Prayer

PRAYER

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for the debate. I repeat something I have repeated in the five other times I have been here. We have had a lot of talk, a lot of palaver. But this one sign, this one chart is more persuasive than everything that has been said. No one, except a far-right militant, extreme minority, believes that the courts are obstructed when 168 judges are approved and four are not approved. Say whatever you will, that fact is transcendent. That fact is dominant.

I thank my colleagues on the other side for giving us the opportunity to repeat it over and over.

Now, we have been engaged in a lot of sophistry, a lot of arguments that do not make a difference. The lead argument is that there should not be filibusters. Last night, I talked at some length about all the filibusters that have gone on before. By the way, if you believe that the Constitution prohibits filibusters, you certainly believe it prohibits them not only for the judicial branch but the executive branch. Of course, that would be interpreting the Constitution because there are no words in there that say it. So my colleagues on the other side who are so worried about those who expand the law are doing it themselves.

I make another point today. We have heard this morning a little bit of a shift in the themes from my colleagues. Majority should rule. Just give them a vote. That is all we want, they say. If we want to give every nominee a vote, how is it different preventing the vote by speaking on the Senate floor or preventing the vote by refusing to bring the nominee up in the committee?

Did Annabelle Rodriguez get a vote? All she wanted was a majority vote. No. Did Clarence Sundram or John Bingler or Robert Freedberg or Lynette Norton or Legrome Davis or Robert Raymar or Robert Cindrich or Stephen Orlofsky get a vote? Nope, these are President Clinton nominees who were not brought before the committee.

What is the rule? That when the President nominates someone, all the other side is saying is, majority vote. Here is a list of 63 people who did not get that majority vote. If the Constitution is telling us every nominee should get a majority vote, why didn't it apply to these 63 as well as those 4?

And one other thing my learned colleague from Texas got up and said, hypocrisy is when you did one thing 10 years ago and do a different thing now. These were not 10 years ago; these were 5 years ago. I would ask but he is not here. Is it hypocrisy for the members of the Judiciary Committee on the other side, who never called these people for a vote, who deprived them of the principle of a majority vote, not to bring them up and now complain they want a majority vote for these four? I am not sure either measures up for hypocrisy. That is a strong word. But what is good for the goose is certainly good for the gander.

The whole issue of majority vote-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time controlled by the minority is consumed.

The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER. While the Senator from New York is on the Senate floor, I ask him to respond to a question, and that is, Does he consider this Senator a far-right extremist militant?

Mr. SCHUMER. Is this on the time of the Senator from Pennsylvania?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Mr. SCHUMER. Please repeat.

Mr. SPECTER. It was argued a few moments ago with a chart, 168 to 4 that only "a far-right extremist militant" would say that was an insufficient record.

So my question to the Senator from New York is, Do you consider ARLEN SPECTER a far right extremist militant?

Mr. SCHUMER. I do not, in answering his question. But sometimes he has occasional lapses in his very fine judgment. And this is obviously one of those.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, I do not know how the Senator from New York can say there is a defect in judgment when I have not asserted anything yet. All I asked, Mr. President, was a question as to whether he considered ARLEN SPECTER a far right extremist militant. And he said, no, but sometimes there are lapses in my judgment.

I will ask a followup question to the Senator from New York. In the absence of any assertion or statement of judgment, where are the lapses in my judgment at the moment?

Mr. SCHUMER. I will say to my colleague, I heard him speak on this before, and when it comes to the issue of judicial nominees, where my colleague has usually quite good judgment, in recent months he is sort of edging way over to the right side, for reasons I am not sure of. But his normally sound and moderate judgment, in my judgment, when some of these nominees came up, has abandoned him, at least in this moment.

I say to my colleague, any nominee who believes that Lochner-and my colleague is very erudite, so I do not even have to describe to him what it is-who says that Lochner was correctly decided does not belong on the bench, in anyone's book, and, my guess is, really in his heart of hearts, does not belong on the bench in the book of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I know he will dispute that, but seeing his record, I have admired his record. And a judge who believes that property rights, that zoning is taking-

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BUNNING). The Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.

Mr. SCHUMER. I was responding to the question.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I do thank you for your intervention. I had not wanted to interrupt the Senator from New York by calling for regular order, which would be in order when the comments go beyond-far beyond the scope of the question. But I thank the Chair for his intervention.

I would ask the Senator from New York another question, and ask him to be as restrained in time as he can be because we only have a half an hour, for I was concerned the last answer might use up the entire half hour.

When the Senator from New York made the comment that he questions my judgment, did he disagree with my judgment when President Clinton nominated Berzon to be a Court of Appeals judge for the Ninth Circuit and I joined with Democrats to get her confirmed?

Mr. SCHUMER. As I said-and I will try to be brief; and I know neither the Senator from Pennsylvania nor I is known for brevity on the floor-

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that calls for a yes or no answer.

Mr. SCHUMER. As I said, normally I think the judgment of my colleague is a good one. Berzon, in my judgment, the nomination of Judge Berzon, she was quite far to the left. But I spoke about this last night. I believe, at least, because President Clinton, by and large-

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is not privileged to ask a question of the Senator absent consent. The regular order is that the Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor.

Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to continue asking me questions.

Mr. SMITH. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.