[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 116 (Thursday, July 31, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10591-S10594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE NOMINATION OF WILLIAM PRYOR

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is with reluctance and disappointment 
that I must rise in opposition to another cloture vote for a judicial 
nominee. But once again, the extreme ideology of a nominee has left us 
with no other option. But even if there were no questions about Mr. 
Pryor's ability to apply and interpret the law fairly, the open 
questions surrounding Mr. Pryor's ethical fitness, the unfinished 
investigation in the Judiciary Committee, and the fact that his 
nomination was reported out of committee in violation of committee 
rules, should compel the Senate to delay voting on this nomination. For 
both substantive and procedural reasons, Mr. Pryor's nomination should 
be put on hold. For that reason, I must oppose cloture.
  I would remind my colleagues that we have invoked our right to 
unlimited debate with great rarity. Since President Bush took office, 
Democrats have been eager to cooperate in the nomination and 
confirmation of qualified judges who will enforce the law and protect 
the rights of all Americans. And we are proud of our record. When the 
Democrats held the Senate, we confirmed 100 of the President's judicial 
nominees. We rejected only two, Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen. 
This year, we have already approved 40 more judges, and only 2 
nominees, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, have previously met with 
sustained opposition. Democrats have sought compromise and consensus. 
And today, there are 140 judges sitting on the bench who serve as 
testimony to our cooperation.
  But the importance of the Federal judiciary is too important to stand 
silently by and allow a nominee who has expressed hostility to the laws 
that protect the rights of all Americans. Mr. Pryor has repeatedly put 
his own personal and political beliefs above the dictates of the law. 
Throughout his career, he has been unable to find constitutional 
protection for even those rights that are clearly written and firmly 
established in case law. Not civil rights. Not voting rights. Not the 
right to privacy. In fact, Mr. Pryor has argued before the Supreme 
Court that it should cut back on the protections of

[[Page S10592]]

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
the American with Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave 
Act. He referred to a recent decision reaffirming Miranda rights as 
``preserving the worst examples of judicial activism.'' And he was, in 
fact, the only State attorney general in the country to challenge the 
constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act. Adhering to an 
extreme interpretation of States rights, Mr. Pryor has stated that, 
``Congress . . . should not be in the business of public education nor 
the control of street crime.'' Mr. Pryor has taken this position, even 
as President Bush has touted the importance of the Federal role in 
education and the COPS Program has put tens of thousands of new police 
officers on patrol in American towns and cities, contributing to the 
historic reduction in the crime rate of the 1990s.
  But even if we disagree on the merits of Mr. Pryor's record, there 
can be no disagreement on the incompleteness of this debate. The Senate 
rules have preserved the right of unlimited debate because, as a 
deliberative body, we have an obligation to wait until all relevant 
information is available. In the case of Mr. Pryor's nomination, there 
are vitally important outstanding questions regarding his ethical 
fitness to serve. There was a bipartisan investigation that could have 
settled these questions once and for all. But in order to shield this 
nomination from legitimate questions, the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee shut the investigation down. Then, in clear violation of the 
committee's rules, he pushed the nomination out of committee and onto 
the Senate floor. In the process, the chairman has not only allowed a 
cloud of suspicion to hang above Mr. Pryor's nomination, he has denied 
the Judiciary Committee the right to determine whether or not the 
nominee was forthright.
  Esteem for the Federal bench, and the Judiciary Committee, should 
prevent such questions from going unanswered. And I would hope that my 
colleagues would share that view. This is a body of rules. And this is 
a country of laws. I cannot imagine that there is ever a time that any 
one of us ought to be in a position to say the rules in this case are 
simply not going to apply. But that is precisely what was done by the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee--ironically the committee which 
passes judgment on those who will interpret the rule of law. Members of 
the committee called attention to this extraordinary development with 
grave concern about its implications, about its precedent, about the 
message it sends. After assurances by the majority leader that this 
would not occur, this nomination has nonetheless made it to the floor. 
We should not reward this disregard for the rules of the Senate by 
permitting the nomination to go forward.
  Amazingly, this is not the ugliest aspect of this debate. Because we 
have expressed our opposition to Mr. Pryor, Democrats have been accused 
of anti-Catholic bigotry. Of course, nothing could be further from the 
truth. I am proud of my Catholic faith. That pride is shared by many 
members of our caucus. Many of us grew up listening to our parents or 
grandparents tell stories of seeing signs that said No Catholics Need 
Apply on storefront windows. In 1960, the Democratic nominee for 
President, John Kennedy, faced questions regarding whether a Catholic 
could be sufficiently independent of church doctrine in order to serve 
his country. John Kennedy put those questions to rest and a generation 
of Catholics have been able to serve their country without being forced 
to justify their loyalty or patriotism.
  This line of attack has resuscitated a profoundly un-American idea. 
The charge that our opposition to Mr. Pryor is rooted in bigotry is 
repugnant and divisive. This is an egregious misuse of religion for 
profane political purposes. All Americans should be offended by this 
charge and disappointed that the discourse has degraded to such an 
extent. These are slanderous charges, and they have no place in this 
body. Each time Democrats have risen to oppose cloture on a judicial 
nomination, the majority's attacks against us have grown more vehement 
and abrasive. We can't control that. But we can control our response. 
Each Member of the Senate has sworn an oath to uphold and defend our 
Constitution. That is precisely what we are doing today by opposing the 
nomination of William Pryor. No attack, no matter how offensive, will 
shake us from our duty.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I have mentioned a few times over the 
last few days, and as anyone watching the horrible display here on the 
floor last night knows, those opposing the confirmation of William 
Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit have been subjected to a despicable 
smear. Supporters of the nomination have turned reality on its head. 
They accuse us of imposing a religious test, but it was a Republican 
supporter of the nomination who was the only Senator to ask Mr. Pryor 
what his religion was and to use what they now term a code phrase 
``deeply held religious beliefs.''
  The scurrilous accusations against opponents of the nomination must 
be popular with the political gurus at the White House. It has been 
echoed in recent days by the Committee for Justice, a group closely 
associated with the President and his family, headed by the first 
President Bush's White House counsel. I know about the bias against 
immigrants and against Catholics. That was real discrimination. What is 
being spread this week is a falsehood uttered for partisan political 
purposes.
  Those who know what real religious discrimination is have spoken out 
against the advertising campaign. Earlier today I mentioned the members 
of the Interfaith Alliance, who spoke so eloquently against this sort 
of smear. Now I am pleased to recognize the Anti-Defamation League, so 
well known and well respected for their work against religious bigotry, 
for speaking out against the Committee for Justice's slurs. Abraham H. 
Foxman, the National Director of the ADL, and Glen A. Tobias, its 
National Chairman, have written to the head of the Committee for 
Justice, Mr. Boyden Gray, to object to his advertisements. They explain 
to Mr. Gray, that, ``[t]o promote the view that Mr. Pryor's opponents 
object to his Catholic religious beliefs, rather than his views as 
expressed in his prolific legal writings and speeches and his answers 
to questions at his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, 
needlessly and wrongfully injects religion into the Senate's `advise 
and consent' role in the nomination process.''
  I could not agree more. I appreciate that the ADL has added its voice 
to those trying to show the Committee for Justice the error of its 
ways. I ask unanimous consent the ADL's letter to Mr. Gray be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                                    July 30, 2003.
     C. Boyden Gray, Esq.
     Chairman, The Committee for Justice, Wilmer, Cutler & 
         Pickering, Washington, DC 20037.
       Dear Mr. Gray: On behalf of the Anti-Defamation League 
     (ADL), we write to strongly object to the recent advertising 
     campaign launched by the Committee for Justice (CFJ) that 
     harshly criticizes opponents of judicial nominee William 
     Pryor for ``playing politics with religion.'' These 
     misleading ads claim that ``some in the U.S. Senate are 
     attacking Bill Pryor for having `deeply held' Catholic 
     beliefs to prevent him from becoming a federal judge'' and 
     graphically illustrate the assertion with a picture of a sign 
     hanging on the door to ``Judicial Chambers'' that reads, 
     ``Catholics need not apply.''
       We are unaware of any Senator who has attacked Mr. Pryor 
     ``for having `deeply held' Catholic beliefs.'' To promote the 
     view that Mr. Pryor's opponents object to his Catholic 
     religious beliefs, rather than his views as expressed in his 
     prolific legal writings and speeches and his answers to 
     questions at his Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, 
     needlessly and wrongfully injects religion into the Senate's 
     ``advise and consent'' role in the nomination process.
       ADL does not as a practice endorse or oppose nominees to 
     the bench. However, because Mr. Pryor has written and spoken 
     so prolifically and so forcefully as an advocate on several 
     issues of deep concern, we believe his positions merit close 
     scrutiny by the Senate. Our objections to this nomination 
     stem from Mr. Pryor's well-documented views, not his 
     religious beliefs.
       We believe that CFJ's ad campaign is misleading and 
     inflammatory. We urge you to reconsider further promotion of 
     this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Glen A. Tobias,
                                                National Chairman.
                                                Abraham H. Foxman,
                                                National Director.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of William Pryor to 
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Pryor holds extreme views on 
a range of issues, has engaged in inflammatory rhetoric when expressing 
those views,

[[Page S10593]]

and has exhibited a questionable commitment to separating politics from 
the law.
  Mr. Pryor has led Alabama's efforts to challenge Federal power and 
argue that the State should be immune from violations of Federal law. 
He has filed briefs challenging Congress' authority to enact parts of 
the Family and Medical Leave Act; he has argued against Congress' 
authority to protect disabled people from discrimination; and during 
Mr. Pryor's tenure as attorney general, Alabama was also the only State 
to file an amicus brief opposing the Government in a case limiting 
Congress' authority under the Clean Water Act.
  Our country is built upon tolerance for a diversity of faiths yet Mr. 
Pryor has also shown little respect for the important constitutional 
principle of separation of church and state.
  As an appellate court judge, Mr. Pryor would be required to follow 
precedents established by the Supreme court. But Mr. Pryor has openly 
shown disdain and indeed personally attacked individual justices. For 
instance, he stated, ``I will end my prayer for the next 
administration: Please God, no more Souters.''
  There are just too many indications that Mr. Pryor would be unable to 
separate his politics from the law. Just listen to what Former 
Republican Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods said about Mr. Pryor. 
Mr. Woods described Pryor as ``probably the most doctrinaire and the 
most partisan of any attorney general [he had] dealt with in eight 
years, so people would be wise to question whether or not [Pryor is] 
the right person to be non-partisan on the bench.''
  The majority brought this nomination to the floor and immediately 
filed a cloture petition, not allowing for adequate debate on Mr. 
Pryor's controversial nomination. I think that is wrong Wrong for the 
Senate. Wrong for our Federal courts. And wrong for the country. For 
these reasons, I oppose cloture on Mr. Pryor's nomination.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday we voted on a motion to invoke 
cloture on the nomination of William Pryor to be a judge on the 
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. After careful consideration of his 
candidacy, I had no choice but to oppose his confirmation in the 
Judiciary Committee last week and opposed cloture on his nomination as 
well.
  When considering a nominee to a Federal court judgeship, we consider 
the nominee's legal skills, judgment, reputation, and acumen. The 
nominee should be learned in the law. And the nominee should be well 
regarded among his peers in his or her community. Perhaps most 
important of all is the nominee's judicial temperament.
  An appeals court judge's solemn duty and paramount obligation is to 
do justice fairly, impartially, and without favor. An appeals court 
judge must be open minded, must be willing to set his or her personal 
preferences aside, and must be able to judge without predisposition. 
And, of course, he or she must follow controlling precedent faithfully, 
and be able to disregard completely any views he or she holds to the 
contrary.
  In the case of Attorney General Pryor, we are presented with a 
nominee whose views are so extreme that he fails this basic test. In 
case after case, and on issue after issue, Attorney General Pryor has a 
public record of taking the most extreme position, often at odds with 
controlling Supreme Court precedent, and in the most hard-line and 
inflexible manner.
  Pryor's views are outside of the mainstream on issues affecting civil 
rights, women's rights, disability rights, religious freedom, and the 
right to privacy. He assures us that despite these views, he will 
follow settled law and Supreme Court precedent. After making extreme 
statements to the committee and in his hearing and refusing to disavow 
other zealous positions that he has taken throughout his career, he 
wants us to believe that he will blindly follow the law as a judge.
  Let me make clear that the mere fact that Attorney General Pryor 
opposes abortion is not the reason I oppose him today. I have voted to 
confirm literally hundreds of judges, nominees who have both supported 
and opposed abortion. It is not Attorney General Pryor's views on 
whether or not he believes legal abortion is good public policy which 
concern me. Instead, the crucial issue is whether Attorney General 
Pryor can put his personal views aside and apply the law of the land as 
decided by the Supreme Court. It is my conclusion that he cannot.

  His inability to set his personal views aside has been demonstrated 
most explicitly in his activist attempts to challenge numerous federal 
statutes. He has chosen to expand on his cramped view of federalism and 
challenge the ability of the Federal Government to remedy 
discriminatory practices. Many of the cases in which he took his most 
extreme legal positions were on behalf of the State of Alabama where he 
had the sole decision under state law as to what legal position to 
assert. These cases include his assertion of federalism claims to 
defeat provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the 
Americans With Disabilities Act; his opposition to Congress's authority 
to provide victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers 
in federal court; his argument that Congress exceeding its authority in 
passing the Family and Medical Leave Act; and many other cases. The 
extreme legal positions advanced in these cases were fully and entirely 
the responsibility of Attorney General Pryor.
  Of course, Attorney General Pryor has every right to hold his views, 
whether we agree with him or not. He can run for office and serve in 
the legislative or executive branches should he convince a majority of 
his fellow Alabamans that he is fit to represent them. But he has no 
right to be a Federal appeals court judge. Only those who we are 
convinced are impartial, unbiased, fair, and whose only guiding 
ideology is to follow the Constitution to apply equal justice to all 
are fit for this position. Unfortunately, we can have no confidence 
that he will set these views aside and faithfully follow the 
Constitution and binding precedent. For these reasons, I must oppose 
his confirmation.
  I would be remiss if I did not address briefly--for a brief remark is 
all this point is worth--the destructive charges that those of us who 
oppose Mr. Pryor are anti-Catholic. The people who have put forward 
this charge engage in the worst form of personal destruction. These 
allegation are beneath the dignity of the process and beneath the 
dignity of the Senate and must be rejected by everyone involved.
  One last point. The Judiciary Committee began an investigation into 
statements made by the nominee before this committee, Unfortunately, 
that investigation has not been completed, so I am not ready at this 
time to judge whether Mr. Pryor lied to the Judiciary committee at his 
hearing with regard to his involvement in fundraising activities. This 
investigation involves very serious matters and must be allowed to 
proceed.
  I will vote no.
 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I took the floor last night to 
speak about the nomination of William Pryor and the unfortunate 
circumstances surrounding that nomination, and since that time certain 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to 
mischaracterize my statements and perpetuate the unfair and baseless 
charges I was trying to debunk.
  I want to briefly correct the record on two of these 
mischaracterizations, because I believe very strongly that these types 
of wrongful allegations should not be allowed to stand.
  First, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania stated that anyone who 
questioned Mr. Pryor's ``deeply held beliefs'' would be questioning his 
religious beliefs. Specifically, he said: I just suggest that it is 
obvious to anyone that this code word is an antireligious bias.
  Senator Durbin attempted to correct the record immediately but was 
not allowed to do so until later. I appreciate his efforts in that 
regard, but I think I should also set the record straight myself.
  First, what I said in my statement was clearly not a religious 
attack. I said, and I quote:

       Many of us have concerns about nominees sent to the Senate 
     who feel so very strongly, and sometimes stridently, and 
     often intemperately about certain political beliefs and who 
     make intemperate statements about those beliefs. So we raise 
     questions about whether those nominees can be truly 
     impartial, particularly when the law conflicts with those 
     beliefs.

  So Mr. President, I was very careful to raise this concern about 
deeply held

[[Page S10594]]

political beliefs, not religious beliefs. And my concern is not just 
the beliefs themselves but the manner in which they are expressed. I 
have found that intemperate statements often accompany intemperate 
people.
  Indeed, I went on to say that, and again I quote:

       It is true that abortion rights can often be at the center 
     of these questions. As a result, accusations have been 
     leveled that any time reproductive choice becomes an issue, 
     it acts as a litmus test against those whose religion causes 
     them to be anti-choice. But pro-choice Democrats on this 
     committee have voted for many nominees who are anti-choice 
     and who believe that abortion should be illegal, some of whom 
     may even have been Catholic. I do not know because I have 
     never inquired.
       So this truly is not about religion. This is about 
     confirming judges who can be impartial and fair in the 
     administration of justice. I think when a nominee such as 
     William Pryor makes inflammatory statements and evidences 
     such strongly held beliefs on a whole variety of core issues, 
     it is hard for many of us to accept that he can set aside 
     those beliefs and act as an impartial judge--particularly 
     because he is very young, 41; particularly because this is a 
     lifetime appointment; and particularly because we have seen 
     so many people who have received lifetime appointments then 
     go on and do just what they want, regardless of what they 
     said. So it is of some concern to us.

  That is what I said. I did not attack Mr. Pryor's religion. Nobody in 
this debate has. I did not attack his religious beliefs. Nobody in this 
Senate has.
  To accuse anyone in this body of using an anti-Catholic litmus test 
is inaccurate, and wrong. It is ill-advised, and it risks bringing us 
back to a day where religion and race and gender debates split this 
Nation apart at its seams.
  The judicial nominations process is a serious one and filled with 
countless debates about very serious issues. We should focus on what is 
important and real, not on what can inflame political supporters.
  The second mischaracterization of my statement was by the junior 
Senator from Alabama. I know he feels very strongly about this nominee, 
so I do not blame him for fighting hard for Mr. Pryor.
  Nevertheless, the junior Senator from Alabama did not accurately 
portray what I said in my statement. Specifically, the Senator said 
that I claimed Mr. Pryor had ``used his power as attorney general to 
obstruct the enforcement of the Violence Against Women Act in 
Alabama.''
  What I actually said was that Pryor ``used his position as attorney 
general to limit the scope of crucial civil rights laws like the 
Violence Against Women's Act, VAWA, the Age Discrimination In 
Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act. . . . For example, he 
was the only attorney general to argue against a key provision in the 
Violence Against Women Act on federalism grounds.''
  Now in retrospect, I should have been more careful in the wording of 
my statement, and for that I am sorry. I said that Mr. Pryor ``used his 
position as attorney general to limit the scope of crucial civil rights 
laws . . .'' rather than saying what I meant to say, which was that he 
argued for limiting the scope of those laws--sometimes successfully--in 
briefs before the Federal courts.
  But I certainly never said that he used his power to ``obstruct'' the 
law in Alabama.
  Some other comments have been made throughout this debate that 
mischaracterize the Democratic opposition to this nominee and in many 
instances state, or at least imply, that our opposition is based on 
religion.
  I will say once again, this is simply not true.
  I hope, as I said yesterday, that this debate can focus on what it 
should focus on, the qualifications of this nominee. That focus should 
not have been lost through a violation of the committee rules, the 
thwarting of an ongoing investigation into the nominee, or these false 
charges of religious bias.

                          ____________________