[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Page 16316]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2001--MOTION TO 
                           PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me conclude my overall remarks by 
saying, as I began, that we are in the doldrums. We are here but we are 
not moving. I do not think it is sufficient to simply, on a day-by-day 
basis, make a little concession here and a little concession there.
  I think to get this Senate under full sail again, moving forward, 
proudly, purposefully, is to once again summon up the spirit which I 
always thought was inherent in this body, the spirit of vigorous and 
free and open debate, of vigorous and wide-ranging amendment, 
unfettered by the individual proclivities of the leader, whoever the 
leader may be, and then, ultimately, doing our job, which is to vote.
  This afternoon, I have tried to suggest several areas where we have 
neglected that obligation. With respect to Federal judges, it seems to 
me that there has been an attitude adopted here that our advice and 
consent is sort of an optional thing. If we do not choose to do it, 
then no judges will be confirmed. In a way, it is very subversive to 
the Constitution.
  Frankly, I don't think anyone would object if judges were brought to 
this floor and voted down. That is a political judgment, a policy 
judgment, a judgment based upon their jurisprudence, their character, a 
host of issues. But what is so objectionable is this notion of stymying 
the Constitution by simple nonaction, by pushing it off into the 
shadows, allowing individual nominees to languish, hoping that no one 
pays attention to it, and that at the end of the day these judges will 
go away and more favorable judges will be appointed. I do not think 
that is the way to operate this Senate.
  We have legislation, such as the ESEA, which has been permanently--or 
apparently permanently--shelved, not because there is something 
inherently wrong with the bill as it has been presented--we can debate 
the merits of that--but because to bring it back to the floor would 
invite amendments that might be uncomfortable. I think that is also 
wrong.
  Then I think we have a measure which everyone claims is critical to 
our economy, critical to our future national security, critical to our 
relationships with Asia and China, particularly, over the next several 
decades. That, too, has been shunted aside, not because of substance, 
but because of political calculation. Once again, I think that is 
wrong.
  In return, what has been suggested, is: Why don't you take a little 
of this and a little of that, and we will give you an amendment here, 
and we just might bring up two judges, but we don't know who they are. 
That, in comparison, is not an appropriate response to the basic 
question of: Will the Senate be the Senate?
  I would hope that we would return to that spirit, that spirit which I 
think drew us all here initially, with the hope and the expectation 
that we would debate and we would vote--we would win some; we would 
lose some--but ultimately, by debating and by voting, and by 
shouldering our responsibilities--not avoiding them--the American 
people would ultimately be the great victors in this Democratic 
process.
  I hope we return to that spirit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from the 
Senator from Rhode Island. I will have some responses to them in a 
moment.

                          ____________________