[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 27, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4436-S4438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              RULE CHANGES

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, today the American people have spoken, and 
they have spoken very firmly. It should be a day of celebration in the 
United States Capitol. A few hours ago, we saw responsible Republican 
leaders in the House of Representatives come together to do the right 
thing by abandoning the attempt to change the ethics rules. We will 
await the final outcome but I am told it has all been done, that they 
will have to go to the House floor and approve changing the rules back 
from where they are now to where they need to be--that is, the way they 
used to be. The American people are very perceptive. They can tell when 
something is going on that simply is not fair. What we had in the House 
of Representatives is one of the leaders, with the abuse of power that 
takes place so often around here, took himself out of the criticism 
that he was receiving from the Ethics Committee. He was reprimanded on 
three separate occasions within 1 year but he did not have to worry 
about any more censures or reprimands because they simply changed the 
rules.
  That is where the American people came in. They know that the rules 
cannot be changed in the middle of the game. Today, the Republicans in 
the House heard that message.
  As this Chamber wrestles with its own possible rule change in the 
next few weeks, I urge my Republican colleagues to pay attention to how 
the American people feel about what is being attempted. It does not 
matter how many times one comes to the Senate floor and says there has 
not been a filibuster on a judge ever before, it is simply not true, 
underlined and underscored.
  I note the tone has been different, and I am happy about that. My 
distinguished friend, the Senator from Utah, came to the floor today 
and said there has not been a filibuster of a judge that has come to 
the floor. Well, that still is not true but it is better than what he 
said before. What he was saying, in the language we understand in 
Congress, is the Republicans in the Judiciary Committee turned down 69 
judges that President Clinton wanted. They did not come to the floor. 
They did not come to the committee. Senator Hatch is right, they 
certainly did not get a floor vote.
  Also, we keep hearing we have to have up-or-down votes on judicial 
nominations. I was somewhat amazed yesterday by what people from the 
other side of the aisle said, that we are going to allow filibusters on 
other nominations that come from the President. Now, let us see what 
logic there is here. On a lifetime appointment, that is a judge who 
becomes a district court judge or a circuit court judge, they can be 
appointed at age 35 and serve for the next 40 years, and we cannot use 
our advise and consent that we have as Senators? But if someone is 
going to serve for a few months or a few years, as other nominations, 
then we can talk as long as we want, our ability to speak is not taken 
away there?
  If we look at this, there might be something more there than meets 
the eye. The American people are not interested in seeing us fight 
about the rules or pursuing partisan goals. That is why this body has 
to come together and worked out this issue. We need to take on issues 
the American people wrestle with every day. Whether it is in Chicago; 
Oklahoma City; Reno; Pittsburgh; Dover, DE, wherever it is, the people 
in those communities are interested in health care--as a subset, 
prescription drugs--and they certainly are interested in gas prices. As 
I have said on the floor the last few days, Nevada is paying $2.65 a 
gallon. If you have a small car it is $30.

  Veterans--we need to take care of veterans, better than what I see in 
this budget. The American people want us to talk about this.
  They want us to talk about education.
  They also want us to see that the checks and balances created by our 
Founding Fathers are not trampled on, this provision of the 
Constitution. I hope we are not heading down that road with the nuclear 
option, which turns the Senate into a rubber stamp, which destroys the 
checks and balances. As I said in the past, I will do everything within 
my power to avoid that option and today gives me hope we can avoid 
that.
  The American people did not like what they saw with the abuse of 
power in the House of Representatives. What did they do? They spoke out 
loudly. As a result, the Speaker and others in the House of 
Representatives said we are no longer going to protect one of our own, 
because it is an abuse of power, and we are going to go back to the 
rules the way they used to be. That is a victory for the American 
people. I hope we can accomplish the same here today.
  As I said yesterday, it would be a great visual if Senator Frist and 
I could walk down this aisle--he stands here, I stand here--and say we 
have got a deal for the American people.
  There is so much work to do, we should not be fighting over these 
rules. If the Republicans insist on putting politics ahead of the 
American people, we are going to make sure the Senate works for the 
American people.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would say I followed his remarks closely. If I 
understand what has just happened in the House of Representatives, or 
is about to happen, it is that they decided the changes in the ethics 
rules which were promulgated to protect perhaps one Member or two 
Members from close scrutiny, in terms of their conduct, are now going 
to be changed. I think, if I am not mistaken, this will be the second 
time in the last few months--in recent times, that the Republican 
leadership in the House of Representatives has changed the ethics rules 
and then, after public response, came back and restored the ethics 
rules.
  Is this not similar to a situation we are facing on the Senate side, 
where there are at least some who are talking about the nuclear option, 
a term that Senator Lott came up with, that would change the rules of 
the Senate in the middle of our session, rules that have been in place 
for almost 200 years?
  Mr. REID. I would answer to my friend, not only is there a suggestion 
about changing the rules, but they are going to do it by breaking the 
rules. To change a rule here in the Senate takes a simple majority. But 
if somebody wants to speak in an extensive manner relating to that rule 
change, you have to break a filibuster. They are not willing to do 
that. They are going to use brute force and break the rules to change 
the rules. That is what they are talking about.
  So even though what went on in the House of Representatives is bad, 
what is contemplated here is even worse than that.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Nevada if he will yield for an 
additional question through the Chair. I would like to ask the Senator, 
is it not true that the Democrats, in the minority in the House of 
Representatives, stood together and argued that the integrity of the 
House of Representatives was at stake because of these changes in 
ethics rules to favor one Republican leader, or perhaps two, and that 
by standing together and appealing to the Nation, that they were 
successful, and now the Republican leadership in the House of 
Representatives has announced they are going to restore the original 
ethics rules?
  Mr. REID. I say in answer to my friend, I applaud, I commend the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives from the State of Illinois for 
realizing that what had gone on was wrong, and it is being changed as 
we speak. So the Speaker got the message loudly and clearly from the 
American people.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would also ask the Senator from Nevada through the 
Chair, is it not also true that as we have started talking to the 
American people about the so-called nuclear option, the term that 
Senator Trent Lott came up with, as we have talked to the people about 
the nuclear option across the country, is it not true there has been an 
incredible reaction? I would say to the Senator from Nevada, many of us 
believed this was an arcane debate that most people wouldn't follow. 
But we are finding that overwhelmingly the people across America share 
the view of the Democrats on

[[Page S4437]]

this issue, that we should not change the rules in the middle of the 
game and eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominees, that we should 
not assault the basic principle of checks and balances also under the 
Constitution, and, finally, we should stand our ground to make sure 
that, on a bipartisan basis, we pick judges for lifetime appointments, 
judges who are in touch with the values and needs of simple Americans 
and their families?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the answer is yes. Yesterday, I got a 
copy of an editorial from a newspaper in Nevada, a newspaper out of 
Fallon, NV. In 1998, I got 21 percent of the vote in that county. I 
have said before, a homeless person could have gotten that many votes 
in Churchill County, but that is how many votes I got. So I got the 
editorial and it said, ``Stop Mr. Smith.''
  As we know, there are some ads running that show the great movie with 
Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith coming to Washington to give a long speech 
as a Senator.
  I said: I will read it. I read that editorial. It was so magnificent. 
I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to have that printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Shut up, Mr. Smith

                            (By Glen McAdoo)

       Nevada, April 25.--Remember when you were a kid and there 
     was always at least one whiner on the block who had to win at 
     all costs? If you were playing baseball and the whiners got 
     three strikes they wanted to change the rules in the middle 
     of the game so they could have at least four strikes. 
     Furthermore they wanted to call the balls and strikes 
     themselves. If, by miracle, they finally did strike out, 
     becoming the third out, they wanted to change the rules so 
     that their team got four outs. Remember those whiners? They 
     would pout and cry or jump up and down and scream bloody 
     murder until they got their way. Remember them?
       Well, they are still around. They comprise the majority of 
     the House and Senate leadership in Washington, D.C. They're 
     not called whiners anymore, today we call them Republicans.
       Remember the movie, ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' 
     starring James Stewart? Well, you won't find a Mr. Smith 
     among these modern day whiners. And if they have their way, 
     Mr. Smith will never again grace the hallowed halls in our 
     Nation's Capitol. The Republicans want to do away with one of 
     the great traditions in our Government--the filibuster. In an 
     attempt to prevent the Democrats from stopping the 
     appointment of Judges who echo the shallow thoughts of the 
     most extreme far right, the Republicans are up to no good--
     again.
       ``Stay home Mr. Smith, there is no place for big mouths 
     like you in the Capitol. Save your breath. Go home to the 
     folks who sent you here. We are in charge now and we would 
     rather you keep your big mouth shut. So what if you are 
     right. Shut your lip. We know what is best for everyone and 
     we don't need a do-gooder like you gumming up the works. 
     What's that you say Mr. Smith? You say we are even angry with 
     the Federal Judges we appointed. That's about half of them. 
     Judges should decide cases based on the law and not public 
     opinion, you say? Darn you, a little truth could spoil 
     everything. See, that's why we want you to shut up and go 
     home,'' so would say the Republicans to Mr. Smith.
       Last week, Senator Harry Reid brought forth a million names 
     of people who don't want the rules changed. These people 
     believe the filibuster should stay as part of a time honored 
     practice.
       The filibuster may be the only way to stop overzealous 
     lawmakers who insist on approving the worst of President 
     Bush's misguided nominees to the Federal Bench. We must keep 
     the filibuster, and use it when necessary, and if the 
     petulant pouting pompous Republicans in the Senate don't like 
     it they can take their ball and go home. So there!
       How quickly they forget. The Republicans have used the 
     filibuster many times. Have they forgotten Abe Fortas in 1968 
     or Clinton's nominee to the ninth circuit Richard Paez in 
     2000. All told the Republicans used the filibuster six times 
     in attempts to block Clinton's Judicial nominees. What 
     hypocrites.
       In the House of Representatives things are just as bad. 
     Republicans have now changed the rules to make it nearly 
     impossible to have a public inquiry and possibly oust Tom 
     DeLay (R-Texas) on ethics charges. According to Congressman 
     Barney Frank, the Republican leadership has now removed from 
     the ethics committee any Republican with the slightest bit of 
     independence and replaced them with people who will acquiesce 
     to the leadership's wishes. In the past, if the committee 
     were deadlocked five to five a public investigation would go 
     forward. With the rules change it is dead in the water, 
     unless one of these mighty midgets of morality says yea and 
     makes it six to five. These foul balls want four strikes and 
     four outs.
       The self proclaimed model for the moral right, Mr. DeLay, 
     could turn out to be one of the slimiest characters we have 
     ever seen in such a high office. We will probably never know 
     for sure unless one of the spineless Republicans on the 
     ethics panel gets some backbone and makes their private 
     probe, public. That may happen, they are under a lot of 
     pressure, but I wouldn't bet on it.
       We don't need a bunch of rule changes in the House and 
     Senate. What we need to do is replace a bunch of Republicans 
     with Democrats.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the first paragraph--and I am paraphrasing 
but not by very much--starts out by saying: You remember when you were 
growing up and you had this kid who was never happy? You couldn't win a 
game because he kept changing the rules in the middle of the game, and 
if you didn't allow the change, all he did was whine about it?
  They went on for long, maybe six or seven paragraphs, saying: What is 
going on in Washington? Trying to change the rules in the middle of the 
game is un-American.
  This is from Fallon, NV.
  So the answer is yes, the American people are speaking. If you can 
get a newspaper in Fallon, NV, to write a harsh criticism of the 
Republican leadership we have in the Senate, they should listen 
because, believe me, I got 21 percent of the vote in that county.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would further yield for a question through 
the Chair, is it not true that the filibuster, because it requires 60 
votes to overcome, really requires the Senate to work to compromise, to 
find bipartisan solutions to their differences, and brings us together 
in a bipartisan fashion? Is this not the same thing that the Democratic 
leader just alluded to, that we should use that same bipartisan 
approach not only when it comes to lifetime appointments for judges and 
controversial issues but to find constructive solutions to issues such 
as the challenge of health care, the cost of health insurance, the need 
to help families pay for college education--all of the things we should 
put on our agenda but, sadly, have not been part of the discussion in 
this Republican majority Senate so far this year?
  Mr. REID. Let me say to my friend, a perfect example of that is what 
is going on on the floor as we speak. One of our colleagues, the 
distinguished junior Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, has an issue. He 
offered an amendment to this bill.
  The reason he offered it to this bill is he wanted to make a 
statement about something that is going on in China. He believes trade 
policies there are unfair and unbalanced. He offered an amendment on 
this bill.
  You can debate whether it should be on this bill, but it is on this 
bill. He offered an amendment. We have a right to do that. He, as a 
result of what he has done, held up the nomination of Rob Portman, 
Congressman Portman to be Trade Representative. I like Congressman 
Portman, a good man. I think he will do a good job as our Trade 
Representative.
  As we speak, because of this filibuster that he, in effect, is 
conducting--not necessarily on this bill, but he is not going to let 
Portman go forward, so we will have to vote 2 days from now--the 
parties have come together. They are talking. I am confident we will 
work that out and Portman will be approved tomorrow.
  The answer is yes. One of the good things about this institution we 
have found in the 214 years it has been in existence is that the 
filibuster, which has been in existence since the beginning, from the 
days of George Washington--we have changed the rules as relates to it a 
little bit but never by breaking the rules.
  I say to my distinguished friend, the senior Senator from Illinois, 
in all the political writings about filibuster, that is one of the 
things they talk about as a positive. It forces people to get together 
because sometimes in this body you become very fixed. You think you are 
the only person who knows what is going on and you need to examine 
yourself. The other person has an issue. The Senator from Illinois is 
absolutely right. It brings people together.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I could ask one final question of the Senator from 
Nevada through the Chair? I know what the Senator said about his 
commitment to the traditions of the Senate, to the constitutional 
principles that guide the Senate, such as the protection of the 
minority so there will never be another tyranny of the majority; that 
you will

[[Page S4438]]

have this filibuster that gives the minority, always, a voice in the 
dealings of the Senate.
  I know the Senator from Nevada--and I share his belief--is committed 
to this constitutional principle that goes back to our Founding 
Fathers. But I want to ask the Senator from Nevada in closing: Is it 
not true, as you announced yesterday, that despite this commitment to 
this core principle that you have reached out to the other side, to the 
Republican leadership, in an effort to try to find some common ground 
to work through our difficulties and differences over several different 
judges; that you have spoken directly to Senator Frist and many 
Republican Senators in an effort to try to resolve this, and that, 
sadly, Senator Frist came to the floor yesterday and announced he 
wouldn't be party to any negotiations to try to work this out?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, first of all, in defense of Senator 
Frist, the statement he gave was before we had our meeting. I have 
confidence Senator Frist is weighing the offer I gave him.
  Let me say this to all my friends, including the distinguished junior 
Senator from Pennsylvania: I am not going to dwell on what took place 
during the Clinton administration. Most people would acknowledge it was 
not right. I am not going to dwell on what took place these last 4 
years of the Bush administration because I am sure people can make a 
case, as advocates can, that maybe we did not do the right thing in 
those years.
  I am asking my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle to 
give us a chance. Let's work our way through this. We are not out 
plotting to take the next Supreme Court nominee who comes before the 
Senate, waiting in the wings to knock him or her out. We are not 
waiting to knock out circuit judges or district court judges.
  Test us. We have proven so far this year that we are willing to work 
with the majority. We have done some pretty good stuff in spite of a 
number of things we could have held up for a long time. As I said 
yesterday, we could have held up class action for a long time. Just to 
go to conference takes three separate cloture votes. Bankruptcy could 
have taken a lot of time.
  We legislated the way the Senate used to legislate. We had a bill 
come to the Senate. A person offered an amendment. He spoke in favor of 
it. People came and joined in that. People spoke against it. And we did 
things the old-fashioned way--we voted on them and then sent the bill 
to the House. That is the way we did it.
  We have to develop faith in what we are trying to do. I am saying to 
everyone, trust us. Yes, I have spoken to Republican Senators. I have 
spoken to every one of the Democrat Senators. I have spoken to quite a 
few Republican Senators. I hope they give us the benefit of the doubt.
  We are not working from a position of weakness. The American people 
want us to do this. They want us to join together, to pass legislation. 
They do not want anyone breaking the rules to change the rules.
  This is so important for our country. We need to come together to 
work out our differences. It is not only important to this institution, 
it is important to our country.
  I thank very much my friend from Illinois for his questions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have no problem with my friend speaking. 
My friend has to catch a train, and he has had unanimous consent to 
speak here for a long period of time. I think he should be able to go 
first. I object. I want my friend from Delaware to go first.
  Mr. CARPER. I appreciate that. I will miss my train, but go ahead. I 
yield to the Senator.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator is going to miss his train because of my 
7 minutes, not because of his own speech, I will withhold. But if he is 
going to miss the train because of his speech--
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection has been heard.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I promise to 
be very brief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________