[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 108 (Monday, July 9, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8781-S8785]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Executive Privilege
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I wish to make a comment or two on the
subject broached by the distinguished chairman of the committee on the
current issue with the challenge on executive privilege where letters
were received today from the White House Counsel indicating that
executive privilege would be asserted. It is my hope that we will yet
be able to resolve this controversy because of the importance of
getting the information which the Judiciary Committee has sought in its
oversight capacity.
We are dealing with a Department of Justice which I think, fairly
stated, is dysfunctional. We have seen the Attorney General of the
United States come before the Judiciary Committee and say he was not
involved in discussions, not involved in deliberations, and then was
contradicted by three of his top deputies, contradicted by documentary
evidence in the e-mails.
I think it is generally conceded that the President of the United
States has the authority to remove U.S. attorneys for no reason, just
as President Clinton did when he took office in 1993, but you cannot
remove a U.S. attorney for a bad reason.
There have been questions raised as to the request for the
resignation from the U.S. attorney from San Diego, that she perhaps was
hot on the trail of confederates of former Congressman Duke Cunningham,
who is serving 8 years in jail. I do not know whether that is true. We
have yet not had an explanation from the Department of Justice as to
why her resignation was requested.
Similarly, a cloud has existed over the reasons for the requested
resignation for the U.S. attorney from New Mexico, with some
suggestions that he was asked to resign because he would not bring
prosecutions for vote fraud when he thought there was no basis, and
some of us thought there was a basis. That has not yet been explained,
and the request for resignations generally has not been explained.
The Department of Justice is second only to the Department of Defense
in importance to the United States. The Department of Justice has the
responsibility for investigating terrorism, has the responsibility for
investigating and prosecuting drug dealers in international cartels,
the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting organized crime
and violent crime. Yet it is pretty hard to make a more conclusive
description than to say that the Department of Justice is
dysfunctional, and the Attorney General insists on
[[Page S8782]]
staying. I think, as to his own decision, it is a matter for him
personally. I am not going to tell him what to do, nor am I going to
make a recommendation to the President. Under separation of powers, it
is the President's call. I don't want the President to tell me how to
conduct my office in the Senate and I am not going to impede upon his
executive authority, but I do believe that the inquiry which the
Judiciary Committee is conducting might produce facts, if we get to the
bottom of things, find out what they are, which would lead us to a new
Attorney General, which I think is very much in the national interest.
So I am hopeful we can yet avoid the confrontation. I think,
candidly, there is a lot of posturing on both sides. I don't think it
is realistic to seek a contempt citation brought against the
President--that is newspaper talk--contempt citation brought against
anybody in the executive branch, because there are arguments on both
sides of this issue. I hope we can work it out so that we don't test
the good faith of the executive branch in asserting privilege or the
good faith of the legislative branch, the House of Representatives
Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, in seeking
facts as part of our oversight responsibility. I hope we can work it
out.
I said a long while ago I would be prepared to accept the President's
terms, with only one exception, and that was the importance of having a
transcript as to what happens. The President made an offer on national
television months ago saying he would allow White House personnel to
come in and be informally questioned, but he did not want to have them
under oath, and I would prefer to see them under oath. But I would give
on that issue, because what they say is subject to a criminal
prosecution with a 5-year penalty, the same as a perjury conviction for
a false official statement under 18 U.S. Code 1001.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question on
that point?
Mr. SPECTER. I yield.
Mr. LEAHY. Would the distinguished Senator accept the offer of the
President, if the rejoinder of the President was if we did it the way
you describe--transcript, knowing that the criminal code applies--but
once you have done that, there would be no followup? Even if you were
to find something out during that meeting, there would be no followup;
there would be a promise of no subpoenas, there would be no further
proceedings?
Mr. SPECTER. I will be pleased to respond to that relevant inquiry.
Senator Leahy and I have discussed this before. We have discussed just
about everything, because we do things on a joint basis--about as pure
as Ivory Snow, 99.4. We have some disagreements, but we try to work
them out on a bipartisan basis because we think it is the right way to
approach it.
The Senator from Vermont has said he thinks we would be barred from a
followup, and I don't know whether that is part of the offer which the
President has made, but we can get it clarified further. I do not think
we could make the commitment not to pursue a subpoena at a later time
if we felt the informal interviews were insufficient. I don't think we
can give up our authority in that process, and if we could, I wouldn't
agree to that because I don't know what the informal interviews are
going to produce and I would want to retain the right to exercise our
right to subpoena. I would acknowledge at the same time that if we
exercise our right to a subpoena that the President could exercise
whatever rights he has on executive privilege. We would be back to
square one, but at least we would have the advantage of the
questioning. I know the questioning of Senator Leahy, a tough
prosecutor from Burlington, VT. I have been there. And on an informal
basis, Senator Leahy can extract quite a lot of information, and
Chairman Conyers has the capacity to extract a lot of information. I
might even have a relevant question or two to ask in the course of the
proceedings.
I think we can get a lot of information. I want to have that
information. I want to find out as much as I could before I go to court
on what is going to be a 2-year battle. It is going to outlast the
President's term. It is going to outlast Attorney General Gonzales's
tenure. I don't think the next President is going to reappoint Attorney
General Gonzales.
Let the record show there is a smile from staff in the back. It was
intended to be not serious.
Then the President doesn't want there to be these witnesses to go
before both committees, and that is all right. I think Chairman Conyers
and Chairman Leahy, in consultation with their ranking members, can
work out a smaller group from the House and Senate, bipartisan,
bicameral, sufficient to ask the questions. Then I would prefer that it
be public. But as long as the transcript is published, I would give
that up as well.
I think it is so important that we get to the bottom of this
important issue so we can have the Department of Justice function in
the interest of the public that I am prepared to make those
concessions, but I want a transcript. I would even be willing to give
up the transcript if I am compelled to. I would take the interviews
rather than have nothing. It would be at least something. But I would
say to the President, the executive branch, that the transcript
protects not only the questioners but the persons being questioned so
there is no doubt as to what was said. I have been in closed-door
meetings and had a number of participants walk out and, in perfectly
good faith, have different versions as to what occurred. That happens
when you are in a closed session. That happens when you are in a closed
meeting, in perfectly good faith. That is why a transcript would
protect Sara Taylor. It would protect Ms. Harriet Miers. It would
protect the people who are being questioned.
It is my hope we can yet work this out. Before taking the floor, I
asked Senator Leahy if he would be willing to accept--he doesn't want
to go as far as I do, and I can understand why he would insist on a
transcript--I say I would like to have a transcript--but rather than
have nothing, I would be willing to go into a closed session and have
Senator Leahy question, Chairman Leahy question, Chairman Conyers
question, and I question, some others question, to find out what we
can. If at the end of that process we feel it is necessary to revert to
subpoenas, we cannot, I think--but in any event should not--give up
that power that resides with the legislative branch. I don't think we
have the authority to give it up, but if we had the authority to give
it up, I wouldn't want to give it up.
But I want to pursue this matter and I want to get the information.
When you talk about a criminal citation, a citation for criminal
contempt, you are talking about a very serious matter. I have great
empathy for the witnesses, Sara Taylor and Harriet Miers, who have been
subjected to these subpoenas. If they assert executive privilege, and I
agree that they are compelled to, I think once they are instructed by
the President that the work they did for him is subject to his
executive privilege, as he sees it, I think they have no choice. But
when you bring a criminal contempt citation against Sara Taylor, people
aren't going to understand she is an innocent pawn in the midst of this
proceeding. If you bring a criminal contempt citation against anybody,
there is an inference of some wrongdoing. You don't have a criminal
charge customarily unless there is probable cause to believe a crime
has been committed. That is when you have a warrant of arrest. That is
when you have an indictment. Of course, a contempt citation is
different, but if you call it a citation for criminal contempt, that
has a tarring effect which is very serious and which is very profound.
The U.S. attorney has to bring the charge, and the U.S. attorney has
discretion. It is not an automatic matter that if the Congress refers
the issue for a criminal contempt citation, it is mandated. U.S.
attorneys have discretion as to what they do. They can bring it or not,
depending upon their conclusions, upon their allocation of resources.
And they can bring it on what they want to do. I could see how a U.S.
attorney might not want to spend a whole lot of time on this matter. I
can see how the taxpayers of the United States wouldn't like to spend a
whole lot of time on this matter. But that is where we are heading if
this posturing continues.
[[Page S8783]]
Most importantly, we will not find out the underlying facts on the
request for the resignations of these U.S. attorneys, and that is
important to do so we can make a final evaluation by the Judiciary
Committee as to what our conclusions are on this matter, and it would
bear heavily on the continued service, the continued activity, by
Attorney General Gonzales in holding that position.
Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Kansas on the
floor, and we have a short time left until the votes start at 5:30, but
I yield to Senator Brownback.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I wish to address the nomination of Janet Neff, who is
the second nominee to come up. I can do so now or wait until after the
first vote. I would defer to my colleague from Pennsylvania, if he
wants to do it that way, or if there an order established on the vote
or for debate on the second nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes provided to the Senator
from Kansas after the first vote.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be happy to take my time at that point in
time, and I yield the floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I think there is going to be real
interest on the part of the body in moving to the second vote, but
there are 10 minutes for the Senator from Kansas after the first vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I would be happy, if I could, Madam President, to take
that time now. It won't be the full 10 minutes, but I wish to be able
to discuss this. This is a matter of some concern. It has been pending
for over a year, and I think it is meritorious of the nominee that it
be brought forward.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I would ask the Senator from Kansas if
he would be willing to take 5 minutes and delay it to that extent.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Let us see if I can cover it, but if I can't, I will
take some time before the second vote occurs. This has been pending for
a year's period of time, and it is a significant matter.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I suggest we proceed to regular order
then.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has time
remaining, if you choose to yield that to the Senator or yield it back.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. Ten minutes. I yield to the Senator from Kansas on the
understanding that will be the time he would have had otherwise, and
that we may proceed then to the sequence of votes.
Mr. BROWNBACK. That is acceptable to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. There are
9 minutes remaining.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for
accommodating me. Also, we wish to accommodate the other Members who
will come in and I think will want to vote in a series of votes. I
think that is perfectly fine.
I wish to address the second nominee who will be up today, Janet T.
Neff, for the District Court of the Western District of Michigan. The
Presiding Officer has had an interest in this matter, as well as many
others. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 78, said this about judges:
The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they
should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the
consequence would equally be the substitution of their
pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if
it proves anything, would prove that there ought to be no
judges distinct from that body.
As we consider judicial nominees, we must consider whether they have
the temperament, disposition, and ideology to interpret the law without
regard to their own personal will. Because I am not convinced Judge
Neff can do that, I cannot support her nomination.
I wish to give the body some background on this matter. On June 28,
2006, Judge Janet Neff was nominated by President Bush for a seat on
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. I wish to
point out that she was part of an overall package of judges that was
put forward and that the Michigan Senators were part of this discussion
of her nomination. I do not know if she would have been the top pick of
the President, but this is where we work together in this body, trying
to get district judges the Senators from that State would support.
These were supported by my two distinguished colleagues from Michigan.
They were for Judge Neff.
In September of 2006, following her hearing before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, I became aware of Judge Neff's participation in a
same-sex commitment or marriage ceremony in Massachusetts in 2002. This
was reported in the New York Times.
This concerned me. I placed a hold on Judge Neff's nomination in
order to ascertain her role in the ceremony and her position on the
constitutional validity of State bans on same-sex marriage. That is the
core issue. No. 1, factually, what is it that took place that she
participated in and, No. 2, what is her view of the constitutionality
of same sex marriages? She would be going on to the Federal bench and
this issue is likely to come in front of her.
With regard to her involvement in the 2002 Massachusetts commitment
ceremony, Judge Neff first responded to my concerns in a letter. She
described the context of the ceremony itself but declined to answer
questions regarding the legality of traditional marriage laws and
initiatives. For that reason, I requested a second hearing with Judge
Neff, which was held on May 10, 2007. My distinguished colleague from
Vermont, the chairman of the committee, accommodated that hearing, and
I appreciate that he did. At that hearing, Judge Neff testified she
attended the commitment ceremony in Massachusetts as a close friend of
one of the women involved. She stated she did not ``lead'' the
proceeding, as the New York Times reported but, rather, participated as
the homilist in the formal ceremony itself. Judge Neff testified that
when she was asked to deliver the homily, she was pleased to do that.
I spent much time considering whether her role as a homilist can
fairly be described as leading the ceremony. It is my belief, whether
she led the ceremony, she was an active participant and not a mere
bystander.
I wish to make clear my decision to oppose Judge Neff's nomination is
not based merely on her involvement in this ceremony. Rather, her
participation in this ceremony was simply the means I became aware of
her approach to interpreting same-sex marriage laws, which are likely
to come in front of her or have a good possibility of coming in front
of her were she to be placed on the Federal bench.
After discussing her role in the ceremony, I asked about her
understanding of the law regarding same-sex marriage. When asked
whether she feels the Constitution creates a right to same-sex
marriage, Judge Neff said that is a ``continuing legal controversy.''
When asked what her understanding is regarding Michigan statutory
defense of marriage law, she said, ``I really don't have an
understanding of it.''
I would note for the record the State of Michigan passed a
constitutional amendment by a vote of the people in 2004, 59 percent to
41 percent, defining marriage as a union of a man and woman. But prior
to that, in 1996, prior to this commitment ceremony in 2002, the
legislature passed a State law defining marriage as between a man and a
woman--clearly the law of Michigan.
When asked her understanding regarding the law in Michigan, she said,
``It's not entirely settled,'' even though the legislature had passed
this in 1996 and by 2004 the people of Michigan had passed a definition
of marriage.
These answers of hers give me pause. Michigan's defense of marriage
law, which has been on the books since 1996, says:
Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man
and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this State has a
special interest in encouraging, supporting and protecting
that unique relationship in order to promote, among other
goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children.
A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is
invalid in this State.
In addition to this statute, in 2004, the voters of Michigan passed a
similar constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of a man
and a
[[Page S8784]]
woman. In my opinion, the law of Michigan could not be more settled.
The fact that Judge Neff feels the court has to weigh in before this
issue is settled suggests a misunderstanding of the role of the
judiciary. The people of Michigan have spoken, similar to those of 27
other States. The amendment was a direct statement by the people of
Michigan. Never is it more important to respect the will of the people
than with issues of fundamental family values. Those issues must be
decided by the people and not by Federal judges.
Because I am not persuaded that Judge Neff will fairly uphold the law
of the State of Michigan, I cannot support her nomination for a
lifetime appointment to the bench.
This has been a long and arduous journey and I recognize that for
Judge Neff and I recognize that for the State of Michigan. I appreciate
her willingness to come in front of us in the confirmation process. But
I believe one of the most important aspects of my job as a Senator is
the consideration of judges for the Federal bench. I take the Senate's
role in the judicial nomination process very seriously. Individuals who
are put in these positions assume lifetime appointments. We have a
responsibility to ensure they understand their role and are firmly
rooted in the principles of law and justice and what they will do in
interpreting the law, not writing the law. They must be committed to
following the letter of the law without imposing their own ideologies.
Because I am not satisfied that Judge Neff can do this, on a very
important, very controversial issue of our day, I cannot support her
nomination. I have reached out. I met personally with Judge Neff. I met
with the Senators from the State of Michigan. This has been a long
ordeal.
It is my considered judgment that she is not well-set on her role as
a judge and more willing to consider her role as an activist in this
particular issue.
With that, I ask my colleagues and urge my colleagues to consider it
and consider opposing and voting against Judge Neff's nomination.
I thank my colleagues for accommodating me. I urge a ``no'' vote on
Judge Neff, the second nominee. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, does the Senator from Vermont have any
time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have any further time on
this nomination.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 3 minutes of
the time I have reserved between this vote and the next vote be yielded
to the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam Present, do I have any time remaining? The only
reason I am asking this is--I think that is a fair request, but I would
like to have a minute between the votes when our colleagues are
gathered here. It seems it would be only fair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 45 seconds
remaining.
Mr. BROWNBACK. If I could ask for a minute at that time, I would have
no problem for 3 minutes for my colleague from Michigan. I think it is
fair when our colleagues are present to hear some of this discussion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I believe the Presiding Officer would also need some time
between the votes, and I believe that is not impacted by the current
request; is that correct?
Mr. LEAHY. I will take it off my time between the votes. But there
will be time for both the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator
from Vermont between the votes.
Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Kansas asking for 1 minute?
Mr. BROWNBACK. I am.
Mr. LEVIN. Between the votes or no?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Between the votes. That is when your time would occur.
Mr. LEAHY. I have no objection to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, before the Senator from Michigan speaks,
the first pending is who?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. O'Grady is the next.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask it be in order to ask for the yeas
and nays on both the O'Grady and the Neff nominations at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on those two and only those
two.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered on the two nominations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Michigan is
recognized for up to 3 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I am pleased the long road to confirmation for three
nominations for the Federal bench in the Western District of Michigan,
Janet Neff, Robert Jonker, and Paul Maloney is apparently near the end
of the road. Senator Stabenow and I worked with the White House on
these nominations. Last year they were unanimously reported out of the
Judiciary Committee and again this year. The confirmation of these
nominees has been blocked since last November. The sticking point of
the Senator who objected was that one of the nominees, Judge Neff,
personally attended a same-sex commitment ceremony of a family friend
who was a next-door neighbor of hers for 26 years.
When Judge Neff was asked to deliver some remarks, Judge Neff felt it
was similar to being asked by one of her own daughters to be part of an
important event in her life.
The ceremony was entirely private. It took place in Massachusetts,
where Judge Neff has no official capacity. The ceremony had no legal
effect. Judge Neff took no official role in the ceremony whatsoever.
Her qualifications are clear. She currently serves on the Michigan
Court of Appeals, where she has served for a significant period of
time.
Judge Neff graduated with honors from the University of Pittsburgh in
1967, then graduated from Wayne State University Law School in 1970.
She has had a distinguished legal career. After law school, Judge Neff
served as an estate and gift tax examiner for the Internal Revenue
Service and then as a research attorney for the Michigan Court of
appeals, before becoming an assistant city attorney for the city of
Grand Rapids. Judge Neff has also worked in private practice, served as
a commissioner for the Michigan Supreme Court and then as an assistant
U.S. attorney. Judge Neff currently serves on the Michigan Court of
Appeals. She has been granted numerous awards and honors, including the
Outstanding Member for 2006 of the Women Lawyers Association of
Michigan.
We are fortunate to have the opportunity today to confirm Judge Neff,
along with two other qualified nominees, Robert Jonker and Paul
Maloney.
I only hope now that we finally have an opportunity to confirm these
three judges, that we will do so and do so overwhelmingly.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WEBB. Madam President, it is my distinct pleasure to offer my
support--along with my colleague Senator Warner--for the nomination of
Magistrate Judge Liam O'Grady to be a judge on the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Since graduating from law school, Judge O'Grady's career has been as
expansive as it has been distinguished. Judge O'Grady currently serves
as magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, where he has sat since 2003. Prior to taking the bench,
Judge O'Grady was a partner at the law firm of Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett, & Dunner, LLP, 1992-2003, an assistant U.S. Attorney
in the Eastern District of Virginia, 1986-1992, and an assistant
Commonwealth Attorney for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Judge O'Grady
began his career as a law clerk to an administrative law judge for the
Department of Labor and the Department of the Interior, 1976-1979, and
was subsequently a sole practitioner, 1979-1982.
Judge O'Grady has spent equal time in Federal and State courts and
has spent equal time handling criminal and civil matters. Judge O'Grady
has tried more than 100 cases before a jury.
[[Page S8785]]
Moreover, he has authored and published several scholarly articles, and
he has devoted countless hours in pro bono work for low-income and
indigent clients. Judge O'Grady was unanimously rated ``well-
qualified'' by the American Bar Association.
Judge O'Grady is married to Grace McPhearson O'Grady and has four
children. He resides in McLean, VA. Judge O'Grady received a B.A. from
Franklin & Marshall College, 1973, and a J.D. from George Mason
University School of Law, 1977.
As I have previously noted, the Constitution assigns a pivotal role
to the Senate in the advice and consent process related to Federal
judges. These judgeships are lifetime appointments, and Virginians
expect me to take very seriously my constitutional duties. In my mind,
it matters not whether a nominee is a Republican or a Democrat, but
rather whether the nominee will be respectful of the Constitution, and
impartial, balanced, and fair-minded to those appearing before him.
After careful deliberation, including conferring with Senator Warner, I
believe that Judge O'Grady meets these high standards.
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to make these remarks about
Judge O'Grady and for the expeditious way the Senate has moved his
nomination through the process during the 110th Congress. Again, it is
with pride that I join Senator Warner in recommending Judge O'Grady to
each of my colleagues in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Liam O'Grady, of Virginia, to be U.S.
district judge for the Eastern District of Virginia.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
Dorgan), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), and the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. Allard), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr),
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Ensign), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 239 Ex.]
YEAS--88
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--12
Allard
Burr
Chambliss
Dorgan
Ensign
Inouye
Johnson
Lincoln
McCain
Obama
Thune
Voinovich
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________