[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11164-11165]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       PUTTING PARTISANSHIP ASIDE

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, when I was running for the 
Senate in 2000, I pledged to put partisanship aside to do what is right 
for Nebraska. I told Nebraskans that if they elected me they could 
count on me to carefully consider the issues and ultimately do what I 
think is best.
  From tax cuts, to Medicare reform to campaign finance reform and now 
to the battle over stalled judicial nominations, I have distanced 
myself from the partisan atmosphere in Washington to get things done.
  Over the past few months and with great intensity over the past two 
weeks, I have been working with a bipartisan group of moderate-minded 
Senators to craft an alternative to the ``nuclear option''--the 
partisan and political attempt to force a change in the

[[Page 11165]]

rules of the Senate to end filibusters against judicial nominations.
  The nuclear option is a temporary political fix to a very serious and 
ongoing problem: The Senate's failure to confirm more than 60 
nominations during the last administration and the filibustering of ten 
of President Bush's nominations. To address this problem, I would 
prefer a permanent rules change to the Senate over a temporary 
procedural maneuver like the nuclear option that can be reversed if the 
White House or the Congress changes hands.
  The Senate was designed by our Founding Fathers to act as a counter 
balance to the House of Representatives which represented States based 
on population. The Senate was the chamber where each State would have 
equal representation, two Senators and two votes. The intent was to 
prevent the power in Congress from becoming concentrated in large 
population States like New York, California, Florida and Texas. In the 
Senate, a Senator from Nebraska has the same power as a Senator from 
any other State.
  As a former Governor and a firm believer in the power of the 
executive branch to appoint Cabinet members, judges and other 
officials, I do not support filibustering nominations. In fact, as 
Nebraska's Senator, I have voted against filibustering judicial 
appointments in every case but one where I was denied access to 
background information on the nominee. However, I also do not think the 
nuclear option is the solution to the impasse over judicial 
nominations.
  We have built consensus behind a plan whereby seven Republican 
Senators pledge to vote against the nuclear option in exchange for an 
agreement from seven Democrats to allow most of the stalled nominations 
to get up-or-down votes as well as a pledge to not support filibusters 
of future nominations except in extraordinary circumstances.
  Our compromise would be constructed completely within the existing 
rules of the Senate; it would prevent the nuclear option and the 
expected fallout of bringing all Senate business, including the energy 
bill and other important legislation, to a halt; and would preserve the 
rights of the Senate minority not only for this Congress but for future 
Congresses regardless of who is in the majority. Protecting the 
Senate's minority rights might seem to go against the concept of 
democracy and majority rule. In reality and without the spin on this 
issue that the special interest groups from both extremes put on this 
matter, the Senate's minority rights are part of the system of checks 
and balances that keep any branch of government from dominating the 
others.
  The minority rights aren't always about party politics either. Many 
filibusters throughout history were conducted by Senators who disagreed 
with the president or the majority of Senators. Filibusters also give 
small States such as Nebraska an important tool to protect itself from 
the will of the larger States.
  The debate over these judges has consumed the Senate and all of 
Washington. When I am in Nebraska most folks do not ask me about the 
judicial nomination process. Nebraskans tell me they want an energy 
bill that will boost ethanol production and reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. Nebraskans are concerned about the President's plan to 
divert Social Security funds to private accounts and a myriad of other 
important legislative priorities.
  Those who do mention judges and nominations express concern about 
where the Senate seemed to be headed. Many expressed to me the desire 
to stop the bickering and get on with the Senate's business. Others 
offered encouraging words in support of the compromise effort and those 
comments made me feel that Nebraskans were appreciative of our efforts.
  The business, that we as Senators are tasked with carrying out for 
the American people would cease in the Senate if the majority leader 
follows through on his threats to employ the nuclear option. Nebraskans 
waiting for the energy bill, a Federal budget, asbestos litigation 
reform and even confirmation of future judicial nominations are the 
ones who will suffer if the nuclear option is detonated.
  With our compromise everybody wins. Those seeking to protect minority 
rights win. Those seeking to confirm judicial nominations win. Small 
States win.
  We accomplished this by working together with common purpose and 
shared concern for the future of this body. I am proud of what we have 
accomplished and I will treasure the new friends I made in the process. 
I thank you, all of you, for working with me, for trusting me, and for 
joining me in this great challenge.
  I would like to include all the names of the signatories on the 
memorandum of understanding as part of my statement. These brave 
senators are: Senator John McCain, Senator John Warner, Senator Robert 
Byrd, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Olympia Snowe, Senator Ken 
Salazar, Senator Mike DeWine, Senator Susan Collins, Senator Mark 
Pryor, Senator Lincoln Chafee, Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Joseph 
Lieberman, and Senator Daniel Inouye.

                          ____________________