[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1301-S1302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLOTURE MOTIONS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive
Calendar No. 159, the nomination of Marsha L. Berzon, to be
United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit:
Trent Lott, Orrin G. Hatch, Susan M. Collins, Arlen
Specter, Ted Stevens, Thad Cochran, James M. Jeffords,
Robert F. Bennett, Richard G. Lugar, Chuck Hagel,
Conrad Burns, John W. Warner, Patrick J. Leahy, Harry
Reid of Nevada, Charles E. Schumer, and Tom A. Daschle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been
waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of Marsha L. Berzon to be United States Circuit Judge for
the Ninth Circuit shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 86, nays 13, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 36 Ex.]
YEAS--86
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Crapo
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--13
Allard
Brownback
Bunning
Craig
DeWine
Enzi
Gramm
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Murkowski
Shelby
Smith (NH)
NOT VOTING--1
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 86, the nays are
13. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the
Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion on the
nomination, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive
Calendar No. 208, the nomination of Richard A. Paez, to be
United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.
Trent Lott, Orrin G. Hatch, Susan M. Collins, Arlen
Specter, Ted Stevens, Thad Cochran, Robert F. Bennett,
Harry Reid, Richard G. Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Conrad
Burns, John Warner, Patrick Leahy, Charles E. Schumer,
Thomas A. Daschle, and Barbara Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call under
the rule is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of Richard A. Paez, of California, to be United States
Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 85, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 37 Ex.]
YEAS--85
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
[[Page S1302]]
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Crapo
Daschle
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--14
Allard
Brownback
Bunning
Craig
DeWine
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Murkowski
Shelby
Smith (NH)
NOT VOTING--1
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). On this vote, the yeas
are 85, the nays are 14. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and
sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is the Senator from Vermont correct that we
have now voted cloture on both the nominations before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is correct.
Mr. LEAHY. Then what is the parliamentary situation, as regarding the
two nominations?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 hours, evenly divided.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request and
closing script.
As you know, cloture was just invoked on two Ninth Circuit judges. I
still hope we have not set a precedent. I don't believe we have because
it was such an overwhelming vote to invoke cloture and stop the
filibuster. We should not be having filibusters on judicial nominations
and having to move to cloture. But we had to, and it was an
overwhelming vote of 86-13 on the first one, and I guess that was the
vote on the second one, too. I intend to offer a time agreement between
the proponents and opponents regarding postcloture debate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Smith of New
Hampshire be in control of up to 3 hours of total debate on both
nominations, and that Senator Leahy, or his designee, be in control of
up to 1 hour 30 minutes of total debate on both nominations; that
following the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Senate lay
the nominations aside until 2 p.m., at which time the Senate would
proceed to back-to-back votes on or in relation to the confirmations of
Berzon and Paez. That would be at 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I tell the
distinguished leader I was struck by the comments of the distinguished
leader in saying we should not have the precedents of filibusters and
requiring cloture. I commend him for supporting the cloture motion and
moving this forward so we would not have that precedent. I am
concerned, though, because I have heard rumors that one of these votes
may be on a motion to indefinitely postpone a vote on these nominees. I
understand that while such a vote might be in order, there is no
precedent for such a vote on a judicial nominee; am I correct on that?
I mean in my lifetime, and I was born in 1940.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a precedent that a motion to postpone
is in order after cloture is invoked.
Mr. LEAHY. That was not my question, Mr. President. My question was
very specific. In fact, I stated that I understand motions to postpone
indefinitely, I believe, are always in order, as are filibusters. But
as the distinguished leader said, we would not want to set a precedent
of filibusters on judicial nominations. Am I correct that we have not
used motions to postpone indefinitely on judicial nominations following
cloture?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The precedent does not state what the item of
cloture is on.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I understand, we have never had this
circumstance. Certainly, I have not in my 25 years in the Senate. I do
not believe ever having a circumstance where we have had cloture on two
judicial nominations and then had a motion to postpone, in effect,
killing the nominations.
Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
Mr. LOTT. I believe, traditionally, it is in order postcloture to
have a motion to table or a motion to postpone indefinitely. I don't
know the precedents in terms of that actually having been used. I am
certainly not advocating it. But under the rules of the Senate, I am
under the impression that it would be in order. I thought maybe I could
answer it succinctly without getting into the precedents.
Mr. President, has the request been----
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I
say, first, to the majority leader that I appreciate very much his
effort to bring the nominations forward, and voting for cloture,
because without that we would not be where we are. I want that
understood.
I state on the Record today that this Senator believes if there is
going to be a motion made--which there very well may be because that is
the rumor that I hear--to indefinitely postpone a vote on one of these
nominees, then I believe that kind of a motion is denying that nominee
an up-or-down vote. You can argue that it is really like an up-or-down
vote, but after we have gotten over 80 votes, with the help of the
majority leader and Senator Hatch, in a bipartisan way--and Senator
Leahy worked on that--you would think we could vote up or down. There
is no precedent that I have gotten from the Parliamentarian up to this
point where he has been able to show me this was done with a judicial
nomination after cloture was invoked. I wish to make that point because
I don't like to ever blindside my colleagues on anything.
I think that if we go this route, it will be interpreted as a way to
deny a vote on the nominee, and I hope this will not be the case.
Surely, I hope, if it is offered, we will defeat it. But it seems to me
a bad precedent. I hope we won't see this go in that fashion. I thank
the Chair. I shall not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Then the votes will occur back to back at 2 p.m. on
Thursday. In light of this agreement, there will be no further votes
this evening. I believe our staffs have probably put everybody on
notice of that.
____________________