Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session, and the motion to proceed.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now send a resolution to discharge from the Judiciary Committee the nomination of Richard Griffin of Michigan to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FRIST. I now send a resolution to discharge from the Judiciary Committee the nomination of Henry W. Saad of Michigan to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now send a resolution to discharge from the Judiciary Committee the nomination of Susan Bieke Nielson of Michigan to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the live quorum under rule XXII be waived, and that the vote occur on Tuesday, July 8, immediately following the vote on the Campbell nomination.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 202, 246, 247, 251, 253, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, and all remaining nominations on the Secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. FRIST

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 191, which is at the desk, and I ask that the resolution be read.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, this resolution has been submitted by myself and on behalf of Senator Daschle, Senator Graham, and Senator Hollings in honor of the honorable and great J. Strom Thurmond. Last night shortly after 9:45, we were notified of the death of Strom Thurmond. At that time, I pointed out that it was a century ago--a long time ago--when Mark Twain was alive and Teddy Roosevelt was still President, J. Strom Thurmond was born in Edgefield, SC, and, thus, began a life of public service unmatched--unmatched--in the modern history of America. Strom Thurmond served as United States Senator from December 1954, 2 years after I was born, until January of this year, nearly a half century of service in this body--this body we have the honor of participating in on a daily basis. Though his period of service is a remarkable accomplishment in and of itself, Strom led a remarkable life even before coming to the Senate. Late last night and over the course of the morning, if one turned on a television set, they would hear anecdotes, stories about this great man, and those pre-Senate years when he was a teacher, an athletic coach, and a superintendent of education. He studied law under his father, Judge J. William Thurmond, and became a city attorney, a county attorney, a State senator, and eventually a circuit court judge. He resigned his position as a circuit judge to volunteer to fight in World War II. This he did at the age of 39, 18 years after serving as an Army reservist and having earned a commission as a second lieutenant. Indeed, as we all know, age never was an obstacle for Strom Thurmond. As a member of the 82nd Airborne, Strom landed a glider at Normandy on D-Day and helped secure the foothold for the Allies to liberate the European continent. For his distinguished service, Strom was awarded five battle stars and 18 other decorations, including the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star for Valor, the Belgian Order of the Crown, and the French Cross of War. No wonder when a speech writer once used the word ``afraid,'' Strom Thurmond handed the text back with the retort: I've never been afraid of anything. After the war, Strom returned home to South Carolina. He was elected Governor in 1946, and then ran for President of the United States as the States Rights Democratic candidate. Strom won four States and 39 electoral votes, and that tally stands as the third largest independent electoral vote in U.S. history. Though he did not win the Presidency, Strom was determined to serve in Washington. He ran for the Senate in 1954, became the only candidate elected to Congress by a write-in vote in American history, and he was reelected eight more times. In the most recent years, it became increasingly difficult for Strom to go back and forth to South Carolina, but that did not stop the people of South Carolina from coming to him, and it should not have. For decades, Strom attended every county fair, handled every constituent request, and sent a congratulatory note to every high school graduate, many of whom came to intern in his office. It has been said that almost 70 percent of South Carolinians have met Strom Thurmond face to face. Over the course of his long and distinguished career, Strom Thurmond was a witness to history. As a young man, he knew people who stood in the presence of Andrew Jackson. He campaigned for the votes of men who fought in the Civil War. He and Herbert Hoover won their first elective office in the same year, 1928. Strom more than saw history, he wrote it. He was the first major southern Democrat to switch to the Republican Party. He served for more than 17 years as President pro tempore of the Senate. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, he ensured that our men and women of the Armed Forces had the best training, the best equipment, and the best leadership in the world. As we all know, Strom did set the record for the oldest and longest serving Senator. He served with about one-fifth of the nearly 2,000 men and women who have been Members of the Senate since 1789. He was nearly one-half the age of the U.S. Constitution. Strom certainly faced his trials. As the Dixiecrat candidate for President in 1948, he campaigned on a platform of States rights, but in doing so he also opposed civil rights, as he did for many years as a Senator. History will reflect that part of Strom's life. We will let history also reflect that when Strom saw that America had changed, and changed for the better, he changed, too. A longtime friend of Senator Thurmond's, Hortense Woodson, once said of him: Everything he's done has been done to the full. There's no halfway doings about Strom. Indeed, Strom Thurmond will forever be a symbol of what one person can accomplish when they live life to the fullest. God bless our friend and our colleague from South Carolina, Senator Strom Thurmond.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 170, S. Res. 174, and Calendar No. 171, S. Res. 175, en bloc.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 179, S. 148.

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, last Tuesday, the Committee on Rules and Administration favorably reported S. Res. 138, a proposal to amend the Senate's cloture rule. The committee's action represents an important milestone on the road to filibuster reform. It brings the Senate one key step closer to ending filibusters on nominations. On May 9 of this year, I introduced S. Res. 138, along with a bipartisan group of 11 cosponsors. Our purpose was to respond to a disturbing change in the way the Senate considers nominations. Lengthy and apparently implacable filibusters have erupted on two judicial nominations. Although it has long been clear that a majority of Senators stand ready to confirm Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, it is increasingly obvious that a minority of Senators never intends to permit these nominations to come to a vote. Beyond these filibusters are the expressed threats to filibuster additional nominees, threats that may well materialize after the Senate reconvenes in July. Given the record already established this year, we have every reason to take these threats seriously and to imagine they will be executed. Killing judicial nominations by filibuster is not simply business as usual in the Senate. Up until now, no judicial nomination has ever been rejected in that fashion. Even the failed Supreme Court nomination of Abe Fortas 35 years ago is not truly an exception to this rule. In the Fortas case, one cloture vote was taken with 45 Senators supporting cloture and 43 opposed. At least five additional Senators who missed that vote expressed opposition to cloture. Yet another who supported cloture expressed opposition to the nomination. It was far from plain, even to the nominee, that a majority was ready to confirm the nomination, much less a supermajority was available to invoke cloture. After a single cloture vote taken four session days after the nomination was brought to the floor, the nominee asked that his name be withdrawn. These facts differ dramatically from those pertinent to filibusters underway in this Congress and from the rest of Senate cloture history on judicial nominations. Thus far, we have had six cloture votes on Mr. Estrada and two cloture votes on Justice Owen, with more than a majority of Senators but less than a supermajority, favoring cloture. So the filibusters endure with no end in sight. Prior to this year, the record number of cloture motions filed on any single judicial nomination was 2, and 17 such motions were filed overall. In a majority of those cases, cloture was invoked and confirmation followed. Even when cloture failed, confirmation followed. In all cases, the nominations were brought to a vote, the full Senate worked its will, and the nominees were confirmed. The Estrada and Owen filibusters and their threatened progeny are anything but customary. They represent a disturbing change in Senate norms, a change that has been defended on untenable grounds. Proponents of the filibusters claim they have no choice. With the Senate and its committees controlled by the party of the President, they have no choice but to filibuster, or so they say. Their logic is facile but faulty, and it runs contrary to many years of Senate tradition. For 70 percent of the 20th century, one party controlled the White House and the Senate. This was the case for 6 years of President Wilson's term and the entire terms of Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. It was the case through 12 years of President Franklin Roosevelt and 6 years of President Harry Truman. It was the case for all of the Kennedy-Johnson years, all of President Carter's years, 6 of President Reagan's years, and 2 years under President Clinton. In some of those eras, the Senate minority was Republican; in others Democratic. But at no time did those minorities resort to partisan filibusters of judicial nominees. At no time did those minorities deny the Senate the right to vote on confirmation. What is happening now is aberrant. It breaks with Senate traditions. If the trend begun with the Estrada and Owen filibusters is not arrested, a disturbing new practice will take root. Partisan filibusters to kill nominations will lead inevitably to more of the same in retribution. Left to fester, things can only get worse. The outcome cannot be good for current or future Senates, for current or future Presidents, for current or future nominees. Those of us concerned about these consequences have two fundamental choices: We can either acquiesce to this partisan change in Senate norms, or propose a reform to Senate rules. Unwilling to accept a change in Senate traditions that will damage and weaken this institution, we offer a targeted and limited amendment to the rules. Our remedy is narrow, aimed not against the filibuster generally, but against filibusters on nominations. If adopted, our proposal would have declining cloture requirements of 60, 57, 54, 51, and then a simple majority on successive cloture votes. The first cloture motion cannot be filed until a nomination has been pending for 12 hours. Successive cloture motions cannot be filed until the prior cloture motion has been resolved. As under current rules, each cloture motion will take 2 days to ripen. Our proposal is true to Senate traditions. It will permit robust debate and time for reflection, but also allow the Senate to reach a definite resolution on confirmations. As I have said on this floor and before the committee, the filibuster is not sacrosanct. When it has been abused, it has been reformed. The very cloture rule itself represented just such a response to filibuster abuse. It has been amended five times since it was first adopted in 1917. Moreover, the very modest debate limitations we propose are significantly less restrictive than more than 25 provisions now in statute law that expedite Senate debate on measures ranging from budget reconciliation to the execution of war powers. Madam President, some on the other side of the aisle have said our proposal is too extreme in that it would undermine their capacity to use existing rules to reshape Senate norms. Others from the same side have said our reform is too narrow because it does not attack filibusters in all circumstances. My response is this: We must fix what is damaged, but we do not require radical surgery. We shall reform our rules to repair what is broken and restore traditions. Beyond that, we shall leave our rules alone. Our opponents contend that our narrow reform will inevitably lead to the wholesale destruction of the filibuster in the Senate and that it will convert the Senate into a smaller copy of the House. I know of few, if any, Senators who would support that outcome, and I regard such predictions as fanciful. This proposal does not attack the use of filibuster on legislation. Instead, it builds on an existing tradition of distinctive procedures for the consideration of executive business. One of those traditions is a 1980 precedent urged by Majority Leader Byrd which obviates debate on a motion to proceed to a nomination. Using the logic of our opponents, one could theorize that a next consistent step would be to mimic this precedent and kill debate on a motion to proceed to legislation. But 23 years have passed and that next step has not been taken. In its wisdom, the Senate has known how far it must go to resolve particular problems and when it must stop. Our opponents argue that filibuster reform will undermine the balance of power between the President and the Senate. They claim if we adopt this proposal, the Senate will diminish itself and become the President's handmaiden. I do not desire that result, and I strongly disagree with that conclusion. What their position amounts to is that Senate power to check a President can only be vindicated if a minority prevails against a majority ready to confirm. Once again, for 70 of the last 100 years in this century, one party controlled both the Senate and the White House. Yet filibustering nominations was unheard of most all of that time. Was the Senate the President's handmaiden then and only now has awakened to its constitutional purpose? Over two centuries, a number of judicial nominations failed on the Senate floor. Filibusters were unnecessary to defeat Clement Haynsworth, Harold Carswell, or Robert Bork, much less many earlier nominees, starting with President Washington's nominee, John Rutledge. The full Senate, no President's handmaiden, asserted constitutional checks and balances. If we can only affirm Senate power by the filibuster, then we have come to a new and very unfortunate place. Thus, we propose to reform Senate rules in order to restore Senate traditions. Filibuster reform is imperative. It will enable all Senators to meet their constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. With Senators so empowered, the voice of all Americans will again be heard on these matters.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, notwithstanding the Senate's adjournment or recess for the Fourth of July recess, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to make chair appointments.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to H.R. 2350 which is being held at the desk.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that during this adjournment of the Senate, the majority leader or the assistant majority leader or Senator Allen be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Calendar No. 34, S. Con. Res. 23, be indefinitely postponed.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the recess or adjournment of the Senate, committees be authorized to report legislative and executive matters on Wednesday, July 2, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. On Monday, July 7, the Senate will be in a period of morning business. This will provide an opportunity for Members, who have not yet had the opportunity, to deliver statements honoring our friend and colleague, Strom Thurmond. As I mentioned last night, we will have the tributes to Senator Thurmond printed as a Senate document for distribution. Also, on Monday, it was my hope that the Senate would be able to begin consideration of S. 11, the medical malpractice legislation. We will continue to work towards a consent for consideration of this important measure, and it may be necessary to proceed to that bill on Monday if an agreement is not reached. As I announced, there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session. The next scheduled votes will occur on Tuesday, July 8, at 11:45 a.m. The first vote will be on Executive Calendar No. 227, the nomination of David Campbell, to be a U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona, to be followed by a vote on invoking cloture on the nomination of Victor Wolski, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Again, I thank my colleagues for their hard work over the past few weeks, and I wish everyone a safe and restful recess.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 181, S. Res. 178.

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 231; further, that the Senate adjourn as an additional mark of respect for Senator Strom Thurmond.