Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the talking filibuster and on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday civil rights march. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

My Republican colleagues love to extol the virtues of “regular order.” If only we could get back to the days of regular order, they say, the Senate would function again.

Well, yesterday we saw both sides of that. On one hand my Republican colleagues did not practice regular order. Instead they demanded a 60-vote threshold for confirmation of a qualified nominee, Caitlin Halligan, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Republicans hid behind a cloture vote – a filibuster by another term – to prevent a simple up or down vote on this important nomination. They took the easy way out.

On the other hand, one Republican Senator did return to regular order. And, as is his right, he spoke for as long as he was able. That is a filibuster.

After 12 hours standing and talking, this is how Senator Paul ended his filibuster: “I would go for another 12 hours to try to break Strom Thurmond’s record, but I’ve discovered there are some limits to filibustering and I’m going to have to take care of one of those in a few minutes here.” One thing I learned from my own experience with talking filibusters: to succeed, you need strong convictions but also a strong bladder. Senator Paul has both.

We should all reflect on what happened yesterday as we proceed with other nominations, including a number of judicial nominations. This can be a Senate were ideas are debated in full public view – and obstruction happens in full public view as well. Or it can be a Senate where a small minority obstructs from behind closed doors, without ever coming to the Senate floor.

Bloody Sunday

Forty-eight years ago today, a young man by the name of John Lewis set out on a march across Alabama, from Selma to Montgomery. By his side were a few hundred freedom-loving men and women calling for an end to discrimination and violence against African Americans.

Today John Lewis is a distinguished member of the House of Representatives. But back then he was a young civil rights leader, determined to fight injustice and force the United States to live up to its founding principle – that all people are created equal.

John expected to be arrested that day. Instead, John and the peaceful protesters by his side were met just six blocks into their march by state troopers with dogs, fire hoses and clubs. Many of the marchers, including John Lewis, were badly beaten.

The terrible violence of that day – known as Bloody Sunday – was broadcast across the country. For the first time, the bloody reality of the struggle for equal rights was beamed into America’s living rooms. Bloody Sunday marked a turning point in the Civil Rights movement, as Americans cried out against the injustice and bloodshed they saw on their television screens.

Later that month, protesters finally completed the march from Selma to Montgomery. And more than 25,000 patriots converged on the Alabama State Capitol Building. From the steps of the Alabama Capitol, Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of the power of peaceful resistance. This is what he said: “Selma, Alabama, became a shining moment in the conscience of man. If the worst in American life lurked in its dark street, the best of American instincts arose passionately from across the nation to overcome it.”

Six months later President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The law was one of many steps to make “freedom and justice for all” more than just a maxim.

But today the change Bloody Sunday helped bring to bear with the Voting Rights Act is under attack again. Last week, the Supreme Court considered striking sections of the law barring areas with a history of discrimination from changing voting practices without federal approval.

Critics say these protections are no longer necessary. But anyone who waited hours to cast a ballot in 2012 knows that’s not the case. And anyone who has watched as state legislatures pass laws designed to intimidate eligible voters and keep the poor, minorities and the elderly from the polls knows the fight for freedom is not over.

America has made great strides to eradicate racism, thanks to men like John Lewis. But together we must guard that progress with vigilance, keeping in mind the sacrifices made by so many 48 years ago today.

“If my Republican colleagues choose to filibuster [Caitlin] Halligan’s confirmation a second time, their naked partisanship will be exposed.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding Republican obstruction of qualified judicial nominees. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

William Gladstone, four-time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, wrote that, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” By that measure, millions of Americans who rely on courts that are overworked and understaffed are being denied the justice they rightly deserve.

With one out of every 10 federal judgeships vacant, Americans can no longer rely on a fair and speedy trial. More than half the nation’s population lives in a part of the country that’s been declared a “judicial emergency.”

The high number of vacancies isn’t due to a lack of qualified jurists. It is due, instead, to blatant partisanship.

President Obama’s judicial nominees have waited, on average, three to four times longer to be confirmed than those nominated by President George W. Bush. Even highly-qualified nominees – nominees who are eventually confirmed unanimously or almost unanimously – routinely wait weeks or even months to be confirmed.

Tomorrow, the Senate will consider highly-qualified Caitlin Joan Halligan. Ms. Halligan has been waiting more than two years to be confirmed.

Ms. Halligan is nominated – for the second time – to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit considers complex appeals of federal regulations. And it has jurisdiction over vital national security challenges. It is also one of the many courts in crisis across this country.

A third of seats on the D.C. Circuit Court are vacant. The last appointment to the D.C. Circuit was made in 2006. And in the years since, the number of pending cases per judge has grown from 119 in 2005 to 188 today.

When Ms. Halligan was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2010, she was nominated to fill one of two vacancies on the court. More than two years later, Ms. Halligan’s nomination is again before the Senate. And the D.C. Circuit now has four empty seats.

The last time the Senate considered Ms. Halligan’s nomination, some of my Republican colleagues claimed the D.C. Circuit didn’t really need more judges. So they filibustered her confirmation. No one could credibly make that argument today. If my Republican colleagues choose to filibuster Ms. Halligan’s confirmation a second time, their naked partisanship will be exposed.

Patricia M. Wald, who retired after serving two decades on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, said this of the confirmation process: “The constitutional system of nomination and confirmation can work only if there is good faith on the part of both the president and the Senate to move qualified nominees along, rather than withholding consent for political reasons.” A second partisan filibuster of this highly-qualified nominee by my Republican colleagues would be in very bad faith.

One qualified, consensus judicial nominee ought to be treated like another – regardless of the political party of the President that made the nomination. Yet President Obama is the only president in the 65-year history of the D.C. Circuit Court not to have a single judge confirmed during his first term.

It’s certainly not because his nominees are anything less than supremely qualified. Ms. Halligan’s colleagues have called her a “brilliant legal mind.” She has outstanding credentials and the strong support of appellate lawyers, former judges, law enforcement officials and more than 20 former Supreme Court clerks from across the political spectrum. She graduated with honors from Princeton and Georgetown University Law. She clerked for Judge Patricia Wald, who I quoted a moment ago, and for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

If a truly exceptional candidate such as Caitlin Halligan isn’t qualified to be a judge in the United States of America, I don’t know who is.

“Republicans have, again and again, injected politics into the confirmation process.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding Republican efforts to obstruct President Obama’s highly qualified judicial and cabinet nominations Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

This week the Senate will consider a handful of nominations. Tonight Senators will vote on confirmation of two district court judges, Pamela Chen to serve as United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York and Katherine Failla to serve as United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. Later this week we will consider the nomination of Caitlin Joan Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which currently has four vacancies.

Ms. Halligan’s colleagues say she has a “brilliant legal mind” and an “abiding respect for the law.” But despite her outstanding credentials and strong support from across the political spectrum, Republicans filibustered her confirmation last Congress.

President Obama is the only president in the 65-year history of the D.C. Circuit Court not to have a single judge confirmed to that court during his first term. Since Ms. Halligan was nominated, two additional vacancies have opened up on the D.C. Circuit. The court desperately needs more judges.

This week, the Senate will also consider the nomination of John Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. The Intelligence Committee is expected to report his nomination tomorrow. Mr. Brennan served 25 years at the CIA and four years on the White House national security staff, where he played an instrumental role in finding Osama bin Laden and decimating al Qaeda. He is highly qualified, and should be confirmed quickly.

This week will be a test of Republicans’ good will. My Republican colleagues say they respect the Senate’s responsibility to advise and consent. My Republican colleagues say they don’t plan to obstruct the confirmation process for the sake of obstruction. But they filibustered President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, a former Republican Senator, delaying Secretary Hagel’s confirmation for nearly two weeks.

Republicans say they will not filibuster. But their actions say otherwise.

Republicans say they are just requiring 60-vote thresholds. But the difference between a filibuster and requiring a 60-vote threshold on nominations is a distinction without a difference.

In a nation founded on a principle of justice for all, it is crucial that we adequately staff our federal courts. And at a time when America faces so many threats abroad, it’s crucial we have a talented and dedicated individual like John Brennan leading our most prominent intelligence agency. Yet Republicans have, again and again, injected politics into the confirmation process – both when considering judicial nominees and, most recently, when considering cabinet nominees.

There was once a time when Republicans were the ones defending the right of the President to choose the players on his team. But back then there was a Republican in the White House. In 2001, the Senior Senator from Utah touted the, “longstanding tradition in the Senate… [to] afford the President a significant degree of deference to shape his Cabinet as he sees fit.” Four years later, after President Bush was reelected, the Senior Senator from Arizona pointed out that elections have consequences and said, “The President has a right to put into place the team he believes will serve him best.”

As we consider key nominations this week, and in the weeks to come, I hope my Republican colleagues honor that longstanding tradition of the Senate. And I urge Republicans to consider that – if the Senate fails to properly staff our national security agencies or the nation’s judicial system – our inaction will also have consequences.

“It is critical that Republicans and Democrats come together to find a balanced way to avert these drastic [sequester] cuts.”

“Democrats want to work with Republicans to find a balanced, responsible way to reduce the deficit. Unfortunately… they would sacrifice 750,000 American jobs rather than ask multi-millionaires to pay a penny more.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today about the sequester and Republicans’ unprecedented filibuster of Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery.

Today the Senate will vote for a second time to move forward with the nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel – a Republican – to serve as Secretary of Defense. Twelve days ago, Republicans mounted a first-of-its-kind filibuster of Senator Hagel’s confirmation. Senator Hagel is the first nominee for Secretary of Defense to be filibustered in the history of the United States.

And what has their filibuster gained my Republican colleagues? Twelve days later, nothing has changed. Twelve days later, Senator Hagel’s exemplary record of service to his country remains untarnished. Twelve days later, President Obama’s support for this qualified nominee is still strong. Twelve days later, the majority of Senators still support his confirmation.

Senate Republicans have delayed for the better part of two weeks for one reason and one reason only: partisanship. At a time when our nation faces threats abroad, the President’s nominee for Secretary of Defense deserves a fair and constructive confirmation process.

Politically-motivated delays send a terrible signal to our allies and to the world. And they send a terrible signal to tens of thousands of Americans serving in Afghanistan. For the sake of national security, it’s time to set aside this partisanship.

In three days, across-the-board cuts to defense spending are scheduled to take effect. The Pentagon needs a seasoned leader to implement those cuts.

Democrats are working hard to avert the worst of these arbitrary cuts – cuts for which an overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress voted.

We have a balanced proposal to replace those across-the-board cuts for this year with smart spending reductions, measures that close corporate tax loopholes and end wasteful subsidies and revenue from the very wealthiest among us – Americans making millions of dollars each year.

It is critical that Republicans and Democrats come together to find a balanced way to avert these drastic cuts. The consequences of the so-called sequester are real – not only for our national defense, but for millions of American families and businesses. More than 750,000 American jobs are at stake.

Across the country, tens of thousands of teachers, including thousands who work with disabled children, could be laid off. Seventy thousand children would be dropped from Head Start. And 373,000 adults living with serious mental illnesses and children dealing with severe emotional problems will go untreated.

Airports will close, due to a shortage of air traffic controllers. And lines at the airports that do stay open will stretch out the door, as TSA workers are furloughed. At the airport in Las Vegas, through which 40 million tourists from around the world travel each year, security lines will take an hour longer than they do today.

And from coast to coast, hundreds of thousands of civilian employees of the Department of Defense will face furloughs that will devastate their families and devastate our economy.

These effects won’t be felt all at once. They will be cumulative, and they will be painful.

Democrats want to work with Republicans to find a balanced, responsible way to reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, Republicans are standing in the way of a solution. They would sacrifice 750,000 American jobs rather than ask multi-millionaires to pay a penny more.

But three-quarters of Americans – including 56 percent of Republicans – are crying out for a balanced approach. With only three days left to protect American families and our economic recovery from this latest crisis, it’s time for Republicans to work toward a solution instead of being part of the problem.

“Nationwide, sequester cuts will cost more than 750,000 jobs… But Congress has the power to prevent these self-inflicted wounds.”

“Unfortunately, Republicans would rather let devastating cuts go into effect than close a single wasteful tax loophole.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today about Sequestration. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery.

The Senate has a great deal to accomplish this work period, including the long-delayed confirmation of former Senator Chuck Hagel to lead the Defense Department.

This week the Senate will also consider two plans to avert devastating, across-the-board cuts to military spending as well as domestic initiatives that keep American families and businesses strong. To give our economy a foundation for growth, Congress must replace these cuts – the so-called sequester – with a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

Senate Democrats would temporarily replace this harsh austerity with a combination of smart spending reductions and measures that close corporate tax loopholes, end wasteful subsidies and ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. And it would avoid harmful cuts that will hurt American families, harm military readiness and hinder our economic recovery.

Families and businesses in every state in the nation – in red states and blue states – are at risk because of these haphazard cuts. In the presiding officer’s home state, Virginia, 170 teachers who work with disabled children could lose their jobs, thousands of kids will go without life-saving vaccines and 90,000 Pentagon employees will be furloughed.

In Nevada, 120 teachers could lose their jobs, local law enforcement agencies will lose essential funding to prevent and prosecute crime and thousands of Defense Department employees will be furloughed – losing wages that support their families and our state’s economy.

Residents of the Republican Leader’s home state would also suffer. Kentucky will lose federal funding that helps police catch and punish domestic abusers, buys meals for needy seniors and keeps at-risk children in Head Start programs. And more than 11,000 Kentuckians who work for the Defense Department will be furloughed.

Nationwide, sequester cuts will cost more than 750,000 jobs. More than 70,000 little boys and girls will be kicked off Head Start. Meat inspectors, air traffic controllers, FBI officers and border patrol agents will be furloughed. Small businesses – which create two-thirds of all new jobs in this country – will lose access to crucial federal loans. Thousands of researchers working to cure cancer, diabetes and scores of other life-threatening diseases will lose their jobs.

Congress has the power to prevent these self-inflicted wounds. We have the power to turn off the sequester, protect American families and businesses and ensure our national defense.

In the House and in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats voted to impose these cuts. And it will take Republicans and Democrats working together to avert them. Twenty-eight Republicans in the Senate and 174 Republicans in the House voted to impose these painful cuts. If those same Republicans would work with Democrats to find a balanced way to reduce the deficit, Congress could avert the forced austerity of the sequester today – right away.

Unfortunately, Republicans would rather let devastating cuts go into effect than close a single wasteful tax loophole. They would rather cut Medicare, education and medical research than ask a single millionaire to pay a single dollar more in taxes.

The overwhelming majority of Americans want us to compromise before their neighbors, friends and family members get pink slips or furlough notices. The overwhelming majority of Americans – including 56 percent of Republicans – support Democrats’ balanced approach. Once again, the only Republicans rejecting a reasonable, balanced compromise are Republicans in this building – Republicans in Congress.

“In a time of war and threats to Americans at home and abroad, Senate Republicans are waging the first-ever filibuster of a Defense Secretary nominee. Despite unprecedented responsiveness and transparency from the White House, Republicans have constantly invented new pretexts for opposing Senator Hagel’s nomination, and Republicans continued their embarrassing display of disregard for our national security by blocking Senator Hagel’s nomination today.

“Watching Republicans with otherwise distinguished records on national security place their desire to please the Tea Party ahead of doing the right thing for our troops is one of the saddest spectacles I have witnessed in my twenty-seven years in the Senate.

“Senator Hagel is a decorated war veteran, an expert on national security issues and the right man to lead the Pentagon in these troubling times. Democrats will continue to fight for Senator Hagel, and we will reconsider his nomination in the coming days. Some Republican senators have said that they will change their votes, and allow his nomination to proceed at some point in the future. I will take them at their word, and I will hold them to their pledge.”

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid released the following statement after being informed by Republican leadership that they would mount a full-scale filibuster and block Senator Hagel’s nomination for Defense Secretary from receiving an final passage vote on the Senate floor:

“My Republican colleagues had led us to believe they would not filibuster Senator Chuck Hagel’s confirmation of as Secretary of Defense. But that has changed. Now, Senate Republicans have made it clear they intend to mount a full-scale filibuster, and block the Senate from holding a final passage vote on Senator Hagel’s nomination. Make no mistake: Republicans are trying to defeat Senator Hagel’s nomination by filibustering while submitting extraneous requests that will never be satisfied.

“The pattern has been clear for months: as soon as President Obama’s administration responds to one request, Republicans devise another, more outlandish request. Senior Administration officials have participated in twenty member and staff briefings, ten congressional hearings, six witness interviews and responded to over forty Benghazi-related inquiries from Congress, producing 10,000 pages of documents. Several of my Republican colleagues sent a letter to the Administration yesterday requesting additional information on the September 11th attack on an American facility in Benghazi. These Republican colleagues said they would not allow a vote on Senator Hagel’s nomination to proceed unless the Administration honored their request. The Administration responded to that letter yesterday. I, along with several of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, received a copy of the letter at 4 p.m. But now Republicans say this is not enough, and are moving the goal posts at the last minute. This is no way to operate.

“The Senate has received extensive information on the Benghazi attacks, including testimony from Administration officials before multiple committees and an independent review board. Senator Hagel has answered exhaustive questions about his record. He has the support of the President. And he has the support in this body to be confirmed, if Republicans would lift their filibuster. There are serious consequences to this delay, and I hope Republicans will drop their filibuster to give our troops the leader they deserve in this time of danger.”

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) released the following statement today after Senator McConnell filibustered a bill to give the President the authority to raise the debt ceiling – a bill that Senator McConnell introduced earlier today.

“The Senate should pass Senator McConnell’s proposal to give the President the authority to avoid the knock-down, drag-out fight we had over the debt ceiling last year – a fight that caused the first-ever downgrade of this country’s credit, and cost our economy billions. Senator McConnell’s filibuster prevented us from having this vote today, but I will continue to seek an agreement to hold an up-or-down vote on his proposal to avoid another debt ceiling debacle.

“After leading three hundred and eighty five filibusters in recent years, Senator McConnell took obstruction to new heights by filibustering his own bill. Republicans’ obstruction and intransigence turned the last debt ceiling fight into a disaster for the middle-class. We should give American families the security of knowing we will never go through such a harmful ordeal again.”

Over the last few years, the wealthiest one percent of Americans has taken home the greatest share of the nation’s income since the roaring ‘20s.

But while the bank accounts of a few fortunate Americans have grown, their tax bills have not.

The wealthiest Americans now pay the lowest tax rates in half a century.

And while this generous tax code has been good for their bottom lines, it hasn’t been good for America’s bottom line.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts – handed out disproportionately to the rich by the previous administration – have fueled skyrocketing deficits and a growing national debt.

Democrats and Republicans alike agree we have to reduce the deficit and rein in the debt.

Unfortunately, the same Republicans who say we have to get our fiscal house in order also claim millionaires and billionaires can’t afford to contribute their fair share to that effort.

They say multi-millionaires like Mitt Romney need lower taxes than ever.

Well, let me tell you what – Mitt Romney doesn’t need another tax break. In fact, he’s got so much money he doesn’t even know where all of it is.

Some of it has run off to Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda. No wonder he doesn’t want America to see his tax returns.

So Mitt Romney is doing just fine. And so are the other millionaires and billionaires in this country.

It’s the middle class I’m worried about.

We all know times have been tough the last few years for ordinary Americans struggling just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

The last thing middle class families can afford now is a tax increase.

That’s why Democrats want to keep taxes low for 98 percent of Americans – everyone making less than $250,000 a year.

But while Democrats are focused on how we can help 98 percent of Americans, Republicans are focused on how they can help Mitt Romney and the rest of the top 2 percent.

And they’re willing to hold tax cuts for everyone else hostage just to protect tax breaks for that top 2 percent.

Democrats don’t agree the top 2 percent of wage earners can’t afford to pay the same tax rate they paid when Bill Clinton was president – back when the budget was balanced and our economy was creating tens of millions of new jobs.

Still, we’re willing to have that debate with our Republican colleagues. We’re willing to discuss it reasonably.

But we don’t believe middle class families should wait and wonder, watch and worry whether their taxes are about to go up while Congress has that conversation.

We shouldn’t wait until the last second to act.

This is what one major newspaper wrote yesterday about the need to act:

“The majority of Americans, and the broader economy, should not be held hostage again to another debate over the merits of tax cuts for the wealthy…. There will never be consensus for solving our nation’s budget problems without first ending the lavish tax breaks at the top.”

So I call on my Republican colleagues to help Democrats give 98 percent of American families the certainty and the security they need right away.

I call on them to help us pass a tax cut that will benefit the middle class without bankrupting our nation.

Because it’s time we faced facts: if we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we can’t keep handing out more tax breaks to the richest Americans.

We will have to make difficult decisions about where to cut and where to invest to keep our nation strong.

But whether to keep taxes low for middle class families shouldn’t be one of the difficult decisions.

I haven’t heard one person – Democrat, Republican or Independent – say we should raise taxes on middle class families.

This is an area where we can easily find common ground.

So, what’s stopping us from doing the right thing – right now? I hope it won’t be more Republican hostage-taking on behalf of the top 2 percent.

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor today regarding a Republican filibuster of legislation to keep student loan interest rates low, and on the Republican proposal to cut preventive health care. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

Over the last two weeks, Senate Republicans have repeatedly claimed they support efforts to keep interest rates low for federal student loans.

There is only one way to prove it: end the needless filibuster of Democrats’ plan to stop rates from doubling this summer.

Democrats have proposed legislation to freeze student loan interest rates at current levels for a year without adding a penny to the deficit.

Our plan creates no new taxes. It would simply stop wealthy Americans from avoiding the taxes they already owe.

And our legislation would prevent 7 million students from paying $1,000 more over the life of each loan.

Yet Republicans appear poised to filibuster this worthy measure.

They’re sending a clear message they would rather protect wealthy tax dodgers than help promising students achieve their dreams of higher education.

Republicans will try to explain away their “no” votes by claiming they oppose the way the legislation is paid for.

They propose radical cuts to a preventive health care fund instead – a proposal they know Democrats oppose.

The prevention fund is already helping states fight chronic illnesses such as heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes.

Chronic diseases like these are responsible for 7 out of 10 deaths in American.

And they make up three-quarters of the nation’s health care spending.

For example, treating 26 million Americans with diabetes – including a rapidly growing number of children – costs hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

And diabetes increases the risk of developing other costly, life-threatening chronic diseases, such as heart disease, stroke and kidney failure.

The prevention fund also pays for successful tobacco cessation programs that avert billions in healthcare costs to treat emphysema, heart disease and cancer.

And it finances immunizations for preventable, childhood illnesses such as measles and whooping cough.

Last year, measles cases reached a 15-year high.

After being nearly wiped out in the 1950’s, whooping cough has also resurged.

During a recent outbreak of whooping cough in California, the disease reached its highest rates in more than half a century.

These diseases are completely preventable with the kind of proper immunizations the prevention fund supports.

Yet Republicans want to ax investments in preventive care that save the country money and save lives.

We have already made cuts – difficult cuts – to this program. We cannot afford to make more drastic cuts, which would put Americans’ health at risk.

But while we do not support Republicans’ plan to cut programs that combat diabetes, heart disease and cancer, we are happy to give them a vote on their alternative pay-for.

If Republicans stop filibustering our legislation, which would keep student loan interest rates low, we will vote on their proposal to pay for it.

The stakes of this debate are too high to let partisanship get in the way.

The average student graduates with $25,000 in debt.

Too many young people are putting off buying a house, starting a family or opening a business because they are saddled with crushing student loan debt.

Democrats are determined to protect millions of students from increasing interest rates.

If Republicans truly share our goal, they will vote to advance this legislation today.

“Senate Republicans today sent the sad message that political gamesmanship is more important than a judicial nominee’s qualifications. Caitlin Joan Halligan is a qualified candidate with bipartisan support from colleagues who call her a brilliant legal mind.

“I am concerned that today the Senate is backing away from the 2005 agreement that the minority would only block judicial nominees in extraordinary circumstances. Since Ms. Halligan’s nomination clearly does not meet that standard, Republicans today lowered the bar for filibustering judicial nominees.

“I am disappointed that Republicans blocked a talented, experienced nominee for no other reason than to please a few ideological extremists. If this truly exceptional candidate isn’t qualified to be a judge in the United States of America, it is hard to imagine who Republicans would find acceptable.”

“We are seeing something we have seen far too many times in the Senate: another filibuster. But this is the worst possible time to hold a filibuster. Our economy hangs in the balance. The proposal I have put forward is a reasonable compromise. It gives Democrats what they want, and it gives Republicans what they want. If we do nothing, our country will fail to pay its bills for the first time in history. Social Security checks could stop. Paychecks to our troops could stop.

“This compromise proposal deserves a fair up or down vote. The House will hold an up or down vote on my proposal. We should be allowed to do the same. But Republicans are blocking it with our economy on the line.

“It is time to be adults. It is time to come together and compromise. That is what the American people want, and that is what we need to do.”

“Two days ago I came to the floor to talk about the nomination of Goodwin Liu – an extremely well-qualified, fair-minded and widely respected legal scholar.  The President has nominated him to serve his country on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“All week, this body has heard speeches about Mr. Liu’s merits, so I will repeat them only briefly.  He was a Rhodes Scholar and clerked on the Supreme Court.  He served as an associate dean at the California Berkley School of Law, and is still a professor there.  He has done a lot of pro bono work, and even helped launch AmeriCorps.  On top of all that, he’s lived the American Dream: he is the highly successful son of immigrants.

“His integrity has been praised by Democrats, and praised by Republicans – not just one or two, but by many.  Former Congressman Bob Barr commended Liu’s commitment to the Constitution.  One of President Bush’s former lawyers said Liu falls well within the mainstream.  Even Ken Starr – the Whitewater special prosecutor – endorsed this man who served in the Clinton Administration.

“The record is clear.  Any claim that Goodwin Liu is anything but deserving of our confirmation are simply inaccurate.  But I recognize that every Senator has the right to vote how he or she chooses.

“It is worth noting, however, that the vote before us now is not a vote to confirm him – it is a vote on whether he deserves an up-or-down vote.  And there is no question that he does.

“A simple up-or-down vote is hardly a controversial request.  This is not only my view, or the view of my fellow Democrats.  It is the view of my Republican friends, as well.

“In a 2004 law review article, one of our Republican colleagues – the junior Senator from Texas, a longtime justice on the Texas Supreme Court – wrote the following:

“‘Wasteful and unnecessary delay in the process of selecting judges hurts our justice system and harms all Americans.  It is intolerable no matter who occupies the White House and no matter which party is the majority party in the Senate. … Filibusters are by far the most virulent form of delay imaginable.’

“The junior Senator from Texas is in the chamber today.  We will see if he still feels this way, or, if he will – in his own words – hurt our justice system and harm all Americans with intolerable, virulent delays.  We will carefully be watching how he votes.

“We will also carefully be watching another Republican Senator – the senior Senator from Tennessee – who said this in 2005:

“‘I pledged, then and there, I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period.  I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.’

“The senior Senator from Tennessee is here today, too.  ‘Never’ is as unambiguous as it gets.  We will be watching to see if he upholds his public pledge.

“A third Republican Senator – the junior Senator from Georgia – said this, also in 2005:

“‘I will vote to support a vote, up or down, on every nominee.  Understanding that, were I in the minority party and the issues reversed, I would take exactly the same position because this document, our Constitution, does not equivocate.’

“The junior Senator from Georgia will be voting this afternoon.  Now, as he predicted, he is in the minority party, and the issue is reversed.  We will see if, as he promised, he will take the same position, or if he will equivocate.

“And here’s a fourth.  Four years ago, another Republican Senator – the senior Senator from Utah and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee – said this, on this very floor:

“‘We may not use our role of advise and consent to undermine the President’s authority to appoint judges. … It is wrong to use the filibuster to defeat judicial nominees who have majority support, who would be confirmed if only we could vote up or down.  That is why I have never voted against cloture on a judicial nomination.’

“Yet another pledge never to vote against cloture on a judicial nomination.  That is precisely the vote before us now.  We will be watching to see if the senior Senator from Utah follows his own counsel, or if he, in his own judgment, undermines the authority of the President of the United States.

“These pledges were made publicly and plainly.  In a court of law, they would be considered pretty clear evidence.  It doesn’t take the great legal mind of a Goodwin Liu to recognize that.

“We’ve heard the promises.  Now we’ll hear the votes.  I ask for the yeas and nays.”

Senator Alexander

• “I pledged, then and there, I would never filibuster any President’s judicial nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they came to a vote.”  (Congressional Chronicle, June 9, 2005)
• “I am beginning to think it is a train and that there is not much way to avoid a train wreck. The train wreck I am talking about is a threat by the minority to ‘shut the Senate down in every way’ if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President’s appellate judicial nominees.” [Senate Floor Speech, 4/12/05]
• “I have pledged and I still pledge to give up my right to filibuster any president’s nominee for the appellate courts.” [Remarks of Senator Alexander, 5/20/05]

Senator Burr

• “If anything, we are saying, for 214 years this institution, the Senate, had a gentleman’s agreement, and that agreement was that the filibuster would never be used for judicial nominees. For 214 years they showed restraint, even though the rule allowed them to do it because they understood that the process was so important to make sure the best and the brightest found their way to the bench. For 214 years a handshake was all it took [...] What happened for 214 years? This debate is about principle. It is about allowing judicial nominees an up or-down vote on the Senate floor. And I believe it is an issue of fairness.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]
• “But denying these patriotic Americans, of both parties, who seek to serve this country an up-or-down vote is simply not fair, and it certainly was not the intention of our Founding Fathers when they designed and created this very institution.” [Senate Floor Speech, 4/20/05]
• “There is no doubt in my mind the task includes ensuring that the Senate provides judicial nominees on [sic] up-or-down votes… Obstructing votes on Presidential nominees threatens the future of our judicial system and the nature of the Supreme Court.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]

Senator Coburn:

• “This [the 2005 debate over filibusters] is a tough time for our country because it pits [the] reality of what the Constitution says against the raw politics that guide[] us. . . . . There is a defined charge to the President and the Senate on advice and consent [with respect to all Presidential nominations, judicial and otherwise].”   (Tulsa World, May 22, 2005)
• “The only deal [to be made with Senate Democrats] is that you’re not going to filibuster judicial nominees.  There’s 200 years of history of that.  It’s the right thing to do.  It’s constitutional.  And the fact is . . . we need to return to what the 200-year precedent has been.  If you look at the Constitution, it says the president is to nominate these people, and the Senate is to advise and consent.  That means you got to have a vote if they come out of committee.  And that happened for 200 years.”  (CNBC’s Kudlow & Company, Apr. 26, 2005)

Senators Chambliss and Isakson

• “We both wholeheartedly support discussion and debate regarding judicial nominees. It is important for each judicial nominee to have his or her qualifications examined, undergo thorough background checks and be asked tough questions. But it is also important that after a time of extensive debate, there must also be a time for a decision. [...] Like many Americans, we believe that our nation’s judicial system should be put above partisan politics and under no circumstances should either party obstruct the courts from doing their important work. In this particular case, the Senate must give each nominee a fair, up-or-down vote to fulfill its constitutional duty.” [The Atlanta Journal Constitution via Isakson.Senate.gov, "Filibusters obstruct the Senate's duty," 5/24/09
• “Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It's the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.” [The Atlanta Journal Constitution via Isakson.Senate.gov, "Filibusters obstruct the Senate's duty," 5/24/09]

Senator Coburn

• “For the first 214 years of our nation’s history, the president has been able to nominate judges and expect that those nominees would receive the courtesy of a straight up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. During this time, the Senate operated within its Constitutional ‘advice and c onsent’ role. The president would nominate judges of his choice with advice from the Senate. The Senate would then either consent and confirm that nominee by a majority vote or reject that nominee…In 2003, however, obstructionist senators decided the system that was designed by our founders and practiced for 214 years was no longer fair. If the minority didn’t like the judicial philosophy of one of President Bush’s nominees they concluded it was their right to deny them the courtesy of an up or down vote through a filibuster. Instead of needing 51 votes to be confirmed, the minority unilaterally declared that judges who failed their liberal litmus test would need 60 votes to break their filibuster. Never before in American history has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up-or-down vote.” [Coburn.Senate.gov, "President Bush's Nominees Deserve a Vote," 5/11/05]

Senator Cochran

• “There should be no question in anyone’s mind about my intentions. I will work in concert with our leader, and with the distinguished Majority Whip, Mr. McConnell, to end filibusters of judicial nominations in the Senate.” [Cochran.Senate.gov, "Senator Thad Cochran Announces Support," 4/14/05]

Senator Cornyn

• “I believe, about the process of reestablishing the precedent of majority rule that had prevailed for 214 years in the Senate, that would say any President’s nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat, if they have the support of a majority of the Senate, will get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Senators who believe these nominees should be confirmed can vote for them and those who believe they should not be confirmed can vote against them.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/24/05]
• “And we need to get a fresh start. And that means, I believe, an up-or-down vote for all presidents’ nominees whether they be Republican or Democrat… We need a permanent solution to this problem. And I believe it should be along the lines that I suggested, that each president’s nominees would be treated exactly the same and not dependent on who happens to take up the decision to block, in a partisan fashion, a bipartisan majority from being able to cast an up-or-down vote.” [CQ Transcriptions "U.S. Senator John Cornyn Holds a News Conference on Judicial Nominees," 5/9/05]
• “Far too many judicial and executive nominees have been delayed by the majority party of the Senate. An up-or-down vote is a matter of fundamental fairness, and it is the Senate’s constitutional duty to act on each nomination. It is also critically important to our judicial system and the proper functioning of our federal government to fill these positions.  Senators have a right to vote for or against any nominee-but blocking votes on nominations is unacceptable.”  (Senate website, Feb. 7, 2008)
• “That is why the filibusters of judicial nominations have never been a part of Senate tradition before, and why its current usage is such an abomination: Simply put, filibusters are the most virulent form of unnecessary delay one can imagine in the Senate’s exercise of the judicial confirmation power. . . . The indefinite, needless, and wasteful delay caused by filibusters of judicial nominations distracts the Senate from other important business. And it hurts Americans. It leaves not only would-be judges in limbo, but also thousands of litigants. . . . The current filibusters of judicial nominations are not only unprecedented and wrong, they are also offensive to our nation’s constitutional design.”  (Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Fall 2003)
• “I must say, I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.”  (Floor statement, Nov. 11, 2003)
• “We held a popular referendum on November 2 and, frankly, the politics of obstruction and anger were repudiated. What the American people want and expect is that we will get the business of the American people done in this body and that we will not degenerate into partisan finger pointing or name-calling, nor obstruction of the kind we have seen occur time and time again against this President’s nominees…”  (Floor statement on Gonzales nomination, Feb. 1, 2005, Cong. Rec. S714a)
• “We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations. And so a rule change my [sic] ultimately not be necessary. If it is, as Senator Specter has observed, there is precedent for it. And indeed, if necessary, I trust we will move to the so-called — what I call the constitutional option, which is the ruling from the chair, upheld by the majority of the Senate.”  (Press conference, Nov. 18, 2004).

Senator Crapo:

• “I think it should be clarified to the American people that the fact we are now seeing a filibuster sustained against nominees of the President turns the Constitution on its head and begins a very dangerous precedent with regard to how the nominees for the judicial branch are treated by this Senate. . . . [U]ntil this Congress, not one of the President’s nominees has been successfully filibustered in the Senate of the United States because of the understanding of the fact that the Constitution gives the President the right to a vote.” (Floor Statement, Nov. 12, 2003, Cong. Rec. S 14703)
• “We are pleased that three of the President’s judicial nominees will receive fair up-or-down votes – it is about time. However, we continue to stress that the Constitution requires the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on all nominees. We will continue to work to ensure that is the case.” [Craig/Crapo Press Release: "Craig, Crapo React to Judicial Nominees Deal," 5/25/05]

Senator DeMint

• “How can I advise and consent without the ability to cast a vote? Forty-one senators are preventing a bipartisan majority from carrying out the duty we were elected to fulfill. In 2003, Democrats used the filibuster to block up-or-down votes on 10 nominations – all had bipartisan, majority support. This was unprecedented. [...] We need to end the undemocratic blockade of judicial nominees, which is why I have urged Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to consider the constitutional option. Senators were elected to advise and consent, not to grandstand and obstruct.” [The State via Demint.Senate.gov, "It's Time for Votes on Judicial Nominees," 5/22/05]
• “My goal is to confirm highly qualified judges by ensuring timely up-or-down votes for all nominees… Every nominee, no matter if the President is Democrat or Republican, deserves an up-or-down vote,” [US Fed News "Sens. DeMint, Freshman GOP Call for end to Judicial Filibusters," 4/20/05]

Senator Enzi

• “One has to wonder what Justice Marshall would think about what is going on in the Senate today. Would he agree with my colleagues across the aisle that it is all right to put partisan politics and partisan bickering ahead of the rights of judicial nominees if those impacted are just a small fraction of society. Would he agree with them that justice denied for a few was acceptable? Or would he hold true to the basic tenets of the Constitution that all men are created equal and that everyone has the right to their day in court? [...] I think this is wrong, and I sincerely hope we move off this obstructionism and have an up or down vote on these highly qualified individuals, whose talents, experience and integrity can easily be considered the ideal for what we want in judges. [...] If you don’t agree with them, or feel they are not qualified, then vote against them. That is your prerogative and duty as a Senator. But do not continue to deny justice for the nominees or the courts any longer.” [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/03]

Senator Graham:

• “The big winners in this filibuster efforts [sic] are the special interest groups because it is much easier for a special interest group to control 41 Senators than a majority.”  (U.S. Newswire, Nov. 18, 2003)
• “I would argue strongly it is not by accident that the majority requirement applying to judges was put there on purpose.  Our job, as I see it, is not to say what we would do if we were President.  Our job, as the Constitution lays out for us, is to advise and consent by a majority vote to make sure the President . . . is not sending over their brother-in-law or sister-in-law or unqualified people. . . . What we have done this year, different from other years, is we have taken our political differences and our desire to make the court go one way versus the other and we have hijacked the Constitution for political reasons. . . . If we keep up this practice, it will do long-term damage to this country.”  (Floor statement, Nov. 12, 2003)

Senator Grassley:

• “It would be a real constitutional crisis if we up the confirmation of judges from 51 to 60, and that’s essentially what we’d be doing if the Democrats were going to filibuster.”  (Media Availability, Feb. 11, 2003)
• “Through an unjust abuse of the filibuster, a minority of Senators is preventing a majority of the Senate from taking an up or down vote on President Bush’s judicial nominees, and that is just not right.” (Statement to Voice of America News, Nov. 14, 2003)
• “What we’re seeing now is unprecedented.  Judicial nominees with clear majority support have never been denied a vote by a partisan filibuster until two years ago, and now we’ve got 10 qualified judges with majority support being held up.  The Democrats are denying the Senate its constitutional responsibility of advice/consent by systematically denying appellate court nominees an up-or-down vote.  And we can’t find anywheres in the Constitution that says a supermajority is needed for confirmation.”  (Press conference, May 19, 2005)
• “History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. It’s time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor.” [Grassley.Senate.gov, "Talking Judges to Death," 5/8/05]
• “The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown deserve an up or down vote. It’s high time to make sure all judges receive a fair up or down vote on the Senate floor.” [Senate Floor Speech, 4/23/05]

Senator Hatch:

• “The advice and consent clause [of the Constitution] is clearly an up or down vote—a majority vote—on the floor of the Senate.  The Founding Fathers knew what a supermajority vote was. . . . If they had wanted it to be a 60-vote margin . . . they would have said so.”  (Deseret News, Nov. 13, 2003)
• “[We] must afford the President a significant degree of deference to shape his Cabinet as he sees fit.  The election is over, President Bush won, and nothing will change that fact.”   (Floor statement on the Ashcroft nomination, Feb. 1, 2001, Cong. Rec. S961)
• “Under the Constitution, the President has the primary appointment authority. We check that authority, but we may not hijack it. We may not use our role of advise and consent to undermine the President’s authority to appoint judges. That is why, as I have argued on this floor many times, it is wrong to use the filibuster to defeat judicial nominees who have majority support, who would be confirmed if only we could vote up or down. That is why I have never voted against cloture on a judicial nomination.”  (Floor Statement, Oct. 24, 2007, Cong. Rec. S13289)
• “All we are asking is the 214-year tradition of the Senate that judicial nominees not be filibustered be followed. That has been the tradition of the Senate up until President Bush became President. All we are asking is that every one of these qualified nominees who have reached the floor receive an up-or-down vote. That is all we are asking.” [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]
• “…I think we should bind both Democrats and Republicans that presidential nominees for the judiciary deserve an up-and-down vote once they reach the floor…” [NPR, "Orrin Hatch Discusses Debate in Senate," 5/19/05]

Senator Hutchison

• “Our Founding Fathers understood the need to have three separate and equal branches of government so there would be checks and balances throughout our system. They gave to the President the right to appoint a Federal judiciary, a Federal judiciary that has lifelong appointments. They gave to the Senate the right of confirmation — advise and consent as it is called in the Constitution — that has always meant a majority vote.  If a two-thirds vote has ever been required by the Constitution, it is specified. So we are talking a simple majority, a simple majority to confirm the nominees of the President.  That is the check and the balance in the system.”  (Floor Statement, Feb. 25, 2003, Cong. Rec. S2647)
• “In all these cases, she had a majority of votes in the Senate for confirmation, but she is not on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals today. Why? Because her nomination is being filibustered by Democrats, and she has been held to a standard of 60 votes instead of 51. That is changing the Constitution of the United States. [...] It is not the rule that is being changed in this debate. It is the precedent of the Senate, for 200 years, that was changed in the 108th Congress, by requiring 60 votes for the confirmation of judges. And we are now looking to reaffirm the will of the Senate to do exactly what the Constitution envisions; and that is, a 51-vote majority for judges. Two hundred years of Senate precedent is being torn apart. Through Democrat majority control and Republican majority control over the years-the filibuster was not used as it was in the last session of Congress.” [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]
• “They have gotten away with obstructing by exploiting the filibuster and denying Justice Owen a direct vote. Now, unfortunately, we must take action to ensure President Bush’s nominees are getting the up-or-down vote they deserve.” [San Antonio Express-News, "Senate showdown looms on judges," 4/22/2005]
• “And we are now looking to reaffirm the will of the Senate to do exactly what the Constitution envisions; and that is, a 51-vote majority for judges.” [Senate Floor Speech, 4/27/05]

Senator Inhofe:

• Inhofe stated that he “want[ed] to limit the current battle over the filibuster to judicial nominees and retain the practice on executive branch nominees and legislation. ‘I believe in the filibuster,’ Inhofe said. ‘I don’t think it should be used where it is contrary to the Constitution.’ On Cabinet posts and other executive branch positions filled by presidential appointment, Inhofe said, the filibuster is appropriate even though they, unlike judges, do not receive lifetime appointments. ‘The Constitution refers specifically to judges as opposed to military and executive branch nominations,’ he said.”  (Tulsa World, May 22, 2005)
• “But the Democrats, who cannot muster a majority to oppose him, are seeking, in effect, to change the Constitutional majority-vote requirement. By sustaining this filibuster, they are asserting that 60 votes, not 50, will be required to approve Mr. Estrada. If successful, their effort will amount to a de facto amendment to the Constitution. This outrageous grab for power by the Senate minority is wrong and contrary to our oath to support and defend the Constitution,” Inhofe said. [Senate Floor Speech, 3/11/03]

Senator Kyl:

• “It’s time to take the politics out of the confirmation process, give nominees the up or down vote they deserve, and move the orderly process of justice forward.”  (Press Release, Nov. 12, 2003)
• “The President should get to pick his own team.”  (Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation Hearing on Ashcroft nomination, Jan. 16, 2001, 23b)
• “When someone is qualified and has the confidence of the President …. unless there is some highly disqualifying factor brought to our attention – [we] should accede to the President’s request for his nomination and confirm the individual.”  (Floor statement on Gonzales nomination, Feb. 2, 2005, Cong. Rec. S837)
• “For 214 years it has been the tradition of the Senate to approve judicial nominees by a majority vote. Many of our judges and, for example, Clarence Thomas, people might recall, was approved by either fifty-one or fifty-two votes as I recall. It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate. It has never happened before. So we’re not changing the rules in the middle of the game. We’re restoring the 214-year tradition of the Senate because in the last two years Democrats have begun to use this filibuster. [...] This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he’s been elected by the American people. And it’s never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do.” [NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, "Judicial Wars," 4/25/05]
• “All we seek is a return to 214 years of tradition in allowing presidential nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote… These men and women are great Americans who have devoted their lives to public service, universally regarded for their intelligence and integrity…Calling them names like ‘radical’ and ‘extreme’ is a partisan affront not only to them personally but also to the voters who have supported them and organizations like the American Bar Association that have declared them well suited for the bench ” [Capitol Hill Press Releases "Kyl Calls for 'Up or Down' Vote on Judicial Nominees," 5/18/05]
• “No. It’s not a religious debate at all. I know that some of the media have portrayed it as such. I think that both Democrats and Republicans are talking to all kinds of folks, but I know because Sen. Durbin and I have both discussed this in the Judiciary Committee that neither of us believe that there should be any religious litmus test. This isn’t about religion at all. This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he’s been elected by the American people. And it’s never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do.” [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]
• “Just quickly respond to one point here: There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee that had majority support in the history of the United States Senate. The incident that was mentioned by Sen. Durbin was a situation in which Trent Lott – the then majority leader – worked with Tom Daschle the then minority leader to be sure that two controversial choices of President Clinton got a vote up or down on the Senate floor. And we voted to allow them to have a vote. Now I voted for one of the candidates and I voted against one of the candidates. That’s what we ought to allow here is an up or down vote. But we didn’t stop those candidates from being voted on. They’re sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals right now.” [PBS News Hour, 4/25/05]

Senator McConnell:

• “Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration.  But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent.  The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake.  Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges.  The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.  But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules.  They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.  In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.”  (States News Service, May 19, 2005)
• “Because of the unprecedented obstruction of our Democratic colleagues, the Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote.  I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct.’ [...]Given those results, many of us had hoped that the politics of obstruction would have been dumped in the dustbin of history. Regretfully, that did not happen.” [Senate Floor Speech, 5/19/05]
• “What we’re talking about here is not the filibuster rule overall, but getting back to the practice of allowing judicial appointments for judge candidates who have a majority support in the Senate to have an up or down vote.” [CBS News, The Osgood File, 4/25/05]
• “…I don’t want to get too technical here, but the point is, what Senator Frist is considering doing is not unprecedented. It was done by Senator Byrd when he was majority leader. What is unprecedented is the fact that the Senate, for the first time in 200 years, last Congress chose to filibuster judges for the purpose of defeating them. That had never been done before in the history of the Senate. That’s what’s new…What Senate Republicans are contemplating doing and what I think they should do is to get us back to the precedents that were established prior to the last Congress, in which judicial appointments were given an up-or-down – that is, a majority – vote.” [Fox News Sunday, 3/27/05]
• “Let’s get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president’s nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who’s in control of the Senate. That’s the way we need to operate.” [Los Angeles Times, "The Nation; Clock Ticks on Effort to Defuse Senate Battle," 5/23/05]

Senator Murkowski

• “I take very seriously my obligation under the Constitution to provide the advice and consent to the judicial nominations of individuals who are nominated by the President to serve on the Federal bench. I have heard repeatedly over the hours the term ‘rubberstamp,’ there is a rubberstamp approval. Those on my side of the aisle would automatically take the President’s nominees. I do not take part of my job to mean that my vote is intended to be a rubberstamp of approval for the President’s nominations to these critical judicial positions. I am frustrated that after serving in the Senate for almost a year, and contrary to what some Members may assert, the Senate has not been permitted to vote up or down on the merits, on the qualifications of the individuals who are embroiled in this current dispute. Rather, we have been prevented, I have been prevented as a Member of the Senate, as an individual, from voting for or against a nomination by a legislative procedure, legislative procedural rules unique to this body.” [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/03]

Senator Roberts:

• “The use of the filibuster essentially gives the minority veto power [which the Constitution didn’t intend.]”  (The Wichita Eagle, Nov. 14, 2003)
• “Let me talk about cost. Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the Federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches. Reckless behavior such as this is irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars.” [Senate Floor Speech, 11/12/05]
• “You’re getting my dander up now. It’s not only Estrada; it is a new standard. If this sticks, if the filibuster sticks, it will mean that you will have to have 60 votes for any nominee. We are really changing the constitutional design of what it takes to basically nominate and approve any judge.” [Fox News Sunday, 03/03/03]

Senator Sessions:

• “The vote, historically, since the founding of this Republic, is a majority vote.  Lets [sic] look at that.  The Constitution says that the Congress shall advise and consent on treaties, provided two-thirds agree, and shall advise and consent on judges and other nominees.  Since the founding of the Republic, we have understood that there was a two-thirds super majority for ratification and advice and consent on treaties and a majority vote for judges.  That is what we have done.  That is what we have always done.  But there was a conscious decision on behalf of the leadership, unfortunately, of the Democratic Party in the last Congress to systematically filibuster some of the best nominees ever submitted to the Senate.  It has been very painful.”  (Floor Statement, May 23, 2005)
• “But they [the Democrats] blocked an up-or-down vote by carrying out the filibuster rule, and I think that’s a very, very grim thing.  It should not occur.” (The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Sept. 4, 2003)
• “This past election in large part hinged, as George Allen said, on a debate over the judiciary and whether or not obstruction was justified. I think the American people sent a clear message and I believe it’s time for this Senate to make sure that judges get an up-or-down vote.” [CQ Transcriptions "U.S. Sen. Allen & Other Senate Republicans Hold a Media Availability on the Possibility of a Democrat Filibuster," 3/15/05]

Senator Shelby

• “As a U.S. Senator, I believe that the review of judicial nominations is one of the most important responsibilities of the Senate, and I firmly believe that each of the President’s nominees should be afforded a straight up-or-down vote. I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed. To that end I firmly support changing the Senate rules to require that a simple majority be necessary to confirm all judicial nominees, thus ending the continuous filibuster of them. Federal judges are invested with extensive power and are given lifetime tenure. Therefore, I pay particularly close attention to the records, backgrounds, and philosophical views of all judicial nominees prior to voting. Given the tremendous shortage of federal judges, it is my hope that the Senate will move quickly to confirm judicial appointments.” [Shelby.Senate.gov, "Issue Statements: Judiciary," accessed 4/15/2009]

Senator Thune

• “I still believe that all judicial nominees with majority support deserve the fairness of an up or down vote on the Senate floor.” [Thune.Senate.gov, "Senator Thune statement on judicial nominee compromise," 5/23/05]
• “According to the Constitution, the President is entitled to nominate the individuals he desires to have on the courts, and we in the Senate must determine whether the nominee is fit and qualified. There should be no ideological litmus test for nominees. If a nominee is fit and qualified, he or she should be confirmed.” [Senate Floor Speech, 9/28/05]

Senator Vitter

• “As U.S. Senators, it is our constitutional duty to give advice and consent when a president nominates individuals to the bench. I think that every nominee deserves a vote. It’s a matter of fairness.” [Vitter.Senate.gov, "Vitter Supports Senate Vote on Judicial Nominees," 5/19/05]

Washington, D.C.–Nevada Senator Harry Reid made the following remarks today on the Senate floor regarding the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:

“Several years ago we faced a confirmation crisis in the Senate.  The majority at the time, the Republicans, were frustrated with the inefficient way the Senate was performing our Constitutional duty of confirming the President’s nominees.

“Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle passionately argued that all judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

“In their frustration, they threatened to dramatically change the purpose of the Senate and the minority protections for which it was designed.

“That would have, in a manner of speaking, blown up this institution.  That’s why it was known as the nuclear option.

“In the heat of this battle, several courageous senators agreed to a standard that would preserve the traditions of the United States Senate.  They ensured the Senate could still provide the President its advice and consent, as the Constitution requires.

“The agreement was significant, but simple.  It was this: except in extraordinary circumstances, those nominated to be federal judges would get an up-or-down vote.  The minority would not stand in the way of that vote.  The agreement was grounded in common sense.

“So far, in most cases, both sides have generally upheld that agreement.  The nomination before us, however, is not one of those cases.

“Goodwin Liu is an extremely well-qualified public servant and impressive legal scholar.  He was a Rhodes Scholar and clerked on the Supreme Court.  He served as an associate dean at the California Berkley School of Law, and is still a professor there.

“He has done a lot of pro bono work, and even helped launch AmeriCorps.  On top of all that, he’s lived the American Dream: he is the highly successful son of immigrants.

“I think President Obama was wise to appoint him to the Ninth Circuit.  So do a lot of Democrats – and so do a lot of Republicans.

“Ken Starr, the former Whitewater special prosecutor, called Liu, who served in the Clinton Administration, ‘a person of great intellect, accomplishment and integrity.’

“Former Congressman Bob Barr, a very conservative former federal prosecutor, also reviewed Liu’s writings.  He came away impressed with, as he said, ‘his commitment to the Constitution and to a fair criminal justice system.’

“And one of President Bush’s former White House lawyers said Liu’s views ‘fall well within the legal mainstream.’

“I could go on and on with more quotes from lawyers and legislators on the right, as well as on the left and in the center.  But you get the picture.

“Everyone agrees that Goodwin Liu’s nomination is far from the ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that would warrant a filibuster.  The only extraordinary things about Liu are his experience, accomplishments and integrity.

“I think he should be confirmed unanimously.  At the very least, he undoubtedly deserves an up-or-down vote.

“But Senate Republicans have already forgotten the lessons of the nuclear option.  Today, they are threatening to block this highly qualified nominee from confirmation.

“Vacancies on the federal bench delay justice for citizens seeking the help of our judicial system.  And it isn’t fair to leave in limbo well-qualified nominees.

“So I am forced now to file cloture in order to ensure Goodwin Liu gets the vote he deserves.  It’s regrettable that it has come to this.

“As I file cloture, I remind my Republican colleagues once again that public servants are not political pawns.  Goodwin Liu has dedicated his life to justice and fairness.  As we consider his nomination, we owe someone of his caliber those same considerations.”

“In the same week that the men and women of our intelligence community are using fresh evidence to track down al Qaeda, Republicans are blocking us from confirming the man who signs the warrants they need to hunt down terrorists.

“The Deputy Attorney General oversees the Department of Justice National Security Division, and he authorizes critical intelligence and law enforcement efforts to identify and disrupt terrorist plots. It is dangerous for Republicans to hold up a key member of the President’s national security team. This is the first time a nominee for Deputy Attorney General has ever been filibustered, and tonight Republicans made history for all the wrong reasons.

“This is not the time to play partisan games with our nation’s safety. James Cole has broad, bipartisan support from former federal prosecutors, district attorney and criminal defense organizations and high-ranking public officials. He’s qualified for the job, he already performs today and I’m highly disappointed that Republicans have been stalling on this crucial confirmation for nearly a year.”

“In the same week that the men and women of our intelligence community are using fresh evidence to track down al Qaeda, Republicans are blocking us from confirming the man who signs the warrants they need to hunt down terrorists.

“The Deputy Attorney General oversees the Department of Justice National Security Division, and he authorizes critical intelligence and law enforcement efforts to identify and disrupt terrorist plots. It is dangerous for Republicans to hold up a key member of the President’s national security team. This is the first time a nominee for Deputy Attorney General has ever been filibustered, and tonight Republicans made history for all the wrong reasons.

“This is not the time to play partisan games with our nation’s safety. James Cole has broad, bipartisan support from former federal prosecutors, district attorney and criminal defense organizations and high-ranking public officials. He’s qualified for the job, he already performs today and I’m highly disappointed that Republicans have been stalling on this crucial confirmation for nearly a year.”

“I agree with the President that it is long past time to end wasteful subsidies to big oil companies that are raking in record profits. If Senate Republicans are serious about cutting spending, as Democrats are, they’ll stop filibustering our efforts to eliminate corporate welfare that even a former Shell Oil CEO said is unnecessary.

“Rather than giving handouts to big corporations, we should be investing in clean energy development and construction here at home to create jobs, diversify our economy, break our dangerous dependence on oil and make our nation safer. As a bipartisan delegation of senators saw first-hand, China and other countries are aggressively investing in this industry for exactly those reasons. Abundant solar, wind and geothermal resources in Nevada and across the country combined with American know-how give our country the ability to be the world leader in clean energy. We should not lose our edge in this global competition just so Republicans can give even more taxpayer money to companies that don’t need it.”