[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24261-24264]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 24261]]

                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF HARRIS L. HARTZ TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE 
                             TENTH CIRCUIT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 11:40 
a.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to executive session to 
consider the nomination of Harris Hartz, to be U.S. Circuit Judge. The 
clerk will state the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Harris L. Hartz, of New 
Mexico, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is there some reason for 3 minutes or is 
it assumed I asked for 3 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was under the impression the Senator 
wanted 3 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can I do this, so I will not feel too pressed: I ask 
unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up to 5 minutes, which I 
probably will not use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to pay credit to a very 
distinguished lawyer and judge. His name is Harris Hartz. Today when we 
vote, if a majority votes for him--and I do not see why we would not; 
it might be a unanimous vote--he will become the U.S. Circuit Judge for 
the Tenth Circuit.
  To the extent a Senator, based upon observing and asking other 
people, can fill himself or herself with knowledge about a person, I 
have to say he is probably one of the most qualified persons I have 
ever asked the President to put on the bench.
  His academic background is so superb that no one can challenge it. If 
Harvard Law School is a good law school, and he was among its best 
students--magna cum laude--all of the attributes of a great mind that 
was being moved and melded into a great leader mind, that happened to 
him. From that time on, he has been engaged in various activities that 
have made him a broad-based lawyer to take this job.
  He was a circuit judge in New Mexico, which caused him over time to 
publish 300 opinions, Mr. President. If people do not know him, they 
have not bothered to read his opinions.
  Whether it is being scholarly, whether he understands, whether he 
plays no favorites, whether he is truly a good judge, in what judges do 
besides knowing the law--adding all that together, the Senator from New 
Mexico recommended him to the President. He was thoroughly vetted at 
the executive branch, and obviously the background checks have 
occurred, and he came forth with all the right pluses attendant his 
name.
  Today, the 5- or 6-month ordeal which all candidates face--families 
worrying, wives and children wondering how much longer--will come to an 
end, and he will be sitting on the bench in the southwestern United 
States.
  I ask unanimous consent that his vitae and the Department of Justice 
analysis of his background be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Harris L. Hartz


                               biography

       Harris L. Hartz is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard 
     Law School, where he was selected as Case and Developments 
     Editor of the Harvard Law Review. He received his AB degree 
     from Harvard College summa cum laude in physics. At Harvard 
     he was one of 9 members of his class elected to Phi Beta 
     Kappa in their junior year.
       From 1989 to 1999, Hartz served as a judge on the New 
     Mexico Court of Appeals for eleven years. During that time he 
     authored approximately 300 published opinions. In 1997, Judge 
     Hartz was elevated to the position of Chief Judge. During his 
     last year on the Court, he was a member of the Executive 
     Committee of the American Bar Association Council of Chief 
     Judges.
       In 1999 Judge Hartz resigned from the Court of Appeals to 
     join the law firm of Stier, Anderson & Malone as special 
     counsel to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. He has 
     worked with the Union to develop a Code of Conduct and an 
     internal system for compliance and enforcement.
       Before becoming a judge, most of Judge Hartz's legal career 
     was as a lawyer in Albuquerque, New Mexico. During his first 
     three years after law school he was an Assistant United 
     States Attorney for the District of New Mexico. After 
     teaching for a semester in 1976 at the University of Illinois 
     College of Law, he spent three years with the New Mexico 
     Governor's Organized Crime Prevention Commission, first as 
     its attorney and then as Executive Director. For the 
     following nine years he was in private practice, primarily in 
     civil litigation.
       Judge Hartz has been active in the American Law Institute 
     since 1993 and now serves as an Adviser for the Restatement 
     of the Law (Third) Agency. He has also participated in 
     activities of the American Bar Association, including 
     membership on the Appellate Practice Committee of the 
     Appellate Judges Conference and the Advisory Committee to the 
     ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security.
       His past civic activities have included being Chair of the 
     New Mexico Racing Commission, where his efforts against 
     drugging of racehorses led to his nomination for the Joan Pew 
     Award and his being appointed co-chair of the Quality 
     Assurance Committee of the National Association of State 
     Racing Commissioners. For the past two years Judge Hartz has 
     been chair of the New Mexico Rhodes Scholarship Selection 
     Committee and chair of the Selection Committee for the New 
     Mexico Ethics in Business Awards. He is active in Rotary, and 
     has served as President of the Rotary Club of Albuquerque.
                                  ____


                            Harris L. Hartz


                                 resume

     Birth: January 20, 1974, Baltimore, Maryland
     Legal Residence: New Mexico
     Education: 1963-1967--Harvard College, A.B. degree, summa cum 
         laude; 1969-1972--Harvard Law School, J.D. degree, magna 
         cum laude
     Bar Admittance: 1972--New Mexico; 2000--District of Columbia
     Experience: 1972-1975--U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
         District of New Mexico, Assistant U.S. Attorney; 1976--
         University of Illinois College of Law, Visiting Assistant 
         Professor of Law; 1976-1979--New Mexico Governor's 
         Organized Crime Prevention Commission, Counsel, 1976-1977 
         & Executive Director, 1977-1979; 1979-1982--Poole, Tinnin 
         & Martin, PA Associate; 1982-1988--Miller, Stratvert & 
         Torgerson, Associate, 1982-83 & Shareholder, 1983-88; 
         1988-1999--New Mexico Court of Appeals Judge (Chief 
         Judge, 1997-99); 1999-present--Stier, Anderson & Malone, 
         LLC Special Counsel
                                  ____


                            Harris L. Hartz


                                support

     Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat from New Mexico
       ``I have known Harris Hartz for many years, and I consider 
     him to be qualified for this position.''--The Albuquerque 
     Journal, June 22, 2001.
     Senator Peter Domenici, Republican from New Mexico
       ``I am extremely pleased President Bush has nominated 
     Harris, who has an impressive record of achievement.''--The 
     Daily Times, June 22, 2001.

       ``He has truly outstanding credentials and will make New 
     Mexico proud as a new fixture on the 10th Circuit.''--The 
     Albuquerque Journal, June 22, 2001.
     Editorial, The Santa Fe New Mexican
       ``The cerebral and academic Hartz is everything America 
     wants in its judiciary.''

       ``But even though appointment-killing has become a popular 
     sport among both parties, Hartz has the credentials--and the 
     class--to overcome any political pettifoggery that might 
     arise in the course of his confirmation.''

       ``Hartz will be making `case law' at a high level, setting 
     precedents to which lawyers look as they build their own 
     cases. Both are daunting tasks--but both are well within 
     Hartz's grasp.''--June 23, 2001.
     Lance Liebman, Professor at Columbia Law School
       ``I have seen his contributions to half a dozen different 
     areas of law. Just as he was as a student, Harris is smart, 
     serious, balanced, and interesting. I am sure he was a good 
     state judge and I am certain he will be a great addition [to 
     the federal bench].  .  .''--Excerpt from letter to Senators 
     Leahy and Hatch, August 3, 2001.
     Roberta Ramo, Former President of the American Bar 
         Association
       ``As a former president of the American Bar Association, I 
     have had the honor of knowing many of our finest judges. 
     Among the elements of American democracy of which I am most 
     proud stands the quality of our Federal Judiciary. Should he 
     be confirmed by the United States Senate, I believe Mr. Hartz 
     will, in his service, make each of us proud that we had a 
     part in placing him on the 10th circuit.''--Excerpt from 
     letter to Senator Hatch, August 9, 2001.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to share a quote from an

[[Page 24262]]

editorial in one of our State's leading newspapers, the Santa Fe New 
Mexican:

       The cerebral and academic Hartz is everything America wants 
     in its judiciary.

  Before becoming a judge, most of Judge Hartz's legal career was as a 
lawyer in Albuquerque, NM. During his first 3 years after law school he 
was an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico. 
After teaching for a semester in 1976 at the University of Illinois 
College of Law, he spent 3 years with the New Mexico Governor's 
Organized Crime Prevention Commission, first as its attorney and then 
as executive director.
  I believe Judge Hartz will be an excellent U.S. circuit judge because 
above all he is a person with great strength of character. He has the 
courage to render decisions in accordance with the Constitution and the 
laws of the United States. More important, I believe Judge Hartz will 
respect both the rights of the individual and the rights of society and 
will be dedicated to providing equal justice under the law. He 
understands and appreciates the genius of our Federal system and the 
delicate checks and balances among the branches of our National 
Government.
  Judge Hartz also understands New Mexico because he was raised in 
Farmington. Judge Hartz's 29 years of experience both as a lawyer and a 
judge have prepared him well for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. I 
believe Judge Hartz will be a fine circuit judge. I count him among my 
friends, and I recommend him highly to the Senate.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, the Senate is taking final action on 
three additional judicial nominations. There are a total of nine 
judicial nominees who have been voted out of committee and are awaiting 
final action by the Senate. Today's confirmation of 1 circuit court and 
2 district court judges will bring the total number of judges confirmed 
this year to 21. When the Senate completes its action on the nomination 
of the remaining 6 district court judges, we will have confirmed 27 
judges since July, including 6 to the Courts of Appeals.
  I congratulate today's nominees and their families on their 
nominations, confirmations, and what is soon to be their appointments 
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the 
United States District courts for Kentucky and the District of 
Oklahoma. I also commend each of the Senators who worked with the 
committee and the majority leader to help bring these nominations 
forward and to have the Senate act to confirm them.
  The nominee to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Harris Hartz, 
comes to us with the strong support of both Senator Domenici and 
Senator Bingaman. He was the first nominee to a Court of Appeals 
received by the Senate this June. His nomination is an example of the 
sort of progress we can make on consensus nominees with bipartisan 
support. The Tenth Circuit is one of many Courts of Appeals with 
multiple vacancies, and which has had multiple vacancies long before 
this summer. My recollection is that President Clinton had at least two 
nominees for vacancies on the Tenth Circuit pending in 1999 and for 
several months last year, but neither was ever accorded a hearing or a 
vote before the Judiciary Committee or before the Senate. Had they and 
other previous nominees been acted upon promptly and favorably in years 
just past, of course, the circumstances in the Tenth Circuit and many 
other courts around the country would be different today. During 6\1/2\ 
years, the Republican majority in the Senate allowed only 46 nominees 
to be confirmed to the Courts of Appeals and left dozens of vacancies 
unfilled.
  Just as we recently proceeded to confirm the first judge to the Fifth 
Circuit in 7 years, we are proceeding with Judge Hartz to provide some 
immediate relief to the Tenth Circuit. When confirmed, Judge Hartz will 
be the first new member of the Tenth Circuit in the last 6 years--since 
judges were confirmed to that Court in 1995 from Utah and Colorado.
  Over the past 6\1/2\ years the average time it has taken for the 
Senate to consider and confirm Court of Appeals nominees had risen to 
almost 350 days. The time it has taken for Judge Hartz's nomination is 
about half of that, if measured from his initial nomination in June 
2001. Of course, that nomination was returned to the White House when 
the Republican leader objected to keeping judicial nominations pending 
over the August recess. Accordingly, the nomination on which the Senate 
acts today was not received until this September. If measured from the 
time the committee received his ABA peer review to the time of his 
confirmation today, the process has taken only 112 days. He 
participated in one of the many October hearings and, having answered 
the written questions following his hearing, was reported by the 
committee in November.
  The strong bipartisan support he has received from his Senate 
delegation paved the way for prompt action in one-third to one-half the 
time it used to take on average to consider Court of Appeals nominees. 
Both of the district court nominees, Danny Reeves from the Eastern 
District of Kentucky and Joe Heaton for the Western District of 
Oklahoma, whom I supported at the committee and am pleased to support 
today, have moved through the process with the support of Democrats and 
Republicans relatively quickly.
  Since July 2001, when the Senate was allowed to reorganize and the 
committee membership was set, we have maintained a strong effort to 
consider judicial and executive nominees. There are a total of nine 
judicial nominees who have been voted out of committee and are awaiting 
final action by the Senate. Today's confirmation of one circuit court 
and two district court judges will bring the total number of judges 
confirmed to 21. When the Senate completes its action on the nomination 
of the remaining six district court judges, we will have confirmed 27 
judges since July, including six to the Courts of Appeals. That will be 
almost twice the total number of judges that were confirmed in all of 
1989, the first year of the first Bush administration, and will include 
twice as many judges to the Courts of Appeals as were confirmed in the 
first year of the Clinton administration. It is also more judges that 
were confirmed in all of the 1996 session. Thus, despite all the 
obstacles, we exceeded the number of confirmations of judges during the 
first year of the first Bush administration by six, the last year of 
the first Clinton term by four, and we are on pace to confirm as many 
judges as were confirmed in the first year of the Clinton 
administration.
  Our total of six Court of Appeals confirmations doubles the number of 
appellate court judges confirmed in the entire first year of the 
Clinton administration, one more than the number of appellate court 
judges confirmed in the first full year of the first Bush 
administration, and six more than were confirmed in the entire 1996 
session, the last year of President Clinton's first term.
  When I assumed the chairmanship, the number of vacancies on the 
Federal Bench was over 100 and quickly rose to 111. Since July, we have 
made significant progress. In spite of the upheavals we have 
experienced this year with the shifts in chairmanship, the vacancies 
that have arisen since this summer, and the need to focus our attention 
on responsible action in the fight against international terrorism, 
with the confirmation of these 9 nominees we will have reduced the 
number of vacancies to below 100 for the first time since early this 
year.
  During the time a Republican majority controlled the process over the 
past 6\1/2\ years, the vacancies rose from 65 to at least 103, an 
increase of almost 60 percent. We are making strides to improve on that 
record. The President has yet to send nominations to fill more than 
half of the current vacancies. This is a particular problem with the 71 
district court vacancies, for which 49--that's 69 percent--do not have 
nominations pending.
  We have been able to reduce vacancies over the last 6 months through 
hard work and a rapid pace of scheduling hearings. Until I became 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, no judicial nominees had been 
given hearings this year. No judicial nominees

[[Page 24263]]

had been considered by the Judiciary Committee or been voted upon by 
the Senate. After almost a month's delay in the reorganization of the 
Senate in June while Republicans sought leverage to change the way the 
judicial nominations had traditionally been considered and abruptly 
abandoned the practices that they had employed for the last 6\1/2\ 
years, I noticed our first hearing on judicial nominees within 10 
minutes of the reorganization resolution being adopted by the Senate.
  I have previously noted that during the 6\1/2\ years the Republican 
majority most recently controlled the confirmation process, in 34 of 
those months they held no confirmations for any judicial nominees at 
all, and in 30 other months they conducted only a single confirmation 
hearing involving judicial nominees. Since the committee was assigned 
its members in early July 2001, I have held confirmation hearings every 
months, including two in July, two during the August recess and three 
hearings during October. Only once during the previous 6\1/2\ years has 
the committee held as many as three hearings in a single month.
  On the other hand, on at least three occasions during the past 6\1/2\ 
years the committee had gone more then 5 months without holding a 
single hearing on a pending judicial nominee. We have held more 
hearings involving judicial nominees since July 11, 2001, than our 
Republican predecessors held in all of 1996, 1997, 1999, or 2000. In 
the last 6 months of this extraordinarily challenging year, the 
committee has held 10 hearings involving judicial nominees. Just this 
week the committee held our tenth hearing on judicial nominations since 
I became chairman, when the Senate was allowed to reorganize and this 
committee was assigned its membership on July 10, 2001. Since September 
11, the Judiciary Committee has held six judicial confirmation 
hearings.
  We have held hearings on 33 judicial nominees, including 7 to the 
Courts of Appeals. Since September 11 we have held hearings on 26 
judicial nominees, including 4 to the Courts of Appeals. Within 2 days 
of the terrible events of September 11, I chaired a confirmation 
hearing for the 2 judicial nominees who drove to Washington while air 
travel was still disrupted. Then on October 4, 2001, we held another 
confirmation hearing for five judicial nominees, which included a 
nominee from Nebraska who was unable to attend the earlier hearing 
because of the disruption in air travel.
  On October 18, 2001, in spite of the closure of Senate office 
buildings in the wake of the receipt of a letter containing anthrax 
spores and in spite of the fact that Senate staff and employees were 
testing positive for anthrax exposure, the committee proceeded under 
extraordinary circumstances in the U.S. Capitol to hold a hearing for 
five more judicial nominees. The building housing the Judiciary 
Committee hearing room was closed, as were the buildings housing the 
offices of all the Senators on the committee. Still we persevered.
  On October 25, 2001, while the Senate Republicans were shutting down 
the Senate with a filibuster preventing action on the bill that funds 
our Nation's foreign policy initiatives and provides funds to help 
build the international coalition against terrorism, the Judiciary 
Committee nonetheless proceeded with yet another hearing for four more 
judicial nominees. On November 7, 2001, we convened another hearing for 
judicial nominees within 8 extraordinary weeks--weeks not only 
interrupted by holidays, but by the aftermath of the terrorist attacks 
of September 11, the receipt of anthrax in the Senate, and the closure 
of Senate office buildings. The hearing on November 7 was delayed by 
another unfortunate and unforeseen event when one of the family members 
of a nominee grew faint and required medical attention. With patience 
and perseverance, the hearing was completed after attending to those 
medical needs.
  On December 5, 2001, we convened another hearing for another group of 
five judicial nominees. I thank Senator Durbin for volunteering to 
chair that hearing for nominees from Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, 
Nevada, and Texas. We have previously considered and reported other 
nominees from Alabama, Georgia, and Nevada, as well. We have 
accomplished more, and at a faster pace, than in years past. Even with 
the time needed by the FBI to follow up on the allegations that arose 
regarding Judge Wooten in connection with his confirmation hearing, we 
have proceeded much more quickly than at any time during the last 6\1/
2\ years. Thus, while the average time from nomination to confirmation 
grew to well over 200 days for the last several years, we have 
considered nominees much more promptly. Measured from receipt of their 
ABA peer reviews, we have confirmed the judges this year, including the 
Court of Appeals nominees, on average in less than 60 days. So, we are 
working harder than ever on judicial nominations despite the 
difficulties being faced by the Nation, the Senate, and a number of 
members on the committee.
  We have also completed work on a number of judicial nominations in a 
more open manner than ever before. For the first time, this committee 
is making public the ``blue slips'' sent to home State Senators. Until 
my chairmanship, these matters were treated as confidential materials 
and restricted from public view. We have moved nominees with little or 
no delay at all from hearing, on to the committee's business meeting 
agenda, and then out to the floor, where nominees have received timely 
rollcall votes and confirmations.
  The past practices of extended unexplained anonymous holds on 
nominees after a hearing have not been evident in the last 6 months of 
this year as they were in the past. Indeed over the past 6\1/2\ years 
at least eight judicial nominees who completed a confirmation hearing 
were never considered by the committee but left without action. Just 
last year two of the three Court of Appeals nominees reported to the 
Senate, Bonnie Campbell of Iowa and Allen Snyder of the District of 
Columbia, were both denied committee consideration from their May 
hearings until the end of the year. Likewise the extended, unexplained, 
anonymous holds on the Senate Executive Calendar that characterized so 
much of the last 6\1/2\ years have not slowed the confirmation process 
this year.
  Majority Leader Daschle has moved swiftly on judicial nominees 
reported to the calendar. And once those judicial nominees have been 
afforded a timely rollcall vote, the record shows that the only vote 
against any of President Bush's nominees to the Federal courts to date 
was cast by the Republican leader.
  In addition to our work on judicial nominations, during the recent 
period since September 11, the committee also devoted significant 
attention and effort to expedited consideration of antiterrorism 
legislation. Far from taking a ``time out'' as some have suggested, the 
Judiciary Committee has been in overdrive since July and we have 
redoubled our efforts after September 11, 2001. With respect to law 
enforcement, I have noted that the administration was quite slow in 
making U.S. attorney nominations, although it had called for the 
resignations of U.S. attorneys early in the year.
  Since we began receiving nominations just before the August recess, 
we have been able to report, and the Senate has confirmed, 57 of these 
nominations. We have only a few more U.S. attorney nominations received 
in November, and await approximately 30 nominations from the 
administration. These are the President's nominees based on the 
standards that he and the Attorney General have devised.
  I note, again, that it is most unfortunate that we still have not 
received even a single nomination for any of the U.S. marshal 
positions. U.S. marshals are often the top Federal law enforcement 
officer in their district. They are an important front-line component 
in homeland security efforts across the country. We are near the end of 
the legislative year without a single nomination for these 94 critical 
law enforcement positions. It will likely be impossible to confirm any 
U.S. marshals this year having not received any nominations in the 
first 11 months of the year.

[[Page 24264]]

  In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, some of us have 
been seeking to join together in a bipartisan effort in the best 
interests of the country. For those on the committee who have helped in 
those efforts and assisted in the hard work to review and consider the 
scores of nominations we have reported this year, I thank them. As the 
facts establish and as our actions today and all year demonstrate, we 
are moving ahead to fill judicial vacancies with nominees who have 
strong bipartisan support. These include a number of very conservative 
nominees.
  I am proud of the work the committee has done on nominations, and I 
am proud that by the end of the day we will have confirmed 21 judges. I 
hope that by the end of this session that total will rise to about 30 
as the committee continues its work on the nominations heard this week 
and the Senate confirms the additional 6 nominees who were voted out of 
committee last week.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today we are considering the 
nominations of three extremely well-qualified individuals for the 
Federal bench.
  Our circuit court nominee is the Honorable Harris Hartz of New 
Mexico, whom the President has selected to serve on the Tenth Circuit 
Court of Appeals. I have a personal interest in the confirmation of 
fair, qualified judges to serve on the Tenth Circuit since it 
encompasses the great state of Utah. In fact, there is an eminently 
well-qualified nominee from Utah for the Tenth Circuit, University of 
Utah Law Professor Michael McConnell, who is awaiting a hearing from 
the Judiciary Committee. His nomination has been pending for 211 days 
without a hearing. There are two other nominees for the Tenth Circuit 
who are also awaiting hearings on their nominations: Timothy Tymkovich 
of Colorado, who has been waiting 195 days, and Terrence O'Brien of 
Wyoming, who has been waiting 126 days.
  Part of the holdup has unquestionably been due to lack of action by 
the Judiciary Committee, but the ABA must shoulder some of the blame as 
well. It took the ABA over 8 weeks to return its evaluation of Michael 
McConnell, which, incidentally, was a rating of unanimously well 
qualified, over 15 weeks for Timothy Tymkovich, and over 12 weeks for 
Terrence O'Brien. The last of these three ratings was submitted in 
October, so there is no excuse for any of these nominations stalling 
any longer. I look forward to the opportunity to consider their 
nominations at hearings so that the pending vacancies on the Tenth 
Circuit can be expediently filled.
  Our consideration of Judge Hartz's nomination today is a positive 
step in that direction. His impressive legal career began--atypically--
with a degree from Harvard College summa cum laude in physics. Later, 
he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was 
selected as Case and Developments Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
  Judge Hartz's legal experience began in Albuquerque, NM, as an 
Assistant United States Attorney. After that, he taught for a semester 
at the University of Illinois College of Law, and then returned to New 
Mexico to work with the New Mexico Governor's Organized Crime 
Prevention Commission. For the following 9 years he was in private 
practice, primarily in civil litigation, and then he served for 11 
years as a judge on the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Currently, Judge 
Hartz works as special counsel to the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, developing a Code of Conduct and an internal system for 
compliance and enforcement. As you can see, he is a highly competent 
and hard-working person who is eminently well qualified to serve as a 
judge on the Tenth Circuit.
  In addition to Judge Hartz, we have the privilege of considering the 
nomination of two district court nominees. One of these nominees is Joe 
Heaton for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 
Oklahoma. Mr. Heaton is a native Oklahoman with an outstanding record 
of legal experience and public service. After graduating from the 
University of Oklahoma College of Law--where he was Order of the Coif--
he maintained a general civil practice with an emphasis in business and 
commercial matters. For 8 years, Mr. Heaton served as a member of the 
Oklahoma House of Representatives, including several years as Minority 
Leader. Then, in 1996, Mr. Heaton began serving in his current position 
as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of 
Oklahoma, where he has earned a good reputation while handling a wide 
variety of legal matters.
  Our second district court nominee is Danny C. Reeves for the U.S. 
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He began his legal 
career as a law clerk for then-district Judge Eugene Siler, who now 
sits on the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Reeves then joined the Lexington office 
of Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, where he rose to the rank of partner in 
1988. Despite his busy legal career, he has served as a director of the 
Volunteer Center of the Bluegrass, the Kentucky Museum of Natural 
History, and the Bluegrass Youth Hockey Association.
  Again, Mr. President, I am pleased to see such well-qualified 
nominees being brought before the Senate for consideration. Each of 
these nominees received unanimous support from the Members of the 
Judiciary Committee, and I expect that they will receive similar 
treatment from the full Senate. I commend President Bush for nominating 
persons who will bring honor and dignity to the Federal bench, and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their nominations.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Harris L. Hartz, of New Mexico, to be 
United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit? The yeas and nays 
have been ordered on the nomination. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Murray). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 353 Ex.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Gramm
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that on the table.
  The motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.

                          ____________________