[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[House]
[Page 9078]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           FILIBUSTER SHOULD NOT STAND IN THE WAY OF NOMINEES

  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of hard to see justice served in 
this Nation when our Federal bench has vacancies on it. That is why the 
President has put forward a number of highly qualified, highly skilled 
people to serve on the Federal bench.
  However, Senate Democrats do not like these judges. They have 
conspired to block judges using the filibuster. That means a nominee 
requires the approval not of 51 Senators, which the Constitution 
requires, a majority; but 60 Senators, a supermajority.
  So Republicans would like to restore the tradition of the Senate 
approving the President's judicial nominations by requiring an up-or-
down vote. This is called the Constitutional Option, because it 
empowers Senators to vote on judicial nominees, up or down. The rule 
change will apply only to judicial nominees.
  It actually has been used before by Democrats. In 1995, 19 currently 
serving Democratic Senators voted to end all filibusters, and Senator 
Robert Byrd has tried to amend use of the filibuster several times.
  As long as there is a Senate, there will be a filibuster and other 
delaying tactics available to thwart the majority and legislation. But 
as long as the Constitution directs the Senate to vote on judicial 
nominees, the filibuster will not stand in the way.

                          ____________________