[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 28, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S304-S307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
NOMINATION OF GARY L. SHARPE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will go
into executive session to consider the nomination of Gary L. Sharpe to
be United States District Judge. The clerk will state the nomination.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Gary L. Sharpe, of New
York, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of
New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in support of our nominee to
the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York, Gary L.
Sharpe.
Judge Sharpe graduated magna cum laude from Buffalo University in
1971 where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Three years later, he
graduated from Cornell Law School.
Judge Sharpe had a distinguished legal career prior to his
appointment as a Federal magistrate judge for the Northern District of
New York in 1997. He had been an Assistant Broome County District
Attorney in Binghamton, a special assistant New York Attorney General
in Syracuse, a supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorney, and the interim
U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York.
Judge Sharpe is also a Vietnam veteran, having served our country in
both the U.S. Army and Navy.
Judge Sharpe has a wealth of experience that will serve him well on
the Federal bench. I am very confident that he will make an excellent
Federal judge. I commend President Bush for nominating him, and I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last week I shared with the Senate
several disappointing developments regarding judicial nominations: the
Pickering recess appointment, the renomination of Claude Allen, and the
pilfering of Democratic offices' computer files by Republican staff. In
spite of all those affronts, Senate Democrats today cooperate in the
confirmation of another nominee. We do so without the kinds of delays
and obstruction that Republicans employed when President Clinton's
judicial nominees were being obstructed and Republican Senators
complained about his recess appointments as an affront to the
Constitution and the Senate.
The first nominations issue I would like to discuss is the recess
appointment of Judge Pickering. Just a few days ago on January 16,
President Bush made his most cynical and divisive appointment to date
when he bypassed the Senate and unilaterally installed Charles
Pickering to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That
appointment is without the consent of the Senate and is a particular
affront to the many individuals and membership organizations
representing African Americans in the Fifth Circuit who have strongly
opposed this nomination.
With respect to his extreme judicial nominations, President George W.
Bush is the most divisive President in American history. Through these
nominees, President Bush is dividing the American people and
undermining the fairness and independence of the Federal judiciary on
which all Americans depend.
After fair hearings and open debate, the Senate Judiciary Committee
rejected the Pickering nomination in 2002. Originally nominated in 2001
by President Bush, this nominee's record underwent a thorough
examination by the Senate Judiciary Committee and was found lacking.
Judge Pickering's nomination was rejected for this promotion by the
Committee in 2002 because of his poor record as a judge and the ethical
problems raised by his handling of his duties in specific instances.
Nonetheless, the President sent back his nomination to the Senate last
year, the first in our history to reject the judgment of the Judiciary
Committee on a judicial nominee. This is the only President who has
renominated someone rejected on a vote by the Judiciary Committee for a
judicial appointment.
The renomination of Charles Pickering lay dormant for most of last
year while Republicans reportedly planned further hearings. Judge
Pickering himself said that several hearings on his nomination were
scheduled and cancelled over the last year by Republicans. Then,
without any additional information or hearings, Republicans decided to
forego any pretense at proceeding in regular order. Instead, they
placed the name of Judge Pickering on the committee's markup agenda and
pushed his nomination through with their one-vote majority. The
committee had been told since last January that a new hearing would be
held before a vote on this nomination, but that turned out to be an
empty promise.
Why was the Pickering nomination moved ahead of other well-qualified
candidates late last fall? Why was the Senate required to expend
valuable time rehashing arguments about a controversial nomination that
has already been rejected? The timing was arranged by Republicans to
coincide with the gubernatorial election in Mississippi. Like so much
about this President's actions with respect to the federal courts,
partisan Republican politics seemed to be the governing consideration.
Indeed, as the President's own former Secretary of the Treasury points
out from personal experience, politics governs more than just Federal
judicial nominations in the Bush administration.
Charles Pickering was a nominee rejected by the Judiciary Committee
on the merits--a nominee who has a record that does not qualify him for
this promotion, who injects his personal views into judicial opinions,
and who has made highly questionable ethical judgments. The nominee's
supporters, including some Republican Senators, have chosen to imply
that Democrats opposed the nominee because of his religion or region.
That is untrue and offensive. These smears have been as ugly as they
are wrong.
[[Page S305]]
Yet the political calculation has been made to ignore the facts, to
seek to pin unflattering characterizations on Democrats for partisan
purposes and to count on cynicism and misinformation to rule the day.
With elections coming up this fall, partisan Republicans are apparently
returning to that page of their partisan political playbook.
Never before had a judicial nomination rejected by the Judiciary
Committee after a vote been resubmitted to the Senate, but this
President took that unprecedented step last year. Never before has a
judicial nomination debated at such length by the Senate, and to which
the Senate has withheld its consent, been the subject of a presidential
appointment to the federal bench.
In an editorial following the recess appointment, The Washington Post
had it right when it summarized Judge Pickering's record as a Federal
trial judge as ``undistinguished and downright disturbing.'' As the
paper noted: ``The right path is to build consensus that
nonpartisanship and excellence are the appropriate criteria for
judicial selection.'' Instead we see another dangerous step down the
Republican's chosen path to erode judicial independence for the sake of
partisanship and their ideological court-packing efforts. The New York
Times also editorialized on this subject and it, too, was correct when
it pointed out that this end-run around the advice and consent
authority of the Senate is ``absolutely the wrong choice for one of the
nation's most sensitive courts.''
Civil rights supporters who so strenuously opposed this nominee were
understandably offended that the President chose this action the day
after his controversial visit to the grave of Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. As the Nation was entering the weekend set aside to honor Dr. King
and all for which he strived, this President made one of the most
insensitive and divisive appointments of his Administration.
So many civil rights groups and individuals committed to supporting
civil rights in this country have spoken out in opposition to the
elevation of Judge Pickering that their views should have been
respected by the President. Contrary to the false assertion made by The
Wall Street Journal editorial page, the NAACP of Mississippi did not
support Judge Pickering's nomination. Instead, every single branch of
the Mississippi State Chapter of the NAACP voted to oppose this
nomination--not just once, but three times. When Mr. Pickering was
nominated to the District Court in 1990, the NAACP of Mississippi
opposed him, and when he was nominated to the Fifth Circuit in 2001
and, again, in 2003, the NAACP of Mississippi opposed him. They have
written letter after letter expressing their opposition. That
opposition was shared by the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, the Magnolia Bar Association, the Mississippi Legislative
Black Caucus, the Mississippi Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials,
Representative Bennie G. Thompson and many others. Perhaps The Wall
Street Journal confused the Mississippi NAACP with the Mississippi
Association of Trial Lawyers, which is an organization that did support
the Pickering nomination.
This is an administration that promised to unite the American people
but that has chosen time and again to act with respect to judicial
nominations in a way that divides us. This is an administration that
squandered the goodwill and good faith that Democrats showed in the
aftermath of September 11, 2001. This is an administration that refused
to acknowledge the strides we made in filling 100 judicial vacancies
under Democratic Senate leadership in 2001 and 2002 while overcoming
anthrax attacks and in spite of Republican mistreatment of scores of
qualified, moderate judicial nominees of President Clinton.
The second disappointing development is the renomination of Claude
Allen as a nominee to the Fourth Circuit. Last week, the President sent
the nomination of Claude Allen back to the Senate. From the time this
nomination was originally made to the time it was returned to the
President last year, the Maryland Senators have made their position
crystal clear. This Fourth Circuit vacancy is a Maryland seat and ought
to be filled by an experienced, qualified Marylander. Over the Senate
recess, the White House had ample time to find such a nominee, someone
of the caliber of sitting U.S. District Court Judges Andre Davis or
Roger Titus, two Maryland lawyers whose involvement in the State's
legal system and devotion to their local community is clear. This
refusal to compromise is just another example of the White House
engaging in partisan politics to the detriment of an independent
judiciary.
The additional disappointment we face is the ongoing fallout from the
cyber theft of confidential memoranda from Democratic Senate staff.
This invasion was perpetrated by Republican employees both on and off
the committee. As revealed by the chairman, computer security was
compromised and, simply put, members of the Republican staff took
things that did not belong to them and passed them around and on to
people outside the Senate. This is no small mistake. It is a serious
breach of trust, morals, the standards that govern Senate conduct, and
possible criminal laws. We do not yet know the full extent of these
violations. But we need to repair the loss of trust brought on by this
breach of confidentiality and privacy if we are ever to recover and be
able to resume our work in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect
that is so necessary to make progress.
Democratic cooperation with the President's slate of judicial
nominees has been remarkable in these circumstances. One way to measure
that cooperation and the progress we have made possible is to examine
the Chief Justice's annual report on the Federal judiciary. Over the
last couple of years, Justice Rehnquist has been ``pleased to report''
our progress on filling judicial vacancies. This is in sharp contrast
to the criticism he justifiably made of the shadowy and unprincipled
Republican obstruction of consideration of President Clinton's
nominees. In 1996, the final year of President Clinton's first term,
the Republican-led Senate confirmed only 17 judicial nominees all year
and not a single nominee to the circuit courts. At the end of 1996, the
Republican Senate majority returned to the President almost twice as
many nominations as were confirmed.
By contrast, with the overall cooperation of Senate Democrats, which
partisan Republicans are loath to concede, this President has achieved
record numbers of judicial confirmations. Despite the attacks of
September 11 and their aftermath, the Senate has already confirmed 169
of President Bush's nominees to the Federal bench. This is more judges
than were confirmed during President Reagan's entire first 4-year term.
Thus, President Bush's 3-year totals rival those achieved by other
Presidents in 4 years. That is also true with respect to the nearly
four years it took for President Clinton to achieve these results
following the Republicans' taking majority control of the Senate in
1995.
The 69 judges confirmed last year exceeds the number of judges
confirmed during any of the 6 years from 1995 to 2000 that Republicans
controlled the Senate during the Clinton Presidency years in which
there were far more vacant Federal judgeships than exist today. Among
those 69 judges confirmed in 2003 were 13 circuit court judges. That
exceeds the number of circuit court judges confirmed during all of
1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000, when a Democrat was President.
The Senate has already confirmed 30 circuit court judges nominated by
President Bush. This is a greater number than were confirmed at this
point in the presidencies of his father, President Clinton, or the
first term of President Reagan. Vacancies on the federal judiciary have
been reduced to the lowest point in two decades and are lower than
Republicans allowed at any time during the Clinton presidency. In
addition, there are more Federal judges serving on the bench today than
at any time in American history.
I congratulate the Democratic Senators on the committee for showing a
spirit of cooperation and restraint in the face of a White House that
so often has refused to consult, compromise or conciliate. I regret
that our efforts have not been fairly acknowledged by partisan
Republicans and that this Administration continues down the path of
confrontation. While there have been difficult and controversial
nominees whom we have opposed as we exercise our constitutional duty of
advice and
[[Page S306]]
consent to lifetime appointments on the Federal bench, we have done so
openly and on the merits.
For the last 3 years, I have urged the President to work with us. It
is with deep sadness that I see that this administration still refuses
to accept the Senate's shared responsibility under the Constitution and
refuses to appreciate our level of cooperation and achievement.
Today, the chairman held another hearing on another circuit court
nominee. That hearing is another demonstration of how untrue the
rhetoric is that is so often bandied about by Republican partisans that
Democrats are obstructing the confirmations of this President's
judicial nominees. The reality is that we have cooperated to an
extraordinary extent, especially when contrasted with Republican
treatment of President Clinton's judicial nominees.
Today's hearing was the second in the last 2 weeks for circuit court
nominees. Traditionally, the number of nominees who have received
hearings and who are considered in a presidential election year has
been lower than in other years. In 1996, only four circuit court
nominees by President Clinton received a hearing from the Republican
Senate majority. In 2000, only five circuit court nominees by President
Clinton received a hearing from the Republican Senate majority. Of
course, two of those outstanding and well-qualified nominees in 2000
were never allowed to be considered by the committee or the Senate. By
contrast, here we are, before the end of the first month of 2004, and
we have already held hearings for two circuit court nominees. By the
standard Republicans set in 1996 and 2000, we would be half done for
the entire year.
Moreover, that we are proceeding to confirm Judge Sharpe today is
another example of Democratic cooperation in the wake of the
President's recess appointment of Charles Pickering. This temporary
appointment can be distinguished from President Clinton's recess
appointment of Judge Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit in December
2000 in many ways, including from the manner in which Republican
Senators reacted to President Clinton's recess appointments by shutting
down the confirmation process.
Roger Gregory had been denied a Judiciary Committee hearing even
though he had the bipartisan support of both of his home State
Senators--Democratic Senator Chuck Robb and Republican Senator John
Warner. By contrast, Judge Pickering participated in hearings and an
extensive record was developed on which his nomination was opposed in
the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate on the merits on the basis of
his record as a district court judge. Roger Gregory's nomination was
never allowed to be considered by the Judiciary Committee. By contrast,
Judge Pickering's nomination was fully and fairly debated in 2002 and
rejected by the Judiciary Committee. Indeed, Judge Pickering's
renomination was the first time a President had resent a judicial
nomination to the Senate after the Judiciary Committee had voted on and
rejected that judicial nomination. Likewise, Judge Pickering's
temporary appointment is the first after rejection by the Judiciary
Committee and after the Senate has debated a judicial nomination and
withheld its consent.
Moreover, Roger Gregory's recess appointment fit squarely in the
tradition of Presidents exercising such authority in order to expand
civil rights and to bring diversity to the courts. Four of the five
first African American appellate judges were recess-appointed to their
first article III position, including Judge William Hastie in 1949,
Judge Thurgood Marshall in 1961, Judge Spottswood Robinson in 1961, and
Judge Leon Higginbottom in 1964. Unlike these nominees and the public
purposes served, Judge Pickering was opposed by civil rights groups,
including all chapters of the Mississippi NAACP, the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference, and by the Magnolia Bar Association. Rather than
bring people together and move the country forward, this President's
recess appointment is another source of division.
The Senate reaction to the recess appointments of President Clinton
and President Bush has also differed dramatically. When President
Clinton used his recess appointment power to appoint James Hormel
Ambassador to Luxembourg, Senator Inhofe responded by saying that
President Clinton had ``shown contempt for Congress and the
Constitution'' and declared that he would place ``holds on every single
Presidential nomination,'' which Republicans did in obstruction of
President Clinton's nominees. Republicans continued to block
nominations until President Clinton agreed to make recess appointments
only after Congress was notified in advance. On November 10, 1999, 17
Republican Senators sent a letter to President Clinton telling him that
if he violated the agreement, they would ``put holds for the remaining
of the term of your Presidency on all of the judicial nominees.''
In November 1999, President Clinton sent a list of 13 positions to
the Senate that he planned to fill through recess appointments. In
response, Senator Inhofe spoke out on the Senate floor denouncing five
of the 13 civilian nominees with a threat that if they went forward, he
would personally place a hold on every one of President Clinton's
judicial nominees for the remainder of the administration. That led to
more delays and to the need for a vote on a motion to proceed to
override the Republican objections.
When President Clinton appointed Judge Gregory, Senator Inhofe called
it ``outrageously inappropriate for any president to fill a federal
judgeship through a recess appointment in a deliberate way to bypass
the Senate.'' Judge Gregory was eventually confirmed after his
renomination in 2001 with near unanimity. There was only one negative
vote. Senator Lott cast that vote and his spokesman said his opposition
was done to underscore his stance that ``any appointment of federal
judges during a recess should be opposed.'' Ironically, Senator Lott is
now one of Judge Pickering's strongest supporters.
As far as I know, no Senate Democrats were consulted by this
President before he made his divisive appointment of Judge Pickering.
It was only after President Bush appointed Charles Pickering to the
bench that I learned about the appointment. Despite that, Senate
Democrats are today participating in making sure the process of
judicial appointments moves forward. Democrats have not obstructed the
confirmation process for judicial and executive branch nominations as
Republicans did when President Clinton made recess appointments. In
fact, already this week, less than 2 weeks after President Bush
appointed Judge Pickering and a number of other executive branch
officials, we have joined in confirming 18 Presidential nominees by
unanimous consent. Today we proceed to confirm a judicial nominee in
spite of the President's recent actions and those of Senate
Republicans.
The nomination of Judge Gary Sharpe has the support of both his home
State Senators, both of whom are Democratic Senators. The Democratic
Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee all supported this
nomination when it was reported favorably to the Senate in October last
year. Had the Republican leadership wanted to proceed on it, this
nomination could easily have been confirmed in October, November or
December last year before the Senate adjourned. Instead, partisans
chose to devote 40 hours to a talkathon on the President's most
controversial and divisive nominees rather than proceed to vote on
those judicial nominees with the support of the Senate. The delay in
considering this nomination is the responsibility of the Republican
leadership.
I congratulate Judge Sharpe and his family on his confirmation. He is
the 170th judge confirmed by the Senate and will be the 171st appointed
by President Bush.
I yield to the senior Senator from New York and his colleague so they
can have the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will speak for 1 minute and then I
will yield 1 minute to my colleague, Senator Clinton.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am pleased to rise today in support
of Gary Sharpe's nomination to be a judge in the Northern District of
New York.
Before I discuss Judge Sharpe's impressive qualifications, I wish to
make one point to my colleagues.
[[Page S307]]
If my math is right, when Judge Sharpe is confirmed today--and I
expect he will be confirmed unanimously because, as my colleagues will
see, he is an example of the nominees we get when the process works
right--he will be the 170th judicial nominee of President Bush's we
will have confirmed.
I note that at the outset because to hear the hue and cry from some
on the other side, one would think that we were roadblocking every
nominee who comes before us. With this confirmation, the numbers stand
at 170 to 5.
That's a record for which the Buffalo Bills and Buffalo Sabres would
kill. When you win over 97 percent of the time, you are doing pretty
darn well.
I won't belabor the point, but it's important to note that this
process can work and that it frequently does. The process works when we
work together to choose nominees who are excellent, moderate, and
diverse--the three criteria I use when evaluating judicial nominees.
And Judge Sharpe easily clears that bar.
For the past 6 years, Judge Sharpe has served with distinction as a
United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of New York.
Before taking the bench, he spent his professional career working as
one of the best prosecutors Northern New York has ever seen. He spent
nearly a decade in state court as a prosecutor from Broome County.
He then went over to Federal court where he was an assistant United
States attorney before becoming the U.S. attorney for the Northern
District.
Judge Sharpe is a graduate of two fine New York schools, the
University of Buffalo which he graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta
Kappa--and Cornell Law. After graduating college, but before heading to
law school, Judge Sharpe served in the U.S. Armed Forces as a member of
the Naval Reserve. He is also a Vietnam veteran, having served there in
the Army from 1966 to 1968.
We have talked to lawyers in the Northern District and they simply
rave about Judge Sharpe. One judge upstate said, ``He's the best lawyer
I've ever known.'' That's pretty high praise.
I congratulate Judge Sharpe and his wife, Lorraine, on this
tremendous honor and achievement. I know Chief Judge Scullin is anxious
to have him and that Judge Sharpe is going to be a great addition to
the Northern District bench.
Again, Madam President, overall, we are at 170 nominees to 5. We have
blocked 5. That is not too many, and those are the most egregious ones.
Second, in New York, we have worked this out. When the administration
wants to play ball with Senators, they can fill the bench. In New York,
we will have no more vacancies because we have agreed. They have chosen
nominees who are conservative but not out of the mainstream, and we
have gone along.
Third, Judge Sharpe clearly is an excellent nominee. He is not just
average; he is not just above average; he is at the very top. We talked
with lawyers in the Northern District. They say: He is the best lawyer
I have ever known.
He is moderate. He deserves to be on the bench. I fully support his
nomination and urge my colleagues to do as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise in very strong support of the
nomination of Magistrate Judge Gary Lawrence Sharpe who has been
nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of New York.
Judge Sharpe has more than 20 years of experience as a prosecutor.
From 1974 to 1981, he served as an assistant district attorney and
senior assistant district attorney for Broome County. After serving for
a year as a special assistant New York attorney general, in 1982 he
became an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New
York. He served in that office until 1997, when he was appointed a U.S.
magistrate judge for the Northern District of New York.
Even with all of his prior prosecutorial responsibilities, Judge
Sharpe made time to serve as a member of the Broome County Prisoner
Rehabilitation Board, PROBE, the Onondaga County Substance Abuse
Commission, and the Onondaga County Youth Court. More recently, he
worked with the Department of Probation to develop the High Impact
Incarceration Program, HIIP, a program for defendants who have
substance abuse problems and who might be candidates for release.
Judge Sharpe's years of service as a magistrate judge have provided
him with even more experience, which will serve him well as a U.S.
district court judge. Without question, Judge Sharpe has the intellect,
judicial demeanor, and commitment to justice to serve the Northern
District of New York as a district court judge with distinction.
I ask all of my colleagues to support this nomination.
I commend my colleague, Senator Schumer, for the important role he
has played on the Judiciary Committee. I second his comment that in New
York we have worked together with the administration to nominate and
confirm judges who will be a real credit, not only to the bench but to
this administration and to our country. Magistrate Judge Gary Lawrence
Sharpe is at the top of that list.
In addition to all of his qualifications, he has also found time as a
prosecutor to serve in capacities to assist with prisoner
rehabilitation, to work with youth, and to work with people who are in
the grips of substance abuse to try to bring down the impact of
incarceration.
I think he will not only serve with distinction in New York but
demonstrate clearly that this is the kind of conservative Republican
nominee whom we could be unanimously confirming. I commend him to the
Senate.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is, Will
the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Gary L. Sharpe, of
New York, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District
of New York?
Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Chambliss) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 6 Ex.]
YEAS--95
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Baucus
Chambliss
Edwards
Kerry
Lieberman
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President will be immediately notified of
the confirmation of the nomination.
____________________