Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Senators Reach Compromise on Judicial Nominations; Laura Bush Continues Mideast Trip; School Bus Driver Battles Riders
Aired May 23, 2005 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Good evening everyone. Laura Bush on the front lines of U.S. foreign policy and feeling the heat.
360 starts now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER (voice-over): Laura Bush in Egypt after a security scare in Israel. Tonight we take you "Beyond the Headlines". Why was the first lady heckled at a holy site? And how does this trip show the transformation of one of America's favorite first ladies.
Showdown in the Senate. Republicans and Democrats square off over the president's pick of judges. Tonight who are these judicial nominees? And what is really behind the struggle on Capitol Hill?
A school bus driver hits a teen passenger. One of the kids hits back, and gets charged with a felony. Tonight were these kids out of line? Or was this bus driver simply out of control?
Buried alive, an eight-year-old girl abducted and assaulted allegedly by a 17-year-old. Tonight how police solved the case and found the girl in a dumpster in the nick of time.
And hundreds of thousands suffer from pain every day. But what is the best remedy? Does acupuncture really work? Tonight Dr. Sanjay Gupta investigates.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York. This is ANDERSON COOPER 360.
COOPER: And good evening again.
If the image of the weekend was First Lady Laura Bush getting heckled at a holy site in Israel, the image of today could not have been any different. Here, let's take a look. You see Laura Bush and her Egyptian counterpart in Cairo on the set of the local version of Sesame Street. There was no fur flying here, no feathers ruffled. Come and play, everything is A-OK, you might say in the words of the show's theme song.
Just a day earlier, though, in Jerusalem everything was not A-OK. CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux is with the first lady.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sunday, momentary chaos erupted on the first lady's goodwill tour. Her foray into Middle East diplomacy temporary turned tense, as protesters at both Muslim and Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem turned on the first lady. But Mrs. Bush says reports of the trouble were highly exaggerated. She talked with us about it on her next stop at the Egyptian pyramids.
(on camera): What was going on through your head or through your heart at the moment when there was that hostility that was expressed towards you?
LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I mean it was a very small moment. And I was surrounded by people who were very, welcoming. It's not the first time. It certainly happens as you might know during a campaign all across the United States.
MALVEAUX (voice-over): On a campaign, the jostling of a crowd, the tight security and the competitive cameras, yes, but not a secondary moving shield nor what I witnessed at Islam's Dome of the Rock -- an Israeli policeman who had drawn his gun on a young boy who was approaching the first lady. Mrs. Bush said she was aware that visiting these highly sensitive religious sites might lead to protests.
L. BUSH: We know, we knew when we came here, that these are places of great emotion.
MALVEAUX (voice-over): But despite it all Mrs. Bush insists she never felt in danger.
(on camera): Did you speak with the president about it? Was he worried about you?
L. BUSH: Sure, after he saw your coverage he was a little worried.
MALVEAUX: What did he think?
L. BUSH: He called, actually, to find out. And I told him that we were fine -- that I felt like I had been a little bit built up.
MALVEAUX (voice-over): I was just feet away from the first lady during much of the time, and the pictures were not always clear. This man who yelled at Mrs. Bush, "Your husband kills Muslims" was just one of a handle of protesters at the Islamic shrine. Israeli police were mostly concerned with containing overzealous Israeli press. It was at the Western Wall where about 40 young women pled for Mrs. Bush to free a convicted Israeli spy.
L. BUSH: I come to these countries in friendship. MALVEAUX: Is the White House rethinking the danger involved when the first lady pays a call? As far as Mrs. Bush is concerned, she's not.
L. BUSH: Now, I wouldn't say it's a risk. It's not a risk. You know, this is a -- there's a very important mission behind all of this. And it's certainly not taking a risk. Myself, I'm perfectly safe.
MALVEAUX (voice-over): Although it was a relatively small number of protesters, because of where they were and who they were targeting they made a big impact. A typical scenario for a political hot spot in the Middle East.
Suzanne Malveaux, CNN, Cairo.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Interesting in a region like that how just a small number of protesters -- which again, there were a handful we're told -- can really grab so much attention in such a short time.
The first lady has traveled a great distance to get to the Middle East. But the distance really can't just be measured in miles. In her years in the White House, Laura Bush has undergone nothing short of a transformation from self-effacing, stay at home to center stage figure in the world's great dramas -- with an approval rating, I should mention in February's CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll of 80 percent.
CNN's Judy Woodruff takes us "Beyond the Headlines".
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): She came in on the heels of Hillary. Hard for anyone not to look like a wall flower by comparison. But it's all part of the Laura Bush appeal. She wasn't wonky, wasn't ambitious, wasn't part of a two for the price of one package. As a child, she dreamed of being a school teacher. She became one, a librarian, too. And soon after she married George W. Bush in 1977, a full-time mom.
In the beginning, her adoring gaze was reminiscent of Nancy Reagan. Apart from promoting her pet issue, literacy, she kept a low profile. Then last year, something changed.
L. BUSH: I'm so proud that that endorsement is for President George W. Bush.
WOODRUFF: The White House noticed the first lady's poll numbers were in the stratosphere. So Laura Bush hit the campaign trail and began speaking out on a flurry of issues, but never going off message. From the battle in Iraq.
L. BUSH: Saddam Hussein is in a jail cell.
WOODRUFF: To the battle over stem cell research. L. BUSH: My husband is the first president to provide federal funding for stem cell research.
WOODRUFF: Perhaps her most important role -- softening a president hardened by war. Showing there was still compassion in the conservative. And this time, victory didn't signal retreat for Laura Bush.
L. BUSH: 9:00, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep. And I'm watching "Desperate House Wives."
WOODRUFF: She's got a new beefed up role in the second term, and her first official policy assignment -- leading the administration's crackdown on gangs.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The leader of this nationwide effort will be our First Lady Laura Bush.
WOODRUFF: Now she's morphed into the administration's international goodwill ambassador, on a Mid East mission promoting women's rights -- a journey that has taken her a long way from the library.
Judy Woodruff, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Meantime back in Washington, the president again today weighed in on the issue of Senate approval of his judicial nominees, saying they deserve a straight up or down vote. Now, this is set to come to a head tomorrow. And really at the heart of the confrontation the question is, can votes be blocked by long-standing Senate rules allowing a minority to filibuster? Or should those rules be changed?
Lost in a lot of the debate over the debate, however, is who the judges really are. What are their records?
We asked CNN's John King to look into the judges' records. Tonight one of the president's nominees, a Texas judge named Priscilla Owen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Priscilla Owen is an Evangelical Christian, a Sunday School teacher and a Texan -- which of all the fights over the president's judicial nominees makes this one personal. To supporters, a soft-spoken meticulous jurist, who knows her job is to interpret the law, not write it.
GREG ABBOT, TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL: She is a person who believes in what is called strict construction. She will not legislate from the bench.
KING: To critics, a conservative ideologue bent on using judicial powers to erode abortion rights and to protect big business at any cost. CRAIG MCDONALD, TEXANS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE: Owen is unique. We term her as serial activist.
KING: Priscilla Owen was born in a small farm and fishing village, from the beginning an animal lover. Her father died when she was just 10 months old. Faith was a constant as was determination. Treasurer of the Richland High School Class of '72, then Baylor, and Baylor Law. The highest score on the state bar exam in 1977 sent her into private practice with a focus on energy.
Then came 1994. Texas elects its judges, and she was an overwhelming underdog when she agreed to run for the State Supreme Court. Her political consultant had another underdog on the Texas ballot that year. Karl Rove was as much a winner come November as Priscilla Owen and George W. Bush.
Eleven years later, Rove is the deputy White House Chief of Staff, a key Owen backer. And such a larger than life presence in both Washington and Austin and Owen, that backers feel compelled to play down his role.
ABBOTT: Karl Rove isn't the one who scored the highest score on the state bar exam. Karl Rove is not the person who did all the great things that Priscilla Owen did, either as a lawyer or as a justice. He didn't write her opinions for her.
KING: Owen is active in this Evangelical Church. And advocates of abortion rights see religion, not an even-handed jurist in opinions that a minor seeking abortion must demonstrate she understands some women have experienced severe remorse and regret, and demonstrate she has considered that there are philosophic, social, moral and religious arguments that can be brought to bear when considering an abortion.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...
KING: Back in 2002, Owen told the Senate Judiciary Committee her language had nothing to do with her faith.
OWEN: It's straight out of a majority opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court.
KING: Another abortion case put her at odds with Alberto Gonzalez, then an Owen colleague on the Texas high court, now the Bush administration attorney general.
ALBERTO GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have never accused her of being an activist judge.
KING: But five years ago, Gonzalez said Owen and two others on the court wanted to go beyond the state legislature and create hurdles for minors seeking to bypass parental notification, something Gonzalez characterized as unconscionable judicial activism. Again, Justice Owen told the Senate her position was consistent with U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and that personal views never affect her legal judgments.
OWEN: My position is that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for many, many years now.
KING: Those who paint Owen as zealously pro-business cite rulings favoring Enron and other energy interests, and the heartbreaking case of Willy Searcy, paralyzed and on a ventilator at 14 after a 1993 car accident. The family won a more than $30 million verdict against Ford, but Owen sided with Ford on appeal, ordering a new trial because the suit had been filed in the wrong county. What stung family attorney Jack Ayres even more than Owen's ruling was that it took her 16 months to write it.
JACK AYRES, SEARCY FAMILY ATTORNEY: I felt that my client and I had been ambushed. My view is that, in this instance, was what happened was the court decided that they were going to reverse the case and they had to find a way to do it.
KING: And Ayres was stunned by this. Even as they ordered a new trial, the justices separately issued this awkwardly worded paragraph in which they conceded they should have put the case on a fast track.
AYRES: I have never seen anything like this. I'll be in my 35th year soon of practicing law in Texas.
KING: Owen noted in Senate testimony that Willy did not die until three years after her ruling, but also said she was not proud of how long it took to decide the case. The chief justice at the time says Owen and the entire court should have done a better job.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She works very hard and is very diligent and sometimes some work gets behind other work when you are doing everything. The Miles case was not our finest hour.
KING: But Philips supports Owen and said her record is being distorted.
THOMAS PHILIPS, CHIEF JUSTICE, TEXAS STATE SUPREME COURT: The idea that some of these groups are bringing out -- that she has an agenda, that she is not following the law -- is just -- is absolutely false. She is a rule of law judge.
KING: There is no question Justice Owen finds herself in a partisan brawl that goes well beyond any one nomination. But the fact she was re-nominated after Democrats defeated her a first time and that she shares the president's Texas roots, makes this one unique.
John King, CNN, Austin, Texas.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well, the fight over the rule-change has been bruising, apparently for both Republicans and Democrats. Here's a quick news note. In a CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll released today, people were asked whether Republicans were acting like spoiled children -- and also the Democrats -- 54 percent -- excuse me, 54 percent of GOP lawmakers were behaving like spoiled children according to those who answered this poll; 54 percent said the same thing about the Democrats.
We are continuing to cover this story. Snd as we said, tomorrow it is the big day for the showdown. We'll bring that to you, of course, tomorrow on 360.
We have a lot ahead tonight, including the story of a chimp attack on two adults and they were lucky to survive. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Well, this disturbing video has been getting a lot of airtime over the weekend. It was taken last Tuesday in Florida. Appears to show a school bus driver violently grabbing a 15-year-old boy by the neck. The boy then strikes back.
Tonight, the mother of that child says her son was only coming to the defense of his younger brother. She doesn't under why her two sons are facing serious felony charges while the driver may get just a slap in the wrist. We want to know what you think. Watch the tape and judge for yourself. Here's CNN's Sara Dorsey.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SARA DORSEY, CORRESPONDENT: Bus driver Albert Taylor told Charlotte County Police he had to pull his bus over Tuesday after a few students caused a disruption.
ALBERT MARSHALL TAYLOR, BUS DRIVER: Don't you tell me what to do. Get up here. Get up here.
DORSEY: Taylor told police he had asked a student to come to the front of the bus three times. This video shows Taylor then went to get the student. The boy's brother intervenes and Taylor appears to strike him and grab him by the throat.
COREY GENE HENDERSHOT, INVOLVED IN BUS FIGHT: Get off him. Get off him.
DORSEY: The scuffle doesn't end there. The older brother, who has already been struck, appears to throw a punch at the driver. The boys then demand to be let off the bus.
MARK ERNEST DICKINSON, INVOLVED IN BUS FIGHT: You are going to jail, boy. Let me off this bus. Let me off the bus. Call the deputy, hurry up.
DORSEY: Sixty-six-year-old Taylor has been charged with simple battery, a misdemeanor. We've been unable to reach him for comment and it's not known if he has legal representation. None of the other children on the bus were involved in the confrontation, but the 13 and 15-year-old brothers are charged with felonies. The boys' defense attorney says that doesn't add up.
RUSSELL KIRSHY, ATTORNEY FOR BOYS IN BUS FIGHT: It's just -- it's despicable. It's crazy, that they would be charged with felonies and the bus driver would be charged with a misdemeanor. DORSEY: Charlotte County Sheriff's officials say that in Florida, it's an automatic felony for a student to strike a school official. They say the charges were filed before the video became available, but that seeing it has - quote -- "changed the thinking here." The sheriff's office says it does not have the power to change any of the charges, but the state's attorney can. The brothers have been suspended from school and will appear in front of judge on Monday. The bus driver is scheduled to appear on June 1. He has been suspended with pay and the sheriff's office says the school board will meet next week to determine his future.
Sara Dorsey, CNN, Atlanta.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well, you've seen the tape. What do you think is at fault? Send us your thoughts. Go to CNN.com/360, click on the "Instant Feedback" link. And we don't take sides. Every story has more than one angle, of course. We try to report them all. We wanted to speak to the bus driver; didn't get any response.
Joining us from Port Charlotte, Florida, is Russell Kirshy. He's the lawyer representing the teenage brothers accused of assaulting their school bus driver. Thanks very much for being with us, Russell.
Do your clients, these two brothers, accept any responsibility for what happened?
KIRSHY: Well, obviously they have indicated that some of their behavior that day on the bus wasn't entirely appropriate. But in the end, the fact of the matter is Mark was violently attacked by the bus driver prior to them doing anything that was illegal. And therefore, he holds the majority of the culpability.
COOPER: Let's look at the law. The Charlotte County Sheriff's Office said a battery charge is elevated to a felony charge when the victim is either -- and I quote -- "someone who is pregnant, a law enforcement officer, a person older than 65 years of age, or any employee of a school district."
Based on that law, why shouldn't your clients be charged with a felony?
KIRSHY: Well, I'll tell you why, because they didn't commit a crime. With regard to Corey, he didn't commit a crime because he never touched the bus driver. And that was confirmed in court today by some testimony of one of the eyewitnesses.
With regard to Mark, the reason why he shouldn't be charged with a crime is because he was defending himself. And in Florida, you are allowed to defend yourself when somebody is attacking you, and you are allowed to use whatever reasonable means are necessary to escape from that attack.
COOPER: You were in court today to try to get the kids released from home detention. What's the status of that?
KIRSHY: The motion with regard to Corey was granted. He's been released from home detention. Unfortunately, the motion with regard to Mr. -- with regard to Mark has not been granted. That was denied today.
COOPER: Mark is the 15-year-old?
KIRSHY: At this point it would just be -- that's correct. And we'll just be waiting for the state attorney's office to make a decision about whether they are going to file charges at this point.
COOPER: Now, this misdemeanor charge which is against the bus driver, I mean, what do you want to have happen to the bus driver? Is the misdemeanor enough? Do you want a felony charge?
KIRSHY: Well, it's one of those things where we really don't know anything about the bus driver. And so to make a judgment about what would be an appropriate sentence against him really is kind of premature. We really need to know what was going on with him. And that's the reason why he'll get counsel, and they will present those things to court in due time. At that point, I think the family will be able to make a much more informed decision about what should be an appropriate penalty.
COOPER: Russell, we'll continue to follow this story.
Appreciate you joining us.
We have some breaking news to report.
KIRSHY: Thank you.
COOPER: We're hearing of a development in the filibuster/judicial nominee standoff we've been talking about. Let's go live to Washington, to CNN congressional correspondent Joe Johns. Joe, what's happening?
JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, a bipartisan group of senators that has been meeting feverishly over the last several days to try to come to some agreement to avoid a showdown on the Senate floor on the issue of the filibuster, we're told now by two congressional sources who are aides, that a deal has been reached. Senator Joe Lieberman, speaking just moments ago to CNN congressional correspondent Ted Barrett, has said, "we're happy, we think we've done something significant."
So all indications are that a deal has been reached to try to avoid a showdown on the floor of the United States Senate.
At 7:30 Eastern time, we are expecting a news conference in the Capitol by all of those senators, to talk about whatever agreement they have apparently reached. No clear details on what that deal includes, of course. The question is whether the president's judicial nominations get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Apparently a deal has been reached. Anderson. COOPER: What are the options? I mean, if Joe Lieberman says we are happy, what are the options of what the deal could be?
JOHNS: Well, there are all kinds of different options. The key thing they have been talking about in that room is what's the line-up? Which of the president's judicial nominations might be able to get a floor vote, which might continue to be filibustered? How do the senators handle the issue of filibuster, going forward?
Because one of the central issues here, of course, is the issue of a Supreme Court nominee and how that might be handled. Of course, the administration's very interested in all of this. Anderson.
COOPER: Joe, we are going to continue to follow this. We have to take a short break. We'll be right back and we'll bring that press conference to you live. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: And we continue to follow events out of Washington. We're awaiting a press conference that is going to be occurring any moment now. Some senators have indicated that a deal has been reached to avert a showdown on the fight over President Bush's nominees for judges. Joe Lieberman was quoted as saying "we are happy," that they have come up with this deal to avoid a showdown.
We're going to bring you this press conference live. We're also going to talk to our congressional correspondent, Joe Johns, and a number of others as well. But first, let's bring you quickly up to date with the headlines. Erica Hill from HEADLINE NEWS joins us with the latest about 26 past the hour. Hey, Erica.
ERICA HILL, CNN HEADLINE NEWS ANCHOR: Hi, Anderson.
The Supreme Court getting back into the abortion debate. In the next session, the justices will hear an appeal on a New Hampshire law which was struck down. That law required parental notification before a minor could get an abortion. There is some speculation Chief Justice William Rehnquist might retire before the abortion debate happens.
On to Washington, D.C. Another airplane scare this afternoon. Military jets were scrambled actually early this evening, fired a warning flare at a Cessna that flew into restricted airspace around the nation's capital. People in the U.S. Capitol were told to evacuate at one point. A minute later, though, they got the all-clear.
Now, meantime, just today, the FAA announcing it's revoked the license of the pilot in charge of the small plane that strayed into restricted airspace in the nation's capital earlier this month. The FAA says no action will be taken against the student pilot who was at the controls when military aircraft pilots intercepted the plane.
From coast to coast, a new survey by Salary.com on the cities where you get the most mileage out of your paycheck. Topping the list, New London, Connecticut; followed by Huntsville, Alabama; Baltimore; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. As for the worst place to stretch your paycheck? No surprise here, New York; followed by San Francisco; Stamford, Connecticut; San Jose, California; and San Diego.
And that's the latest from HEADLINE NEWS. Anderson, back to you.
COOPER: Erica Hill, thanks very much.
We are awaiting this press conference out of Washington. Should be occurring just in a matter of moments. We're going to take a quick break and we'll bring it to you live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: And, more details now on our breaking news. Congressional sources tell CNN a deal has been made to avoid a filibuster in the judicial nominee standoff. The so-called gang of 12, six Republicans, six Democrats, are about to hold a news conference. We, of course, are going to bring that to you live. We're going to stay on the story. Let's go to Capitol Hill -- CNN's congressional correspondent Joe Johns.
Joe, when did we find out that some sort of a deal had been reached? How did we find it out?
JOHNS: Within the last 15 or 20 minutes, Anderson, a meeting that was being held in the office of Senator John McCain, the Republican of Arizona, broke up. A number of the senators coming out of that room -- no clear indication at that time from anyone except for Joe Lieberman who said he was happy with the product, but did not directly confirm that there was a deal.
We did talk to some congressional aids, one on the Republican side and one on the Democrat side, who did confirm that there was a deal, although we could not get a clear picture of what's included in the deal. The significance of it, of course, is that it would presumably avert the possibility of a showdown on the Senate floor over the issue of the right of Democrats to block judicial nominations they oppose. Democrats have said, of course, this is a tradition of the Senate that has stood for a very long time. Republicans have said that the Democrats were using procedures improperly to block the president's nominees.
So the question, of course, how will the leadership take this? The leadership of the United States Senate has pretty much stayed out of these negotiations, and now the question is how will they react, presumably, if there is a deal, Anderson.
COOPER: Joe, did Republicans have enough votes to get this passed tomorrow? Bill Frist, I know, was quoted as saying that he simply -- he said, I simply do not know at this juncture whether or not they did although other Republicans had indicated all along that they did have enough votes.
JOHNS: That's always been the question and basically, I have been saying for the last 48, 72 hours that it's been too close to call. We were guessing, of course, based on what some of the senators in the middle had said, that there were about three or four Republican senators who were likely to go with the Democrats, but they needed six, and the question was whether they would get two more to defeat.
The Republicans had always said that when the time came for the vote, they would have the votes necessary to move forward on this, get rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations and win the day. Senator Frist had said earlier this evening that the vote, at least to go forward on the filibuster issue, would begin around 12 noon tomorrow. The question, of course, is now what happens if these folk do in fact have a deal, and that deal holds, Anderson.
COOPER: Well, also, I understand they had -- I mean, people have been bringing in spare beds and mattresses. They were expecting a long fight on this tomorrow?
JOHNS: Certainly were. But that's also something of a tradition here whenever people start talking about late night sessions, all- night sessions, they do bring in the cots. The truth is, it's hard to figure out who exactly is going to sleep on those cots when they do that. Still, it points up the fact that this was to have been a long debate. Senator Frist was saying all along that the debate had been far too long for the nomination on the floor, that was the nomination of Priscilla Owen of Texas from the president's home state. She, of course, was brought up first in nomination four years ago and then again the second time by the Bush administration. Frist using her as first example of why the judicial filibuster should not hold in the United States Senate, Anderson.
COOPER: Do we have any sense of the outline of their talks that they have been undertaking? I mean, do we have a sense of the broad parameters of the compromise?
JOHNS: Well, yes, we have seen a lot of paper that's been flying around. We haven't seen all of it, certainly but we've seen some of the proposals that have come through. Probably the first thing that a lot of them has mentioned is the line-up, as I said earlier, that would be the judges who would be allowed to get through, the others that would continue to be filibustered by Democrats.
Also, there was a big question of course, in the language -- how do you deal with the issue of the filibuster going forward, because there's a possibility, perhaps, even this year, of retirement on the Supreme Court? How do you deal with that? When you get to that point, the most important judicial nominations of all, should Democrats still have the right to filibuster? What would be the terms? That's the kind of thing they were working out, and had a very difficult time. I was told by one senator who was in on the negotiations, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, that there were talks through the entire weekend on the telephone to try to figure out how to resolve this, but it was really, I'm told, only a tweaking of the language, that there weren't any grand changes from some of the language we saw last week.
Apparently, the people who were in that room have come to some agreement, Anderson.
COOPER: And we just saw some video of various senators, Senator McCain, Senator Warner, Senator Lieberman getting into the elevator. I imagine they are on their way now to this press conference. How many people are we going to be seeing? Is this -- all 12 are going to be there?
JOHNS: That's what we were told. All 12 apparently who were in the room will be there at that news conference to talk about this. I have to tell you, there's -- not everybody wanted a deal. For example, Senator Arlen Specter had said on the floor on Friday, that he was frankly concerned about the idea of 12 United States senators doing the job that should be done by 100, of selecting which judges get through and which don't. He said he didn't like that idea. And so -- there are others, of course, who said they don't particularly like the idea of coming to an agreement.
On balance, though, a lot of the institutional Senate, the senators who have been here on Capitol Hill for a very long time, were very concerned about the effect on the traditions of the Senate and they see the Senate as a very distinctly different place from the House of Representatives where it's very simply majority rules over in the House side. In the Senate side, one senator generally throughout the years, has been ale to hold up pretty much anything with that right of a filibuster. And that notion of extended debate is something that has held the day for a lot of senators on Capitol Hill over the years, Anderson.
COOPER: Joe, if the Republicans were able to -- if they had enough votes to break the filibuster, to get this passed tomorrow, what is the incentive for them to make a deal? Is it just the fear the Democrats would tie up other initiatives down the road?
JOHNS: Certainly, there is a big fear that initiatives will be tied up down the road. We got a taste of that from Senator Reid today saying that the Central American Free Trade Agreement might be in jeopardy. Also, the asbestos liability bill might be in jeopardy as well, Anderson.
COOPER: And Joe, we're seeing Senator McCain entering the stage. We're expecting all 12 senators to be on the stage. Let's listen in. They'll probably take a few moments to get themselves organized, but we have just received word, just a short time ago really, that there is some sort of a deal made to avoid the Senate filibuster. We don't know exactly all the ins and outs of the deal. That's what this press conference is about. That's what we're waiting to hear.
As early -- earlier today people had said on the Hill that it had looked very grim for the possibility of some sort of compromise, some sort of deal to avert a showdown. The showdown was expected to take place tomorrow, so it will be very interesting to see exactly what they have come up -- how they have been able to hammer out some sort of understanding to avoid that showdown.
Joe, at this... JOHNS: Anderson?
COOPER: Yes. Go ahead, Joe.
JOHNS: One other point I might make. There're a lot of senators who are very concerned about the shoe being on the foot. A lot of Republican senators realize there's a possibility that they won't be in the majority forever and there's been a great concern here on Capitol Hill that somewhere down the line, if Democrats come into power and the judicial filibuster has been taken away, that that could very well be used against the Republican Party. That was also somewhat of an incentive.
COOPER: Well, of course, all parties at one time or another have used filibuster to their advantage. Let's listen in to Senator McCain.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Did we hand out all those? OK. Good. I guess you have been wondering why I called -- yes, there's a movie showing tonight. Movie showing tonight down at the...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You'll notice the timing.
MCCAIN: "The Faith of my Fathers" will be shown on A&E on Memorial Day, starring Shawn Hatosy and Scott Glenn...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How is it rated, John?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, good point.
MCCAIN: Actually, it's very low-rated, you know, because it's...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, that's not what we're talking about.
MCCAIN: So, don't miss it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The name of the film, the word faith is integral to this whole agreement.
MCCAIN: There you go. That's why this -- where is your buddies? Come on up here.
Where's your pals? Let me just start this out.
SEN. BEN NELSON (D), NEBRASKA: Oh, OK.
MCCAIN: Then we'll go back and forth, OK?
Where's the rest of your...
NELSON: They are on their way. They're coming up...
MCCAIN: They're slow.
NELSON: We could just walk faster up the steps than they can.
MCCAIN: We're really fast. Oh, (INAUDIBLE), of course.
COOPER: Again, if you are just joining us, we are awaiting the arrival of the rest of the -- as they call them, the gang of 12, 12 senators who have been -- apparently worked out a compromise to avoid a showdown in the Senate tomorrow over President Bush's judicial nominees. We will be eager to hear -- looks like they are just all about to arrive -- what -- exactly what the deal that they have reached is. Let's listen.
MCCAIN: We're here, 14 Republicans and Democrats, seven on each side, to announce that we have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice that would have had, in the view of all 14 of us, lasting impact, damaging impact on the institution.
I'm grateful for the efforts of Senator Frist and Senator Reid to come to an agreement on this issue. We appreciate very much their leadership. And we all appreciate each other's involvement. But probably the two that I'd like to point out here that provided us with a beacon of where we should go is Senator Byrd, our distinguished senior Democrat leader, and Senator Warner who both were vital to this process.
You have before you the agreement and I won't go in the details of it. But basically, all 14 of us have pledged to vote for cloture for the judicial nominees Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen.
The signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on two judges, William Myers and Henry Saad. Future nominations will -- the signatories will exercise their responsibilities and the nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances.
And in light of this commitment and a continuing commitment, we will try to do everything in our power to prevent filibusters in the future. This agreement is meant in the finest traditions of the Senate it was entered into: trust, respect and mutual desire to see the institution of the Senate function in ways that protect the rights of the minority.
So I'm very pleased to stand here with my other colleagues tonight and I believe that that good-will will prevail.
Nothing in this agreement prevents any individual senator from exercising his or her individual rights.
I would like to ask Senator Nelson and Senator Pryor, but I want to, again, thank my colleagues. And I believe that most Americans would like for us to work these issues out rather than pursue the procedure that we have just departed from, I hope.
NELSON: Well, thank you very much, Senator. And I, too, am very proud to be here with my colleagues tonight. And I'm glad to say that we have been able to reach an agreement, if you will, make a deal for the future to deal with the Senate business in a way that will keep the faith, will certainly keep the faith of the framers of our country and the Founding Fathers. It will retain the individual rights and responsibilities of each senator.
I think it's a positive step for us to be able to set aside the nuclear option. It also gives as many judges as we possibly can under these circumstances an up-or-down vote.
So I think the good faith and the mutual trust that we have achieved here will carry over into this Senate on other business as well.
So, thank you to my colleagues. And you were asking just the other day how to handicap this. Well, I would have to say right now, it's 100 percent. Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
SENATOR MARK PRYOR, (D) ARKANSAS: Let me just say a couple of very quick words. And first thing I want everybody here to know we don't have a Thomas Jefferson in the bunch. OK?
This came as a result of perspiration not inspiration. As you know, we worked very, very hard to get here. It is in the finest traditions of the Senate. And this agreement is based on trust. It's based on trust.
And I know that people here want to ask a million "what ifs." What if this? What if that? What about this person or that person, this circumstance?
Listen, there's a lot of hypotheticals. We don't know what is coming down in the future but we do know that we trust each other.
The 14 of us have sat down, looked at each other, shaken hands, shared our hopes, our dreams, our fears, our frustrations and this is based on trust.
And with that, what I would like to do is turn it over to Senator Warner for a brief word. And then he's going to introduce Senator Byrd.
SENATOR JOHN WARNER, (R) VIRGINIA: No, I'd like to yield to Senator Byrd.
PRYOR: Senator Byrd, come up...
SENATOR ROBERT BYRD, (D) WEST VIRGINIA: I'll wait my turn.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER) WARNER: I would simply say, by way of introduction, we opened almost every meeting with Bob Byrd saying, "Country, institution connects us."
BYRD: Well, I remember Benjamin Franklin, the oldest in the group that signed the Constitution of the United States. He was approached by a lady who said, "Dr. Franklin, what have you given us?"
And he said, "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."
We have kept it. We have kept the Republic. I am very proud of these colleagues of mine on the Republican side and the Democratic side. We have lifted ourselves above politics. And we have signed this document in the interest of United States Senate, in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to dissent in the United States Senate.
And I say thank God, thank God for this moment and for these colleagues of mine. Thank you very much. Thank you.
WARNER: I've said very little throughout this entire process. I think it was a privilege to be associated with these individuals. And I'll say very little now, except it's been a remarkable study of Senate history and the history of our country throughout this whole process. And the one unanswered question that guided me all the way through is -- it was unanswered -- what would happen to the Senate if the nuclear option were done? No one was able to answer that to my satisfaction.
SENATOR MIKE DEWINE, (R) OHIO: I think this is a good day for the United States Senate but I think more important it's a good day for the country. I felt that why we got into this of course, the whole situation is I felt that the status quo that we have seen for the last several years was not acceptable -- many of us on our side of the aisle certainly did -- that the filibuster is being used too often.
But I also felt that the use of the constitutional option would not be good for the Senate nor good for the country. So really we are faced with two bad options. And I sought this compromise as a way to avoid the options and frankly two bad options.
Frankly to try to put us back in the position we were a few years ago where a filibuster was available but frankly not used very often. And I think if you look at the language that we have here, I think we have achieved this.
This agreement is based on good faith, good faith among people who trust each other. And it's our complete expectation that it will work. Senators have agreed that they will not filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances. We believe that that will, in fact, work.
Some of you who are looking at the language may wonder what some of the clauses mean. The understanding is -- and we don't think this will happen -- but if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that's not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option.
I was prepared to do that tomorrow if we could not reach an agreement. But thank heavens we do not have to do that. And it's our hope that we will never have to do that. So I think this is a very good day for our country, good day for the United States Senate. It will enable us to get back, frankly, to the people's business and to deal with the issues that I think the American people expect us to deal with every day.
SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN, (D) CONNECTICUT: Thanks, Mike. That phone going off was McCain being told to go and see the preview of the movie about himself.
(LAUGHTER)
Everybody should go see it. Perhaps in that spirit I should say...
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
LIEBERMAN: Maybe in that spirit I should say how great it is to be a member of this band of brothers and sisters. We came together and did the unexpected. In a Senate that has become increasingly partisan and polarized, the bipartisan center held.
And as those who have preceded me have said over and over again, each of us accepted parts of this agreement which were not perfect to our desires, but we did it for a larger purpose: to save the right of unlimited debate, to take the Senate back from the precipice.
And if the nuclear option had been passed, I think it would have led to a cycle of increasing divisiveness in the Senate and decreasing productivity in terms of the people's business.
So I thank all who worked so hard to make this happen. I'm proud to be part of it. And I hope maybe this empowered bipartisan center will decide that it's been good to work together and we'll keep on working together to get some good things done for the American people.
MCCAIN: I do have to go, too. The first question that most of the media are going to ask us: Who won and who lost? The Senate won, and the country won.
(LAUGHTER)
SENATOR OLYMPIA SNOWE, (R) MAINE: Let me just say that I'm very pleased to be part of this group and my colleagues in achieving this historic compromise. What bound us was the belief, the strong belief, that exercising the pending motion of this constitutional option would be detrimental to the long-term well-being of the United States Senate. And I believe that this compromise reflects the better traditions of the Senate. And that is comity, cooperation and collaboration. I do believe as well that this is the essence of what our founding fathers designed the United States Senate to be. And that is an institution that achieves results through accommodation and collaboration.
We believed as well that the American people didn't deserve the option of just blanket filibusters or historic parliamentary maneuvers that overturned 200 years of tradition and precedent. What they did deserve is to have meaningful and good-faith collaboration among Republicans and Democrats united to do what was in the best interest of this institution, not just for the short term, for the long term.
I would just add that I was proud to be a part of this group and believe so strongly that had the nuclear option been invoked that the Senate would have perhaps passed a point of no return.
And that would have been a very sad day indeed for our country.
One of the strongest parts of this compromise is that we hope the group of us that trust each other, that have worked together across the aisle on many, many, many important issues and will continue to do so, is that we can return to the early practices of our government, that we can reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate in the last few years.
We firmly believe that this agreement is consistent with the best traditions of the Senate.
So what we have come to is a pause, a hope, a chance that we can pass this difficult point, return the right of the minority to speak up and to be heard, but most importantly to encourage advice from the administration to the Senate in a way that will move this country forward.
SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS, (R) MAINE: I'm reminded of that old expression that everything has been said but not everyone has said it at this point. You're going to hear over and over again the words "good faith," "mutual respect" and "trust," because those words characterized our negotiations. Hour after hour, day after day, we kept working toward a goal that we all believed in.
People asked me, repeatedly, whether or not I thought we would reach an agreement. And I always said, "yes, I think we will." Because everyone involved was committed to avoiding this very painful, bitter and prolonged dispute in the United States Senate.
All of us love the United States Senate. We're very proud of our work today. And it is my hope that this can be a model for us as we go forward to confront the important issues facing our country.
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: Like Mike, I was prepared to vote yes. I've been saying for two years that I thought the filibuster was sort of out of bounds. And the question I started asking myself is: If you do everything you want to do in life, that's your right. But there's some things you can do, maybe you shouldn't do.
We're at war. Kids are dying as we speak. And now I think the Senate is back in business. I could vote to change the rules. And like John, said, "I don't know what would happen." Senator Warner said, "I don't know what would happen."
Here's what I know is going to happen now. People at home are going to be very upset at me for a while.
(LAUGHTER)
Judges are going to get a vote that wouldn't have gotten a vote otherwise. We're going to start talking about who would be a good judge and who wouldn't. And the White House is going to get more involved and they are going to listen to us more.
Some of them are going to make it on our up-and-down vote and some of them won't. And that's been the history of the Senate for 200 years.
Bottom line: We can repair it in a way that will allow the country to have a Senate that functions for the common good because Social Security is coming apart and kids are dying. That's why I changed my attitude and that's why I'm willing to change my vote because this is a lot bigger than me.
SENATOR KEN SALAZAR, (D) COLORADO: Let me first say there are two colleagues that signed the agreement who are not here today, Senator Inouye and Senator Chafee. And I think they represent in the same way the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation that you see among the senators who are here at this press conference.
For me, I am ranked number 100 in the United States Senate. Senator Byrd is number one. And I think that when you look at where we come from, we come from a sense of wanting to have solutions for the problems that face our country. And I think that when you look at where we come from, we come from a sense of wanting to have solutions for the problems that face our country.
For me, even though I have been here only a period of approximately five months, what I have found most troubling about Washington, D.C., is the poisonous atmosphere of partisanship that exists in this Capitol. And I'm hoping that the statement that these senators are making here today is a statement that says that in order for us to solve the problems of our country in this generation and to the future, is going to require people that are wanting to unite us, not people who want to divide us. And I think this is a statement of unity that you see coming from these Republican and Democratic senators who are here before you today.
COOPER: You've been listening to a press conference given by some of the 14 senators who have forged a compromise. Our congressional correspondent Joe Johns has been listening in as well.
Joe, essentially, as I understand it, they have pledged to vote for cloture, or and end of debate, on three of the judge nominees: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen. The have not made any commitment to vote for or against other two judges: William Myers and Henry Saad. Is that your understanding?
JOHNS: That's my understanding, Anderson. I don't have a hard copy of the agreement in my hand just yet. But clearly they've decided that Saad and Myers could continue to be filibustered. The others, including the nomination of Justice Owen, would be able to go forward. Of course, Owen and Brown of California are two of the very, very most contentious judges.
It's interesting, when you listen to that -- the senators talking about their agreement based on trust and good faith. That, of course, was one of the big issues. Also one of the questions we're going to be asking, as Senator McCain asked just a little while ago, is who won and who lost? Senator McCain asserts the Senate won and the country won. Of course, the question will be something that we have to pose to the Senate majority leader and the minority leader some other time.
Back to you, Anderson.
COOPER: Senator Robert Byrd, a man who appreciates history a great deal, said, "We have kept the Republic. Thank God." A victory for free speech in the Senate, is what he called it. Our coverage, of course, continues right now. CNN's primetime coverage continues with Paula Zahn.
Hey, Paula.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, Anderson, thanks so much.
END
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired May 23, 2005 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Good evening everyone. Laura Bush on the front lines of U.S. foreign policy and feeling the heat.
360 starts now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER (voice-over): Laura Bush in Egypt after a security scare in Israel. Tonight we take you "Beyond the Headlines". Why was the first lady heckled at a holy site? And how does this trip show the transformation of one of America's favorite first ladies.
Showdown in the Senate. Republicans and Democrats square off over the president's pick of judges. Tonight who are these judicial nominees? And what is really behind the struggle on Capitol Hill?
A school bus driver hits a teen passenger. One of the kids hits back, and gets charged with a felony. Tonight were these kids out of line? Or was this bus driver simply out of control?
Buried alive, an eight-year-old girl abducted and assaulted allegedly by a 17-year-old. Tonight how police solved the case and found the girl in a dumpster in the nick of time.
And hundreds of thousands suffer from pain every day. But what is the best remedy? Does acupuncture really work? Tonight Dr. Sanjay Gupta investigates.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: Live from the CNN Broadcast Center in New York. This is ANDERSON COOPER 360.
COOPER: And good evening again.
If the image of the weekend was First Lady Laura Bush getting heckled at a holy site in Israel, the image of today could not have been any different. Here, let's take a look. You see Laura Bush and her Egyptian counterpart in Cairo on the set of the local version of Sesame Street. There was no fur flying here, no feathers ruffled. Come and play, everything is A-OK, you might say in the words of the show's theme song.
Just a day earlier, though, in Jerusalem everything was not A-OK. CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux is with the first lady.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sunday, momentary chaos erupted on the first lady's goodwill tour. Her foray into Middle East diplomacy temporary turned tense, as protesters at both Muslim and Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem turned on the first lady. But Mrs. Bush says reports of the trouble were highly exaggerated. She talked with us about it on her next stop at the Egyptian pyramids.
(on camera): What was going on through your head or through your heart at the moment when there was that hostility that was expressed towards you?
LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I mean it was a very small moment. And I was surrounded by people who were very, welcoming. It's not the first time. It certainly happens as you might know during a campaign all across the United States.
MALVEAUX (voice-over): On a campaign, the jostling of a crowd, the tight security and the competitive cameras, yes, but not a secondary moving shield nor what I witnessed at Islam's Dome of the Rock -- an Israeli policeman who had drawn his gun on a young boy who was approaching the first lady. Mrs. Bush said she was aware that visiting these highly sensitive religious sites might lead to protests.
L. BUSH: We know, we knew when we came here, that these are places of great emotion.
MALVEAUX (voice-over): But despite it all Mrs. Bush insists she never felt in danger.
(on camera): Did you speak with the president about it? Was he worried about you?
L. BUSH: Sure, after he saw your coverage he was a little worried.
MALVEAUX: What did he think?
L. BUSH: He called, actually, to find out. And I told him that we were fine -- that I felt like I had been a little bit built up.
MALVEAUX (voice-over): I was just feet away from the first lady during much of the time, and the pictures were not always clear. This man who yelled at Mrs. Bush, "Your husband kills Muslims" was just one of a handle of protesters at the Islamic shrine. Israeli police were mostly concerned with containing overzealous Israeli press. It was at the Western Wall where about 40 young women pled for Mrs. Bush to free a convicted Israeli spy.
L. BUSH: I come to these countries in friendship. MALVEAUX: Is the White House rethinking the danger involved when the first lady pays a call? As far as Mrs. Bush is concerned, she's not.
L. BUSH: Now, I wouldn't say it's a risk. It's not a risk. You know, this is a -- there's a very important mission behind all of this. And it's certainly not taking a risk. Myself, I'm perfectly safe.
MALVEAUX (voice-over): Although it was a relatively small number of protesters, because of where they were and who they were targeting they made a big impact. A typical scenario for a political hot spot in the Middle East.
Suzanne Malveaux, CNN, Cairo.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Interesting in a region like that how just a small number of protesters -- which again, there were a handful we're told -- can really grab so much attention in such a short time.
The first lady has traveled a great distance to get to the Middle East. But the distance really can't just be measured in miles. In her years in the White House, Laura Bush has undergone nothing short of a transformation from self-effacing, stay at home to center stage figure in the world's great dramas -- with an approval rating, I should mention in February's CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll of 80 percent.
CNN's Judy Woodruff takes us "Beyond the Headlines".
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): She came in on the heels of Hillary. Hard for anyone not to look like a wall flower by comparison. But it's all part of the Laura Bush appeal. She wasn't wonky, wasn't ambitious, wasn't part of a two for the price of one package. As a child, she dreamed of being a school teacher. She became one, a librarian, too. And soon after she married George W. Bush in 1977, a full-time mom.
In the beginning, her adoring gaze was reminiscent of Nancy Reagan. Apart from promoting her pet issue, literacy, she kept a low profile. Then last year, something changed.
L. BUSH: I'm so proud that that endorsement is for President George W. Bush.
WOODRUFF: The White House noticed the first lady's poll numbers were in the stratosphere. So Laura Bush hit the campaign trail and began speaking out on a flurry of issues, but never going off message. From the battle in Iraq.
L. BUSH: Saddam Hussein is in a jail cell.
WOODRUFF: To the battle over stem cell research. L. BUSH: My husband is the first president to provide federal funding for stem cell research.
WOODRUFF: Perhaps her most important role -- softening a president hardened by war. Showing there was still compassion in the conservative. And this time, victory didn't signal retreat for Laura Bush.
L. BUSH: 9:00, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep. And I'm watching "Desperate House Wives."
WOODRUFF: She's got a new beefed up role in the second term, and her first official policy assignment -- leading the administration's crackdown on gangs.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The leader of this nationwide effort will be our First Lady Laura Bush.
WOODRUFF: Now she's morphed into the administration's international goodwill ambassador, on a Mid East mission promoting women's rights -- a journey that has taken her a long way from the library.
Judy Woodruff, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Meantime back in Washington, the president again today weighed in on the issue of Senate approval of his judicial nominees, saying they deserve a straight up or down vote. Now, this is set to come to a head tomorrow. And really at the heart of the confrontation the question is, can votes be blocked by long-standing Senate rules allowing a minority to filibuster? Or should those rules be changed?
Lost in a lot of the debate over the debate, however, is who the judges really are. What are their records?
We asked CNN's John King to look into the judges' records. Tonight one of the president's nominees, a Texas judge named Priscilla Owen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Priscilla Owen is an Evangelical Christian, a Sunday School teacher and a Texan -- which of all the fights over the president's judicial nominees makes this one personal. To supporters, a soft-spoken meticulous jurist, who knows her job is to interpret the law, not write it.
GREG ABBOT, TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL: She is a person who believes in what is called strict construction. She will not legislate from the bench.
KING: To critics, a conservative ideologue bent on using judicial powers to erode abortion rights and to protect big business at any cost. CRAIG MCDONALD, TEXANS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE: Owen is unique. We term her as serial activist.
KING: Priscilla Owen was born in a small farm and fishing village, from the beginning an animal lover. Her father died when she was just 10 months old. Faith was a constant as was determination. Treasurer of the Richland High School Class of '72, then Baylor, and Baylor Law. The highest score on the state bar exam in 1977 sent her into private practice with a focus on energy.
Then came 1994. Texas elects its judges, and she was an overwhelming underdog when she agreed to run for the State Supreme Court. Her political consultant had another underdog on the Texas ballot that year. Karl Rove was as much a winner come November as Priscilla Owen and George W. Bush.
Eleven years later, Rove is the deputy White House Chief of Staff, a key Owen backer. And such a larger than life presence in both Washington and Austin and Owen, that backers feel compelled to play down his role.
ABBOTT: Karl Rove isn't the one who scored the highest score on the state bar exam. Karl Rove is not the person who did all the great things that Priscilla Owen did, either as a lawyer or as a justice. He didn't write her opinions for her.
KING: Owen is active in this Evangelical Church. And advocates of abortion rights see religion, not an even-handed jurist in opinions that a minor seeking abortion must demonstrate she understands some women have experienced severe remorse and regret, and demonstrate she has considered that there are philosophic, social, moral and religious arguments that can be brought to bear when considering an abortion.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...
KING: Back in 2002, Owen told the Senate Judiciary Committee her language had nothing to do with her faith.
OWEN: It's straight out of a majority opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court.
KING: Another abortion case put her at odds with Alberto Gonzalez, then an Owen colleague on the Texas high court, now the Bush administration attorney general.
ALBERTO GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I have never accused her of being an activist judge.
KING: But five years ago, Gonzalez said Owen and two others on the court wanted to go beyond the state legislature and create hurdles for minors seeking to bypass parental notification, something Gonzalez characterized as unconscionable judicial activism. Again, Justice Owen told the Senate her position was consistent with U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and that personal views never affect her legal judgments.
OWEN: My position is that Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for many, many years now.
KING: Those who paint Owen as zealously pro-business cite rulings favoring Enron and other energy interests, and the heartbreaking case of Willy Searcy, paralyzed and on a ventilator at 14 after a 1993 car accident. The family won a more than $30 million verdict against Ford, but Owen sided with Ford on appeal, ordering a new trial because the suit had been filed in the wrong county. What stung family attorney Jack Ayres even more than Owen's ruling was that it took her 16 months to write it.
JACK AYRES, SEARCY FAMILY ATTORNEY: I felt that my client and I had been ambushed. My view is that, in this instance, was what happened was the court decided that they were going to reverse the case and they had to find a way to do it.
KING: And Ayres was stunned by this. Even as they ordered a new trial, the justices separately issued this awkwardly worded paragraph in which they conceded they should have put the case on a fast track.
AYRES: I have never seen anything like this. I'll be in my 35th year soon of practicing law in Texas.
KING: Owen noted in Senate testimony that Willy did not die until three years after her ruling, but also said she was not proud of how long it took to decide the case. The chief justice at the time says Owen and the entire court should have done a better job.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She works very hard and is very diligent and sometimes some work gets behind other work when you are doing everything. The Miles case was not our finest hour.
KING: But Philips supports Owen and said her record is being distorted.
THOMAS PHILIPS, CHIEF JUSTICE, TEXAS STATE SUPREME COURT: The idea that some of these groups are bringing out -- that she has an agenda, that she is not following the law -- is just -- is absolutely false. She is a rule of law judge.
KING: There is no question Justice Owen finds herself in a partisan brawl that goes well beyond any one nomination. But the fact she was re-nominated after Democrats defeated her a first time and that she shares the president's Texas roots, makes this one unique.
John King, CNN, Austin, Texas.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well, the fight over the rule-change has been bruising, apparently for both Republicans and Democrats. Here's a quick news note. In a CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup poll released today, people were asked whether Republicans were acting like spoiled children -- and also the Democrats -- 54 percent -- excuse me, 54 percent of GOP lawmakers were behaving like spoiled children according to those who answered this poll; 54 percent said the same thing about the Democrats.
We are continuing to cover this story. Snd as we said, tomorrow it is the big day for the showdown. We'll bring that to you, of course, tomorrow on 360.
We have a lot ahead tonight, including the story of a chimp attack on two adults and they were lucky to survive. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: Well, this disturbing video has been getting a lot of airtime over the weekend. It was taken last Tuesday in Florida. Appears to show a school bus driver violently grabbing a 15-year-old boy by the neck. The boy then strikes back.
Tonight, the mother of that child says her son was only coming to the defense of his younger brother. She doesn't under why her two sons are facing serious felony charges while the driver may get just a slap in the wrist. We want to know what you think. Watch the tape and judge for yourself. Here's CNN's Sara Dorsey.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SARA DORSEY, CORRESPONDENT: Bus driver Albert Taylor told Charlotte County Police he had to pull his bus over Tuesday after a few students caused a disruption.
ALBERT MARSHALL TAYLOR, BUS DRIVER: Don't you tell me what to do. Get up here. Get up here.
DORSEY: Taylor told police he had asked a student to come to the front of the bus three times. This video shows Taylor then went to get the student. The boy's brother intervenes and Taylor appears to strike him and grab him by the throat.
COREY GENE HENDERSHOT, INVOLVED IN BUS FIGHT: Get off him. Get off him.
DORSEY: The scuffle doesn't end there. The older brother, who has already been struck, appears to throw a punch at the driver. The boys then demand to be let off the bus.
MARK ERNEST DICKINSON, INVOLVED IN BUS FIGHT: You are going to jail, boy. Let me off this bus. Let me off the bus. Call the deputy, hurry up.
DORSEY: Sixty-six-year-old Taylor has been charged with simple battery, a misdemeanor. We've been unable to reach him for comment and it's not known if he has legal representation. None of the other children on the bus were involved in the confrontation, but the 13 and 15-year-old brothers are charged with felonies. The boys' defense attorney says that doesn't add up.
RUSSELL KIRSHY, ATTORNEY FOR BOYS IN BUS FIGHT: It's just -- it's despicable. It's crazy, that they would be charged with felonies and the bus driver would be charged with a misdemeanor. DORSEY: Charlotte County Sheriff's officials say that in Florida, it's an automatic felony for a student to strike a school official. They say the charges were filed before the video became available, but that seeing it has - quote -- "changed the thinking here." The sheriff's office says it does not have the power to change any of the charges, but the state's attorney can. The brothers have been suspended from school and will appear in front of judge on Monday. The bus driver is scheduled to appear on June 1. He has been suspended with pay and the sheriff's office says the school board will meet next week to determine his future.
Sara Dorsey, CNN, Atlanta.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: Well, you've seen the tape. What do you think is at fault? Send us your thoughts. Go to CNN.com/360, click on the "Instant Feedback" link. And we don't take sides. Every story has more than one angle, of course. We try to report them all. We wanted to speak to the bus driver; didn't get any response.
Joining us from Port Charlotte, Florida, is Russell Kirshy. He's the lawyer representing the teenage brothers accused of assaulting their school bus driver. Thanks very much for being with us, Russell.
Do your clients, these two brothers, accept any responsibility for what happened?
KIRSHY: Well, obviously they have indicated that some of their behavior that day on the bus wasn't entirely appropriate. But in the end, the fact of the matter is Mark was violently attacked by the bus driver prior to them doing anything that was illegal. And therefore, he holds the majority of the culpability.
COOPER: Let's look at the law. The Charlotte County Sheriff's Office said a battery charge is elevated to a felony charge when the victim is either -- and I quote -- "someone who is pregnant, a law enforcement officer, a person older than 65 years of age, or any employee of a school district."
Based on that law, why shouldn't your clients be charged with a felony?
KIRSHY: Well, I'll tell you why, because they didn't commit a crime. With regard to Corey, he didn't commit a crime because he never touched the bus driver. And that was confirmed in court today by some testimony of one of the eyewitnesses.
With regard to Mark, the reason why he shouldn't be charged with a crime is because he was defending himself. And in Florida, you are allowed to defend yourself when somebody is attacking you, and you are allowed to use whatever reasonable means are necessary to escape from that attack.
COOPER: You were in court today to try to get the kids released from home detention. What's the status of that?
KIRSHY: The motion with regard to Corey was granted. He's been released from home detention. Unfortunately, the motion with regard to Mr. -- with regard to Mark has not been granted. That was denied today.
COOPER: Mark is the 15-year-old?
KIRSHY: At this point it would just be -- that's correct. And we'll just be waiting for the state attorney's office to make a decision about whether they are going to file charges at this point.
COOPER: Now, this misdemeanor charge which is against the bus driver, I mean, what do you want to have happen to the bus driver? Is the misdemeanor enough? Do you want a felony charge?
KIRSHY: Well, it's one of those things where we really don't know anything about the bus driver. And so to make a judgment about what would be an appropriate sentence against him really is kind of premature. We really need to know what was going on with him. And that's the reason why he'll get counsel, and they will present those things to court in due time. At that point, I think the family will be able to make a much more informed decision about what should be an appropriate penalty.
COOPER: Russell, we'll continue to follow this story.
Appreciate you joining us.
We have some breaking news to report.
KIRSHY: Thank you.
COOPER: We're hearing of a development in the filibuster/judicial nominee standoff we've been talking about. Let's go live to Washington, to CNN congressional correspondent Joe Johns. Joe, what's happening?
JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, a bipartisan group of senators that has been meeting feverishly over the last several days to try to come to some agreement to avoid a showdown on the Senate floor on the issue of the filibuster, we're told now by two congressional sources who are aides, that a deal has been reached. Senator Joe Lieberman, speaking just moments ago to CNN congressional correspondent Ted Barrett, has said, "we're happy, we think we've done something significant."
So all indications are that a deal has been reached to try to avoid a showdown on the floor of the United States Senate.
At 7:30 Eastern time, we are expecting a news conference in the Capitol by all of those senators, to talk about whatever agreement they have apparently reached. No clear details on what that deal includes, of course. The question is whether the president's judicial nominations get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Apparently a deal has been reached. Anderson. COOPER: What are the options? I mean, if Joe Lieberman says we are happy, what are the options of what the deal could be?
JOHNS: Well, there are all kinds of different options. The key thing they have been talking about in that room is what's the line-up? Which of the president's judicial nominations might be able to get a floor vote, which might continue to be filibustered? How do the senators handle the issue of filibuster, going forward?
Because one of the central issues here, of course, is the issue of a Supreme Court nominee and how that might be handled. Of course, the administration's very interested in all of this. Anderson.
COOPER: Joe, we are going to continue to follow this. We have to take a short break. We'll be right back and we'll bring that press conference to you live. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: And we continue to follow events out of Washington. We're awaiting a press conference that is going to be occurring any moment now. Some senators have indicated that a deal has been reached to avert a showdown on the fight over President Bush's nominees for judges. Joe Lieberman was quoted as saying "we are happy," that they have come up with this deal to avoid a showdown.
We're going to bring you this press conference live. We're also going to talk to our congressional correspondent, Joe Johns, and a number of others as well. But first, let's bring you quickly up to date with the headlines. Erica Hill from HEADLINE NEWS joins us with the latest about 26 past the hour. Hey, Erica.
ERICA HILL, CNN HEADLINE NEWS ANCHOR: Hi, Anderson.
The Supreme Court getting back into the abortion debate. In the next session, the justices will hear an appeal on a New Hampshire law which was struck down. That law required parental notification before a minor could get an abortion. There is some speculation Chief Justice William Rehnquist might retire before the abortion debate happens.
On to Washington, D.C. Another airplane scare this afternoon. Military jets were scrambled actually early this evening, fired a warning flare at a Cessna that flew into restricted airspace around the nation's capital. People in the U.S. Capitol were told to evacuate at one point. A minute later, though, they got the all-clear.
Now, meantime, just today, the FAA announcing it's revoked the license of the pilot in charge of the small plane that strayed into restricted airspace in the nation's capital earlier this month. The FAA says no action will be taken against the student pilot who was at the controls when military aircraft pilots intercepted the plane.
From coast to coast, a new survey by Salary.com on the cities where you get the most mileage out of your paycheck. Topping the list, New London, Connecticut; followed by Huntsville, Alabama; Baltimore; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. As for the worst place to stretch your paycheck? No surprise here, New York; followed by San Francisco; Stamford, Connecticut; San Jose, California; and San Diego.
And that's the latest from HEADLINE NEWS. Anderson, back to you.
COOPER: Erica Hill, thanks very much.
We are awaiting this press conference out of Washington. Should be occurring just in a matter of moments. We're going to take a quick break and we'll bring it to you live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: And, more details now on our breaking news. Congressional sources tell CNN a deal has been made to avoid a filibuster in the judicial nominee standoff. The so-called gang of 12, six Republicans, six Democrats, are about to hold a news conference. We, of course, are going to bring that to you live. We're going to stay on the story. Let's go to Capitol Hill -- CNN's congressional correspondent Joe Johns.
Joe, when did we find out that some sort of a deal had been reached? How did we find it out?
JOHNS: Within the last 15 or 20 minutes, Anderson, a meeting that was being held in the office of Senator John McCain, the Republican of Arizona, broke up. A number of the senators coming out of that room -- no clear indication at that time from anyone except for Joe Lieberman who said he was happy with the product, but did not directly confirm that there was a deal.
We did talk to some congressional aids, one on the Republican side and one on the Democrat side, who did confirm that there was a deal, although we could not get a clear picture of what's included in the deal. The significance of it, of course, is that it would presumably avert the possibility of a showdown on the Senate floor over the issue of the right of Democrats to block judicial nominations they oppose. Democrats have said, of course, this is a tradition of the Senate that has stood for a very long time. Republicans have said that the Democrats were using procedures improperly to block the president's nominees.
So the question, of course, how will the leadership take this? The leadership of the United States Senate has pretty much stayed out of these negotiations, and now the question is how will they react, presumably, if there is a deal, Anderson.
COOPER: Joe, did Republicans have enough votes to get this passed tomorrow? Bill Frist, I know, was quoted as saying that he simply -- he said, I simply do not know at this juncture whether or not they did although other Republicans had indicated all along that they did have enough votes.
JOHNS: That's always been the question and basically, I have been saying for the last 48, 72 hours that it's been too close to call. We were guessing, of course, based on what some of the senators in the middle had said, that there were about three or four Republican senators who were likely to go with the Democrats, but they needed six, and the question was whether they would get two more to defeat.
The Republicans had always said that when the time came for the vote, they would have the votes necessary to move forward on this, get rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations and win the day. Senator Frist had said earlier this evening that the vote, at least to go forward on the filibuster issue, would begin around 12 noon tomorrow. The question, of course, is now what happens if these folk do in fact have a deal, and that deal holds, Anderson.
COOPER: Well, also, I understand they had -- I mean, people have been bringing in spare beds and mattresses. They were expecting a long fight on this tomorrow?
JOHNS: Certainly were. But that's also something of a tradition here whenever people start talking about late night sessions, all- night sessions, they do bring in the cots. The truth is, it's hard to figure out who exactly is going to sleep on those cots when they do that. Still, it points up the fact that this was to have been a long debate. Senator Frist was saying all along that the debate had been far too long for the nomination on the floor, that was the nomination of Priscilla Owen of Texas from the president's home state. She, of course, was brought up first in nomination four years ago and then again the second time by the Bush administration. Frist using her as first example of why the judicial filibuster should not hold in the United States Senate, Anderson.
COOPER: Do we have any sense of the outline of their talks that they have been undertaking? I mean, do we have a sense of the broad parameters of the compromise?
JOHNS: Well, yes, we have seen a lot of paper that's been flying around. We haven't seen all of it, certainly but we've seen some of the proposals that have come through. Probably the first thing that a lot of them has mentioned is the line-up, as I said earlier, that would be the judges who would be allowed to get through, the others that would continue to be filibustered by Democrats.
Also, there was a big question of course, in the language -- how do you deal with the issue of the filibuster going forward, because there's a possibility, perhaps, even this year, of retirement on the Supreme Court? How do you deal with that? When you get to that point, the most important judicial nominations of all, should Democrats still have the right to filibuster? What would be the terms? That's the kind of thing they were working out, and had a very difficult time. I was told by one senator who was in on the negotiations, Senator Landrieu of Louisiana, that there were talks through the entire weekend on the telephone to try to figure out how to resolve this, but it was really, I'm told, only a tweaking of the language, that there weren't any grand changes from some of the language we saw last week.
Apparently, the people who were in that room have come to some agreement, Anderson.
COOPER: And we just saw some video of various senators, Senator McCain, Senator Warner, Senator Lieberman getting into the elevator. I imagine they are on their way now to this press conference. How many people are we going to be seeing? Is this -- all 12 are going to be there?
JOHNS: That's what we were told. All 12 apparently who were in the room will be there at that news conference to talk about this. I have to tell you, there's -- not everybody wanted a deal. For example, Senator Arlen Specter had said on the floor on Friday, that he was frankly concerned about the idea of 12 United States senators doing the job that should be done by 100, of selecting which judges get through and which don't. He said he didn't like that idea. And so -- there are others, of course, who said they don't particularly like the idea of coming to an agreement.
On balance, though, a lot of the institutional Senate, the senators who have been here on Capitol Hill for a very long time, were very concerned about the effect on the traditions of the Senate and they see the Senate as a very distinctly different place from the House of Representatives where it's very simply majority rules over in the House side. In the Senate side, one senator generally throughout the years, has been ale to hold up pretty much anything with that right of a filibuster. And that notion of extended debate is something that has held the day for a lot of senators on Capitol Hill over the years, Anderson.
COOPER: Joe, if the Republicans were able to -- if they had enough votes to break the filibuster, to get this passed tomorrow, what is the incentive for them to make a deal? Is it just the fear the Democrats would tie up other initiatives down the road?
JOHNS: Certainly, there is a big fear that initiatives will be tied up down the road. We got a taste of that from Senator Reid today saying that the Central American Free Trade Agreement might be in jeopardy. Also, the asbestos liability bill might be in jeopardy as well, Anderson.
COOPER: And Joe, we're seeing Senator McCain entering the stage. We're expecting all 12 senators to be on the stage. Let's listen in. They'll probably take a few moments to get themselves organized, but we have just received word, just a short time ago really, that there is some sort of a deal made to avoid the Senate filibuster. We don't know exactly all the ins and outs of the deal. That's what this press conference is about. That's what we're waiting to hear.
As early -- earlier today people had said on the Hill that it had looked very grim for the possibility of some sort of compromise, some sort of deal to avert a showdown. The showdown was expected to take place tomorrow, so it will be very interesting to see exactly what they have come up -- how they have been able to hammer out some sort of understanding to avoid that showdown.
Joe, at this... JOHNS: Anderson?
COOPER: Yes. Go ahead, Joe.
JOHNS: One other point I might make. There're a lot of senators who are very concerned about the shoe being on the foot. A lot of Republican senators realize there's a possibility that they won't be in the majority forever and there's been a great concern here on Capitol Hill that somewhere down the line, if Democrats come into power and the judicial filibuster has been taken away, that that could very well be used against the Republican Party. That was also somewhat of an incentive.
COOPER: Well, of course, all parties at one time or another have used filibuster to their advantage. Let's listen in to Senator McCain.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Did we hand out all those? OK. Good. I guess you have been wondering why I called -- yes, there's a movie showing tonight. Movie showing tonight down at the...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You'll notice the timing.
MCCAIN: "The Faith of my Fathers" will be shown on A&E on Memorial Day, starring Shawn Hatosy and Scott Glenn...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How is it rated, John?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, good point.
MCCAIN: Actually, it's very low-rated, you know, because it's...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, that's not what we're talking about.
MCCAIN: So, don't miss it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The name of the film, the word faith is integral to this whole agreement.
MCCAIN: There you go. That's why this -- where is your buddies? Come on up here.
Where's your pals? Let me just start this out.
SEN. BEN NELSON (D), NEBRASKA: Oh, OK.
MCCAIN: Then we'll go back and forth, OK?
Where's the rest of your...
NELSON: They are on their way. They're coming up...
MCCAIN: They're slow.
NELSON: We could just walk faster up the steps than they can.
MCCAIN: We're really fast. Oh, (INAUDIBLE), of course.
COOPER: Again, if you are just joining us, we are awaiting the arrival of the rest of the -- as they call them, the gang of 12, 12 senators who have been -- apparently worked out a compromise to avoid a showdown in the Senate tomorrow over President Bush's judicial nominees. We will be eager to hear -- looks like they are just all about to arrive -- what -- exactly what the deal that they have reached is. Let's listen.
MCCAIN: We're here, 14 Republicans and Democrats, seven on each side, to announce that we have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice that would have had, in the view of all 14 of us, lasting impact, damaging impact on the institution.
I'm grateful for the efforts of Senator Frist and Senator Reid to come to an agreement on this issue. We appreciate very much their leadership. And we all appreciate each other's involvement. But probably the two that I'd like to point out here that provided us with a beacon of where we should go is Senator Byrd, our distinguished senior Democrat leader, and Senator Warner who both were vital to this process.
You have before you the agreement and I won't go in the details of it. But basically, all 14 of us have pledged to vote for cloture for the judicial nominees Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen.
The signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on two judges, William Myers and Henry Saad. Future nominations will -- the signatories will exercise their responsibilities and the nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances.
And in light of this commitment and a continuing commitment, we will try to do everything in our power to prevent filibusters in the future. This agreement is meant in the finest traditions of the Senate it was entered into: trust, respect and mutual desire to see the institution of the Senate function in ways that protect the rights of the minority.
So I'm very pleased to stand here with my other colleagues tonight and I believe that that good-will will prevail.
Nothing in this agreement prevents any individual senator from exercising his or her individual rights.
I would like to ask Senator Nelson and Senator Pryor, but I want to, again, thank my colleagues. And I believe that most Americans would like for us to work these issues out rather than pursue the procedure that we have just departed from, I hope.
NELSON: Well, thank you very much, Senator. And I, too, am very proud to be here with my colleagues tonight. And I'm glad to say that we have been able to reach an agreement, if you will, make a deal for the future to deal with the Senate business in a way that will keep the faith, will certainly keep the faith of the framers of our country and the Founding Fathers. It will retain the individual rights and responsibilities of each senator.
I think it's a positive step for us to be able to set aside the nuclear option. It also gives as many judges as we possibly can under these circumstances an up-or-down vote.
So I think the good faith and the mutual trust that we have achieved here will carry over into this Senate on other business as well.
So, thank you to my colleagues. And you were asking just the other day how to handicap this. Well, I would have to say right now, it's 100 percent. Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
SENATOR MARK PRYOR, (D) ARKANSAS: Let me just say a couple of very quick words. And first thing I want everybody here to know we don't have a Thomas Jefferson in the bunch. OK?
This came as a result of perspiration not inspiration. As you know, we worked very, very hard to get here. It is in the finest traditions of the Senate. And this agreement is based on trust. It's based on trust.
And I know that people here want to ask a million "what ifs." What if this? What if that? What about this person or that person, this circumstance?
Listen, there's a lot of hypotheticals. We don't know what is coming down in the future but we do know that we trust each other.
The 14 of us have sat down, looked at each other, shaken hands, shared our hopes, our dreams, our fears, our frustrations and this is based on trust.
And with that, what I would like to do is turn it over to Senator Warner for a brief word. And then he's going to introduce Senator Byrd.
SENATOR JOHN WARNER, (R) VIRGINIA: No, I'd like to yield to Senator Byrd.
PRYOR: Senator Byrd, come up...
SENATOR ROBERT BYRD, (D) WEST VIRGINIA: I'll wait my turn.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER) WARNER: I would simply say, by way of introduction, we opened almost every meeting with Bob Byrd saying, "Country, institution connects us."
BYRD: Well, I remember Benjamin Franklin, the oldest in the group that signed the Constitution of the United States. He was approached by a lady who said, "Dr. Franklin, what have you given us?"
And he said, "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."
We have kept it. We have kept the Republic. I am very proud of these colleagues of mine on the Republican side and the Democratic side. We have lifted ourselves above politics. And we have signed this document in the interest of United States Senate, in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to dissent in the United States Senate.
And I say thank God, thank God for this moment and for these colleagues of mine. Thank you very much. Thank you.
WARNER: I've said very little throughout this entire process. I think it was a privilege to be associated with these individuals. And I'll say very little now, except it's been a remarkable study of Senate history and the history of our country throughout this whole process. And the one unanswered question that guided me all the way through is -- it was unanswered -- what would happen to the Senate if the nuclear option were done? No one was able to answer that to my satisfaction.
SENATOR MIKE DEWINE, (R) OHIO: I think this is a good day for the United States Senate but I think more important it's a good day for the country. I felt that why we got into this of course, the whole situation is I felt that the status quo that we have seen for the last several years was not acceptable -- many of us on our side of the aisle certainly did -- that the filibuster is being used too often.
But I also felt that the use of the constitutional option would not be good for the Senate nor good for the country. So really we are faced with two bad options. And I sought this compromise as a way to avoid the options and frankly two bad options.
Frankly to try to put us back in the position we were a few years ago where a filibuster was available but frankly not used very often. And I think if you look at the language that we have here, I think we have achieved this.
This agreement is based on good faith, good faith among people who trust each other. And it's our complete expectation that it will work. Senators have agreed that they will not filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances. We believe that that will, in fact, work.
Some of you who are looking at the language may wonder what some of the clauses mean. The understanding is -- and we don't think this will happen -- but if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that's not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option.
I was prepared to do that tomorrow if we could not reach an agreement. But thank heavens we do not have to do that. And it's our hope that we will never have to do that. So I think this is a very good day for our country, good day for the United States Senate. It will enable us to get back, frankly, to the people's business and to deal with the issues that I think the American people expect us to deal with every day.
SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN, (D) CONNECTICUT: Thanks, Mike. That phone going off was McCain being told to go and see the preview of the movie about himself.
(LAUGHTER)
Everybody should go see it. Perhaps in that spirit I should say...
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
LIEBERMAN: Maybe in that spirit I should say how great it is to be a member of this band of brothers and sisters. We came together and did the unexpected. In a Senate that has become increasingly partisan and polarized, the bipartisan center held.
And as those who have preceded me have said over and over again, each of us accepted parts of this agreement which were not perfect to our desires, but we did it for a larger purpose: to save the right of unlimited debate, to take the Senate back from the precipice.
And if the nuclear option had been passed, I think it would have led to a cycle of increasing divisiveness in the Senate and decreasing productivity in terms of the people's business.
So I thank all who worked so hard to make this happen. I'm proud to be part of it. And I hope maybe this empowered bipartisan center will decide that it's been good to work together and we'll keep on working together to get some good things done for the American people.
MCCAIN: I do have to go, too. The first question that most of the media are going to ask us: Who won and who lost? The Senate won, and the country won.
(LAUGHTER)
SENATOR OLYMPIA SNOWE, (R) MAINE: Let me just say that I'm very pleased to be part of this group and my colleagues in achieving this historic compromise. What bound us was the belief, the strong belief, that exercising the pending motion of this constitutional option would be detrimental to the long-term well-being of the United States Senate. And I believe that this compromise reflects the better traditions of the Senate. And that is comity, cooperation and collaboration. I do believe as well that this is the essence of what our founding fathers designed the United States Senate to be. And that is an institution that achieves results through accommodation and collaboration.
We believed as well that the American people didn't deserve the option of just blanket filibusters or historic parliamentary maneuvers that overturned 200 years of tradition and precedent. What they did deserve is to have meaningful and good-faith collaboration among Republicans and Democrats united to do what was in the best interest of this institution, not just for the short term, for the long term.
I would just add that I was proud to be a part of this group and believe so strongly that had the nuclear option been invoked that the Senate would have perhaps passed a point of no return.
And that would have been a very sad day indeed for our country.
One of the strongest parts of this compromise is that we hope the group of us that trust each other, that have worked together across the aisle on many, many, many important issues and will continue to do so, is that we can return to the early practices of our government, that we can reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate in the last few years.
We firmly believe that this agreement is consistent with the best traditions of the Senate.
So what we have come to is a pause, a hope, a chance that we can pass this difficult point, return the right of the minority to speak up and to be heard, but most importantly to encourage advice from the administration to the Senate in a way that will move this country forward.
SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS, (R) MAINE: I'm reminded of that old expression that everything has been said but not everyone has said it at this point. You're going to hear over and over again the words "good faith," "mutual respect" and "trust," because those words characterized our negotiations. Hour after hour, day after day, we kept working toward a goal that we all believed in.
People asked me, repeatedly, whether or not I thought we would reach an agreement. And I always said, "yes, I think we will." Because everyone involved was committed to avoiding this very painful, bitter and prolonged dispute in the United States Senate.
All of us love the United States Senate. We're very proud of our work today. And it is my hope that this can be a model for us as we go forward to confront the important issues facing our country.
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: Like Mike, I was prepared to vote yes. I've been saying for two years that I thought the filibuster was sort of out of bounds. And the question I started asking myself is: If you do everything you want to do in life, that's your right. But there's some things you can do, maybe you shouldn't do.
We're at war. Kids are dying as we speak. And now I think the Senate is back in business. I could vote to change the rules. And like John, said, "I don't know what would happen." Senator Warner said, "I don't know what would happen."
Here's what I know is going to happen now. People at home are going to be very upset at me for a while.
(LAUGHTER)
Judges are going to get a vote that wouldn't have gotten a vote otherwise. We're going to start talking about who would be a good judge and who wouldn't. And the White House is going to get more involved and they are going to listen to us more.
Some of them are going to make it on our up-and-down vote and some of them won't. And that's been the history of the Senate for 200 years.
Bottom line: We can repair it in a way that will allow the country to have a Senate that functions for the common good because Social Security is coming apart and kids are dying. That's why I changed my attitude and that's why I'm willing to change my vote because this is a lot bigger than me.
SENATOR KEN SALAZAR, (D) COLORADO: Let me first say there are two colleagues that signed the agreement who are not here today, Senator Inouye and Senator Chafee. And I think they represent in the same way the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation that you see among the senators who are here at this press conference.
For me, I am ranked number 100 in the United States Senate. Senator Byrd is number one. And I think that when you look at where we come from, we come from a sense of wanting to have solutions for the problems that face our country. And I think that when you look at where we come from, we come from a sense of wanting to have solutions for the problems that face our country.
For me, even though I have been here only a period of approximately five months, what I have found most troubling about Washington, D.C., is the poisonous atmosphere of partisanship that exists in this Capitol. And I'm hoping that the statement that these senators are making here today is a statement that says that in order for us to solve the problems of our country in this generation and to the future, is going to require people that are wanting to unite us, not people who want to divide us. And I think this is a statement of unity that you see coming from these Republican and Democratic senators who are here before you today.
COOPER: You've been listening to a press conference given by some of the 14 senators who have forged a compromise. Our congressional correspondent Joe Johns has been listening in as well.
Joe, essentially, as I understand it, they have pledged to vote for cloture, or and end of debate, on three of the judge nominees: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen. The have not made any commitment to vote for or against other two judges: William Myers and Henry Saad. Is that your understanding?
JOHNS: That's my understanding, Anderson. I don't have a hard copy of the agreement in my hand just yet. But clearly they've decided that Saad and Myers could continue to be filibustered. The others, including the nomination of Justice Owen, would be able to go forward. Of course, Owen and Brown of California are two of the very, very most contentious judges.
It's interesting, when you listen to that -- the senators talking about their agreement based on trust and good faith. That, of course, was one of the big issues. Also one of the questions we're going to be asking, as Senator McCain asked just a little while ago, is who won and who lost? Senator McCain asserts the Senate won and the country won. Of course, the question will be something that we have to pose to the Senate majority leader and the minority leader some other time.
Back to you, Anderson.
COOPER: Senator Robert Byrd, a man who appreciates history a great deal, said, "We have kept the Republic. Thank God." A victory for free speech in the Senate, is what he called it. Our coverage, of course, continues right now. CNN's primetime coverage continues with Paula Zahn.
Hey, Paula.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Hey, Anderson, thanks so much.
END
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
