Floor Statements

I object at this time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Louisiana be recognized for up to 5 minutes and that immediately following his statement--he be recognized as in morning business--the Senate return to a quorum being called.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the Chair.

Mr. President, is S. 2 as reported by the Finance Committee a reconciliation bill?

If the Senate takes up S. 2, it then would be fully debatable and open to amendment. Is that correct?

I have no objection to the request propounded by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, as I have spoken to the distinguished assistant majority leader, we have on our side eight Senators who are scheduled tomorrow to go to the funeral of the late Senator Long. This is just for the information of the majority leader. Their plane leaves at 8 or 8:30 in the morning and returns at 7 o'clock in the evening. I know the majority is aware of that.

Mr. President, I know the schedule of the majority leader is burdensome. I do wish to say a few words while he is here regarding the proposed rule change.

First of all, I have said, on a number of occasions in recent weeks, that I understand the intensity of the feeling of members of the majority--some members, not all--on the Miguel Estrada nomination and that of Priscilla Owen. But I do say, that for people to lament that the process is broken regarding judges is simply without foundation or fact. Mr. President, 124 judges have been approved for President Bush-- 124. Two have been held up.

The number of cloture motions that have been filed, for those of us who have served in the Senate for some time, is somewhat meaningless. The reason you continually file new cloture motions is if there is a change in the vote. And for Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada, there has not been a single vote change--not one. They are all the same. So filing those cloture motions is just for show; it has no basis in substance.

Now, I do say to the leader that I think this is being approached in a proper fashion. I think that to go to seek a rules change is the way it should be done. If you don't like what is going on here, try to change a rule.

I have been personally--and I am sure it has not gone without the notice of others--concerned about some of the statements made by Members of the majority saying they are going to have this rule changed regardless of what the Rules Committee does; that if it does not work out in the Rules Committee, they are going to come here and have the Presiding Officer just say what we have been doing is unconstitutional.

Now, one of the newspapers announced that this would be nuclear. I think, legislatively, nuclear is the proper term.

I have no problem--I say this to the majority leader--seeking to change the rules. If the rules are changed by a procedure we have always used here in the Senate, I will go along with that. But to have something done, that is to say suddenly that you cannot have a filibuster because it is unconstitutional, creates many different problems. Does that mean if 11 members of the Judiciary--a majority-- holds up a judicial nominee, that that is unconstitutional and it can come immediately to the floor? I think not.

So I recognize--I have been as frustrated as anyone trying to get cloture motions filed and cloture determined on a vote. I can remember when I was a relatively new Member of the Senate--I was not too new then--during the Clinton administration and we were trying get grazing changed in the western part of the United States. We had four or five cloture motions filed. We got up to 57 or 58 Senators on that occasion. And we were moving, filing the cloture motions that seemed to be gaining status.

Then suddenly George Miller from the House and Harry Reid from the Senate were called to the White House, and the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, said: We are not going to support you on this anymore. It is over with. He had made some arrangements with House Members, and our trying to get cloture invoked on something we believed was very important was, in effect, pulled out from under us. I can still remember that.

But in those, I say to the majority leader, when cloture motions were filed by Senator Byrd, we kept gaining votes. In relation to Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, that is not the case.

So again, I say, that the majority leader is approaching this in the Senate way, the right way. I do say--and I know he has had conversations with the Democratic leader, and I have spoken to other Members on the other side--I hope it will be done in that fashion and not by some jury-rigged fashion to change the rules by some ``constitutional'' matter.

I even understand one of the Republican Senators is filing a lawsuit. Fine. More power to them. Let them file a lawsuit. I think that is the way it should be determined. But don't change the Senate rules in some other fashion because it would really damage our ability to move forward on legislation.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``aye''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, shortly the distinguished Senator from Ohio is going to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business. I ask unanimous consent that the time, even though in morning business, be charged against the underlying bill.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), 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 Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``no.''

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``aye.''

Mr. President, I yield back all of our time.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), 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 Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would each vote ``Aye''.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

It is my understanding that this judge has waited about 10 years. He has been nominated several times.

He is the 124th judge we have approved for the Bush administration. The record is 124 to 2.

Mr. President, last month I had the wonderful opportunity to speak to students in a gaming law policy class at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. As I am sure you are aware, yesterday the Senator from Arizona reintroduced legislation that would make it illegal to wager on college sports in Nevada, where it is legal and heavily regulated. The legislation will not solve the problems the sponsors of the legislation seek to solve. Recently, I received a letter from several students in the class who have done a great deal of research on the subject. I share the views they have, and I ask unanimous consent to print their letter in today's Record.

Prior to our closing tonight, I want to lay on the record that I think we have had a pretty good week this week. There has been a lot of work done by both sides, and we have accomplished a great deal. Today was an indication of what can be done if we work together.

I know people in the majority feel strongly about Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. I have to say the record this Senate has established regarding the approval of judges is tremendous. Today we approved the 124th judge during the administration of this President Bush. That is pretty good.

I hope those Senators who feel so intently about Priscilla Owen and Miguel Estrada--it is certainly their right to feel so strongly, as people on this side feel strongly regarding opposition of the two judges--also recognize the number of judges that have been approved. We think we have done a good job. In fact, this week I asked my staff how many we approved. I think it was four or five judges even this week. So we are moving right along.

I have no objection to the unanimous consent request of the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. President, while the distinguished majority leader is in the Chamber, I wonder if he has any idea how much time he wants for the debate on the two cloture motions tomorrow or are we just going to vote on them?

The other question I have is, we have people ready to offer amendments on the energy bill. Is the majority leader still planning on spending some time on that bill tomorrow?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

During the years when President Clinton was sending nominees down here, there was a period of time when the Democrats controlled the Senate. Does the Senator recall that?

If that were the case, every person he sent down would have been approved, is that right, using the logic used by the majority now?

The fact is, a relatively small percentage of the people he sent down were approved because the Republicans did not like the people he sent down; is that right?

Now, I personally disagreed with what the Republicans were doing at that time.

Mr. President, under my time, I will ask the Senator a question and would appreciate him responding.

He yielded the floor. Of course I have the floor. Who else has it? He yielded the floor. I asked permission to be recognized.

I know. And I asked----

What do you mean: ``The Senator from Texas''? I asked to be recognized, and I was recognized. What do you mean: ``The Senator from Texas''? What are you talking about?

Mr. President, thank you very much.

Now, if the Senator from Texas wishes to go someplace or something, I would be happy to yield the floor to the Senator. I don't have much to say, but I have a few things to say.

Fine. I will not be long at all. I appreciate that.

I say to my friend from North Dakota, the point I was making, when the Chair indicated time was up, was that there were procedures by the majority that stopped President Clinton's nominees from going forward. Does the Senator recall that?

I recall, very clearly, there were hearings not held in the Judiciary Committee; is that right?

And we, the minority at the time, did not like it, and we had a Democratic President; is that not true?

I also ask the Senator this question: During the time you have been in the Senate and I have been in the Senate, we have seen changes of the majority--whether it was Democrats or Republicans--it switches back and forth; is that right?

Now, I say to my friend from North Dakota, in the form of a question I ask you to respond to, we did not like what happened, but the Senate went on just fine; the country survived; did it not?

Mr. President, I simply wanted to acknowledge the statements of the Senator from Texas and the Senator from North Dakota. I am trying to make a point that things change around here: Democrats are in control; Republicans are in control. The Democrats will be back in control of the Senate sometime. It may not be in the next election cycle; it may not be in the next election cycle, but it will happen. We will be in control sometime, and we will have a Democratic President sometime. I think we have to look into the future, that we don't jam the system.

I appreciate very much the Senator from North Dakota indicating this is not payback time. When we took control of the Senate, we said at that time, this is not payback time. We have proven that. There have been hearings held. If there is somebody who has been held up, that should be brought to the attention of the body. Senator Daschle and I have stated on many occasions that this is not payback time. If it were, things would be in desperate shape.

We have approved a lot of judges that don't meet what many people over here feel is in the best interests of the country, but we have felt that the President has to have great leeway in the people he has chosen. That is indicated by the 123 we have approved.

I understand the power of concern of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Hatch. His feelings about Miguel Estrada have been made very clear. I know Senator Hatch. I know how strongly he feels about this matter. But I would hope that those on the other side will understand that Miguel Estrada's problem could be solved so easily. Let us see the documents from the Solicitor's Office, and I think it could be solved very quickly.

With Justice Owen, it is a different problem. But remember, we are talking about 123 to 2. I don't think it is fair to try to tell the American public that the system is broken. I really don't think it is.

I want also to apologize publicly for raising my voice to the Chair. I rarely do that. I did and I apologize to the Chair for that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Would the Senator from Kentucky withdraw his consent at this time?