[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 129 (Tuesday, September 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11019-S11038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                                  Iraq

  Now, I rise today to discuss the situation in Iraq and the continuing 
efforts of this administration to paint a rosy picture, to cling to 
straws when the situation on the ground suggests just the opposite.
  I first thank my colleague, Jack Reed, who has done great work on 
MILCON, veterans affairs, which we

[[Page S11035]]

have just considered, and for his work on Iraq.
  Some have argued that the surge in Iraq is working, but all you have 
to do is look at the facts to know that is not the case. The President 
went to Anbar Province, which at the moment he is touting as a measure 
of success, but we all know what has happened in Iraq. You push on one 
end of the balloon, and it pops out on another. Anbar may be a little 
better; other places are worse. And the fallacy of Anbar is just 
amazing. Are we placing our faith in the future in Iraq on a handful of 
warlords who at the moment dislike al-Qaida more than they dislike us? 
And they certainly dislike us. What kind of policy is that? What are 
the odds that 6 months from now, the fragile and perilous situation in 
Anbar will reverse itself and collapse? We heard about success in 
Baghdad, we heard about success in Fallujah, and we heard about success 
in this province and that province, and it vanishes. Success vanishes 
like the wind. Why? Because the fundamentals in Iraq stay the same. 
That is, that there is no central government, that the Shiites and the 
Sunnis and the Kurds dislike one another far more than they like any 
central government, and that dooms our policy in Iraq to fail. When the 
President began the surge he said it was to give the Government 
breathing room, to strengthen the present Government. We have more 
troops there, more military action, more deaths this summer, more than 
any other, and the Government is weaker. So why isn't it apparent to 
the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the 
stated goal of the surge is failing? Because the goal is not a military 
goal but, by the President's own words, it is to give the Government of 
Iraq greater strength, breathing room, as he put it. That Government, 
by just about every standard, is worse off than it was before.

  Again, Anbar Province? Because a few warlords, tribal leaders are now 
on our side for the moment, even though they are not loyal to us, they 
don't like us and they dislike the central government, that is why we 
should continue the present course in Iraq? It makes no sense.
  What happened to the great call for democracy in Iraq? Are the tribal 
leaders in Anbar Province our apostles of democracy? Of course not. I 
admit that is realpolitik. That is fine. But it is not going to solve 
the problem.
  If you look at the benchmarks, today the independent GAO report due 
to be delivered to Congress showed little progress being made in 
meeting the 18 military and security benchmarks set out by the 
Congress. A draft report showed that only three of the benchmarks had 
been met. However, over the weekend, the Pentagon revised the draft GAO 
report and now, miraculously, an additional four benchmarks were 
``partially met.'' Despite the apparent efforts by the Pentagon to edit 
this independent report, it will take much more than a red pen to 
correct the failures of the President's Iraq policy. So the surge by 
the President's own stated goal is failing. The Government is weaker. 
The fundamentals on the ground are the same. There is no loyalty to a 
central government.
  The temporary stasis in Anbar Province is not because of the surge 
but because the surge was unable to protect these tribal leaders from 
al-Qaida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The bottom line is very simple. We are worse off today 
in Iraq than we were 6 months ago. The position of America, democracy, 
stability continues to deteriorate. If there were ever a need for a 
change in course in Iraq, it is now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we have heard over the last few moments 
from some of our Republican friends, again, the assertion of how strong 
this economy is doing and how we have to continue going along this same 
path with an OMB Director who is supportive of these policies. Let me 
reiterate, I do not believe the economy is stronger when, over the last 
6 years, 5 million more Americans have become poor, slipped into 
poverty, including a million children. I do not believe this economy is 
strong when median income for working age families has declined by 
about $2,400 since the year 2000. I do not believe this economy is 
strong when the personal savings rate has been below zero for eight 
consecutive quarters. I do not believe this economy is strong when 8.6 
million Americans have lost their health insurance since President Bush 
has been in office. I do not believe this economy is strong when 35 
million Americans struggled to put food on the table last year and 
hunger in America is growing. I do not believe this economy is strong 
when home foreclosures are now the highest on record, turning the 
American dream of home ownership into a nightmare.
  We need a new direction in economic policy, policies which protect 
the interests of ordinary Americans and not just the wealthy and the 
powerful. We need an OMB Director to tell this President the reality of 
economic life for tens of millions of our families rather than continue 
a mythology which essentially represents the interests of the people on 
top who, in fact, are doing very well. Maybe government should 
represent all rather than just the wealthy and the powerful.
  When I talked before about the budget priorities of President Bush, 
we should continue that discussion and talk about how he treats our 
veterans. The war in Iraq, something which I strongly opposed, has 
given us now over 27,000 soldiers who have been wounded, many of them 
seriously. Studies tell us that many of the soldiers returning home 
from Iraq are coming home with post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. 
How did the President's budget, a budget which we turned around, how 
did his initial budget treat the veterans? His budget proposed cutting 
the VA by $3.4 billion over 5 years after adjusting for inflation. That 
does not say thank you to our veterans and their families and all they 
have gone through.
  We have a President who in his budget has said we don't have enough 
money to address the needs of the middle class, working families, 
senior citizens, children, and veterans. We don't have enough money to 
do that, to pay attention to the people who are hurting. But amazingly 
enough, President Bush has told us we do have enough money to provide 
$739 billion in tax breaks over the next decade to households with 
incomes exceeding $1 million per year. Under President Bush's proposal, 
the average tax break for this group of millionaires would total 
$162,000 by the year 2012. So if you are a millionaire or a 
billionaire, the good news is, we have enough money for you. But if you 
are a veteran coming home from Iraq with PTSD, if you are a mother 
trying to find quality childcare for your kids, if you are a worker 
trying to find health insurance, sorry. This country does not have 
enough money for you.
  Let me be very blunt. In my view, it is wrong to be giving huge tax 
breaks to the very wealthiest people, the people who need them the 
least, while cutting back on the needs of the middle class and working 
families. I should say that Mr. Nussle's record as chairman of the 
Budget Committee tells us clearly he supports these tax breaks for the 
very rich while, at the same time, he has been prepared over the years 
to cut programs for those who need them the most. That is wrong. That 
is why I will be voting against Mr. Nussle's confirmation.

  Included in President Bush's budget is the complete repeal of the 
estate tax which would take effect at the end of 2010. The complete 
repeal of the estate tax, we should be clear, because sometimes people 
have not been quite so clear about it, would benefit the wealthiest 
three-tenths of 1 percent of our population, the top three-tenths of 1 
percent, and 99.7 percent of the American people would not benefit, 
their families would not benefit by one nickel from the repeal of the 
estate tax. Obviously, if you are in the top three-tenths of 1 percent, 
you are already a millionaire or a billionaire, and you are already in 
a family which is doing very well and has been doing well in recent 
years. In other words, 99.7 percent of Americans would not receive one 
nickel. The wealthiest people, who are

[[Page S11036]]

doing very well, would get all the benefits.
  According to the President's budget, this repeal of the estate tax 
will reduce receipts for the Treasury by more than $91 billion over the 
next 5 years and more than $442 billion over the next decade. But the 
long-term damage to our fiscal solvency is even worse. According to the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, repealing the estate tax would 
cost over $1 trillion from 2012 to 2021, all of which benefit goes to 
the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent. In other words, if the 
President's plan to permanently repeal the estate tax succeeds, the 
children and family members of the most privileged families in America 
will reap a massive tax break. Paris Hilton, you are in luck, if the 
President gets his way. You are going to do very well. But for other 
Americans, the deficit will go up, and the argument will be raised that 
we don't have enough money to take care of our kids, our seniors, and 
our veterans.
  What has Mr. Nussle's position been as chairman of the Budget 
Committee on repeal of the estate tax? He is there alongside the 
President. So we have every reason to believe he will be recommending 
to the President that we continue this extremely unfair and disastrous 
policy.
  When we talk about repealing the estate tax, which the President 
wants to do, which Mr. Nussle wants to do, which many of our Republican 
friends want to do, I think we should see who benefits in a more 
specific sense. Yes, it is the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent who 
will get all of the benefits, the people who need it the least. Let's 
look at one particular family who does have the best. Let's put this 
thing into perspective. The reality is the big winner, the people who 
need this money the most--not the kids, not our seniors, not low-income 
people, not our veterans, no, they get at the end of the line--the 
people who receive a significant amount of the benefits from repeal of 
the estate tax is the Walton family that owns Wal-Mart. In fact, 
today--and these things change; they go up and down--the estimated net 
worth of the Sam Walton family is about $83.2 billion. From where I 
come, that is pretty good, $83.2 billion. You are a family that is 
doing fine. You will probably be able to pay the rent next month. If 
the estate tax is repealed for this one family, they will receive a 
benefit of $32.7 billion, one family, $32.7 billion.
  We do not have enough money, says the President, to increase health 
insurance for our children. Oh, he is going to repeal that $32 billion 
to take care of 3 million more kids? We cannot afford that, but we can 
afford to give $32 billion in tax breaks to a family worth $83 billion.
  Those priorities are wrong. In my view, they are immoral. We need an 
OMB Director who begins to explain to the American people this is not 
what America is about, who begins to explain to the American people we 
need a budget that reflects the needs and deals with the needs of 
millions of families, where people are working longer hours for lower 
wages, that deals with the problems of our senior citizens, deals with 
the problems of our crumbling infrastructure, deals with the problems 
of kids who cannot afford to go to college, deals with all of the 
problems our people face every single day. That is the kind of budget 
we need. That is the kind of OMB Director we need. What we do not need 
are policies which give obscene benefits to the very wealthiest people 
in this country.
  Let me simply say at this point that in fact what this debate is 
about is whether we are going to have an OMB Director who can advise 
the President about the reality facing our working families or will we 
continue the same failed policies?
  Having said that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a little bit what has 
been talked about at length in this debate. I think it has been a very 
helpful and good debate. It has not been about Congressman Nussle and 
his qualifications. That seems to be universally agreed upon. It has 
been about the issue of policy and how we approach fiscal policy in 
this country.
  The other side of the aisle, for whatever reason, seems to think 24 
quarters of economic growth, with the addition of 8.4 million new jobs 
over the last few years, a tax law which was put into place which has 
caused us to generate more receipts as a Federal Government than we 
ever received before over a 3-year period relative to growth and as a 
percent of gross national product, is something we should not have, 
that this is bad policy for some reason, that giving people jobs, 
creating economic activity, having a tax policy that is fair, is not 
good. Therefore, they are attacking Congressman Nussle for him being 
proposed to become OMB Director and for the fact he happens to ascribe 
to those approaches.
  Now, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I 
am not sure what they expect. Maybe they are sort of like Claude Rains 
in ``Casablanca,'' where he comes out of the room and says: I'm 
shocked--shocked--to find out that there's gambling going on in Rick's. 
What? Are they shocked to find out the President nominated a Director 
of OMB who agrees with him? I mean, really. Obviously, he is going to 
nominate a Director of OMB who agrees with him. For as much as I admire 
the Senator from Vermont, his philosophies, which he of his own accord 
has described as socialist--although he affiliates with the Democratic 
Party--are not necessarily the philosophies of the President. So I do 
not expect he is going to nominate somebody with the philosophy of the 
Senator from Vermont. Even France, quite honestly, has rejected the 
philosophy of the Senator from Vermont. So I do not think the President 
is going to subscribe to it.
  What is hard to accept, however, is this argument that for some 
reason the tax cut the President has put in place has been regressive, 
that it has been unfairly distributed.
  Let's go back to the record. The simple fact is today the top 20 
percent of earned income or taxable income under the income tax laws--
the top 20 percent of earners in those categories is paying 85.3 
percent of the burden of Federal taxes. That is more than was paid 
under the Clinton administration when those same people, the top 20 
percent, were paying 81 percent of the burden of Federal taxes.
  People of lower income or moderate income who do not pay income taxes 
basically--individuals do, but as a group they do not pay a net income 
tax--the bottom 40 percent of income earners in this country is 
actually getting more back from the Federal Government in the form of 
earned income tax credit and other benefits than they received under 
the Clinton years--almost twice as much back.
  So you have the highest income people in this country paying more 
than under the Clinton years, who are bearing a larger share of the 
burden, and you have the lower income people or the moderate income 
people getting more back from the Federal Government. That, ladies and 
gentlemen, is called progressivity. That is a tax law that is working.
  Why is it working? Why are the people with higher incomes paying more 
taxes? That is called human nature. It is called human nature. If you 
say to someone: ``I am going to take the next 90 cents of the $1 you 
earn, and take it to the Federal Government and the State Government 
and the local government''--I do not know that Vermont reaches 90 
percent. They are probably pretty close. That is why people come to New 
Hampshire to buy liquor and other goods; they are not subject to a 
sales tax. That is just a bit of PR for our State. But if you say that 
to a person, they are not going to go out and make the effort to earn 
that extra dollar, whether it is 90 percent, 70 percent, or 50 percent.
  Why? Because they do not want to pay the taxes. They do not want to 
work for the Government half the year. Actually, everybody is working 
for the Government half the year, but they

[[Page S11037]]

don't want to work for it for two-thirds of the year.
  So if you put in place a tax law that is fair, where you say to a 
person: ``You go out and invest, you take a risk, you become an 
entrepreneur, and as a result you create jobs, and we are going to tax 
you fairly,'' then you get more economic activity that is taxable. As a 
result, you get more money to the Federal Government. That is what has 
happened over the last 3 years. We are now receiving more revenue than 
we have historically. In fact, we have had the largest increase in the 
history of our Government in the last 3 years as a percentage, and we 
are getting more in than what has been the historical norm. Usually, we 
have been getting, since World War II, about an 18.2-percent raise in 
revenues from the gross national product. Now we have gone up to 18.6 
percent and 18.7 percent, and those are big increases.

  Why are we getting those increases? Because people are willing to 
participate in the taxable economy. Because there is a fair tax rate 
that is in place today. What is the other side of the aisle suggesting? 
Let's raise those taxes. Let's raise those taxes way up so we can spend 
the money--not to put it to debt reduction, as the Senator from North 
Dakota talks about--so we can raise taxes on the American people to 
spend the money.
  Their budget suggests we increase taxes by somewhere between $400 
billion and $900 billion over 5 years. Their budget suggests we 
increase spending on the discretionary side by around $200 billion over 
the next 5 years. Their budget suggests we increase spending on the 
entitlement side by a number that is so astronomical I cannot even 
calculate it, but I think it is around $1 trillion. It is a classic 
tax-and-spend approach. Its purpose is not to make the economy 
stronger. Its purpose is not to reduce the debt. Its purpose is to 
raise taxes, to spend the money on interest, which the other side of 
the aisle finds attractive.
  Well, that is reasonable if you do it in a way that is fair. But what 
they are suggesting is you raise taxes on working Americans, and 
specifically on seniors. Do you know who most benefits from the capital 
gains rate? Senior citizens. Do you know who most benefits from the 
dividends rate? Senior citizens. Logic tells you that; also statistics 
do. The fact is, when you are a senor citizen, you do not have earned 
income. You are probably not subject to the income tax rate for the 
most part, but you might have dividend income from one of the pension 
funds you invested in or that the company you worked for invested in. 
And you probably have capital gains income because you probably sold 
some asset such as your house to move into another lifestyle.
  So not only are they suggesting we raise taxes in a manner which will 
undermine what has been a clear economic benefit to this country, in 
that we have seen 24 months of economic expansion and we have added 8.4 
million jobs, we have seen revenues jump dramatically. In fact, the 
capital gains revenues are now $100 billion over what they were 
estimated to be--$100 billion. Why is that? Because people are willing 
to take risks. They are willing to take their capital out that was 
locked up and put it into more productive activity, the result of which 
is to create jobs.
  People are investing in starting new restaurants and starting new 
software companies, starting new small businesses all across this 
country because there is a reasonable tax rate on doing that. As a 
result, we are creating jobs. What is the result of that? We generate 
revenues to the Federal Government. The other side of the aisle does 
not like that, I guess. The only way they want to generate revenue to 
the Federal Government is to raise taxes on people. Well, it doesn't 
work very well, quite honestly. President Kennedy showed the best way 
to do it is the way we have done it. President Reagan showed us the 
best way to do it is the way we have done it. And now President Bush 
has shown it one more time.
  It is hard to accept this philosophy which continues to be paraded 
out by the other side of the aisle, which we, regrettably, in New 
Hampshire are hearing a great deal of--actually, we do not regret it. 
We love it. We love to have the folks come to New Hampshire who are 
running for President and listen to their positions. But as you listen 
to people, your head has to spin as to the number of new programs that 
are being proposed by the front runners of the Democratic Party. It is 
program after program after program. If you listen to one of their 
speeches--and I have listened to all the major candidates on their side 
of the aisle give speeches in New Hampshire over the last few weeks--it 
is a litany, more or less like a merry-go-round, of ideas of how to 
spend money, followed by ideas as to how to tax people.
  The list goes on and on, but right at the top of the list is raise 
the capital gains rate, raise the dividend rate, raise the taxes on 
earning Americans, raise the taxes on productive Americans, which will 
result in a reduction of job activity, a reduction of revenues to the 
Federal Government, and it will be an unfortunate decision to reverse 
some very good economic news we have had over the last few years.
  Mr. President, at this time I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we sort of agreed casually on an 
order that the Senator from Vermont will speak, then I will speak, and 
then the Senator from North Dakota will wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire talks 
about program after program. Yes, we want to take care of our veterans, 
we want to provide health insurance to our children, and we do not want 
to give tax breaks to billionaires.
  Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to my friend from California.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
  I have never seen the Senator from New Hampshire so emotional and so 
excited. You would think the record we have seen in terms of this 
economy has been stellar. It reminds me of the expressions: ``He doth 
protest too much'' and ``the best defense is a strong offense. Get 
excited and wave your hands.'' Let's talk about what has happened here. 
This President and the Republicans in this Senate are trying to claim 
the mantle of fiscal responsibility. In fact, they turned a $236 
billion surplus inherited from the Clinton administration into a $248 
billion deficit. They oversaw the three largest budget deficits in U.S. 
history, and they are responsible for a $3 trillion increase in the 
national debt. Now, let me say this: Who owns that debt? Foreign 
countries--China, Japan. I don't hear the Senator from New Hampshire 
bemoaning the fact that they can hold us hostage.

  We need a change here. We need fiscal responsibility. We need 
investments in things that help our children, education, for one, and 
help our families, health care, for two, and a way to make sure our 
veterans truly get what they need. Instead, the President gives us as 
head of the OMB Mr. Nussle, who is closely associated with all of these 
policies and failed as chairman of the Budget Committee three out of 
six times to get a budget and work with Democrats. This is an absolute 
outrage.
  Now, I voted for so many of the President's appointees. I didn't vote 
for Alberto Gonzales, but I did vote for most.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will not vote for a man who put a bag over his head in 
the House of Representatives. That, to me, shows complete hostility to 
this great democracy. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Vermont has 
1 minute.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me conclude by applauding Majority 
Leader Harry Reid, Chairman Kent Conrad, and Senators Schumer, Dorgan, 
and Boxer for publicly expressing their opposition to the Nussle 
nomination.
  The bottom line is today the economy is doing very well if you are in 
the top 1 percent, if you are a millionaire or a billionaire. But if 
you are in the

[[Page S11038]]

middle class, if you are a working person, the likelihood is you work 
longer hours for lower wages.
  We need a change in economic policy. We need an OMB Director who can 
advise the President about the reality of the vast majority of the 
people, and not just the very wealthiest people in our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONRAD. Does the Senator from New Hampshire ask to speak for an 
additional 30 seconds?
  Mr. GREGG. I thought I had some time reserved. I don't. I ask 
unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. Without objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I simply wish to note we are about to vote 
on the nomination for the Director of OMB, who is a man of high 
integrity and high quality, and who has the expertise to do this job 
well. I think we should presume that the President should have the 
right to appoint the person of his choosing to this office which is so 
uniquely part of the White House to begin with.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me end where I began. This is not 
about a personality; this is about policy. The fiscal policy of this 
administration has exploded the debt of our country at the worst 
possible time--right before the baby boom generation retires. Here is 
the record. It is undisputed. It is uncontradicted. It is a simple 
fact. The debt of this country under this policy--and Mr. Nussle is one 
of the architects of this policy--has skyrocketed from $5.8 trillion at 
the end of the President's first year to $8.9 trillion at the end of 
this year. So much of that debt is now held abroad. When this President 
came into office, there was $1 trillion of U.S. debt held by foreign 
interests. That has now reached over $2.1 trillion, a more than 
doubling of U.S. debt held abroad. That puts this country at risk.
  We saw during the last few weeks the Chinese Minister indicate they 
might start to diversify out of dollar-denominated securities. 
Economists said if they chose to do that, they would push the United 
States into recession. In many ways, our economic future is now less in 
our hands and more in the hands of the people who hold our debt.
  I ask my colleagues on the basis of policy to reject this nomination.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Jim Nussle, of Iowa, to be Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 311 Ex.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brownback
     Craig
     Dodd
     Johnson
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Obama
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the President will 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________