Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, tomorrow, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the class action bill. Again, I reiterate my hope that we will make progress on the class action bill on Thursday. We are open for business. We are open for relevant amendments. We ask that those amendments come forward. If they come forward, we can debate them, we can vote on them, and we can complete the bill. We are prepared to consider the amendments and dispose of them. I encourage Members to come forward. Senators, therefore, should expect the possibility of rollcall votes tomorrow.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 8. 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 for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period for morning business for 60 minutes, with the first 30 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee and the final 30 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; provided that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2062, the class action bill.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now send a second-degree amendment to the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a motion to commit with instructions to the desk.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the instructions to the desk.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. FRIST. Before I yield the floor, Mr. President, I want to make clear where we are. We are prepared to consider relevant class-action- related amendments. We are willing to set aside the pending amendments in order to make progress on the bill. However, we are not prepared to have this bill become a magnet for every unrelated issue that is brought to the floor. I encourage Members to come forward with their relevant amendments. We can work on time agreements on those relevant amendments, and we will allow the Senate to work its will on the issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 2 p.m. today be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I modify that unanimous consent request to, instead of 2 p.m., 2:45 p.m. today.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would be happy to modify the request, and I object to the request. The purpose is to stay on the class action bill, to stay focused on it. I have already offered unlimited amendments as long as they are relevant amendments, and that has been objected to. I am disappointed by my colleague's refusal to accept what I consider a fair offer if our goal is to complete the bill. I do think we may well be able to reach an agreement on the terms for debate on this bill. In the meantime, I will be sending amendments to the desk. Amendment No. 3548

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I do want to welcome everyone back following the Fourth of July recess. Today, we return to business for a relatively brief, under-3-week legislative period, but what I know will be a very productive legislative period. This morning we will proceed to executive session and the consideration of J. Leon Holmes to be a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Pursuant to the agreement reached prior to adjourning, there will be up to 6 hours of debate today before the vote on the confirmation of this nomination. I anticipate that vote occurring sometime around 5:30 today, and that will be the first vote of the day. We also expect to consider additional judicial nominations throughout this period prior to the August recess, and we will be scheduling those nominations as they become available. Following the vote on the Holmes nomination, we will begin consideration of the class action fairness legislation, and that debate will begin after the vote and continue tonight. This class action bill is a bipartisan bill, and I hope we will be able to consider it in a fair and expeditious way. As I mentioned, this is an abbreviated legislative period due to the respective party conventions which begin later this month. There is a lot of work to do over the next 3 weeks, including consideration of the appropriations bills. The best way for us to ensure we complete the class action measure is for the Senate to focus on related amendments on that bill. The issue has been before this body previously; therefore, I hope we can consider relevant amendments and ultimately pass this legislation with a large bipartisan vote. If this bill becomes a vehicle for every unrelated issue that is stored in people's desks and in their minds, I am afraid this abbreviated schedule will not make it possible to do that. And if we insist upon offering a lot of unrelated amendments, the ultimate consideration of the bill clearly will be impossible because of the time involved. Having said that, I will be working with the Democratic leadership to see if we can finish this bill in a reasonable period of time. Again, I welcome back all of my colleagues. It will be a very busy session over the next 3 weeks. I ask in advance for everyone's patience and cooperation during this period.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as we get back and do our planning over the course of the next several hours and days, we will do just that. As I mentioned, we have the class action bill. Once we complete that, we have appropriations bills. We are, at some juncture, going to consider the Federal marriage amendment, and there will be a number of other issues. But as they come forward, I would be happy to discuss it with the leader.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes on what the Senate will be addressing over the next several hours. That is the consideration of the nomination of Leon Holmes to be a Federal district court judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas. His nomination has been languishing since January 2003. It is long past time that the Senate give Mr. Holmes the up-or-down vote he deserves. Mr. Holmes is known in his home State of Arkansas as a brilliant and impartial jurist who follows the law. His nomination has brought substantial opposition from some liberal activists in Washington. But in Arkansas, he has earned respect and support from liberals and conservatives alike. These supporters include Kent Rubens, who led the fight to strike down Arkansas's pro-life laws in the wake of Roe v. Wade. Rubens writes in a letter to Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy on March 21, 2003: I cannot think of anyone who is better qualified to serve . . . As someone who has represented the pro-choice view, I ask that you urge your members to support this confirmation. Or you can listen to this letter from Ellen Woods Harrison to Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy: I am a female attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas. I am a life-long Democrat and am also pro-choice . . . I commend Mr. Holmes to you. He is a brilliant man, a great lawyer and a fine person. And the editorial board of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette supports Mr. Holmes' nomination. They write: What distinguishes Mr. Holmes is the rare blend of qualities he brings to the law--intellect, scholarship, conviction, and detachment . . . He would not only bring distinction to the bench, but a promise of greatness. I should also note that Arkansas's Democratic Senators, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, strongly support Leon Holmes. In light of this broad support for Mr. Holmes, one wonders if some activists in Washington are more interested in a witch hunt than in fairness. This body should not erect religious tests for judges. One's personal religious beliefs--in Leon Holmes' case, his Catholic beliefs--should not disqualify anyone from serving on the bench. I fear that the arguments put forth by some of my colleagues may lead to the disqualification of judicial nominees who are Catholic or Baptist or who hold deeply held religious views. Nominees should be judged on their temperament and their ability to impartially uphold the law. The Framers of the Constitution wisely rejected religious tests for officeholders. I would hate to see this body try to upend that wise judgment of our Founders. A judge should know how to separate his personal views from those of the law, and Leon Holmes' record of impartiality speaks for itself. Mr. Holmes finished law school at the top of his class. He was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa while a doctoral student at Duke University. His doctoral dissertation discusses the political philosophies of W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington, and it analyzes the effort Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made to reconcile their divergent views. Mr. Holmes was habeas counsel for death row inmate Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally retarded man whose execution then-Governor Clinton refused to commute during the 1992 Presidential election. Clearly, his record speaks of a man who is compassionate, thoughtful, and fairminded. Taken together, I believe Leon Holmes will be a just and impartial jurist. He deserves the Senate's support, and I trust that my colleagues will join me in voting to confirm him later today. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of H.R. 3846 which is at the desk.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is correct. We have announced to our caucus, as well, we will hold our policy lunches, our caucus lunches, on Tuesday. Tuesday will be a full day. We will be coming in Tuesday morning, in all likelihood, at 9:30 Tuesday morning. It will be a full and hopefully very productive day. That week we are going to class action which we agreed to. Hopefully we will have one judge and go straight to class action. We will spend next week on class action. With so few legislative days when we come back after the recess--we have a total of 3 weeks, but we are not going to have that first Monday--we have a lot to do in that 2\3/4\ week session. Therefore, we will have to be pushing hard on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of that week.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will have a decision made before we close down this morning. We are right now looking at the schedule. That day we will likely be scheduling a judge, which will require some debate prior to that. For right now, what we have said is that vote will not occur before 2:30, Tuesday, July 6. We will modify that based on discussions.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I object to further proceedings on the measure at this time in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV.

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk which is due for a second reading.