[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 499-503]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION
    NOMINATION OF GARY L. SHARPE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will go 
into executive session to consider the nomination of Gary L. Sharpe to 
be United States District Judge. The clerk will state the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Gary L. Sharpe, of New 
York, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of 
New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in support of our nominee to 
the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York, Gary L. 
Sharpe.
  Judge Sharpe graduated magna cum laude from Buffalo University in 
1971 where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Three years later, he 
graduated from Cornell Law School.
  Judge Sharpe had a distinguished legal career prior to his 
appointment as a Federal magistrate judge for the Northern District of 
New York in 1997. He had been an Assistant Broome County District 
Attorney in Binghamton, a special assistant New York Attorney General 
in Syracuse, a supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorney, and the interim 
U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York.
  Judge Sharpe is also a Vietnam veteran, having served our country in 
both the U.S. Army and Navy.
  Judge Sharpe has a wealth of experience that will serve him well on 
the Federal bench. I am very confident that he will make an excellent 
Federal judge. I commend President Bush for nominating him, and I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, last week I shared with the Senate 
several disappointing developments regarding judicial nominations: the 
Pickering recess appointment, the renomination of Claude Allen, and the 
pilfering of Democratic offices' computer files by Republican staff. In 
spite of all those affronts, Senate Democrats today cooperate in the 
confirmation of another nominee. We do so without the kinds of delays 
and obstruction that Republicans employed when President Clinton's 
judicial nominees were being obstructed and Republican Senators 
complained about his recess appointments as an affront to the 
Constitution and the Senate.
  The first nominations issue I would like to discuss is the recess 
appointment of Judge Pickering. Just a few days ago on January 16, 
President Bush made his most cynical and divisive appointment to date 
when he bypassed the Senate and unilaterally installed Charles 
Pickering to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That 
appointment is without the consent of the Senate and is a particular 
affront to the many individuals and membership organizations 
representing African Americans in the Fifth Circuit who have strongly 
opposed this nomination.
  With respect to his extreme judicial nominations, President George W. 
Bush is the most divisive President in American history. Through these 
nominees, President Bush is dividing the American people and 
undermining the fairness and independence of the Federal judiciary on 
which all Americans depend.
  After fair hearings and open debate, the Senate Judiciary Committee 
rejected the Pickering nomination in 2002. Originally nominated in 2001 
by President Bush, this nominee's record underwent a thorough 
examination by the Senate Judiciary Committee and was found lacking. 
Judge Pickering's nomination was rejected for this promotion by the 
Committee in 2002 because of his poor record as a judge and the ethical 
problems raised by his handling of his duties in specific instances. 
Nonetheless, the President sent back his nomination to the Senate last 
year, the first in our history to reject the judgment of the Judiciary 
Committee on a judicial nominee. This is the only President who has 
renominated someone rejected on a vote by the Judiciary Committee for a 
judicial appointment.
  The renomination of Charles Pickering lay dormant for most of last 
year

[[Page 500]]

while Republicans reportedly planned further hearings. Judge Pickering 
himself said that several hearings on his nomination were scheduled and 
cancelled over the last year by Republicans. Then, without any 
additional information or hearings, Republicans decided to forego any 
pretense at proceeding in regular order. Instead, they placed the name 
of Judge Pickering on the committee's markup agenda and pushed his 
nomination through with their one-vote majority. The committee had been 
told since last January that a new hearing would be held before a vote 
on this nomination, but that turned out to be an empty promise.
  Why was the Pickering nomination moved ahead of other well-qualified 
candidates late last fall? Why was the Senate required to expend 
valuable time rehashing arguments about a controversial nomination that 
has already been rejected? The timing was arranged by Republicans to 
coincide with the gubernatorial election in Mississippi. Like so much 
about this President's actions with respect to the federal courts, 
partisan Republican politics seemed to be the governing consideration. 
Indeed, as the President's own former Secretary of the Treasury points 
out from personal experience, politics governs more than just Federal 
judicial nominations in the Bush administration.
  Charles Pickering was a nominee rejected by the Judiciary Committee 
on the merits--a nominee who has a record that does not qualify him for 
this promotion, who injects his personal views into judicial opinions, 
and who has made highly questionable ethical judgments. The nominee's 
supporters, including some Republican Senators, have chosen to imply 
that Democrats opposed the nominee because of his religion or region. 
That is untrue and offensive. These smears have been as ugly as they 
are wrong. Yet the political calculation has been made to ignore the 
facts, to seek to pin unflattering characterizations on Democrats for 
partisan purposes and to count on cynicism and misinformation to rule 
the day. With elections coming up this fall, partisan Republicans are 
apparently returning to that page of their partisan political playbook.
  Never before had a judicial nomination rejected by the Judiciary 
Committee after a vote been resubmitted to the Senate, but this 
President took that unprecedented step last year. Never before has a 
judicial nomination debated at such length by the Senate, and to which 
the Senate has withheld its consent, been the subject of a presidential 
appointment to the federal bench.
  In an editorial following the recess appointment, The Washington Post 
had it right when it summarized Judge Pickering's record as a Federal 
trial judge as ``undistinguished and downright disturbing.'' As the 
paper noted: ``The right path is to build consensus that 
nonpartisanship and excellence are the appropriate criteria for 
judicial selection.'' Instead we see another dangerous step down the 
Republican's chosen path to erode judicial independence for the sake of 
partisanship and their ideological court-packing efforts. The New York 
Times also editorialized on this subject and it, too, was correct when 
it pointed out that this end-run around the advice and consent 
authority of the Senate is ``absolutely the wrong choice for one of the 
nation's most sensitive courts.''
  Civil rights supporters who so strenuously opposed this nominee were 
understandably offended that the President chose this action the day 
after his controversial visit to the grave of Dr. Martin Luther King 
Jr. As the Nation was entering the weekend set aside to honor Dr. King 
and all for which he strived, this President made one of the most 
insensitive and divisive appointments of his Administration.
  So many civil rights groups and individuals committed to supporting 
civil rights in this country have spoken out in opposition to the 
elevation of Judge Pickering that their views should have been 
respected by the President. Contrary to the false assertion made by The 
Wall Street Journal editorial page, the NAACP of Mississippi did not 
support Judge Pickering's nomination. Instead, every single branch of 
the Mississippi State Chapter of the NAACP voted to oppose this 
nomination--not just once, but three times. When Mr. Pickering was 
nominated to the District Court in 1990, the NAACP of Mississippi 
opposed him, and when he was nominated to the Fifth Circuit in 2001 
and, again, in 2003, the NAACP of Mississippi opposed him. They have 
written letter after letter expressing their opposition. That 
opposition was shared by the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership 
Conference, the Magnolia Bar Association, the Mississippi Legislative 
Black Caucus, the Mississippi Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials, 
Representative Bennie G. Thompson and many others. Perhaps The Wall 
Street Journal confused the Mississippi NAACP with the Mississippi 
Association of Trial Lawyers, which is an organization that did support 
the Pickering nomination.
  This is an administration that promised to unite the American people 
but that has chosen time and again to act with respect to judicial 
nominations in a way that divides us. This is an administration that 
squandered the goodwill and good faith that Democrats showed in the 
aftermath of September 11, 2001. This is an administration that refused 
to acknowledge the strides we made in filling 100 judicial vacancies 
under Democratic Senate leadership in 2001 and 2002 while overcoming 
anthrax attacks and in spite of Republican mistreatment of scores of 
qualified, moderate judicial nominees of President Clinton.
  The second disappointing development is the renomination of Claude 
Allen as a nominee to the Fourth Circuit. Last week, the President sent 
the nomination of Claude Allen back to the Senate. From the time this 
nomination was originally made to the time it was returned to the 
President last year, the Maryland Senators have made their position 
crystal clear. This Fourth Circuit vacancy is a Maryland seat and ought 
to be filled by an experienced, qualified Marylander. Over the Senate 
recess, the White House had ample time to find such a nominee, someone 
of the caliber of sitting U.S. District Court Judges Andre Davis or 
Roger Titus, two Maryland lawyers whose involvement in the State's 
legal system and devotion to their local community is clear. This 
refusal to compromise is just another example of the White House 
engaging in partisan politics to the detriment of an independent 
judiciary.
  The additional disappointment we face is the ongoing fallout from the 
cyber theft of confidential memoranda from Democratic Senate staff. 
This invasion was perpetrated by Republican employees both on and off 
the committee. As revealed by the chairman, computer security was 
compromised and, simply put, members of the Republican staff took 
things that did not belong to them and passed them around and on to 
people outside the Senate. This is no small mistake. It is a serious 
breach of trust, morals, the standards that govern Senate conduct, and 
possible criminal laws. We do not yet know the full extent of these 
violations. But we need to repair the loss of trust brought on by this 
breach of confidentiality and privacy if we are ever to recover and be 
able to resume our work in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect 
that is so necessary to make progress.
  Democratic cooperation with the President's slate of judicial 
nominees has been remarkable in these circumstances. One way to measure 
that cooperation and the progress we have made possible is to examine 
the Chief Justice's annual report on the Federal judiciary. Over the 
last couple of years, Justice Rehnquist has been ``pleased to report'' 
our progress on filling judicial vacancies. This is in sharp contrast 
to the criticism he justifiably made of the shadowy and unprincipled 
Republican obstruction of consideration of President Clinton's 
nominees. In 1996, the final year of President Clinton's first term, 
the Republican-led Senate confirmed only 17 judicial nominees all year 
and not a single nominee to the circuit courts. At the end of 1996, the 
Republican Senate majority returned to the President almost twice as 
many nominations as were confirmed.

[[Page 501]]

  By contrast, with the overall cooperation of Senate Democrats, which 
partisan Republicans are loath to concede, this President has achieved 
record numbers of judicial confirmations. Despite the attacks of 
September 11 and their aftermath, the Senate has already confirmed 169 
of President Bush's nominees to the Federal bench. This is more judges 
than were confirmed during President Reagan's entire first 4-year term. 
Thus, President Bush's 3-year totals rival those achieved by other 
Presidents in 4 years. That is also true with respect to the nearly 
four years it took for President Clinton to achieve these results 
following the Republicans' taking majority control of the Senate in 
1995.
  The 69 judges confirmed last year exceeds the number of judges 
confirmed during any of the 6 years from 1995 to 2000 that Republicans 
controlled the Senate during the Clinton Presidency years in which 
there were far more vacant Federal judgeships than exist today. Among 
those 69 judges confirmed in 2003 were 13 circuit court judges. That 
exceeds the number of circuit court judges confirmed during all of 
1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000, when a Democrat was President.
  The Senate has already confirmed 30 circuit court judges nominated by 
President Bush. This is a greater number than were confirmed at this 
point in the presidencies of his father, President Clinton, or the 
first term of President Reagan. Vacancies on the federal judiciary have 
been reduced to the lowest point in two decades and are lower than 
Republicans allowed at any time during the Clinton presidency. In 
addition, there are more Federal judges serving on the bench today than 
at any time in American history.
  I congratulate the Democratic Senators on the committee for showing a 
spirit of cooperation and restraint in the face of a White House that 
so often has refused to consult, compromise or conciliate. I regret 
that our efforts have not been fairly acknowledged by partisan 
Republicans and that this Administration continues down the path of 
confrontation. While there have been difficult and controversial 
nominees whom we have opposed as we exercise our constitutional duty of 
advice and consent to lifetime appointments on the Federal bench, we 
have done so openly and on the merits.
  For the last 3 years, I have urged the President to work with us. It 
is with deep sadness that I see that this administration still refuses 
to accept the Senate's shared responsibility under the Constitution and 
refuses to appreciate our level of cooperation and achievement.
  Today, the chairman held another hearing on another circuit court 
nominee. That hearing is another demonstration of how untrue the 
rhetoric is that is so often bandied about by Republican partisans that 
Democrats are obstructing the confirmations of this President's 
judicial nominees. The reality is that we have cooperated to an 
extraordinary extent, especially when contrasted with Republican 
treatment of President Clinton's judicial nominees.
  Today's hearing was the second in the last 2 weeks for circuit court 
nominees. Traditionally, the number of nominees who have received 
hearings and who are considered in a presidential election year has 
been lower than in other years. In 1996, only four circuit court 
nominees by President Clinton received a hearing from the Republican 
Senate majority. In 2000, only five circuit court nominees by President 
Clinton received a hearing from the Republican Senate majority. Of 
course, two of those outstanding and well-qualified nominees in 2000 
were never allowed to be considered by the committee or the Senate. By 
contrast, here we are, before the end of the first month of 2004, and 
we have already held hearings for two circuit court nominees. By the 
standard Republicans set in 1996 and 2000, we would be half done for 
the entire year.
  Moreover, that we are proceeding to confirm Judge Sharpe today is 
another example of Democratic cooperation in the wake of the 
President's recess appointment of Charles Pickering. This temporary 
appointment can be distinguished from President Clinton's recess 
appointment of Judge Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit in December 
2000 in many ways, including from the manner in which Republican 
Senators reacted to President Clinton's recess appointments by shutting 
down the confirmation process.
  Roger Gregory had been denied a Judiciary Committee hearing even 
though he had the bipartisan support of both of his home State 
Senators--Democratic Senator Chuck Robb and Republican Senator John 
Warner. By contrast, Judge Pickering participated in hearings and an 
extensive record was developed on which his nomination was opposed in 
the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate on the merits on the basis of 
his record as a district court judge. Roger Gregory's nomination was 
never allowed to be considered by the Judiciary Committee. By contrast, 
Judge Pickering's nomination was fully and fairly debated in 2002 and 
rejected by the Judiciary Committee. Indeed, Judge Pickering's 
renomination was the first time a President had resent a judicial 
nomination to the Senate after the Judiciary Committee had voted on and 
rejected that judicial nomination. Likewise, Judge Pickering's 
temporary appointment is the first after rejection by the Judiciary 
Committee and after the Senate has debated a judicial nomination and 
withheld its consent.
  Moreover, Roger Gregory's recess appointment fit squarely in the 
tradition of Presidents exercising such authority in order to expand 
civil rights and to bring diversity to the courts. Four of the five 
first African American appellate judges were recess-appointed to their 
first article III position, including Judge William Hastie in 1949, 
Judge Thurgood Marshall in 1961, Judge Spottswood Robinson in 1961, and 
Judge Leon Higginbottom in 1964. Unlike these nominees and the public 
purposes served, Judge Pickering was opposed by civil rights groups, 
including all chapters of the Mississippi NAACP, the Southern Christian 
Leadership Conference, and by the Magnolia Bar Association. Rather than 
bring people together and move the country forward, this President's 
recess appointment is another source of division.
  The Senate reaction to the recess appointments of President Clinton 
and President Bush has also differed dramatically. When President 
Clinton used his recess appointment power to appoint James Hormel 
Ambassador to Luxembourg, Senator Inhofe responded by saying that 
President Clinton had ``shown contempt for Congress and the 
Constitution'' and declared that he would place ``holds on every single 
Presidential nomination,'' which Republicans did in obstruction of 
President Clinton's nominees. Republicans continued to block 
nominations until President Clinton agreed to make recess appointments 
only after Congress was notified in advance. On November 10, 1999, 17 
Republican Senators sent a letter to President Clinton telling him that 
if he violated the agreement, they would ``put holds for the remaining 
of the term of your Presidency on all of the judicial nominees.''
  In November 1999, President Clinton sent a list of 13 positions to 
the Senate that he planned to fill through recess appointments. In 
response, Senator Inhofe spoke out on the Senate floor denouncing five 
of the 13 civilian nominees with a threat that if they went forward, he 
would personally place a hold on every one of President Clinton's 
judicial nominees for the remainder of the administration. That led to 
more delays and to the need for a vote on a motion to proceed to 
override the Republican objections.
  When President Clinton appointed Judge Gregory, Senator Inhofe called 
it ``outrageously inappropriate for any president to fill a federal 
judgeship through a recess appointment in a deliberate way to bypass 
the Senate.'' Judge Gregory was eventually confirmed after his 
renomination in 2001 with near unanimity. There was only one negative 
vote. Senator Lott cast that vote and his spokesman said his opposition 
was done to underscore his stance that ``any appointment of federal 
judges during a recess should be opposed.'' Ironically, Senator Lott is 
now one of Judge Pickering's strongest supporters.

[[Page 502]]

  As far as I know, no Senate Democrats were consulted by this 
President before he made his divisive appointment of Judge Pickering. 
It was only after President Bush appointed Charles Pickering to the 
bench that I learned about the appointment. Despite that, Senate 
Democrats are today participating in making sure the process of 
judicial appointments moves forward. Democrats have not obstructed the 
confirmation process for judicial and executive branch nominations as 
Republicans did when President Clinton made recess appointments. In 
fact, already this week, less than 2 weeks after President Bush 
appointed Judge Pickering and a number of other executive branch 
officials, we have joined in confirming 18 Presidential nominees by 
unanimous consent. Today we proceed to confirm a judicial nominee in 
spite of the President's recent actions and those of Senate 
Republicans.
  The nomination of Judge Gary Sharpe has the support of both his home 
State Senators, both of whom are Democratic Senators. The Democratic 
Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee all supported this 
nomination when it was reported favorably to the Senate in October last 
year. Had the Republican leadership wanted to proceed on it, this 
nomination could easily have been confirmed in October, November or 
December last year before the Senate adjourned. Instead, partisans 
chose to devote 40 hours to a talkathon on the President's most 
controversial and divisive nominees rather than proceed to vote on 
those judicial nominees with the support of the Senate. The delay in 
considering this nomination is the responsibility of the Republican 
leadership.
  I congratulate Judge Sharpe and his family on his confirmation. He is 
the 170th judge confirmed by the Senate and will be the 171st appointed 
by President Bush.
  I yield to the senior Senator from New York and his colleague so they 
can have the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will speak for 1 minute and then I 
will yield 1 minute to my colleague, Senator Clinton.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I am pleased to rise today in support 
of Gary Sharpe's nomination to be a judge in the Northern District of 
New York.
  Before I discuss Judge Sharpe's impressive qualifications, I wish to 
make one point to my colleagues.
  If my math is right, when Judge Sharpe is confirmed today--and I 
expect he will be confirmed unanimously because, as my colleagues will 
see, he is an example of the nominees we get when the process works 
right--he will be the 170th judicial nominee of President Bush's we 
will have confirmed.
  I note that at the outset because to hear the hue and cry from some 
on the other side, one would think that we were roadblocking every 
nominee who comes before us. With this confirmation, the numbers stand 
at 170 to 5.
  That's a record for which the Buffalo Bills and Buffalo Sabres would 
kill. When you win over 97 percent of the time, you are doing pretty 
darn well.
  I won't belabor the point, but it's important to note that this 
process can work and that it frequently does. The process works when we 
work together to choose nominees who are excellent, moderate, and 
diverse--the three criteria I use when evaluating judicial nominees. 
And Judge Sharpe easily clears that bar.
  For the past 6 years, Judge Sharpe has served with distinction as a 
United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of New York. 
Before taking the bench, he spent his professional career working as 
one of the best prosecutors Northern New York has ever seen. He spent 
nearly a decade in state court as a prosecutor from Broome County.
  He then went over to Federal court where he was an assistant United 
States attorney before becoming the U.S. attorney for the Northern 
District.
  Judge Sharpe is a graduate of two fine New York schools, the 
University of Buffalo which he graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta 
Kappa--and Cornell Law. After graduating college, but before heading to 
law school, Judge Sharpe served in the U.S. Armed Forces as a member of 
the Naval Reserve. He is also a Vietnam veteran, having served there in 
the Army from 1966 to 1968.
  We have talked to lawyers in the Northern District and they simply 
rave about Judge Sharpe. One judge upstate said, ``He's the best lawyer 
I've ever known.'' That's pretty high praise.
  I congratulate Judge Sharpe and his wife, Lorraine, on this 
tremendous honor and achievement. I know Chief Judge Scullin is anxious 
to have him and that Judge Sharpe is going to be a great addition to 
the Northern District bench.
  Again, Madam President, overall, we are at 170 nominees to 5. We have 
blocked 5. That is not too many, and those are the most egregious ones.
  Second, in New York, we have worked this out. When the administration 
wants to play ball with Senators, they can fill the bench. In New York, 
we will have no more vacancies because we have agreed. They have chosen 
nominees who are conservative but not out of the mainstream, and we 
have gone along.
  Third, Judge Sharpe clearly is an excellent nominee. He is not just 
average; he is not just above average; he is at the very top. We talked 
with lawyers in the Northern District. They say: He is the best lawyer 
I have ever known.
  He is moderate. He deserves to be on the bench. I fully support his 
nomination and urge my colleagues to do as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I rise in very strong support of the 
nomination of Magistrate Judge Gary Lawrence Sharpe who has been 
nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District 
of New York.
  Judge Sharpe has more than 20 years of experience as a prosecutor. 
From 1974 to 1981, he served as an assistant district attorney and 
senior assistant district attorney for Broome County. After serving for 
a year as a special assistant New York attorney general, in 1982 he 
became an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New 
York. He served in that office until 1997, when he was appointed a U.S. 
magistrate judge for the Northern District of New York.
  Even with all of his prior prosecutorial responsibilities, Judge 
Sharpe made time to serve as a member of the Broome County Prisoner 
Rehabilitation Board, PROBE, the Onondaga County Substance Abuse 
Commission, and the Onondaga County Youth Court. More recently, he 
worked with the Department of Probation to develop the High Impact 
Incarceration Program, HIIP, a program for defendants who have 
substance abuse problems and who might be candidates for release.
  Judge Sharpe's years of service as a magistrate judge have provided 
him with even more experience, which will serve him well as a U.S. 
district court judge. Without question, Judge Sharpe has the intellect, 
judicial demeanor, and commitment to justice to serve the Northern 
District of New York as a district court judge with distinction.
  I ask all of my colleagues to support this nomination.
  I commend my colleague, Senator Schumer, for the important role he 
has played on the Judiciary Committee. I second his comment that in New 
York we have worked together with the administration to nominate and 
confirm judges who will be a real credit, not only to the bench but to 
this administration and to our country. Magistrate Judge Gary Lawrence 
Sharpe is at the top of that list.
  In addition to all of his qualifications, he has also found time as a 
prosecutor to serve in capacities to assist with prisoner 
rehabilitation, to work with youth, and to work with people who are in 
the grips of substance abuse to try to bring down the impact of 
incarceration.
  I think he will not only serve with distinction in New York but 
demonstrate clearly that this is the kind of conservative Republican 
nominee whom we could be unanimously confirming. I commend him to the 
Senate.
  I thank the Chair.

[[Page 503]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is, Will 
the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Gary L. Sharpe, of 
New York, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District 
of New York?
  Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 6 Ex.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Baucus
     Chambliss
     Edwards
     Kerry
     Lieberman
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President will be immediately notified of 
the confirmation of the nomination.

                          ____________________