The following was issued
by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) this afternoon.
Included also is a letter the senator sent to Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) as regards the filibuster
today, obtained by RAW STORY.
Reid calls for a final negotiation or a vote.
###
As Prepared for Delivery:
Two weeks ago, Bill Frist and I exchanged proposals
in an attempt to avert a vote on the nuclear option.
One proposal allowed for up or down votes on all but
four judges – which many of us on both sides of
the aisle considered to be the goal of this hyped battle
over judicial nominations.
It also took the “nuclear option” off the
table, which even Ken Starr said yesterday was damaging
to the Senate as an institution and “amounts to
an assault on the judicial branch of government.”
This compromise would break the gridlock over these
seven judges, and allow us to get back to doing the
people’s business.
Senator Frist’s proposal does nothing to end the
judicial impasse, as it would wipe away the very checks
and balances that have prevented an abuse of power for
more than 200 years.
That result is unacceptable.
I still consider this confrontation entirely unnecessary
and irresponsible. The White House manufactured this
crisis. Since Bush took office, the Senate confirmed
208 of his judicial nominations and turned back only
10, a 95% confirmation rate. Instead of accepting that
success and avoiding further divisiveness and partisanship
in Washington, the President chose to pick fights instead
of judges by resubmitting the names of the rejected
nominees.
This fight is not about seven radical nominees; it’s
about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who
only needs 51 votes, instead of 60 votes. They want
a Clarence Thomas, not a Sandra Day O’Connor or
Anthony Kennedy or David Souter. George Bush wants to
turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives,
a rubberstamp for his right wing agenda and radical
judges. That’s not how America works.
I believe there are two options for avoiding the nuclear
showdown, which so many of us believe is bad for the
Senate, and bad for America.
But I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote on
the nuclear option. Democrats will join responsible
Republicans in a vote to uphold the constitutional principle
of checks and balances.
If it does come to a vote, I asked Senator Frist to
allow his Republican colleagues to follow their consciences.
Senator Specter recently said that Senators should be
bound by Senate loyalty rather than party loyalty on
a question of this magnitude. But right wing activists
are threatening primary challenges against Republicans
who vote against the nuclear option. Senators should
not face this or any other form of retribution based
on their support for the Constitution. In return, I
pledge that I will place no such pressure on Democratic
Senators and I urge Senator Frist to refrain from placing
such pressure on Republican Senators.
I also suggest two reasonable ways to avert this constitutional
crisis.
First, allow up or down votes on additional nominees,
as I addressed in my proposal to Frist two weeks ago.
If this is about getting judges on the courts, let’s
get them on the courts.
Second, allow the Senate to consider changing the rules
without breaking the rules. Every one of us knows that
there is a right way and a wrong way to change the rules
of the Senate; the nuclear option is the wrong way.
Senator Dodd will go to the floor this afternoon to
expand on the way the Senate changes its rules.
I suggest that Senator Frist introduce his proposal
as a resolution. If he does, we commit to moving it
through the Rules Committee expeditiously and allow
for a vote on the floor. It takes 67 votes to change
the rules. If Senator Frist can’t achieve 67 votes,
then clearly the nuclear option is not in the best interest
of the Senate or the nation.
Either of these options offers a path away from the
precipice of the nuclear option. But if neither of these
options is acceptable to you, let’s vote.
###
Below is a copy of Senator Reid’s response to
Senator Frist’s letter from 4/28:
May 10, 2005
The Honorable William Frist
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Bill:
I have reviewed your April 28 letter to me regarding
the current impasse over judicial nominations. In essence,
you propose to eliminate the role of the Senate minority
in considering judicial nominees. The rules changes
you suggest would hand the President the power to make
lifetime appointments to the federal courts without
the check of meaningful Senate review. That result is
unacceptable.
I still consider this confrontation entirely unnecessary
and in this letter will suggest two options for avoiding
it. But I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote
on the nuclear option. Democrats will join responsible
Republicans in a vote to uphold the constitutional principle
of checks and balances.
I call on you to allow your Republican colleagues to
follow their consciences on this historic question –
as Senator Specter recently said, Senators should be
bound by Senate loyalty rather than party loyalty on
a question of this magnitude. But at least one right-wing
activist has threatened to sponsor primary challenges
against Republicans who vote against the nuclear option.
Senators should not face this or any other form of retribution
based on their support for the Constitution and the
integrity of the Senate. I pledge that I will place
no such pressure on Democratic Senators and I ask for
your commitment not to place such pressure on Republican
Senators.
Turning to your April 28 letter, I want to thank you
for recognizing that “some of President Clinton’s
nominees were blocked in committee” and therefore
“both parties have significant complaints about
the process by which the Senate exercises its responsibility
to advise and consent.” It is disingenuous for
Republican Senators to insist that every judicial nominee
is entitled to the courtesy of an up-down vote when
69 Clinton nominees were denied that very courtesy by
the Republican-controlled Senate. Historians can debate
whether President Hayes’s 1881 nomination of Stanley
Matthews to the Supreme Court was filibustered (it was),
but you and I don’t need to debate whether dozens
of Clinton nominees were rejected by the Senate’s
inaction – we served in the Senate during those
years and we know that they were.
You now propose two changes to Senate procedure that
would eliminate Democratic influence over President
Bush’s judicial nominees by abolishing the same
senatorial prerogatives that Republicans used to exert
influence over President Clinton’s judicial nominees.
Aside from the merits, your proposal is objectionable
because it would enable the Republican majority to profit
from its own overreaching during the Clinton years.
The Senate rules should only be changed to improve the
institution, not to achieve momentary partisan advantage.
Neither of your proposed rules changes meets that standard.
First, you propose to streamline consideration of nominees
in the Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, this reform
is unnecessary. Over the course of President Bush’s
first term Chairman Hatch unilaterally eliminated each
of the tools, such as the blue-slip process, by which
the Senate minority traditionally exerted influence
over judicial nominations. Your proposal would merely
codify the current unfair practices.
These now-discarded Judiciary Committee procedures had
the beneficial effect of encouraging White House consultation
with the Senate minority and with home-state Senators
in order to resolve disputes before nominations are
presented to the Senate. Over the last four years President
Bush too often failed to seek the advice of the Senate
before making unwise nominations, and Democrats lacked
any means short of a filibuster to carry out our duty
under the Advice and Consent Clause of the Constitution.
Consensus nominations are good for the Senate and good
for the judiciary. If anything, we should reestablish
the blue-slip process rather than formalize its demise.
Second, you propose to abolish minority rights on the
floor of the Senate, replacing the 60 vote threshold
established by Rule XXII with a new 51 vote threshold
following 100 hours of floor debate. I cannot agree
to this proposal because it denies the Senate minority
a meaningful voice in confirming nominees and is therefore
inconsistent with constitutional checks and balances.
The principle at stake here is not the length of debate
-- it is the role of the Senate minority to serve as
a check on executive power. Your proposal simply places
a delayed fuse on the nuclear option.
Incidentally, I am baffled by your suggestion that minority
rights be terminated with respect to circuit court and
Supreme Court nominations but not district court nominations.
Surely appellate court nominees deserve greater scrutiny
than trial court nominees, and in any event all nominations
are governed by the same Advice and Consent Clause of
the Constitution. I can only conclude that your real
goal is not to vindicate a constitutional principle
but to establish a 51 vote threshold for President Bush’s
nominations to the Supreme Court.
Your proposal would embolden the President to nominate
an extreme Supreme Court nominee, the last thing our
country needs. The best thing for our country would
be a consensus Supreme Court nominee of great stature
who could command the support of a vast majority of
Senators.
Even though your April 28 letter does not present an
acceptable resolution of our current dispute, we should
not stop trying. Our colleagues have implored us to
work this out, and we owe them, the Senate itself and
the American people our best efforts to negotiate a
settlement. Let me summarize two ways to avoid a showdown:
Option 1: Up-Down Votes for Additional Nominees
The Senate has already confirmed 208 of President Bush’s
nominees and yesterday I proposed that the Senate take
up a 209th nominee -- controversial D.C. Circuit nominee
Thomas Griffith -- under procedures that would guarantee
him an up-down vote. In addition, as I have previously
discussed with you, the Democratic caucus would be willing
to debate and vote on four of the disputed court of
appeals nominees -- the three Sixth Circuit nominees
other than Henry Saad and one of the other four nominees
who were previously filibustered. This additional concession
would be contingent on your commitment to abandon the
nuclear option for the remainder of the 109th Congress
and reinstatement of the blue-slip process in the Judiciary
Committee.
I have been faulted by some of my allies for making
this offer because it would amount to Democrats yielding
on our principled opposition to each of these nominations.
I have responded to these critics by saying that Senate
leaders must sometimes compromise, even on matters of
principle, for the good of the Senate and the country.
Option 2: Allow the Senate to Consider Changing the
Rules without Breaking the Rules
There is a right way and a wrong way to change the
rules of the Senate; the nuclear option is the wrong
way. While I personally oppose the rules changes you
propose in your April 28 letter, I am willing to facilitate
their consideration by the Senate under the well-established
procedures for amending the Senate rules. I suggest
that you introduce your April 28 proposal in the form
of a Senate resolution, or reintroduce your similar
proposal (S. Res. 138) from last Congress. When that
resolution is referred to the Rules Committee, I would
work with Ranking Member Dodd to ensure its full, fair
and expedited consideration. And if the resolution is
referred to the full Senate as I expect it would, I
pledge that Democrats would approach it in good faith
through the ordinary legislative process.
While Rule XXII establishes a 67-vote threshold for
amendments to the Senate rules, I don’t think
that is an insurmountable obstacle for some improvements
in the process by which the Senate considers judicial
nominees. I assure you that Democrats would be more
receptive to rules changes presented in this way than
in the form of the nuclear option, in which the Senate
majority would break the rules to change them.
Either of these options offers a path away from the
precipice of the nuclear option. Either would avert
this confrontation and instead allow the Senate to continue
working in a bipartisan way on matters of real concern
to the American people. But if neither of these options
is acceptable to you, let’s vote.
