[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 60 (Tuesday, May 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4801-S4805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          RULES OF THE SENATE

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As the Senate convenes this week, we stand on the edge of dramatic 
change. Change is usually a good thing, but the change that the other 
side is trying to invoke is not a good thing. We all know it. Most 
Americans know it. Most Democrats know it. Most Republicans

[[Page S4802]]

know it. Even most Senators on the other side know it. Yet they are 
torn because of a small group way out of the mainstream. The same 
people who believe their message, which may come from the heavens, 
dictates to them what is right for everybody else seem to be in 
control. It is a crucial time for America. The age-old checks and 
balances that are at the center of this Republic, at the center of our 
Constitution, are hanging at the precipice.
  It is the Senate where the Founding Fathers established a repository 
of checks and balances. It is not like the House of Representatives 
where the majority leader or the Speaker can snap his fingers and get 
what he wants. Here we work many times by unanimous consent where you 
need all 100 Senators to go along. In some instances, we work where 67 
votes are needed, in some with 60, and in most with 51. But the reason 
we don't always work by majority rule is very simple. On important 
issues, the Founding Fathers wanted--and they were correct in my 
judgment--that the slimmest majority should not always govern. When it 
comes to vital issues, that is what they wanted.
  The Senate is not a majoritarian body. My good friend from Utah 
spoke. He represents about two million people in Utah. I represent 19 
million in New York State. We have the same vote. You could have 51 
votes for a judge on this floor that represents 21 percent of the 
American people. So the bottom line is very simple. This has not always 
been a 50.1 to 49.9 body. It has been a body that has had to work by 
its rules and by the Founding Fathers' intent. Even when you are in the 
majority, you have to reach out and meet not all, not most, but some of 
the concerns of the minority.
  I understand why my colleague from Utah would get up and make such 
ridiculous arguments. He is torn. He knows this is wrong. Most of the 
Members on the other side of the aisle know it is wrong. Some have had 
the guts--a handful--to say no. Some have had the strength to resist 
the calls of that extreme group or groups. Some are true believers. But 
some, and my guess is my friend from Utah is one of those, know it is 
wrong but decide: I am going along anyway.
  When my friend from Utah lists the 10 most ridiculous arguments 
against keeping the filibuster and says checks and balances is a 
ridiculous argument, please. I care a great deal about my friend from 
Utah. He is a fine man. We are friends. We have worked together on many 
things. But he has more respect for the Constitution than to say checks 
and balances is a ridiculous argument. He knows darn well that a 51-to-
49 vote does away with certain kinds of checks and balances.
  When my friend from Utah talks about no extremists, it seems to me 
the very same people who are calling the shots are the people who said 
that judges are worse than terrorists. That seems pretty extreme to me. 
That is the type of person importuning my friend from Utah.
  Another one said: Judges, in their black robes, are like the Ku Klux 
Klan in their white robes. These are officials of the American 
Government, most of whom now are Republicans. Sixty percent of the 
court of appeals are Republican appointees. Seven of the nine Supreme 
Court members are Republican appointees.

  When my friend from Utah doesn't think those statements are extreme 
and listens to the solution that people who make those statements 
prescribe, what else can one conclude than that he is sort of tying 
himself in a pretzel to try and make an argument that he must know in 
his heart is wrong.
  Unprecedented? Well, it was my good friend from Utah who played a 
leading role in blocking a large number of the Clinton judges. He will 
say it wasn't by filibuster. The American people are a lot smarter than 
that. Whether it is by not bringing them up for a vote in committee or 
by requiring that they get 60 votes to choke off debate on the floor, 
the effect is the same. The President, the incumbent, is denied his 
choice. By the way, that is how our Senate has functioned.
  The President, when he gets 51.5 percent, as George Bush did, or even 
when he gets over 65 percent, as Franklin Roosevelt did in 1936, 
shouldn't always get his way with every single judge.
  He says that this will not doom the legislative filibuster, that that 
is an absurd argument. A year ago, if we would have heard that the 
Republican majority was considering having the Vice President sit in 
the chair and rule by fiat his own interpretation of the Constitution, 
coming out of nowhere because the Constitution doesn't mention any of 
this, certainly a narrow reading wouldn't allow us to address this 
issue from the Constitution, and he says that we will rule by fiat from 
the Chair and there should be no more filibusters of judges, even 
though that has been allowed for 200 years, even though it was done in 
2000 by our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle for Ms. 
Berzon and Mr. Paez, and then he is saying, well, it is absurd that we 
do it for other things. I say this: Allow them to do it for judges 
today, they will do it for Social Security tomorrow. The same exact 
procedure could be used to block filibusters of legislation and of 
every single other thing that comes before this body. There is no 
difference. The Constitution doesn't mention the word ``filibuster.''
  I don't know where it is divined in the heads of some of my 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle: It says it is for judges, 
but not for legislation. That is an activist reading of the 
Constitution if you ever heard one.
  The bottom line is simple: We are appealing to those Members of the 
other side of the aisle who, unlike my friend from Utah, have thus far 
resisted the entreaties of the hard, hard, hard right, who have 
resisted the entreaties of the narrow few who are way out there and say 
to them: Have strength, have courage.
  The basic makeup of our Senate is at stake. The checks and balances 
that Americans prize are at stake. The idea of bipartisanship, where 
you have to come together and can't just ram everything through because 
you have a narrow majority, is at stake. The very things we treasure 
and love about this grand Republic are at stake.
  I, for one, am saddened by what is happening. I, for one, am 
surprised at what is happening. I, for one, hope and pray that it will 
not come to this. But I assure my colleagues, at least speaking for 
this Senator from New York, I will do everything I can to prevent the 
nuclear option from being invoked not for the sake of myself or my 
party but for the sake of this great Republic and its traditions.
  I yield the remaining time to my colleague from Illinois, our great 
whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 19 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I might make an inquiry of my colleague from New 
Jersey, if he is going to seek recognition, I want to be sure and leave 
enough time for him to speak.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I believe 10 minutes, maybe a little bit 
less.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Chair would advise me when there are 10 minutes 
remaining, I will yield the remaining time to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Let me first thank my colleague from New York for his excellent 
statement. Senator Schumer and I serve on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. It is a committee where judges are initially considered. It 
is a tough assignment. When I came to the Senate from the House, I knew 
I would be voting on legislation, but more so in the Senate, you vote 
on people. That is a tougher call because it isn't in black and white. 
It isn't a matter of compromising, taking half of this and a quarter of 
the other. It is a question of making a judgment about a person. I find 
that a little more difficult--a lot more difficult, to be honest--and 
when it comes to judges, even more complicated because you aren't just 
putting a person in a temporary position. You are saying: Based on your 
life to this point, we are prepared to put you on the Federal bench for 
the rest of your natural life and trust your judgment that you will do 
the right thing by the Constitution and the American people.

  Overwhelmingly, we find whether the President is a Democrat or 
Republican, the Senate says: Fine, we approve. The nominee is a good 
person. We will go forward.
  What has happened here is interesting. We have, so far with President 
Bush in the White House, considered on

[[Page S4803]]

the floor of the Senate 218 nominees by President Bush for the Federal 
judiciary. The President has that power. The Senate has the power to 
advise--that is, review and consider--and consent, if it chooses. Out 
of the 218 names sent by President Bush to the floor of the Senate, we 
have approved 208 of those names. So we are at a point now where we 
have 10 out of those 218 who have not been approved. More than 95 
percent of the President's nominees have been approved.
  You would say to yourself: This President is doing well. Whether he 
sends us conservatives of one stripe or the other, the Senate has 
approved them. We have sent them to the bench to lifetime appointments.
  The President, after his reelection, comes to the Congress and says: 
That is not good enough. I want them all. I want every single one of 
them. I don't believe I should be held to the standard that every other 
President has been held to.
  What is that standard? It is not just a simple majority vote. The 
Senate is a different place. It was created by the Constitution as a 
different institution. States large and small have the same number of 
Senators. States large and small send Senators to the Chamber, men and 
women who have the authority under our rules to demand an extraordinary 
vote.
  People on the outside say: When I go to the city council meeting, it 
is a majority vote. When I go to the garden club, it is a majority 
vote. Why isn't it a majority vote in the Senate?
  Because the Senate is a different place. When the Founding Fathers 
wrote the Constitution, they said the Senate, more than any institution 
in the Government of America, will be a place that respects and 
recognizes the rights of a minority.
  For those who follow classic movies, Jimmy Stewart in ``Mr. Smith 
Goes to Washington,'' one Senator, idealistic and determined, took to 
the floor of the Senate and started a speech and, frankly, finally 
crumbled because he was so tired and had to end his speech. But he 
demonstrated the reality of the Senate, that one Senator, regardless of 
where they are from, a State large or small, regardless if they are the 
only Senator who holds that point of view, can stand up and argue that 
point of view. That was built into our Constitution, certainly into the 
tradition of the Senate. That is why 10 of President Bush's nominees 
have not been approved because, in this situation, they couldn't find 
60 Senators who would stand up and say: Stop the debate, vote on that 
nominee. That is the rule of the Senate.
  President Bush has said: I want to change it, to change the rules of 
the Senate in the middle of the game. I want to go after this whole 
concept of the power of the Senate, the power of checks and balances, I 
want more power in the White House, I want more power in the 
Presidency. That is not new. Presidents throughout history have always 
said they wanted more power than they had. Usually, the Congress stood 
up to them and said no.

  The Constitution is more important than any single President. Thomas 
Jefferson, when he was elected to his second term, came to the Senate 
and said: I want the power to remove those Federalist judges from the 
Supreme Court; They disagree with my political philosophy; I want to 
get rid of them.
  His own party said: No, President Jefferson. As important as you are, 
as much as we agree with you, the Constitution and traditions of the 
Senate are more important. And they voted him down.
  President Roosevelt, one of our greatest Presidents, in the beginning 
of his second term, with the power of the national mandate behind him, 
said to the Senate: Do something about that damnable Supreme Court that 
won't approve my New Deal. Allow me to put more Justices on the Court 
until I can have my way politically.
  His political body in this Senate said: Mr. President, we are 
Democrats, we respect you, we voted for you, we are for the New Deal, 
but you are wrong. You cannot come to us and ask for more Presidential 
power at the expense of the Constitution, at the expense of Senate 
traditions and values. They turned him down.
  Look what happens today. President Bush, fresh from a victory of 51.5 
percent in this election, comes to this body and says: I want more 
power in the Presidency.
  What does he hear from his own party in the Senate? Sadly, it is: 
Whatever you want, Mr. President.
  Mickey Edwards, a former Congressman from Oklahoma, who was quoted in 
the Washington Post this morning, gets it right. He said what amazes 
him about this debate is that Congress isn't standing up for its own 
constitutional responsibilities and rights. Congress is acquiescing in 
this effort by the President to take on more power so that he cannot be 
questioned and challenged when he puts people on the Federal bench for 
a lifetime.
  Mr. President, I will submit for the Record a list of over 50 
newspapers that have endorsed President Bush in 2000, 2004, or both, 
and have said that the President is wrong when it comes to this effort 
to increase Presidential power in the White House.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Albuquerque Journal [NM], The Albuquerque Tribune [NM], The 
     Arizona Republic [Phoenix], Arkansas Democrat & Gazette, 
     Austin American-Statesman [TX], Bangor Daily News [ME], 
     Birmingham Post Herald [AL], Chicago Tribune, The Cincinnati 
     Enquirer [OH], and The Cincinnati Post [OH].
       The Clarion-Ledger [Jackson, MS], Columbia Daily Tribune 
     [MO], The Commercial Appeal [Memphis, TN], Contra Costa Times 
     [CA], Corpus Christi Caller-Times [TX], Courier-Post [Camden, 
     NJ], The Daily Camera [CO], The Dallas Morning News [TX], and 
     The Day [New London, CT].
       The Denver Post, Easton Star-Democrat [MD], Fort Worth Star 
     Telegram [TX], The Grand Island Independent [NE], The 
     Hartford Courant [CT], The Herald [Bradenton, FL], Houston 
     Chronicle [TX], The Idaho Statesman, The Indianapolis Star 
     [IN], and Journal Star [Peoria, IL].
       Kalamazoo Gazette [MI], The Knoxville News-Sentinel [TN], 
     La Crosse Tribune [WI], Lincoln Journal Star [NE], Loveland 
     Daily-Reporter Herald [CO], The Morning Call [Allentown, PA], 
     The Muskegon Chronicle [MI], Muskogee Daily Phoenix & Times-
     Democrat [OK], New Haven Register [CT], and The News Leader 
     [Staunton, VA].
       The Omaha World-Herald [NE], The Oregonian, Orlando 
     Sentinel [FL], The Oshkosh Northwestern [WI], The Palladium-
     Item [IN], The Plain Dealer [Cleveland, OH], Poughkeepsie 
     Journal [NY], Quad City Times [Davenport, IA], The Record 
     [Troy, NY], and Salt Lake Tribune.
       San Antonio Express-News [TX], Savannah Morning News [GA], 
     Seattle Times [WA], San Diego Union Tribune, The State 
     [Columbia, SC], The Tri-City Herald [WA], Ventura County Star 
     [CA], The Wichita Eagle [KS], Winston-Salem Journal [NC], and 
     York Daily Record [PA].

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me tell you, I listen to the talk 
shows, and I hear people say that until these judicial nominees were 
challenged with extended debate or filibuster, it never happened 
before. I will also submit for the Record, for the third time, this 
chart which shows on 11 or 12 different occasions when a filibuster was 
invoked on judicial nominees throughout history, including Supreme 
Court Justices. This is not new, not novel. It is certainly not earth 
shattering. It has happened before.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   History of Filibusters and Judges

       Prior to the start of the George W. Bush administration in 
     2001, the following 11 judicial nominations needed 60 (or 
     more) votes--cloture--in order to end a filibuster:
       1881: Stanley Matthew to be a Supreme Court Justice
       1968: Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 
     (cloture required 2/3 of those voting)
       1971: William Rehnquist to be a Supreme Court Justice 
     (cloture required 2/3 of those voting)
       1980: Stephen Breyer to be a Judge on the First Circuit 
     Court of Appeals
       1984: J. Harvie Wilkinson to be a Judge on the Fourth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals
       1986: Sidney Fitzwater to be a Judge for the Northern 
     District of Texas
       1986: William Rehnquist to be Chief Justice of the Supreme 
     Court
       1992: Edward Earl Carnes, Jr. to be a Judge on the Eleventh 
     Circuit Court of Appeals
       1994: H. Lee Sarokin to be a Judge on the Third Circuit 
     Court of Appeals
       1999: Brian Theadore Stewart to be a Judge for the District 
     of Utah
       2000: Richard Paez to be a Judge on the Ninth Circuit Court 
     of Appeals
       2000: Marsha Berzon to be a Judge on the Ninth Circuit 
     Court of Appeals
       Because of a filibuster, cloture was filed on the following 
     two judicial nominations, but was later withdrawn:

[[Page S4804]]

       1986: Daniel Manion to be a Judge on the Seventh Circuit 
     Court of Appeals Senator Biden told then Majority Leader Bob 
     Dole that ``he was ready to call off an expected filibuster 
     and vote immediately on Manion's nomination.''--Congressional 
     Quarterly Almanac, 1986.
       1994: Rosemary Barkett to be a Judge on the Eleventh 
     Circuit Court of Appeals ``. . . lacking the votes to sustain 
     a filibuster, Republicans agreed to proceed to a confirmation 
     vote after Democrats agreed to a daylong debate on the 
     nomination.''--Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1994.
       Following are comments by Republicans during the filibuster 
     on the Paez and Berzon nominations in 2000, confirming that 
     there was, in fact, a filibuster:
       ``. . . it is no secret that I have been the person who has 
     filibustered these two nominations, Judge Berzon and Judge 
     Paez.''--Senator Bob Smith, March 9, 2000
       ``So don't tell me we haven't filibustered judges and that 
     we don't have the right to filibuster judges on the floor of 
     the Senate. Of course we do. That is our constitutional 
     role.''--Senator Bob Smith, March 7, 2000
       ``Indeed, I must confess to being somewhat baffled that, 
     after a filibuster is cut off by cloture, the Senate could 
     still delay a final vote on the nomination.''--Senator Orrin 
     Hatch, March 9, 2000, when a Senator offered a motion to 
     indefinitely postpone the Paez nomination after cloture had 
     been invoked
       In 2000, during consideration of the Paez nomination, the 
     following Senator was among those who voted to continue the 
     filibuster:
       Senator Bill Frist--Vote #37, 106th Congress, Second 
     Session, March 8, 2000.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me tell you something else that 
troubles me. How much time do I have?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Almost 12 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. So I will be notified in 2 minutes.
  There is something more at stake here that is even more important 
than the power of the President and the tradition of the Senate, and 
that is the independence of the judiciary. You cannot turn on the 
television or radio without hearing from some special interest group 
criticizing the Federal judiciary. I have been critical of individual 
decisions. I can point to some, including one that was made in the 
State of Florida in 2000. But to come to the floor and say let's get 
rid of the people making the decisions, take the power of Congress and 
control the judiciary, that is a mistake. An independent, fair, and 
balanced judiciary is critical for America.
  When I hear Members of Congress and special interest groups saying 
they want to use this nuclear option, the power of Congress, to take 
control of the Federal judiciary, I am concerned. That is a power grab 
far beyond violating the traditions and rules of the Senate. It says 
they are going to try to show control and exert authority over a branch 
of the Government which has always been independent.
  I will submit a transcript of a program on May 1 from ``This Week 
With George Stephanopolous.'' It is an interview with Pat Robertson.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [ABC News Transcripts, May 1, 2005]

                  This Week With George Stephanopoulos


                        pat robertson interview

       President George W. Bush, United States: ``Role of religion 
     in our society, I view religion as a personal matter. I think 
     a person ought to be judged on how he or she lives his life, 
     lives her life, and that's how I've tried to live my life 
     through example. Faith plays an important part in my life 
     individually, but I don't ascribe a person's opposing my 
     nominations to an issue of faith.''
       George Stephanopoulos, ABC News: (Off Camera) That was 
     President Bush in his prime time press conference Thursday 
     night talking about religion and public life and now for more 
     on this I'm joined from Virginia Beach by reverend Pat 
     Robertson. Good morning reverend Robertson.
       Pat Robertson, Chairman, Christian Broadcasting Network: 
     Good morning, George.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You know, the president 
     seemed to be putting some distance between himself and people 
     like you, allies like you who have cast this battle over 
     judges in more religious terms. Do you now accept the 
     president's belief that those who want to preserve the 
     filibuster for judges are not fighting against people of 
     faith?
       Pat Robertson: George, I've never said that. I've said some 
     things about the judges, but I think this filibuster thing 
     strictly is an attempt to please the People for the American 
     Way and the ultra left. I think the Democrats are catering to 
     them, but, you know, in the entire history of the United 
     States of America, there has never been a judge who has been 
     refused a.vote when there was a majority of Senators willing 
     to vote for his confirmation, never in history. This 
     filibuster in the last two years is unprecedented in our 
     history.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) But, sir, you have 
     described this in pretty, this whole battle in pretty 
     apocalyptic terms. You've said that Liberals are engaged in 
     an all-out assault on Christianity, that Democrats will 
     appoint judges who don't share our Christian values and will 
     dismantle Christian culture, and that the out-of-control 
     judiciary, and this was in your last book ``Courting 
     Disaster'' is the most serious threat America has faced in 
     nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Qaeda, more 
     serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the 
     Civil War?
       Pat Robertson: George, I really be1ieve that. I think they 
     are destroying the fabric that hold our nation together. 
     There is an assault on marriage. There's an assault on human 
     sexuality, as Judge Scalia said, they've taken sides in the 
     culture war and on top of that if we have a democracy, the 
     democratic processes should be that we can elect 
     representatives who will share our point of view and vote 
     those things into law.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) But, sir, let me just 
     stop you there. How can you say that these judges are a more 
     serious threat than Islamic terrorists who slammed into the 
     World Trade Center?
       Pat Robertson: It depends on how you look at culture. If 
     you look over the course of a hundred years, I think the 
     gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country 
     together is probably more serious than a few bearded 
     terrorists who fly into buildings. I think we're going to 
     control al Qaeda. I think we're going to get Osama bin Laden. 
     We won in Afghanistan. We won in Iraq, and we can contain 
     that. But if there's an erosion at home, you know, Thomas 
     Jefferson warned about a tyranny of an oligarchy and if we 
     surrender our democracy to the tyranny of an oligarchy, we've 
     made a terrible mistake.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You know, President 
     Bush at that press conference also said that he believes 
     you're equally American whether you're Christan, Muslim, or 
     Jew, and I wonder if you fully accept that, because in the 
     past, you've said that you believe that only Christians and 
     Jews are qualified to serve in the government. Is that still 
     your belief?
       Pat Robertson: Well, you know, Thomas Jefferson, who was 
     the author of the Declaration of Independence said he 
     wouldn't have any atheists in his cabinet because atheists 
     wouldn't swear an oath to God. That was Jefferson and we have 
     never had any Muslims in the cabinet. I didn't say serve in 
     government. I said in my cabinet if I were elected president, 
     and I think a president has a right to take people who share 
     his point of view, and I would think that would be . . .
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) Well, wait a second. 
     Let me just stop you there. `Cause in your book ``The New 
     World Order'' you wrote, `` `How dare you maintain that those 
     who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better 
     qualified to govern America than Hindus or Muslims.' My 
     simple answer is, `yes, they are.' '' Does that mean no Hindu 
     and Muslim judges?
       Pat Robertson: Right now, I think people who feel that 
     there should be a jihad against America, read what the 
     Islamic people say. They divide the world into two spheres, 
     Dar al Islam Dar al Harb. The Dar al Islam are those who've 
     submitted to Islam, Dar al Harb are those who are in the land 
     of war and they have said in the Koran there's a war against 
     all the infidels. So do you want somebody like that sitting 
     as a judge? I wouldn't.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) So I take it then the 
     answer to the question is that you believe that only 
     Christians and Jews are qualified to serve in the Federal 
     judiciary?
       Pat Robertson: Um, I'm not sure I'd make such a broad, 
     sweeping statement, but I just feel that those who share the 
     philosophy of the founders of this nation, who assent to the 
     principles of the Declaration of Independence, who assent to 
     the principles that underlie the constitution, such people 
     are the ones that should be judges, and the thing that I'm 
     opposed to about judges is the thought that this is a living 
     document that can be manipulated at the will of five out 
     of nine judge, nonelected judges. It's the tyranny of an 
     oligarchy that I'm concerned about.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You said also that you 
     believe Democrats appoint judges who ``don't share our 
     Christian values'' and will ``dismantle Christian culture.'' 
     So do you believe that Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg, 
     who were appointed by President Clinton, are trying to 
     dismantle Christian culture?
       Pat Robertson: Justice Ginsburg served as a general counsel 
     for the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU. That was 
     founded, as you probably know, by about three members of the 
     Communist Internationale. Their leader, Baldwin, said that he 
     wanted to be a Communist and wanted to make this . . .
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) So she's a Communist?
       Pat Robertson: He was. He said, it's in my book. I mean, he 
     said it. He made a declaration. He said I want to make 
     America a workers' state, breed Communists.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) But I was asking about 
     Justice Ginsburg. And you now seem to be trying to equate her 
     with these Communists.

[[Page S4805]]

       Pat Robertson: Well, she was the general counsel for this 
     organization whose purpose right now is to rid religion from 
     the public square. That's they are announced. We've had 
     Nadine Strasser down here to our university in a debate. 
     She's a very pleasant lady but that's what she said was her 
     avowed goal, to take all religion from the public square. 
     That's their initiative and Justice Ginsburg served as their 
     general counsel, 
     so . . .
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) Let's turn to some 
     broader issues. You spoke at the beginning of the year on 
     ``The 700 Club'' and said that you had been praying and God 
     had given you some predictions about President Bush's second 
     term. Let me show you that.
       Pat Robertson: What I heard was that Bush is now positioned 
     to have victory after victory. He'll have Social Security 
     reform passed, that he'll have tax reform passed, that he'll 
     have conservative judges on the courts.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) So that's what you 
     heard on January 3rd. Do you think you might have 
     misinterpreted?
       Pat Robertson: No, I think he's got a winning hand on 
     Social Security, George, despite what Nancy Pelosi says. The 
     Social Security, as you know is going into deficit in 2018. 
     It's not 2042 or '52. What they've been doing is taking a 
     surplus of the money that we all pay into Social Security and 
     they've used it to fund the Federal deficit and there is no 
     trust fund. That's an illusion and it's going into deficit. 
     There won't be any more excess for the Federal Government in 
     2018. We're hitting into a crisis mode and I think the 
     president as far as younger workers concerned, he has a 
     winning hand, and I think the Democrats are holding on to 
     something that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in the '30s and 
     they look like a bunch of mossbacks. It is time they, they, 
     they, they get some new ideas. You said it right when you 
     were interviewing her.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You know reverend 
     Robertson, the God you describe is taking a very active 
     direct role in our lives. One of the earlier clips we showed, 
     said, you had Him saying I am removing justices from the 
     supreme court and I'm just wondering why does a God who is so 
     involved in our daily life, so directly involved allow 
     something like a tsunami to kill several hundred thousand 
     people in Asia?
       Pat Robertson: I don't think He reverses the laws of 
     nature. The reason for that tsunami was the shifting of 
     tectonic plates in the Indian Ocean. I don't think He changes 
     the magma in volcanoes and I don't think He changes the wind 
     currents to bring about hurricanes, so I don't attribute that 
     to God or His lack or otherwise but in terms of human affairs 
     I do think he answers prayer and I think there have been 
     literally millions of people praying for a change in the 
     supreme court. The people of faith in this country feel 
     they're on a tyranny and they see their liberties taken away 
     from them and they've been beseeching God, fasting and 
     praying for years, so I think he hears and answers their 
     prayers.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You know, let's look 
     ahead to 2008. The jockeying has already begun and of all the 
     candidates looking for the nomination on the Republican side, 
     which one do you believe is best positioned to get the 
     support of religious conservatives like you?
       Pat Robertson: You know, it's really hard to pick a winner 
     right now. There's an outstanding Senator from Kansas who I 
     think would be looking for it. He certainly represents the . 
     . .
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) Sam Brownback?
       Pat Robertson: Brownback, he's a super guy. I think George 
     Allen from Virginia was a distinguished governor, he's a 
     distinguished senator and head of the senatorial campaign 
     committee and won some significant victories. He is a very 
     attractive guy and would make a tremendous president. So 
     there are a couple. I don't know who else is out there 
     jockeying, I'm sure Karl Rove has a candidate that he hasn't 
     told us about.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) You didn't mention Bill 
     Frist. I'm surprised about that.
       Pat Robertson: Uh, Bill is a wonderfully compassionate 
     human being. He is a humanitarian. He goes on medical 
     missions. He is a delightful person. I just don't see him as 
     a future president. And I think he said he didn't want to run 
     for president. Maybe I'm putting words in his mouth.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) I think he's looking at 
     it. Let me ask you one other question on that and then I'll 
     let you go.
       Pat Robertson: Okay.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) If the party chooses a 
     moderate like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, do you think 
     religious conservatives will split off and form a third party 
     movement?
       Pat Robertson: I don't think so. Rudy is a very good friend 
     of mine and I think he did a super job running the City of 
     New York and I think he'd make a good president. I like him a 
     lot, although he doesn't share all of my particular points of 
     view on social issues. He's a very dedicated Catholic and he 
     is a great guy. McCain I'd vote against under any 
     circumstance.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) Reverend Robertson, 
     thank you very much.
       Pat Robertson: Okay, thank you.
       George Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) The roundtable is next. 
     George will, Terry Moran, and Linda Douglass weigh in on the 
     president's first 100 days, and in ``The Funnies'' it's 
     Laura's turn.
       Laura Bush, First Lady: I was a librarian who spent 12 
     hours a day in the library, yet somehow I met George.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is a strident voice among some in 
this country who came out and said he believed that the real threat to 
America was not terrorism but men and women wearing judicial robes. He 
thought that was a much greater threat. That gives you an idea of the 
extreme rhetoric. We cannot let this happen. Whether the Democrats are 
in control or out of control, whether Republicans control today or 
tomorrow is secondary. We all swear to uphold the Constitution.
  I will yield the floor to my colleague from New Jersey at this point. 
I hope those following this debate will consider the constitutional 
issues at stake.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I also believe we must defend the 
independence of the judiciary, and I think the comments of both the 
Senator from Illinois and the Senator from New York regarding this 
subject are ones that need to be understood and need to be brought 
forward on the floor as we consider the potential for what I believe is 
changing the basic nature of how our courts are put together and their 
independence.

                          ____________________