Rule Changes

RULE CHANGES -

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?

Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DURBIN. I would say I followed his remarks closely. If I understand what has just happened in the House of Representatives, or is about to happen, it is that they decided the changes in the ethics rules which were promulgated to protect perhaps one Member or two Members from close scrutiny, in terms of their conduct, are now going to be changed. I think, if I am not mistaken, this will be the second time in the last few months--in recent times, that the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has changed the ethics rules and then, after public response, came back and restored the ethics rules.

Is this not similar to a situation we are facing on the Senate side, where there are at least some who are talking about the nuclear option, a term that Senator Lott came up with, that would change the rules of the Senate in the middle of our session, rules that have been in place for almost 200 years?

Mr. REID. I would answer to my friend, not only is there a suggestion about changing the rules, but they are going to do it by breaking the rules. To change a rule here in the Senate takes a simple majority. But if somebody wants to speak in an extensive manner relating to that rule change, you have to break a filibuster. They are not willing to do that. They are going to use brute force and break the rules to change the rules. That is what they are talking about.

So even though what went on in the House of Representatives is bad, what is contemplated here is even worse than that.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Nevada if he will yield for an additional question through the Chair. I would like to ask the Senator, is it not true that the Democrats, in the minority in the House of Representatives, stood together and argued that the integrity of the House of Representatives was at stake because of these changes in ethics rules to favor one Republican leader, or perhaps two, and that by standing together and appealing to the Nation, that they were successful, and now the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has announced they are going to restore the original ethics rules?

Mr. REID. I say in answer to my friend, I applaud, I commend the Speaker of the House of Representatives from the State of Illinois for realizing that what had gone on was wrong, and it is being changed as we speak. So the Speaker got the message loudly and clearly from the American people.

Mr. DURBIN. I would also ask the Senator from Nevada through the Chair, is it not also true that as we have started talking to the American people about the so-called nuclear option, the term that Senator Trent Lott came up with, as we have talked to the people about the nuclear option across the country, is it not true there has been an incredible reaction? I would say to the Senator from Nevada, many of us believed this was an arcane debate that most people wouldn't follow. But we are finding that overwhelmingly the people across America share the view of the Democrats on this issue, that we should not change the rules in the middle of the game and eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominees, that we should not assault the basic principle of checks and balances also under the Constitution, and, finally, we should stand our ground to make sure that, on a bipartisan basis, we pick judges for lifetime appointments, judges who are in touch with the values and needs of simple Americans and their families?

Mr. REID. I say to my friend, the answer is yes. Yesterday, I got a copy of an editorial from a newspaper in Nevada, a newspaper out of Fallon, NV. In 1998, I got 21 percent of the vote in that county. I have said before, a homeless person could have gotten that many votes in Churchill County, but that is how many votes I got. So I got the editorial and it said, ``Stop Mr. Smith.''

As we know, there are some ads running that show the great movie with Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith coming to Washington to give a long speech as a Senator.

I said: I will read it. I read that editorial. It was so magnificent. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to have that printed in the RECORD.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would further yield for a question through the Chair, is it not true that the filibuster, because it requires 60 votes to overcome, really requires the Senate to work to compromise, to find bipartisan solutions to their differences, and brings us together in a bipartisan fashion? Is this not the same thing that the Democratic leader just alluded to, that we should use that same bipartisan approach not only when it comes to lifetime appointments for judges and controversial issues but to find constructive solutions to issues such as the challenge of health care, the cost of health insurance, the need to help families pay for college education--all of the things we should put on our agenda but, sadly, have not been part of the discussion in this Republican majority Senate so far this year?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. If I could ask one final question of the Senator from Nevada through the Chair? I know what the Senator said about his commitment to the traditions of the Senate, to the constitutional principles that guide the Senate, such as the protection of the minority so there will never be another tyranny of the majority; that you will have this filibuster that gives the minority, always, a voice in the dealings of the Senate.

I know the Senator from Nevada--and I share his belief--is committed to this constitutional principle that goes back to our Founding Fathers. But I want to ask the Senator from Nevada in closing: Is it not true, as you announced yesterday, that despite this commitment to this core principle that you have reached out to the other side, to the Republican leadership, in an effort to try to find some common ground to work through our difficulties and differences over several different judges; that you have spoken directly to Senator Frist and many Republican Senators in an effort to try to resolve this, and that, sadly, Senator Frist came to the floor yesterday and announced he wouldn't be party to any negotiations to try to work this out?

http://thomas.loc.gov/