Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 116 (Thursday, July 31, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 116 (Thursday, July 31, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10455-S10469]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Unanimous Consent Request--Amending Standing Rules

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I alerted the distinguished Senate floor
manager on this matter.
I send a resolution to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator
Durbin. The resolution says that in any proceeding of a committee
considering a nomination made by the President to the U.S. Senate, it
shall not be in order to ask any question of the nominee relating to
the religious affiliation of the nominee.
With that, Madam President, I send a resolution to the desk to amend
the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide that it is not in order in
a committee to ask questions regarding a Presidential nominee's
religious affiliation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to
provide that it is not in order in a committee to ask
questions regarding a Presidential nominee's religious
affiliation.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for its immediate
consideration; that the resolution be considered and agreed to, and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will
object--let me make clear that when the issue of religion is raised, as
it has been in the Pryor matter, and we think improperly so, and it
seems to be continuously raised in some of these issues before the
Judiciary Committee with various nominees--there are questions or
statements like this: One Senator accused Attorney General Pryor of----
Mr. REID. Regular order.
Mr. HATCH. --``asserting an agenda of religious belief of your own.''
As long as those types of questions are going to be asked, I am going
to have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order has been called for.
Mr. HATCH. Then I object under those circumstances.
Mr. REID. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The resolution will go over 1 day under rule 14.
Who yields time?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time is remaining to the Senator
from Vermont?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes 52 seconds remaining.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished friend from Illinois
who, incidentally, gave one of the finest speeches I ever heard last
night on the Senate floor.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
Madam President, I rise this morning in continuation of the debate
which occurred last night. What has just occurred on the floor of the
United States Senate is troubling. An attempt was made by the Senator
from Vermont in which I joined to make it clear that no nominee of a
President who appears before a committee of the Senate would ever be
asked questions related to his or her religious affiliation.
This clear statement of constitutional principle was just rejected by
the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I don't
understand that.
If we truly want to take religion out of this debate, if we want the
debate to be confined to political beliefs and not a person's creed,
why does the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
object? I think the answer is obvious.
What we have seen in the William Pryor nomination is an attempt to
use religion as a defense. It is almost part of the art of magic. How
do you pull off a magic trick? You divert the attention of the audience
to something else while you move your hand in another direction. In
this case, what the Republicans are trying to do is to divert our
attention from the radical political beliefs of William Pryor by saying
that the real issue isn't politics; it is his Catholic faith. Frankly,
that is not only an unfair argument. It is inaccurate.
Time and again, the Judiciary committee has approved President Bush's
nominees for the Federal bench who have been Catholic, who have been
pro-life, and, frankly, who have taken positions with which most of the
Democratic members of the committee disagree. But in this case, despite
the fact that William Pryor has reached a new level as a nominee in
terms of his radical views and his experience, we are being accused of
discriminating against him because of his religion.
The record will show that it was the Republican chairman of the
committee who asked that William Pryor's religious affiliation be made
part of the record. It was the chairman of the committee who used that
important and now code phrase, ``deeply held religious beliefs,'' on
more than one occasion. The record will also show that many of us who
have questioned the background of William Pryor never raised his
religion as an issue, nor should we.
I have listened to this debate on the floor of the Senate and in the
Senate Judiciary Committee, and it troubles me greatly to think this
body would now ignore the clear instruction and guidance of the U.S.
Constitution, which says, in Article VI, that ``no religious Test shall
ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under
the United States.''
I would warn my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that there
is a strong sentiment in America that each of us should have the
freedom to follow the religion of our conscience, that no one should
ever be dictated to by this Government or any government as to their
religious belief. And those who attempt to exploit religion to achieve
political goals will, frankly, never be favored in this country, nor
should they. That is what is at issue here. And for them to raise this
as somehow a condemnation of William Pryor's religion, is troubling. C.
Boyden Gray, former counsel to President Bush's father, last night on
television said, although he was an Episcopalian in his own personal
religious belief, he did not feel any problem running these ads
suggesting about what a good Catholic believes.
We have had the same thing in the committee. Members of the committee
who are not members of the Catholic faith have been professing
theology.
Late last night, I spoke on the Floor to explain my deep
disappointment about the debate in the Judiciary Committee surrounding
the nomination of William Pryor.
That negative discourse has now spilled over to the floor of the U.S.
Senate and in the advertisements placed in our Nation's newspapers and
on radio airwaves.
I never thought that we would ever be in the position that we find
ourselves in today where members of this chamber are debating some of
the most

[[Page S10463]]

well settled and fundamental premises upon which our great Nation was
founded.
Freedom from religious persecution is one of the pillars upon which
our Nation and its Constitution rest, and there should be no debate
about it.
In fact, our Founding Fathers thought it necessary to encapsulate
that concept into the very text of the Constitution itself, in clause 3
of article VI.
That clause reads:

. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public trust under the United
States.

It was General Charles Pinckney of South Carolina who, on August 20,
1787, introduced the provision at the Federal Convention that
ultimately became part of the Constitution in Article VI. General
Pinckney, like many of the pioneers, understood that religion can be
abused by governments in divisive ways.
As early as the 17th Century, some Americans such as Roger Williams,
expressed their objection to the common practice inherited from England
of imposing a religious test for public office. However, by the
beginning of the 18th Century, just about every Colony had enacted a
law that limited eligibility for public office solely to members of
certain denominations.
In Rhode Island, for example, one had to be a Protestant to become
eligible for such office. In Pennsylvania, the law required a belief
that God was ``the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked.''
North Carolina disqualified from office anyone who denied ``the being
of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority
of either the Old or New Testament.''
The words of Oliver Ellsworth, a landholder who participated in the
debates on December 17, 1787, capture the essence of the need for an
affirmative prohibition now found in the Constitution. Ellsworth said:

Some very worthy persons . . . have objected against that
clause in the constitution which provides, that no religious
test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office
or public trust under the United States. They have been
afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But my
countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude
persecution and to secure to you the important right of
religious liberty. We are almost the only people in the
world, who have a full enjoyment of the important right of
human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship
God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience.

This morning, I am uncomfortable in offering this Resolution with my
respected colleague, the Senator from Vermont and ranking member of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, because I believe the rule change we seek
with this Resolution should never be needed in a Chamber where every
Member has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Yet events of the past few weeks compel us to act today.
Our resolution would simply state that it is the rule of the Senate
to prohibit the questioning by any Senator of a presidential nominee's
religious affiliation. The rule would thus require us to carry out in
practice the wise admonitions of our Founding Fathers.
I hope my colleagues will join Senator Leahy and me in adopting this
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I hope colleagues will join me in
opposing this nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I would like to speak about the meeting
earlier this week with the Interfaith Alliance where they--Catholics,
Protestants, and Jews--condemned the activities of having any Member of
the Senate ask somebody their religion in a Senate meeting.
A few days ago we heard from a distinguished group of members of the
clergy from a variety of churches and synagogues who serve as members
of the Interfaith Alliance. The Alliance is a national, grassroots,
non-partisan, faith-based organization of 150,000 members who come from
over 65 religious traditions. These men and women of faith promote the
positive and healing role of religion in public life, and challenges
all who seek to manipulate or otherwise abuse religion for sectarian or
partisan political purposes. They came to the United States Capitol to
denounce the despicable charges made against Senators, and to urge, as
many of us have, that this involvement of religion in the confirmation
process come to an end. I would like to enter into the record the
statements of some of the participants in the event where the
Alliance's members came together for that purpose.
Specifically, I would like to have printed in the Record the remarks
of Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, the President of the Interfaith Alliance,
the remarks of Rabbi Jack Moline, the Vice-chair of the Alliance, and
the remarks of the Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon, the Immediate Past
President of the Alliance. These statements are moving and persuasive
and important. I would hope that my Republican colleagues would read
them and take them to heart.
The demagoguery, divisive and partisan politics being so cynically
used by supporters of the President's most extreme judicial nominees
needs to stop.
I ask unanimous consent to have those remarks by clergy printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

(From Hill Briefing, July 29, 2003)

(Remarks by Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy)

Religion and the Senate Judiciary Hearing

Good morning. Welcome to this Press and Hill Staff
Briefing. My name is Welton Gaddy. I serve as President of
the Interfaith Alliance, a national, grassroots, non-
partisan, faith-based organization of 150,000 members who
come from over 65 different religious traditions. The
Interfaith Alliance promotes the positive and healing role of
religion in public life and challenges all who seek to
manipulate or otherwise abuse religion for sectarian or
partisan political purposes.
Last Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee's discussion
on William Pryor's nomination to the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals in Atlanta deteriorated into a dramatic demonstration
of the inappropriate intermingling of religion and politics
that raised serious concerns about the constitutionally
guaranteed separation of the institutions of religion and
government. Such a meshing of religion and politics in the
rhetoric of the Senate Judiciary Committee cheapens religion
and diminishes the recognized authority of the Committee to
speak on matters constitutionality. The debate of that day,
though alarming and disturbing, has created a teachable
moment in which we will do well to look again at the
appropriate role of religion in such a debate. That is why we
are here this morning.
Religion plays a vital role in the life of our Nation. Many
people enter politics motivated by religious convictions
regarding the importance of public service. Religious values
inform an appropriate patriotism and inspire political
action. But a person's religious identity should stand
outside the purview of inquiry related to a judicial
nominee's suitability for confirmation. The Constitution is
clear: there shall be no religious test for public service.
Within a partisan political debate, it is out of bounds for
anyone to pursue a strategy of establishing the religious
identity of a judicial nominee to create divisive
partisanship. That, too, is an egregious misuse of religion
and a violation of the spirit of the constitution. Even to
hint that a judiciary committee member's opposition to a
judicial nomination is based on the nominee's religion is
cause for alarm. How did we get here?
In recent years, some religious as well as political
leaders have advanced the theory that the authenticity of a
person's religion can be determined by that person's support
for a specific social-political agenda. So severe has been
the application of this approach to defining religious
integrity that divergence from an endorsement of any one
issue or set of issues can lead to charges of one not being a
``good'' person of faith.
The relevance of religion to deliberations of the Judiciary
Committee should be twofold: one, a concern that every
judicial nominee embraces by word and example the religious
liberty clause in the constitution that protects the
rich religious pluralism that characterizes this nation
and, two, a concern that no candidate for the judiciary
embraces an intention of using that position to establish
a particular religion or religious doctrine. In other
words the issue is not religion but the constitution.
Religion is a matter of concern only as it relates to
support for the constitution.
Make no mistake about it, there are people in this nation
who would use the structures of government to establish their
particular religion as the official religion of the nation.
There are those who would use the legislative and judicial
processes to turn the social-moral agenda of their personal
sectarian commitment into the general law of the land. The
Senate Judiciary Committee has an obligation to serve as a
watchdog that sounds no uncertain warning when such a
philosophy seeks endorsement within the judiciary.
It is wrong to establish the identity of a person's
religion as a strategy for advancing

[[Page S10464]]

or defeating that person's nomination for a judgeship.
However, it is permissible, even obligatory, to inquire about
how a person's religion impacts that person's decisions about
upholding the constitution and evaluating legislation. When a
candidate for a federal bench has said, as did the candidate
under consideration last Wednesday, in an address in the town
in which I pastor, ``our political system seems to have lost
God'' and declares that the ``political system must remain
rooted in a Judeo-Christian perspective of the nature of
government and the nature of man,'' there is plenty for this
Committee to question.
Every candidate coming before this Committee should be
guaranteed confirmation or disqualification apart from the
candidate's religious identity as a Baptist, a Catholic, a
Buddhist or a person without religious identification. What
is important here is a candidate's pledge to defend the
constitution. And, that pledge should be buttressed by a
record of words and actions aimed not at attacking the very
religious pluralism that the candidate is being asked to
defend but rather to continuing a commitment to the highest
law of the land.
I felt grimy after listening to distinctions between a
``good Catholic'' and ``bad Catholic.'' I know that language;
I heard it in the church of my childhood where we defined a
``good Baptist'' as one who tithed to the church, didn't
smoke, didn't dance and attended church meetings on Sunday
evening and a ``bad Baptist'' as one who didn't fit that
profile. The distinctions had nothing to do with the essence
of the Christian tradition and the content of Baptist
principles. It is not a debate that is appropriate or
necessary in the Chamber of the United States Senate.
The United States is the most religiously pluralistic
nation on earth. The Interfaith Alliance speaks regularly in
commendation of ``One Nation--Many Faiths.'' For the sake of
the stability of this nation, the vitality of religion in
this nation, and the integrity of the Constitution, we have
to get this matter right. Yes, religion is important.
Discussions of religion are not out of place in the judiciary
committee or any public office. But evaluations of candidates
for public office on the basis of religion are wrong and
there should be no question that considerations of candidates
who would alter the political landscape of America by using
the judiciary to turn sectarian values into public laws
should end in rejection.
The crucial line of questioning should revolve not around
the issue of the candidate's personal religion but of the
candidate's support for this nation's vision of the role of
religion. If the door to the judiciary must have a sign
posted on it, let the sign read that those who would pursue
the development of a nation opposed to religion or committed
to a theocracy rather than a democracy need not apply.
In 1960, then presidential candidate John F. Kennedy
addressed the specific matter of Catholicism with surgical
precision and political wisdom, stating that the issue was
not what kind of church he believed in but what kind of
America he believed in. John F. Kennedy left no doubt about
that belief: ``I believe in an America where the separation
of church and state is absolute.'' Kennedy pledged to address
issues of conscience out of a focus on the national interest
not out of adherence to the dictates of one religion. He
confessed that if at any point a conflict arose between his
responsibility to defend the constitution and the dictates of
his religion, he would resign from public office. No less a
commitment to religious liberty should be acceptable by any
judicial nominee or by members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee who recommend for confirmation to the bench persons
charged with defending the Constitution.
____

Statement of Rabbi Jack Moline, of the Interfaith Alliance

(July 29, 2003)

I am Rabbi Jack Moline, Vice-chair at-large of The
Interfaith Alliance. I am also on the back end of a summer
cold, so please forgive the huskiness of my voice.
The father of our country, George Washington, was a
surveyor by trade. Part of his duties included the
determination of exactly where the property of one owner left
off and the other owner began. You might wonder what possible
difference a few inches, even a few feet in either direction
would make to a farmer with acres of land. But Washington
knew as we all know that crops do not grow only in the center
of a field, and that cattle do not graze only a distance from
the fence, and that injuries do not always occur close to the
barn. Good surveying produces good boundaries. And good
boundaries keep good neighbors from unnecessary conflict.
As a rabbi, I have studied similar boundary issues in the
Talmud. Entire sections are taken up discussing the
boundaries between properties, between businesses, between
Sabbath and weekdays, between the holy and the profane.
Violating those boundaries throws a system into turmoil.
Preserving them avoids unnecessary conflict.
We Americans have become experts in testing boundaries. You
can make your own list of the boundaries we have tried to
survey, and where we have been successful and where we have
not. In culture, in business, in public policy and in
politics, the lines that separate one domain from another
have been confronted by those who wish to preserve them and
by those who wish to redraw them.
When the Bill of Rights of our Constitution established
what Thomas Jefferson wisely called the wall of separation
between church and state, it created a two-hundred-year-old
tradition of surveying that boundary, trying to find the
exact place to keep good neighbors from unnecessary conflict.
The Senate Judiciary Committee failed in their latest
attempt last week when Alabama Attorney General William
Pryor, nominee for a Federal judgeship, was asked by a
supporting Senator about his religious affiliation. The
result, as you have seen, was an unnecessary conflict between
good neighbors. In fact, we are counting our blessings that
the Capitol Police were not called to intervene in the
ensuing arguments.
The religious beliefs of a nominee are relevant only to the
extent that they interfere with his or her ability to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States. Frankly, I
would be alarmed to see the influences of religious
conviction expunged from any aspect of American government.
And I think it is entirely relevant to ask any candidate for
the executive, legislative or judiciary if personal
convictions would interfere with the ability to support and
defend the Constitution and its resultant laws as they exist
today.
Frankly, that is the relevant quesion--not a question of
affiliation. Do the values, beliefs or proclivities that Mr.
Pryor or anybody else holds prevent him from meeting the
responsibilities of the office. The question is about his
beliefs and no one else's. By affixing a label to the
question and generalizing the issue, the legitimate business
of the Senate Judiciary Committee was catapulted onto the
other side of that carefully surveyed boundary. And lest you
think the fault lies only on one side, the subsequent
responses of opposing Senators are a good indication of the
reason we rely on articulated rules in our society and not
good will.
It is time to return to the tradition of Washington and
Jefferson and survey again that necessary boundary. And once
it has been reestablished, then it behooves both the Senators
and the nominees they examine to respect the values on which
this country was founded.
____

Remarks of the Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon

(July 29, 2003)

Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here with all of you
this morning. I am the Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon,
Immediate Past President of The Interfaith Alliance and the
recently retired Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of
Washington, Pro tempore.
Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank Senator
Leahy for understanding the grave importance of why this
discussion today is not only crucial for the future of the
judicial nominations process, but in fact, a necessary
reflection on the state of our democracy for all of us
gathered here: religious leaders, elected officials, those
who seek to serve the nation by entering into civil service,
and finally, the countless people of this Nation who are
brought up to believe that any citizen, no matter what your
gender, race or religion, will have an equal opportunity to
serve this country, and will have the right to be treated
equally under the law. The First Amendment of our
Constitution--through its wise and steadfast guarantee that
the government of the United States shall make no law to
establish a religion and guarantees that it will not
interfere with the free exercise of religion--expects nothing
less than the religious freedom and liberty that this
provides.
I believe that I speak for many when I say that last week's
hearing of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor did not
reflect well on the religious health of our nation and the
guarantees of our Constitution.
Last week's hearing, a hearing that put on the record
certain Senators defining what is true Catholicism--including
even references to Rome--and other Senators having to defend
their opposition to a nominee against charges of being anti-
Catholic--was nothing short of a travesty and a major step
back for interfaith relations in this nation. This becomes
more troubling given the fact that there are indeed Roman
Catholics on this committee who, according to their own
remarks before the committee, consider themselves to be
devout.
Not only must those who are nominated to become judges
respect religious pluralism, equally important, those who are
charged with confirming judges must respect the fact that
within denominations there remains a wide spectrum of people
who all hold varied beliefs. And they are all equally worthy
of respect.
Senators do have an obligation to determine whether a
judicial nominee will in fact respect those of all religious
beliefs and those citizens amongst us who practice no
religion at all. It is fair to ascertain whether a nominee
will deliver justice based upon the Constitution of the
United States--a document that unites us all and binds us
together under a common law--or religious doctrine and sacred
texts that were written for those who specifically subscribe
to one religious tenet over another. This becomes more
necessary when a nominee or his or her supporters take the
unfortunate and even dangerous step of couching the nominee's
positions on law and justice in terms of abiding by one faith
tradition over another.
I am deeply disappointed that those charged with confirming
nominees to serve the federal judiciary and thus the millions
of Americans who will depend on those confirmed to uphold the
concept of blind justice,

[[Page S10465]]

would deploy the strategy of playing one religion against
another--equating honest differences of opinion with being
anti-religion. Whether it is anti-Catholic, anti-Baptist,
anti-Sikh, anti-Jew, or anti-Muslim, this kind of divisive
politics has no place in the Congress of the United States,
period. We are a people who are free to choose how and when
we worship.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah controls the remainder
of the time.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I have been listening to this. I have to
tell you, it is apparent that my friends on the other side who are
stung a little bit by this. They should be. They should be. Naturally,
they don't want religion mentioned because they are referring to it all
the time, and it is almost always in the context of abortion.
Almost every question that Democrats ask those whom they consider
controversial nominees is about abortion. Naturally, they cannot do
that to every nominee, even though I believe some of them would like
to. So they are selective in choosing certain nominees who have deeply
held religious beliefs.
But let me just give you a few examples of why I am convinced General
Pryor's religion was put squarely at issue during his hearing, and why,
at the end of the hearing, I brought up the issue of religion--because
I was sick and tired of hearing this kind of stuff, because when
Democrats were questioning his deeply held beliefs, they really were
questioning his religious beliefs.
One Senator--I believe it was Senator Durbin from Illinois--accused
General Pryor, during the hearing, of ``asserting an agenda of your
own, a religious belief of your own. . . .''
In his opening statement, Senator Schumer stated:

[I]n General Pryor's case his beliefs are so well known, so
deeply held, that it is very hard to believe, very hard to
believe that they are not going to deeply influence the way
he comes about saying, ``I will follow the law.'' And that
would be true of anybody who had very, very deeply held
views.

I think he had a right to say that, but the point is, there isn't
anybody who doesn't understand, when you talk about deeply held views,
what those are are religious beliefs. If they don't understand it, then
they--well, I will not comment about that.
At another point, on the subject of Roe v. Wade--which came up in
almost every question to Pryor from a Democratic questioner--Senator
Schumer said:

I for one believe that a judge can be pro-life, yet be
fair, balanced, and uphold a woman's right to choose, but for
a judge to set aside his or her personal view, the commitment
to the rule of law must clearly supersede his or her personal
agenda. . . . But based on the comments Attorney General
Pryor has made on this subject, I have got some real concerns
that he cannot, because he feels these views so deeply and so
passionately.

There is only one reason he feels those views so deeply and
passionately, and that is because of his religion and his religious
beliefs. He is a traditional, conservative pro-life Catholic. I don't
think my colleagues are against the Catholic Church, but it sure seems
as if they are against the traditional pro-life conservative Catholic--
on a selective basis, of course, because they cannot do this to
everybody.
Another Senator told General Pryor:

. . . I think the very legitimate issue in question with your
nomination is whether you have an agenda, that many of the
positions which you have taken reflect not just an advocacy
but a very deeply held view and a philosophy, which you are
entitled to have, but you are also not entitled to get
everyone's vote.

General Pryor is an openly pro-life Catholic. To me, these questions
and comments about his deeply held personal views put his religious
beliefs squarely in issue.
Some Democrats say that they have, generally, voted to confirm about
140 of President Bush's judicial nominees. And they say some may have
been pro-life Catholics, so our charges that they refuse to confirm
pro-life Catholics are baseless. But here's what they're really saying:
if you're a pro-life Catholic, you'd better keep quiet during your
entire legal or political career before you come before us on the
Judiciary Committee, because if you have made public statements that
indicate you actually believe in official Catholic doctrine or are
actually pro-life, that's when you are in real trouble with us. If you
are smart, you will keep your religious beliefs to yourself, and maybe
we won't ask about them directly or indirectly. So at best, what some
Democrats seem to want is a gag order enforced on nominees who have
publicly espoused pro-life positions, even in the context of political
campaigns. At worse, maybe some would rather that those publicly
profess pro-life sentiments be excluded from public service--certainly
service on the federal bench--altogether.
Let's assume that, as various polls seem to show, the American people
are roughly equally divided on the policy questions regarding abortion.
There's no question that tens of millions of Catholics, following the
official doctrine of the church, and millions of other religious
believers of all denominations in this country are on the pro-life side
of that divide. An abortion litmus test--which is really a religious
litmus test, where pro-life views arise from a person's faith--
effectively excludes judicial nominees from that side, from service on
the Federal bench. That is wrong, particularly in the case of Bill
Pryor, whose record of subordinating his personal beliefs to the law
could not be clearer, and who, like Justice Owen, affirmed to our
Committee that he would follow Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court
precedents with which he personally disagrees. He understands his role
as a federal judge. It's time we act on a proper understanding of our
role as Senators and vote for or against his confirmation.

We know that our Constitution prohibits religious tests for public
office. Nobody would propose a law that excluded persons of certain
religions from certain federal offices. But what can't be done overtly
is no less objectionable when done indirectly.
Article VI of the Constitution states, ``[N]o religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under
the United States.'' I do not believe that any Senator would
intentionally impose a religious test on the President's judicial
nominees, and I do not think any Senators are guilty of anti-religion
bias. However, I am deeply concerned that some are indirectly putting
at issue the religious beliefs of several judicial nominees--nominees
who are avowedly pro-life as a result of their religious beliefs.
The most recent example emerged during the debate on the nomination
of Bill Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. During his confirmation hearing,
General Pryor was asked repeatedly by some Committee Democrats about
what one senator called his ``very, very deeply held views.'' In fact,
in the portion of his opening statement addressing Roe v. Wade, one of
my Democratic colleagues on the judiciary Committee stated

Another Senator accused General Pryor during the hearing of
``asserting an agenda of your own, a religious belief of your own. . .
.'' And yet another Senator told General Pryor during the hearing:

Another colleague remarked:

Virtually in every area you have extraordinarily strong
views which continue and come out in a number of different
ways. Your comments about Roe make one believe, could he
really, suddenly, move away from those comments and be a
judge?

I became concerned after these comments that General Pryor was
essentially being questioned about his deeply held religious beliefs,
and that is the only reason I myself questioned General Pryor on the
subject of religion during his hearing. In my view, it was time to call
it like I saw it. But let me make one thing absolutely clear: My
questions were an attempt to prevent General Pryor, and any other
judicial

[[Page S10466]]

nominees, from being subjected to a religious test. In no way, shape or
form did I attempt, or would I ever attempt, to impose such a test.
General Pryor is an openly pro-life Catholic, so there is little
doubt in my mind about the nature or source of his ``deeply held
views.'' He has publicly stated on numerous occasions, including during
his confirmation hearing, that he believes abortion is the taking of
innocent human life. My colleagues seem to be arguing that because
General Pryor feels passionately that abortion is morally wrong and has
publicly expressed his views, he will be unable to set aside his
personal views on the subject and follow binding Supreme Court
precedent as a judge. But General Pryor's record on the subject of
abortion is crystal clear and beyond dispute. He has enforced the law
despite his publicly expressed and conflicting personal beliefs.
For example, after the Alabama legislature passed a partial-birth
abortion ban in 1997, General Pryor issued guidance to state law
enforcement officials to ensure that the law was enforced consistent
with the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Although there was considerable outcry against his decision from the
pro-life community, the ACLU praised General Pryor's decision,
emphasizing that his order had ``[s]everly [l]imited'' Alabama's ban.
He issued similar guidance after the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in
Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down another state's ban on partial-
birth abortion.

I doubt that any Supreme Court decision could be more personally
distasteful to General Pryor than Stenberg v. Carhart. And he
specifically said he disagreed with the decision while emphasizing that
it was the law and he would enforce it. Can we ask more of a judicial
nominee, than to demonstrate such objectivity and enforce a law so at
odds with his personal beliefs? I urge my colleagues to judge General
Pryor and other pro-life nominees on their record as it relates to
abortion and not on the nominees' person beliefs on the subject.
By the way, I am certainly not alone in my concern that the debate
over General Pryor's nomination has put his religious beliefs at issue.
The Mobile Register in a July 26 editorial wrote that :

. . . the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have
repeatedly asserted that Mr. Pryor would be incapable of
enforcing the law . . . That's a serious charge, in effect
saying that if somebody believes deeply, because of his
religious faith, that abortion is morally wrong, then that
person is unfit for a judgeship. But that onus is on the
accusers to prove from Bill Pryor's record that he is thus
hampered from enforcing the law. Mr. Pryor has much evidence
on his side, but where is their evidence to the contrary? . .
. To look at that record and still assert, as the Senate
Democrats do, that the strength of Mr. Pryor's personal
beliefs disqualifies him, is indeed, effectively, to say that
his faith makes him ineligible for office. Their stance
against him should anger all people of deep faith, of all
religions.

In addition, Austin Rusc, President of the Catholic Family & Human
Rights Institute, wrote in a letter dated July 29:

``I am deeply troubled by the recent turns of events in the
U.S. Senate regarding Catholic nominees to the Federal
Court. It appears to me that a faithful Catholic, that is
one who upholds the Catholic teaching on the inviolability
of innocent human life from conception onward, cannot be
confirmed for the Federal bench by this Senate. It very
clearly is a religious test for office, and therefore a
violation of our Constitution. Moreover, it is an insult
to millions of faithful Catholics in this country.

I also received a July 23 letter from the president and three other
leaders of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America that
stated:

As a community of religious believers committed to full
engagement with modern American society, we are deeply
troubled by those who have implied that a person of faith
cannot serve in a high level government post that may raise
issues at odds with his or her personal beliefs. There is
little question in our minds that this view has been the
subtext for some of the criticism of Mr. Pryor. We urge you
and your colleagues to empathetically reject this aspersion
and send a clear message that such suggestions, whether
explicit or implied, are beyond the pale of our politics.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Register editorial be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HATCH. Any suggestions that a person with deeply held religious
beliefs cannot be trusted to follow the law, despite a proven track
record of doing just that, is unconstitutional. I will continue to
fight any form of religious test, direct or indirect, as long as I am a
Member of this Senate. I have stood up for the free exercise of
religion time and time again, through such measures as the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act. I am proud of my accomplishments, and I will
continue in my quest to ensure that the free exercise of religion is a
right that remains uncompromised for everyone--including judicial
nominees.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[Mobile Register, July 26, 2003]

To Denigrate Pryor, How Low Can They Go?

On the matter of the judicial nomination of Alabama
Attorney General Bill Pryor, it's time for his Democratic
opponents to put up or shut up.
When all the smokescreens dissipate, the Senate Democrats'
objections to Mr. Pryor come down to two: First, that his
pro-life views are too ``extreme'' for him to be trusted to
uphold laws that contradict those views, and second, that
they have been denied ample time to investigate his fund-
raising activities.
Let's take them one at a time. Much has been made of Mr.
Pryor's supporters supposedly accusing his opponents of
deliberate anti-Catholic bias. But that's not what the
supporters have claimed. Instead, they've asserted--quite
believably--that the critics' pro-choice litmus test amounts
to the kind of ``religious test'' that, whether applied to
Catholics (such as Mr. Pryor) or conservative Protestants, or
for that matter members of any faith, are explicitly
prohibited by the Constitution.
Too Catholic?: It's not merely Catholics who say Bill
Pryor's faith is being unfairly used against him. The
president and three other leaders of the Orthodox Jewish
Union wrote this in a July 23 letter: ``As a community of
religious believers committed to full engagement with modern
American society, we are deeply troubled by those who have
implied that a person of faith cannot serve in a high level
government post that may raise issues at odds with his or her
personal beliefs. There is little question in our minds that
this view has been the subtext for some of the criticism of
Mr. Pryor. . . . In our view, Mr. Pryor's record as Alabama's
attorney general demonstrates his ability to faithfully
enforce the law, even when it may conflict with his
personal beliefs.''
Indeed, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee
have repeatedly asserted that Mr. Pryor would be incapable of
enforcing the law. Here's Senator Charles Schumer of New
York: ``In General Pryor's case his beliefs are so well
known, so deeply held, that it is very hard to believe--very
hard to believe--that they are not going to deeply influence
the way he comes about saying, `I will follow the law,' and
that would be true of anybody who had very, very deeply held
views.''
Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois even suggested to Mr.
Pryor directly that he was ``asserting an agenda of your own,
a religious belief of your own, inconsistent with separation
of church and state.''
That's a serious charge, in effect saying that if somebody
believes deeply, because of his religious faith, that
abortion is morally wrong, then that person is unfit for a
judgeship.
But the onus is on the accusers to prove from Bill Pryor's
record that he is thus hampered from enforcing the law. Mr.
Pryor has much evidence on his side, but where is their
evidence to the contrary? The Alabama AG, after all, is a
white Republican who has taken the side of black Democrats in
a suit filed by white Republicans. He is a man who has
publicly intervened against the very Republican governor, Fob
James, who first appointed him. And on two separate occasions
he took stances, as the state's top legal officer, that
angered some of his anti-abortion allies.
To look at that record and still assert, as the Senate
Democrats do, that the strength of Mr. Pryor's personal
beliefs disqualifies him, is indeed, effectively, to say that
his faith makes him ineligible for office. Their stance
against him should anger all people of deep faith, of all
religions.
False testimony?: Senate Democrats also contend that
Republicans have unfairly cut off their ``investigation''
into whether Mr. Pryor testified truthfully about fund-
raising activities for the Republican Attorneys General
Association--activities the Democrats themselves
acknowledge were legal.
The truth is that the anti-Pryor forces are the ones whose
tactics should be in question. Using a close associate of a
man from whom Mr. Pryor recently secured a guilty plea to
bribery charges, the Democratic committee staff obtained
documents on July 2 that they claim raise questions about the
AG's own committee testimony. (It is not clear how long they
had been in contact with that associate, but some Republican
senators accused them of knowing weeks in advance.)
The Democrats did not bother to tell Republicans about the
documents until July 8. They did not interview former
staffers of the Republican group until July 15, two days
before the vote on Mr. Pryor was scheduled.

[[Page S10467]]

They have not yet put the original source under oath. And,
despite being given three opportunities to question Mr. Pryor
himself about the charges, Democrats declined all three times
to question him.
On July 17, the day the committee was scheduled to vote on
the nomination, the Democrats presented an ``investigation
plan'' that did not include giving Mr. Pryor himself a chance
to answer his accusers.
Not only that, but Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman
Orrin Hatch announced that, as of yesterday, the committee
had interviewed 20 witnesses, and that every one of them
``corroborated the testimony of General Pryor.''
In fact, said Chairman Hatch, ``what's notable'' is the
Democrats'' ``complete failure to specify any evidence that
General Pryor misled the committee.''
Indeed, they haven't even specified exactly what their
charges against him are. There is good reason, then, to agree
with Chairman Hatch that the Pryor opponents are engaged in a
``full-scale fishing expedition.''
Enough is enough. The campaign against Bill Pryor has sunk
to tawdry depths. Unless the Democrats ``put up'' a
legitimate reason to delay, instead of these faith-based and
procedural smears, they owe him an up-or-down confirmation
vote on the Senate floor, with no filibusters and no more
subterfuge.

Mr. HATCH. Now, look, it is a little late to start saying we should
have a rule that you can never mention religion. That means you could
never mention Roe v. Wade. But that would take away the biggest
argument that Democrats have against these people. I don't like to
mention religion either--never have except in General Pryor's case,
after Democrats had not so subtly raised the issue.
Now, with regard to the criticism of Boyden Gray's group, those terms
were used first by People for the American Way in formal ads and
letters, and then used by, I think, the Americans United for Separation
of Church and State. These are two liberal groups.
Here is Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
criticizing the nomination of John Ashcroft because he was for
charitable choice legislation:

Ashcroft charitable choice provisions allow a Government-
funded program to hang a sign that says ``Catholics need not
apply.''

Where did that come from? That was long before Boyden Gray's group
used such language--after all of Democrats' attacks on Pryor's deeply
held beliefs during his hearing.
What about People for the American Way? People for the American Way,
again, criticizing John Ashcroft because of the charitable choice
legislation and saying:

An evangelical church running a Government-funded welfare
program could state that ``Catholics need not apply'' in a
help wanted ad.

Which I doubt any of them would do.
Now, leftist groups used such language, and all of a sudden we hear
this screaming and shouting that Boyden Gray's group used the same
language--after Democrats put Pryor's religious beliefs squarely at
issue during his hearing and markup. Now some will say: Well, I
certainly didn't mean for my questions to put his religion at issue.
Well, what do you mean it to be? Religious beliefs are his deeply held
beliefs and personal beliefs.
Now, look, my colleagues have a right to ask questions, but I also
have a right to point out that I think those questions have led us into
some very tender areas.
Frankly, what it all comes down to--I hate to say this, but it is
true--is Roe v. Wade. That is what it comes down to. It is the be-all
and end-all issue to most of our colleagues over here.
Now, it has been to a couple of my colleagues over here, too, but we
stopped our side from using it as a litmus test. In fact, I don't know
of anybody over here who has used it as a litmus test. But in virtually
every case, that is the chief issue Democrats use against President
Bush's nominees and the chief gripe about what kind of people they
are--because they are traditional pro-life religious people. I don't
know what other conclusion you can come to.
So to bring this resolution up is just a political show, because
nobody in their right mind is going to let them get away with that type
of treatment--or should I say mistreatment--of any President's judicial
nominees. I do not want anybody on our side doing it either.
Also, frankly, for my colleague from Vermont, I know he is concerned
about this. And I don't think any of these groups, including the
conservative groups, should use this type of ``Catholics need not
apply'' language. I don't think it is right. I don't think it should be
done. But the ones who did it first, the ones who were never criticized
by our media in this country, the ones who were never criticized by my
colleagues on the other side, who are now decrying all of this, were
the Democratic, liberal inside-the-beltway groups. And all of a sudden
Boyden Gray's group is a very bad group because they have used the same
language as People for the American Way and the group Americans United
for Separation of Church and State.
I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from
Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of
the Judiciary Committee.
I was taught by my parents from early on never to laugh at somebody's
religion, never to make fun of it, respect people's personal faith. I
think that is a classic American principle we ought to live by. I would
say that is what is happening in a subtle but very practical way is
that Bill Pryor's strongly held beliefs, pro-life beliefs, are being
attacked. Therefore, they are suggesting he is not fit for the bench
because he has these beliefs and those beliefs just happen to be the
same beliefs of the Catholic Church and many other church groups
throughout America.
We cannot have that kind of test. We cannot expect nominees to come
before this Judiciary Committee and renounce their beliefs as a
condition to be confirmed. The question simply is, will they obey the
law that is afoot in the United States by either statute, Constitution,
or Supreme Court interpretation.
With regard to the resolution that has been proposed, that is just a
political gimmick. It has no meaning whatsoever. I am surprised it has
been offered in a body that considers itself serious. I believe, as was
discussed last night between Senator McConnell and Senator Hatch and
others before, that you have a right to ask nominees questions. If a
nominee has a religious belief and his church he supports has a certain
belief that has been not the law of the land, it is all right to ask
that person about it. It is all right to say, your church believes this
or that, the Supreme Court has held differently. Will you follow
Supreme Court law. That is the question. We have every right to ask
that.
What we cannot say is, because your beliefs are contrary to maybe a
Supreme Court ruling or a temporary majority in the Congress, that you
are no longer fit for the bench. Everybody has beliefs. Everybody has
ideas and concepts. They are free to do so in this country. What you
should ask and determine is whether or not the nominee will follow the
law.
Bill Pryor has a demonstrated record of that. And on abortion, where
he has strong beliefs, the only thing I have found he has ever done
involving the manner of abortion was to use his power as attorney
general. I was a former Attorney General of Alabama. I know the
attorney general can define the law for prosecuting attorneys
throughout the entire State, the district attorneys. And Bill Pryor,
after Alabama passed a partial-birth abortion statute--a procedure I
abhor, most Americans abhor and Bill Pryor abhors--he wrote them and
said: Large portions of that bill are unconstitutional and cannot be
enforced by you. He directed them not to enforce substantial portions
of it.
A pro-life leader in the State criticized him and said he gutted the
bill. The only other thing I have ever heard him say about abortion was
that he would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who
violate and protest abortion clinics in violation of the law. He has
never abused his position to further his personal views about abortion
or any other, for that matter.
It is unbelievably frustrating to me to be on this floor and have
Senators from New York and Massachusetts and Vermont stand up and say:
This man is radical. He is out of the mainstream. He is unfit for the
bench--just say those words about one of the most decent, caring,
honest public servants I have ever met, a public servant who has
demonstrated without any doubt his capacity to do the right thing

[[Page S10468]]

under the most tough political circumstances. I talked about that in
depth last night but nobody seems to care. He has been accused of not
being for civil rights.

The former county commissioner from Jefferson County, the largest
county in the State, Chris McNair, whose daughter was killed in the
16th Street church bombing by the Klan many years ago, has written in
support of Bill Pryor. He strongly supports him. Bill Pryor helped
complete prosecutions in that case recently. Doug Jones, the prosecutor
in that case, a Clinton U.S. Attorney, supports Bill Pryor. Artur
Davis, Alabama Congressman, Harvard graduate, assistant United States
Attorney, brilliant young congressman, supports Bill Pryor.
Joe Reed, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, probably the
most powerful political individual in Alabama, every Presidential
candidate for the Democratic nomination knows Joe Reed personally and
has probably talked to him a half a dozen times, a member of the
Democratic National Committee, he writes a letter and says:

. . . I am a member of the Democratic National Committee and,
of course, Mr. Pryor is a Republican, but these are only
party labels. I am persuaded that in Mr. Pryor's eyes,
Justice has only one label--Justice!
I am satisfied that if you appoint Mr. Pryor . . . he will
be a credit to the Judiciary and will be a guardian of
justice.

He goes on to say other things.
I want to share this letter from Alvin Holmes, a State Representative
in Alabama for many years. He says:

I am a black member of the Alabama House of Representatives
having served for 28 years. During my time of service in the
Alabama House of Representatives, I have led most of the
fights for civil rights of blacks, women, lesbians and gays
and other minorities.
I consider Bill Pryor a moderate on race.

We have had Senators Kennedy and Schumer and others saying Bill Pryor
is unfair on the question of race. They say he questioned some portion
of the Civil Rights Act. But he questioned section 5, the same portion
Attorney General Thurbert Baker of Georgia, an African-American
Democrat, has also criticized. This African-American Attorney General
in Georgia has explicitly written in support of Bill Pryor for his
confirmation.
This is what Mr. Holmes says:

From 1998 to 2000, Bill Pryor sided with the NAACP against
a white Republican lawsuit that challenged the districts [in
Alabama] for the Legislature. Pryor fought the case all the
way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won . . . The lawsuit was
filed by Attorney Mark Montiel--

I know Mr. Montiel, as does Mr. Pryor.

--a white Republican, and the 3-judge district court ruled
2 to 1 in favor of Mr. Montiel.

Bill Pryor took it to the Supreme Court on behalf of the existing
districts and won the case.

In 2001, [he] sided with the Legislature when it redrew
districts for Congress, the Legislature, and the State Board
of Education.

Mark Montiel challenged that in Federal court. Bill Pryor defended
the legislature, and the reapportionment plans that favored the
Democrats in the State because it was a duly enacted legislative plan
of Alabama.

He worked with Doug Jones to prosecute the KKK murderers at the 16th
Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. As I said, Mr. Chris McNair, the
father of one of those young girls who was killed, strongly supports
Bill Pryor. He created the sentencing commission in Alabama for ending
interracial disparities in sentences. In 2000, he started Mentor
Alabama, a program to recruit positive adult role models for at-risk
youth.
This is Mr. Alvin Holmes talking:

In 2001, I introduced a bill . . . to amend the Alabama
Constitution repealing Alabama's racist ban on interracial
marriage.

This was an amendment that had been declared unconstitutional but was
still in the State Constitution. He continues:

It was passed with a slim majority among the voters and
Bill Pryor later successfully defended that repeal . . .

Every prominent white political leader in Alabama, Republicans and
Democrats, opposed or remained silent on the bill except Bill Pryor who
openly and publicly asked white and black citizens to repeal the law.
Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from Alabama yield for a question?
Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. SANTORUM. Is the Senator from Alabama familiar with an op-ed in
this morning's Manchester Union Leader: ``Judging judges:
Conservatives, Catholics needn't apply.''
Mr. SESSIONS. I have not seen that editorial, but we are receiving a
flood of those kinds of communications.
Mr. SANTORUM. I would like to hear the Senator from Alabama's comment
on just a couple of things the Union Leader says. In talking about some
ads running about Catholics not needing to apply for judicial
vacancies, it says:

Democratic Senators opposing President Bush's nomination of
Alabama Attorney General William Pryor to the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals because of his ``deeply held'' belief that
abortion is wrong.
I just suggest that a deeply held belief is rooted in his Catholic
faith. That is where beliefs come from; they come from your moral
teachings, much of which is through the faith that you were brought up
on.
I return to the article:

In opposing Pryor's nomination on the grounds that he
believes strongly that abortion is immoral, the Democrats are
doing nothing more than playing sleazy partisan politics.

The last comment is:

What Senate Democrats are doing to the judicial nominations
process is a disgrace to their party and to the country.

cloture motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous
order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Executive
Calendar No. 310, the nomination of William H. Pryor, Jr., to
be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit.
Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Craig
Thomas, Charles Grassley, John Cornyn, Chuck Hagel, Jim
Talent, Richard Shelby, Wayne Allard, Elizabeth Dole,
Conrad Burns, Larry Craig, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey
Graham, Rick Santorum, and Thad Cochran.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of William H. Pryor, Jr., of Alabama, to be United States
Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 316 Ex.]

YEAS--53

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--44

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

[[Page S10469]]

NOT VOTING--3

Jeffords
Kerry
Lieberman
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

____________________