[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 31 (Monday, March 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1998-S2002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      NOMINATION OF RANDY CRANE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5:38 
having arrived, the Senate will now go into executive session and 
proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 705, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Randy Crane, of Texas, 
to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. When is the vote 
scheduled?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is scheduled for 5:50 p.m.
  Mr. LEAHY. Is there time reserved to the Senator from Vermont?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 6 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I understood the Senator from Vermont had 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is divided equally between 5:38 and 
5:50.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, we are voting on our 42nd judicial nominee to be 
confirmed since last July when the Senate Judiciary Committee 
reorganized after the Senator majority changed. With the confirmation 
of Robert Randall Crane to the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of Texas--and I predict we will accept him--the Senate will 
have resolved 7 judicial emergencies since we returned to session a few 
short weeks ago, 14 judicial emergencies since I became chairman.
  As of this week, the Senate has confirmed more judges in the last 9 
months than were confirmed in 4 out of 6 years under the Republican 
leadership. I have heard some inaccurate statements--I am sure 
innocently enough but mistakenly--by my friends on the other side of 
the aisle. As of this week, we will have confirmed, in 9 months, more 
judges than were confirmed in 4 of the 6 total years under the 
Republican leadership. In fact, the number of judicial confirmations 
over these past 9 months exceeds the number of judicial nominees 
confirmed during all 12 months for the years 2000, 1999, 1997, and 
1996.
  During the 6\1/2\ years the Republicans controlled the Senate, 
judicial nominations averaged 38 a year. We have done more than that in 
9 months. In the past 9 months, we have had more hearings for more 
nominees and had more confirmations than the Republican leadership did 
for President Clinton's nominees during the first 9 months of 1995.
  On the chart we took 9-month increments. In the first 9 months that 
the Republicans led the committee, they had 9 hearings; we had 14; they 
confirmed 36 and we confirmed 42. Looking at the first 3 months of the 
session, we will have confirmed 14. During the first 3 months of each 
session they were in charge the following occurred: In March 1995, they 
confirmed 9; in March of 1996, they confirmed 0; by March of 1997, they 
confirmed 2; by March of 1998, the high-water mark, they had 12; by 
March of 1999, they had 0; by March of 2000, they had 7; by March of 
2001, they had 0; we have done 14.
  We tried to have a pace faster than the Republicans when they chaired 
the Judiciary Committee, when they controlled the Senate, and so far we 
have done that. Some have expressed concern how this Senate, under this 
leadership, has handled nominations of President Bush. So far he will 
have won 41 out of 42 nominations. As great as the football team is in 
Nebraska, they would be delighted to win 41 out of 42, as would any 
team.
  In 1999, when the Republicans controlled the Senate, in the whole 
year, they confirmed 26 district judges and 7 circuit judges. In the 
year 2000, for the whole year, they confirmed 31 district judges and 8 
circuit judges. In the first 6 months of last year, when they 
controlled the Senate, they had 0. In the past 9 months--remember, 
these are comparing whole years--in the past 9 months, we have had 35 
district judges, 7 courts of appeal.
  Take the average number of days between nomination and confirmation, 
figuring we have to wait extra time for the ABA: they took 182 one 
year; 212 days another year; 232, another; 178, another; 196, another. 
The Democrats average considerably less.
  Reviewing today's nominations illustrates the effect of the reform 
process that the Democratic leadership has spearheaded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 6 minutes.

[[Page S1999]]

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I see no other Member seeking recognition. 
I ask consent the vote still be at 5:50 and I be allowed to use the 
time until 5:50.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we will have a vote today on Randy Crane. 
There are Members who have stated, because the Democrats took over the 
full committee in July of last year, we would try to do the same thing 
to the Republicans that the Republicans did to the Democrats; that is, 
slow up and refuse to confirm judges. Of course, the figures show the 
opposite. The speedy confirmation of Randy Crane to the district court 
in Texas illustrates the effect of the reforms on the process that the 
Democratic leadership has spearheaded.
  Despite the poor treatment of too many Democratic nominations through 
the practice of anonymous holds and other tactics employed during the 
past 6\1/2\ years, Randy Crane will be filling a judicial emergency 
vacancy seat that has been vacant since the year 2000 when the new 
position was created.
  I worked with the Senators from Texas and other Senators along the 
southwestern border to fill this vacancy. In fact, Randy Crane is the 
second Federal judge confirmed from Texas in just the past few months.
  Not too long ago when the Senate was under Republican control, it 
took 943 days to confirm Judge Tagle to the Southern District of Texas. 
She was nominated in August of 1995 and made to wait until March of 
1998, stalled for 3 years, then passed unanimously--a lot different 
than the nomination of Michael Schattman to a vacancy on the Northern 
District of Texas. He never got a hearing. I recall 2 years ago, 
Ricardo Morado, who served as mayor of San Benito, TX, was nominated 
for a vacancy and never got a hearing or vote. They could have had 
those votes. We could have moved forward to fill those vacancies. This 
Senate and this Judiciary Committee is trying to fill them. They could 
have long ago been filled by nominees from President Clinton, but the 
fact is the Republicans refused to even allow a vote. We are not doing 
the same.
  Unlike the many judicial nominees who were given a hearing but never 
allowed to be considered by the committee, we try to make sure 
President Bush's nominees get both a hearing and a vote by the 
committee. Until Judge Edith Clement of Louisiana received a hearing on 
her nomination to the Fifth Circuit last year, after the shift in 
majority, there had been no hearings on Fifth Circuit nominees since 
1994 and no confirmations since 1995. In fact, we confirmed the first 
new judge of the Fifth Circuit in 6 years, even though there was a 
judicial circuit emergency.
  Jorge Rangel was nominated to the Fifth Circuit in 1997 and never 
received a hearing on his nomination, or a vote, in 15 months. Enrique 
Moreno was nominated for the Fifth Circuit in 1999 and he never 
received a hearing on his nomination or a vote by the committee.
  H. Alston Johnson was also first nominated to the fifth circuit in 
1999 and never received a hearing on his nomination or a vote by the 
committee in 1999, 2000, or the beginning of 2001.
  Despite the support of both of his home State Senators, his 
nomination to a Louisiana seat on the fifth circuit also languished 
without action for 23 months.
  In contrast, under the Democrat-led Senate, President Bush's nominees 
to the fifth circuit, Judge Edith Brown Clement and Judge Charles 
Pickering, were treated fairly. Both received hearings less than 6 
months after their nominations.
  In fact, Judge Clement was the first fifth circuit nominee to receive 
a hearing since Judge James Dennis had a hearing, when Senator Biden 
chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1994. She is the first person 
to be confirmed to that circuit since Judge Dennis' confirmation in 
1995.
  In contrast to recent, past practices, we are moving expeditiously to 
consider and confirm Randy Crane, who was nominated in September, 
received his ABA peer review in November, participated in a hearing in 
February, was reported by the committee in March and is today being 
confirmed.
  This nominee has the support of both Senators from his home State and 
appears to be the type of qualified, consensus nominee that the Senate 
has been confirming to help fill the vacancies on our Federal courts. I 
congratulate Mr. Crane and his family on his confirmation today.
  Following the votes on the Pickering nomination last Thursday by the 
Judiciary Committee, there have been a number of unfounded and unfair 
attacks against Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee. 
Reasonable people can disagree about whether Judge Pickering deserved a 
promotion, given his record as a judge. I am sorry, however, that some 
have chosen to make that committee action into an unfortunately 
acrimonious fight.
  It is unfortunate that some are going out of their way to intervene, 
for example, in a matter before the Rules Committee, and objected to a 
bipartisan request for oversight funds--to be evenly divided between 
the committee's majority and minority--in order better to fulfill our 
increased oversight responsibility and make sure that agencies such as 
the FBI and the INS are doing their jobs appropriately.
  In the wake of September 11, Senator Hatch and I submitted the joint 
request on behalf of the committee with oversight jurisdiction over the 
Department of Justice and its components. We wanted to assess the 
management, training, and resource lapses in the FBI, INS, and in the 
other Department of Justice agencies to ensure that these agencies know 
what they did wrong and to avoid a recurrence of those tragic events.
  We were reminded just last week of the need for this kind of 
oversight when additional problems at the INS surfaced. It is too bad 
that some are choosing to obstruct this important effort.
  That retribution is now threatening the important work of the 
committee and the functioning of the Senate. I hope we are not entering 
an era in which any disagreement is vilified, and harsh, inappropriate 
rhetoric, is employed to make political points with the extreme 
elements.
  This scorched earth campaign in which unrelated nominations and bills 
and oversight responsibilities are being compromised is not in the best 
interests of the Senate.
  I recall that even in our disappointment after the Republicans 
rejected the nomination of Judge Ronnie White in a party-line floor 
vote in 1999, I proceeded to vote for the confirmation of Ted Stewart 
of Utah.
  The committee vote on the Pickering nomination was not a sneak attack 
or a ``lynching.''
  It was not a nomination of which Senators had indicated that would 
vote one way and then went into a closed party caucus and were 
instructed to vote another. It was not a party-line vote insisted upon 
by party leaders. It was not a matter in which the committee held a pro 
forma hearing and then refused over a period of weeks and months to 
bring the matter to the committee agenda for an up or down vote.
  It was not a circumstance where the nominee was not afforded the 
opportunity to hear Senators' concerns and respond to those concerns. 
It was not a circumstance where the nominee was not asked about 
concerns and cases and his own actions at his hearing.
  This was a case in which I responded to the request of a Senator to 
proceed to schedule a quick hearing on a judicial nomination.
  As Senators reviewed this nomination, they had concerns. They asked 
the nominee about those concerns. The committee assembled a record, 
which was the record of the nominee's official actions as a Federal 
judge. The committee then held a follow-up hearing to allow the nominee 
another opportunity to make his best case and respond to Senators' 
concerns and then provided a further opportunity through written 
questions and answers.
  After delaying committee action for 2 weeks at the request of the 
Republican leader and the ranking Republican on the committee, we met 
and debated the merits of the nomination for over 4 hours before 
voting.
  I believe that the members of the Judiciary Committee based their 
votes on their review of the record and their having measured the 
nominee against the standard each Senator must develop for voting on 
lifetime appointments to the Federal courts. I regret

[[Page S2000]]

that some are questioning the motives of Senators.
  The Senators on the Judiciary Committee, both Republican and 
Democratic, are seeking to exercise their responsibilities with respect 
to their votes appropriately, on the merits and in accordance with 
their standards for such matters.
  In spite of fair treatment, hearings and a vote, on Thursday, attacks 
arose suggesting that Senate Democrats have imposed an unconstitutional 
religious test to the nomination of Judge Pickering to the appellate 
court. I hesitate to dignify such a scurrilous allegation with a 
response, but I feel I must set the record straight. The Democratic 
members of the committee have never inquired into Judge Pickering's 
religion. It had no place in the deliberations.
  These charges, that the Democratic Senators on the committee have 
voted against Judge Pickering based in any way based on his religion 
are outrageous, unfounded, and untrue. Whether a nominee goes to 
church, temple, or mosque, or not, has not been used by anyone in this 
Senate in the consideration of a judicial or any nominee.
  Article VI of the United States Constitution requires that ``no 
religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office 
or public trust under the United States.'' In accordance with the 
separation of church and state embodied in our Constitution, no 
religious test has been applied to this nominee or any other.
  I recall the recent reports indicated that Justice Scalia had 
recently commented on the religion of judges and suggested that Federal 
judges who are Catholic should consider resigning if imposing the death 
penalty was a moral problem for them. But no Senator, at any time 
during the consideration of the Pickering nomination, commented 
unfavorably on his religion.
  The responsibility to advise and consent on the President's nominees 
is one that I take seriously and the other members of the Judiciary 
Committee take seriously. Senator Schumer and Senator Feinstein chaired 
fair hearings on Judge Pickering's nomination. I regret that they and 
others on the committee have been subjected to unfair criticism and 
attacks for fulfilling their duties.
  Some of our Democratic Senators have been receiving calls and 
criticism based on their religious affiliations. That is wrong. Other 
Senators have been insulted and called names for asking questions of 
the nominee and for disagreeing with this choice for the court of 
appeals. That is regrettable.
  There are strongly held views on both sides. But while Democrats and 
most Republicans have kept to the merits of this nomination, it is 
unfortunate that some have chosen to vilify, castigate, unfairly 
characterize, and condemn without basis Senators working 
conscientiously to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
  I also want to express concerns about recent statements from the 
administration, including from the President, that the Senate's 
treatment of judicial nominees ``hurts our democracy.''
  This statement reveals an unsettling misunderstanding of the 
fundamental separation of powers in our Constitution and the checks and 
balances in the Founder's design.
  In our democracy, the President is not given unchecked powers to pack 
the courts and to give lifetime appointments to anyone who shares 
certain ideological views.
  Instead, the Constitution provides a democratic check on the power of 
appointment by requiring the advice and consent of the Senate.
  Each Senator on the committee made up his or her own mind on whether 
to vote for the promotion of Judge Pickering to the Court of Appeals. 
The Senators on the committee studied Judge Pickering's record as a 
judge. The committee's vote was part of our democratic process.
  This democratic check on the President's appointment power 
demonstrates our democracy in action, not action that ``hurts our 
democracy.'' By having fair hearings and voting on nominees, up or 
down, the Judiciary Committee is proceeding as it should.
  The administration should not throw gasoline onto this combustible 
situation. It could, instead, recognize its role in sending division 
nominations to the Senate and seek to work with us to find and appoint 
consensus nominees.
  Unlike the many judicial nominees who did not get hearings or were 
accorded a hearing but were never allowed to be considered for a vote 
by the committee, we are trying to accord nominees whose paperwork is 
complete and whose blue slips are returned both a hearing and a fair up 
or down vote.
  Those who assert that the Democrats have caused a vacancy crisis in 
the Federal courts are ignoring recent history.
  There were an unusually high number of retirements taken by Federal 
judges after the November 2000 election. Moreover, by the time the 
Senate was permitted to reorganize after the change in majority, the 
number of vacancies have reached 105 and was rising to 111, including 
32 vacancies on the courts of appeals. That is the situation I 
inherited and the Democratic majority in the Senate was faced with last 
summer.
  Since then this is the 42d judicial nominee to be confirmed, 
including seven judges to the courts of appeals. Contrary to what some 
might say, the Democratic majority has actually been keeping up with 
attrition and we have started moving the vacancy numbers in the right 
direction--down. By contrast, from January 1995, when the Republican 
majority took over control of the Senate until they relinquished it in 
June 2001, Federal judicial vacancies rose by 65 percent, from 63 to 
105.
  Already, in less than 9 months in the majority, we have made more 
progress than was made in 4 whole years of Republican leadership, 2000, 
1999, 1997, and, of course, 1996.
  Within the past 9 months, after the change in majority, we have 
confirmed 42 judges, including 7 to the courts of appeals.
  In all of 2000, the Senate confirmed fewer, only 39 judges, and in 
1999 fewer still, only 33 judges, with 7 to the courts of appeals.
  We are doing what the Republican majority did not do: keeping up with 
the rate of attrition and moving the numbers in the right directions. 
Tomorrow we are scheduled to hold another hearing on another court of 
appeals nominee, at the request of Senator Enzi.
  I hope this nominee will turn out to be uncontroversial and well-
regarded by people from both sides of the aisle.
  Our task is made easier when the President works with members of both 
parties to nominate consensus nominees who are not outside of the 
mainstream and whose record demonstrates that they will follow 
precedent, not try to find a way around it.
  Tomorrow's hearing will be our 15th for judicial nominees within the 
last 9 tumultuous months. That is more hearings on judges than the 
Republican majority held during any full year. In only 9 months we have 
confirmed as many court of appeals nominees, seven, as the Republican 
majority averaged per year while they were in control.
  Indeed, in the 76 months in which a Republican majority recently 
controlled the pace of judicial confirmations only 47 judges were 
confirmed to the 78 vacancies that existed on our Federal courts of 
appeals. We have confirmed seven in less than 9 months already. The 
Republicans went one entire congressional session, 1996, refusing to 
confirm even a single court of appeals nominee.
  We are holding more hearings for more nominees than in the recent 
past. We have moved away from the anonymous holds that so dominated the 
process from 1996 through 2000. We have made home State Senators' blue 
slips public for the first time. We have drastically shortened the 
average time for confirmation proceedings.
  What had grown during Republican control to over 230 days on average 
is now down to 74 days from receipt of the ABA peer review to 
confirmation for the 42 judges we have confirmed over the last 9 
months.
  However, because the Republicans refused to hold hearings on so many 
of President Clinton's nominees there were an enormous number of 
vacancies we inherited. Under Democratic leadership, we have tried to 
fill those vacancies as quickly as possible.
  By moving first on the nonideological and well qualified of President 
Bush's nominees we can fill the most vacancies in the least amount of 
time. With controversial, less qualified

[[Page S2001]]

judges we spend much more of time. With consensus, well-qualified 
nominees we could have confirmed a dozen judges in the same amount of 
time the committee devoted over the last 5 months to the Pickering 
nomination.
  It is not possible to repair the damage caused by long standing 
vacancies in several circuits overnight, but we are contributing to 
improved conditions in the 5th, 10th, and 8th circuits, in particular. 
We will do our best to remedy as many circumstances as possible.
  I understand we have time before the vote. The distinguished ranking 
member has come to the floor. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for his courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I will say a few words before the vote. I ask unanimous 
consent I be permitted to proceed for a few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the vote will still be at 5:50 because 
Senators have commitments.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Robert Randall 
Crane to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas.
  I have had the pleasure of reviewing Mr. Crane's distinguished legal 
career, and I have come to the conclusion that he is a fine lawyer who 
will add a great deal to the federal bench in Texas.
  Randy Crane is a native Texan who graduated with honors from the 
University of Texas School of Law when he was only 22 years old. He 
clerked for the McAllen, Texas, firm of Atlas & Hall during the summers 
of 1986 and 1987, joined the firm as a full-time associate in 1988, and 
became a partner in 1994. During his fourteen-year legal career, Mr. 
Crane has handled primarily civil cases, including commercial 
litigation, personal injury matters, and toxic torts. He has also 
gained valuable experience in several criminal cases, including a large 
federal drug conspiracy case.
  Mr. Crane currently serves as a Director of the Texas-Mexico Bar 
Association, which seeks to promote cross-border dialogue of common 
legal issues, resolution of cross-border legal issues, education about 
United States and Mexico legal systems, and attorney networking for 
answering questions about the two legal systems.
  I have every confidence that Randy Crane will serve with distinction 
on the federal district court for the Southern District of Texas.
  Mr. President, I must take a moment to respond to some of the 
comments made by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, 
regarding the pace of judicial confirmations. The Senator has made much 
of comparing the pace of confirmations under Republican and Democratic 
control of the Judiciary Committee. This has involved comparing 9 
months to 12 months, 9 months to 9 months, 3 months to 3 months, and so 
on. Of course, anyone knows that you can manipulate statistics to 
achieve the result you want. I find the bottom line numbers to tell a 
more compelling story. And the bottom line is that we have 94 vacancies 
in the Federal judiciary today--the exact same number as we did at the 
end of last session, and only slightly fewer than we did when the 
Democrats took control of the Senate in June of last year.
  The bottom line numbers are even more compelling when you look at the 
number of circuit court vacancies.
  When Senate Democrats took over the Judiciary Committee in June of 
last year, there were 31 circuit court vacancies, and there remain 31 
circuit court vacancies today. This does not represent progress--it 
represents stagnation.
  In contrast, at the end of 1995, which was the Republicans' first 
year of control of the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton 
administration, there were only 13 circuit vacancies.
  In fact, during President Clinton's first term, circuit court 
vacancies never exceeded 21 at the end of any year--including 1996, a 
presidential election year, when the pace of confirmations has 
traditionally slowed.
  Moreover, there were only 2 circuit nominees left pending in 
committee at the end of President Clinton's first year in office. In 
contrast, 23 of President Bush's circuit nominees were left hanging in 
committee at the end of last year.
  Last Thursday, Senator Lott introduced a resolution calling for the 
confirmation of each of the circuit court judges nominated by President 
Bush on May 9 of last year.
  We are coming up on the one-year anniversary of those nominations, 
and yet only 3 of the 11 nominees have had hearings and confirmation 
votes. All of these nominees have received qualified or well-qualified 
ratings from the American Bar Association.
  This is problematic because it is no secret that there is a vacancy 
crisis in the federal circuit courts, and that we are making no 
progress in addressing it.
  A total of 22 circuit nominations are pending in the Judiciary 
Committee. But we have confirmed only one circuit judge this year, and 
only seven since President Bush took office.
  In light of the vacancy crisis, we cannot afford to let only 10 
Senators defeat a circuit nominee. This is a question of process, not 
of seeking favorable treatment.
  For all these reasons, it is imperative to support Senator Lott's 
resolution to get hearings and votes for our longest pending circuit 
nominees. Given the vacancy crisis in our circuit courts, I cannot 
imagine anyone voting against it.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of 
Randy Crane, who is the next nominee for the Federal judiciary who will 
be voted on by the Senate this afternoon. I am proud to support Randy 
Crane's nomination to be a Federal judge for the Southern District of 
Texas.
  Texas' Southern District has the third highest number of filings of 
criminal cases in the country. It is tremendously overburdened. The 
nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States has designated the 
court as a ``judicial emergency.''
  Randy Crane has an outstanding record of academic qualifications, 
legal experience, and public service to make him an excellent Federal 
judge. He has been unanimously approved by the American Bar 
Association.
  A graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, Randy Crane received 
his law degree with honors at the University of Texas School of Law at 
the age of 22. He is currently a partner with one of the outstanding 
law firms of Texas, Atlas & Hall, a law firm in McAllen, TX. He has 
been active in the State bar of Texas and a director of the Texas-
Mexico Bar Association.
  Randy Crane is a native of south Texas, and he is of Mexican American 
heritage. Randy Crane has strong relationships within the local 
community. He is highly respected and has been very active in McAllen. 
Everyone I have talked to who lives in McAllen knows Randy Crane and 
thinks so highly of him.
  His community involvement includes working with the McAllen 
Independent School District helping children, trying to make sure they 
have a quality public education system in McAllen. He is active with 
the American Cancer Society, youth soccer, and Little League baseball.
  I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Randy Crane to the 
Federal bench. This is a vacancy that needs to be filled quickly, and 
we have a quality candidate to fill that need.
  The President has made this nomination, and his nomination has 
received bipartisan support. So I look forward to a unanimous vote on 
behalf of Randy Crane, and getting help down to this Southern District 
that so desperately needs the attention because of its high caseload.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Randy Crane, of Texas, to be United States 
District Judge for the Southern District of Texas? On this question, 
the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the 
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Louisiana 
(Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer), and the 
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), 
the

[[Page S2002]]

Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 52 Ex.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     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
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bond
     Harkin
     Helms
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     McCain
     Schumer
     Torricelli
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is laid on the table, and the President shall be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________