legislative year without a single nomination for these 94 critical
law enforcement positions. It will likely be impossible to confirm any
U.S. marshals this year having not received any nominations in the
first 11 months of the year.
[[Page S12475]]
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, some of us have
been seeking to join together in a bipartisan effort in the best
interests of the country. For those on the committee who have helped in
those efforts and assisted in the hard work to review and consider the
scores of nominations we have reported this year, I thank them. As the
facts establish and as our actions today and all year demonstrate, we
are moving ahead to fill judicial vacancies with nominees who have
strong bipartisan support. These include a number of very conservative
nominees.
I am proud of the work the committee has done on nominations, and I
am proud that by the end of the day we will have confirmed 21 judges. I
hope that by the end of this session that total will rise to about 30
as the committee continues its work on the nominations heard this week
and the Senate confirms the additional 6 nominees who were voted out of
committee last week.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today we are considering the
nominations of three extremely well-qualified individuals for the
Federal bench.
Our circuit court nominee is the Honorable Harris Hartz of New
Mexico, whom the President has selected to serve on the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals. I have a personal interest in the confirmation of
fair, qualified judges to serve on the Tenth Circuit since it
encompasses the great state of Utah. In fact, there is an eminently
well-qualified nominee from Utah for the Tenth Circuit, University of
Utah Law Professor Michael McConnell, who is awaiting a hearing from
the Judiciary Committee. His nomination has been pending for 211 days
without a hearing. There are two other nominees for the Tenth Circuit
who are also awaiting hearings on their nominations: Timothy Tymkovich
of Colorado, who has been waiting 195 days, and Terrence O'Brien of
Wyoming, who has been waiting 126 days.
Part of the holdup has unquestionably been due to lack of action by
the Judiciary Committee, but the ABA must shoulder some of the blame as
well. It took the ABA over 8 weeks to return its evaluation of Michael
McConnell, which, incidentally, was a rating of unanimously well
qualified, over 15 weeks for Timothy Tymkovich, and over 12 weeks for
Terrence O'Brien. The last of these three ratings was submitted in
October, so there is no excuse for any of these nominations stalling
any longer. I look forward to the opportunity to consider their
nominations at hearings so that the pending vacancies on the Tenth
Circuit can be expediently filled.
Our consideration of Judge Hartz's nomination today is a positive
step in that direction. His impressive legal career began--atypically--
with a degree from Harvard College summa cum laude in physics. Later,
he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was
selected as Case and Developments Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Judge Hartz's legal experience began in Albuquerque, NM, as an
Assistant United States Attorney. After that, he taught for a semester
at the University of Illinois College of Law, and then returned to New
Mexico to work with the New Mexico Governor's Organized Crime
Prevention Commission. For the following 9 years he was in private
practice, primarily in civil litigation, and then he served for 11
years as a judge on the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Currently, Judge
Hartz works as special counsel to the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, developing a Code of Conduct and an internal system for
compliance and enforcement. As you can see, he is a highly competent
and hard-working person who is eminently well qualified to serve as a
judge on the Tenth Circuit.
In addition to Judge Hartz, we have the privilege of considering the
nomination of two district court nominees. One of these nominees is Joe
Heaton for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma. Mr. Heaton is a native Oklahoman with an outstanding record
of legal experience and public service. After graduating from the
University of Oklahoma College of Law--where he was Order of the Coif--
he maintained a general civil practice with an emphasis in business and
commercial matters. For 8 years, Mr. Heaton served as a member of the
Oklahoma House of Representatives, including several years as Minority
Leader. Then, in 1996, Mr. Heaton began serving in his current position
as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of
Oklahoma, where he has earned a good reputation while handling a wide
variety of legal matters.
Our second district court nominee is Danny C. Reeves for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He began his legal
career as a law clerk for then-district Judge Eugene Siler, who now
sits on the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Reeves then joined the Lexington office
of Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, where he rose to the rank of partner in
1988. Despite his busy legal career, he has served as a director of the
Volunteer Center of the Bluegrass, the Kentucky Museum of Natural
History, and the Bluegrass Youth Hockey Association.
Again, Mr. President, I am pleased to see such well-qualified
nominees being brought before the Senate for consideration. Each of
these nominees received unanimous support from the Members of the
Judiciary Committee, and I expect that they will receive similar
treatment from the full Senate. I commend President Bush for nominating
persons who will bring honor and dignity to the Federal bench, and I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their nominations.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Harris L. Hartz, of New Mexico, to be
United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit? The yeas and nays
have been ordered on the nomination. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 353 Ex.]
YEAS--99
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Gramm
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that on the table.
The motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
____________________