[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 44 (Thursday, March 12, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3042-S3051]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           Secretary Geithner

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. President, this morning Secretary Geithner appeared before the 
Budget Committee. He had good humor. He was resilient. He did a good 
job in his testimony. He said, a variety of times, approximately this: 
There would be no economic recovery until we fix the banks and get 
credit flowing again.
  I would like to make a constructive suggestion to our new President, 
who I think is an impressive individual, and to Secretary Geithner, 
because while that may be the goal of the Government, the country is 
not yet persuaded the Government will do that or can do that.
  I asked Secretary Geithner whether he is familiar with a book by 
Ernest May, a longtime professor at the Kennedy School of Government at 
Harvard University. The book is called ``Thinking in Time: The Uses of 
History for Decision Makers.'' The reason I asked Secretary Geithner 
about that was because Ernest May's book ought to be required reading 
for any governmental decision maker. The thesis of the book is that any 
crisis one may be presented--if you are Secretary of Treasury, 
Secretary of Defense--usually has something in history to teach you a 
lesson. For example, if you are the Kennedy administration dealing with 
the Cuban missile crisis in the early 1960s, you may want to look back 
to Hitler's invasion of Rhineland in 1936 to see whether we should have 
stopped him then and avoided, perhaps, World War II.
  Professor May often says one has to be very careful in thinking about 
the different analogies because you might pick up the wrong analogy and 
the wrong lesson from history. I would like to suggest to the President 
and to the Secretary of Treasury, in the spirit of Professor May's 
book, a couple of analogies from history that I believe would help this 
country deal with the banking crisis, deal with getting credit flowing 
again, and begin to get us back toward the economic recovery that we 
all want for our country and that we very badly need.
  The first example comes from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who 
was elected after a deep recession, and maybe even a depression was 
already underway, much worse than today. Mr. President, 5,000 banks had 
failed, and deposits were not insured. What did President Roosevelt do? 
He did one thing: Within 2 days after taking the oath of office, he 
declared a bank holiday, from March 6 to March 10, 1933. Banking 
transactions were suspended across the Nation except for making change. 
He presented Congress with the Emergency Banking Act. The law empowered 
the President, through the Treasury Department, to reopen banks that 
were solvent and assist those that were not. The House passed it after 
40 minutes of debate, and the Senate soon followed. Banks were divided 
into categories. On the Sunday evening before the banks reopened, the 
President addressed the Nation through one of his signature fireside 
chats. The President assured 60 million radio listeners in 1933 that 
the crisis was over and the Nation's banks were secure. By the 
beginning of April, Americans confidently returned $1 billion to the

[[Page S3048]]

banking system; the bank crisis was over. Now, there was a lot more to 
come. That was not the end of the Great Depression, but it was the end 
of the bank crisis, and it came because of swift and bold Presidential 
leadership.
  The lesson I would suggest from that analogy to our nation's history, 
is that President Roosevelt did not try to create the Tennessee Valley 
Authority and the Civilian Conservation Corps and the PWA and the WPA 
and pack the Supreme Court all in the first month of his term of 
office.
  He declared a banking holiday within 2 days after taking office. He 
assured the country that he would fix the problem. He went on the radio 
not for the purpose of talking about the whole range of problems but to 
say, on March 12, 1933: I want to talk for a few minutes to the people 
of the United States about banking. And he explained what was going on. 
He said: We do not want and we will not have another epidemic of bank 
failures. He said: We have provided the machinery to restore our 
financial system.
  The people believed him. They put money back in the banks because the 
American people were looking for Presidential leadership at that 
moment. They knew that the Congress or the Governors or other 
individuals in the country could not fix the bank problem. They knew 
the President had to fix it. When the President took decisive action 
and said he would fix the problem, the country responded and that part 
of the problem was fixed. The bank crisis was over. That is analogy No. 
1.
  Analogy No. 2--and I believe the analogy is closer to today's 
challenge facing President Obama and Secretary Geithner and all of us, 
really--is President Eisenhower's speech in October 1952 in which he 
declared he would end the Korean war. I'd like to read a paragraph from 
that speech because it seems to me so relevant to the kind of 
Presidential leadership that might make a difference today.
  President Eisenhower said:

       The first task of a new administration will be to review 
     and re-examine every course of action open to us with one 
     goal in view: to bring the Korean war to an early and 
     honorable end.

  In these circumstances today, one might say to bring the bank crisis 
and the credit freeze to an early, honorable end.
  President Eisenhower, then a general, not President, said:

       This is my pledge to the American people. For this task a 
     wholly new administration is needed. The reason for this is 
     simple. The old administration cannot be expected to repair 
     what it failed to prevent.

  In other words, the issue in the Presidential election of 1952 was 
change. That is also familiar. It just happened to be the Republicans 
arguing for change at the time.
  Then the President said:

       That job requires a personal trip to Korea. I shall make 
     that trip. Only in that way could I learn how best to serve 
     the American people in the cause of peace. I shall go to 
     Korea.

  On November 29, in the same month he was elected to the Presidency, 
Dwight D. Eisenhower left for Korea.
  The lesson from that instance in history, as Ernest May would have us 
look at, is not that President Eisenhower ended the Korean war by 
Christmas or even by Easter of the next year. The lesson is that he 
told the American people he had one objective in mind. Of all the 
things going on in 1952--inflation and other problems--he focused on 
the one that only a President could deal with. He did it in memorable 
terms. We remember the phrase today: I shall go to Korea. The people 
believed him. They elected him. They relaxed a little bit. The war was 
ended, and the 1950s were a very prosperous time.
  I wish to make this a constructive and, I hope, timely suggestion 
because the President and the Secretary are about to tell us what they 
are going to do about banks. What I would like to suggest is this: they 
don't need to scare us anymore. Back in Tennessee, we are all pretty 
scared. There are a lot of people who are not sure what is going to 
happen with the banks. They don't need to explain the whole problem to 
us anymore. That is not what leaders do. Leaders solve problems. Maybe 
it needs to be explained enough so we grasp it, but basically Americans 
are looking for Presidential leadership to solve the problem.
  I don't think we have to be persuaded that our impressive new 
President is capable of doing more than one thing at a time. He may 
have shown that better than anybody else in history. We have already 
had two summits--one on health and one on fiscal responsibility. I was 
privileged to attend one of the summits. I thought it went very well. 
The President has repealed some of President Bush's orders that he 
didn't agree with on the environment and stem cell research. The 
President has been out to a wind turbine factory in Ohio talking about 
energy. He has persuaded Congress to spend a trillion dollars, over my 
objection, but still he was able to do that in the so-called stimulus 
bill. The new Secretary of Education has worked with the President, and 
he made a fine speech on education the other day. He is doing a lot of 
things. A lot of things need to be done.
  The point is, there is one overriding thing that needs to be done 
today, and that is to fix the banks and get American credit flowing 
again. President Roosevelt didn't create the Tennessee Valley Authority 
and the CCC and the WPA during the bank holiday. He fixed the banks. So 
my respectful suggestion is that our impressive, new President say to 
the American people as soon as he can, in Eisenhower fashion: I will 
fix the banks. I will get credit flowing again. I will take all these 
other important issues facing the country--health care, education, 
energy, on which I am eager to work--and I will make them subordinate 
to that goal. In the spirit of President Eisenhower: I will concentrate 
my full attention on this goal until the job is honorably done; that 
job being, fixing the banks and getting credit flowing again.
  I genuinely believe that if this President did that, if he, in 
effect, made that speech, cleared the decks, gathered around him the 
bright people he has around him and said to the American people: Don't 
worry, a President can do this and I am going to. That statement would 
be the beginning of the economic recovery. Because lack of confidence 
is a big part of our problem. This crisis began with $140 oil prices. 
That was, in the words of FedEx chairman Fred Smith, ``The match that 
lit the fire.'' Then there was the housing subprime mortgage crisis and 
then banking failures.
  Now, even in strong community banks in Tennessee, we have people who 
are out of work and who can't pay their small business loans or student 
loans. Some of those banks are beginning to have some problems.
  We need to interrupt this train. We only have one person who can do 
it. A Senator cannot do it. The Vice President cannot do it. The 
Secretary of the Treasury cannot do it. No Governor can do it. The 
President can; only he can do it. Even though he may be able to do many 
things well at one time, he needs to do one thing until the job is 
honorably done.
  My respectful suggestion is that Ernest May's book, which reminds 
leaders to think in terms of history, ``Thinking in Time,'' is a 
powerfully apt book for these times. As the Secretary and the President 
and his advisers think about how to present to the American people what 
their plan is, they should remember that a part of it is not only 
developing a strategy. The most important part is persuading at least 
half the people they are right. I believe that means clearing the deck: 
no more summits, no more trips in other directions. Focus attention on 
the problem facing the country until the job is honorably done.
  In Eisenhower fashion, I hope the President will say: I will fix the 
banks. I will get credit flowing again. I will concentrate my attention 
on that job until it is done.
  I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous 
consent that the time during the quorum be split evenly between the 
parties.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. 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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time 
be charged equally to both sides.

[[Page S3049]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my 
colleagues to support the nomination of David Ogden to be our Deputy 
Attorney General. In doing so, I will make a few brief points.
  First, Mr. Ogden is extraordinarily qualified as a lawyer. He has 
served as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil 
Division, as the Chief of Staff to Attorney General Janet Reno, as the 
Associate Deputy Attorney General, and as Deputy General Counsel over 
at the Department of Defense. He has a distinguished government record.
  He has also been a distinguished lawyer in the private sector, as 
evidenced by his position as cochair of the Government and Regulatory 
Litigation Group at the law firm of WilmerHale. His qualifications for 
this important position as Deputy Attorney General are exemplified by 
the support of former Deputy Attorneys General of both parties.
  Republican Larry Thompson said:

       David is a person of honor who will, at all times, do the 
     right thing for the Department of Justice and our great 
     country. As a citizen, I am extremely grateful that a lawyer 
     of David's caliber again offers himself for public service.

  Democrat Jamie Gorelick wrote that David Ogden ``is a man of unusual 
breadth and depth who is as well prepared to help lead the Department 
as anyone who has come in at the outset of a new administration can 
possibly be.''
  Second, now more than ever, the Department needs a competent Deputy 
Attorney General. I will not go back and review the long sad litany of 
problems--to put it mildly--we saw in the Bush Justice Department. But 
the incompetence and politicization that ran rampant through that 
building must never be repeated.
  The Deputy Attorney General is the second ranking member at the 
Department, and some have compared the position to a chief operating 
officer. We need in that office a person who understands what makes the 
Department of Justice such an important and unique institution, who is 
committed to restoring the Department's honor and integrity, who will 
act independent of political pressure, and who understands the levers 
within the building that need to be pulled to get things done. Based on 
my review of his background and based on his confirmation hearings and 
based on my personal conversations with David, I believe him to be such 
a man.

  I commend Chairman Leahy for his determination to confirm as many 
Department nominees as quickly as possible. The Department has more 
than 100,000 employees and a budget exceeding $25 billion. It is also 
tasked with confronting the most complex and difficult legal challenges 
of our day. The Attorney General must have his leadership team in place 
as quickly as possible. It is March 12 and the Attorney General does 
not have his Deputy confirmed by this body. Despite some very 
unfortunate delay tactics that have taken place, Chairman Leahy is 
doing all he can to move these nominees in a careful, deliberate, and 
expeditious manner. I commend him for that effort and I look forward to 
supporting him in that effort.
  I would also add that as a Senator I have found some of the comments 
that have been made about Mr. Ogden to be very troubling, and certainly 
not the sort of debate I had in mind when I ran to be a Senator. 
Everybody here who is a lawyer knows that a lawyer in private practice 
has a duty--a duty--to zealously advocate--to zealously advocate--the 
position of his client. What makes our system great is that you don't 
have to win a popularity contest as a client before you can get a 
zealous advocate for your position. Every lawyer is under a duty to 
zealously advocate their client's position.
  So to take a lawyer who has served in private practice with great 
distinction and attribute to him personally the views of clients is 
plain dead wrong and strikes at the heart of the attorney-client 
relationship that is the basis of our system of justice. It is a 
terrible mistake to do that, and particularly to exaggerate those 
positions to the point where he has been accused of supporting things 
such as child pornography. It is an appalling misstatement. The major 
organizations that concern themselves with the welfare of children in 
this country support David Ogden. That should put these false claims to 
rest. However, I do very much regret that the level of debate over 
someone such as David Ogden in this historic body has come to a point 
where those sorts of charges are being thrown out, completely without 
factual basis and, in many respects, in violation of what we should as 
Senators understand to be a core principle, which is that a lawyer is 
bound to advocate for his client and to do so does not confer upon the 
lawyer the necessity of agreeing to those views.
  As somebody who spent a good deal of time in public service as a 
lawyer and who has spent some time in private practice as a lawyer as 
well, I can tell my colleagues that one of the reasons people come to 
public service is so they can vindicate the public interest. David, as 
Deputy Attorney General, I have no doubt whatsoever will serve in a way 
that vindicates the public interest, that protects children, that 
protects our country, and that serves the law.
  I appreciate the opportunity to say this, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss 
briefly the pending nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney 
General. I had spoken on the subject in some detail 2 days ago, and my 
comments appear in the Congressional Record. But I wish to summarize my 
views today and also to respond to an issue which has been raised about 
undue delay on Mr. Ogden's nomination. There has been no such delay, 
and I think that is conclusively demonstrated on the record.
  President Obama announced Mr. Ogden's nomination on January 5, but 
the Judiciary Committee did not receive the nomination materials until 
January 23, and he was not officially nominated until January 26.
  Then the committee promptly held a hearing on his nomination on 
February 5, 13 days after receiving his nomination materials. His 
hearing record was open for written questions for 1 week, until 
February 12, and Mr. Ogden returned his responses on February 18 and 
19.
  Following Mr. Ogden's hearing, the Judiciary Committee received an 
unprecedented number of opposition calls and letters--over 11,000 
contacts in opposition to the nominee, unprecedented for someone in 
this position. Despite this opposition, the committee promptly voted on 
Mr. Ogden's nomination on February 26.
  I note that the week prior to the committee's vote on Mr. Ogden's 
nomination was a recess week, and it was the same week the committee 
received Mr. Ogden's answers to his written questions. As is the 
standard practice, the committee would not have voted on him prior to 
February 26 because the record was not complete.
  Rather than hold this nominee over for a week in committee, which is 
any Senator's right, Republicans voted on Mr. Ogden's nomination for 
the first time he was listed, on February 26. And now, 45 days after 
Mr. Ogden was nominated, the Senate is poised to vote on his 
nomination.
  Even allowing that Mr. Ogden's nomination was announced on January 
5--66 days ago--the Senate is still acting as quickly as it has on past 
Deputy Attorneys General.
  On average, since 1980, Senators have been afforded 65 days to 
evaluate Deputy Attorney General nominees. Senators were afforded 85 
days to evaluate the nomination of Larry Thompson and 110 days to 
evaluate the nomination of Mark Filip, both nominated by President 
George W. Bush. In fact, we are voting on Mr. Ogden's nomination faster 
than any of President Bush's nominees: Larry Thompson, 85 days; James 
Comey, 68 days; Paul McNulty, 147 days; and Mark Filip, 110 days. I 
believe these facts put to rest any allegation there was any delay.

[[Page S3050]]

  I spoke on Wednesday urging my colleagues to move promptly, noting I 
had a call from Attorney General Holder who said he was needed. Not 
having had any top-level people confirmed, I think the Attorney 
General's request is a very valid one. In my position as ranking 
member, I am pushing ahead and trying to get the Ogden nomination voted 
on.
  On Wednesday, I noted the fine academic record and professional 
record and put his resume into the Record, so I need not do that again.
  I noted on Wednesday in some detail the opposition which had been 
raised by a number of organizations--Family Research Council, headed by 
Tony Perkins; Fidelis, a Catholic-based organization; the Eagle Forum; 
and the Alliance Defense Fund--on the positions which Mr. Ogden had 
taken in a number of cases. I also noted the judgments that when Mr. 
Ogden took those positions, he was in an advocacy role and is not to be 
held to those policy positions as if they were his own.
  I noted that the Judiciary Committee is taking a close look at other 
nominees--Elena Kagan, for example--on the issue of whether she 
adequately answered questions. I am meeting with her later today. Her 
nomination is pending. Also, the nomination of Ms. Dawn Johnsen 
involving the issue of her contention that denying a woman's right to 
choose constitutes slavery and a violation of the 13th amendment.
  I believe on balance Mr. Ogden ought to be confirmed, as I said on 
Wednesday, noting the objections, noting the concerns, and contrasting 
them with his academic and professional record. He took advocacy 
positions well recognized within the profession, but that is a lawyer's 
responsibility. He cannot be held to have assumed those positions as 
his own policy.
  We will later today take up the nomination of the Associate Attorney 
General. While I have the floor, I think it appropriate to make some 
comments regarding this nomination.
  Thomas Perrelli is the nominee. He has an outstanding academic 
record: a graduate of Brown University, Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum 
laude, very substantial indicators of academic excellence. Then Harvard 
Law School, again magna cum laude, 1991; managing editor of the Harvard 
Law Review. He clerked for Judge Lamberth in the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Columbia. He has been an associate at Jenner & 
Block; counsel to the Attorney General; Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General; and later a partner in Jenner & Block. He was named to the 
``40 under 40'' list by the National Law Journal; a recipient of the 
Jenner Pro Bono Award; and recognized as one of Lawdragon's 500 ``New 
Stars, New Worlds.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
his resume.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Thomas J. Perrelli


                       Associate Attorney General

       Birth: 1966, Falls Church, Virginia.
       Residence: Arlington, Virginia.
       Education: A.B., Brown University, magna cum laude, 1988; 
     Phi Beta Kappa, 1987; J.D., Harvard Law School, magna cum 
     laude, 1991; Managing Editor, Harvard Law Review.
       Employment: Law Clerk, Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. 
     District Court for the District of Columbia, 1991-1992; 
     Associate, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington , DC, 1992-1997; 
     Counsel to the Attorney General (Janet Reno), U.S. Department 
     of Justice, 1997-1999; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 
     U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, 1999-January 
     2001; Unemployed, January 2001-June 2001; Partner, Jenner & 
     Block LLP, Washington, DC, 2001-Present; Managing Partner, 
     Washington, DC office, 2005-Present; Co-Chair, Entertainment 
     and New Media Practice.
       Selected Activities: Named to ``40 under 40,'' National Law 
     Journal, 2005; Recipient, Albert E. Jenner, Jr. Pro Bono 
     Award, Jenner & Block, 2005; Recognized as one of Lawdragon's 
     500 ``New Stars, New Worlds,'' 2006; Named Best Intellectual 
     Property Lawyer in Washington, DC by Washington Business 
     Journal, 2008; Recognized as leading media and entertainment 
     lawyer, Chambers & Partners USA, 2007-2008; Member, American 
     Bar Association.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there had been some question raised as to 
Mr. Perrelli's representation of clients in a couple of cases--
including the American Library Association v. Attorney General Reno, 
where he appeared on behalf of a coalition of free speech groups and 
media entities (including Penthouse) arguing that the Child Protection 
Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990 criminalized material 
in violation of the first amendment.
  There were a number of letters filed by pro-life organizations, 
including the Pennsylvania Family Institute, International Right to 
Life Federation, Family Research Council, and the National Right to 
Life Committee. We have evaluated those issues closely.
  I questioned Mr. Perrelli in some detail on the position he took in 
the Terri Schiavo case where he claimed the Federal court did not have 
jurisdiction. It seems to me as a legal matter, the State court did not 
have exclusive jurisdiction, that the Federal court could take 
jurisdiction under Federal doctrines. He defended his position saying 
that he was taking an advocate's role, and he thought it was a fair 
argument to make. My own view was that it was a little extreme.
  I think all factors considered, the objections which have been raised 
of Mr. Perrelli as Associate Attorney General turn almost exclusively 
on positions he took as an advocate. I believe his outstanding academic 
and professional record support confirmation.
  Again, we are taking a very close look at all of the nominees but, on 
balance, it seems to me that is the appropriate judgment. Here, again, 
we are almost 2 months into a new administration and the Attorney 
General does not have any upper echelon assistants. These confirmations 
will provide that assistance.
  I think it is fair to note that Mr. Perrelli's nomination was 
supported overwhelmingly in the committee, the same conclusion I came 
to. It was a 17-to-1 vote in his favor. Only one Senator voted no and 
one Senator voted to pass. That is showing pretty substantial support.
  I thank the Chair. I note the presence of the distinguished chairman 
of the committee, so I yield the floor to Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand my time has been used. We are 
supposed to vote at 2 p.m. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
use the time until 2 o'clock.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if Senator Leahy would like my time, he 
is welcome to all of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania for his support of both David Ogden and Thomas Perrelli, 
both superbly qualified candidates, both of whom will be confirmed this 
afternoon. I will speak further about Mr. Perrelli after this vote.
  Again, I go back to David Ogden. David Ogden has been strongly 
supported by Republicans and Democrats, those who served in the Bush 
administration and other administrations. I thought it was a scurrilous 
attack on him because he and his firm supported libraries, supported 
perfectly legal publications, and some Republicans saying they could 
not vote for him because of that.
  I note that these same Republicans all voted for Michael Mukasey, a 
fine gentleman, to be Attorney General, who listed as one of his 
primary cases his representation of the TV channel that carries ``Dial-
a-Porn.''
  Now, certainly when a Republican, nominated by a Republican, 
represented Dial-a-Porn, that seems to be wrong; when a Democrat, 
nominated by a Democrat, represents libraries and basically a 
mainstream men's magazine, that is wrong.
  I hope we will avoid in the future such double standards. I see a man 
who has helped children, who has volunteered his time, who has given 
great charity to children, and who has been supported by the Boys and 
Girls Clubs, by the Missing and Exploited Children's groups, by the 
National District Attorneys Association, and by every major law 
enforcement organization.
  So, Mr. President, I know time has expired, and I would ask for the 
yeas and nays on confirmation of the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of David W. Ogden, of Virginia, to be Deputy Attorney General?

[[Page S3051]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Hagan), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and 
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 28, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 97 Ex.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Byrd
     Cornyn
     Hagan
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kennedy
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is considered made 
and laid on the table, and the President will be informed of the 
Senate's action.

                          ____________________