Court Security Improvement Act Of 2007
Floor Speech
COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - April 18, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in favor of S. 378, the Court Security Improvement Act. But before I do, I wish to address remarks made this morning by the majority whip, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, for whom I have a lot of respect, but I have to tell you, I disagree with those comments, and I wish to take a few moments to explain why.
Throughout his comments, the Senator repeated the theme that Republicans were stopping debate on the floor and not allowing bills to be debated. I disagree with him, and I believe nothing could be farther from the truth. The truth is, as I see it, the majority has tried to force things through the Senate, and they have done so in a way that has denied the minority an opportunity to offer amendments and to allow this body, the so-called world's greatest deliberative body, to even have votes and make decisions on those important amendments.
This morning, the Democratic whip talked about our Founders' intent that ``minority rights would always be respected.'' In this body, minority rights are not being respected. That is the problem. So we have no choice but to assert the last protection against majority tyranny; that is, to object or vote against invoking cloture or closing off debate.
In the past, the majority has used cloture when necessary to move a bill forward, after debate has been exhausted, but the minority refuses to allow movement on the legislation. I think that is a perfectly legitimate use of the cloture motion.
By this date in the 109th Congress--the Congress just preceding the current Congress--Republicans, when they were in the majority, had filed cloture four times. In the 108th Congress--the immediately preceding Congress--at this point in time, when Republicans were in the majority, Republicans had filed cloture five times. In the 107th Congress, Republicans only filed cloture one time at this point in time.
By comparison, since the Democrats have now become the new majority in the Senate, Democrats have filed cloture 22 times. The question naturally arises: Why are Democrats using this divisive tactic so frequently to close off debate?
Well, I think my colleague from Illinois disclosed the reason this morning when he stated:
Ultimately, they will be held accountable for their strategy. That is what elections are all about.
It is the view from this Senator, from my perspective, the Democrats are using this tactic to paint Republicans as obstructionists, when the exact opposite is true. The new Democratic majority in the Senate is refusing to allow full and fair debate on issue after issue and, more importantly, denying us an opportunity to offer amendments on important legislation and to simply have an up-or-down vote on those amendments.
I can tell you, from my perspective, Republicans do not enjoy the procedural clash any more than Democrats do. But it is necessary to protect this institution and, even more importantly, necessary to protect the rights afforded in the Senate to the minority.
We have been eager to engage in full debate, and we understand the rules that majorities will prevail when majorities have an opportunity to vote. But the rules do not permit the new majority, the Democrats, to unilaterally set the terms for the debate. Until the Democratic majority recognizes all Members of this body have the right to debate legislation, to offer amendments, and to have votes on those amendments, we will continue in this standoff.
It is true, I believe, that only the majority--the new Democratic majority--can fix this problem by simply allowing full debate to go forward and by allowing up-or-down votes on amendments on the Senate floor, which requires discussions, which requires negotiations, and, yes, it requires compromise.
Filing cloture--closing off debate--is an intensely aggressive move. It says: We do not want to hear your opinions. We do not want to hear your views. We do not want to consider your ideas on how to improve the legislation on the floor of the Senate. We want to shut down the debate, and we want to shove this legislation through the Senate. It is a ``my way or the highway'' approach to legislation. And do you know what. It does not work.
I would point out--and I guess it is fair to say if you have been in the Senate long enough--and I have not--but I have been told, if you have been in the Senate long enough, you will find yourself, at some points in your career, on the side of the majority, and at other times you will find yourself on the side of the minority. It is the way it works.
Last Congress, when Democrats were in the minority, they insisted that the filing of cloture turned the Senate into the House of Representatives--a refusal to allow open and broad debate, with hard majority rule. Here they are now, though, attempting to cut off debate at, it seems, almost every possible turn. It is the reason--and this is the consequence of it; it is not just complaining about it; this is the consequence that has a very real impact on the American people because the new majority, the Democratic majority, has refused an opportunity for full and fair debate and votes on amendments--that is the reason why Democrats have not sent any real legislation to the President for his signature after 3 months in power.
They have chosen the hard edge of party politics instead of bipartisanship.
Our Democratic friends have chosen to pursue this agenda driven by campaign rhetoric instead of seeking the broad middle ground and trying to negotiate and to pass legislation on behalf of the American people. It is true that Democrats won the last election--and my congratulations to them--on a message of bipartisanship, on a message of, let's get things done. But their choices to date have not reflected any effort to seriously reach across the aisle to do that.
One example that comes to mind is on Iraq. My colleague from Illinois claimed:
We were stopped, stopped by the Republican minority. They would not allow us to go to the substance of that debate. They didn't want the Senate to spend its time on the floor considering a resolution, going on record as to whether we approve or disapprove of the President's action.
The fact is, completely the opposite occurred. Republicans on this incredibly important debate asked only that we be allowed to discuss the issue fully, and the Democratic majority repeatedly attempted to ram through their resolution without offering any alternatives or any opportunity for alternative resolutions to be considered and voted on. We explained this on the Senate floor over and over during that discussion, but our colleagues in the majority simply turned a deaf ear to our concerns. When they finally allowed several options to be considered, we were able to have a full debate we had been asking for all along, and then the process moved forward.
I would point out that was on the 20th iteration of the resolutions on Iraq before we had an opportunity to have that debate, a vote, and to move the process forward.
My colleague from Illinois repeated several times this morning his hope that we could ``find some ways to establish bipartisan cooperation.''
I say to my colleague, there is a way to do that. The majority must stop trying to ram legislation through and allow us to debate openly and to file relevant amendments and allow an up-or-down vote on those amendments.
My colleague from Illinois talked about the ``do-nothing Congress'' of last year--that was his phraseology--and placed sole blame for the current majority's lack of accomplishments on the minority's refusal to invoke cloture or close off debate. The Washington Post just this morning reported that only 26 percent of the public thinks the current Democratic majority in Congress has accomplished ``a great deal'' or ``a good amount.''
The fact is, this approach to legislating has not produced a single piece of significant legislation so far in this Congress due to the lack of bipartisanship and due to the lack of opportunity the minority has had to fully participate in the debate and shaping of legislation. Of the 17 laws enacted this Congress, 10 of those are naming of Federal properties. Let me say that again. Of the 17 pieces of legislation enacted in this Congress so far, 10 of them involve naming of Federal properties, Federal buildings, post offices and the like. Not one of the ``six for '06'' campaign promises has been passed by Congress.
The majority, to be sure, is blaming the minority for the lack of progress here based on the result of cloture votes, but let's look at the facts.
On the 9/11 bill, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the House and the Senate passed different bills. Democratic leadership in neither body has brought up the other's bill so that those might be resolved in a conference committee.
On the minimum wage bill, the House and the Senate passed different versions, but no conferees have been appointed by either body.
On the emergency war supplemental, perhaps the most urgent piece of legislation we could possibly pass and send to the President to support the troops who are in harm's way as I speak, the House and the Senate passed different versions of the bill. The House, fresh off of a 2-week recess, has yet to appoint conferees to start working out the differences between the bills to get funding to our troops. This is especially damaging and reckless, considering the majority is insisting we send a bill to the President that has a timeline for withdrawal, a provision that has caused the President to promise to veto that legislation. That means before the troops can get the money they need--in other words, to get them the equipment they need during this war--before we can get them the money, we have to come up with a bill the President will sign. Yet the Democratic majority has continued to play politics and stall the bill.
On stem cell research, no conferees have been appointed. The same for the budget. The same for lobbying reform. The list goes on and on.
The distinguished Senator from Illinois, the Democratic whip, explained that due to the numbers in this body:
On any given day, if we're going to pass or consider important legislation, it has to be bipartisan.
And that:
If we're going to be constructive in the United States Senate, we need much more bipartisan cooperation.
He continued, saying:
We should come together, Democrats and Republicans, and compromise and cooperate.
And asking,
Isn't it time we really start out on a new day in the Congress trying to find bipartisan ways to cooperate and solve the real problems that face our country?
To that I say amen. It is past time for the new majority in this body to stop acting like they are Members of the House of Representatives who are going to be able to force their will by a simple majority through the Senate because this is not the House. This is the Senate. The only way we are going to be able to get any legislation passed is through bipartisan cooperation. The only way we are going to get that cooperation is to meet in the middle somehow, to debate as our constituents would expect us to debate, to take positions--yes, firmly held positions--based on our convictions. But then ultimately we need to have votes on amendments and votes on legislation and let the majority prevail. Let's send the bills to the President for his signature. That is the way it is supposed to work. That is the way it has not been working, but we know the way forward.
I have to tell my colleagues that I and my Republican colleagues would welcome the opportunity to sit down on a bipartisan basis and to reach a consensus on important issues such as how to preserve our entitlement programs, including Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare by protecting their long-term solvency. How do we avoid passing the bills incurred by the baby boomer generation on down to our children and grandchildren? How can we expand health care access to more Americans? How can we solve our broken immigration system, along with the broken borders that pose a national security risk to each and every American citizen? After all, I have to believe that is the reason we ran for public office. That is the reason we wanted to be elected to serve in the Senate--whether we are a Republican or a Democrat--to make a difference for the American people, to make our country a better place, and to make tomorrow better for our children and grandchildren than it is today. Instead, we spend day after day taking partisan votes that lead to nothing but gridlock. This is the choice of the majority, not the choice of the minority.
After the first 100 days, the Congress is, again, at a fork in the road. So far the new majority has taken the path of partisanship, but we know that will not get us down the road to progress. I hope during the second 100 days of this new Congress, the new majority will pause and decide to take the road less traveled--the road of cooperation and accomplishment.
Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on the Court Security Improvement Act, a bill of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. As we have already heard, this bill is designed to address the critical issue of the security of our judges and courthouse personnel. I have to add as a personal note, this is not a matter of just some academic interest to me. I believe I am correct in that I am the only current Member of the Senate who has served as a member of the judiciary, in my case for 13 years in our State court system in Texas, both at the trial bench and at the Texas Supreme Court level. So this is more than a matter of academic interest to me. Protecting our men and women who personify the rule of law and all that it means is very important.
The dedicated men and women who work in America's courthouses, from the judges to the court reporters to the bailiffs, preside each day over difficult, contentious, and sometimes very emotional disputes.
These public servants, just like our police, are placed in harm's way by the very nature of their jobs. They fulfill essential roles that keep our democracy running smoothly, and I have the greatest respect for the people who try to do this job and try to do it well.
Unfortunately, violence directed at public servants is on the rise, from escalating violence against police officers to courthouse attacks--including in my State of Texas--these despicable actions threaten the administration of justice and threaten our ability to invoke the rule of law.
This Congress has the power, and now we must exercise it, to ensure that certain and swift punishment awaits those who engage in these unconscionable acts of violence. The administration of justice--indeed, the health of our very democracy--depends on our ability to attract dedicated public servants to work at our courthouses. So we must do everything in our power to provide adequate security to these men and women who are too often targeted for violence or harassment simply because of the position they hold and the decisions they are called upon to make.
As a former attorney general in my State, I had the responsibility of defending sentences on appeal of certain defendants who had been found guilty of violent acts. So I am acutely aware of the devastating effects criminal acts of violence have on not only the victims themselves but also on their families. Because I also used to be a judge, I am fortunate to have a number of close personal friends who continue to serve on our benches and work at our courthouses. I personally know judges and their families who have been victims of violence, and I have grieved with those victims and their families.
Our judges are impartial umpires of the law. We know they cannot help but disappoint some people because that is what they do--they make decisions. They determine winners and losers. Judges, witnesses, and courthouse personnel must not face threats and violence for simply doing their job.
The protection of the men and women who compose our judicial system and serve the public and law enforcement is essential to the proper administration of justice in our country. This important bill takes big steps toward providing additional protections on these dedicated public servants. I urge my colleagues to give it their full support.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source