[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

       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.

  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:

     . . . 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.

  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.

                          ____________________