SEN. SIMON: Mr. President, unfortunately, this whole issue and the debate that we have had -- not just over the last three days -- but is unnecessary if the process of advise and consent had taken place. I pointed out last week that we have had at least eight instances in this century where a president has appointed someone of another political party. And in addition, presidents have appointed people who have differed very substantially in terms of philosophy. And I'm not going to go into all the detail, but the presidents -- the Republican presidents who have done that in recent years have included Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, and Gerald Ford. I've suggested that balance is needed. And in a column in Sunday's Washington Post David Broder wrote, "Let the Senate Democratic majority exercise its constitutional authority to advise a president by passing a sense of the Senate resolution setting forth the professional and policy criteria it will use in deciding whether to confirm future court appointees. If Simon's idea of a balance in the Court is what the Democrats want, let them say so."
I will be introducing a resolution today, Mr. President, which I hope colleagues in both sides can join in approving, which says, "Whereas the Constitution calls on the Senate to give advice and consent to nominations to the United States Supreme Court; and whereas in recent times the advice portion of this phrase has not been exercised by the Senate; therefore be it resolved by the Senate that it is the sense of the Senate that: First, that the President, in determining whom to name to any future Supreme Court vacancies, should keep philosophical balance in mind so that the law is not like a pendulum swinging back and forth depending on the philosophy of the President; and Second, that before a name is submitted to the Senate there should be informal, bipartisan consultation with some members of the Senate on who is to be named to the Supreme Court before a name is submitted to the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that both the David Broder column and my resolution be included in the record at this point.
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE (SEN. PRYOR): Without objection it is so ordered.
SEN. SIMON: Mr. President, I am concerned --
SEN. PRYOR: (Bangs gavel.) If the Senator would suspend momentarily, we do need order in the Senate.
Senator, you may proceed.
SEN. SIMON: Mr. President, I am concerned about what is being done to a witness who reluctantly came forward. And there is no better example than my colleague -- and I say this while he is here, and we have discussed this on a TV program -- there is no better example than to suggest that Professor Hill was committing perjury. The reality is there is not a single prosecutor in this nation who w would read her full testimony who would suggest there is any perjury. I think, as a matter of fact, for seven hours of testimony, she was remarkably consistent in what she had to say. And I agree with the distinguished President Pro Temp Senator Byrd, the wise old lion of the Senate, who said he found her testimony thoughtful, reflective, and truthful.
Let me just take for a moment the balance of what happened. And I respect those who come to differing conclusions, including my distinguished colleague from Illinois. But on the side of the Judge, it seems to me, are the continued contacts -- 11 phone calls over seven years, a few other things. But psychiatrists say that is not unusual for someone who has been sexually harrassed or sexually abused.
What about on the other side? First of all, you have corroborating witnesses that said she talked to them about the abuses several years ago. Second is a question of motivation. Here is a reluctant witness who has no motivation other than doing her duty to this country who comes forward.
Third, you have the question of details. She provided a great deal -- great many details that I don't think someone would just make up. And if you were going to make up a story, you would make up a story that included physical abuse, physical contact. That wasn't there.
Her hospital stay -- the only hospital stay she had. Stress on the job, stomach pains. She, and apparently her physician, believed it was stress related.
The lie detector. Now, Mr. President, I'm not a great believer in lie detectors. But you can't have it both ways, although let me just add, I don't find very many people who don't tell the truth who volunteer to the FBI that they're willing to take a lie detector test. But the FBI asked her whether she was willing to take a lie detector test. She said she was. She then took a lie detector test given by someone who works for the FBI. And then this same administration that asked her whether she would take a lie detector test attacked her for taking a lie detector test. You can't have it both ways.
And finally -- and I am neither an attorney nor a trial attorney -- but Senator Byrd's comments about his (Thomas's) failure to listen to her charges. I talked to an old trial lawyer -- and I know the presiding officer is a former trial lawyer -- talked to an old trial lawyer who says, "I can frequently tell whether my clients are innocent or guilty, because if they don't listen to the witnesses that are spelling out details of attack on them, they tend to be guilty."
I just -- now, all these are straws, but I suggest the straws in the wind come down on the side of Professor Hill as to who is telling the truth.
Then beyond that, what are the other factors? One, that we should have an African American on the Court -- I favor diversity. But let me just add, the majority of African American organizations that have taken a stand have come out on the other side.
This morning, I called a distinguished former colleague of the House, Barbara Jordan. And I said, "Barbara, if you were voting, how would you vote?" She now teaches law at the University of Texas. And she said, "I would vote no." And she explained why. I don't have the time to go into her explanations, but I said, "Can I use that on the floor?" And she said, "Of course."
The reality is, this nominee's views are either extreme or unknown. And he failed to give answers where I think there is a serious question of credibility. His votes will not be for working men and women in this nation; they will be for the privileged who can afford the finest attorneys. That's the reality. I want someone who's going to sit on the Court who's going to speak up for Americans who can't afford the high priced attorneys.
Finally, Mr. President, this whole question of the benefit of the doubt that Senator Byrd referred to. I hear this over and over again. This is not a trial where someone is going to be found innocent or guilty. We're not trying anyone. In this -- in that case, the benefit of the doubt should go to the accused. In this case, the benefit of the doubt should go to the people of this country.
Mr. President, we have taken an oath in this body to protect and defend the Constitution. We have not taken an oath to protect our political hides, we have not taken an oath to do all kinds of other things. We have taken an oath to protect the institutions of this country. And I submit to you there is serious doubt if we approve this nominee that we are protecting the institutions of this country as we should.
Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. And if the Senator from South Carolina does not have someone seeking the floor, I yield -- I'm -- I should consult with Senator Biden's staff, how much time does Senator Kennedy know --
SEN. KENNEDY: I need fifteen minutes.
SEN. SIMON: I yield fifteen minutes to the senator from Massachusetts.