TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Sen. Hagel's official site
• Sen. Hagel on 21st century challenges

E-mail a friend

Tavis: I'm pleased to welcome Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to this program. The influential Republican, who serves on both the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, is also a decorated veteran for his service during Vietnam. He was awarded two Purple Hearts. Later he'd go on to a very successful career in business before entering politics. And speaking of politics, he joins us tonight from the nation's capitol in Washington. Senator Hagel, welcome back to the program, sir.

Senator Chuck Hagel: Tavis, thank you.

Tavis: Glad to have you here. Let me start with the news of the day as we lead up to this vote we expect later this week on filibusters. I'm still not sure that everybody in America understands what the debate is. So let me start with you explaining in layman's terms what the debate is about, as you see it, and as a Republican, tell me where you stand on this--this debate on filibusters.

Hagel: First of all, Tavis, I'm not sure when we might have a vote on this issue. I'm not sure it would come this week. But that's the call of the majority leader, Senator Frist. As to the issue, the issue is about the president's judicial nominees getting up or down votes in the United States Senate.

Over the last couple of years, the Democratic minority in the Senate has essentially filibustered 10 of the president's nominees to be Appeals Court judges. And even though we in the Senate uphold a Senate filibuster rule that allows minorities to extend a debate on an issue, now requiring 60 votes for cloture or to end that filibuster, it can be applied to any activity on the Senate floor-- legislation, nominees, judicial nominees. I believe--and I think the Republicans believe, and I think the Democrats believe, or at least most of us--that presidential nominees deserve an up or down vote, and I've voted that way in the nine years I've been in the Senate. I have always voted to invoke cloture against these filibusters that hold up nominees, but yet we have had 10 of these Republican judicial nominees for the Appeals Court bench, been filibustered.

Now, then that takes us into the next realm of what do you do about it. Should you change the rules of the Senate and not allow filibusters for judicial nominees? That's the proposal that has been floated over the last couple of months, for the Republicans to be able to unlock these nominees. And what would happen if you went to that so-called 'nuclear option'? The Republican leader would ask the parliamentarian in the Senate for a ruling. That would allow a straight majority, 51 votes in the Senate, to be good enough to support and vote for and vote out of the Senate a judicial nominee. What Senator Frist has talked about, it would only apply to judicial nominees. It would not apply to legislation. In those cases, the 60 votes in order to break a filibuster, invoke cloture, would still be required. Now, that's essentially where we are.

As to the question of where I am, I think we have to be very careful here when we are changing rules by a straight majority. That's what the House of Representatives does. The Senate is a totally different body. It was set up to protect minority rights. It was set up to protect small states, and we must think through clearly consequences of just a straight majority vote that starts changing rules. Now, do the president's nominees deserve a vote? Absolutely they do, but I think we can come at this a little differently. I think we've got 100 senators here who are charged with maintaining the rules of the Senate. That institution, the United States Senate, is there on behalf of the people of this country to deal with the great challenges and problems of our time. I would not like to see this 'nuclear option' come to a vote. I think it would further paralyze the Senate. I think it would not be in the long-term interest for the Senate or the country.

Tavis: Let me ask you then, since I think, again to your point, Republicans and Democrats would at least agree on this. While there's great debate over ending the filibuster--many Republicans for it, of course, Democrats opposed to it--everybody agrees that the process of appointing judges has become far too political. A Democrat or Republican president in the White House making these nominations, the process has become overtly partisan. It's become much too political, so if not changing the rules where filibuster is concerned, what ideas do you have about how we de-politicize this process?

Hagel: Well, you're exactly right, Tavis. It has become too political. It has evolved into that over the years. I remember in the late nineties, the Republicans strangled 62 of President Clinton's nominees, and what we did there, we just strangled them in the committees. We didn't give 'em votes, or we didn't vote 'em out. So what's the difference? Well, ultimately, there's no difference. So both parties' hands are not clean here. We've both abused the system.

So your question, what's the answer: First of all, I think we've gotta bring some trust and confidence back into the institution, because that's the only currency that ever counts. And that means we've got to come to some accommodation here so that all of our constitutional responsibilities are met. But I think we are so frayed and so polarized, to your point, that we are now in really almost a deep paralysis in the Senate where we cannot move, and if this nuclear option is voted on and if this is what would happen, then I think you would bring the Senate to a standstill, because we operate, as I said, not just on the rules and procedures, but on trust and confidence. The two leaders of the two parties must have some confidence in each other, and our extremes in the left and the right are really, I think, controlling the agenda.

Tavis: Let me ask you right quick, 'cause I want to move on to a couple other things. But before we move on from this, right quick here, let me ask you about whether or not you think that this politicization of the process might be better off if presidents, Republican and Democrat, would nominate persons in the mainstream and not at the margins.

Hagel: Well, certainly that is an issue that we've dealt with for many, many years, and I think I go back to my original point that presidents deserve and are constitutionally charged with nominating their appointments to high office, including judges, and of course the advise-and-consent clause of the Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility either to vote those up or down. But I think we have to be a little careful, to your point here, in that we don't want vanilla, tapioca people in this business, either. We want judges, in my opinion, this senator's opinion, that are strict constructionists of the Constitution in that they will interpret the Constitution based on the Constitution. Are some judges at district levels or state levels going to have cases remanded and so on? Of course, but I don't think we want to cookie-cutter this to the point where there's just a very, very kind of a broad outline that you only nominate these kind of people. At the same time, these are presidential appointments for life. Only the justices get a for-life position, so I think they require more intense scrutiny than a piece of legislation or something else.

Tavis: Fair enough. Let me move quickly then to-- You guys are busy on the Senate side. Let me move now to this John Bolton nomination. A lot of press, of course, about Mr. Bolton's nomination to be ambassador to the U.N. That's been held up for some time now, and again not just because of Democrats, because of Republicans, in fact, on the Foreign Relations Committee who have concerns about his nomination. What's gonna happen with this Bolton nomination?

Hagel: Well, I think you know that over the last three weeks, the senior staff members in the Foreign Relations Committee, both Republican and Democrat, have been interviewing people who've come forward with allegations against Mr. Bolton. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. These are serious allegations made by serious people. We in the Senate have a responsibility, an obligation to examine those allegations. This is an important assignment and a very important nomination. We owe it to Mr. Bolton, we owe it to the president, we owe it to this country to clear that up. On Thursday, there will be five hours that the senators will have to hear the results of these examinations of these allegations, and then we will vote on Mr. Bolton on Thursday. I don't know the outcome of that, but we're gonna wait and see what the results of those examinations are, and then--then we will vote on it.

Tavis: Have you made up your mind?

Hagel: I said that I would take a good hard look at the allegations and the examination of those allegations, and then I would vote. I have seen nothing nor heard anything, Tavis, that would lead me to believe that Bolton is not qualified for that job, but again, I reserve the right to listen to all the facts before I vote.

Tavis: The Senate's been busy, but as a senator you have been busy of late as well. I don't need to tell you that you gave a big speech the other day, just days ago, about the challenges we face as a country in the 21st century. I don't need to tell you that you spent time in New Hampshire on four campuses recently. When I hear a senator giving a big global speech about the world we live in, when I hear a senator then going up to New Hampshire and hanging out for a couple of days, I start to think things, Senator Hagel.

Hagel: Well, don't draw any conclusions here, Tavis. I've actually, over the nine years I've been in the Senate given many major addresses around the world, a few at the National Press Club. I do try to focus occasionally on the bigger picture, because I don't think we pay enough attention to the big picture around here. We get so mired down in the swamp of the daily and consumed by paragraph-to-paragraph issues. We don't look out in a wide-angle lens look at the great challenges facing our country. I was invited up to New Hampshire last week by these colleges to accept a couple of awards. It's nice in New Hampshire in the springtime, I've got friends up there, so I enjoyed it.

Tavis: I gotta run right quick, but let me tell you, senator, with all due respect, that answer was so smooth and so good and so diplomatic, forget John Bolton, you should be U.N. ambassador.

Hagel: I'm not qualified, Tavis, but thank you. I'm honored and flattered.

Tavis: I'm delighted to have you on the program. He is the Republican senator from Nebraska, Senator Chuck Hagel. A busy week ahead for him and members of the Senate on a couple major issues--this filibuster issue, the John Bolton nomination. We'll continue to follow it. Senator Hagel, nice to have you on the program again, sir.

Hagel: Tavis, it's always great to be with you.

Tavis: Glad to have you. All the best to you. Up next on this program, talented singer-songwriter India.Arie and after our conversation with Ms. Arie, then her band will join her here on the stage for a presentation--performance, I should say--of her hit song now 'Purify Me.' Stay with us.