Nomination of Priscilla Richman Owen, of Texas, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit

NOMINATION OF PRISCILLA RICHMAN OWEN, OF TEXAS, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to focus on a chart that was displayed earlier by the Senator from New York where he proudly displayed the numbers 168 to 4. I think it is important we ask the question: what is that chart designed to prove?

On one hand, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Judiciary Committee and here in the Chamber rail against the President's judicial nominees, calling them out of the mainstream and, even worse, mean-spirited, right wing. But if, in fact, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have voted to confirm 168 of President Bush's nominees, it refutes that allegation because they have to agree that at least 168 of those nominees met their definition of mainstream.

I would like to associate myself with the outstanding comments of the Senator from Kentucky, the assistant majority leader, Mr. McConnell. I wonder what their definition of mainstream truly is.

The second number of 4 is a number they want to be congratulated for blocking. I submit that just because you observe a stop sign 168 times and comply with the law, you are not to be rewarded for running that stop sign four times. It is still a violation of law, and you are still likely to get a ticket from the police officer.

This is more than just about breaking the law. This is about violating our Constitution, the fundamental law of this Nation.

We know really, rather than 168 to 4, the true number we ought to be focusing on is 0 to 4, and let me explain.

From 1789 to 2002-that is, for all of our Nation's history up until this year-the number of filibusters against judicial nominees of a President was-you guessed it-zero. But this year alone, because of this tactic that our colleagues have devised, to deny a bipartisan majority of this body its right under the Constitution to vote up or down on a judicial nominee, this number is 4.

So rather than 168 to 4-and as I explained, I think that repudiates and flies in the face of some of their arguments about President Bush's judicial nominees, and I deny that they are to be congratulated for unconstitutionally obstructing only 4. The real number we ought to be focusing on, and I hope the American people are focusing on, is zero to four because never, ever, in the history of this Republic has a minority in the Senate denied the right of the majority the vote up or down on judicial nominees. It is just not right. It is not fair. It has resulted in a degradation and a downward spiral in the judicial confirmation process of which no one should be proud.

I submit that four unconstitutional filibusters of these distinguished nominees is four filibusters too many. If we want to look at maybe a little bit of a history lesson, as this chart demonstrates, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President of the United States, 4,473 laws were enacted, 4 civil rights laws were filibustered-hardly something to be proud of. But I guess if our colleagues across the aisle are proud of their four, the argument would be that the people who filibustered these civil rights laws during FDR's term ought to be proud of that number.

When President Truman was in office, 3,414 laws were passed, 3 civil rights laws were filibustered. Is that something to be proud of? What our colleagues across the aisle say, because 3,414 laws were passed and only 3 were filibustered, that these folks who filibustered those three civil rights laws ought to be congratulated. I think not.

Then when President Lyndon Baines Johnson was in office, 1,931 laws were enacted, 3 civil rights laws were filibustered. To this hall of shame, I would add the 168 to 4, which is nothing to be proud of; it is something to be ashamed of.

Unfortunately, some people have lost their sense of shame in this process, which has become so degraded and so destructive. Indeed, I submit that the filibusters we have of the President's nominees are an abuse of the process. How can they justly claim that a 60-vote requirement to close off debate can somehow trump the Constitution?

As we have heard before on this floor, everyone knows, who has studied the Constitution, that there are supermajority requirements for certain things, and they are stated in the Constitution: To ratify a treaty or to pass a constitutional amendment, the Constitution is very clear that it requires a supermajority. Everything else requires majority rule.

Indeed, majority rule is fundamental to the democratic form of government. Majority rules: We fight our best fight; we make our best argument. Then we have a vote up or down. If we lose, well, we come back to fight another day. We try to persuade others that we were right and the majority was wrong. That is what our form of government is all about; not denying a majority their right, as stated in the Constitution, to let majority rule.

Believe it or not, that is what is happening and that is the reason we are standing here tonight trying to let the American people know that a terrible abuse of this process is occurring and an abuse of the Constitution, indeed a violation of the Constitution, is occurring. It is a disgrace. It is nothing to be proud of.

The other thing I would point out in the few minutes I have remaining, before I turn the floor over to the senior Senator from Texas, is this process is not only abusing the Constitution and creating a downward spiral in the judicial confirmation process that is very destructive of relationships in this institution, of our ability to get things done, it has made it too partisan, too bitter, too angry, and it is destructive.

I would also point out that the tactics that are being used against some of these nominees are despicable. Unless we stand up and repudiate the tactics of some of those who are opposing the fine nominees of President Bush, such as Janice Rogers Brown, I believe those who have joined cause with them in opposing this fine nominee ought to examine their conscience. I think they ought to reconsider their tactics. I think they ought to reconsider whom they associate with, whom they are joining cause with to tear down some of the fine nominees of this President, such as Janice Rogers Brown.

This is a cartoon that was posted on The Black Commentator on September 4, 2003, with President Bush, a racist caricature of Janice Rogers Brown with Justice Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice standing there. The caption says: "Welcome to the Federal bench, Ms. Clarence-I mean, Ms. Rogers Brown. You'll fit right in."

It is easy to see why this process has gone downhill and needs a wake-up call from all of us, because we need a fresh start. We need to disavow tactics such as this. Those who are opposing Justice Brown and other nominees should not be proud of that association any more than they claim to be proud of an unconstitutional filibuster of four of these nominees, including Justice Brown, because if, in fact, we do not get a fresh start, we do not have a clean break with this destructive process, if we do not quit tearing down people who want nothing more than to offer themselves to the American people by serving in positions of honor, such as Federal judges, who will answer the call? If they know that answering the call of public service means that they are going to have their reputation destroyed, they are going to be besmirched, they are going to be painted into a caricature that bears no resemblance to who they really are, who will answer the call? We will all be poorer for it.

I yield the floor.