Joe Biden on Government Reform Vice President; previously Democratic Senator (DE)

1987: Bork fight changed rules of nomination process

The basic understanding was that as long as a Supreme Court nominee had the intellectual capacity, a breadth of experience in constitutional law, and a reasonable judicial temperament, the Senate was bound to confirm a nominee. Ideology was the third rail of Supreme Court nominations.

Biden wrote that in the toughest confirmation cases in the 1960s, the nominees "were rejected for personal shortcomings, but the clear and unspoken reason was ideology. I thought it was time to take up ideology in the open and avoid personal attacks." In a major speech on the Senate floor, Biden cited specific precedents in which ideology had been the deciding factor.

1973: Senators deserve more than $42,000 salary

1987: Rejected Bork on grounds of too-strong originalism

Led fight against Bork based on ideology

BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the US Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, and had not committed a crime of moral turpitude. It was hard to change, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference. That’s why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don’t like and the American people wouldn’t like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil liberties. I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to know it.

Countries without state-church separation are in turmoil

A: The best way to look at it is look the every state where the wall’s not built. Look at every country in the world where religion is able to impact governance. Almost every one of those countries are in real turmoil. Look, the founders were pretty smart. They had gone through, you know, several hundred years of wars--religious wars. And they were in the midst of religious wars in Europe. And they figured it out: The best way to do this is to keep the government out of religion. They took religion out of government. But they didn’t mean religion couldn’t be in a public place, in the public square.

Transparency on earmarks: $250B earmarked for Del. In 2009

A spokesman for Biden derided the criticism as "Republican hypocrisy" and said [Biden's opponent] Gov. Sarah Palin requested "more pork per person than any governor in America," pointing out that Palin asked for $197 million in earmarks for 31 projects as governor.

The spokesman said, "Joe Biden believes in transparency, which is why long before he was the vice-presidential nominee he'd listed the investments he'd brought home to Delaware right on his Senate Web site, along with last year's earmark requests."

Radical change to preserve family farmers

As Judiciary Chair, rejected Bork and supported Thomas

Would consider a Republican for head of DHS or Pentagon

A: The answer is I would consider that. The fact of the matter is the next president is going to have to bring this country together. We are not blue and red. We cannot be sustained that way. We cannot get health care, we cannot get a foreign policy, we cannot do anything with a 51% solution. Every one of the things we’ve talked about here requires a consensus, and if you don’t have the experience that I have and the success I’ve had reaching across the aisle, what makes you think you’re going to get a national health care plan? What makes you think you’re going to have an education plan? What makes you think you’re going to have a rational foreign policy? The answer is, I would consider the most competent people I could, and I would try my best to reach across the aisle to reasonable people to unite this country. It needs to be united.

Pledges to stop no-bid contracts

A: Yes. (Laughter, cheers, applause.)

1988: led fight against nomination of Robert Bork

At a meeting, I said, “If I lead this fight, it will not be a single issue campaign.” The NY Times called my staff to confirm that I’d promised to “lead the fight” against Bork. The president’s spokesman said his boss found it “regrettable” that I had “chosen to politicize the hearings in this kind of partisan fashion.”

Bork was a bona fide scholar. He had been solicitor general, acting attorney general, professor of law at Yale, and a judge. The way to stop Bork was on a question of his outside-the-mainstream judicial ideology. I thought it was time to avoid personal attacks. [Bork was defeated.]

The greatest sin is abuse of power

The central lesson I received from the Catholic Church and my parents had been the governing force in my political career. To wit, the greatest sins on this earth are committed by people of standing and means who abuse their power.

With power and privilege, I was taught, comes a responsibility to treat others with respect and fairness. When we see people abusing power, it is our duty to intercede on behalf of their victims.

As I looked back on my career, it was obvious that what had animated me was the belief that we should stand up to those who abused power, whether it was political, economic, or physical.

Roberts & Alito have turned Supreme Court upside down

History of racism was keeping black Americans from voting

A: The history of racism has been punctuated with an effort on the part of the powerful to keep black Americans from voting. It used to be originally slavery, then all the laws relating to poll taxes and now we have not enough polling machines in black neighborhoods, not enough poll workers, old machines, deceptive practices, saying you can and cannot vote, intimidation. It all comes down to a basic thing. It comes down to the effort to deny you, because of the racist attitudes of so many people, the right to be able to determine your own future. I’ve been deeply involved in the Voting Rights Act, the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, but we’ve got to move beyond that now. There should be a federal standard and I’m glad to be able to agree with Mike Gravel on something.

Modern Congress is much cleaner than in 1970s or 1950s

All this in a nation's capital was, by most accounts, for less corrupt than it had ever been. "Compare this Congress to the one in 1950, during the era that most of the old-timers consider the Golden Age of civil discourse," Senator Joseph Biden, a Democrat from Delaware, said. "Those guys were taking handouts, honoraria, junkets. When I came here in 1973, Jacob Javits--a distinguished senator--was making money from a private law practice. You don't think he'd be under investigation today? By comparison, these new guys are squeaky clean. I can't stand most of the SOBs--they're ideologues, they practice Khmer Rouge politics--but they are the cleanest bunch of politicians this capital has ever seen."

Campaign reform in 1980s made more problems than it solved

Biden might have added: the Ethics in Government Act of 1978; the reforms of the presidential-primary selection process and of the seniority system in Congress; the limitations on presidential war and budgetary powers; the "whistle-blower" reforms that enabled disgruntled government employees everywhere to bring anonymous complaints against their bosses.

Disallowed bringing pornography issues into Thomas hearing

Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.

• Considers D.C. a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House.
• D.C. shall not be considered a state for representation in the Senate.
• Limits D.C. to one Member under any reapportionment.
• Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437.
• Entitles Utah to one additional Representative until the next census, and modifies the reapportionment formula thereafter.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.

Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. DOLE. I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. FEINSTEIN. If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election]. I urge a "no" vote.

Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.

Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY on the tabling motion because:
• Using the term "registered lobbyist'' will create a huge loophole. The Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization.
• So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call, that would be permitted.
• If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, "We just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.

Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA on the tabling motion because:
• I can tolerate not accepting gifts from lobbyists. But this amendment goes a step further which is problematic.

  For example, I am a big fan of McDonald's. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend who owns 12 McDonald's?

• Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
• If we want to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.

Voted YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.

Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
• We have heard from the media about the bribes and scandals, but we have heard only silence from the House Ethics Committee. One of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.
• The American people perceive the entire ethics system--House and Senate--to be broken. We can pass all the ethics reforms we want--gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions--but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws.
• The Office of Public Integrity established in this amendment would provide a voice that cannot be silenced by political pressures. It would have the power to initiate independent investigations and bring its findings to the Ethics Committees in a transparent manner.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• The Constitution gave us not only the right but the duty to create our own rules, including the rules concerning our ethics. They are enforced internally by the Senate itself.
• The decisions made under this amendment would be no different than right now. The final decision will be made by the Senate Ethics Committee. All this really does is find a way to further publicize that complaints have been made.
• We have people accusing us almost daily of having done something wrong and publishing it through blogs and all that. I think we should be very careful in setting up another tool for these bloggers to create more charges against the Senate.
• I cannot support an amendment that either replaces the Senate Ethics Committee or adds another layer to our already expensive and time-consuming process. I urge the Senate to defeat this provision.

Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.

Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration.

Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.

Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.

Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto.

Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts.

Establish the United States Public Service Academy.

Introductory statement by Sponsor:

Sen. CLINTON: I rise today to introduce legislation that will create an undergraduate institution designed to cultivate a generation of young leaders dedicated to public service. The US Public Service Academy Act (The PSA Act) will form a national academy to serve as an extraordinary example of effective, national public education.

The tragic events of September 11 and the devastation of natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita underscore how much our Nation depends on strong public institutions and competent civilian leadership at all levels of society. Congress must take a step forward to ensure competent civilian leadership and improve our Nation's ability to respond to future emergencies and to confront daily challenges.

This legislation will create the US Public Service Academy to groom future public servants and build a corps of capable civilian leaders. Modeled after the military service academies, this academy will provide a four-year, federally-subsidized college education for more than 5,000 students a year in exchange for a five year commitment to public service.

The PSA Act will meet critical national needs as the baby-boomer generation approaches retirement. Already, studies show looming shortages in the Federal civil service, public education, law enforcement, the non-profit sector and other essential areas.

Unfortunately our young people are priced out of public service careers all too often. By providing a service-oriented education at no cost to the student, the PSA Act will tap into the strong desire to serve that already exists among college students while erasing the burden of enormous college debt.

The establishment of a United States Public Service Academy is an innovative way to strengthen and protect America by creating a corps of well-trained, highly-qualified civilian leaders. I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me today.