Prayer

PRAYER

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes, and I yield the senior Senator from Texas the remaining 5 minutes of our time.

Mr. President, I have been either in the Chamber or watching the Chamber from other parts of this building as this debate has gone forward since early last evening. I happened to be watching from my office just before I came to the floor most recently when the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, made a couple of comments to which I want to respond.

First, I want to say what I agree with. I agree with him that the people who work so diligently in this Chamber and elsewhere, in the cloakroom, the people who report what we say for the Congressional Record, how much I and the rest of us appreciate their faithful and dedicated service. Some of us got a few hours sleep last night. I am not sure all of them did. I just want to say for all of us how much we appreciate their service.

There is something else he said that I disagree with very strongly, and that is where my colleague from Iowa charged the Republicans in this Chamber, the bipartisan majority really-it is not just Republicans-but charged those of us who believe this debate is important with "sanctimonious hypocrisy" for our attempts to uphold the Constitution for what we believe to be the unconstitutional obstruction of President Bush's nominees.

There is a lot about this debate that I think folks at home watching TV or listening on the radio may have a little bit of trouble getting their head around, their brains around, because some of it involves arcane rules of the Senate and the Constitution. There is one thing that folks back home understand, and they understand hypocrisy, sanctimonious and otherwise.

I think it is worth noting, indeed I think it is important to note, comments that have been made by those who are now on the other side of this debate, what they said a few short years ago on this very self-same subject.

My mother used to say that the test of one's character is whether you are the same person in public as you are in private, and I think using something close to that test, we could ask whether the speeches that a Senator gave 5, 6, or 7 years ago are consistent with the position they publicly take today.

In that spirit, I would offer this: On March 1, 1994, the Senator from Iowa said: I really believe that the filibuster rules are unconstitutional.

That is the same Senator who accused those of us who believe that the same thing he professed in 1994, when he called us sanctimoniously hypocritical for what we are doing today-he happened to agree with us in 1994 but has obviously changed his position today.

Senator Lieberman of Connecticut on January 4, 1995, said: The filibuster rule, there is no constitutional basis for it. It is in its way inconsistent with the Constitution. One might almost say it is an amendment to the Constitution by rule of the U.S. Senate.

Then there was the minority leader, at a time in 1995 when he said: The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote. The Founders concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock.

Then there are the comments of the distinguished legal counsel, Lloyd Cutler, who served as White House Counsel both to President Carter and President Clinton, who said: Nothing would more poorly serve our constitutional system than for the nominations to have earned the approval of the Senate majority but to be thwarted because the majority is denied a chance to vote.

I would like to agree with the comments made by Senator Lieberman, Senator Daschle, Senator Harkin, and Mr. Cutler just a few short years ago, but obviously their position has changed, or I should say their position has changed because majorities have changed. They find themselves in a different posture today than they found themselves in then, and it is no longer convenient or expedient for them to claim that majority should rule.

I submit they were right then and they are wrong now. I do not know of a nicer way to put it. It is hypocrisy to take inconsistent positions based on expedience where they should be made on principle.

What we are fighting about today is a fundamental principle. My colleague from Iowa said he wondered what the moral demarcation line was between holds and committee inaction on the one hand and filibusters on the other hand. I have an answer for him. I think it is a great question. The answer is: The line of moral demarcation is the Constitution and majority rule. That is where the moral demarcation line is, and there have now been four unconstitutional filibusters.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed the time yielded to him.

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor to the senior Senator from Texas.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST-S. 224

In the meantime, I ask unanimous consent the Senate return to legislative session, proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 3, S. 224, the bill to increase the minimum wage, that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request so that just prior to proceeding as requested, the three cloture votes would be vitiated and the Senate would then immediately proceed to three consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nominations, with no intervening action or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from Massachusetts willing to modify his request?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I withdraw my consent request because it is quite clear there is objection by the Republicans to the consideration of an increase in the minimum wage.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST-S. 1853

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to legislative session, the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1853, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask consent the Senator modify his request so just prior to proceeding as requested, the three cloture votes would be vitiated and the Senate would then immediately proceed to three consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nominations, with no intervening actions or debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Massachusetts modify his request with those conditions?

Mr. KENNEDY. I withdraw my request and let the Record indicate the Republicans have objected to the extension of the minimum wage and have objected to the extension of unemployment compensation for hard-working Americans who have paid into that fund.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, once again, we are proceeding with the Democrats' filibuster of the circuit court nominees.