Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 136, submitted earlier today.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of the nominations of Thomas Dorr, PN 68 and PN 69, and that the nominations be placed on the calendar, and finally that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following concurrent resolutions which were received from the House: H. Con. Res. 86, H. Con. Res. 135, H. Con. Res. 136.

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolutions be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 141, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Friday, May 13. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 3, the highway bill.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is correct. We will have one amendment, possibly two, Monday night, and the remainder of these votes will be stacked, on Tuesday, in the order that was just spelled out.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, very briefly, the Democratic leader and I have a unanimous consent request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of amendments I send to the desk be the only remaining first-degree amendments in order, other than a managers' amendment to be cleared by both managers and both leaders; provided further, that they be subject to second- degree amendments that have been filed in accordance with rule XXII; I further ask consent that any amendment from the list must be offered by 4 p.m. on Monday, May 16; provided further, that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill on Tuesday, May 17, all time be expired under rule XXII and the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the pending amendments in the order offered, and that following disposition of the above listed amendments, the Senate proceed to a vote on the Inhofe substitute amendment, as amended, that the cloture vote on the underlying bill be vitiated, and the Senate then proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. FRIST. Good land.

Mr. FRIST. Yes, through the Chair.

Mr. FRIST. One more brief question.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, another quick question, reserving the Senator's right to the floor. Yesterday, in the Senator's statement to the President of United States, it was to the seven nominees he delivered to us about whom the distinguished Senator from West Virginia said: I want them, or I am willing to have--I don't know if the Senator wants or is willing to have an up-or-down vote on the seven nominees-- didn't the distinguished Senator from West Virginia tell the President of the United States and other Senators that at the same time he addressed my legacy?

Mr. FRIST. Thank you.

Mr. FRIST. An up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Isn't that what you said yesterday to the President of the United States?

Mr. FRIST. Freedom of speech. Let's see it next week. Take someone who is on the Executive Calendar now. Take them to the floor, and let's have freedom of speech--somebody who has waited 4 years for the appropriate freedom of speech coming to the floor--and then do--this is my question. I do not want to go into a long speech because I know we all have other engagements we need to get to. Let me ask the question. Didn't you also say, as the other part of that statement to the President of the United States, being critical of the potential legacy I might leave in order to stand up for fairness and principle, didn't you also say you would give all of these nominees an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate?

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I have a very brief question. The Senator from West Virginia mentioned what he said in my presence and the presence of other Senators yesterday. We were at the White House talking about important issues--foreign affairs--but he, I think very appropriately, brought up this issue. The Senator from West Virginia did make the point that he just made about the importance of not leaving a legacy, as you described it. My legacy would be very different because of the principle of a fair, up-or-down vote, after freedom of speech, extended debate for as long as is reasonable in terms of getting all the issues out there. That is what the American people want. They want a nominee to come over, be fully debated, everything about them, counter, debate, back and forth, freedom of speech. The Constitution, the wonderful history you just gave us----

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, why does Priscilla Owen--through advice and consent, who has gone through Judiciary Committee--not deserve the fairness--yes, the fairness--of an up-or-down vote, where every Senator can speak for or against on the floor of the Senate? Why does Priscilla Owen not deserve--she has waited 4 years--an up-or-down vote? How can you explain to the American people at this juncture, after what I would call an unprecedented number of filibusters in the last Congress, that Priscilla Owen does not deserve a vote? It is our responsibility to give advice and consent. How does she not deserve a vote in the Senate next week or the following week?

Mr. FRIST. Yes, sir.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would be happy to respond to the question that has been directed to me.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me just interrupt. The majority leader did not say anything about a showdown.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I know we are on the highway bill. Senator Byrd is about to speak. So I think at least from my standpoint we will continue our discussions. As you can see, we both feel passionately about this issue, understanding it is our responsibility as leaders to lead on an issue that affects this country in a very dramatic way. It affects the future of this institution in a dramatic way. Just to clarify, I believe we both agreed that we are going to all keep working together to address this, but we do need to bring some sort of closure to this. Therefore, after the highway bill, at the appropriate time, we will spend--it is going to probably take a week, or I don't know exactly what it is going to take, but next week--and I would hope we would engage in regular order and that we have people on the Executive Calendar and we can do what we have always done, bring them up. And as to which one, and how we go about it, would be in discussion. But you can tell from my remarks, I believe what the American people expect is we will have full debate and expect an up-or-down vote on those, go through the normal course of business. People will be able to judge. And I hope and pray people will be able to express themselves through a vote on the floor here in the Senate. Thank you.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be brief. I was just talking to my staff and to the Democratic leader to see exactly what offer was made. I did not know exactly what offer had been made, but he reviewed it with me. Let me make a statement because it is important for people to know the Democratic leader and I are in constant conversation about what is a very important issue to this institution, to the culture of this institution, to the past and traditions which are important, but ultimately it is what we do in the future because that is what we can control today. It is our responsibility to do so. As we walk the Halls, people come up all the time and say there are outside groups putting pressure on people to behave in certain ways, or to vote in certain ways in terms of this important issue. I have told them, all day and each and every day, ultimately how we handle judges in these judicial nominees is determined, as set out in the Constitution, by the 100 Senators who are here today. That is what we are working with and discussions are ongoing. Having not heard the specifics of the proposal, the Democratic leader and I will continue conversations on the proposal that he has put forth. But I do want to draw back and say that the more and more I listen to all the recent discussions about the President's judicial nominees, the more disturbed I become and the more upset I have become. Indeed, as I think about it now, it angers me to think about it, much of it, because quite frankly a real injustice, a real injustice is being done to our Nation's system of justice. The reputation and the records of some of America's finest jurists, seven of them we talked about in the last Congress and over the last several weeks--in fact, for months now in morning business we have talked about how outstanding many of these jurists are--those reputations are being sullied and they are being smeared and we have talked among ourselves, not necessarily on the Senate floor but in private as we do on both sides of the aisle. This has an impact on individuals, on their lives. Yes, their careers, but their lives, their personal lives, their lives with family members. And it is inexcusable, I believe. It is time, in fact, I think it is long past time, for the majority of this Senate to come to their defense and to be able to express that on the floor of the Senate. I believe it betrays the great heritage of this country to drag a person's good name through the mud using the media and the coverage of that, and then deny them the right to be defended on the floor of the Senate and voted on on the floor of the Senate. We look at the individuals. I use the word ``smeared'' because I believe that is the level that much of the discussion has risen to in this body. It disturbs me. It is time for us to address this, and that is why, once we finish the highway bill, we have to work together and address this much larger issue, larger than much of the legislation that is brought to this floor in the course of our daily operations. This betrayal of the country's heritage is not the way we are supposed to do things in this body, in the Senate. It is not the way we are supposed to do things in America. It is not the idea of fairness--I am going to use that word, ``fairness''--that I was accustomed to before coming to this body in the Senate. It is not the level of fairness that you expect in a doctor-patient relationship, and thus America doesn't understand it, why we cannot bring somebody to the floor and vote on them--fair vote, up or down. It is our responsibility. We hear again and again about minority rights. The Constitution was written to ensure the rights of the minority. We respect that. Both sides of the aisle respect that. It is much of the tradition of this body. But the Constitution was written--I guess it was neither written, nor has it operated in 214 years, in a manner that denies the majority of people in this body the right to hold a vote, yes or no, confirm or reject--confirm or deny--up or down--on a President's most important nominations. These are the most important nominations of a President of the United States. These are the nominations to our Nation's highest judicial offices. Yes, justice must be independent. Yes, justice must be blind. But I cannot and I do not think we as a body can turn a blind eye to the continued attacks on innocent people who are willing to dedicate their lives. Let's have that debate on the floor of the Senate, bring them up in a regular order, have as much time as it justifies, listen to both sides, see if the smears and the accusations are real, and then have a vote. And however the vote falls, we are willing to accept that. Confirm them or reject them, we will accept the vote. That is the way this body expresses itself. The Democratic leader and I will continue our discussions. Again, it is one of the great pleasures to be able to talk back and forth. But I, based on whether it is individual proposals or the larger discussion of what to do with the seven judicial nominees, or as we look ahead--what I propose we do is roughly the following: If Members of the minority want to make their case--I will tell you a lot of times we hear the case of extremist, out of the mainstream--if they want to make their case that the American Bar Association is wrong in the recommendations they have given, or in one instance in California 76 percent of the California voters are wrong, let them do so and we will do them nominee by nominee and have the courage to do so on the floor of the Senate, with plenty of time for debate--we can agree on how much time for debate on each one--and then have a vote. America understands having a vote, having heard the case made by both sides. America does not understand how we cannot, how we can deny them that vote. For our part, you will hear us defend the President's nominees. We will rebut and refute the attacks. Sometimes we believe, and I think America believes when they hear them, they are scurrilous attacks. We will do it point by point. Then, after we do that, we will have that vote. All 100 people in here will be able to vote yes or no, and then we will move to the next nominee in an orderly, systematic way, the ones who are on this Executive Calendar who have been considered by the Judiciary Committee, and then we will start bringing them out. I am confident, if we do that--I am very confident we will be able to judge those nominees on their merits--not because they are the President's nominees; not because people voted a certain way, even in the last Congress when things were very partisan, when a lot of it was in the heat of those elections, but in an environment of renewed civility, of being able to work together the way the Democratic leader and I are in our conversations every day--every day we sit down and discuss how to address this problem. I think that is the same civility colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel deep inside. They do not want things to come to a head. We all know the partisanship, as the other distinguished Senator from Nevada said, Mr. Enzi described it--well, the partisanship started and other people 3 years ago didn't even think about filibusters. I don't think they thought about filibustering Supreme Court nominees or circuit court nominees. It didn't enter their head. Things have gotten so difficult and so challenging and so partisan and so locked down that it has been elevated up to where, on a routine basis--a routine basis, one out of three to one out of four of the circuit court nominees that came from the President were filibustered, were blocked, were denied an up-or- down vote. I think everybody agrees that was excessive. I will not go into the past because I think we need to project to the future, but now is the time to get through that and to get over that. I think anything less than that at this point of allowing people to come to the floor, debate them fully, and have them voted on--and I think the American people will recognize--is a sham. I am not saying we should not come to an agreement of exactly how we should do it, but the American people understand at this juncture--they may not understand the filibuster, or rules of the Senate, and many have not gone back and read the Constitution, but what they do understand is full debate and a vote for people who have been nominated by the President of the United States to the highest courts in this country is fair and it is the right thing to do. Anything less than that is a sham. It involves hypocrisy. Hypocrisy must, in this Senate, come to an end. If it comes to an end--on both sides in terms of the hypocrisy--if it comes to an end, we have a great year and a half to address immigration, to address energy, to address the health care issues that mean so much to me with 40 million people uninsured out there; we have been able to do class action, bankruptcy and the fifth fastest budget on time and the supplemental supporting our troops overseas and we are working on asbestos in committee and we are making great progress. It is time to move beyond this. The hypocrisy must and will end. Each nominee is entitled to and must receive a full and just consideration of his or her candidacy and then a fair up-or-down vote. Again, I was not in the Senate, and I did not realize the Democrat leader would make the specific offer. We have talked about much of what he said. I came over as soon as he began to talk, and I appreciate his offer for Senate debate and votes on some of the President's judicial nominees, but say once again that it is that principle of an up-or-down vote that is going to govern this side of the aisle. I believe it is what the American people expect. With that, I am happy to turn back to the Democratic leader. Again, I look forward to our further discussions on addressing the issue that both he and I understand have to be addressed right now so we can move forward and address the many other issues. Doing that in a mutually acceptable way earns the respect of the American people and this great institution we serve.