[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3454-S3455]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR NOS. 32, 34, 35, 36 AND 
                                   55

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous 
consent that with respect to Calendar No. 32, Jeffrey Sutton, to be a 
U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit, there be 4 hours for debate 
equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member, or their 
designees, and that following the conclusion of that time, the Senate 
proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, on the 
circuit court judges, we have a couple circuit court judges on which we 
believe we can work out an agreement. Jeffrey Sutton is not one of 
them. So I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous 
consent that with respect to Calendar No. 34, Deborah Cook, to be a 
U.S. circuit judge for the Sixth Circuit, there be 4 hours for debate 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, or their 
designees, and that following the conclusion of that time, the Senate 
proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, without 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, this woman, along with Mr. 
Roberts, is part of those nominations we believe were improperly 
reported out of the committee. So I object to her and to Mr. Roberts at 
this time until there is another hearing in the Judiciary Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous 
consent that with respect to Calendar No. 35, John Roberts, to be a 
U.S. circuit judge for the DC Circuit, there be 4 hours for debate 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, or their 
designees, and that following the conclusion of that time, the Senate 
proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  Mr. REID. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous 
consent that with respect to Calendar No. 36, Jay S. Bybee, to be a 
U.S. circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit, there be 4 hours for debate 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, or their 
designees, and that following the conclusion of that time, the Senate 
proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, Senator Biden 
had an objection to this proposed judge. We heard from his staff 
earlier today that probably has been resolved, but we will not know 
that until they check with Senator Biden who, as my colleague knows, is 
indisposed having had surgery. We will get back later, hopefully today. 
Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, there are five individuals who are on the 
Executive Calendar. This is the last of the five. I will ask unanimous 
consent for him, as well, but clearly we want to move ahead as much as 
possible and want to continue to work with the other side. We do want 
to reach out once again. These unanimous consent requests are a part of 
our efforts to reach out and advance the process. I hope we can resolve 
this shortly.
  Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that 
with respect to Calendar No. 55, Timothy Tymkovich, to be a U.S. 
circuit judge for the Tenth Circuit, there be 4 hours for debate 
equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, or their 
designees, and that following the conclusion of that time, the Senate 
proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I have spoken 
to the leader and to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on 
the other judges. I have not spoken to either of them about this man. 
For that reason, I object.

[[Page S3455]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, with respect to the rejection of these five 
proposed unanimous consents, we do ask that the other side look at 
these as individuals. Once again, I state the willingness on our side 
of the aisle to bring these forward. I mentioned 4 hours for debate 
equally divided. If it takes 8 hours or 10 hours of debate, I would put 
that forward.
  Rather than run through the unanimous consent request again, we will 
continue our conversations off the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair, I ask the leader this 
question: In regard to two of the names put forward, the woman from 
Ohio and Roberts, the best way to alleviate a very serious problem that 
has developed--and, you know, I think Senator Leahy is right on his 
interpretation of the rules, but it really does not matter at this 
stage--why do we not have the Judiciary Committee reconvene regarding 
those two judges? If there are some more questions the Judiciary 
Committee members have, ask the questions and then those two matters, I 
am sure, will receive a number of Democratic votes, and we could have 
these two people on the floor. That could be scheduled under whatever 
the rules are in the Judiciary Committee.
  I think we are creating problems for ourselves. I know Senator Hatch 
feels right the way he interprets the rules. We have people on this 
side who feel that he is wrong, and it would seem that an easy way to 
avoid that problem would be to reconvene the Judiciary Committee, see 
if Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee want to ask any more 
questions of those nominees, and we could move along. Otherwise, I am 
afraid that because of how we interpret the rules of the committee 
having been violated, it is going to unnecessarily throw another cloud 
over an already cloudy situation. I do not suggest the leader has to 
answer that publicly, but I would hope that he would follow through on 
that and see if that would be a way to avoid these problems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, all five of these individuals are on the 
Executive Calendar for consideration on the floor of the Senate. We can 
continue our conversations, but all of these have gone through the 
Judiciary Committee and have been presented on the floor.

                          ____________________