[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 21, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11098-S11099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 FAILURE OF REGULAR ORDER IN THE SENATE

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to have the opportunity to talk 
about the next four votes because it is critical that everyone 
understand what really is at stake tonight. Many Democratic Senators 
are in favor of the bankruptcy bill. Many of us have indicated publicly 
we support a bankruptcy bill. But we also support debate on a 
bankruptcy bill.
  We support the opportunity to take up a bill under the regular rules 
of the Senate, regular order, have a good debate, have amendments 
offered, do what we should do in the Senate tradition, and have the 
kind of full and open debate we have not had on a bill since last May.
  We have not brought a nonappropriations bill to the Senate floor 
since last May under the normal Senate rules.
  Every single bill that has come before us since May has been under 
unanimous-consent agreements that circumvent, if not completely 
eliminate, the use of the normal Senate rules.
  I had a clear understanding, as early as last summer, that when we 
brought the bankruptcy bill up, it would come up under normal Senate 
rules. I understand times change and circumstances

[[Page S11099]]

change, but it is regrettable--although not surprising--that once again 
cloture was filed preemptively and without good cause.
  Keep in mind, when one files cloture, it calls for the end of all 
debate. It is amazing to me that tonight we are voting on a motion to 
end all debate before we have even had any debate. Not a word of debate 
has been uttered on the bankruptcy bill.
  We find ourselves in an amazing Orwellian circumstance in which we 
are ending debate before it begins, calling it a debate, filing 
cloture, and calling it quits. We cannot do that.
  Time after time, I have indicated that many of us have opportunities 
to stop legislation, and we will be inclined to do that if we have no 
opportunity to bring up amendments, as regular order would allow. 
Again, many of us support bankruptcy reform and want to see a 
bankruptcy bill, but we also want to be able to offer amendments.
  If cloture is invoked tonight, many of the amendments we had agreed 
to prior to bringing the bill to the floor will fall--amendments that 
both sides agree will improve the bill. Cloture will actually prevent 
those relevant amendments from being considered.
  I do not know why any colleague would vote to eliminate even relevant 
amendments, amendments for which there is agreement. We have a 
managers' amendment to make improvements to the bill, but under cloture 
it would be subject to a point of order.
  We want to go to bankruptcy. I want to see if we can reach some 
agreement on going to bankruptcy, but we cannot continue to gag 
Senators and prevent them from using the normal rules of the Senate in 
offering amendments.
  Second issue: Cloture on Mr. Stewart. I have indicated publicly that 
even though I have some misgivings about Mr. Stewart, I will support 
him. This issue is not about Mr. Stewart. This issue is about the 45 
nominations that are still pending, awaiting Senate action a few weeks 
before the end of the session. This issue has to do with 38 nominations 
in committee, 24 district, 13 circuit, and 1 International Trade Court 
judge. This issue has to do with nominees who have been waiting for the 
Senate to act now since January of 1996.
  Judge Richard Paez, who is currently a U.S. district court judge, was 
first nominated in January of 1996. Judge Paez has been waiting 3\1/2\ 
years for a Senate vote--3\1/2\ years. That is half a Senate term. He 
has been waiting half a Senate term for the Senate to act. He has been 
waiting for more than 1,300 days for the Senate to vote, or 25 times 
longer than Mr. Stewart. Mr. President, 1,300 days is a long time to 
wait for the Senate to act. Judge Paez is a patient man, but I do not 
think it is too much to ask that, up or down, we let him get on with 
his life, up or down he have the opportunity to have a vote, up or down 
we say yes or no, you will be a circuit judge.
  Justice Ronnie White, the first African American to serve on the 
Missouri Supreme Court, was originally nominated on June 26 of 1997. He 
was actually put on the calendar in this Congress on July 22 of 1999, 
but he has waited for a total of over 7 months on the calendar in this 
and in previous Congresses.
  Marsha Berzon was first nominated in January of 1998. Her nomination 
has been pending over 10 times longer than Ted Stewart's nomination.
  There are 64 vacancies in the Federal judiciary today. Chief Justice 
Rehnquist has noted that and has urged the Senate to act. We have 45 
nominations pending in the Senate right now awaiting action either in 
the committee or on the floor. There are seven nominations on the 
Executive Calendar. Only 17 judges have been confirmed to date.

  Some might claim: We have seen that happen before. I hate to say 
``when we were in the majority,'' but when we were in the majority, 
during the first session in 1991, the last year we were in the majority 
in a nonelection year, we confirmed 57 judges; in 1992, an election 
year, we confirmed 66 judges. In the election year 1994, the last 
election year where we were in the majority, we had 101 judges 
confirmed.
  All one has to do is look back at past precedent. All one has to do 
is look at the terrible unfairness of someone having to wait 1,300 
days, 25 times longer than Ted Stewart, months and months--10 times 
longer than Ted Stewart in the case of Marsha Berzon--to see how unfair 
this system is.
  I want to find a way to work through this. I know Senator Hatch, the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wants to find a way through it. I 
am hopeful we can find a way through it within the next few days. 
Tonight I will move to proceed to the nominations of Judge Paez and Ms. 
Berzon, and we will have an opportunity to express ourselves on the 
importance of these judges. We will vote. I hope the majority will not 
oppose moving to proceed to those two judges: Ms. Berzon, an 
exceptional nominee for the ninth circuit; and Judge Paez, a sitting 
district court judge, a Hispanic American, also fully qualified, a 
nominee for the Ninth Circuit. I hope we can find a way to resolve our 
differences and move forward.
  I felt strongly about the importance of having these votes. I feel 
equally strongly about the importance of trying to resolve this 
impasse. We will make every effort to do so. I believe my colleagues 
will support an effort to break this impasse, recognizing that, as 
important as this is, we cannot go home leaving all of this work 
undone.
  I hope we can do so this week. I know the majority leader has 
indicated a willingness to perhaps even hotline Judge Paez and Ms. 
Berzon. I hope that will happen this week. If that happens, we will be 
in a better position to know just how much opposition there is. We have 
to move on. We have to have these votes. We have to confirm these 
nominations. We have to ensure we can pass a good bankruptcy bill. 
There is so much more we can and ought to do. That will take working 
together, and I stand ready to do so.

                          ____________________