Senate Coverage -- (May '05)

Since "Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.", I and others think it's a good idea to centralize what the goes on in the Senate (or House).

So if you see something happening on the Senate/House floor and you don't want to start a new thread to ask if anyone else just heard what you heard, you can leave a short note on who said what and about what and I'll try and find it the next day in THE RECORD. Or if you see a thread that pertains to the Senate, House, or pretty much any GOV'T agency please link your thread here.

C-SPAN what a great thing. Where you can watch or listen live to most Government happenings.

C-SPAN 3 (most places web only) carries a variety of committee meetings live or other past programming.

A great thing about our Government is they make it really easy for the public to research what the Politicians are doing and saying (on the floor anyway).

THOMAS where you can see a RECORD of what Congress is doing each day. You can also search/read a verbatim text of what each Congressmen/women or Senator has said on the floor or submitted 'for the record.' [This is where the real juicy stuff can be found.]

For instance, I have a letter from former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to John Bolton expressing her strong support for Mr. Bolton. It is fitting that she should support John Bolton, particularly in light of the comments that he is too tough, too outspoken, too frank, too blunt. Those same criticisms were made about Lady Thatcher in 1975, earning her the nickname the Iron Lady. She embraced that nickname, famously asserting:

If you lead a country like Britain, a strong country, a country which has taken a lead in world affairs in good times and in bad, a country that is always reliable, then you have to have a touch of iron about you.

She was absolutely right, and the same holds true in this case. If our ambassador is going to represent the world's great superpower in the United Nations, an organization, unfortunately, that has been riddled with corruption and strong opposition by certain members to the values we hold dear, he must have a touch of iron about him, and he does.

Say what you will about John Bolton, weakness is not one of his weaknesses.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Lady Thatcher be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

May 4, 2005.
Hon. JOHN R. BOLTON,
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

DEAR JOHN: I am writing this letter in order to let you know how strongly I support your nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. On the basis of our years of friendship, I know from experience the great qualities you will bring to that demanding post.

To combine, as you do, clarity of thought, courtesy of expression and an unshakable commitment to justice is rare in any walk of life. But it is particularly so in international affairs. A capacity for straight talking rather than peddling half-truths is a strength and not a disadvantage in diplomacy. Particularly in the case of a great power like America, it is essential that people know where you stand and assume that you mean what you say. With you at the UN, they will do both. Those same qualities are also required for any serious reform of the United Nations itself, without which cooperation between nations to defend and extend liberty will be far more difficult.

I cannot imagine anyone better fitted to undertake these tasks than you.

All good wishes,

Yours ever,
MARGARET.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this letter of April 5, 2005, is signed by 13 giants of American diplomacy, including five Secretaries of State and two Secretaries of Defense in support of John Bolton. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Washington, DC, April 5, 2005.
Senator RICHARD G. LUGAR,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We write to urge that the Senate act expeditiously to confirm John Bolton as our ambassador to the United Nations. This is a moment when unprecedented turbulence at the United Nations is creating momentum for much needed reform. It is a moment when we must have an ambassador in place whose knowledge, experience, dedication and drive will be vital to protecting the American interest in an effective, forward-looking United Nations.

In his position as Undersecretary of State, John Bolton has taken the lead in strengthening international community approaches to the daunting problem of the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD). As a result of his hard work, intellectual as well as operational, the

[Page: S4861] GPO's PDF

G-8 has supported U.S. proposals to strengthen safeguards and verification at the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Proliferation Security Initiative was launched and established within three months--a world speed record in these complex, multilateral matters. Moreover, Secretary Bolton led the successful effort to complete the negotiation of UN Security Council Resolution 1540, adopted unanimously in April, 2004. UN 1540 called on member states to criminalize the proliferation of WMD--which it declared to be a threat to international peace and security--and to enact strict export controls.

Secretary Bolton, like the Administration, has his critics, of course. Anyone as energetic and effective as John is bound to encounter those who disagree with some or even all of the Administration's policies. But the policies for which he is sometimes criticized are those of the President and the Department of State which he has served with loyalty, honor and distinction.

Strong supporters of the United Nations understand the challenges it now faces. With his service as assistant secretary of state for international organizations, where he was instrumental in securing the repeal of the repugnant resolution equating Zionism with racism, and as undersecretary for arms control and international security, we believe John Bolton will bring great skill and energy to meeting those challenges.

Sincerely yours,
Hon. David Abshire, former Assistant Secretary of State, Hon. Kenneth Adelman, former Director, Arms Control Disarmament Agency, Hon. Richard Allen, former Assistant to the President for National Security, Hon. James Baker, former Secretary of State, Hon. Frank Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense, Hon. Lawrence Eagleburger, former Secretary of State, Hon. Al Haig, former Secretary of State, Ambassador Max Kampelman, former Ambassador and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the Negotiations with the Soviet Union on Nuclear and Space Arms, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Ambassador to the United Nations, Hon. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, Hon. James Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense, Hon. George Shultz, former Secretary of State, Hon. Helmut Sonnenfeldt, former Counselor, Department of State.

I had to cut this down a bit.

Full comments at the link

9 . JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS -- (Senate - May 10, 2005)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of President Bush's first judicial nominations, a group of 11 highly qualified men and women nominated to the U.S. courts of appeals.

As I said in the East Room at the White House on May 9, 2001: I hope the Senate will at least treat these nominees fairly. Many of our Democratic colleagues instead chose to follow their minority leader's order issued days after President Bush took office, to use ``whatever means necessary'' to defeat judicial nominees the minority does not like.

While the previous 3 Presidents saw their first 11 appeals court nominees confirmed in an average of just 81 days, today, 1,461 days later, 3 of those original nominees have not even received a vote, let alone been confirmed. Three have withdrawn.

In 2003, the minority opened a new front in the confirmation conflict by using filibusters to defeat majority-supported judicial nominees. This morning I will briefly address the top 10 most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses. Time permits only brief treatment, but it was difficult to limit the list to 10.

No. 10 is the claim that these filibusters are part of Senate tradition. Calling something a filibuster, even if you repeat it over and over, does not make it so. These filibusters block confirmation of majority-supported judicial nominations by defeating votes to invoke cloture or end debate. Either these filibusters happened before or they did not.

[snip]

No. 9 on the list of the most ridiculous filibuster defenses is that they are necessary, they say, to prevent one-party rule from stacking the Federal bench. Now, if you win elections, you say the country has chosen its leadership. If you lose, you complain about one-party rule. When your party controls the White House, the President appoints judges. When the other party controls the White House, the President stacks the bench--at least that seems to be the attitude.

[snip]

No. 8 on this list is the claim that without the filibuster the Senate would be a patsy, nothing but a rubberstamp for the President's judicial nominations. To paraphrase a great Supreme Court Justice: If simply stating this argument does not suffice to refute it, our debate about these issues has achieved terminal silliness. Being on the losing side does not make one a rubberstamp.

[snip]

No. 7 on the list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is that these filibusters are necessary to preserve our system of checks and balances. That is an argument we have heard from the other side.

Mr. President, any civics textbook explains that what we call ``checks and balances'' regulates the relationship between the branches of Government. The Senate's role of advice and consent checks the President's power to appoint judges, and we exercise that check when we vote on his judicial nominations.

[snip]

No. 6 on the list is that these filibusters are necessary to prevent appointment of extremists.

What our Democratic colleagues call ``extreme'' the American Bar Association calls ``qualified.'' In fact, all three of the appeals court nominees chosen 4 years ago who have been denied confirmation received the ABA's highest ``well qualified'' rating. Now, that was the gold standard under the Democrats when Clinton was President. The same Democrats who once called the ABA rating the gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees now disregard it and call these people extreme.

[snip]

No. 5 on this list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is the claim that these filibusters are about free speech and debate. If Senators cannot filibuster judicial nominations, some say, the Senate will cease to exist, and we will be literally unable to represent our constituents.

[snip]

No. 4 on the list is that returning to Senate tradition regarding floor votes on judicial nominations would amount to breaking the rules to change the rules. As any consultant worth even a little salt will tell you, that is a catchy little phrase. The problem is that neither of its catchy little parts is true.

The constitutional option, which would change judicial confirmation procedure through the Senate voting to affirm a parliamentary ruling, would neither break nor change Senate rules. While the constitutional option has not been used to break our rules, it has been used to break filibusters.

[snip]

No. 3 on the list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is that the constitutional option is unprecedented, or should we call it the Byrd option. In 1977, 1979, and 1987, the then majority leader, Senator Byrd, secured a favorable parliamentary ruling through a point of order and a majority of Senators voted to affirm it. He did this even when the result he sought was inconsistent with the text of our written rules.

[snip]

No. 2 on the list is that preventing judicial filibusters will doom legislative filibusters. As you know, there are two calendars in the Senate. One is the legislative calendar. I would fight to my death to keep the filibuster alive on the legislative calendar to protect the minority. But then there is the executive calendar, which is partly the President's in the sense that he has the power of appointment and nomination and sends these people up here and expects advice and consent from the Senate. Advice we give. Consent we have not given in the case of these nominees who have been filibustered, or so-called filibustered.

No. 2 on the list is that preventing judicial filibusters, they claim, will doom legislative filibusters. That's pure bunk. Our own Senate history shows how ridiculous this argument really is. Filibusters became possible by dropping the rule allowing a simple majority to proceed to a vote. The legislative filibuster developed, the judicial filibuster did not. What we must today limit by rule or ruling we once limited by principle or self-restraint--for 214 years, that is. The filibuster is an inappropriate obstacle to the President's judicial appointment power but an appropriate tool for exercising our own legislative power. I cannot fathom how returning to our tradition regarding judicial nominations will somehow threaten our tradition regarding legislation. The only threat to the legislative filibuster and the only votes to abolish have come from the other side of the aisle. In 1995, 19 Senators, all Democrats, voted against tabling an amendment to our cloture rule that would prohibit all filibusters of legislation as well as nominations. As this chart shows, nine of those Senators still serve with us and their names are right here on this chart.

[snip]

The No. 1 most ridiculous judicial filibuster defense is that those wanting to filibuster Republican nominees today opposed filibustering Democratic nominees only a few years ago. In a letter dated February 4, 1998, for example, the leftwing urged confirmation of Margaret Morrow to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They urged us to ``bring the nomination to the Senate, ensure that it received prompt, full and fair consideration, and that a final vote on her nomination is scheduled as soon as possible.'' Groups signing this letter included the Alliance for Justice, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and People for the American Way. As we all know, these leftwing groups today lead the grassroots campaign behind these filibusters that would deny this same treatment to President Bush's nominees. Their position has changed as the party controlling the White House has changed.

Let me make it easy for the ``hypocrite patrol'' to check out my position on the Morrow nomination. In the February 11, 1998, Congressional Record, on page S640, three pages before that letter from the leftwing groups appears, I opened the debate on the Morrow nomination by strongly urging my fellow Senators to support it. We did, and she is, today, a sitting Federal judge, as I believe she should be. The same Democrats who today call for filibusters called for up-or-down votes when a Democrat was in the White House.

Let me refer to chart 10 here. I will just give some illustrations. In 1999, my dear friend from California, Senator Feinstein, a person I have great love and respect for, a Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of the Senate:

It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like them, we can vote against them.

She said:

A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up, vote them down.

Let me go to chart 11. Another committee member, Senator Schumer, properly said in March 2000:

The President nominates and we are charged with voting on the nominees.

He was right.

Let me refer to chart 12. I have already quoted the Senator from California, Senator Boxer once, but in 2000 she said that filibustering judicial nominees:

..... would be such a twisting of what cloture really means in these cases. It has never been done before for a judge, as far as we know--ever.

I appreciate what another member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Kohl, said in 1997:

Let's breathe life back into the confirmation process. Let's vote on the nominees who have already been approved by the Judiciary Committee.

Well, let me go to chart 14. The Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who fought so strongly against the legislative filibuster in 1995, said, 5 years later, about the judicial filibuster:

If they want to vote against them, let them vote against them. But at least have a vote.

The same view comes from three former Judiciary Committee chairmen, members of the Democratic leadership. Let me refer to chart No. 15. A former committee chairman, Senator Biden, said in 1977 that every judicial nominee is entitled:

To have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.

Former chairman, Senator EDWARD KENNEDY, said in 1998:

If Senators don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.

And my immediate predecessor as chairman, Senator Leahy, said a year later, judicial nominees are:

entitled to a vote, aye or nay.

Now, the assistant minority leader, Senator Durbin, had urged the same thing in September 1998:

Vote the person up or down.

Vote the person up or down.

Finally, Mr. President, the minority leader, Senator Reid, expressed in March 2000 the standard that I hope we can reestablish:

Once they get out of committee, bring them down here and vote up or down on them.

The majority leader, Senator Frist, recently proposed a plan to accomplish precisely this result. But the minority leader dismissed it as--I want to quote this accurately now--

A big fat wet kiss to the far right.

I never thought voting on judicial nominations was a far-right thing to do.

These statements speak for themselves. Do you see a pattern here? The message at one time seems to be let us debate and let us vote. That should be the standard, no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate.

Mr. President, as I close, let me summarize these 10 top most ridiculous judicial filibusters in this way. Blocking confirmation of majority-supported judicial nominations by defeating cloture votes is unprecedented. In the words of the current Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Specter:

What Democrats are doing here is really seeking a constitutional revolution.

We must turn back that revolution. No matter which party controls the White House or Senate, we should return to our tradition of giving judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor an up-or-down vote. Full, fair, and vigorous debate is one of the hallmarks of this body, and it should drive how we evaluate a President's judicial nominations.

Honoring the Constitution's separation of power, however, requires that our check on the President's appointment power not highjack that power altogether. This means debate must be a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Senators are free to vote against the nominees they feel extreme, but they should not be free to prevent other Senators from expressing a contrary view or advising and consenting. In this body, we govern ourselves with parliamentary rulings as well as by unwritten rules. The procedure of a majority of Senators voting to sustain a parliamentary ruling has been used repeatedly to change Senate procedure without changing Senate rules, even to limit nomination-related filibusters.

I have tried to deal with the substance of our filibuster proponents' arguments, albeit with some humor and maybe a touch of sarcasm. A few days ago, as the Salt Lake Tribune reported, the minority leader was in my State:

..... stopping just short of calling Utah Senator ORRIN HATCH a hypocrite.

That is at least how the newspaper described it. That is not what I consider to be a substantive argument. Perhaps those who dismiss their opponents as liars, losers, or lap dogs have nothing else to offer in this debate. Yet debate we must, and then we must vote.

Mr. President, how much remaining time do I have?

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.

Mr. HATCH. Let me just make this point. We confirmed, in 6 years of Republican control of the Senate, 377 judges for President Clinton. That was five less than the all-time confirmation champion Ronald Reagan. All of these people who are up have well-qualified ratings from the ABA, all had a bipartisan majority to support them. What is wrong with giving them an up-or-down vote and retaining 214 years of Senate tradition? What is wrong with that? I think it is wrong to try and blow up that tradition the way it is being done.

With that, I yield the floor.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.