THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

Why did we change? We won the revolution on issues. We won the revolution

[Page: S8330]  GPO's PDF

   Some of the pollsters who are here now who we are listening to were here in 1984. Indeed, they were here in 1980 when I first ran. I had always thought the purpose of a party was to effect policy, to advocate principles, to elect candidates who generally support the values we espouse, but it is not.

   Let me be very specific on where we are ignoring the core values of our party.

   ``We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,'' says the platform of the Republican Party, but vote after vote, day after day, that right is eroded with Republican support. I announced my intention to filibuster the gun control bill. Not only does it violate the Republican platform, but it violates the Constitution itself, which I took an oath to support and defend.

   Then I hear my own party is planning to work with the other

   side to allow more gun control to be steamrolled through the Congress which violates our platform. Not only does it violate our platform, it insults millions and millions of law-abiding, peaceful gun owners in this country whose rights we have an obligation to protect under the Constitution.

   The Republican platform says:

   We will make further improvement of relations with Vietnam and North Korea contingent upon their cooperation in achieving a full and complete accounting of our POWs and MIAs from those Asian conflicts.

   Sounds great. So I got up on the floor a short time ago and offered an amendment saying that ``further improvement of relations with Vietnam are contingent upon achieving a full and complete accounting of our POWs and MIAs.....''--right out of the platform word for word. Thirty-three Republicans supported me. The amendment lost.

   The platform says:

   Republicans will not subordinate the United States sovereignty to any international authority.

   Only one--right here, BOB SMITH--voted against funding for the U.N. I can go through a litany--NAFTA, GATT, chemical weapons, and so forth. Vote after vote, with Republican support, the sovereignty of the United States takes a hit in violation of the platform of the Republican Party and the Constitution.

   The establishment of our party and, indeed, the majority of our party voted to send $18 billion to the IMF. Let me make something very clear. I am not criticizing anybody's motives. Everybody has a right to make a vote here, and there is no argument from me on that. But I am talking about the relationship between the platform and those of us who serve.

   This $18 billion came from the taxpayers of the United States of America, and it went to a faceless bureaucracy with no guarantee that it would be spent in the interest of the United States. We have no idea where this money will go and no control of it once it goes there.

   Meanwhile, while $18 billion goes to the IMF, I drive into work and I find Vietnam veterans and other veterans lying homeless on the grates in Washington, DC, in the Capital of our Nation. How many of them could we take care of with a pittance of that $18 billion?

   As Republicans who supposedly support tax relief for the American family, can we really say that $18 billion to IMF justifies taking the money out of the pocket of that farmer in Iowa who is trying to make his mortgage payment? Can we really say that? I do not think so.

   Another quote out of the Republican platform:

   As a first step in reforming Government, we support elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Energy, the elimination, defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus. Examples of agencies we seek to defund or privatize are the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation .

   That is right out of the Republican platform. If I were to hold a vote today to eliminate any of these agencies, it would fail overwhelmingly, and it would be Republican votes that would take it down. Every Republican in this body knows it.

   Can you imagine how much money we could save the taxpayers of this country if we eliminated those agencies and those Departments that the platform I just quoted calls for us to eliminate? It is not what I call for; it is what our party platform calls for. Why don't we do it? The answer is obvious why we don't do it: because we do not mean it, because the platform does not mean it. We do not mean it.

   In education, our platform:

   Our formula is as simple as it is sweeping: The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the workplace. That is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end Federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning. We therefore call for prompt repeal of the Goals 2000 and the School to Work Act of 1994 which put new Federal controls, as well as unfunded mandates, on the States. We further urge that Federal attempts to impose outcome- or performance-based education on local schools be ended.

   If I were to introduce a bill on the Senate floor to end the Department of Education, to abolish it, how many votes do you think I would get? How many Republican votes do you think I would get?

   If, as Truman said, it is a contract, then we broke it. Where I went to school, breaking a contract is immoral, it is unethical, and it is unprincipled, and we ought not to write it if we are going to break it. Let's not have a platform.

   Our party platform says also:

   We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

   Listen carefully, I say to my colleagues.

   In 1987, when President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, six Republicans voted against him, and he was rejected. What was Robert Bork's offense? That he stood up for what he believed in, that he was pro-life? He told us. He answered the questions in the hearing. God forbid he should do that. But when President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ACLU lawyer who is stridently pro-abortion, only three Republicans voted no--Senator HELMS, Senator NICKLES, and myself.

   Of course, all of the Republicans who voted against Bork voted for Ginsburg. I voted against Ginsburg because, as the Republican platform says, I want judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life. I want my party to stand for something. Thirty-five million unborn children have died since that decision in 1973--35 million of our best--never to get a chance to be a Senator, to be a spectator in the gallery, to be a staff person, to be a teacher, to be a father, a mother--denied--35 million, one-ninth of the entire population of the United States of America. And we are going to do it for the next 25 years because we will not stand up. And I am not going to stand up any more as a Republican and allow it to happen. I am not going to do it.

   Most interestingly, since that Roe V. Wade decision was written by a Republican, I might add, a Republican appointee, and upheld most recently in the Casey case, it is interesting there was only one Democrat appointee on the Court, Byron White, who voted pro-life. He voted with the four-Justice, pro-life minority. Five Republican appointments gave us that decision.

   We are to blame. This is not a party. Maybe it is a party in the sense of wearing hats and blowing whistles, but it is not a political party that means anything.

   About a week ago, my daughter, who works in my campaign office, told me the story of a 9-year-old girl whose dad called our office to say that his little daughter, 9-year-old Mary Frances--I will protect her privacy by giving only her first name--had said that she was born because of an aborted pregnancy, not an intentional one, an aborted pregnancy, a miscarriage at 22 weeks--22 weeks, 5 1/2 months--and she lived.

   She is 9 years old. She said: I want to empty my piggy bank, Senator SMITH, and send that to you because of your stand for life because I know that children who are 5 1/2 months in the womb can live.

   That is power.

[Page: S8331]  GPO's PDF

   Let me read from the pro-life plank of the Republican Party:

   [W]e endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.

   Anything complicated about that? Anything my colleagues don't understand about that?

   We endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.

   We are not going to apply any protections to unborn children. We will pass a few votes here, 50-49, if you can switch somebody at the last minute. I have been involved in those. Yes, we will do that, but we will not win. We are not going to commit to putting judges on the courts to get it done. Oh, no, we can't do that because we might lose some votes. So meanwhile another 35 million children are going to die.

   This year I sponsored a bill out of the platform that says the 14th amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Do you want to know how many sponsors I have? You are looking at him. One. Me. That is it. Not one other Republican cosponsor.

   In his letter to me--nice letter that it was--from Chairman Nicholson, he claims that ``every one of our Republican candidates shares your proven commitment to life''--he says. Gee, could have fooled me. Then how come every candidate isn't

   endorsing the bill or speaking out on the platform if they don't want to endorse the bill?

   The party, to put it bluntly, is hypocritical. It criticizes Bill Clinton, a Democrat, for vetoing partial-birth abortion and for being pro-abortion, but it does not criticize our own. It does not criticize the Republicans who are pro-choice. So why criticize Bill Clinton? Or why criticize any Democrat? We cannot get it done. We don't say anything about those people.

   How about the Governors who vetoed the bill, the partial-birth abortion bill? You know, there are a lot of fancy words in the Republican platform. Every 4 years we go to the convention and we fight over the wording. Sometimes even a nominee says: Well, I haven't read it. At least he is being honest. Or, which is probably more the truth, we just ignore it. It is a charade. And I am not going to take part in it any more. I am not going to take part in it any more.

   In the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' after his own political party has launched attacks on him for daring to raise an independent voice, Jimmy Stewart's character is seated on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and here is what he says: ``There are a lot of fancy words around this town. Some of them are carved in stone. Some of 'em, I guess, were put there so suckers like me can read 'em.''

   You ought to watch the movie. It is a good movie. It will make you feel good.

   Mr. President, I have come to the cold realization that the Republican Party is more interested in winning elections than supporting the principles of the platform. There is nothing wrong with winning elections. I am all for it. I have helped a few and I have won some myself, and there is nothing wrong with it. But what is wrong with it is when you put winning ahead of principle.

   The Republican platform is a meaningless document that has been put out there so suckers like me and maybe suckers like you out there can read it. I did not come here for that reason. I did not come here to compromise my values to promote the interests of a political party.

   I came here to promote the interests of my country. And after a lot of soul-searching, and no anger--no anger--I have decided to change my registration from Republican to Independent. There is no contempt; there is no anger. It is a decision of conscience.

   Many of my colleagues have called me, and I deeply appreciate the conversations that I have had privately with many of you on both sides, but I ask my colleagues to respect this decision. It is a decision of conscience. Millions and millions of Independents and conservative Democrats and members of other political parties have already made this decision of conscience. As a matter of fact, there are more Independents than there are Republicans or Democrats.

   I would ask you to give me the same respect that you give them when you ask them to vote for you in election after election. Indeed, we win elections because of Independents.

   I found a poem, written by a man by the name of Edgar Guest, which my father, who was killed at the end of the Second World War, when I was 3 years old, had placed in his Navy scrapbook in 1941, just prior to going off to war in the

   Pacific--newly married about 2 1/2 years. I can imagine what was going through his mind. But he placed it in his scrapbook and highlighted it.

   I am just going to quote one excerpt. The poem is entitled, ``Plea for Strength.''

   Grant me the fighting spirit and fashion me stout of will,

   Arouse in me that strange something that fear cannot chill.

   Let me not whimper at hardship.

   This is the gift that I ask.

   Not ease and escape from trial,

   But strength for the difficult task.

   Many have said that what I am doing is foolish. I have heard it from a lot of people--friends and colleagues. But you know what Mark Twain said--I think the Chaplain will like this:

   I am a great and sublime fool. But, then I am God's fool. And all His works must be contemplated with respect.

   I called Senator LOTT last week personally. It was the most difficult telephone call I think I had ever made.

   I told him it was my intention to continue to vote in caucus with the Republicans, if he wanted me, provided that there was no retaliatory or punitive action taken against me. He was very gracious. He didn't like it--I don't blame him--but he was gracious. I appreciate his understanding, and I appreciate the compassion and understanding of many of my colleagues on both sides who have spoken with me these past few days.

   I made another phone call, Mr. President. I called the chairman of the Republican Party, Mr. Jim Nicholson, last week to inform him of my decision and asked him if he could please maintain confidentiality until I had a chance to make my decision public. Before I had a chance to do that--indeed, about 20 hours after I had made the call--my home was staked out in New Hampshire. Where I was going to visit friends, their homes were staked out, sometimes until late into the evening, by the media, because the chairman put out a letter attacking me personally.

   I am not going to dignify the letter by reading it here on the Senate floor. I do ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed into the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

   Washington, DC, July 9, 1999.
Hon. ROBERT C. SMITH,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

   DEAR SENATOR SMITH, I am writing concerning published reports that you have decided to abandon the Republican party and seek the Presidential nomination of a third party instead.

   I believe this would be a serious mistake for you personally, with only a marginal political impact--and a counterproductive one, at that.

   This would not be a case of the party leaving you, Bob, but rather of you leaving our party. Far from turning away from the conservative themes we both share, the party has championed them--and become America's majority party by doing so.

   I truly believe, Bob, that your 1% standing in New Hampshire doesn't reflect Republican primary voters' rejection of your message, but rather its redundancy. Every one of our Republican candidates shares your proven commitment to life and to the goals of smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation of our lives and livelihoods--as does the party itself. In other words, I hope you do not confuse the success of our shared message with your own failure as its messenger.

   I also urge that you reconsider turning your back on your many Republican friends and supporters, people who've always stood by you, even in the most difficult and challenging times. Most of all, I hope you will think of your legacy: it would be tragic for your decades of work in the conservative movement to be undone by a short-sighted decision whose only negligible impact would be to provide marginal help to Al Gore, the most extreme liberal in a generation.

   Sincerely,

   Jim Nicholson,
Chairman.

   Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I will only characterize the letter in the following way: It is petty, it is vindictive, and it is insulting. It is beneath the dignity of the chairman of any political party. It is an affront to the millions of voters who choose not to carry

[Page: S8332]  GPO's PDF

   Remember that little girl I talked to you about a little while ago, Mary Frances? I do not know what she is going to grow up to be. She might be a Democrat. She might be a Republican. Maybe she will be an Independent. Maybe she won't vote. I don't know. But I'll tell you what, in the old baseball tradition, I wouldn't trade her for 1,000 Jim Nicholsons, not in a minute.

   There was talk on the shows this weekend that I might be removed as chairman of the Ethics Committee. I must say, I was disappointed at the intensity of the attacks on me by unidentified sources, I might add, in the Republican Party. Interestingly, one of those reports was that the party is considering suing me for the money it spent during my reelection.

   I want to make it very clear, because press reports were inaccurate on one point. Senator MCCONNELL called me personally yesterday to clarify that this particular report of a lawsuit is not true, and I accept his answer as absolute fact with no question. But some faceless party bureaucrat had a really good time writing that and then leaking it to the press. That is what is wrong with politics. He ought to be fired, but you will never find out who it is.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents