GOP Members of Judiciary Panel Meet Press
Following is a transcript of the news conference by GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as provided by Federal News Service.
SEN. HATCH: (in progress) -- 1st of the year that Arlen Specter will be our next chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And we are pleased to support Arlen in this matter. He is senior. He has done an excellent job in supporting the president over the last number of years that I've been chairman. He's been a tremendous asset to me through my tenure as chairman. And I have nothing but the highest respect for Arlen Specter.
And Arlen would care to make a statement at this time.
SEN. SPECTER: I have not and would not use a litmus test to deny confirmation to pro-life nominees. I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist after he voted against Roe vs. Wade. Similarly, I voted to confirm pro-life nominees Justice Scalia, Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy. And I led the successful fight to confirm Justice Thomas, which almost cost me my Senate seat in 1992.
I have assured the president that I would give his nominees quick committee hearings and early committee votes so floor action could be promptly scheduled.
I have voted for all of President Bush's judicial nominees in committee and on the floor, and I have no reason to believe that I'll be unable to support any individual President Bush finds worthy of nomination. I believe I can help the president get his nominees approved, just as I did on confirmation of two controversial Pennsylvania Circuit Court nominees when other similarly situated circuit nominees were being filibustered.
I have already registered my opposition to the Democrats' filibusters with 17 floor statements and will use my best efforts to stop any future filibusters. It is my hope and expectation that we can avoid future filibusters and judicial gridlock with a 55-45 Republican majority and election results demonstrating voter dissatisfaction with Democratic filibusters. If a rule change is necessary to avoid filibusters, there are relevant recent precedents to secure rule changes with 51 votes.
I intend to consult with my colleagues on the committee's legislative agenda, including tort reform, and we'll have balanced hearings with all viewpoints represented.
I have long objected to the tactic used in bottling up civil rights legislation in the Judiciary Committee when it should have gone to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Accordingly I would not support committee action to bottle up legislation or a constitutional amendment, even one which I personally opposed, reserving my own position for the floor.
Senator Hatch, I believe we now have nine members of the committee present. Senator Grassley, who has been chairing a meeting in Finance, is not with us, but Senator Grassley has stated his firm support for the position announced by Chairman Hatch.
SEN. : And Senator Graham.
SEN. HATCH: And Senator Sessions and Senator Graham.
SEN. : Graham and Sessions --
SEN. SPECTER: Senator Graham is here.
SEN. : And Senator Sessions likewise.
SEN. SPECTER: And Senator Sessions, who is not here, was at our meeting earlier this afternoon, at our meeting before, and stated his agreement with the position announced by senator -- our chairman, Senator Hatch.
Q Senator Specter, do you feel that you've been obviously pressured into doing this and pressured by outside groups to take steps that you might not have otherwise had to take to hang on to your chairmanship?
SEN. SPECTER: I have not been pressured at all in anything which I have said or done, and saying that I am against litmus tests is something that I have been saying for years and something that I have been acting upon with votes which I have cast over the past 18 years. And noting that I have voted for all of President Bush's nominees in committee and on the floor, that's something which was an established fact before this controversy arose. So that there's nothing that I have said here today that I haven't repeated often in prior statements over the course of the past two weeks and in many years before.
Q Senator, though, it sounds like you're changing your position on tort reform. Are you now willing to back the Republican's legislation on tort reform?
SEN. SPECTER: I have not changed my position at all. And this statement is -- couldn't be more bland on that subject, Steve. It says that I will consult with others on a legislative agenda, including tort reform.
But the record is plain. I voted for class action out of committee, I voted to close off a filibuster on class action. I voted three times to cut off filibusters on medical malpractice reform. I've led the battle on asbestos tort reform, having more than two dozen meetings in my office on that subject. So that there's no change in position.
Q Senator, are you now changing your mind on the so-called nuclear position -- nuclear option -- pardon me -- relative to 51 votes for a nomination?
SEN. SPECTER: I am not changing position, and I am not stating a position. If a position is to be taken, it's a position to be taken by the caucus and by the majority leader.
It is my hope -- I want to start this job -- if in fact I get the job; I think the people here today have signified, or did earlier -- they can all speak for themselves -- their intention to vote for me in January. But I believe you all understand, or should, that this action is not formalistically done because the rules require that there be committee action in January, and there won't be a committee until the new members have an opportunity to select their committees, and then there's ratification by the full caucus. But I met with the full caucus yesterday, and I will not characterize what happened there, but Senator Frist, the majority leader, has already said that there was a very positive response.
But it is my hope to work with the Democrats, as I have been able to do in the past. You take Judge Smith and another judge, we got them confirmed when other judges were being filibustered. And I believe that we could have worked through the filibuster. And I'm certainly going to start there and try very, very hard to get that done. It was Judge Fisher and Judge Smith, both of whom were confirmed at a time when other similarly situated Circuit judges were being filibustered.
Q Senator, to follow up on (Wendy's ?) question, did you feel pressured to make a stronger statement, specifically with respect to the rule change and the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?
SEN. SPECTER: No, I have not felt pressured. The statement which I have made on the prospective rule change is one that I have made in the past. Let me again emphasize that the statement which I have just read to you doesn't take a position on it. And it's preceded by my hope and expectation to be able to avoid filibusters without facing a rule change.
To the extent we can in the Senate, it's highly desirable to do things in an accommodating, cooperative way. If you face a problem where you can't do it on something which is very major, and you have a very good reason, you have strong precedents, and what you're doing is not -- I think the language "nuclear option" is the wrong language. Senator Byrd had four rule changes, in 1977, '79, '80 and '87, where, as a master parliamentarian, he moved them through the body on a ruling of the chair and 51 votes. And one of those was a filibuster by amendment. And I have studied that and note the presence there. But to repeat, it's my hope we can work things out.
Q I'd like to hear --
(Cross talk.)
Q Do you expect to be able to wield the gavel with some independence as chairman, considering what you just went through?
SEN. SPECTER: I expect to wield the gavel with fairness and with due regard for the president's prerogatives and latitude accorded to him on nominations, but also very mindful of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, and that the strength in our republic lies in the fact that there are separate powers. And one of the senatorial powers of great significance is the advice power and also the consent power. If I do not act with independence, it will be the first time in my life.
Q Senator Hatch, how and when did the committee arrive at this decision? Did you confer separately? Did you confer with Senator Specter today? Can you give --
SEN. SPECTER: I conferred with Senator Specter today -- (laughter) --
Q No, I was asking Senator Hatch.
SEN. SPECTER: -- and yesterday. (Laughter.)
Did I confer with Senator Hatch?
Q My question was addressed to Senator Hatch.
SEN. SPECTER: Oh. Pardon me. (Laughter.)
SEN. HATCH: Well, other than Arlen's insistence that all of us do an in-depth study of Scottish law -- (laughter) -- Arlen is highly respected on this committee. He is senior on this committee. As the current chairman about to relinquish this seat in January, I have to say that I've turned to Arlen Specter many times to help me with problems on the committee, and he has always responded.
And frankly, we go through this every time we elect a chairman on Judiciary Committee. I've been through this a number of times. And this was very similar in many ways.
Everybody on the committee is a tough, strong -- and on both sides, by the way -- tough, strong, effective legislator, and everybody on the committee has very strong feelings about how the committee should be run. And so it was a matter of getting people together and sifting through the issues, which we have done each time I've been elected chairman at the beginning of every Congress, so this is not an unusual thing.
So I speak for the full committee, including Arlen Specter, but for all the members of the committee in saying that we are definitely supporting Arlen Specter for this position, that he will be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I guess on January 4th is when we make that determination. And we are all in accord and it's unanimous.
Q Senator?
SEN. SPECTER: We -- we have four distinguished, busy colleagues who ought to have an opportunity to say something if they wish. They all know their rights to remain silent, but we do have -- (laughter) -- we do have four distinguished, busy senators.
Q Senator Cornyn?
Q Senator Sessions?
Q Senator Sessions or Cornyn?
Q Excuse me. The conservative groups -- excuse me -- put -- did --
Q I have a question for the senator, for Senator Sessions and Senator Chambliss. There have been a lot -- there has been a lot of pressure from outside conservative groups. Do you think -- as recently as just two days ago. Do you think that what Senator Specter has said today will start to quiet some of those concerns, and are you sure that this unanimous support will last through January if that pressure continues to build? Senator Chambliss, Senator Sessions?
Q Or Senator Cornyn?
Q Senator Cornyn? Draw straws?
Q (Laughs.)
SEN. SESSIONS: You know, a lot of people have different ideas about different things, and there are outside groups that contribute so much to the process, and I share deeply the values of a lot of the groups that have supported me and candidates I believe in. But I have also expressed my view quite clearly that senators are elected and expected to make independent decisions. They take an oath to do that, and they can't be just extensions of friends or associates or supporters. So you have to make those decisions on your own.
I think we've had a real controversy here. I believe strongly in the kind of judges President Bush has been submitting. I believe their records have been distorted. I believe it's been unfair what's done to them. I believe that people of faith have been criticized for their faith or their decisions that come as a product of their faith. People have suggested that's improper even to do, that you can't have an opinion based on a matter of religious conviction, and I think that's wrong.
But Arlen Specter has voted for all of those nominees in the last four years that I've been on the committee, and he may or may not agree with them on each one of the issues, but he has supported them. And I think he has the ability to be an outstanding chairman.
Q Can you explain what's different today than two weeks ago when this first started? What have you heard from Senator Specter yesterday and the day before that some of you didn't already know, who have worked with him for two, four, eight years?
SEN. HATCH: I'll take a crack at that. You know, I said to Arlen after this all broke -- and Arlen certainly has an ability to get media attention -- (light laughter) -- jokingly. (Laughter.) Because let me tell you, this is a tough position, and virtually everything you say as chairman of the committee, and as a member of the committee, is going to be criticized and sometimes distorted and sometimes misconstrued, sometimes highly criticized. And this is just something, you know, that we had to work through, because -- I can't speak for Arlen, but I can say that he didn't mean it the way some in the media interpreted it. So we've resolved these problems. We are unanimous in support of Arlen Specter, as we should be. Our caucus is a broad, diverse caucus, and frankly, we love everybody in the Republican Caucus.
Q Senator Hatch, do you think that maybe some of these outside groups may have overreacted to this situation?
SEN. HATCH: Well, the way it was being construed, some of them probably felt justified, but we're telling them, look, look at the record. Arlen Specter has supported every nominee for this president -- and I might add, prior presidents as well, by and large, but this president in particular. And that seems to be a major concern.
It was a major concern in this last election, because to have 11 circuit court of appeals nominees filibustered, most of whom have the highest ratings from the American Bar Association, you can see that that's a matter of great feeling out there among especially Republicans, and it's a great feeling among Democrats too, except it shouldn't happen. There shouldn't be filibusters of judges by Democrats, and there should not be filibusters of judges by Republicans. And I think that's what has caused -- those filibusters alone have caused an anxiety in this country that the country doesn't deserve. And I think that's why this became such a brouhaha that clearly is being swept away today by all members of the committee who support our senior senator on the committee who is entitled to be chairman for chairmanship.
Q Did it take this statement for the other senators to get on board?
SEN. SESSIONS: I would just say one thing. I am a strong believer in the process that allows for committee members to vote on chairmen. That is something that we've made a pro forma process. I've been a critic of that. I think it needs to be a serious, formal process by which before any Congress, the senators meet with their chairmen, if need be, and at least have a moment where we vote. Sometimes that just does not occur, it just almost -- it's been ignored, really.
So I think this has been healthy that we've had a particular opportunity with Arlen to discuss these issues in great depth -- individuals have, as a group. We've discussed our philosophy of judging, how important it is to us, how important it is to the people that voted for us. And I think that's good. And frankly, I'm going to insist that every other committee have at least a meeting by which they cast the vote our rules call for on our chairmen.
Q Did you count the votes this morning -- or today?
SEN. HATCH: No, you can't do that.
SEN. SESSIONS: We are not -- and I would just say this; no formal vote can be taken until the new Senate is in session in January. So this just represents, I guess, the views of the people at this time on this day.
Q Senator Hatch, a number of these conservative groups have said --
SEN. HATCH: I've said -- I've said that it is unanimous on the part of the committee -- I'm speaking for the whole committee -- that we are unanimously in favor of Arlen Specter, and we'll vote that way come January.
Q Senator Hatch, a number of these groups have said, though, that you would essentially be thumbing your nose at them because they put you where you are. Are you concerned about any kind of backlash and erosion of your party base?
SEN. HATCH: Well, I would hope that these groups will have listened to what we've said here and be reassured by the excellent statement that Arlen has made himself. And I think some of the reasons why they have felt that way is because of what they thought was going on, when in fact, as you can see through Senator Specter's statement, that wasn't the case.
So, hopefully -- hopefully, they'll understand that we're a tough bunch. We want this committee to work well. We're all individualists on this committee. I can assure you that it is not an easy committee to manage on either side of the table, and when you put them all together, it's really difficult to manage. And I have confidence that Arlen can do it.
SEN. SPECTER: Some of the other men who are here all have commitments to go elsewhere.
SEN. GRAHAM: I'm going to have to -- bottom line, we've gotten a bunch of phone calls in my office, more than any time except impeachment. People are upset by what they heard. They're upset about how it's been reported. They're very sincere people about making sure that the judiciary is more responsive to their views.
Long story short, I've been on the committee for two years. It is a contentious place. I believe that Senator Specter has been fair to the president during my two years.
I believe he will be fair to the president's nominees in this Congress. I believe he has shown clearly that he believes the filibuster is bad for the Senate -- not just for the president, bad for the Senate -- and that he will use his position and chairmanship in two fashions: to help the president's nominees as he's done in the past, and to work to end the filibuster, hopefully in negotiation and bringing out the best sense of the Senate.
And to the people who doubt that and who are upset with my support of him, I take responsibility for my actions. I understand that you're upset. Judge us by what we do. And here's my last statement: Time will prove you wrong because time will come when the president sends over a nominee, maybe for the Supreme Court, and our committee will support our president and we will do everything we can to make sure that nominee is fairly treated.
SEN. MIKE DEWINE (R-OH): Let me just add one additional thing that I think has already been brought out, but I want to reemphasize it, and that is that we -- this committee has gone through a very extensive process, and that process has taken some time. That process has involved some very candid conversations with Senator Specter, and these have been good conversations. They've been lengthy conversations, but they have been very candid, and I think the conclusion you see today is a result of those conversations.
But really, at least from me, and I think you've heard from other members, the final conclusion was reached for me based on my experience with Senator Specter over my 10 years in serving with him on the Judiciary Committee, and particularly the record of the last four years with President Bush's nominees. The fact is that he has supported every single nominee. And to me, you look at a person's record. You look at what they have done and you judge them based on their word and you judge them by what they have done.
Q But Senator DeWine, this controversy began with a statement about judges and the Supreme Court. The statement Senator Specter just read dealt with judges, it dealt with tort reform, it dealt with a potential balanced budget -- or potential constitutional amendments, it dealt with other issues. How did we get to a point where a controversy about judges -- some on the Left will criticize you guys as having sort of extorted him to get promises on other issues that have nothing to do with the initial controversy.
SEN. DEWINE: Well, first of all, this is Senator Specter's statement, it's not my statement, and so he is going to have to speak to that, you know.
You know, my, you know, prime issue, you know, is -- you know, no one in this Senate is more pro-life than I am. And you know, the concern that was originally raised from many good people had to do with the pro-life issues, whether he would be fair to nominees. And you know, that's been the nature of my conversations, and that's been the nature, frankly, of my looking at his record. And based on -- that's been -- my judgment's been based on that.
Q Senator Cornyn, can you imagine anything happening that would change your mind before January? Is this a done deal for you?
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): As far as I'm concerned, this settles the issue. I respect Senator Specter. I believe he's an outstanding lawyer and will be a(n) outstanding chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
What we've been through in the last couple of weeks, as Senator Specter explained to me when he called me, is, he felt like his comments were misinterpreted originally, which caused a furor. I think it's fair enough to characterize it that way. And what we've been engaged in here is a series of private conversations and meetings. And Senator Specter has said all the sorts of things that he has said here today in this statement, and I can guarantee you that they have not been the result of any pressure or coercion of the senator, because, frankly, he wouldn't tolerate it.
And this has been something that basically is reduced to writing, but it basically is a condensation, a reduction to writing of the things he has said to us verbally in the last week or so, and things that he's believed and espoused his whole career, at least as long as I've had interaction with him.
Q Would you --
SEN. CORNYN: You know, ultimately, this is about -- this is not just about one man. This is about a principle, and the principle here is that unconstitutional filibusters must end. I think that's what 59 million people thought they were voting for, at least in part, on November the 2nd. And that's why I think this furor arose, because they wondered whether their expectations would be disappointed.
Well, what we're -- what we -- what is being confirmed for us all today -- and Senator Specter has been totally consistent throughout -- is that their expectations will not be disappointed; that the Senate will work, as it always has, and people will get fair opportunities for hearings, and then we'll have up-or-down votes on nominees of the president on the floor of the Senate. The only reason this is really an issue is because of the obstruction we've seen during these last two years, which I think in large part contributed to the minority leader's defeat.
They had calculated that there was no political penalty to be paid for obstructing and filibustering in an unconstitutional fashion the president's nominees. Well, we've found out now that they were wrong. There is a penalty to be paid. And indeed, now I think this is a return to the status quo; the way the Senate has always operated and should operate, and I'm confident it will under Senator Specter's leadership.
Q With this issue settled, though, does this set aside for now further debate about changing the rules?
SEN. CORNYN: Well, as Senator Specter has said, a rule change may not be necessary. We have 55 Republicans. We have a Democratic leader defeated, in part, as I said, because I believe he was identified with this obstructionist practice, this unconstitutional use of the filibuster to deny the president his judicial nominations. And so a rule change my ultimately not be necessary. If it is, as Senator Specter has observed, there is precedent for it. And indeed, if necessary, I trust we will move to the so-called -- what I call the constitutional option, which is the ruling from the chair, upheld by the majority of the Senate.
Q Senator --
SEN. CHAMBLISS: Let me make a comment right quick relative to the outside groups that somebody brought up a while ago. There are outside groups on both sides of this issue. And we've heard from the outside groups who support Specter, as well as those groups who have a problem with the comments that Senator Specter made, and you factor that in. But what you really factor in is Arlen Specter and what he's done for the last two years. As Lindsey said, we've served with him for two years on this committee. And at times -- those of you who cover the committee know -- it's been like a war zone over there in that committee room. And we've been in the trenches, and Arlen Specter has stood side by side and toe to toe with all of us in opposition to the antics coming from the other side. He has been 100 percent supportive of the president's judicial nominees. You cannot ask for any more of a chairman than to be that way.
So what we think is, and what made my mind up is, what's he done for the past two years? It's not what he's put on a piece of paper, it's what I know about Arlen Specter. And what you know about somebody is the way that they have acted as a member of the United States Senate when they stand side by side with you and do what in their heart they know is the right thing to do. And Arlen's been supportive of the president. He's going to be supportive of the president.
Q Senator Specter?
Q I -- sorry. I gather you all met with Senator Specter, or at least some members of the committee did. Were there changes in the statement that you all suggested or insisted upon? And is it correct to infer that it wasn't until you had the written statement and saw it that you would come out and say, you know, you planned to make him chairman?
SEN. SPECTER: I made it shorter.
SEN. HATCH: Yeah, yeah. Some of us suggested he make it shorter. (Laughter.) And even some outside the committee who knew that Arlen was wrestling with this problem of how to correct the record so that it's clear to everybody, suggested that it be shorter.
And so we're happy with the statement that Arlen has made. We're happy with Arlen Specter and his commitment. We're happy with his service in supporting the president's judges. And he deserves to be chairman of this committee, and he's going to be.
SEN. SPECTER: For the substance I have been saying for the past couple of weeks, you might want check this article by Helen Dewar of The Washington Post -- (laugher) -- on Monday which had all my statement in it. We could have just photostatted that and distributed it.
Thank you all very much.
© Federal News Service |
