[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 23559-23560]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. LOTT. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that on 
Monday, October 4, at a time determined by the majority leader, after 
consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nomination, and it be 
considered under the following limitations: Executive Calendar No. 172, 
Ronnie White to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, 
under a 1-hour time limitation divided as follows: 45 minutes equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking member; 15 minutes under the 
control of Senator Ashcroft.
  I further ask consent that following that debate, the Senate then 
begin debate en bloc on the nominations of Calendar No. 215, Ted 
Stewart, and Calendar No. 209, Raymond Fisher.
  I further ask consent that following the granting of this consent, 
the nominations of Calendar Nos. 213 and 214 be immediately confirmed, 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be 
immediately notified, and the Senate resume legislative session.
  I further ask consent that following the debate on Monday on the 
three nominations, the Senate resume legislative session.
  I finally ask consent that at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, October 5, the 
Senate resume executive session and proceed to consecutive votes, first 
on the nomination of Ronnie White, to be followed by a vote on the 
nomination of Ted Stewart, to be followed by a vote on the nomination 
of Raymond Fisher. I also ask consent that following the votes, again 
the President be notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then 
resume legislative session.
  Before the Chair rules, I yield to the Democratic leader for his 
comments and an appropriate response from me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I appreciate the majority leader's effort to try to move 
these nominations along. Before I make some comment, let me ask the 
majority leader what his intentions are with regard to Marsha Berzon, 
the nominee to be the United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth 
Circuit, as well as Richard Paez, a similar nominee for the Ninth 
Circuit. Can the majority leader give me his current intentions with 
regard to those two nominations?

[[Page 23560]]


  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield under his 
reservation to respond, let me say again, I appreciate the cooperation 
of Senators on both sides of the aisle, from the Judiciary Committee, 
and other Senators who have interest in these nominations. It has been 
a very delicate balance to work through a process where we could get 
these nominations confirmed.
  The nominations of Mr. Marrero from, I believe, New York, and Mr. 
Lorenz from California have not been controversial. They have been 
cleared for quite some time. We had the unfortunate situation with 
regard to the nomination of Ted Stewart where we had a cloture vote, 
which I think both sides would prefer not to have happened. There are 
reasons for it. But I think it is important we not start down that 
trail. Both sides have indicated we do not want to start having cloture 
votes to determine the confirmation of judges. Then also there is the 
nomination of Mr. Fisher for the Ninth Circuit.
  So we have here a process where we can have a voice vote on two of 
them and some debate and votes on the other three: White, Stewart, and 
Fisher. That is a significant undertaking. That will get us into the 
process where judges--certainly judges who are not controversial--will 
not be held up because of controversial judges in other areas. So I 
just wanted to kind of go through that whole process.
  With regard to the other two nominations Senator Daschle asks about, 
I will continue to work with the Democratic leader as well as other 
Members on his side of the aisle and on my side of the aisle in 
scheduling executive nominations. I have to go through a process where 
I have to notify Members that a judicial nomination may be called up 
and see if there are problems with it, see if that can be worked out, 
see if we are going to need an extended period of time of debate, see 
if there is a threatened filibuster.
  So I will work, as I have in the past, to see if we can get these 
nominations cleared so we can move forward. I will continue to do that. 
I will do that on specifically the two that have been mentioned. I will 
try to find a way to have them considered. I cannot confirm at this 
point when or how that will be done, but I will continue to work on it.
  That is one of the reasons that moving these other judges is 
important. Because it takes time to get the nominations cleared. When 
you have five that you are close to getting cleared, once you get those 
out of the way, then you can focus your attention on the remaining 
judges on the calendar.
  By the way, I understand there are other basically noncontroversial 
judges on whom the Judiciary Committee will be meeting, maybe in the 
next week or two, and there will be more judges on the calendar. So we 
want to keep moving the ones that can be cleared because there are 
districts and circuits around the country that do need these judges to 
be confirmed. I think we can get this request agreed to. It will be 
positive, and we will be able to continue to work together.
  I hope that is helpful in responding to Senator Daschle's question.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is helpful. With that assurance, I will certainly 
not object to the request propounded by the majority leader. He has 
made it to me privately. It is my hope we will continue to work. These 
are important matters. As the majority leader has heard me say, and 
others say, now for some time, in some cases they have been pending not 
for months but for years. For anyone to be held that long is just an 
extraordinary unfairness, not only to the nominees but to the system 
itself.
  The majority leader has also noted that a cloture vote is an 
unfortunate matter. Actually, a cloture vote is a recognition of the 
difficulty to move judges. A cloture vote is probably no more 
unfortunate than a hold. We have people who are maintaining holds on 
judges, which is also very unfortunate. A hold is nothing more than an 
intent to filibuster.
  So I hope our colleagues will drop their holds and will recognize 
that taking hostages in this form is not the right way to proceed and 
does not live up to the traditions of the Senate when it comes to the 
expeditious consideration of individuals who want to serve in public 
life.
  The majority leader also mentioned--I will mention this just briefly 
because it is another important factor in our decision to want to 
cooperate with the majority--the decision and the commitment made by 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that he will hold hearings and 
he will move other nominees forward. It is important that all of the 
nominees who are pending before the Judiciary Committee be considered. 
He has indicated he will do his best to ensure they are considered.
  Our ranking member, the Senator from Vermont, has been extremely 
persistent and dedicated to that effort. I appreciate his contributions 
as well.
  So, Mr. President, I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________