Filibustering
FILIBUSTERING
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield?
Mr. FRIST. I am happy to.
Mr. BYRD. I want to congratulate the majority leader on helping to get these appropriations bills all passed. We discussed this, he and I, several months ago. It was my hope then that the leader would help to get all the bills passed so that we would not have an omnibus bill. He indicated he was going to try to do that, and he has tried and I want to congratulate him. I want to thank him for that.
I think we ought to always pass these appropriations bills. The distinguished Presiding Officer, when he was chairman, got all the bills out of the committee; Senator Stevens got all the appropriations bills out of the committee. He was the chairman of the committee, I believe, at that point, the Appropriations Committee. I was the ranking member. I complimented him then. I compliment the distinguished majority leader and Senator Thad Cochran on getting this done. I compliment him.
While I am complimenting the Senator, I want to ask the Senator a question, and I do it with great respect. I respect the Senator from Tennessee. He is a great physician. And every night I pray to the Great Physician and the Senator from Tennessee is following in the footsteps of that Great Physician.
But I have a question. I saw something which concerned me in the paper this morning, the Washington Post. The Washington Post had the good judgment to place this in a very visible place in the Post. It is a great newspaper. Page A5. Here are the headlines that bothered me:
Frist Cautions Senators Against Stalling Alito Vote.
And then the subheadline:
Democrats Don't Plan Filibuster.
The first paragraph says:
Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Republican, Tennessee, threatened--
That is a bad word, ``threatened''--
yesterday, to strip Democrats of the power to filibuster. .....
I am a Democrat, and it has never been my desire to strip Republicans of their power to filibuster. I was here--I believe the first election I cast a vote in was 1936. I think I was old enough to vote then. I would have been 20 years old in that session of Congress, which met in January 1937.
I believe there were only 16 Republicans in the Senate at that time. The Senate only had 96 Members then. It didn't have 100 but 96 Members. There were only 16 Republicans and there were 4 independents--former and later, et cetera--and there were 76 Democrats. Can you imagine that? Yet there was never any threat on the part of the Democrats in 1936. I think that was the first time I cast a vote, and I was proud of that Democratic Congress. I don't think there was any threat on the part of Republicans to kill the filibuster, to kill the provisions in Senate rule XXII that allowed freedom of speech in the Senate. When I saw this a few months back, we had this wave of insaneness, That swept over the Senate. We were talking about the nuclear option, so-called constitutional option. There is nothing in the Constitution about it. It is an unconstitutional option.
I was sorry to see that my friend, Senator Frist, this fine Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader of the Senate and a great physician, was threatening--this is what the newspaper said--``threatened yesterday to strip Democrats of the power to filibuster if they blocked the vote on Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr.''
That nominee came in to see me a while back. I had a nice talk with him. I was much impressed by Judge Alito. I haven't made up my mind yet. But I liked what he said when he was in my office, and I might vote for him. I don't know yet.
But I have not heard a Democrat use the word ``filibuster'' in connection with this nomination. I haven't heard anybody use that word ``filibuster.'' It was news to me that the distinguished majority leader was talking about a threat of stripping Democrats of the power to filibuster if they block the vote on Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Just one more minute, and then I will yield to the distinguished leader.
This is my 47th year in the Senate. I will finish the 47th year this month. And I never dreamed that during my tenure in the Senate--I didn't know how long the tenure would be at that time--there would be any effort to undermine, or to terminate, or to threaten the freedom of speech in the Senate. That is a freedom that goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215, and then in the reign of Henry IV. He reigned in England during the years 1399 to 1413. And during his tenure he proclaimed that the members of the House of Commons had a perfect right to speak their minds. So there was freedom of speech in the English House of Commons under Henry IV.
Then when the Declaration of Rights came along in 1689, before the Commons would crown the two sovereigns, William and Mary, as King and Queen in England, they exacted from those two individuals a promise that they would honor the rights of Englishmen, the rights of people in the House of Commons, to speak their minds. That was on February 13, 1689. Then on December 16, 1689, they wrote that into the law. That became a statute in the Bill of Rights.
In the United States, our forefathers drew those provisions from the English Bill of Rights into our own Bill of Rights 100 years later, in 1789.
So I am greatly disturbed when any majority leader, a Senator as powerful as the distinguished Senator from Tennessee--as I have been majority leader, I know the power of a majority leader--but I would never, I say this with respect to the distinguished Senator--and when we were in power, the Democrats, as I say, when Republicans only had 16 Members here, the Democrats could easily have killed freedom of speech in the Senate and not allowed the Republicans to filibuster. But there was never any thought of it.
That is not a great idea. It didn't take a fellow to fall off a turnip truck to think of that. There is nothing brilliant about saying if there is a filibuster, all we need is the might and power of the majority to vote the rules are wrong and interpret them differently. And it could be done; no doubt about it. We could do that. But the Democrats never--and no party in history, Republicans or Democrats--threatened to deny freedom of speech to members of the minority. I daresay a lot of Members on that side of the aisle, the Republican side of the aisle, don't like that idea. I don't think they would agree with that because they have a right to filibuster, too. The Republicans do. I respect that right.
I am sorry I read that by the Senator. I will read it once more.
Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, threatened yesterday to strip Democrats of the power to filibuster if they block the vote on Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
I haven't heard any Democrat talk about that. As a matter of fact, I think we are going to have a vote on him. We will debate it. We certainly have a right to debate. I joined the group of 14 so there wouldn't be filibusters against these judgeships, except in extreme cases when I might join a filibuster, too. But may I say most respectfully to the distinguished leader, I hope we will quit talk about this so-called ``nuclear option.'' That is a threat to the freedom of speech, freedom of speech, freedom of speech, here in the Senate.
I yield to the distinguished Senator, the leader whom I do respect.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BYRD. I am sorry to hear the distinguished majority leader say what he just said. In the first place, I hear no talk of a filibuster. But who knows? If something should come up that we have not seen heretofore or have not heard heretofore about the nominee, which is entirely possible--not probable, I don't think--if that should happen, I can understand how Senators would say they are not going to give up the right to filibuster in such an event. I do not foresee that. The threat itself is a threat against freedom of speech.
Now, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee is a great physician. But this is the Senate. And the Senator talks about our forefathers. Our forefathers did not deign to stoop to a King or a President. And this Senate is a forum, probably the only forum that is left in this country, where freedom of speech reigns. That is the purpose of this Senate. That is why we have a Senate. I would hope that the distinguished Senator, who is a distinguished physician, would not have it on his escutcheon that he threatened freedom of speech in the Senate and threatened the filibuster.
The filibuster has been around a long time. It has a bad name in some instances, but filibusters have sometimes been the tool by which free men and women in this Senate have exercised their right to oppose something. And I detest this mention of a nuclear option, the constitutional option. There is nothing constitutional about it, nothing. Nothing constitutional about that.
Freedom of speech is underwritten in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--freedom of speech--and that also includes the Senate. Freedom of speech, we have always had freedom of speech in the Senate. And as I say, any person who fell off a turnip truck could think of the idea: Well, if we have enough numbers, if we just go against the rules and throw reason to the winds, we can stop a filibuster. We can take that away from the Democrats. How terrible that would be.
I hope I will never hear the Senator from Tennessee say this again. He is a Senator, and the right of freedom of speech is his as the majority leader, and he should embrace that right with the intention to die if necessary if anyone sought to take that freedom of speech away from the Senate.
We are here as emissaries of the people who send us here. And the people out there in West Virginia, they cannot speak on this Senate floor. Young people out there in West Virginia or in Tennessee cannot speak on this Senate floor. But their representatives in the Senate--I am one of those--have a right to speak as long as I can stand on my feet. And I will do it.
Now, I am not threatening a filibuster. But I have filibustered in the past. And I would do so again. I will say to the distinguished Senator, I have been in the Senate 47 years. Now, I will guarantee the Senate, if we ever have that--I would suggest the Senator not even use the threat again. I do not mean to be lecturing the Senator of what he can and cannot do. He can do that. He has freedom of speech, as I have. He can threaten anything he wants. He is the majority leader. And he may have the power to carry it off. But he might not have.
Now, I will guarantee you one thing, I say, Mr. Leader, when somebody tries to kill freedom of speech in the Senate, they are going to have the American people to deal with--the American people. That is what our Constitution is all about: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion. And freedom of speech obtains here in the Senate, always has for 218 years.
And I tell you, my friend, here is one Senator who is not going to be threatened and is not going to be persuaded by any threat against freedom of speech. I will die for that right. Our forefathers died for it. Our British forefathers died for it. And they fought for hundreds of years against tyrannical monarchs so that the right of freedom of speech, control of the purse, and such things, would be there in the House of Commons.
I am so sorry. I have been here, I have served under several majority leaders, Republican and Democrat. Not once did any of them ever threaten to kill freedom of speech in the Senate. And I hope the Senator will think twice, three times, before he ever threatens that again. There is not going to be any filibuster against Alito.
Mr. FRIST. Good. Good.
Mr. BYRD. And I am against any filibuster. That is why I joined the 14. We stopped it. I thought we were past that. I hope the Senator will forgive me. I do not mean disrespect to him, but he is talking about freedom of speech. I respect the Senator. But I respect the Senate more, and I respect the Constitution and I respect freedom of speech more. And that is why I was so interested in knowing why the Senator was talking about killing the filibuster and killing freedom of speech and killing a Senate rule. We have ways of changing the rules. If we do not like the rules, there is a way, under the rules, that one can change them. But never has anybody threatened to stop this constitutional right to freedom of speech. I detest it. And I want the Senator to know, if he ever really tries to pull that tool--and he can do so; he is the leader, he has a right, if he wants to do that, but I will tell you one thing. This will not make a Senator's name in history. It will not be etched in stone. Future generations will not rise up to bless a Senator who tries to destroy freedom of speech in the Senate.
I say this with great respect to the Senator. I will tell you, he is a physician. I am not. He can do things I cannot do with a knife. He has saved many lives, I am sure. And I praise him for that. I know he goes out and serves the people. Even as a Senator, he goes out there and uses that fine brain of his in helping people. But for God's sake, this is the Senate. I have been here 47 years. I did not come here to see freedom of speech curtailed in this Senate. And when there is an effort to curtail it, they have ROBERT C. BYRD and a whole group of persons on both sides of the aisle--I would say there are Republicans in here who would not stand for that.
I have said enough. I do not intend to carry this on. But I am glad we had an opportunity to discuss this because I hope the Senator from Tennessee fully understands that is not to be talked about in this Senate. Republicans do not like it either. And there have been fine Republican leaders. Howard Baker, a former Republican leader, was a real statesman. The Panama Canal treaties would not have been approved by this Senate had it not been for Howard Baker. And those Senators--Bob Dole, others, Everett Dirksen--my goodness, they never threatened freedom of speech in the Senate.
Republicans as well as Democrats have seen the wisdom of being able to filibuster if they are trying to protect the people of their State or the people of the country from some violation of their constitutional rights.
I thank the Senator. He has been very respectful toward me. I hope I am just as respectful toward him. If he wants to say anything now, he has the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BYRD. I see nothing in the Constitution that requires an up-or-down vote on any nominee. The Constitution just says that the Senate shall have the power, and the Senate uses that power. It is in the Constitution.
Mr. FRIST. And my response would simply be that the Constitution says advice and consent.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. FRIST. And I think advice and consent for somebody who has gone through the nomination process, the recommendations, through the Judiciary Committee, hearings, recommended to this floor, I would argue, not written in the Constitution, but under advice and consent, you can't vote with your hands in your pocket. You can't say yes or no.
Mr. BYRD. The Constitution doesn't say that.
Mr. FRIST. I would argue that the dignity of this institution has worked for 214 years. So why deny it? Especially why deny it with a qualified nominee like Alito.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FRIST. I would be happy to.
Mr. BYRD. All this business about us working for 214 years, there have been a lot of misquotations of history when people talk like that. I say that a Senator has a right under the Constitution to object for whatever reasons--they may not be plausible reasons--to object to any nominee he wishes. The Constitution says the Senate has the power of advice and consent. So it doesn't say how that consent will be measured. It doesn't say it has to be an up-or-down vote. Nothing in the history, nothing in the Constitution says that. If you can point that out in the Constitution to me, where it says that a nominee shall have the right to an up-or-down vote--can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me? Can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would let me answer, I would be happy to.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. FRIST. It is not in the Constitution that a Senator specifically has the right for an up-or-down vote. I am saying the dignity of the institution to give advice and consent deserves an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. What the Constitution does say--which is why it is called the constitutional option, not because it is written in the Constitution--is that this body makes its own rules. The constitutional option is basically just that. You take it to this body and you say: Do these Senators deserve an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Let's vote on that.
Mr. BYRD. No.
Mr. FRIST. That is what the constitutional option is.
Mr. BYRD. He doesn't have a right to an up-or-down vote. A nominee doesn't have a right to an up-or-down vote.
Mr. FRIST. That is where we disagree.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator can't find that in writing anywhere in the Constitution. I can vote against a nominee just because, any Senator can vote against a nominee just because----
Mr. FRIST. But you get a vote.
Mr. BYRD. The nominee doesn't part his hair on the right or left side. The Senator doesn't have to explain why he votes against. That is his right.
Mr. FRIST. But he voted, and that is the point.
Mr. BYRD. May or may not vote. The Constitution doesn't require that, and the Senator can't find it in the Constitution. He can say all he wants.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it doesn't say in the Constitution that you can vote; it says you can give advice and consent and that the Senate makes the rules as to whether you vote or not. We just disagree. Obviously, this goes back to the whole filibuster argument for judicial nominees. I simply believe in the principle that once someone comes to the floor, they deserve, in order to give advice and consent, an up-or-down vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield?
Mr. FRIST. I am happy to yield.
Mr. BYRD. Will the leader yield to me?
Mr. FRIST. Let me yield to my distinguished colleague, and then I will be happy to yield to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I will be glad to take on both Senators in defense of the Constitution.
Mr. McCONNELL. Did the majority leader yield to me?
Mr. FRIST. Yes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the exchange on the television monitor back in my office and thought I might come down and join you both.
Let me suggest that it could be argued that you are both right. What I believe, I say to my good friend from West Virginia, the majority leader is talking about is what is precedent in the Senate. There is a lot of discussion about ``stare decisis.'' Lawyers use that term to refer to respect for the precedent.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, let the decision stand.
Mr. McCONNELL. The precedent in the Senate for 214 years prior to the last Congress was the judges who came to the floor got an up-or-down vote.
Mr. BYRD. I am not sure about that.
Mr. McCONNELL. Is that not the case, I ask the majority leader----
Mr. BYRD. I am not sure about that history.
Mr. McCONNELL. --that when nominees came to the floor who enjoyed majority support in the Senate, they got an up-or-down vote? Has that not been what the leader argues for? And to the substantial credit of our friend from West Virginia, this whole controversy was largely defused last summer, was it not?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. McCONNELL. We have not been filibustering judges during this first session of Congress, and we have been giving judges an up-or-down vote as a direct result of the Senate's collective decision to sort of step back from the brink and honor the traditions of the Senate. Has that not been the case, I ask my friend, the majority leader?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, that is my understanding. This is exactly where we were about a year ago, after this long period of 214--or 218 years, as my colleague from West Virginia was saying on the side. When we are talking about filibustering--this is important to say for the people watching, not so much for colleagues--it is a very important tool for this body to use, for the minority to use, and it has been used really all the time for legislative issues.
As we design legislation, which can be shaped, manipulated, defeated, and approved, these nominees who come from the executive branch, the President, are different. Ultimately, you cannot cut a person in half. You can operate on them, but you cannot cut them in half. You cannot move them aside. Ultimately, the only way to give that advice and consent--and the way it has been done for those 218 years--is that once they come to the floor, having gone through committee, they get the courtesy, the dignity, consistent with the principles of this body, of an up-or-down vote.
Mr. BYRD. That is not history. That is not even recent history.
Mr. FRIST. And then it changed about 3 years ago, where for all of this period of time, it didn't occur; that is, a nominee who had majority support being denied a vote on the floor of the Senate. Then it happened 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 times, all in a period of about 18 months.
Then progress was made. We kind of put that all back in its cage. It still can be brought out. That is where some of these threatening issues are coming from. We don't think it should be brought out. Let's give the nominee an up-or-down vote after we have had plenty of time to debate and talk about and discuss that process.
That is my understanding of the history. I know we will get a different version here shortly, but that is the lay of the land in the past and where we are today. I want to keep coming back to the Alito nomination. That is ultimately where the decision will be made.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the majority leader. I hope my PA system is on here. This country is a great country, but it has never perfected a good PA system. I think this one is working.
May I say to the distinguished Senator, on vote No. 37, 106th Congress, on the nomination of Richard A. Paez to be U.S. circuit judge, vote on cloture on March 8, 2000, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, voted to filibuster. The question was on a cloture motion to end a filibuster. Cloture was agreed to by three-fifths vote, but the distinguished Senator from Tennessee chose to exercise his right, and he voted against cloture. He voted to filibuster. So the worm turns. The day may come when the Senator may want to filibuster. He will never find me on the side of saying I will cut off your right to talk.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will not reclaim the floor. But what happened to those judges? Not with my principle as an up-or-down vote, but I ask my distinguished colleague what happened. Ultimately, they got an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. That is all this discussion is about.
Mr. BYRD. Some of them did.
Mr. FRIST. The Senator cited Paez. He got an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. All I am arguing for is an up-or-down vote. It is simple. Vote for or against them, and they win or they lose, and you start over or not.
Mr. BYRD. That has never been the rule here. Senators have a right to talk, to filibuster.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield?
Mr. FRIST. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator from Tennessee, may I say, is wrong when he cites history. History is not on his side. I tell you something else. Not all nominees have had up-or-down votes. A lot of them are bottled up in committees. That is one way of killing them. That is one way of denying them their right, as the Senator says, to an up-or-down vote. They are killed in committees. The Senator is a member of the Republican Party, the Grand Old Party, and I respect that party. I am for a two-party system. But I will tell you, the Senator doesn't come into court with clean hands when he talks about the right of an individual to have an up-or-down vote. The Republicans have killed lots of nominees in committees, not letting them have an up-or-down vote. At least 61 nominees did not get out of committee. Not all nominees have had up-or-down votes.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, would the majority leader not agree with the Senator from Kentucky that the Paez and Berzon nominations to which our good friend from West Virginia refers--in both instances, you were not the leader at the time; you were a Member but not the leader. The majority leader and the leader of the other side jointly filed cloture, not for the purpose of defeating the nomination but for the purpose of guaranteeing that the nominees got an up-or-down vote.
There were one or more Senators, I expect, on our side of the aisle who did not want those nominees to get an up-or-down vote. So in that particular instance, Senator Daschle and Senator Lott used the device of cloture, not to kill the nomination but to advance the nomination, move it to final passage.
I say to my friend, the majority leader, it is largely irrelevant how he may have voted on cloture as a rank-and-file member of the Republican Conference on that particular day. The leader of our party at the time and the other party at the time were honoring the principle to which the leader has been speaking, guaranteeing that those nominees got an up-or-down vote by the only device they could, by filing cloture and moving forward.
So that is entirely consistent with the point my good friend, the majority leader, has been making here on floor, and the end result was that those two nominees--very controversial on this side--ended up getting an up-or-down vote and being confirmed by the Senate, and they are now called Judge Paez and Judge Berzon.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I am going to close by saying I very much appreciate the colloquy, the back and forth we have had over the last hour. These are important issues when you are talking about nominations for the Supreme Court, which will far outlast, once confirmed, many of us in this body, and the importance of this process. I believe what is important for the American people to understand, even in this back and forth now, is we are committed to a fair process and a process that should be dignified; that we need to have civil debate, and we will have that on this particular nomination, which is where the focus is, where I want to rest so we are not talking about what we will do from that side or this side, but focus on the fact that among all the responsibilities that we have, that we are given in the Constitution, this nomination process is one that is important, that should be dignified, especially if we want people to continue putting themselves forward as potential nominees. We should not be in the business of character assassination, and we should not be in the business of not giving people the opportunity to fulfill a process and have it unfairly blocked as we go forward.
I think it is important--again, not as Democrats or Republicans or party or partisan issues--to not allow the debate to get so hot, high, and heated that we interrupt the process. We are about midway through the time Judge Alito has been nominated. I am very pleased by our leadership at the Judiciary level, with Senator Leahy, Senator Specter, and the committee, in terms of their approach. They have a tremendous working relationship, which is very important as we go through these hearings which will begin on the 9th.
Those hearings will be several days. They will be thorough; they will be exhaustive. It is important to this body to have the information to know how to vote--not whether to vote but how to vote, and questions, I am sure, will arise from the hearings--and that we be able to have both the appropriate amount of time for discussion and then come to the floor and have a full debate, and then approve or disapprove of that nomination.
Again, I appreciate the chance to have this discussion. I know the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has been waiting an hour to speak. We will continue the dialog. I very much respect the comments of my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. He teaches me all the time. I listen, and he knows I listen as we go through. We disagree on certain principles. I know one is not freedom of speech, or respect for the Constitution, or respect for this institution.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator has yielded the floor. Let me say, as the Chair recognizes me, to the distinguished Senator, I say again, I respect him, but I hope he will never leave as part of his legacy the destruction of freedom of speech in the U.S. Senate. And may I say to him once finally, that if he ever tries to exercise that so-called constitutional option, which is an unconstitutional option, he flies in the face of history, he flies in the face of our forefathers, he flies in the face of the Constitution, the right to freedom of speech. If he ever tries that, he is going to see a real filibuster if I am living and able to stand on my feet or sit in my seat.
I respect him as a Senator, but I respect the Senate even more. I respect freedom of speech even more. And if the Senator wants a fight, let him try it. I am 88 years old, but I can still fight, and fight I will for freedom of speech, for the constitutional right of freedom of speech. I haven't been here 47 years to see that freedom of speech whittled away and undermined. I haven't been here that long, I haven't been here 47 years to see that.
I hope the Senator will take what I say as being in the spirit of friendship. But with something so important--and it was here a long time before I came here. It is the Constitution of the United States and freedom of speech, and we are going to have freedom of speech here.
If I elect to filibuster against a nominee, it will be for good reason. I don't intend to join a filibuster. That is why I joined the group of 13, and I made the 14th. I think we avoided a filibuster. I don't expect to filibuster on this.
I tell you one thing, I am tired of hearing this threat thrown in our faces that this so-called nuclear option will be used if we decide we want to filibuster. If there is good reason to filibuster an individual, why, let a Senator filibuster him. There are some of the names around, and I hope the President will not send one of them up, but there are some around on which there will be a filibuster. I compliment the President on avoiding that. We don't need that kind of disruption here. We don't need that kind of divisiveness. We need togetherness. I hope we will have togetherness.
I thank the Senator for his courtesies. I respect him. I respect him, but I tell you, I expect, if the Lord lets me live, to continue to fight for this Constitution and for this institution and for freedom of speech against all comers on either side of the aisle--either side. I would not stand still a minute if a Democratic leader over here threatened to kill freedom of speech in the Senate. I wouldn't stand still for that. No, no, I wouldn't do that, Democrat or Republican.
I thank the Senator. I respect him. When I meet him in the corridors, I will meet him with a smile.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, once again I thank my distinguished colleague from West Virginia for his insightful comments. I do want to keep the focus at this point--I have a feeling he is going to want to say something after I close, but I think it is time to put partisanship aside.
Mr. BYRD. Yes. Amen.
Mr. FRIST. To put threats of filibuster aside before we have even had the hearings. I am not bringing up filibuster.
Mr. BYRD. That is freedom of speech.
Mr. FRIST. I didn't bring it up yesterday. I responded to a question, and then I did cite what six Democratic Senators have said and what eight newspapers have said about what is coming from the other side. But I think it is time to put it aside and to focus on the nomination. Freedom of speech, which is important, which I love, I cherish, that is why I am here, we can debate that. I am not sure what we are debating. We can debate that. I thought we finished that. We talked about filibusters 6 months ago. It is time to focus on this nomination, which is what the American people want us to do.
We are talking about one of the most fundamental responsibilities in this body, and that is looking at an individual--and I would argue a very qualified individual--having a process that is fair, that is dignified, that is respectful and gives people the opportunity to give advice and consent. That is my goal, and that is what I am going to do my best to achieve.
I think that is going to be the last thing I say. But I thank the Senator very much. I appreciate the comments from the distinguished Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say to the majority leader, there are those who filibuster sometimes, but they, too, can be dignified. I have seen filibusterers who were dignified. The late Senator Richard Russell and some of my friends on that side of the aisle when I came here filibustered with dignity. Talking about dignity, you can be against something and filibuster and still do it with dignity. I thank the Senator. I thank the Senator.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, first, I apologize to the distinguished Senator for imposing on his patience. He sat back in that chair and he was in the Senate Chamber before I was today. He sat patiently through that long, drawn-out discussion, and I apologize to him for my part in imposing on his time and patience.
Secondly, let me thank him for his clear, lucid, reasonable, and thoughtful comments concerning the subject matter that has been discussed. He has always taken advantage of the opportunity to serve the people of the country, to serve the country, and to serve the Senate. If something seemed right or seemed wrong, he was willing to speak out. I will always admire him for those things.
I thank him for what he has said today. I think, again, it reflects great dignity upon the Senator and his thoughtfulness. He is a Senator sui generis, in the fact that he speaks his mind--he is never backward about that. He can do that with me, too. And he has done that with me in the past. I respect him for it.
I thank the Senator for his comments. He certainly has engaged in a discussion today that I think makes a great contribution, not only to this discussion and this subject matter, but he continues as he has for years, so many years during my tenure here, to contribute greatly as a statesman who has been worthy of a seat in the Constitutional Convention or a seat in the first Senate calling that Congress. He could have been in any of those debates at any time in the history of this country.
I respect him for it. He is an outstanding Senator and one upon whose services history will certainly report with great support. I thank him so much. I thank Senator Kennedy very much.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my friend from West Virginia. That is what that previous hour was about, and why it was so important, because it was about preserving this institution. I know I speak for all of us, I think pretty generally across both sides of the aisle, in saying that there is no individual who is more dedicated to the preservation of this institution and the magnificent framework in which our Founding Fathers had conceived of it. It was really that issue that was talked about in that previous hour.
It is important, as all of us go through the process of pressing our own views and our own vision about the future of this country, that we hear the clear and persuasive and knowledgeable voice, the voice of history, that speaks about the institution and its importance to the American people. That is what we just heard with the exchange of the Senator from West Virginia. That is why I was so pleased to have an opportunity to listen. I just wish the other 98 Senators had that opportunity to be so informed as well. I thank the Senator for his kind words.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator again. I feel pretty well today. I have had the flu over the weekend, but I am glad I came to the Senate today.
Mr. KENNEDY. I think you got your message across pretty well.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator and I thank all Senators.
http://thomas.loc.gov/