[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 77 (Monday, June 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6351-S6364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                  Concentration of Media Broadcasting

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a couple of things have happened in the 
last several days that I want to visit. First, I wish to talk for a 
moment about public broadcasting and, secondly, to talk about a Supreme 
Court decision that was announced this morning here in Washington, DC, 
and the relationship between the two.
  First, I will talk about public broadcasting. I confess I am a big 
supporter, a big fan of public broadcasting. I think they are an 
organization that provides an independent view of a range of issues to 
the American people. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, public 
television, and public radio, I think, provide a significant service to 
this country.
  In a time when there is this enormous concentration in the media, 
more and more television stations are being bought up by fewer and 
fewer companies--one company owns over 1,200 radio stations in this 
country--the Federal Communications Commission writes new rules that 
get overturned by the courts, frankly, that say you can even buy up 
more of these properties. In fact, the rules the Federal Communications 
Commission developed some while ago said it is going to be all right in 
one of America's major cities for one company to own three television 
stations, eight radio stations, the dominant newspaper, and the cable 
company. That is unbelievable. Are they dead from the neck up? What 
possibly could they be thinking?
  Fortunately for us, the Federal courts struck down the new rules and, 
fortunately for us, this morning the Supreme Court decided that the 
court had justification in striking down these new ownership rules.
  Again, I do not think it makes any sense to have a handful of people 
in this country determining what the American people see, hear, and 
read, and that is exactly what is happening.
  That brings me back to public broadcasting. It is interesting that at 
a time of this concentration in the media--one company owning a lot of 
radio stations, 1,200 of them, one company and several companies owning 
a lot of television stations--at a time when there is not much room for 
discord and voices, which, incidentally, I think strengthens a 
democracy.
  There is this old saying when everyone is thinking the same thing, 
nobody is thinking very much. This democracy of ours, this system of 
self-government, this country that is full of self-expression is 
strengthened, in my judgment, by an exchange of views of people who 
have different views. But that, regrettably, is seen somehow as being 
disloyal these days.
  Oh, I know, someone in the Dixie Chicks said something that was 
unpopular about the President, and then we had tractors driving over 
the CDs from the Dixie Chicks and big rallies to burn their music. Just 
before the last election, one television consortium decided they were 
going to run a clearly partisan film designed to attack only one 
Presidential candidate and not allow time for the opposing view. This 
was a television consortium that nearly every single night was doing 
editorials against one of the Presidential candidates.
  In Minot, ND, late one evening, a train ran the tracks and some cars 
of anhydrous ammonia spilled a plume over that community of nearly 
50,000 people, and that deadly cloud of anhydrous ammonia enveloped 
that community at about 2 o'clock in the morning. There is some 
disagreement about the events of that night, but reports are that the 
telephone calls went to the local radio station, and were not answered. 
All the radio stations in Minot are owned by one company.
  What is happening in these broadcast facilities these days is they 
are running a broadcast out of a board someplace 1,000 miles away, 
someone who is homogenizing the music to run it

[[Page S6357]]

through the local station. There is no local broadcasting in many 
cases. What you have is a company 1,000 miles or 1,500 miles away 
deciding they are going to run some homogenized music through the sound 
board. You do not even need people around to do that.
  The Minot, ND, story is one that has been well repeated. I know there 
is some dispute about a number of the details, but the fact is, there 
should not be any dispute about what is happening with this 
concentration. We now have people who sit in a basement, perhaps 20, 30 
miles from here--one of the examples I heard was over in Baltimore, a 
guy sitting in a basement studio saying: It is sunny in Salt Lake City. 
What a beautiful morning to wake up in Salt Lake City. He was not in 
Salt Lake City. He was in a basement in Baltimore.
  He was reading off the Internet, pretending he was broadcasting to 
the local folks over the local station in Salt Lake City. They have a 
term for that. They also have a term for the kind of homogenized 
television news that is put out by people who are not in your region to 
make it look like it is locally produced news.
  We have this massive concentration in the media, which I think is 
awful, the FCC promoted rules that says we will let them concentrate 
even further. As I said, in a major city, under the FCC rule, one would 
be able to own eight radio stations, three television stations, the 
cable company, and buy the dominant newspaper all at the same time. I 
think it was one of the single most complete cave-ins to the biggest 
corporate interests in this country I have ever seen: The public 
interest be damned.
  The FCC had three-quarters of a million people write to it to say: Do 
not do this. It did not matter to them. They just did it. Now they have 
been enjoined by a court. The Supreme Court says they cannot continue 
and so now they have to start over. Perhaps when they start over they 
will understand they also have a responsibility to work for the public 
interest, which brings me to public television.
  A couple of things are kicking around about public television. Last 
week, I believe on Thursday or Friday, the appropriations subcommittee 
in the House decided to cut funding for public broadcasting. The cut in 
funding probably meets the interests of some who would like to abolish 
it. I do not know. I know we had one of our colleagues some years ago 
decide to get in a big fight with Big Bird and, frankly, Big Bird won. 
Public broadcasting is widely supported in this country.
  In recent years, we have heard a drumbeat by people who say public 
broadcasting, public television, public radio, is biased. It has a 
liberal bias, they say. No evidence of that, to my knowledge. Still, 
the mantra seems to try to brand it as something that is anathema to 
fairness or balance.
  The other day I called Mr. Tomlinson, who is the Chairman of the 
Board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He has been in the 
news a great deal. In fact, as Chairman, he is one who has made the 
point that he believes that some of the programming is not balanced, is 
in fact biased towards the liberal view.
  I talked to Mr. Tomlinson by telephone the other day. I do not know 
him. I do not have anything bad to say about him. But I called him 
because of what I had read in the public domain that he has said as 
chairman of the board.
  I knew he had hired, with public funds, a consultant to come in and 
take a look at programming, particularly Bill Moyers', called ``NOW,'' 
I believe it was titled, to see if it was fair. I will not use ``fair 
and balanced'' because that belongs to another brand.
  So I wrote to Mr. Tomlinson and asked: Why do you not send me the 
work papers, send me the summary. I would like to see this report that 
you empaneled with public funding. He did. He sent me what he called 
the raw data. The raw data is here. This is raw, certainly, and I guess 
it is data, but there is no summary. So I called to ask: Would you 
please also send me summary.
  If one looks through the raw data, it is unusual and strange. I will 
not enter this into the record. I will not put all of this information 
into the record. I am not going to read from all of it. I am still 
awaiting a summary. But I must say that the Chairman of the Board of 
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting hired a consultant to do an 
evaluation of programming. Then we have all of these sheets that 
describe the guests and it says: anti-Bush, anti-Bush, pro-Bush, anti-
Bush. It appears to me to be not so much an evaluation of is this 
slanted, is it liberal, does it have an agenda; it is the evaluation of 
is this program critical of the President?

  Is that why a consultant was employed, to see whether public 
broadcasting is critical of our President? God forbid that we would be 
critical of the President of the United States.
  I find it interesting that in this evaluation--this one is 
incidentally conservative/liberal, C or L. This was not anti-Bush but C 
or L. My colleague, Senator Hagel from Nebraska, appeared on one of the 
programs, and he apparently disagreed with a portion of President 
Bush's strategy with respect to Iraq. So my colleague, Senator Hagel, 
is referred to as liberal. He is a liberal contributor to National 
Public Radio. My guess is that is going to surprise a lot of 
Nebraskans.
  If he were on the floor he would probably say he is a pretty good 
conservative Republican, someone for whom I have deep admiration, but 
he kind of claimed the liberal status according to the consultant.
  This is pretty unseemly, frankly, spending public money on a 
consultant who then sits down and looks at all of these programs to see 
if something is being said that might be critical about a President or 
Congress.
  Well, I guess that is enough to say about this particular report. I 
will await the summary, but as someone who supports public broadcasting 
and thinks it contributes a great deal to this country--and by the way, 
who do my colleagues think has been willing to do programs about the 
concentration of media ownership in this country, about the fact that 
one company has gobbled up over 1,200 radio stations and fewer people 
are involved in what we hear, what we see and what we read in this 
country because they are gobbling up all the television stations as 
well? Who do my colleagues think has the guts to do programs on the 
question of what does the concentration in the media mean in America?
  Is it ABC, or CBS, or NBC? Get real. Do my colleagues think they are 
going to do that? They are involved in the concentration. Public 
broadcasting did it. Public broadcasting is willing to take this on.
  How about a program that describes waste in the Defense Department? I 
am on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I feel very strongly 
about our country having a strong defense. I feel passionate about 
supporting men and women who wear this country's uniform. We need to 
honor them and support them in every way possible. I also happen to 
think that the Pentagon is one of the largest bureaucracies in the 
world, and there is massive waste there. So public television did one 
program in which they talked about waste over at the Pentagon. Do you 
know how that is described? Antidefense. God forbid that you should 
describe waste at the Pentagon because then you will be classified, 
according to this consultant, as antidefense.

  Let me describe something that was going on deep in the bowels of the 
Pentagon about a year and a half ago. They spent about $8 million, and 
they were going to create what was called a futures market for 
terrorism. It was basically supposed to be an online betting parlor.
  For example, you would be able to bet on such things as: How many 
American soldiers would be killed in the next year? Would the King of 
Jordan be assassinated within the next 12 months?
  Yes, that is exactly what the Pentagon was preparing to put up and 
operate in a real way on the Internet. They were within 3 days of doing 
it, and they wanted $8 million to continue it for the next fiscal year.
  Senator Wyden and I discovered what they were trying to do. We blew 
it wide open. We had a press conference, described what they were 
doing, had on the Internet to show that they were only days away from 
implementing this crazy strategy, and the next day, the Department of 
Defense shut it down.
  At the press conference, I said this idea of setting up an online 
betting

[[Page S6358]]

parlor to take bets on terrorism was unbelievably stupid. Can you 
imagine, setting up a futures market by which Americans can buy futures 
contracts and effectively bet on how many soldiers will be killed in 
the coming year? That is exactly what was going to happen in the bowels 
of the Pentagon.
  Just as an aside, one of my staff people, about 4 months later, used 
a Google search and typed in the words ``unbelievably stupid,'' and my 
name came up. That is the danger of Google, I suppose.
  But the fact is, what was happening in the bowels of the Pentagon 
was, in fact, unbelievably stupid and a tragic waste of the taxpayers' 
money and very unseemly, so we shut it down. Would that be called 
antidefense? I guess so. I guess, according to this consultant, that is 
antidefense. It may even be anti-Bush, I don't know.
  On top of all this, the attack on public broadcasting by cutting the 
funding in the U.S. House, by hiring a consultant--unknown to the 
Board, by the way--with public funding to try to determine what is 
anti-Bush and pro-Bush or liberal or conservative--on top of all that, 
last week, the Washington Post reports that the search for the new 
president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has narrowed. I 
don't know whether it is true. I am just telling you what was in the 
papers last week. It has narrowed to two candidates, and the leading 
candidate is a former co-chair of the Republican National Committee. A 
former co-chair of the Republican National Committee they are going to 
make head, the president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? I 
don't think so. At least those who worry about bias, those who worry 
about objectivity, ought not be thinking about presenting to this 
Congress something as unprecedented as that.
  I want public broadcasting in this country to be what it has always 
been: a proud symbol of independence, willing to search for the truth 
wherever it exists and willing to take on tough subjects. I mentioned 
that it falls to the Public Broadcasting System to air the programs 
about concentration in the media. Do you know why? Because FOX News is 
not going to do it, CBS is not going to do it, NBC and ABC won't do it. 
So the American people will be spoon-fed this intellectual pabulum that 
says: All this is really good. If one company owns all the radio 
stations in your town, good for you.
  It is not good for you. Who is going to broadcast the local baseball 
games? Who is going to broadcast the local parade? Who is going to 
report on local issues, when someone in a basement in a city not far 
from here is broadcasting over a radio station in Salt Lake City and 
pretending to be living there when, in fact, they have never set foot 
in the town?

  Enough about that--only to say that some of us in this Chamber and 
some of us in Congress care very deeply about the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, about public television and public radio. I happen 
to listen to NPR, National Public Radio, on the way in the mornings, in 
to work in the Capitol. I think it is some of the best news you can 
find.
  Let me say I listen in the evening, when I can, to Jim Lehrer. I 
challenge you to find a better newscast than that which exists on 
public television. There are those who believe they want to abolish 
funding for it. If there are those who believe they want to have a 
former co-chair of the Republican National Committee now assume the 
presidency at a time when they themselves have raised all these 
questions and hired consultants about objectivity, I want them to know 
they are in for a fight because some of us care deeply about the future 
of public broadcasting in this country.
  I wish to talk just for a moment about an announcement last week. 
Coming in, listening to the radio this morning, I heard a report that 
the dollar had strengthened just a bit recently. It has strengthened on 
the news that last Friday, at 8:30 in the morning, our trade deficit 
was announced, and our trade deficit last Friday was announced to be 
only $57 billion. It actually went up to $57 billion, a significant 
increase from the month before, but a bit less than had been expected. 
On the strength of that, the dollar improved a little bit because the 
currency market, which is probably on medication of some type, believes 
that is marginally good news.
  This is the fourth highest monthly trade deficit in the history of 
this country, the fourth highest trade deficit ever. What it means is 
we are drowning in a sea of red ink. Going back to 1998, these are our 
monthly trade deficits on this chart. It means we are buying more from 
abroad than they are selling, importing much more than we are 
exporting. So each day, we sell about $2 billion worth of America. Each 
and every day, 7 days a week, we sell about $2 billion worth of our 
country.
  This is what we expect. If we take a look at the first 4 months of 
trade deficits this year, it is 22 percent higher than last year. You 
see, last year was a big record. This year, we are probably headed 
toward $750 billion in the annual trade deficit.
  To a lot of people, the trade deficit doesn't matter; it is just a 
term. There is nobody in this Chamber wearing a dark-blue suit who is 
ever going to lose his job because of a trade deficit. It is just folks 
working on production lines and working for American companies who 
discover that this trade deficit means we are buying from abroad what 
we used to buy at home and sending American jobs abroad. We are firing 
the workers at home and doing it relentlessly, day after day after day.
  There are some who say, ``I know you are using these statistics and 
this data, but what really matters is how it relates to the entire 
economy.'' You can see how it relates to the economy. It is going up, 
up as a percent of our GDP.
  Finally, while our trade deficit is a serious problem with Japan, 
with Canada, with Mexico, with Europe, this is the 500 pound gorilla--
China. It is a dramatic problem.
  I have spoken at length. Some do not want to hear it anymore, but it 
is worth saying again because, you know, repetition is important, at 
least for slow learners. For others, it is important just to remember. 
Let me describe some specific examples.
  Incidentally, I notice the Presiding Officer smiled a bit. I am not 
speaking about anyone in this Chamber being a slow learner. These are 
all advanced learners who serve in the Senate, I am sure. But let me 
describe some stories, if I might. I have used them all.
  Huffy bicycles. In fact, I got a letter from Huffy bicycles. They 
didn't like what I said. Huffy bicycles used to be made in Ohio. It was 
20 percent of the bicycle market in the United States. You buy them all 
at Wal-Mart, Kmart, Sears. The people in Ohio who made Huffy bicycles 
actually put a little decal between the handle bar and the front 
fender. The decal was the American flag.

  The workers in Ohio who made Huffy bicycles were fired because they 
were making $11 an hour plus benefits, and their jobs went to China for 
30 cents an hour by people who work 7 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a 
day.
  The last job performed by those folks in Ohio was to take off the 
little flag decal on the Huffy bicycle and replace it with a decal of 
the globe. Huffy bicycles are not American any more. They are Chinese. 
Why? Because American workers were making $11 an hour plus benefits. 
They were paid too much money.
  Radio Flyer, the little red wagon that all the children in this 
country played with, was an American company for 110 years. It is gone 
now. Little red wagons are made elsewhere. Why? Because the American 
workers cost too much.
  Levis? There is not one pair of Levis made in the United States. 
None. It is an all American company. Levis are gone.
  Fig Newton cookies. Want to buy some Mexican food? Fig Newton cookies 
are made in Monterey, Mexico. They left this country to be made in 
Mexico.
  Fruit of the Loom underwear, shorts, shirts--gone.
  I could go on and on at great length. But these are companies who 
took their jobs elsewhere. Why? Because you can find labor dirt cheap, 
you can instantly move technology and capital, and then you can produce 
that product--yes, bicycles, wagons, underwear, shirts, shoes, 
trousers, trinkets, you name it--you can produce it elsewhere. Then you 
can ship it to Toledo, Fargo, to Los Angeles, Boston, New York, and 
sell it to the American consumer.

[[Page S6359]]

  It is a brilliant strategy, if you are a big corporation that wants 
to maximize your profits. It is a devastating strategy, if you have 
worked all your life in a factory, proud of what you produce, and have 
just been told your job is gone.
  Thirty years ago, the largest American corporation was General 
Motors. People frequently worked for that corporation for a lifetime, 
generally were paid a pretty good wage, were paid health care and also 
retirement benefits. Now, the largest corporation is Wal-Mart. I don't 
have to tell you what the average wage is, what the turnover is. The 
fact is, it is dramatically different, with less stability, fewer 
benefits, lower wages.
  This country is in a race to the bottom, and what we ought to be 
doing with the strategy on international trade is lifting others up. 
Instead, we are pushing American workers down.
  The other day, I found out that Lama boots, Tony Lama boots--I talk 
about Levis being all American, when you spot someone with Tony Lama 
boots, you think that is all American. Tony Lama boots has now moved to 
China.
  The list goes on and on and on.
  So the question is, when will this country stand up for its own 
economic interests? Not build walls around America, but at least 
develop a straight strategy that tries to lift others up rather than 
push us down. There is a feeling among some that workers do not matter 
very much, workers are like wrenches, like screwdrivers and pliers. Use 
them, use them up, and you throw them away. And throwing them away is 
as easy as saying, sayonara, so long, we are off to China, off to Sri 
Lanka, off to Bangladesh.
  The thing is, none of this works. Henry Ford used to believe that he 
wanted his workers to earn a sufficient income so they could buy the 
product they produce. He wanted the workers at Ford Motor to have 
enough in wages to be able to buy Ford cars. Very simple. Simple 
economics.
  This is an unsustainable course. We cannot continue this course of 
trade deficit after trade deficit, $50, $60 billion a month, month 
after month after month.

  There is a lot of discussion about crisis around here. The President 
says Social Security is in crisis. It is not. Social Security, if 
nothing is done, will be wholly solvent until George W. Bush is 106. 
Clearly, it is not a crisis. Do we have to make some adjustments 
because people are living longer? Yes, and we will, and we should. But 
it is not a crisis. The trade deficit is a crisis. In a presidential 
campaign, some time ago, this issue was described as that giant sucking 
sound, that giant sucking sound that sucks American jobs out of this 
country.
  People say, well, more people are working. But what is happening in 
this country? What is happening is good American jobs are leaving. And, 
no, it is not just the manufacturing jobs. It is now all too often 
engineering jobs, programming jobs, system design jobs, and others as 
well. What are the American workers replacing the lost jobs with? Jobs 
that pay less. Jobs with less security. Jobs without health care. Jobs 
without retirement capability. That is what is happening in our 
country.
  Again, this town will snore through it. Last Friday, at 8:30 in the 
morning, we get an announcement that in the previous month we had a 
$57-billion trade deficit. What was the reaction to this town? Just 
roll over and continue laying down and taking another long nap because 
nothing much like this matters. This is not a crisis. This is not 
urgent, they say.
  This country has an identity crisis. It has to decide what it wants 
for its future, and who will stand up for it. We fought for 100 years 
on these issues. We had people die on the streets of this country for 
the right to organize as workers. People literally died in the streets 
for the right to organize. Now a company can shut down their U.S. 
operation, ship the jobs to China, and if those workers, at 30 cents an 
hour, try to organize, they are fired like that. Just that quick.
  We had people fighting in the streets over child labor laws, over 
safe workplaces, the right to work in a safe plant, the right to expect 
that a plant is not going to dump its chemicals into the air and into 
the water. Nowadays, corporations can instantly decide to pole-vault 
over that. We will just fire the American workers and move the jobs to 
another country.
  The other day, I saw a report about the 470 workers laid off at a 
General Electric plant making refrigerators. They were told on April 
Fool's Day of this year, April 1, it would be the last day for 470 
workers. G.E. was going to discontinue the production of midline, side-
by-side refrigerator models that supposedly are not competitive or do 
not have the right product features, but a very similar new line of 
refrigerators will be started up in the G.E. Plant in Celaya, Mexico. 
And that plant will be funded with a loan from the Export Import Bank, 
which is to say U.S. taxpayers.
  This may not matter much to someone around here who wears a white 
shirt and a blue suit to work and who is never going to lose their job 
to cheap foreign labor. I don't know of one journalist or one 
politician in this country that has ever lost their job to cheap 
foreign labor. It is just the folks on the assembly line, folks that 
work for a living in the plant, often the folks that have to come back 
in the evening and at suppertime and tell their family, I lost my job 
today. It wasn't because I did a bad job. I have worked for that 
company for 15, or 20, or 25 years. I love that job. I love it, but I 
cannot compete with 30 cents an hour.
  This country has to try to figure out what is going on in how it 
deals with it. This country really needs to understand that this is a 
crisis and this requires action and an urgent response by this 
President and by this Congress.
  There is so much to say about trade. I am tempted to continue to talk 
about the 600,000 cars we get from Korea every year. We get the 
opportunity to send 3,000 cars back into the Korean marketplace. 
Unbelievable to me. Just unbelievable. There are 600,000 vehicles 
coming our way from Korea, and we do not get cars into Korea.
  I could talk about automobiles in China, talk about beef to Japan, I 
could talk about potato flakes to Korea. The length of the presentation 
could be nearly endless.

  But for now let me say last Friday's announcement of one more trade 
deficit sells just a bit more of this country in a way that Warren 
Buffet, a fellow I greatly admire, says will one day put us in the 
position of being sharecroppers because we are selling part of America 
with these dramatic trade deficits. And it is not just selling part of 
our country when you are buying more than you are selling. Not only are 
your jobs leaving--and in this case they are leaving for much lower 
wages--but in addition to that, you end up, unlike the budget deficit, 
which you can argue as an economist we owe to ourselves, you end up 
providing, in the hands of foreign governments, currency, stock, or 
real estate claims against our country. That affects foreign policies, 
virtually everything else we do.
  I will have more to say about this. But I did not want Friday's 
moment to pass, despite the rather sleepy attitude here in Washington, 
DC. In the hot, lazy months of summer, I did not want it to pass 
without some people understanding that some of us think what is 
happening is nuts. And some of us believe it is time--long past the 
time--for Congress and the President to have the backbone, the nerve, 
and the will to stand up for this country's economic interests and say: 
We represent this country. We represent the United States.
  The next time there is a trade agreement negotiated, they ought to 
wear a jersey that says ``USA.'' And maybe they could just look down 
briefly to see who they represent and say: I stand for this country and 
this country's long-term interests. Without that--and we have not had 
that for a long while--this country, in my judgment, is consigned to a 
future of lower wages and a lower standard of living.
  You will not, in my judgment, long remain a world economic power 
without addressing this issue directly. My hope is sooner, rather than 
later, my colleagues will join me.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S6360]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Hagel are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning business.'')
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, thank you. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           tobacco settlement

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue that appeared 
in the newspapers last week. Last week a client was sold out by his 
lawyer. It happens across America on a regular basis. It is 
unfortunate. It is unethical, unprofessional, and basically wrong, but 
it happens.
  The reason why this caught my attention, and the attention of many, 
was that the lawyer in this case was the Attorney General of the United 
States; the client, the American people. At issue was a lawsuit brought 
against the tobacco industry by the Department of Justice. It was a 
lawsuit started under President Clinton and carried on under President 
Bush. The case was made that the tobacco industry in America over 50 
years deceived and deliberately misinformed the people about the 
dangers of the product they were selling.
  Last week our lawyers, the Attorney General of the United States and 
the Department of Justice, the people who are supposed to be working 
endlessly every day to protect the best interests of America, basically 
walked away from their own case. The Department of Justice chose to 
dismiss credible testimony from its own witnesses, people it had 
brought into this lawsuit.
  A few months ago, Michael Fiore, who spent his entire career in 
public health and the study of tobacco use and cessation, recommended a 
comprehensive smoking cessation program across America, funded at $5.2 
billion a year for at least 25 years. Mr. Fiore's testimony was that we 
would take the money and profits the tobacco companies had made by 
deceiving the American people about the danger of tobacco and 
cigarettes and use it so that Americans currently smoking, addicted, or 
who might be tempted to smoke would have a chance to be spared from the 
disease and death which follows from that addiction.
  Last week, the Justice Department's lawyer, a gentleman working for 
Attorney General Gonzales by the name of Stephen Brody, shocked the 
court and the American people by announcing that the Justice Department 
would only seek a fraction of the money which his own witness had said 
should be recovered by the people. This Assistant Attorney General, 
Stephen Brody, walked into a courtroom and said that instead of the 
$130 billion the tobacco companies would owe to the people to help them 
avoid tobacco addictions, he would only seek $10 billion.
  Before I was elected to Congress, I used to be a trial lawyer. I used 
to go through this routine. But it certainly didn't involve billions or 
even millions of dollars. They were much smaller cases. If I was being 
sued and someone had said, Listen, we need $100,000 and that is it, 
come up with $100,000 or we are going to trial, I would have to make an 
assessment. Is this case one that I am likely to win or lose, if I am 
being sued, $110,000, $100,000 on the line? But if a few days before 
the trial they walked in and said, No, we are wrong. It isn't $100,000, 
it is only $10,000, I would think to myself, They don't have much of a 
lawsuit, on one day to ask for $100,000 and the next to ask for 
$10,000.
  In this case, our Attorney General, through Mr. Brody, was asking the 
court for $130 billion. And then last week, to the surprise of 
everybody, he walked in and said, No, only $10 billion.
  Does this administration really believe the people of the United 
States won't notice the Government is willing to leave $120 billion on 
the table and walk away from it?
  Well, they did notice. Newspapers across the country have run 
editorials and articles criticizing the Department of Justice for what 
appears to be bad representation of the American people, the fact that 
the American people were cheated by their lawyer, newspapers are from 
all over the country: Houston, TX; Lowell, MS; Lakeland, OH; 
Harrisburg, PA; Tacoma, WA; Albuquerque; Denver; Racine, WI; Los 
Angeles; New York; and the Washington Post. The country has noticed 
that a lawyer sold out his client because it is a big sellout.
  The Albany Times Union wrote:

       So, why the sudden about face? Yes, it's routine for 
     attorneys to suddenly change a client's demand if it appears 
     that the merits of the case are weak, or that a judge or jury 
     appears likely to rule against them. But most legal experts 
     had widely believed the government would win this case 
     because it was based on the same evidence used successfully 
     by state attorneys general to win $246 billion. That evidence 
     . . . showed they knew cigarettes were addictive even as they 
     conducted campaigns to get young people to smoke.

  The Denver Post editorial was headlined, ``What Are the Feds 
Smoking?'' Good question.
  The Lowell Sun says:

       The dramatic change [in government strategy] was both 
     shocking and outrageous. Allowing political pressure to 
     interfere in any trial--particularly one of such importance--
     is beyond unacceptable, it's unconscionable.

  Finally, the Houston Chronicle, from the President's own home State 
of Texas, quotes a civil attorney who says he would be ``thrilled'' if 
he were representing a tobacco company in this case. The lawyer said:

       I've never seen anything like this happen unless there's 
     political pressure.

  It is obvious something happened in this case, and it wasn't about 
law. It was clearly about politics.
  The Chronicle concludes:

       If this illustrates the compassion [Attorney General] 
     Alberto Gonzales promised to bring to the job, then he is 
     feeling sorry for the wrong people.

  I agree. This administration has never demonstrated much enthusiasm 
for this tobacco case, which it inherited from the Clinton 
administration.
  To its credit, though, the Department has avoided public discussion 
of settlement, prosecuted a strong case, brought in the witnesses, 
until last week. I have joined several of my colleagues in the House 
and Senate asking the Attorney General to initiate an investigation 
surrounding this decision last week to basically sell out the American 
people when it comes to this tobacco lawsuit. I call on the Attorney 
General, through his inspector general or directly, to answer the 
question: Why did you walk away from the American people in this 
tobacco lawsuit?
  This Government has signaled to the tobacco industry that the 
settlement will be cheap. While the American people deserve more, the 
people's lawyers appear to be winking at the other side. It is hard to 
imagine a settlement after last week that would be a good deal for the 
American people. I encourage the Department to hold off any settlement 
discussions until we replace the DOJ officials who sold us out last 
week. Those who put pressure on Stephen Brody have to go. If The 
Department of Justice can walk into that courtroom and sell out the 
American people, the American people need a new lawyer.
  The purpose of this lawsuit was to hold accountable the promoters of 
tobacco use for what has become the leading cause of preventable death 
in America. An early settlement in this case will miss that point 
entirely. The Department of Justice set out a detailed case 
establishing the tobacco industry's role in misleading America. This is 
a rare opportunity to hold tobacco companies accountable for the 
preventable deaths tobacco causes and to reach those who are addicted 
to tobacco today.
  The Department of Justice chose to walk away, leaving $120 billion 
and 43 million American lives behind.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S6361]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Mr. Thomas 
B. Griffith for confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia. I could not be here in my capacity as chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee to open the debate this afternoon because we 
had a field hearing on juvenile crime in Philadelphia. But I am here 
now because I want to express my views as to why I believe Mr. Griffith 
is preeminently well qualified to take on the important job of circuit 
judge in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Griffith has an extraordinary academic background. He graduated 
from Brigham Young University with his bachelor's degree in 1978, with 
a summa cum laude rating and high honors. He also was valedictorian of 
his college. He earned his law degree from the University of Virginia. 
During law school, Mr. Griffith was a member of the Editorial and 
Articles Review Board of the Virginia Law Review, which is a very high 
position at a prestigious law school.
  Following law school, Mr. Griffith worked at the Charleston, NC, law 
firm of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson. He then continued his very 
distinguished professional career as a partner at Wiley, Rein & 
Fielding. In 1995, by unanimous resolution, the Senate, sponsored by 
the Republican and Democratic leaders, appointed him to the nonpartisan 
position of Senate legal counsel.
  During his tenure as Senate legal counsel, Mr. Griffith tackled a 
very tough issue relating to the impeachment of President Clinton. He 
did an outstanding job. He also argued, on behalf of the Senate, two 
very important matters involving committee investigations and the line 
item veto litigation, which resulted in two landmark decisions by the 
Supreme Court of the United States, At the conclusion of his tenure, 
Mr. Griffith was unanimously endorsed by a bipartisan resolution, 
cosponsored by Senator Daschle, Senator Lott, Senator Dodd, and Senator 
McConnell, expressing the Senate's gratitude for his services as Senate 
legal counsel.
  There were especially complimentary remarks made by Senator Dodd, who 
said, ``Mark Twain once suggested, `Always do right. This will gratify 
some people and astonish the rest.' During his tenure as legal counsel, 
Tom exemplified this philosophy, impressing all who knew him with his 
knowledge of the law and never succumbing to the temptation to bend the 
law to partisan ends. All of us who serve here in the Senate know the 
importance of the rule of law; but let us never forget that it is 
individuals like Mr. Thomas Griffith whose calling it is to put that 
ideal into practice.''
  Senator Thurmond also expressed high praise for Mr. Griffith, as did 
Senator Lott.
  Beyond his work in the profession, Mr. Griffith has found time to 
give back to the community. He serves as an advisory board member to 
the ABA Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative. Furthermore, 
while in private practice, Mr. Griffith took on a significant pro bono 
representation of a death row inmate, which led to the commutation of 
the inmate's sentence by the Governor of Virginia.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Congressional Record, statements of support on behalf of Mr. Griffith.
  There being no objection, the material was to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Support

       Seth Waxman said of Mr. Griffith's nomination, ``I have 
     known Tom since he was Senate Legal Counsel and I was 
     Solicitor General, and I have the highest regard for his 
     integrity. For my own part, I would stake most everything on 
     his word alone. Litigants would be in good hands with a 
     person of Tom Griffith's character as their judge.''
       Glen Ivey, former counsel to Former Senate Democratic 
     Leader Tom Daschle, wrote to this Committee, stating, ``I 
     believe Mr. Griffith is an exceptional nominee and would make 
     an excellent judge. Although Mr. Griffith and have different 
     party affiliations and do not agree on all political matters, 
     I learned during the Senate's Whitewater and Campaign Finance 
     Reform investigations that Mr. Griffith took seriously his 
     oath of office. Even when we were handling sensitive and 
     politically charged issues, he acted in a non-partisan and 
     objective manner. I believe Mr. Griffith has the intellect 
     and the temperament to make an outstanding jurist.''
       According to David Kendall, personal counsel to President 
     and Senator Clinton, ``For years Tom has been a leader in the 
     bar and has shown dedication to its principles. The federal 
     bench needs judges like Tom, an excellent lawyer who is 
     supported across the political spectrum. . . . [W]e support 
     Tom and believe he has the intellect and judgment to be an 
     excellent judge.''
       Harvard Law Professor William Stuntz has known Mr. Griffith 
     for over twenty years. He wrote, ``Few people I know deserve 
     to be called wise; very few deserve to be called both wise 
     and good. Tom is a wise and good man. I believe he will be 
     one of this nation's finest judges.''
       Abner Mikva, a former White House Counsel for President 
     Clinton and a former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the D.C. Circuit, wrote to Senator Leahy, ``I write as an 
     enthusiastic supporter. . . . I have known Tom Griffith in 
     the public sector and in the private sector, and I have never 
     heard a whisper against his integrity or responsibility. Tom 
     Griffith will be a very good judge. I have always found Tom 
     to be diligent, thoughtful, and of the greatest integrity . . 
     . Tom has a good temperament for the bench, is moderate in 
     his views and worthy of confirmation.''
       Finally, Senator Dodd of Connecticut noted that Mr. 
     Griffith handled his difficult responsibilities as Senate 
     Legal Counsel with great confidence and skill . . . 
     impressing all who knew him with his knowledge of the law and 
     never succumbing to the temptation to bend the law to 
     partisan ends.''

  Mr. SPECTER. There has been a challenge against Mr. Griffith, with 
respect to his Utah bar membership. Because he serves as general 
counsel to Brigham Young University, there were some questions raised 
as to whether he should have been a member of the Utah bar. I think 
that issue has been clarified, although some are still contesting it. I 
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a full explanation 
of the Utah bar membership issue.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Tom Griffith: Utah Bar Membership


                                 Facts

       As soon a Mr. Griffith accepted the position of Assistant 
     to the President and General Counsel of Brigham Young 
     University (``BYU''), he sought to determine what Utah's 
     requirements were for in-house counsel by consulting with 
     Utah attorneys.
       Mr. Griffith always has complied with the advice he 
     received--when his responsibilities require that he provide 
     legal advice to the University, he does so only in close 
     association with active members of the Utah Bar.
       Mr. Griffith was told that, as in-house counsel, he need 
     not become a member of the Utah Bar provided that when he 
     gives legal advice, he does so in close association with 
     active members of the Utah Bar.
       Mr. Griffith has always provided legal advice in 
     conjunction with one of four attorneys in his office who are 
     licensed with the Utah Bar, or an outside counsel who is 
     licensed with the Utah Bar. As BYU's General Counsel, he has 
     made no court appearances, nor has he signed any pleadings, 
     motions, or briefs.
       Mr. Griffith communicated with Utah State Bar officials who 
     were aware that he had not sat for the Utah Bar exam. These 
     officials advised Mr. Griffith to associate himself closely 
     with a Utah Bar member whenever giving legal advice pending 
     his admission to the Utah Bar--which he did. Not once did 
     Utah Bar officials warn Mr. Griffith that his arrangements 
     were contrary to accepted practice--because they weren't. The 
     Utah Bar has affirmed that such arrangements do not 
     constitute practicing law without a license.
       Numerous former and current Utah Bar officials have written 
     letters affirming that the precautions taken by Mr. Griffith 
     were appropriate and in accordance with the Utah Bar rules.
       Five former Presidents of the Utah Bar: ``While there is no 
     formal `general counsel' exception to the requirement that 
     Utah lawyers must be members of the Utah bar, it has been our 
     experience that a general counsel working in the state of 
     Utah need not be a member of the Utah Bar provided that when 
     giving legal advice to his or her employer that he or she 
     does so in conjunction with an associated attorney who is an 
     active member of the Utah Bar and that said general counsel 
     makes no Utah court appearances and signs no Utah pleadings, 
     motions, or briefs.''--John Adams, Charles Brown, Scott 
     Daniels, Randy Dryer, Dennis Haslam, Letter to Chairman 
     Hatch, June 28, 2004.
       John Baldwin, Executive Director of the Utah Bar: ``To 
     those general counsel who cannot avoid circumstances which 
     approach or may cross that line, we have consistently advised 
     that under such circumstances they should directly associate 
     with lawyers who are licensed in the state and on active 
     status. Our policy has also consistently been that of those 
     who follow that advice are not engaged in the unauthorized 
     practice of law.''--Letter to Chairman Hatch, July 2, 2004.
       Ethics experts have explained that Mr. Griffith has at all 
     times been in compliance with rules of ethical professional 
     conduct.

[[Page S6362]]

       ``[T]he requirement of membership in a particular bar is 
     not in itself a rule of ethical professional conduct, but a 
     lawyers' `guild rule' (like minimum fee schedules and 
     restrictions on advertising) designed to restrict 
     competition.--Monroe Freedman, Law Professor at Hofstra 
     University and Thomas Morgan, Law Professor at GW Law School, 
     Letter to the Editor, New York Times, July 4, 2004.
       ``At best, the requirement of a license is intended to 
     assure that one who holds himself out to the public as a 
     lawyer is indeed competent to serve as a lawyer. In that 
     regard, there is no question about Mr. Griffith's competence, 
     which is the only ethical issue that is material.'' Id.
       The ABA and the American Law Institute Restatement both 
     support a policy of not requiring in-house counsel to be 
     license in state, as long as the attorney is licensed in at 
     least one state.
       ALI Restatement: ``States have permitted practice within 
     the jurisdiction by inside legal counsel for a corporation or 
     similar organization, even if the lawyer is not locally 
     admitted and even if the lawyer's work consists entirely of 
     in-state activities, when all of the lawyer's work is for the 
     employer-client and does not involve appearances in court. 
     Leniency is appropriate because the only concern is with the 
     client-employer, who is presumably in a good position to 
     assess the quality and fitness of the lawyer's work.''--ALI 
     Restatement, Section 3, Comment f.
       ABA Model Rules: ``(d) A lawyer admitted in another United 
     States jurisdiction and not disbarred or suspended from 
     practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in 
     this jurisdiction that (1) are provided to the lawyer's 
     employer or its organizational affiliates and are not 
     services for which the forum requires pro hac vice 
     admission.''--Model Rule 5.5(d)(1).
       Mr. Griffith's sole employer, BYU, was aware that Mr. 
     Griffith was not a member of the Utah Bar and did not require 
     him to be a member. BYU is the largest private university in 
     the U.S., with campuses and programs throughout the world--
     much like a multinational corporation.
       Former Dean of BYU Law and Chair of BYU General Counsel 
     Search Committee, Professor H. Reese Hansen: ``The fact that 
     Mr. Griffith was not a member of the Utah Bar was, of course, 
     well known to all relevant decision makers when he was 
     recommended for and hired as Assistant to the President and 
     General Counsel to BYU.''--Letter to Chairman Hatch, June 29, 
     2004.
       Dean Hansen: ``A lawyer who is employed as General Counsel 
     to a [multinational corporation] and who provides legal and 
     other services only to his or her employer is obviously not 
     licensed to practice in every jurisdiction where the entity 
     has suppliers, customers, or shareholders or where its 
     advertisements may reach. I view BYU's Assistant to the 
     President and General Counsel in exactly the same situation 
     in regard to his bard membership. . . . I believe that Mr. 
     Griffith has conducted his professional service to his sole 
     client, Brigham Young University, in a completely appropriate 
     manner in all regards and consistent with common practices of 
     general counsel to large U.S. entities who conduct multi-
     state and international activities.'' Id.
  Mr. SPECTER. Similarly, there had been an issue regarding Mr. 
Griffith's lapsed membership in the District of Columbia bar, which 
occurred because of an administrative oversight.
  Excuse me; nothing is as troublesome as a pesky summer cold. Without 
this cold, my speech would be considerably longer, Mr. President, so 
there are some advantages, at least, for anyone who may be watching on 
C-SPAN--if anyone watches C-SPAN during these late afternoon 
proceedings of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that a full 
explanation of the DC Bar membership issue also be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Tom Griffith: D.C. Bar Membership


                                 Facts

       In 2001, Mr. Griffith discovered that his D.C. Bar 
     membership had been suspended for failing to pay his annual 
     dues. As soon as he became aware of the problem, he paid the 
     dues and was reinstated as a bar member in good standing.
       Mr. Griffith accepts full responsibility for the oversight, 
     and he brought the lapse in his membership to the attention 
     of the Senate Judiciary Committee in his questionnaire.
       Having worked as an attorney at a large D.C. law firm from 
     1991-1995, Mr. Griffith became accustomed to the firm's 
     practice of paying its attorney's bar dues.
       When Mr. Griffith became Senate Legal Counsel, he was late 
     in paying his 1997 D.C. Bar dues, and as a result, was 
     suspended from the D.C. Bar for approximately five weeks. As 
     soon as Mr. Griffith became aware of the problem in January 
     1998, he paid the dues and was reinstated as a member in good 
     standing.
       In 1998, while still serving as Senate Legal Counsel, Mr. 
     Griffith unintentionally failed to pay his 1998 D.C. Bar dues 
     and was suspended as a result. He was unaware of his 
     suspension at the time.
       When Mr. Griffith returned to his former law firm in March 
     1999, he wrongly assumed, based on his prior experience at 
     the firm, that the firm was paying dues on his behalf. He 
     continued to have no knowledge of suspension.
       Mr. Griffith paid his back dues as soon as he discovered 
     the problem in 2001. He was promptly reinstated as a member 
     in good standing of the D.C. Bar. Since then, he has paid his 
     D.C. Bar dues in a timely manner and remains a D.C. Bar 
     member in good standing.
       Mr. Griffith's situation is not at all unusual. D.C. Bar 
     counsel quotes that every year over 3,000 D.C. lawyers (and a 
     number of sitting judges) are ``administratively suspended'' 
     for late payment of dues.
       An inadvertent failure to pay bar dues does not reflect 
     poorly on Mr. Griffith's character or ability to serve as a 
     judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
       Abner Mikva, former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for 
     the D.C. Circuit: ``I cannot believe the [the Washington 
     Post] or anyone else thinks that the inadvertent failure to 
     pay bar dues because no bill was sent is a mark of a lawyer's 
     character. I have known Tom Griffith in the public sector and 
     in the private sector, and I have never heard a whisper 
     against his integrity or responsibility.''--Letter to the 
     Editor, Washington Post, June 8, 2004.
       David Kendall, private attorney to former President 
     Clinton, and Lanny Breuer, former Associate Counsel to 
     President Clinton: ``Contrary to the Post's implication, Tom 
     is an outstanding attorney who takes his responsibilities as 
     a member of the bar seriously. . . . As soon as he realized 
     that bills were unpaid, he paid them. Tom took the common and 
     proper course of action under the circumstances. This 
     innocent oversight has no bearing on his ability to serve as 
     a judge.''--Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, June 11, 
     2004.
       Former ABA Presidents Bill Ide and Sandy D'Alemberte, along 
     with 11 other attorneys: ``By immediately paying his dues 
     when he became aware of the oversight, Tom took the proper 
     course of action. According to D.C. Bar counsel, such an 
     oversight is entirely common and of no major concern, 
     particularly where no reminder notice is sent out. In fact, 
     Tom was promptly reinstalled after he paid his accrued dues, 
     without any questions raised about possible sanctions.''--
     Letter to Chairman Hatch, June 14, 2004.
       Ethics Expert, Professor Monroe H. Freedman, Hofstra 
     University Law School: ``In the District of Columbia, Mr. 
     Griffith had in fact been a member of the bar in good 
     standing; the only problem was a temporary lapse in the 
     payment of dues, which he promptly remedied when he became 
     aware of it. He thereby once again became, and remains, a 
     member of the D.C. Bar in good standing. Neither the bar nor 
     anyone else has ever questioned Mr. Griffith's competence to 
     practice law.''--Letter to Chairman Hatch, June 29, 2004.
       Mr. Griffith was ``administratively suspended'' from the 
     D.C. Bar for failure to pay his bar dues. No disciplinary 
     action was ever taken against him.
       * Former ABA Presidents Bill Ide and Sandy D'Alemberte, 
     along with 11 other attorneys: ``The Post improperly equated 
     Tom's situation to `disciplinary suspension,' a rare sanction 
     imposed only when a lawyer knowingly refuses to pay bar dues. 
     It was nothing of the kind. When advised of the problem, Tom 
     promptly paid his dues in full.''--Letter to Chairman Hatch, 
     June 14, 2004.
  Mr. SPECTER. We had a second hearing for Mr. Griffith this year, 
after I became chairman, because his original hearing was not well 
attended. It was held at the end of the last session. At the hearing 
this year, I think we explored in considerable detail the issue of his 
D.C. bar membership.
  It is always a difficult matter when a lawyer is a member of one bar 
and seeks to become a member of another. I know I went through a 
similar issue when I took the New Jersey bar, 23 years after I attended 
law school. It is an experience, but I went through it. However, I 
think this by no means disqualifies Mr. Griffith, and I think the issue 
has been adequately explained on the record.
  Tom Griffith is well known in the Senate, perhaps better known than 
virtually any other judicial nominee who comes here, because he had 
been legal counsel to the Senate. I think many people who know Mr. 
Griffith on a personal, intimate basis know of his high ethical 
standards, his scholarship, and his legal ability. He is soft spoken. 
He is mature. He is knowledgeable. I think he will make a fine circuit 
judge.
  Mr. Griffith comes with an especially strong recommendation from the 
former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, who has 
known Mr. Griffith personally for many years, and speaks very highly of 
him.
  Regrettably, I cannot be here tomorrow to speak again, as is the 
practice for the chairman to speak immediately before leadership, 
because I will be

[[Page S6363]]

traveling in Pennsylvania with President Bush. Tom Griffith is an 
outstanding candidate, and I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm him.
  Mr. President, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, in 
fact, in the absence of any other Senator on the floor, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand the debate is on the 
qualifications of Thomas Griffith.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BENNETT. I wish to make a few comments with respect to Mr. 
Griffith. I ask all Members of the Senate to think back on what for 
many of us will be the most dramatic experience we had as Members of 
this body. It was an unprecedented situation, certainly in this, the 
last century. You had to go all the way back to Abraham Lincoln's time 
to find anything similar to it, when we met in this body with the Chief 
Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, sitting in the chair, 
and held an impeachment trial of the President of the United States.
  I doubt very much that will ever happen again. It was a very 
different kind of trial than the one that occurred with Andrew Johnson 
the first time this happened. That was purely political with Andrew 
Johnson, and everybody recognized that. I remember a Member of this 
body saying that we had actually had three impeachment situations in 
our history: The first, Andrew Johnson; the second that never got to 
the Senate, which was Richard Nixon; and the third, President Clinton. 
The Senator said Andrew Johnson, clearly not guilty, clearly a 
political vendetta; Richard Nixon, clearly guilty, clearly should have 
been removed--he stopped that by resigning; and then he said the 
Clinton one was in between. It was a close case that could have gone 
one way or the other.
  Some of my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle said it is not 
a question of whether he did it. It is not a question of whether it was 
a high crime and a misdemeanor. The only question was whether it was a 
serious enough high crime and misdemeanor on the part of the President 
of the United States to justify removing him from office. I think that 
was a thoughtful summary of where things were.
  Why am I saying all of this with respect to Thomas Griffith? Because 
during the period that the Senate went through that very difficult and 
historic debate, the counsel to the Senate of the United States was 
Thomas Griffith. In that position, he served both sides. He was not 
counsel to the majority, he was not counsel to the minority, he was the 
Senate's counsel.
  I remember very well the conversations that took place here, both 
formally and informally.
  I remember the time when we were in a quorum call where the then 
minority leader, Tom Daschle, and the then majority leader, Trent Lott, 
met in the well of the Senate, other Senators pressed forward, and 
pretty soon we had about 30 Senators gathered around talking: What can 
we do, how can we resolve this, where can we go?
  The decision was made, as a result of that, the Senate would go into 
the old Senate Chamber in executive session, where there were no 
television cameras, there were no reporters, there was no staff, other 
than the absolutely essential one or two. We talked about how we could 
get through this difficult time.
  One of the speeches given in that chamber made this comment about the 
impeachment proceedings with respect to President Clinton. He said: 
This case is toxic. It has sullied the Presidency. It has stained the 
House of Representatives. It is about to do the same thing to us.
  Unfortunately, the Senator made that prediction, with which I agree, 
but had no solution. He was just short of explaining how difficult that 
was going to be out of a sense almost of resignation that this 
particular case was going to end up besmirching the Senate as badly as 
it had stained the Presidency and the House of Representatives.
  When it was all over, some 30 days later, that particular prediction 
had not come true. The Senate had not been stained. Indeed, it was one 
of the Senate's finest hours. We had come together in a civil way, with 
a deliberate understanding of our responsibility. We had acted 
responsibly. Every Member of the Senate had voted his or her own 
conscience, and we had disposed of the case in a manner that reflected 
well upon the Senate.
  In that situation, the legal mind that was counselling both Senator 
Daschle and Senator Lott was Tom Griffith, the Senate's counsel who 
would sit down with the Republicans and describe to Senators the 
precedent, outline what the consequences would be if we did this, that, 
or the other. He would then sit down with the Democrats and do exactly 
the same thing from a standpoint of evenhandedness, fairness, great 
respect for the law, and through documentation and examination, 
thorough scholarship and research.
  The Senate counsel who did all of those things and helped the Senate 
through, arguably, one of its most difficult times in the last 100 
years, is the man now before the Senate to be a circuit judge.
  I am very surprised people have such short memories. People who were 
complaining about Tom Griffith not being qualified for the circuit 
court bench, where were they when he was qualified and performing 
magnificently on their behalf as the counsel of this body? Have they no 
memory of the professionalism, the deep research, the evenhanded 
fairness that Tom Griffith showed on that occasion? Don't they remember 
how he served, regardless of party, the law, the precedent, and the 
institution?
  We can talk about opinions. We can talk about papers written. We can 
talk about positions taken. All of these are important in deciding what 
we should do with respect to a circuit court judge. But I cannot think 
of any place where we could duplicate the crucible in which a potential 
judge's capabilities are tried that would approach the crucible through 
which Tom Griffith has come.
  I intend to support him. I urge my colleagues to support him. He will 
make an outstanding circuit court judge.
  I, ultimately, come to a very personal kind of test. If I were on 
trial for some very complicated situation, some very Byzantine kind of 
charge that required a great legal mind to cut through to the real 
issues, would I want that case to be tried before Tom Griffith sitting 
on the bench? My answer, as I have thought about it, is clearly, yes. 
If I were on trial, and I needed a judge who had the capacity to cut 
through all the extraneous matter and get to the heart and render an 
accurate decision, I would want Tom Griffith to be the judge in that 
kind of case.
  I hope I am never on trial in a case that goes before the circuit 
court. But there are those who will be. There are those who will have 
that challenge and have that experience. The best thing I can do for 
them is to vote to put Tom Griffith on the court so he will be there to 
render that kind of service and that kind of expertise on their behalf.
  I hope he is confirmed. I will vote for his confirmation. I urge all 
of my colleagues to do the same.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Voinovich are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S6364]]

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for what time is required.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________