[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16198-16199]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me respond briefly, if I may, to the 
Senator from Idaho. I have respect for him and for much of the work we 
have done together over the years on many issues, including forest 
health. But I must say I strongly disagree with his characterization of 
this particular judicial nominating debate.
  Over the history of our 220 years, the Senate has seen fit on 
countless occasions to require either a threshold cloture vote or, 
before we had cloture, some resolution to controversial matters 
involving extended debate. Before we had cloture, there was no way to 
resolve it. A Senator could see fit to talk about an issue or a nominee 
for days, weeks, months, and there was no way to resolve it. There were 
many occasions during the 20th century when this was exactly the case. 
That evolved, of course, with the implementation of cloture and the use 
of cloture over the course of the last 100 years. So now we have a rule 
of the Senate that says on those issues that are controversial, a 
supermajority is required.
  I think for the Senator from Idaho to make the point that there is no 
vote is just wrong. The vote occurs at 2:15. If the supermajority will 
move to proceed on this very controversial nominee, you go to the 
second phase of consideration. But that is what the Senate rules 
require. I must say that is a far better approach than what we faced 
during the Clinton administration, when more than 60 nominees never got 
a committee vote. We go back to the old days of the 20th century during 
the Clinton years when you didn't even have an opportunity for cloture 
because the Judiciary Committee refused to act on over 60 nominees. So 
this is an improvement, to say the least, over that.
  As to the qualifications of Bill Myers, I will simply say the ABA 
does not share the view of the Senator from Idaho with regard to his 
qualifications. It is very rare for the ABA not to categorize a nominee 
as qualified--extremely rare. They have not done so in the case of Bill 
Myers. ``Partially qualified,'' but do we really want a ``partially 
qualified'' nominee to serve on the circuit court of our land?
  It is rare--in fact, it is unprecedented--for the Native-American 
community in the United States to take a position on a judge. They have 
never done so. The Native-American community in South Dakota and North 
Dakota, in all Western States around the country, has come together 
with one voice to say this man ought not be a circuit court judge--
unheard of. We have never seen that before.
  We have never seen the National Wildlife Foundation take a position 
on a judge, but they, too, have said please do not confirm this 
nominee. Why? Because of what limited record he had with regard to 
judicial issues. He virtually has none as Solicitor. There is no real 
court experience, with a couple of exceptions. So you have somebody 
with at least, arguably, some ethical questions that have not been 
addressed; you have major communities such as the Native-American 
community in our country in an unprecedented statement in opposition; 
you have the ABA that has said they are reluctant to support this 
nominee because he is only ``partially qualified.''
  So, Mr. President, clearly it is those and many other factors that 
led every single Democrat, in a rare demonstration of opposition in the 
committee, to oppose this nomination. We have now approved, I believe 
it is 196 nominations--198 nominations. That is a

[[Page 16199]]

record that surpasses Bill Clinton, the first President Bush, and 
Ronald Reagan. This President's three predecessors have not had a 
record of confirmation equal to his.
  I must say it is interesting, and I would note, that my colleague 
from Idaho, who just abhorred this current circumstance regarding 
cloture on a nominee, voted against cloture, voted to sustain the 
extended debate, ironically, in the circumstances involving another 
Ninth Circuit nominee, Richard Paez. They voted to continue the debate, 
not to vote for cloture, not to terminate the debate, not to move to 
that second phase. So I would certainly ask the distinguished Senator 
at some point for his explanation as to why it was appropriate to 
extend debate in that case but not in this case.

                          ____________________