[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 155 (Thursday, October 30, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13535-S13556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF CHARLES W. PICKERING, SR., OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE UNITED 
               STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 400, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Charles W. Pickering, 
Sr., of Mississippi, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth 
Circuit.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, with 
the final 10 minutes divided, with the first 5 minutes under the 
control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the final 5 
minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination 
Charles W. Pickering, Sr. to be a Circuit Judge on the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I am pleased that the Majority 
Leader has brought this nomination to the floor, as it has been nearly 
2\1/2\ years since Judge Pickering was first nominated to this 
position. Since then, his record has been carefully considered. He 
appeared before the Judiciary Committee in not one, but two lengthy 
hearings. So there has been plenty of opportunity to consider the 
qualifications of Judge Pickering.
  We have received hundreds of letters of support for Judge Pickering 
from the public, members of the bar, as well as political, academic, 
and religious

[[Page S13536]]

leaders. The overwhelming support for Judge Pickering's nomination from 
his home state of Mississippi speaks volumes, especially since that 
support comes from across the political spectrum and from various 
racial and ethnic groups.
  Last month, the Governor of Mississippi and the other Democratic 
elected statewide officials of Mississippi sent a letter endorsing 
Judge Pickering stating they believe he should be confirmed. In that 
letter they noted that Judge Pickering has worked for racial 
reconciliation and ``helped unify our communities.'' They go on to 
state, ``Judge Pickering's record demonstrates his commitment to equal 
protection, equal rights and fairness for all. His values demand he 
respect the law and constitutional precedents and rule accordingly. He 
does. . . . As a judge, he is consistent in his fairness to everyone, 
and deemed well qualified by those who independently review his 
rulings, temperament, and work.''
  Unfortunately, there has also been an unjustified campaign against 
Judge Pickering, driven largely by Washington special interest groups 
who do not know Judge Pickering and who have an ideological axe to 
grind. Make no mistake about it--these groups' political agenda is to 
paint President Bush's fair and qualified nominees as extremists in 
order to keep them off the federal bench. It has been reported that a 
member of this body has accused the President of ``loading up the 
judiciary with right-wingers who want to turn the clock back to the 
1890s,'' stating that America is under attack from ``the hard right, 
the mean people.'' That news report also quoted that same Senator as 
having said, ``They have this sort of little patina of philosophy but 
underneath it all is meanness, selfishness and narrow-mindedness.''
  Now, I am disappointed that this is the level of discourse that 
Members of this body lower themselves to in their attempt to score 
political points or pander to their supporters. That is their right, if 
they choose to do so, but it is unfortunate that the opponents of Judge 
Pickering have attempted to vilify and destroy his good character and 
exemplary record with distortions and disparaging remarks. For example, 
at a recent press event in Arkansas opponents continued their smear 
campaign, with one group describing Judge Pickering as a ``racist,'' a 
``bigot'' and a ``woman-hater.'' Such remarks reveal which side is 
based on meanness.
  So today I must stand and defend the character and record of Judge 
Pickering and put these falsehoods, distortions and mean-spirited 
remarks in the trash bin where they belong.
  I was pleased that, despite this intimidation campaign, President 
Bush in January of this year renominated Judge Pickering for the Fifth 
Circuit. The propaganda easily gets in the way, so let me remind my 
colleagues that after fully evaluating Judge Pickering's integrity, 
competence, and temperament, the American Bar Association gave him its 
highest rating of ``Well Qualified'' not once, but twice--both when he 
was first nominated in May 2001 and again at the outset of the current 
Congress.
  Now I expect we will hear complaints from the other side that this 
nomination should not be before the Senate. There are those who say the 
President should not have renominated Judge Pickering, since the 
Judiciary Committee had already acted on the nomination. That position, 
of course, ignores the President's constitutional authority to nominate 
judges. And the extraordinary action taken by the Judiciary Committee 
in the last Congress denied the full Senate its constitutional right to 
advise and consent. Going forward with this nomination today is fair to 
Judge Pickering, fair to the Senate, and fair to President Bush.
  In addition to these procedural complaints, we have heard and will 
likely continue to hear a recycling of the tired arguments and well-
worn parade of horribles--which are horrible in large part because of 
their gross distortion of Judge Pickering's upstanding reputation and 
record. It is my fervent hope that opponents of this nomination do not 
resort to attacks on Judge Pickering based on his personal convictions 
in an effort to justify their opposition to his nomination. However, I 
am not optimistic that my hopes will be realized, if the unfortunate 
attack by the extremist abortion group, NARAL, the National Abortion 
Rights Action League, is any indication. That group, which represents 
what this debate is truly about, states ``Charles Pickering of 
Mississippi was a founding father of the anti-choice movement, and a 
clear risk to substitute far-right ideology for common-sense 
interpretation of the law.''
  I reject that characterization, but in any event Judge Pickering's 
private views on abortion, like any judicial nominee's personal views 
on political issues, are irrelevant to the confirmation decision. Judge 
Pickering has publicly affirmed in his confirmation hearings that he 
will follow established law and Supreme Court precedents--even those 
with which he disagrees. His record as a jurist demonstrates his 
commitment to the rule of law and that he understands that all lower 
courts, including the 5th Circuit, are bound by Roe and by the more 
recent Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
  For the record, in 1976, then-political advocate Charles Pickering 
joined a long line of famous Democrats and liberals who believed that 
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Some who shared his view include Byron 
White, President Kennedy's appointee to the Supreme Court, Archibald 
Cox, the special prosecutor who investigated President Nixon, and 
Professor William Van Allstyne, a former board member of the ACLU. But 
I repeat--Judge Pickering's political views are less important than his 
expressed commitment to follow Supreme Court precedent, even precedents 
with which he may not agree.
  It is outrageous that Judge Pickering, who has three daughters and 
nine granddaughters, has been smeared as a ``woman-hater'' or ``anti-
woman.'' Indeed, numerous women who know and have worked with Judge 
Pickering have endorsed his nomination, including civil rights attorney 
Deborah Gambrell, and Deputy U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube.
  Unlike some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, I have 
steadfastly resisted efforts to inject personal ideology into the 
confirmation process. We have all seen the destructive effects of such 
tactics on this institution, on the judicial nominations process, and 
on the nominees themselves. So as we debate the qualifications of Judge 
Pickering, and as his record is fairly evaluated on the merits, there 
can be little doubt that he deserves the support of every Member of the 
Senate.
  Let me step back from the politics of this nomination for a minute 
and talk about the person. Too often, I fear, we Senators get engaged 
in the issues to such an extent that the personal side of individual 
nominees might be forgotten. By many opponents, Charles Pickering is 
portrayed as the stereotype of the Southern white male, locked in the 
thought, culture and traditions of his upbringing in the deep South of 
yesteryear. This is the caricature they attack, but it is not the 
reality of who Judge Pickering is. Though born and raised in the rural 
South, and although he has remained geographically near his childhood 
home, Judge Pickering has traveled far in his personal and professional 
life. And while the society of his youth has changed dramatically, in 
Charles Pickering we have a nominee with a lifetime record of civic and 
community service in improving racial relations and enforcing laws 
protecting civil and constitutional rights.
  Judge Pickering's life story includes an outstanding academic record, 
an exceptional legal career and a life committed to serving others. He 
graduated first in his law school class at the University of 
Mississippi in 1961. While in law school, he was on the Law Journal and 
served as Chairman of the Moot Court Board. Upon graduating, he became 
a partner in a law firm in Mississippi.
  In the 1960s, when racial tensions were prevalent throughout 
Mississippi, Judge Pickering served as City Prosecuting Attorney of 
Laurel and was elected and served four years as County Prosecuting 
Attorney of Jones County. He condemned racially motivated violence and 
encouraged citizens to help the government prosecute those guilty of 
such violence. As County Attorney from 1964 to 1968, he assisted the 
FBI in investigating and prosecuting the Klan's attacks on African 
Americans and civil rights workers.
  During his time as County Attorney, the KKK infiltrated the 
Woodworkers

[[Page S13537]]

Union at the Masonite pulpwood plant in Jones County. Klan members beat 
people, shot into houses, fire bombed homes, and even committed a 
murder at the Masonite plant. Judge Pickering signed the affidavit 
supporting the murder indictment of reputed Klansman Dubie Lee for the 
murder at the Masonite plant. He also testified against the Imperial 
Wizard of the KKK, Sam Bowers, at a trial for the firebombing death of 
a civil rights activist, indisputably putting himself and his family at 
risk.
  Now some may downplay Judge Pickering's actions during this era, but 
I want to emphasize the moral courage that he consistently displayed. 
Let me remind my colleagues of a statement by the chairman of the 
Mississippi Legislative Black Caucus, state Rep. Philip West, who is a 
supporter of Judge Pickering and has defended the judge's civil right's 
record. Representative West observed, ``For him to say one word against 
the Klan was risking his life.'' Mr. President, to hear Judge Pickering 
now described as a racist or bigot is simply despicable, and I will 
challenge anybody who does that on this floor.
  Throughout his career Judge Pickering has shown a commitment to his 
community in both a professional and personal capacity. His numerous 
civic contributions include serving as the head of the March of Dimes 
campaign in Jones County; as the chairman of the Jones County Chapter 
of the American National Red Cross; and as the chairman of the Jones 
County Heart Fund. In 1963 he was recognized as one of the three 
Outstanding Young Men in Mississippi. Judge Pickering is active in his 
church and has served many years as a Sunday school teacher, as 
chairman of the deacons, Sunday school superintendent, and church 
treasurer.
  He has worked with organizations to advance issues that promote equal 
opportunity for all individuals in his community, church, political 
party and State. His work with the race relations committee for Jones 
County and the Institute of Racial Reconciliation at the University of 
Mississippi are just two examples of his leadership for equal rights in 
this area. That is why we find such a broad outpouring of support for 
Judge Pickering across all groups and political parties. Allow me to 
share some of these editorials, articles, and letters with my 
colleagues.
  I have already mentioned the letter of support from the current 
Governor of Mississippi and other Democratic statewide officials. 
Another letter came from William Winter, the former Democratic Governor 
of Mississippi, who writes, ``I have known Judge Pickering personally 
and professionally for all his adult life. I am convinced that he 
possesses the intellect, the integrity and the temperament to serve 
with distinction on that [Fifth Circuit] court. He is wise, 
compassionate and fair, and he is precisely the kind of judge that I 
would want to decide matters that would personally affect me or my 
family. While Judge Pickering and I are members of different political 
parties and do not hold to the same view on many public issues, I have 
always respected his fairness, objectivity, and decency.''
  Many Senators are familiar with the name Jorge Rangel, who was 
nominated to the Fifth Circuit by President Clinton. In his letter 
supporting Judge Pickering's nomination, Mr. Rangel explains, ``I first 
met Judge Pickering in 1990 in my capacity as a member of the ABA's 
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. As the Fifth Circuit's 
representative on the Committee, I conducted the primary investigation 
into his professional qualifications when he was nominated to a federal 
district judgeship in Mississippi. The Charles W. Pickering that I have 
read about in press reports during the pendency of his current 
nomination does not comport with the Charles W. Pickering that I have 
come to know in the last thirteen years. Competent, compassionate, 
sensitive and free from bias are terms that aptly describe him. 
Attempts to demonize him are both unfair and out of place in a judicial 
confirmation proceeding.'' Mr. Rangel notes that Judge Pickering called 
him during the pendency of his own nomination with words of 
encouragement, and concludes, ``The current impasse in the confirmation 
proceedings is an unfortunate one, because it continues to ensnare many 
nominees of goodwill who have answered the call to serve. For their 
sake and for the ongoing vitality of our federal judiciary, I would 
hope that you and your colleagues can find common ground. A good 
starting point would be the confirmation of Judge Pickering.''
  Yet another letter of support came from renowned Las Vegas criminal 
defense lawyer David Chesnoff, a registered Democrat who serves on the 
Board of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Mr. 
Chesnoff, who tried a case before Judge Pickering, writes, ``At no time 
during my experience before Judge Pickering . . . did I ever note even 
a scintilla of evidence that Judge Pickering did not treat every 
citizen of our great country with equal fairness and consideration. 
Based on my experience with Judge Pickering, I am offended that people 
are attacking his sterling character. I felt it important to register 
my position on his behalf and believe he would make an outstanding 
addition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. . 
. .''
  I.A. Rosenbaum also wrote to voice his support for Judge Pickering. I 
will read his letter in its entirety: ``I was the Democratic Mayor of 
Meridian [Mississippi] from 1977 to 1985 and a past President of 
Congregation Beth Israel. Injustice and character assassination galls 
me. Charles Pickering is no racist. He stood tall when our Temple was 
bombed and made very effort to prosecute Sam Bowers who planned the 
bombing. Sincerely, I.A. Rosenbaum.''
  All of these letters, of course, were generated in response to the 
gross smear campaign waged against Judge Pickering that centered 
largely on his actions in the Swan case. I expect that we will hear a 
great deal about that case during the course of this debate. But let me 
make something perfectly clear to everyone here. Judge Pickering's 
actions in the Swan case had absolutely nothing to do with racial 
insensitivity. His lifetime of striving to promote racial 
reconciliation and fighting prejudice provides irrefutable evidence of 
that. Rather, Judge Pickering's actions in the Swan case had everything 
to do with his penchant for going easy on first-time criminal 
defendants.

  Judge Pickering's record is replete with examples where he has seen 
the rehabilitative potential of first-time offenders and accordingly 
sentenced them to lighter sentences. Take, for example, the case of a 
20-year-old African-American drug defendant who faced a 5-year 
mandatory minimum. Judge Pickering reduced that to 30 months and 
recommended the defendant be allowed to participate in an intensive 
confinement program, further reducing his sentence.
  Another young African-American drug defendant with no previous felony 
convictions faced a 40-month sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. 
Judge Pickering continued his case for a year, placed him under strict 
supervised home release for 1 year, and then used his good conduct 
during home release to establish the basis for a downward departure. 
Judge Pickering ultimately sentenced him to 6 months of home 
confinement, 5 years probation and no prison time.
  A third 20-year-old African-American male faced between 70 and 87 
months under the guidelines for a drug crime. Judge Pickering downward 
departed to 48 months and recommended that he participate in intensive 
confinement, which further reduced his sentence. The defendant's lawyer 
called Judge Pickering's compassionate sentence a ``life changing 
experience'' for this defendant.
  In another case, an African-American woman faced a minimum sentence 
of 188 months. The government made a motion for a downward departure, 
and Judge Pickering continued the case six times over a period of 2\1/
2\ years to allow the prosecution to develop a basis for a further 
downward departure. In the end, Judge Pickering reduced her sentence by 
more than half, sentencing her to 63 months.
  The last case I want to discuss is the Barnett case. The Barnetts, an 
interracial couple, were both before Judge Pickering, charged with drug 
crimes. Both were facing sentences between 120 to 150 months but plea 
bargained with the government for a maximum 5-year sentence. Judge 
Pickering sentenced Mr. Barnett to the 5 years but with

[[Page S13538]]

Mrs. Barnett, who had Crohn's disease and was taking care of one of her 
sick children, he departed downward 22 levels and sentenced her to 12 
months of home confinement. At a later time, the government made a 
motion for a downward departure for Mr. Barnett and Judge Pickering 
reduced his sentence as well. Mrs. Barnett later wrote a letter, as she 
said, out of gratitude for all Judge Pickering did for her and her 
family. She stated she had learned a valuable lesson, that her family 
had been brought closer together, and that her husband had changed in 
many positive ways. She concluded, ``I want to thank you for your part 
in all of this, and I can assure you that your thoughtfulness and just 
consideration is greatly appreciated and will never be forgotten.''
  Thirteen years ago Judge Pickering began his service as a U.S. 
District Judge. He was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate, which 
included a good number of members who are still serving in the Senate 
today, including 25 members of the Democratic caucus. That affirmative 
vote was well deserved given Judge Pickering's excellent academic 
record, his distinguished legal career, his outstanding character, and 
his superb record of public and community service. That record has only 
been enhanced by his service on the bench.
  Judge Pickering deserves an up or down vote on the Senate floor. So I 
urge my colleagues to use proper standards, consider the entire record, 
and use a fair process for considering Judge Pickering's nomination. 
Those who know him best, Democrats and Republicans, representing a 
broad cross section of citizens, endorse his nomination. An unbiased 
consideration of Judge Pickering's character and experience will lead 
every fair-minded person that Judge Pickering's record fully justifies 
his confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  As the President said recently, ``The United States Senate must step 
up to serious constitutional responsibilities. I've nominated many 
distinguished and highly-qualified Americans to fill vacancies on the 
federal, district and circuit courts. Because a small group of Senators 
is willfully obstructing the process, some of these nominees have been 
denied up or down votes for months, even years. More than one-third of 
my nominees for the circuit courts are still awaiting a vote. The 
needless delays in the system are harming the administration of justice 
and they are deeply unfair to the nominees, themselves. The Senate 
Judiciary Committee should give a prompt and fair hearing to every 
single nominee, and send every nomination to the Senate floor for an up 
or down vote.''
  I agree with President Bush that this obstruction is unfair and 
harmful. I have taken to the Senate floor on numerous occasions to 
condemn the tactic of forcing judicial nominees through cloture votes. 
My position has been the same regardless of whether the nominee was 
appointed by a Democratic president or a Republican president. I am 
proud to say that during my nearly 30 years in the Senate, I have never 
voted against cloture for a judicial nominee, even on the rare occasion 
that I opposed a judicial nomination and ultimately voted against it.

  Yet, once again, some Senate Democrats are filibustering another 
``Well Qualified'' nominee--preventing an up-or-down vote on this judge 
who is supported by a majority of the Senate. This is tyranny of the 
minority and it is unfair. Senator Kennedy has asked ``What's the point 
of pushing yet again for a nominee who probably cannot get enough 
support to be confirmed because he doesn't deserve to be confirmed?'' 
With all due respect, I must disagree with the premise of his question. 
Judge Pickering does deserve to be confirmed, and, if an up-or-down 
vote were allowed, does have enough support to be confirmed.
  As I have stated before, requiring a supermajority vote on this or 
any judicial nominee thwarts the Senate from exercising its 
constitutional duty of advise and consent. The Constitution is clear on 
this matter; it contemplates that a vote by a simple majority of the 
Senate will determine the fate of a judicial nominee. There is nothing 
in the Constitution that gives that power to a minority of 41 Senators.
  Furthermore, a supermajority requirement for judicial nominees 
needlessly injects even more politics into the already over-politicized 
confirmation process. I believe that there are certain areas that 
should be designated as off-limits from political activity. The 
Senate's role in confirming lifetime-appointed Article III judges--and 
the underlying principle that the Senate perform that role through the 
majority vote of its members--is one such issue. Nothing less depends 
on the recognition of these principles than the continued, untarnished 
respect in which we hold our third branch of Government--the one branch 
of Government intended to be above political influence.
  Over the past 2 years I have been accused of changing or breaking 
committee rules and of pushing ideological nominees. The record will 
show that these charges are without foundation. In fact, it is Senate 
Democrats that have pushed the notion of injecting ideology into the 
confirmation process and have taken unprecedented steps to oppose 
judicial nominees.
  Opponents are using a variety of tactics to obstruct President Bush's 
judicial nominees. Supported by the extremist liberal interest groups, 
who themselves use even more shameful tactics to defeat these nominees, 
we have seen opponents distort the record, make unreasonable demands 
for privileged information, and force multiple cloture votes. This is 
all part of the strategy of changing the ground rules on judicial 
nominations that Senate Democrats have implemented.
  I am not the only one who is concerned about the dangerous precedents 
that some Democrats have established. Before Miguel Estrada, the 
filibuster was never used to defeat a circuit court nominee. The 
Washington Post--hardly a bastion of conservatism--warned in a February 
5, 2003, editorial that staging a filibuster against a judicial nominee 
would be ``a dramatic escalation of the judicial nomination wars.'' The 
Post urged Democrats to ``stand down'' on any attempt to deny a vote on 
the particular judicial nominee, Miguel Estrada. The editorial went on 
to warn that ``a world in which filibusters serve as an active 
instrument of nomination politics is not one either party should 
want.'' Unfortunately, this advice was rejected and the Senate was 
forced to endure an unprecedented seven cloture votes before Mr. 
Estrada requested his nomination be withdrawn. That was a sad day for 
the Senate--one I hope is never repeated.
  Similarly, the Wall Street Journal, on February 6, 2003 stated 
``Filibusters against judges are almost unheard of. . . . If 
Republicans let Democrats get away with this abuse of the system now, 
it will happen again and again.'' Unfortunately, that prediction came 
true, as the Senate is now blocked from acting on numerous judicial 
nominees because of filibusters.
  But it is not just editorial pages which have denounced the use of 
the filibuster. In fact, some of my Democratic colleagues have 
expressed similar views. For example, Senator Daschle, the Democratic 
Leader stated: ``As Chief Justice Rehnquist has recognized: 'The Senate 
is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but 
after the necessary time for inquiry it should vote him up or vote him 
down.' An up or down vote, that is all we ask. . . .''
  Similarly, Senator Leahy, my friend, colleague, and ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee said ``. . . I, too, do not want to see the 
Senate go down a path where a minority of the Senate is determining a 
judge's fate on votes of 41.'' And Senator Kennedy, the senior member 
on the Judiciary Committee stated, ``Nominees deserve a vote. If our 
Republican colleagues don't like them, vote against them. But don't 
just sit on them--that's obstruction of justice.''
  I hope that Judge Pickering's nomination is not another example of a 
double standard or a strategy of some of my Democratic colleagues to 
change the ground rules on judicial nominees. I hope that my Democratic 
colleagues will exercise the same independence that I did when I joined 
them to invoke cloture on the nominations of Clinton judicial nominees. 
Judge Pickering deserves an up-or-down vote, and he deserves to be 
confirmed.
  Mr. President, there are so many other things I could say, but I want 
to leave enough time for our Mississippi Senators.
  Let me just say this. I know Judge Pickering. I have gotten to know 
him

[[Page S13539]]

better through this ordeal he has gone through over the last 2\1/2\ 
years than I ever thought I would. He is a fine man. His family is a 
fine family. He sent his kids to integrated schools--the first 
integrated schools in Mississippi they could go to. One of them now 
sits in the Congress, Chip Pickering, who is one of the fine Congress 
people here, and everybody who knows him knows it.
  What they have done to him is awful. It is awful. I think it is time 
for the Democrats to break free from these rotten outside groups that 
just play politics on everything and bring everything down to the issue 
of abortion.
  I ask unanimous consent relevant material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             Watkins Ludlam Winter


                                              & Stennis, P.A.,

                                        Jackson, MS, May 14, 2003.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I take this opportunity to express my 
     support of Judge Charles Pickering of Mississippi for service 
     on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
       I have known Judge Pickering personally and professionally 
     for all of his adult life. I am convinced that he possesses 
     the intellect, the integrity and the temperament to serve 
     with distinction on that court. He is wise, compassionate and 
     fair, and he is precisely the kind of judge that I would want 
     to decide matters that would personally affect me or my 
     family.
       While Judge Pickering and I are members of different 
     political parties and do not hold to the same view of many 
     public issues, I have always respected his fairness, 
     objectivity and decency.
       He was a member of the Mississippi State Senate when, as 
     Lieutenant Governor, I presided over that body. I found him 
     to be one of the most diligent, hardest working and most 
     respected legislators with whom I served.
       I would single out for special commendation his sensitivity 
     and concern in the area of race relations. I had the 
     privilege of serving as a member of President Clinton's 
     National Advisory Board Race several years ago. One of the 
     impressive initiatives that resulted from the work of that 
     Board was the establishment of the Institute for Racial 
     Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi.
       Becasue of his long-standing commitment to the cause of 
     racial equity and racial reconciliation, Judge Pickering was 
     a leader in the formation of the Institute and served as a 
     founding member of its Advisory Board.
       As a member of the Mississippi Bar for over fifty years and 
     a former Governor of Mississippi, I am pleased to vouch for 
     Judge Pickering as being most worthy of confirmation as a 
     judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
           Sincerely,
     William F. Winter.
                                  ____

                                             Watkins Ludlam Winter


                                              & Stennis, P.A.,

                                    Jackson, MS, October 25, 2001.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Please permit me to express to you my 
     support for the confirmation of the Honorable Charles 
     Pickering of Mississippi for a position on the Fifth Circuit 
     Court of Appeals.
       As a former Democratic Governor of Mississippi and as a 
     long-time colleague of Judge Pickering in the legal 
     profession and in the public service, I can vouch for him as 
     one of our state's most respected leaders.
       While he and I have not always been in agreement on certain 
     public issues, I know that he is a man of reason and sound 
     judgment. He is certainly no right-wing ideologue. He will 
     bring a fair, open and perceptive mind to the consideration 
     of all issues before the court.
       I have been particularly impressed with his commitment to 
     racial justice and equity. He and I have worked together for 
     a number of years in the advancement of racial 
     reconciliation, and we serve together on the board of the 
     Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of 
     Mississippi. He has been one of this state's most dedicated 
     and effective voices for breaking down racial barriers.
       Judge Pickering has demonstrated in every position of 
     leadership which he has held a firm commitment to the 
     maintenance of a just society. I believe that he will reflect 
     those values as a member of the Fifth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals, and I commend him to you as one who in my opinion 
     will be a worthy addition to that body.
           Sincerely,
     William F. Winter.
                                  ____



                                    The Rangel Law Firm, P.C.,

                                Corpus Christi, TX, April 1, 2003.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hart 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Hatch and Leahy: I write this letter to urge 
     approval of Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr.'s nomination to 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
       I first met Judge Pickering in 1990 in my capacity as a 
     member of the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal 
     Judiciary. As the Fifth Circuit's representative on the 
     Committee, I conducted the primary investigation into his 
     professional qualifications when he was nominated to a 
     federal district judgeship in Mississippi. I spent many hours 
     discussing his qualifications with judges, lawyers and lay 
     people throughout the state. I also interviewed Judge 
     Pickering, during which we touched on matters relevant to his 
     qualifications to serve as a federal judge.
       The Charles W. Pickering that I have read about in press 
     reports during the pendency of his current nomination does 
     not comport with the Charles W. Pickering that I have come to 
     know in the last thirteen years. Competent, compassionate, 
     sensitive and free from bias are terms that aptly describe 
     him. Throughout his professional career as a lawyer and as a 
     judge, Judge Pickering has tried to do what he thought was 
     right, consistent with his oaths as an officer of the court 
     and as a judge. Attempts to demonize him are both unfair and 
     out of place in a judicial confirmation proceeding.
       On a more personal note, I still remember the words of 
     encouragement I received from Judge Pickering while my own 
     nomination to the Fifth Circuit was pending before the 
     Judiciary Committee. On one occasion, Judge Pickering called 
     me and graciously offered to contact Senator Lott's office to 
     see if anything could be done to secure a hearing for my 
     nomination. The word came back that Senator Lott was willing 
     to help, but the process could not go forward until my home 
     state senators returned their blue slips. That never 
     happened. To this day, I very much appreciate the fact that 
     Judge Pickering reached out to me and offered to help at a 
     time when my pleas for a hearing had fallen on deaf ears.
       The current impasse in the confirmation proceedings is an 
     unfortunate one, because it continues to ensure many nominees 
     of goodwill who have answered the call to serve. For their 
     sake and for the ongoing vitality of our federal judiciary, I 
     would hope that you and your colleagues can find common 
     ground. A good starting point would be the confirmation of 
     Judge Pickering.
       Thank you.
           Yours truly,
     Jorge C. Rangel.
                                  ____



                                           Goodman & Chesnoff,

                                  Las Vegas, NV, January 16, 2003.
     Re the Honorable Judge Charles W. Pickering, Sr.'s nomination 
         to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th 
         Circuit.

     Chairman Orrin Hatch,
     Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hatch: I had the pleasure of meeting with you 
     when my partner Las Vegas Mayor, Oscar B. Goodman and I 
     represented former United States District Court Judge Harry 
     Chaiborne, in his impeachment proceeding in the United States 
     Senate. I remember your open-mindedness and fairness in 
     considering our case.
       I am presently on the Board of the National Association of 
     Criminal Defense Lawyers and a registered Democrat. I have 
     been a financial supporter for the election of President 
     William Jefferson Clinton and a contributor to the campaign 
     of Vice-President Albert Gore, when he ran for President. I 
     have been an aggressive advocate on the part of citizens 
     accused of crimes and have appeared in criminal proceedings 
     in thirty of our fifty states.
       I had the privilege and pleasure of meeting Judge Pickering 
     several years ago when I was hired by the former mayor of 
     Biloxi, Mississippi, Peter J. Halet to represent him in a 
     very complex and high profile federal trial assigned to Judge 
     Pickering in the United States District Court in Hattiesburg, 
     Mississippi.
       The case was quite celebrated and the allegations were of 
     the most serious nature. There were complicated legal 
     questions and difficult human dynamics. Needless to say, the 
     emotions ran high in the local community as well as among the 
     participants. Having arrived in Judge Pickering's courtroom 
     from across the country, I did not know what to expect in 
     terms of my reception.
       Sufficed to say, from day-one Judge Pickering treated all 
     of the lawyers I brought with me to assist in the process, my 
     jury expert and myself with courtesy and patience.
       Certain tactics and techniques that we utilized may not 
     have been used by other lawyers appearing before Judge 
     Pickering in earlier cases, but he kept an open mind, 
     listened to our position and gave me as fair a trial as I 
     have received in any United States District Court, anytime.
       Judge Pickering had a grasp of the difficult legal issues 
     and addressed the case with objectivity and fairness. At no 
     time during my experience before Judge Pickering, including 
     the jury selection process, did I ever note even a scintilla 
     of evidence that Judge Pickering did not treat every citizen 
     of our great country with equal fairness and consideration. 
     Based on my experience with Judge Pickering, I am offended 
     that people are attacking his sterling character. I felt it 
     important to register my position on his behalf and believe 
     he would make an outstanding addition to the United States 
     Court

[[Page S13540]]

     of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, of which I am admitted and 
     have appeared.
           Very truly yours,
     David Z. Chesnoff, ESQ.
                                  ____

                                              Tenth Chancery Court


                                      District of Mississippi,

                                                  Hattiesburg, MS.
     Re the Appointment of Charles Pickering.

     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Sir: I write in support of the appointment of United 
     States Judge Charles W. Pickering, III to the Fifth Circuit 
     Court of Appeals. Charles Pickering is an able, outstanding 
     and fair minded judge. I could not conceive that he would 
     exhibit gender bias toward women inside or outside a court of 
     law.
       As an African American I have personal knowledge and 
     experience of his efforts to heal the wounds of racial 
     prejudice, and to resolve conflicts between the races in our 
     state. As someone who experiences racial prejudice, both open 
     and subtle, I can only say that my admiration for Judge 
     Pickering is immense.
       I sincerely appreciate all the efforts made by you and your 
     committee in order to insure fairness in our federal 
     judiciary. I urge you and your fellow committee members to 
     recognize diverse opinions of persons, such as myself, who 
     function and work at ground level in our local communities.
       Thank you for your time and consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Johnny L. Williams.
                                  ____

                                            Deborah Jones Gambrell


                                                 & Associates,

                                Hattiesburg, MS, October 25, 2001.
     Re Judge Charles Pickering; Nominee: Fifth Circuit Court of 
         Appeals.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: A few days ago I ran into Judge 
     Pickering at lunch and congratulated him on his being 
     selected for an appointment to the Fifth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals. I thereafter learned of opposition to his 
     appointment and felt compelled to write this letter.
       As an African American attorney who practices in the 
     federal courts of the Southern District of Mississippi, where 
     Judge Pickering has sat for the past eleven (11) years, I am 
     concerned that he has come under scrutiny. I have appeared 
     before Judge Pickering on numerous occasions during the past 
     eleven (11) years, most often than not, in cases involving 
     violations of civil rights and employment discrimination 
     matters. I have found Judge Pickering not only to be a fair 
     jurist, but one who is concerned with the integrity of the 
     entire judicial process and assures every participant of a 
     ``level playing field'' and a judge who will apply the law 
     without regard for the sensitive nature of cases of this 
     sort, which may have caused him personal discomfort.
       I have personally seen him go overboard in working to bring 
     reconciliation in matters wherein parties, because of lack of 
     understanding of the law or actual ill will, may have 
     committed violations because of lack of knowledge, etc. I 
     have even been appointed by Judge Pickering to represent 
     indigents who have legitimate claims but not the expertise or 
     money to litigate the same, when he could have selected 
     attorneys who might not bring the passion and true concern to 
     bear to insure that the litigants rights are protected. Even 
     when I don't prevail, my clients know that they have had 
     their ``day in court'' before a judge who is open-minded, 
     fair and just and will follow the law without regard to 
     color, economic status or political persuasion.
       I have known Judge Pickering prior to his taking the bench 
     and have seen him advocate the rights of the poor and those 
     disenfranchised by the system. Over the past 11 years, I have 
     seen him bring the same passion for fairness and equity to 
     the federal bench.
       Though I personally hate to see him leave the Southern 
     District, I am proud to say that his honesty, integrity and 
     sense of fair play would make him an excellent candidate for 
     the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
           Sincerely,
     Deborah Jones Gambrell.
                                  ____



                                              Hattiesburg, MS,

                                                 October 25, 2001.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I am writing to urge you to confirm 
     Judge Charles Pickering as a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
     Judge. I have had the privilege of working in Judge 
     Pickering's courtroom for the past two years as a Deputy 
     United States Marshal.
       Judge Pickering brings honor and compassion to the bench. 
     His courtroom is truly a center of justice and fairness for 
     men and women of every race and religion. As a Deputy U.S. 
     Marshal, I have been present for most of his courtroom 
     sessions. I am always impressed by Judge Pickering's rulings 
     and opinions. He puts his heart and soul into preparing each 
     case.
       I am overwhelmed at the compassion that Judge Pickering 
     shows each and every defendant. He truly cares for the 
     welfare of these defendants and their families. I believe it 
     grieves him to see mothers and fathers separated from their 
     loved ones. As a man of great conviction, I know that Judge 
     Pickering would make a positive impact on the Fifth Circuit.
       As a Deputy U.S. Marshal, I am proud to serve under a man 
     who personifies justice. As a citizen of the United States, I 
     am glad to know that in times like these, we have Judge 
     Charles Pickering in the position to maintain dignity and 
     responsibility in our courtroom. As a woman, I am pleased at 
     the thought that we will have Judge Pickering looking out for 
     the rights of women and children from the beach of the Fifth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals.
           Sincerely,
     Melanie Rube.
                                  ____



                                               Holcomb Dunbar,

                                     Oxford, MS, October 25, 2001.
     Re U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering.

     Senator Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: This letter is to submit for your 
     consideration my unqualified endorsement of U.S. District 
     Judge Charles Pickering for confirmation of his appointment 
     by the President to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
     Circuit.
       I have practiced law in the State of Mississippi for more 
     than 40 years. I am a past president of the Mississippi Bar 
     Association, and a past member of the Board of Governors of 
     the American Bar Association. I am a fellow of the American 
     College of Trial Lawyers and have known Judge Pickering 
     personally and by judicial reputation for many years.
       I am a Democrat and would not want you to confirm any 
     person to the federal courts of this nation who I felt was 
     gender or racially biased. I have never known Judge Pickering 
     to be a person or judge that was anything other than fair and 
     impartial in his conduct toward women or minorities.
       I do not think anyone questions his judicial 
     qualifications. The American Bar Association has deemed him 
     ``well qualified.''
       For these reasons, I strongly endorse his confirmation to 
     the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
           Respectfully,
     Jack F. Dunbar.
                                  ____



                                         The Riley Foundation,

                                       Meridian, MS, May 22, 2003.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senate Dirksen Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: I was the Democratic Mayor of Meridian 
     from 1977 to 1985 and a past President of Congregation Beth 
     Israel.
       Injustice and character assassination galls me. Charles 
     Pickering is no racist. He stood tall when our Temple was 
     bombed and made every effort to prosecute Sam Bowers who 
     planned the bombing.
           Sincerely,
     I. A. Rosenbaum.
                                  ____



                                         William Harold Jones,

                                      Petal, MS, October 25, 2001.
     Re Charles Pickering, United States District Court of Appeals 
         Nominee.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: I have known Charles Pickering for 
     probably 20 years or more. He served as a Senator from a 
     nearby county in the Mississippi Legislature, and I served in 
     the House of Representatives myself for 13 years. I have 
     practiced in his Court on many occasions throughout the last 
     12 or 13 years and I can only say this is the most fair Judge 
     before whom I have ever appeared. Not only is he fair, he 
     wants to be fair to all parties. I have never known of any 
     indifference or prejudice that he has shown against blacks or 
     women and in my own humble opinion, it is regrettable that he 
     has been accused of such.
       I presently serve as Chairman of the Forrest County 
     Democratic Executive Committee and although Charles was prior 
     to his judicial service, a Republican, I do not hesitate to 
     signify to any person that he is fair and impartial, and has 
     been so even to myself, a Democrat.
           Very sincerely yours,
                                                 William H. Jones.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I am 
happy to yield whatever time the distinguished senior Senator from 
Mississippi desires.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Hatch.
  It is a pleasure to serve with my distinguished colleague from 
Mississippi who will be speaking later today.
  I say to Senator Hatch, thank you for your leadership, your 
sensitivity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and for your 
specific help in the confirmation process of Judge Charles Pickering to 
be on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  I also want to express appreciation to Senator Frist, the leader, for 
giving us time in a very busy schedule to take up

[[Page S13541]]

this nomination. But it is time we go forward with a vote on the 
nomination of this good and honest and very capable Federal judge, 
Charles Pickering.
  Mr. President, as I say, I rise today in strong support of Judge 
Charles Pickering's nomination to be a judge on the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I am pleased that this day has finally 
come, and that after almost 2\1/2\ years of waiting, we are finally 
moving forward with the consideration of Judge Pickering's nomination 
here on the floor of the Senate. I am grateful to Senator Hatch for his 
hard work in leading the Judiciary Committee to its recent approval of 
Judge Pickering's nomination to the Fifth Circuit, and this important 
vote has led to our being able to begin debate on this outstanding 
nominee.
  As many Senators will recall, Judge Pickering was unanimously 
approved by the Judiciary Committee in the fall of 1990 to be a United 
States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi. 
He was then unanimously confirmed by the full Senate. He has served 
honorably in this position for 13 years, and I am happy that the 
President has re-nominated Judge Pickering for a promotion to the Fifth 
Circuit after his nomination was blocked from consideration by the full 
Senate during the 107th Congress.
  Charles Pickering and I have known each other for over 40 years, 
which doesn't seem possible, and I can personally attest that there is 
no other person in the State of Mississippi who is more eminently 
qualified to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. President, Charles Pickering graduated first in his class from 
the University of Mississippi Law School in 1961, and received his B.A. 
degree from Ole Miss with honors in 1959. He practiced law for almost 
30 years in Jones County, Mississippi, and during this time served 
stints as the prosecuting attorney for Jones County and the City of 
Laurel during the 1960's. From 1972 to 1980, Charles served in the 
Mississippi State Senate. This was a part-time position, with full-time 
demands I might add, that allowed him to continue his law practice 
during this period.
  Judge Pickering has had an impeccable reputation on the bench in 
Mississippi, and he is respected by all sectors of the Mississippi and 
national legal community. Scores of attorneys, community leaders, and 
other Mississippians from all walks of life have applauded his 
nomination to the Fifth Circuit. What a compliment to Judge Pickering, 
Mr. President, for him to have the support of those who know him best--
the people he works with in his professional life and spends time with 
in his personal endeavors. It is no surprise that the ABA's Standing 
Committee on the Federal Judiciary found him ``Well-Qualified'' for 
appointment as a Fifth Circuit judge.
  Furthermore, he is highly respected within the federal judiciary. He 
served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Judges Association from 
1997 until 2001, and was a member of the Executive Committee for the 
final 2 years of his term. He recently completed a term of service on 
the Judicial Branch Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United 
States.
  Judge Pickering has been involved in numerous community and public 
service endeavors. He has headed the March of Dimes campaign in Jones 
County, Mississippi, and served as Chairman of the Jones County Chapter 
of the American National Red Cross. He was also a major participant in 
the formation of the Jones County Economic Development Authority, 
serving as its first chairman.
  Charles Pickering has been a leader in his community and in the state 
on race relations, and in standing up for what is right. In 1967, at 
the risk of harm to himself and his family, he testified against the 
Imperial Wizard of the KKK, Sam Bowers, for the fire-bombing death of 
civil rights activist Vernon Dahmer. He was active in his community's 
efforts to integrate their public schools, sending all four of his 
children to the integrated schools. In 1981, Charles Pickering 
represented an African American man falsely accused of robbing a white 
teen-aged girl. Although his decision to provide this legal 
representation was not supported by some in his community, he 
aggressively represented his client, who was found not guilty. He was a 
motivating force behind and currently serves on the Board of Directors 
of the William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the 
University of Mississippi, our mutual alma mater.

  He has also volunteered for the Jones County Heart Fund, the Jones 
County Drug Education Council, and the Economic Development Authority 
of Jones County. He has always been very active in his church, serving 
as a Sunday school teacher, Chairman of the Deacons, Sunday school 
superintendent, and church treasurer. From 1983-85, he was the 
President of the Mississippi Baptist Convention.
  In addition to his many professional and civic activities, Charles 
Pickering has also been a good farmer. He was the first president of 
the National Catfish Farmers Association and was a leader in catfish 
farming during its early days. Most importantly, though, is the fact 
that Charles has always put his family first, even with the commitments 
I have just described. He has a wonderful wife and four grown children 
with spouses and families of their own, including his son, Congressman 
Chip Pickering, who is a former member of my staff. Representative 
Pickering's integrity is a further testament to the caliber of Judge 
Charles Pickering's character.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering this 
important nomination today, because the Senate needs to act now to 
confirm Judge Pickering. He is exceptionally well-qualified for 
elevation to the Fifth Circuit, and I strongly endorse his nomination. 
He has been waiting far, far too long for a debate and vote on his 
nomination. I urge my colleagues to support moving forward with an up-
or-down vote on this important nomination. I know that Judge 
Pickering's elevation to the Fifth Circuit is supported by a majority 
of Senators, and it is time for this majority to be heard.
  As I said, he has been waiting 2\1/2\ years in this process. 
Unfortunately, last year he was defeated on a party-line vote and 
prevented from being reported out of the Judiciary Committee. But this 
year he was reported to the floor. He deserves to have his story told, 
and even a vote to occur on his nomination.
  I have known this man and his family and his neighbors, the people in 
his church, the school officials, the minority leaders in his community 
for over 40 years.
  I think there used to be a time when a Senator vouched for a person, 
a nominee from his State, and it carried real weight. I am here to tell 
you, this is one of the finest men, one of the finest family men, one 
of the smartest individuals, one of the best judges I have known in my 
life. There is no question that he has the educational background, the 
qualifications, the experience, the judicial demeanor, and also the 
leadership to bring about unity, not division.
  That has been the story of his life. He has always been a unifier. He 
has always been willing to step up and take on the tough battles in his 
home county and in our State of Mississippi.
  Senator Hatch made reference to the fact that when he was county 
attorney, years ago, in the late 1960s he had the courage to actually 
work with the FBI and to testify against the Imperial Wizard of the Ku 
Klux Klan, something not very healthy for your political career or even 
your life at the time. But he took a stand and was defeated for 
reelection, to a large degree because of that.
  He continued to work in his community and provide leadership. He 
practiced law for 30 years. If you want to look at his qualifications, 
here they are listed. He was not just an average student. He graduated 
first in his class from law school. He graduated from undergraduate 
school with honors. He has the highest rating by Martindale Hubbell. In 
1990, he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be a district 
judge. He has been very good in his rulings. In fact, of those that 
were appealed, the reversal rate is only 7.9 percent, which is 
extraordinarily good. He received from the American Bar Association--
not once but twice--their highest rating of well qualified. They looked 
into allegations that were made against him after his first 
consideration by the committee and came back and said: He is still well 
qualified--not a group known for dismissing allegations or charges that 
were made against him.

[[Page S13542]]

  He certainly has the qualifications and the experience. In his 
community, he is endorsed by Democrats and Republicans, elected 
officials of both parties, the head of the local NAACP. The people who 
know him best, who know his family, who see him every day, say this is 
a good man, qualified to be on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  He has served on the Federal bench for 13 years. He is highly 
respected within the Federal judiciary. In fact, he has served in a 
leadership capacity there. He has been on the board of directors of the 
Federal Judges Association from 1997 to 2001, and he was on the 
executive committee for the final 2 years of his term. He recently 
completed a term of service on the Judicial Branch Committee of the 
Judicial Conference. He is respected by his fellow judges.
  I know some of the Senators on both sides of the aisle have had 
Federal judges in their States also vouch for this good man to be on 
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  He has had letters of endorsement from a wide span of community 
leaders and State leaders in our State, including all five statewide 
elected Democrats.
  I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                             State of Mississippi,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                  Jackson, MI, September 24, 2003.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Bldg., 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Bldg., 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Frist and Daschle: The nomination of Federal 
     District Judge Charles Pickering to the U.S. Fifth Circuit 
     Court of Appeals is once again coming before the U.S. Senate 
     in Washington for consideration. We are the Democratic 
     statewide officials of Mississippi.
       We know Charles Pickering personally and have known him for 
     many years. We believe Judge Pickering should be confirmed 
     for this appointment and serve on that court.
        Judge Pickering chose to take stands during his career 
     that were difficult and often courageous. He has worked for 
     racial reconciliation and helped unify our communities. 
     Toward that objective, he formed a biracial commission in his 
     home county to address community issues and led an effort to 
     start a program for at-risk youth. Furthermore, Judge 
     Pickering helped establish and serves on the board of the 
     Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the University of 
     Mississippi.
        We are all active Democrats. Charles Pickering was, before 
     rising to the Federal Bench, an active Republican. It is our 
     hope that Party labels can be transcended in this fight over 
     his nomination. We should cast a blind eye to partisanship 
     when working to build a fair and impartial judiciary.
        The U.S. Senate has a chance to demonstrate a commitment 
     to fairness. Judge Pickering's record demonstrates his 
     commitment to equal protection, equal rights and fairness for 
     all. His values demand he respect the law and constitutional 
     precedents and rule accordingly. He does.
        He has never been reversed on any substantive issue in a 
     voting rights or employment discrimination case that has come 
     before him. His rulings reflect his support for the principle 
     of one man one vote. Judge Pickering ruled the 1991 
     Mississippi legislative redistricting plan unconstitutional 
     for failing to conform to one man one vote standards and 
     ordered a new election as the remedy.
        In 1963, at the age of 26, Judge Pickering was elected 
     Prosecuting Attorney of Jones County. While holding this 
     office he confronted the effects of racial hatred and saw 
     firsthand its result in the form of extensive Ku Klux Klan 
     violence. It was a horrible time in Mississippi. Judge 
     Pickering took a public stand against the Klan violence and 
     terrorism. He worked with the FBI to prosecute and stop the 
     Klan. Charles Pickering testified against the Klan leader Sam 
     Bowers in the murder of civil rights activist Vernon Dahmer.
        In the 1960's Charles Pickering stood up for the voting 
     rights of African Americans, and for the equal protection of 
     all. In the 1970's and 1980's he led his community, his 
     children's school, his political party and his church in 
     integration and inclusion. Today, he is a voice for racial 
     reconciliation across our state. As a judge, he is consistent 
     in his fairness to everyone, and deemed well qualified by 
     those who independently review his rulings, temperament and 
     work.
        Mississippi has made tremendous progress in race relations 
     since the 1960s and Charles Pickering has been part of that 
     progress. We ask the United States Senate to stand up to 
     those that malign the character of Charles Pickering, and 
     give him an up or down vote on the Senate Floor.
           Very truly yours,
     Ronnie Musgrove,
       Governor of Mississippi.
     Eric Clark,
       Secretary of State.
     Mike Moore,
       Attorney General.
     Lester Spell,
       Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce.
     George Dale,
       Commissioner of Insurance.
  Mr. LOTT. I have other letters of endorsement and articles supporting 
Judge Charles Pickering, and I ask unanimous consent that they be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     From: Representative Phillip West, Chairman.
     Date: April 25, 2003.
     Re: Judge Charles Pickering.


             position statement on judge charles pickering

       After having listened to Judge Charles Pickering during his 
     meeting with the Mississippi Legislative Black Caucus, 
     reviewed materials concerning Judge Pickering's record as a 
     Jones County attorney, and spoken with some of the members of 
     the Institute of Racial Reconciliation, I have decided to 
     reverse my position regarding Judge Pickering's nomination to 
     the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
       When I originally signed the petition against his 
     nomination I was not aware of the information that has 
     subsequently come to my attention. I labored under the 
     impression that opponents had a clear and convincing 
     argument. Now I am not certain that the ammunition on him is 
     as powerful and as convincing as I was led to believe. I 
     certainly do not believe Judge Pickering is presently a 
     ``racist''.
       Judge Pickering's record of working with both races and 
     working for racial reconciliation in past and present years 
     is beyond what many whites we have supported and continue to 
     support in positions of leadership have done in our state.
       While I do not condemn and judge all white men and women to 
     be ``staunch racist'', I do believe many have racist 
     tendencies and beliefs as evidenced by the racism instilled 
     in our many institutions. At least Judge Pickering has shown 
     a willingness to work for racial reconciliation prior to his 
     consideration for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 
     position.
       I hope and pray understanding of the need for racial 
     reconciliation by Judge Pickering will help strengthen the 
     Fifth Circuit's fortitude in resolving racial issues and 
     concerns in a spirit that God directs.
       I recognize different people can review the same facts and 
     reach different conclusions. I respect their right, for 
     ``Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.''
       It would also be ``Politically Correct'' for me to remain 
     silent. However, I cannot support a position that may be 
     ``Politically Correct'' but I feel is ``Morally Wrong''. I 
     truly believe we all should embrace truth, justice, and 
     fairness whether we are black or white, rich or poor, 
     democrat or republican. Our state needs it. Our children 
     deserve it.
                                  ____



                                     American Bar Association,

                                   Houston, TX, February 10, 2003.
      Re Charles W. Pickering, Sr., United States Court of 
         Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: The purpose of this letter is to 
     confirm the recommendation of this Committee previously given 
     as to the nomination of Charles W. Pickering, Sr. for 
     appointment as Judge of the United States Court of Appeals, 
     Fifth Circuit.
       A substantial majority of our Committee is of the opinion 
     that Charles W. Pickering, Sr. is Well Qualified and a 
     minority of the Committee is of the opinion that Charles W. 
     Pickering, Sr. is Qualified for this appointment.
       A copy of this letter has been sent to Charles W. 
     Pickering, Sr. for his information.
           Yours very truly,
                                                 Carol E. Dinkins,
     Chair.
                                  ____


                [From the Clarion-Ledger, Mar. 9, 2003]

           Judge Pickering--Senate Should Confirm Nomination

       As outlined on the front of The Clarion-Ledger's 
     Perspective section today, the almost two-year-old circus 
     that has become the nomination of U.S. District Judge Charles 
     Pickering Sr. to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has 
     been based allegations that Judge Pickering is a racist.
       This is not true and is very unfair to Pickering.
       A throng of special interest groups--including very 
     reputable ones--has opposed President Bush's nomination of 
     Pickering on the basis of that charge of longstanding career 
     racism by the Laurel jurist.
       Trouble is, those groups and the political faces in the 
     Senate that depend upon the support of them, have failed to 
     make a credible case against Pickering on the racism charge.
       Pickering is a what conservative Republican judge who is a 
     devout Christian and a

[[Page S13543]]

     practicing Southern Baptist. As has been made clear to those 
     following the Capitol Hill controversy, the hue and cry is 
     about racism but the undercurrent of opposition isn't about 
     race at all--it's about the thorny issue of abortion rights.
       As in the case of fellow Bush federal appellate court 
     nominee Miguel Estrada, the opposition to Pickering among 
     Senate Democrats isn't about the judge's qualifications. It's 
     about the judge's politics.
       And while Senate Republicans played the same political game 
     with the judicial nominees of former President Bill Clinton, 
     the politics of personal destruction in the case of Pickering 
     has reached a new low.
       By any reasonable standard, Charles Pickering Sr. has lived 
     the life and done the work of a man with his heart in the 
     right place on race in a state where such a life and work 
     wasn't always easy or appreciated.
       Pickering isn't a Johnny-Come-Lately to the concept of 
     meaningful racial reconciliation. He's been part of the 
     solution to Mississippi's vexing racial conundrum for 
     decades. He has been an able jurist, a contributing citizen 
     and a responsible politician and jurist.
       Those who seek to oppose Judge Pickering on the grounds of 
     his political philosophy or religious views should do so 
     openly and in aboveboard fashion--not hiding behind the 
     political skirts of dubious charges of racism.
       Racism is a serious evil. Mississippians know better than 
     most in America the severity of racism and the vile 
     manifestations it can assume. Mississippi has borne witness 
     to unspeakable acts of cruelty and mayhem in the name of race 
     literally since statehood.
       In Mississippi's fragile racial environment--one in which 
     people of good will and good intentions have sought to build 
     bridges--crying ``wolf'' on false charges of racism is a 
     particularly onerous political and social crime.
       On a broader scale, the politics of judicial confirmation 
     threatens to subvert the partisan political give and take of 
     the presidency in judicial nominations to provide 
     philosophical balance to the courts.
       Confirmation hearings should be about the qualifications 
     and character of the judicial nominee, not the next 
     presidential election.
       The Senate Judiciary Committee owes Judge Pickering a fair 
     hearing based on an examination of his record--his entire 
     record--as a judge, as a public figure and as a man.
       Based on what we have known of that record, a fair hearing 
     by the committee will produce no impediment to confirmation.
                                  ____



                              Constance Iona Slaughter Harvey,

                                     Forest, MS, October 23, 2001.
     Hon. Charles W. Pickering, Sr.,
     U.S. District Court Judge,
     Hattiesburg, MS.
       Dear judge Pickering: Thank you for reminding me of the 
     upcoming Institute for Racial Reconciliation Board Retreat to 
     be held Friday, November 9 through Saturday, November 10, 
     2001. Unfortunately, my heavy schedule will prevent me from 
     attending. On those dates, I will also be required to 
     participate in the Annual State Convention of Mississippi 
     Action for Progress Head Start and facilitate a session at 
     the Metro Black Women Lawyers' retreat. Both of these events 
     require my personal involvement.
       While I will not be in attendance, I am assured, because of 
     your integrity, that you will continue to provide the quality 
     of leadership you have provided in the past. You have served 
     Mississippi and her people well even to the extent of taking 
     positions that were unpopular. This sometimes meant great 
     personal sacrifice and loss of political gain for you.
       Thank you for being a human being and for caring what 
     happens to other human beings. I am especially mindful of 
     your commitment to racial reconciliation over the past twenty 
     years. Because of this commitment, our future looks better.
       I'll contact you regarding the developments at the Retreat 
     around the 15th of November. My best to you.
           Sincerely yours,
     Constance Slaughter-Harvey.
                                  ____


         [From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mar. 9, 2003]

                       Trials of a Southern Judge


  evidence doesn't support charges of racism against charles pickering

                     (By Janita Poe and Tom Baxter)

       When court is not in session, Deborah Gambrell and U.S. 
     District Judge Charles W. Pickering often hole up with other 
     lawyers in a courthouse anteroom--and debate the law.
       They're there to schedule trials or sentencings. But 
     Gambrell, a liberal African-American lawyer, and Pickering, a 
     conservative white judge, invariably fall into spirited 
     exchanges on legal issues and philosophies.
       ``We've had debates over everything from Clarence Thomas to 
     the details of some case,'' Gambrell said. ``Judge Pickering 
     is a conservative, but he wants to hear your opinion. And 
     he's amenable to having his mind changed, too.''
       Gambrell sees no racial bias in the judge. On the contrary, 
     she said, he appoints motivated lawyers such as her to 
     represent workers--many of them black--who claim they were 
     wronged by employers. ``He loves the law and wants you to 
     represent your client well,'' Gambrell said, ``and I don't 
     think that's discriminatory.''
       Strange as it sounds, Gambrell is talking about the same 
     Charles Pickering who made headlines last year as a reputed 
     old-line Southern bigot. The liberal lobbying group People 
     for the American Way, for example, claims Pickering is 
     ``hostile to civil rights.'' NAACP Chairman Julian Bond says 
     Pickering uses ``a racial lens to look at America.''
       Pickering drew the criticism after President Bush nominated 
     him for a job on the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court 
     of Appeals, one step below the Supreme Court. A Senate 
     committee controlled by Democrats, heeding complaints about 
     the judge's racial views, rejected him.
       With the Senate now in Republican hands, Bush has 
     renominated Pickering, prompting new Democratic charges that 
     Republicans, even after the Trent Lott fiasco, are catering 
     to racist Southern whites.
       In Mississippi, however, many describe a different man than 
     the one feared and vilified by critics inside the Beltway.
       Rather, their up-close description of Pickering is that he 
     is a relative progressive on race, a man who in the 1960s, 
     when much of Mississippi was still fighting efforts to kill 
     Jim Crow, testified against a murderous Ku Klux Klansman. He 
     is a parent who, despite a poisonous racial atmosphere around 
     Laurel, bucked white flight to send his four children to 
     newly integrated public schools.
       Pickering has been excoriated for seeking a lighter 
     sentence for a white man convicted in a cross burning (see 
     related story). But he also sought reduced sentences for many 
     black first offenders. He has pushed to establish a racial 
     reconciliation center at the University of Mississippi, his 
     alma mater. And, both on the bench and off, he has pressed 
     white prison officials to ensure the rights of black inmates.
       The judge's record is not spotless on race. In the infamous 
     cross-burning case, he worried aloud how a tough sentence 
     would play in the community--apparently the white community.
       And as a law student in 1959, he published a paper laying 
     out a strategy for maintaining a ban on mixed-race marriages 
     in Mississippi.
       Yet these are two exceptions, the second more than four 
     decades old, in an otherwise surprisingly upstanding history 
     on race.
       Pickering will not comment publicly, pending Senate action 
     on his nomination, which is expected this month or next.


                        roots: religion and race

       Pickering, the son of a Laurel dairy farmer, has always 
     stayed close to his south-central Mississippi roots. The New 
     Orleans-based appeals court job would be his first post 
     outside Mississippi.
       A land of bayous and pine trees, the region around Laurel 
     and Hattiesburg is a place where people take their religion 
     seriously. Methodist and Baptist churches line the main 
     streets; even today, when much of the Bible Belt has 
     succumbed to secularism, day care centers are named ``River 
     of Life'' and ``Alpha Christian.''
       Pickering is a 42-year member at First Baptist Church of 
     Laurel, where he has been a deacon, a Sunday school teacher 
     and church treasurer. In the mid-'80s, he was president of 
     the Southern Baptists in Mississippi and was allied with the 
     ``inerrantists,'' who maintain the Bible is the word of God 
     and its accounts are factual.
       Racism once had as strong grip on the region as religion, 
     and Pickering was reared during a period of open, 
     unquestioned apartheid. That upbringing has lent some 
     credibility to critics' charges.
       Marilyn Huff, a white 65-year-old who lived next to the 
     Pickering farm, recalls playing hopscotch and marbles with 
     Pickering and several children of black sharecroppers who 
     lived nearby. But the black kids attended a different school.
       ``We got on our bus and went to our school, and they got on 
     their bus and went to theirs,'' she said. ``I think the South 
     accepted those things when other areas of the country did 
     not.''
       Pickering's 1959 paper on ``miscegenation,'' or mixed-race 
     marriage, reflects that acceptance. In the article, which was 
     based on a case of that era, Pickering suggests that 
     Mississippi lawmakers could strengthen the state's anti-
     miscegenation law against legal challenges by reviewing 
     similar laws in 23 other states. Pickering published the 
     article in the Mississippi Law Journal, where he was a staff 
     writer.
       The judge's son, U.S. Rep. ``Chip'' Pickering, 39, explains 
     the article as nothing more than an assigned ``exercise'' in 
     which students ``assessed laws on interracial marriage and 
     told why the Mississippi law was struck down.''
       The congressman's account, however, does not fully convey 
     the tone of the brief. The article did not simply analyze 
     problems with the law, but suggested how it could better 
     withstand court challenges. As People for the American Way 
     points out, Pickering ``expressed no moral outrage over laws 
     prohibiting and criminalizing interracial marriage'' but 
     instead calmly offered a strategy for maintaining a ban--as 
     if the law were as ethically neutral as, say, restrictions on 
     double-parking.
       Elsewhere, by the 1950s, people inside and outside the 
     state were beginning to question Mississippi's adherence to 
     Jim Crow strictures. In 1955, Pickering's junior college near 
     Laurel achieved a breakthrough of sorts when its all-white 
     football team, in a quest for a national championship, 
     decided to play an integrated squad from California despite

[[Page S13544]]

     protests from the state's racist establishment.
       In 1962, as Pickering started his law practice, the Federal 
     government forced the University of Mississippi to admit 
     James Meredith, a black Air Force veteran. Students and 
     locals responded by staging a riot that killed two people and 
     injured hundreds.
       And that was in relatively genteel Oxford. Laurel, a 
     rougher place to begin with, became a flash point of racial 
     and class tensions, with leftist union and reactionary Ku 
     Klux Klan organizers alike recruiting members from the 4,000 
     workers at the town's big Masonite plant. The toxic 
     atmosphere soon presented Pickering with a chance to depart 
     Mississippi's well-worn racial path.
       Laurel was home to a man who combined ferver for both 
     Christianity and apartheid to produce a vicious, ragtag holy 
     war in defense of the status quo. In 1966, Sam Bowers, the 
     Scripture-quoting imperial wizard of the White Knights of the 
     Ku Klux Klan, led a gang of Klansmen to firebomb the home of 
     Hattiesburg NAACP leader Vernon Dahmer, killing him.
       Pickering, then serving as Jones County prosecutor, could 
     have avoided the trial, as the slaying took place in a 
     neighboring county. But Jim Dukes, the prosecutor, who 
     presented the case against Bowers, asked his colleague to 
     testify to Bowers' violent character, and Pickering agreed--
     despite the risk of Klan reprisals.
       ``He was putting himself at risk of bodily harm, social 
     ostracism and economic destruction,'' Dukes said. ``These 
     were turbulent times, and testifying against the Klan was not 
     a popular thing to do.''
       Pickering lost a race for a state House seat later that 
     year. Bowers--whose trial ended in a hung jury and who was 
     not convicted until 1998--took credit for beating him.


                          republican politics

       Like many Mississippians of his generation, Pickering began 
     political life as a Democrat and switched to the GOP. He did 
     so, however, before the party had become a haven for Southern 
     whites disaffected with the national Democrats' liberal 
     racial policies.
       Pickering changed parties in 1964, a time when 
     Mississippi's Democratic leadership stood for continued 
     segregation. Most notoriously, Democratic Gov. Ross Barnettt 
     had personally turned Meredith away from Ole Miss and helped 
     provoke the later rioting. The Mississippi Democratic 
     establishment, in the thrall of Jim Crow, sent an all-white 
     delegation to the 1964 national convention and was denied 
     seating.
       The small but growing Mississippi GOP leaned to the right 
     on many issues, as it still does, reflecting a pro-business 
     bent. But compared with the Democratic leadership, many 
     Republicans were moderate or even progressive on 
     desegregation and on compliance with federal court orders.
       The state GOP ``was characterized by some very powerful 
     business types who could afford to be more moderate in their 
     political views,'' said Marty Wiseman, director of the John 
     Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State 
     University.
       Laurel's powerful state senator, E.K. Collins, led the all-
     white delegation to the Democratic convention. In 1971, 
     Pickering took Collins on and beat him. ``It was considered 
     nervy for a young upstart to run against an established 
     longtime Dixiecrat like E.K.,'' recalled former Rep. Tucker 
     Buchanan, a Democrat who became friends with Pickering in the 
     Legislature.
       In the Senate, Pickering developed a reputation for being 
     able to talk with all sides and occasionally broker a deal--
     even though, as one of only two Republicans, he was excluded 
     from Senate leadership.
       ``He was right down the middle. He was a moderate,'' said 
     former Gov. William Winter, a progressive Democrat who was 
     lieutenant governor when Pickering arrived at the 
     Legislature.
       The new governor, Democrat William Waller, was the first in 
     many years who had not made race the focus of his campaign, 
     and as a prosecutor had heroically but unsuccessfully mounted 
     two cases against white supremacist Byron de la Beckwith for 
     the murder of the NAACP's Medgar Evers. ``Charles was of that 
     stripe,'' Winter said.
       Robert G. Clark Jr., who is today the House speaker pro 
     tem, in 1968 became the first African-American elected to the 
     Legislature. He did not receive a warm welcome. ``It was 
     pretty lonely back then,'' Clark said.
       But Pickering was cordial. ``He was one who didn't mind 
     coming up to me to shake my hand and say, `How are you doing 
     today, Rep. Clark?' ''
       Pickering was elected state GOP chairman in 1976, serving 
     with then-Executive Director Haley Barbour, who went on to 
     become Republican national chairman, a powerful Washington 
     lobbyist and--this year--a candidate for governor.
       Pickering won credit as a party peacemaker after a bruising 
     fight between supporters of Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan at 
     the 1976 GOP convention. But he lost his one bid for federal 
     office in 1978, when Thad Cochran defeated him in the U.S. 
     Senate primary. He lost again in a run for state attorney 
     general a year later, ending his career in elective politics.


                       the sovereignty commission

       Pickering's terms as a state senator coincided with the 
     final years of the infamous Mississippi Sovereignty 
     Commission. Created in 1956 in reaction to the U.S. Supreme 
     Court's school desegration decision, the agency was supposed 
     to protect Mississippi and her ``sister states'' from federal 
     encroachment, by ``any and all acts and things deemed 
     necessary and proper.''
       The commission used its charge to spy on, intimidate and 
     harass those considered to be racial troublemakers or outside 
     ``agitators.'' It helped fund the reactionary white Citizens 
     Councils and kept up a system of informants who reported to 
     the commission on the activities of the FBI as well as civil 
     rights groups.
       As a state senator Pickering voted twice, in 1972 and 1973, 
     along with the majority, to continue funding for the 
     commission--votes his critics have highlighted during the 
     confirmation hearings. By the early '70s, however, 
     Mississippi had generally dismantled legal segregation, and 
     the agency was trying to retool itself as a general 
     investigative organization.
       Waller vetoed the funding in 1973, and the commission was 
     officially dissolved in 1977, its files sealed. In the end, 
     Pickering voted with the majority to end the commission and 
     seal the records.
       In 1990, during hearings on his nomination as district 
     judge, Pickering said he ``never had any contact'' with the 
     commission and that he knew ``very little about what is in 
     those records.'' His opponents point out, however, that when 
     the Sovereignty Commission's files were subsequently opened, 
     an investigator's memo was found naming him.
       The document suggested Pickering and two other legislators 
     had communicated with the commission on its investigation of 
     labor union activity in Laurel. The three lawmakers were 
     ``very interested'' and ``requested to be advised of 
     developments,'' according to the memo.
       Pickering's son, the congressman, says the agency had 
     approached his father, not the other way around. ``His only 
     contact came in 1972, when a Sovereignty Commission employee 
     approached him and said he had information about a radical 
     group infiltrating a union in Jones County. My father's only 
     response was, `Keep me informed.' ''
       Again, this may be too easy a dismissal. The nature of the 
     supposed union infiltration is in dispute. The commission 
     memo says the agency was focusing on a pro-civil rights 
     group, but in Pickering's confirmation hearing last year, the 
     judge said he was concerned about Klan activity.
       Any alleged connection to the racism of the Sovereignty 
     Commission sharply contrasts with Pickering's public and 
     personal actions in support of integration in the same 
     decade.


                           at home in laurel

       Even though they lived in racially polarized Jones County, 
     Pickering and his wife, Margaret Ann, sent their four 
     children to newly integrated public schools in the '70s.
       Allison Montgomery, the judge's second-youngest child, 
     recalls thinking her father had to set an example for other 
     families by supporting integration. She was bused to the 
     formerly all-black Oak Park High the year it debuted as an 
     integrated elementary school.
       ``It was never discussed in our home, but my sense was that 
     because Daddy had a reputation as being one who supported 
     what was right, that it was what we were expected to do,'' 
     said Montgomery, 35, a homemaker who lives in Shreveport, La.
       ``Even though it meant we would end up in a minority 
     situation, I think the powers that be in our community knew 
     he would still support the public school system.''
       Montgomery has fond memories of learning new games and 
     chants with her black schoolmates, but she remembers several 
     white parents moving their children out of her hometown 
     because the teacher was black. Some families enrolled their 
     children in private schools. ``Suddenly people were sending 
     their kids to a little small academy called Heidelburg 
     Academy,'' she said. ``It was in Jasper County, and they 
     probably had a 20- or 30-minute drive, at least.
       Black people in the Laurel area took note of Pickering's 
     stance on racial issues.
       When Larry Thomas was a child, he watched his father, a 
     local civil rights leader, work out the logistics of 
     demonstrations with Pickering. Later, he dealt directly with 
     Pickering as a fellow economic-development board member. 
     Thomas, 49, a pharmacist, is a black Democrat.
       Over the years, Pickering disregarded white criticism to 
     make alliances with black people, Thomas said.
       ``When things were changing in the '60s and '70s, he always 
     tried to reach a compromise. He was always trying to 
     understand the thinking and concerns of the black 
     community,'' Thomas said. ``To me, that's the most I expect 
     of a white man. The rest is our responsibility.''
       Melvin Mack, 53, a black county supervisor, grew up about 
     four miles from Pickering's family and, over the years, has 
     seen him at dozens of black gatherings. Pickering may have 
     been reared in an era when discrimination was the rule, he 
     said, but he has always been friendly with blacks.
       ``You will see him at black family reunions,'' Mack said. 
     ``You will see him at funerals when a black family's loved 
     one has died.''
       In the '90s, Pickering was an early, prominent supporter 
     for establishing what became the William Winter Institute for 
     Racial Reconciliation at Ole Miss. Among its other functions, 
     the institute promotes programs to combat racial prejudice.
       Pickering has also responded to complaints about the abuse 
     of black State prison inmates. Sometimes he has ordered 
     changes

[[Page S13545]]

     from the bench and other times, when evidence did not fully 
     substantiate the abuse, worked informally. Pickering ``will 
     call me afterward and ask that we look into what is going 
     on,'' said Leonard Vincent, general counsel for the State 
     Corrections Department.
       In one case, such informal intervention led to the firing 
     of at least two guards.
       ``Judge Pickering was the only white leader we could get to 
     stand up against the guards and the penal system,'' said a 
     local civic activist, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 
     ``I mean, he called them on the carpet and cleaned them up.''
       Pickering, the activist said, did not seek to publicize his 
     behind-the-scenes effort. ``I'm not saying Judge Pickering is 
     a saint,'' he said. ``He is a conservative man. But he's not 
     afraid to stand up for what is right.''


                       The case against pickering

       Such sentiments do not sway opponents.
       ``Judge Pickering's record isn't erased just because he has 
     African-American friends in his community,'' said NAACP 
     Chairman Bond, a former Georgia legislator. ``This is a 
     question of what kind of Federal judiciary are we going to 
     have. Are we going to have one occupied by women and men who 
     support justice and fairness, or who oppose it?''
       Many Pickering opponents object to his nomination on 
     grounds unrelated to his racial attitudes. The predominantly 
     black Magnolia Bar Association of Mississippi is one such 
     opponent.
       The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over 
     Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, whose population is 45 
     percent nonwhite. But of 14 judges' seats that are filled, 
     only two are Hispanic and only one is black. The Magnolia Bar 
     has sought more diversity and more liberal voices on the 
     court for years, President Melvin Cooper said, so Pickering--
     a conservative white--is the wrong choice.
       ``We're looking at . . . the decisions he would make on the 
     bench,'' Cooper said.
       Abortion-rights groups have joined the fight against 
     Pickering, also because of his conservative personal views. 
     As a State legislator in the mid-1970s, Pickering led an 
     effort to make the national Republican platform anti-
     abortion, specifically opposing the U.S. Supreme Court's 
     ``intrusion'' into the issue with Roe v. Wade.
       ``We're concerned that would color the attitude he would 
     take to the appellate bench,'' said Judy Appelbaum, a vice 
     president of the National Women's Law Center.
       When asked about abortion at his confirmation hearing last 
     year, the judge sounded less militant. ``My personal views 
     are immaterial and irrelevant,'' the judge responded. ``I 
     will tell you that I will follow the constitution, and I will 
     apply the Supreme court precedent.''
       Pickering has yet to rule on an abortion matter. But the 
     5th U.S. Circuit may well consider the constitutionality of 
     state statutes designed to make abortions more difficult to 
     obtain. In Mississippi, for example, legislation is pending 
     that would restrict the time when an abortion is legal and 
     require abortion providers to be board-certified in 
     obstetrics and gynecology.
       Yet allegations of bigotry have hurt the judge's chances--
     and damaged his reputation--more than concerns about his 
     general conservatism. His son says Pickering is willing to 
     undergo another round of intense scrutiny and heated attacks 
     to restore his good name.
       ``The stereotype of what Mississippi is can easily be used 
     against someone like my father, who is a Southern Baptist and 
     from an older generation of white Mississippians,'' he said. 
     ``But my father is not at all the man they try to say he is. 
     We hope in this second go-round the truth catches up with the 
     false accusations.''
       The law-review article on mixed-race marriage laws casts a 
     cloud on that record. But the evidence suggests that the 
     judge has moved on since he wrote it.
       ``That was 1959,'' said Angela Barnett. ``Back in the day, 
     everyone was taught to think that way.''
       Barnett, who is white, went before Pickering on drug 
     charges in 1997--with her black husband, Harrell. The couple, 
     who now live in Houston, say the judge helped them get their 
     lives together with lenient sentences and advice.
       ``If he was racist, he wouldn't even be thinking about 
     helping us,'' Barnett said. ``He would have said `Heck, no, 
     she's married to a black man, I'm not going to help them.'''
       When the Senate debates Pickering's nomination, his 
     conservative views--on abortion, federalism, the role of the 
     judiciary and other matters--will be fair game. The judge is 
     quite conservative by most measures, and many people would 
     prefer more moderate or liberal nominees.
       But in Mississippi, the notion that Pickering is a racial 
     throwback and a friend to cross-burners doesn't sell.
       Pascagoula attorney Richard ``Dickie'' Scruggs, for 
     example, is a believer in Pickering.
       Scruggs is a ``mass tort'' trial lawyer--the sort who signs 
     up thousands of plaintiffs to join in class-action lawsuits--
     who was lead litigator in Mississippi's multibillion-dollar 
     tobacco suit.
       ``Judge Pickering has been in the camp that was considered 
     liberal to moderate in the 1960s,'' said Scruggs, a Democrat 
     who is also Trent Lott's brother-in-law. ``He's a bright 
     jurist and has a moral compass that gives him a real sense of 
     fairness. . . .
       ``I think he would be a great [appeals court] judge. I just 
     don't know why he would want to go through this process 
     again.''
  Mr. LOTT. One of the criticisms was, well, the Judge was the 
intermediary in sending some of the letters of support. I am not going 
to belabor the point, but as a matter of fact, I have the list of who 
these people were. They were people he had known for 30 years, former 
college friends, law school friends, people he practiced law with. It 
was in the aftermath of the anthrax attack here on the Capitol. The 
only way he could make sure the letters got to the Judiciary Committee 
in a timely way was to send them himself. The allegation that there was 
something inappropriate about that is totally baseless, and it is just 
the type of thing that has been used against him.
  Another allegation is that when he was a State senator he had some 
relationship with what was then known as the Sovereignty Commission. 
When he went into the Senate, I think when he was first sworn in, 
representatives from that organization said they had some concerns 
about Klan activity with regard to labor unions down in his home 
county.
  He said: Keep me posted.
  Seldom do they note the fact that he subsequently voted to abolish 
the Sovereignty Commission; again, a very frivolous charge. To have 
your name mentioned 30 years later in a report, that they had some 
happenstance contact with him, certainly should not be disqualifying.
  From all walks of life in Mississippi, people are very much in 
support of this nomination. He hasn't just been a lawyer and a judge 
and family man. He has been involved. He helped bring his hometown 
school through integration. His kids went to the public schools. The 
first time I saw his son--now a Congressman--Chip Pickering, he was 
playing linebacker for the football team for the Laurel Tornadoes, R. 
H. Watkins Laurel High School. He was a great athlete on a team that 
was probably 80 percent African American. They have always been willing 
to take a stand.
  He was head of the local March of Dimes. He headed the local Red 
Cross. He has been involved in economic development. He has been 
involved in the Heart Fund, the Drug Education Council, Sunday school 
teacher, chairman of the deacons, church treasurer, president of the 
Mississippi Baptist Convention. Some people look at that almost like it 
is an indictment. It is a great honor for the people of your faith to 
honor you to head their organization statewide.
  He has even been a farmer and was the first president of the National 
Catfish Farmers Association. I had contact with him then.
  President Reagan once wrote in a note where there was a picture of a 
mother and her son: The apple never falls too far from the tree. The 
point was, if the child is really an outstanding person, he probably 
came from a very strong and good tree. True. In this case, there is not 
a finer young man I know of than Congressman Chip Pickering who has 
labored valiantly to tell the truth about his dad. If you want to get 
emotional, watch a son work for his father. I think the kind of man 
Chip Pickering is tells you a lot about the father who brought him into 
the world, along with his mother.
  This certainly is an outstanding individual. He had his reputation 
besmirched a couple of years ago. He has been willing to continue to 
stand and fight to have the record corrected and to see this through to 
a conclusion. I hope the Senate will not filibuster this judge. At 
least give him a direct vote. Or if we have to have a vote on cloture, 
vote to invoke cloture, and let's move this nomination forward.
  There is a real fester developing here in this institution, 
institutionally and individually. We have to lance it or it is going to 
demean us as individuals and the institution. We have to stop it. This 
is the place to do it. This man should be confirmed for the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 11 minutes 9 seconds.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

[[Page S13546]]

  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a good and 
brave man from the State of Mississippi, Judge Charles Pickering. I 
also rise today to talk about a judicial nominating process that is 
badly broken and out of control. Judge Charles Pickering has been 
victimized by inaccurate race baiting and political trash talk of the 
news media, Members of Congress, and Washington's liberal elite. Judge 
Pickering's critics continue to unfairly label him a racist and 
segregationist. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Judge Pickering has worked courageously in difficult times--difficult 
times many in this body could not hope to understand--to eliminate 
racial disparities in Mississippi and the South. My good friend, former 
Governor William Winter of Mississippi, a Democrat and one of the 
South's most respected progressives, came to Washington to support 
Judge Pickering's nomination. Sadly, Governor Winter's praise and 
firsthand account of Pickering's true record fell on deaf ears by most 
Capitol Hill Democrats.
  Charles Pickering deserves an up-or-down vote on his nomination, as 
does another fine nominee who has been treated in the same shameful 
manner, Justice Janice Rogers Brown of California. On both of these 
nominees, I fear we are about to cave in once again to the left-leaning 
special interest groups. These special interest groups, like termites, 
have come out of the woodwork to denounce Justice Brown simply because 
she is an African American who also happens to be conservative. Never 
mind that Justice Brown is intelligent, articulate, chock-full of 
common sense, and highly qualified to serve on the Federal appeals 
court bench. Never mind that in 1998, 76 percent of Californians voted 
to retain Justice Brown. That is a job approval rating most of us could 
only dream of.
  The special interest groups don't care about any of that. They don't 
want to hear how qualified Justice Brown and Judge Pickering are, or 
how much the voters like the job they have done.
  No, their only mission is to assassinate these good people's 
character and to take them down one way or another because they fear 
they won't cater to their liberal agenda. They are right; they won't. 
These fine nominees are much too independent and much too intelligent 
to be held hostage to anyone's extreme agenda. Or as Thomas Sowell 
wrote of Justice Brown in a column headlined ``A Lynch Mob Takes Aim at 
Judicial Pick'':

       What really scares the left about Brown is that she has 
     guts as well as brains. She won't weaken or waver.

  So they can publish all the racist cartoons they want and they can 
demonize Judge Pickering and brutally and callously reduce Justice 
Brown to tears at her committee meeting. They can sneeringly accuse 
them both of being outside the mainstream. But President Bush knows and 
the voters of California and Mississippi know, and the majority of this 
Senate knows, Charles Pickering and Janice Rogers Brown are not the 
ones who are outside the mainstream. The ones who are completely out of 
touch are the special interest groups that have taken this nominating 
process hostage and those in this body who have aided and abetted their 
doing so.
  Speaking of lynch mobs, my all-time favorite movie is ``To Kill a 
Mockingbird.'' In the movie's key scene, you may remember, Atticus 
Finch, a lawyer who is raising two small children, is defending a black 
man unjustly accused of rape. That lynch mob also tries to take justice 
into its own hands. Atticus confronts them at the jailhouse door. His 
daughter Scout joins him and sees that the leader of the mob is someone 
she knows. She calls to him by name: Hey, Mr. Cunningham. Remember me? 
You are Walter's daddy. Walter is a good boy. Tell him I said hello.
  After a dramatic pause, Mr. Cunningham turns away and says to the 
mob: Let's go home, boys.
  This group, bent on injustice, was turned aside by a small girl who 
appealed to them as individuals.
  My friends in this Chamber, I know you, and I appeal to each of you 
as individuals, as fathers, mothers, colleagues and friends. Most of 
you were taught in Sunday school to do unto others as you would have 
them do unto you. This is not treating someone as you would want to be 
treated yourself. This extreme partisanship and deliberately planned 
obstructionism has gone on long enough in this body. I wish we could do 
away with the 60-vote rule that lets a small minority rule this Chamber 
and defeat the majority, reversing the rule of free government 
everywhere; everywhere, that is, except in the Senate.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MILLER. I hope we can have an up-or-down vote--just an up-or-down 
vote, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that there be an additional 10 
minutes equally divided with, of course, the same understanding that 
Senator Cochran will be the last to speak for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shan't because I have 
already spoken about this with the distinguished senior Senator from 
Utah, but my understanding is this is 10 minutes equally divided on top 
of whatever time is remaining?
  Mr. HATCH. That is right, with the understanding that Senator Cochran 
will be the last to speak for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the current order--I was off the 
floor when the order was entered last night--what is the current order 
on who speaks last?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The final 5 minutes is to the majority 
leader or his designee, and the previous 5 minutes is to the minority 
leader or his designee.
  Mr. LEAHY. It is perfectly all right. I think the Senator from Utah 
has proposed a very fair proposal. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair understands 
the request is to add 5 minutes to each side.
  Mr. HATCH. Right.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the control of--
  Mr. LEAHY. The same way.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The same persons controlling the time.
  Mr. HATCH. With the understanding that Senator Cochran will be given 
the leader's 5 minutes at the very end of the debate.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Does the distinguished Senator care to go ahead?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 35 minutes on the Democratic 
side and 10 minutes on the Republican side.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Chair repeat that, please? I didn't hear what the 
Chair said.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There remains 35 minutes to the Democratic 
side and 10 minutes to the Republican side, 5 minutes added to each 
side. The Chair reminds the Senators that the last 5 minutes on each 
side is under the control of the leaders or their designees.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's strong 
leadership on this issue. I rise in the strong support of the 
nomination of Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  I want to say, first, that I appreciate the honesty, the integrity, 
and the forthrightness of my colleague from Georgia on every issue, but 
particularly on this issue. He has been very much out front, and this 
Senator greatly appreciates his attitude and his dedication to ensuring 
that quality judges are confirmed to every circuit of the United States 
and every district of the Federal bench.
  I rise with some special appreciation for Judge Pickering's 
nomination because he is nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  In 1969, when this Senator became a member of the Georgia bar, 
Georgia was a member of the Fifth Circuit. So I have been a member of 
the Fifth Circuit bar since my early days. The Eleventh Circuit was 
created in 1980. We split off at that time, so I no longer argue cases 
on a regular basis in the Fifth Circuit.

[[Page S13547]]

  The Fifth Circuit has been very blessed with a number of great 
judges. Look at the judges who came from difficult times, such as my 
very good friend Judge Griffin Bell who, after serving as a member of 
the Fifth Circuit, came to be Attorney General; Elbert Tuttle, Judge 
Frank Johnson--any number of judges such as these judges at the 
district court level--Judge W.A. Bootle. These individuals came through 
very difficult times and distinguished themselves as judges.
  Judge Charles Pickering came through that same very difficult time in 
the South, a time in the South when race was a very critical and the 
most forthright issue. Charles Pickering looked the racial issue in the 
eye and provided the kind of leadership of which every American would 
be very proud.
  As we now consider his nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, I could not be prouder of any individual than I am of the 
nomination of Charles Pickering. I am going to have a lot more to say 
about this, but today we have the opportunity to bring this nomination 
to an up-or-down vote.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to give him a vote on the floor of 
the Senate. Let's put this good man, this good judge on the Fifth 
Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HATCH. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee has 3 minutes 
remaining--2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HATCH. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I come at this differently than the 
Senator from Mississippi. I don't know Charles Pickering. I have met 
him briefly only twice. But I care about the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. Bridget Lipscomb and I have studied his record diligently.
  Nearly 40 years ago, I was a law clerk on the Fifth Circuit for the 
great Judge John Minor Wisdom. I have been trying to think of something 
to say to the Members on the other side to help them change their minds 
on this nomination.
  Judge Wisdom was a member of the Federal court that ordered the 
University of Mississippi to admit James Meredith to Ole Miss. The 
Fifth Circuit played a crucial role in desegregating the South. Judges 
Tuttle, Rives, Brown, and Wisdom were real heroes at that time. Crosses 
were burned in front of their homes. I will have more to say about 
this, but Judge Pickering is a worthy successor to the court of Judges 
Wisdom, Tuttle, Rives, and Brown.
  While those judges were ordering the desegregation of Deep South 
schools, while crosses were being burned in front of their homes, Judge 
Pickering was enrolling his children in those same newly desegregated 
schools, and Judge Pickering in his hometown was testifying in court 
against Sam Bowers, the man the Baton Rouge Advocate called the ``most 
violent living racist,'' at a time when people were killing people 
based on race.
  Many of my generation have changed their minds about race in the 
South over the last 40 years. That is why the opposition to Judge 
Pickering to me seems so blatantly unfair. He hasn't changed his mind. 
There is nothing to forgive him for. There is nothing to condemn. There 
is nothing to excuse. He was not a product of his times. He led his 
times. He spoke out for racial justice. He testified against the most 
dangerous of the cross burners. He did it in his own hometown, with his 
own neighbors, at a time in our Nation's history when it was hardest to 
do. He stuck his neck out for civil rights.
  Mr. President, will our message to the world be: Stick out your neck 
for civil rights for Mississippi in the 1960s and then we will cut your 
neck off in the Senate in 2003, all in the name of civil rights? I 
certainly hope not.
  Charles Pickering earned this nomination. He is a worthy successor to 
the court of Judge Wisdom, Judge Tuttle, Judge Rives, and Judge Brown.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand the time has been used. I know 
the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee are much more 
lengthy. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote, 
he be given time to finish his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. What was the request?
  Mr. HATCH. That immediately following the vote on Judge Pickering, 
the distinguished Senator from Tennessee be given time to finish his 
remarks because he has prepared extensively.
  Mr. LEAHY. Would the Senator like to ask for time to finish the 
remarks now, with the same amount of time given to this side? If my 
friend from Tennessee wants to finish his speech now, I will ask 
consent that he be given that amount of time with an equal amount of 
time added to this side.
  Mr. HATCH. That will be fine with me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, that is very generous. How much time do 
I have to finish the speech?
  Mr. LEAHY. How much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. May I ask for 10 minutes?
  Mr. HATCH. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. That is with an equal amount of time to our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this will be pushing the time of the vote 
back to about 10:20, 10:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be approximately 55 minutes from now.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and 
the Senator from Utah for their generosity.
  Let me remake my first point. I care about this case because I care 
about the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Many of the Senators know or 
knew Judge John Minor Wisdom. They knew what a great judge he was.
  They knew what the times were like in the Deep South during the 1960s 
and 1970s. I remember Judge Wisdom once telling me the Ku Klux Klan had 
burned a cross in the intersection between his home and that of 
Congressman Hale Boggs. Judge Wisdom said: They were getting both of us 
with one cross burning.
  So I set out some time ago, with my staff, to look through the record 
of Judge Pickering to see what he has done. All the evidence is that 
Judge Pickering, like Judge Wisdom, like Judge Tuttle, Judge Rives, and 
Judge Brown, stuck his neck out for civil rights at a time when it was 
hardest to do. Mississippians know that.
  William Winter, with whom I served, a leading former Democrat 
Governor, a leader for racial justice, strongly supports Judge 
Pickering. Frank Hunger, who served on that court with me as a law 
clerk back in the 1960s, President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, 
Al Gore's brother-in-law, strongly supports Judge Pickering. I have 
lived in the South for a long time, about the same amount of time as 
Judge Pickering. I have learned to tell those who are racists, those 
who stood silently by, and those who stuck their necks out.
  Let me invite my colleagues to go back with me to Mississippi, to the 
late 1960s. James Meredith had become the only Black to graduate from 
the undergraduate school at Ole Miss. Reuben Anderson, who has endorsed 
Judge Pickering, had become the first Black graduate of the Ole Miss 
Law School.
  In Nashville, where I went to school at Vanderbilt, the first 
integrated class had just graduated from Vanderbilt University. Robert 
Clark became the first black elected to the Mississippi Legislature 
since the Reconstruction.
  It was not until 1968, that the first blacks were permitted to 
participate in intercollegiate athletics at the University of Florida 
and Georgia and Tennessee and other Southeastern Conference schools.
  The law had changed but there were still plenty of ``colored only'' 
signs on restroom doors in plenty old southern cities during the late 
1960s. Martin Luther King was murdered in Memphis during 1968. Alabama 
Governor George Wallace won the Democrat primary for president in 1976 
in Mississippi, and in Boston, Massachusetts.

[[Page S13548]]

  Perhaps my colleagues saw the movie, ``Mississippi Burning.'' That 
was about events during 1967 in Mississippi. Civil rights workers 
Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney were murdered. They were picked up by 
three carloads of Klansmen, shot and their bodies were buried in a 15-
foot earthen dam. In 1967, seven men were convicted of federal 
conspiracy charges, eight were acquitted and three received mistrials. 
At the time, the state of Mississippi refused to file murder charges. 
To this day, no one has ever been tried for those murders.
  Wes Pruden, a young reporter at the time, told me he went to a 
Mississippi courtroom and everybody in the courtroom except the judge 
had a button on that said ``Never.'' That was the environment in which 
Charles Pickering was living in Laurel, Mississippi in Jones County in 
the late 1960s.
  Blacks were just beginning to serve on juries. A few Blacks voted. 
Schools were being desegregated one grade at a time starting with the 
lower grades so that older children would have less opportunity to 
interact socially. Race was not a theoretical issue in Laurel in the 
late sixties, or even a political issue. People were killing people 
based on race in the late 1960s in Jones County, MS.
  The White Citizens Council, a group of white collar, non-violent 
segregationists was the country club version of resistance to 
integration in Laurel. Klan members were known at that time in Laurel 
for putting on their white robes, opening up their bibles, building a 
bonfire in a pasture, crossing a sword and a gun over a bible, and 
proceeding to burn down the home of a black person. The KKK in Laurel 
shot into homes and beat blacks over the head with baseball bats. One 
did not speak out lightly against the Klan because its members could 
very well be your neighbor or your co-worker.
  The Klan infiltrated law enforcement departments and juries. The Klan 
put out fliers instructing residents not to cooperate with the FBI on 
cases.
  Laurel was Klan territory. It was the home of Sam Bowers. Bowers had 
created the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan because he believed that 
the regular KKK was not violent enough. The Klan was out to resist 
integration, but that was not enough for Sam Bowers. The White Knights 
set out to oppose racial integration ``by any means necessary.''
  Since 9/11 we have heard a lot of talk about terrorists. This is not 
the first time we have seen terrorists in America. We had terrorists 
then. Sam Bowers and the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Laurel, 
MS, were the terrorists of the 1960s. The FBI said the White Knights 
were responsible for at least 10 killings then. The Times of London 
said Bowers himself was suspected of the orchestration of 300 bombings.
  According to the Baton Rouge Advocate, Sam Bowers was ``America's 
most violent living racist.''
  Charles Pickering made public statements condemning Klan violence. He 
worked with the FBI to prosecute and stop Klan violence. In the late 
1960s, Bowers came up for trial for the murder of the slain civil 
rights worker, Vernon Dahmer, and Judge Pickering testified publicly 
against Bowers.
  I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record two documents. The 
first is a Klan newsletter from 1967 criticizing Pickering for 
cooperating with the FBI. The second is Bowers' own Motion for Recusal 
filed in Federal court, asking Pickering to remove himself from hearing 
a case involving Bowers because of Pickering's previous testimony 
against Bowers and taking credit for defeating Judge Pickering in a 
statewide race for attorney general.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       [From the Citizen-Patriot]

     A Newsletter Dedicated to Truth and the Christian Civilization

       ``Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.--2 
     Corinthians 3:17.
       When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for 
     the Truth to be told concerning massive animal corruption in 
     Public Office, it is the Duty of the Public Press to inform 
     the Citizens. Unfortunately for the citizens of Jones County, 
     J.W. West, the Chief-Communist Propagandist, not only refuses 
     to tell the Truth, but actually takes a leading part in the 
     direction of the evil public corruption which is strangling 
     liberty in America. The Responsibility to Truth must there be 
     filled by the Citizens themselves. These are the Publishers 
     and Distributors of the Citizen-Patriot.


                    Public Office is a Public Trust

       Its successful administration requires from its Officials a 
     Fear of God, rather than a fear of men, and those Officials 
     who serve justly must be ambitious for the Glory of the 
     Heavenly Father rather than ambitious for their own personal 
     advancement or the advancement of some device to which they 
     have a vested attachment. Our Father has promised and amply 
     demonstrated that He will prosper a Nation whose Officers 
     serve Him. And, conversely, He will wreak vengeance and 
     punishment upon a Nation whose officers are self-serving men 
     pleasures. All citizens owe a high Duty to law and 
     government, but all men owe a higher duty to our Heavenly 
     Father, the Author of Truth and Liberty.


             Let FACTS be submitted to a candid population

       The Base of the Political Corruption which is sweeping our 
     Beloved Land of America lies in the Establishment of a 
     National Police Bureau, which brings pressure to bear upon 
     local officials. By a calculated means of Fear and Lust for 
     Reward, this Beast of Satan directs its pressure in such a 
     way that the local government is, in fact, woed against the 
     local citizens and their local interests.
       The honest citizens of Jones County have recently been 
     defrauded by certain officials in an outstanding and clear-
     cut example of the above, whereby the Spirit of the Law was 
     frustrated under the Color of the form and letter of legality 
     by the clever manipulations of Chet Dillard and Charles 
     Pickering. Fortunately, this pair were not completely 
     successful in their attempt to pervert justice in the Circuit 
     Court. By the cunning use of their official positions for 
     personal benefit they were able to operate their evil ____ 
     before the Honorable Grand Jury; but the Honorable Trial 
     Jurors in the Roy Strickland case saw through their scheme, 
     and struck a blow in favor of Justice by returning a verdict 
     of ``Not Guilty.''
       Praise be the Blessed Name of the Heavenly Father, The 
     Guardian of our Liberty Whose Holy Word is the only Truth and 
     Anchor in a stormy world ruled by evil men operating under 
     color of Law
       The honest facts regarding the Roy Strickland Case are as 
     follows:
       In the late summer of 1965 a series of wholesale arrests 
     were made in Jones County with regard to a car theft ring. 
     These arrests were made by local officials at the urging of 
     FBI Special Agent Bob Lee of Laurel, Miss. Lee, following 
     standard FBI practice, misrepresented the amount of evidence 
     which he had regarding the car thefts, and deceived the local 
     officials in order to get them to make a larger number of 
     arrests than his evidence would warrant. Bob Lee's motive in 
     this was not so much to convict anyone with regard to the car 
     thefts, but rather to bring additional underworld characters 
     under FBI control where they could be used for criminal 
     action and as stool pigeons. Roy Strickland was Bob Lee's 
     chief target in this regard. After being arrested in the late 
     summer of 1963, Strickland was allowed and easy bond and 
     released. Strickland was eventually arrested and indicted 
     (and released without bond in two instances) on five separate 
     counts of car theft which alleged to have occurred during 
     August and September of 1965. The arrests and indictments for 
     these offenses spanned a period form September 1963 through 
     March 1966. At no time prior to April of 1967, however, did 
     Dillard or Pickering make an attempt to prosecute Roy 
     Strickland on any of these cases. They were all continued 
     from time to time and from term to term in the Circuit Court 
     of Jones County at the request of the prosectution. 
     Strickland was allowed to walk out of the courtroom without 
     even making bond on two of the indictments until early in 
     1967. Then, on short notice, the oldest of the five cases was 
     quickly called up for trial on April 22, 1967.
       Why? the sudden change of attitude on the part of Messers. 
     Dillard and Pickering from that of a relaxed indulgence for a 
     year and a half to that of a sudden, vicious persecution of 
     Roy Strickland on charges that were nothing more than frame-
     ups in the first place? Let's look into the Hidden Truth 
     which the Communist, J.W. West is trying to conceal from the 
     citizens of Mississippi.
       ____ was out on bond doing work on oil rigs in Louisiana in 
     January of 1966 when he was contacted by Ford O'Neil. O'Neil 
     advanced a proposition to Strickland asking him to help the 
     State Investigators and the FBI in some work to kidnap and 
     torture a confession out to Lawrence Byrd on the Dahmer case. 
     Ford O'Neil promised Ray Strickland that in exchange for this 
     work, the FBI and State Investigators would pressure Chet 
     Dillard not to prosecute Strickland on the car thefts. 
     Strickland agreed to assist in the Lawrence Byrd kidnap and 
     torture, and brought in Jack Watkins, another ex-convict, who 
     at that time was wanted for burglary and armed robbery in the 
     Coast area. Jack Watkins was also promised immunity from his 
     crimes by the State Investigators and FBI agents. Later, Roy 
     Strickland, Jack Watkins, Ford O'Neil, MHSP, Steve Henderson, 
     NHSP, Roy K. Moore, Chief Special agent, FBI, and Bill Dukes, 
     Gulfport Special agent, FBI, got together to make final plans 
     and arrangements for the actual kidnapping and torture of 
     Lawrence Byrd. To show ``good faith'' Roy Moore gave Ford 
     O'Neil a hundred dollars, and Ford passed it over to Roy 
     Strickland to bind the deal. Several days later Strickland, 
     Watkins and several others did carryout the actual kidnap

[[Page S13549]]

     and torture of Lawrence Byrd. The FBI men stood in the bushes 
     out of sight and directed Byrd's statements while Watkins 
     tortured Byrd. This was the confession which resulted in the 
     arrest of a dozen or so innocent white men in the Dahmer 
     case.
       At first, it seemed that the evil plot of the FBI would 
     succeed. J.W. West was giving them massive doses of 
     propaganda in order to convince the men before the ever 
     entered the courtroom and to the general public they were 
     looking like ``Lynden's Little Angels.'' But there was a 
     cloud on the horizon. The plot started coming to pieces 
     when Strickland was arrested on a drunk charge early in 
     1967 in Jones County. FBI Chieftan, Roy K. Moore, was 
     getting worried about Strickland, as was Ford O'Neil. They 
     wanted him to stay out of Jones County until after the 
     Dahmer case was tried. Strickland was worrying them by 
     coming back to Jones County at frequent intervals and 
     going on drinking sprees. All during 1966 rumors had been 
     circulating in Laurel that Strickland knew something about 
     the Lawrence Byrd kidnap-torture, and there was an ever-
     present danger that Strickland might reveal the whole 
     thing to the wrong person during one of his binges. Roy K. 
     Moore could not rest easy as long as Roy Strickland was in 
     Jones County, whether in or out of jail, but it was 
     finally agreed that it was better to leave Strickland in 
     jail, and try to ease him off to Parchman, even if it 
     meant double crossing him.
       However, Strickland began to realize that the FBI was 
     trying to use everybody against everybody, and then betray 
     everybody for the sole benefit and advancement of the FBI. 
     Strickland then decided to tell the truth and take his 
     chances in open court. He contacted the defense attorneys in 
     the Dahmer case and gave them the full facts about the FBI-
     engineered kidnap and torture of Lawrence Byrd. This, and 
     much other supporting evidence was turned over to Chet 
     Dillard in order to obtain a just indictment for kidnapping 
     against Roy K. Moore, Bill Duke, Ford O'Neil, Steve 
     Hendrickson and Jack Watkins. When first given the evidence, 
     Dillard appeared to be interested in enforcing the law 
     without fear or favor, but when the proper FBI pressure was 
     applied to him he caved in like a ripe watermelon, and 
     defended the FBI men before the Grand Jury, and worked 
     against the indictment, using trickery, lies and deceit to 
     hobble the work of the Honest Jurors. (The District Attorney 
     is permitted to lie to the jurors because he is not under 
     oath, all witnesses must testify under the oath.)
       The FBI is desperately trying to suppress the truth in this 
     case (just as they did in the Kennedy assassination) and 
     Dillard and Pickering are Helping the FBI to conceal its 
     crime against the people of Jones county. Roy K. Moore, Chief 
     special Agent of the National Police Bureaucracy in 
     Mississippi is a highly trained, brilliant, self-serving 
     savage. The American Government means nothing to him, beyond 
     its mechanical ability to collect taxes from honest working 
     people, and then pay money back to him in the form of a 
     large, comfortable, unearned salary, and present him the 
     power and prestige of an official ruler over mankind. Roy K. 
     Moore is a criminal who was smart enough to acquire an 
     education and an official position BEFORE he began to prey 
     upon the honest and productive members of the community. Now, 
     he will, like any other criminal, threaten, beat, rob, 
     torture, persecute and kill anyone who interferes with the 
     advancement of his personal career, which, to him, is the 
     ``whole of the law.'' Truly, it may be said that these highly 
     trained criminals of the National Police Bureaucracy are the 
     most dangerous animals upon the face of the earth.
       Understandably, weaklings such as Dillard and Pickering are 
     afraid of the FBI, but they should realize that Public 
     Service in America requires a Personal Sacrifice on the part 
     of the officeholder, and that the purpose of Law in America, 
     is Equal Justice, rather than the protection of official 
     Bureaucratic Criminals.
       Whatever his past, Roy Strickland was working on an honest 
     job when the FBI enticed him to kidnap Lawrence Byrd. Whether 
     or no he stole the car? He is charged with, there is little 
     or no real evidence against him in any of them to establish 
     his guilt. But the Supreme Injustice of the whole business 
     is that he is being persecuted by Chet Dillard not for car 
     theft, or contempt, or perjury, but because he told the 
     Truth about the FBI kidnapping and torturing a 
     ``confession'' out of Lawrence Byrd. Thanks to the 
     Infinite Mercy of the Heavenly Father, the people of Jones 
     County understand the purpose of the Law better than their 
     Public Officials. We respectfully invite the loyal 
     citizens of Jones County to return to the polls on Aug. 8, 
     1967, and have Then and There this WRIT.
                                  ____


                       [From the Citizen Patriot]

       In times past, this publication has repeatedly alerted the 
     citizens of Jones County to the danger to Life, Liberty and 
     Property, which is posed by the continued operation of a 
     communist newspaper under the director of the evil J.W. West.
       Violence and anarchy always follow in the wake of atheists 
     and materialistic economic claptrap which communists preach, 
     and Laurel is no exception.
       Freedom of the Press is predicated upon the press telling 
     the truth. But, of course, West is interested in centralized 
     power and control of the population, so he is not going to 
     print the truth about what is going on in the Circuit Court 
     of Jones County.
       District Attorney Chet Dillard and Charles Pickering have 
     been furnished with positive proof concerning the kidnap and 
     beating of Lawrence Byrd in January of 1966 in Laurel, but 
     they will not bring these facts before the Grand Jury. The 
     facts show the following:
       1. Lawrence Byrd was kidnapped under the direction of the 
     F.B.I., with collaboration by Mississippi State Highway 
     Patrol investigators and assistance of ex-convicts and wanted 
     felons. The convict felons were hired and paid by the F.B.I. 
     and promised immunity by the state investigators in order to 
     get them to kidnap and torture Byrd.
       2. The motive for the kidnap was to beat and torture 
     Lawrence Byrd into confessing to the Dahmer incident and 
     force him into implicating a large number of other men who 
     are politically opposed to dictatorship. This was to enhance 
     the prestige of the F.B.I. as an investigative organization, 
     and to frighten the citizens of Jones County and Mississippi 
     into submitting to dictatorship.
       3. The men who arranged and conducted the Byrd kidnap were: 
     Roy Moore, F.B.I.; Bill Dukes, F.B.I.; Steven Henderson, 
     M.H.P.; Ford O'Neil, M.H.P.; Jack Watkins, convict felon, Roy 
     Strickland, convict felon, and others. Dillard and Pickering 
     have sworn affidavits in their possession, but they refuse to 
     do their duty and present the whole body of evidence to the 
     Jones County Grand Jury. They offer as their lame excuse that 
     ``too many important persons are involved.''
       Since when has the LAW been a respecter of persons?
       It is high time that we found out the real truth about the 
     American Gestapo, the F.B.I. If some ``important persons'' 
     get hurt by truth that is just too bad. They are a disgrace 
     to law enforcement.
       How about 15 innocent men being thrown into Federal Prison 
     just because they have been a political embarrassment to the 
     police dictators and J.W. West?
       How about a Laurel citizen and businessman being kidnapped 
     and tortured into confession something he had not done?
       Are you going to enforce the law without fear or favor, 
     Messrs Dillard and Pickering, or are you going to crawl and 
     whine at the feet of the unconstitutional national police 
     bureaucracy? Are you going to do your duty and arrest Jack 
     Watkins or are you going to continue to try and confuse, 
     mislead and manipulate the Grand Jury?
       Why were Dillard and Pickering so anxious to persecute old 
     Buck, who only stole a few hundred dollars, yet so reluctant 
     to indict the F.B.I. criminals who are stealing the life and 
     liberty of the whole country. Which way is the money moving 
     now?
                                  ____


   In the United States District Court For the Southern District of 
                 Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi

       Sam Bowers, Katie Perrone, Michelle O'Hara, Jeff Rexroad, 
     and Shawn O'Hara (Plaintiffs), vs. Mike Moore and the State 
     of Mississippi (Defendants).


                           motion for recusal

       Comes now Shawn Richard O'Hara, on his behalf, and on the 
     behalf of Sam Bowers, Michelle O'Hara, and Jeff Rexroad, 
     asking that both Judge Charles Pickering and the honorable 
     magistrate who is handling this civil action to remove 
     themself as a result of some or all of the reasons listed 
     below.
       1. Both men live in Mississippi and cannot fairly hear this 
     case, since said plaintiffs claim Mississippi has no legal 
     state constitution, thus meaning that if either of the said 
     judge or magistrate was licensed to practice law in said 
     state, since there is, and was no legal state constitution, 
     said judge and/or magistrate may not be legally licensed to 
     practice law.
       2. Specifically Judge Pickering has personally prejudiced 
     himself against Sam Bowers by testifying against him in one 
     of Mr. Bowers state hearing, saying Sam Bowers was an 
     ``undesirable individual.''
       3. Specifically Judge Pickering has prejudiced himself 
     against Shawn O'Hara, by tainting this court document, and 
     cannot prove Shawn O'Hara has ever filed four frivolous 
     federal lawsuits. Therefore, the said judge has openly, 
     intentionally, and unfairly lied against Shawn O'Hara, even 
     though the Bible says ``thou shall not lie.'' (See Exhibit 
     A.)
       4. In conclusion, since both Judge Charles Pickering and 
     the honorable magistrate both live in Mississippi (a state in 
     which its state constitution is asserted to be illegal), and 
     because both men work together, and because Shawn O'Hara is 
     asserting Judge Charles Pickering has been an unfair judge 
     handling this matter, and that the said judge will never be a 
     fair judge in a case which Sam Bowers and/or Shawn O'Hara is 
     a part of such a case, both Judge Pickering and the federal 
     court's magistrate are asked to remove themself from said 
     case.


                               conclusion

       It is prayfully requested of this court, that a new federal 
     court judge and magistrate be appointed from a northern 
     state, or from a western state, since a southern judge will 
     not fairly hear the issue that the State of Mississippi is 
     operating under an illegal constitution of 1890, which all 
     state officials are asked to swear to it, and uphold it, even 
     though it was never ratified, voted on by the people of the 
     State of Mississippi.
       Respectfully submitted by: on behalf of Shawn Richard 
     O'Hara, Sam Bowers, Michelle O'Hara, and Jeff Rexroad.
       V. It is a well-known fact, Charles Pickering was defeated 
     in his personal race for federal office against Thad Cockran, 
     because

[[Page S13550]]

     Sam Bowers and his thousands of supporters throughout 
     Mississippi worked very hard to defeat Pickering in that 
     political race.
       VII. It is a well-known fact that Sam Bowers' friends 
     helped defeat Charles Pickering, Sr. when he ran against Bill 
     Alian for Attorney General of the State of Mississippi.
                                  ____


     [From Byron York, NR White House Correspondent, Jan. 9, 2003]

              The Cross Burning Case: What Really Happened

       In their renewed attacks on Bush appeals-court nominee 
     Charles Pickering, Democrats have focused on Pickering's 
     rulings in a 1994 cross-burning case. Accusing Pickering of 
     ``glaring racial insensitivity,'' they charge that he abused 
     his powers as a U.S. District Court judge in Mississippi to 
     give a light sentence to a man convicted of the crime. ``Why 
     anyone would go the whole nine yards and then some to get a 
     lighter sentence for a convicted cross burner is beyond me,'' 
     New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer said Wednesday. 
     ``Why anyone would do that--in 1994 and in a state with 
     Mississippi's history--is simply mind-boggling.''
       But a close look at the facts of the case suggests that 
     Pickering's actions were not only not mind-boggling but were 
     in fact a reasonable way of handling a difficult case. Here 
     is what happened:
       The crime took place on January 9, 1994. Three men--20-
     year-old Daniel Swan, 25-year-old Mickey Herbert Thomas, and 
     a 17-year-old whose name was not released because he was a 
     juvenile--were drinking together when one of them came up 
     with the idea that they should construct a cross and burn it 
     in front of a house in which a white man and his black wife 
     lived in rural Walthall County in southern Mississippi. While 
     it is not clear who originally suggested the plan, it is 
     known that the 17-year-old appeared to harbor some sort of 
     hostility toward the couple; on an earlier occasion, he had 
     fired a gun into the house (no one was hit). Neither Swan nor 
     Thomas was involved in the shooting incident.
       The men got into Swan's pickup truck, went to his barn, and 
     gathered wood to build an eight-foot cross. They then drove 
     to the couple's house, put up the cross, doused it with 
     gasoline, and set it on fire.
       Because the case involved a cross burning covered under the 
     federal hate-crimes statute, local authorities immediately 
     brought in investigators from the Clinton Justice 
     Department's Office of Civil Rights. After the three suspects 
     were arrested in late February, 1994, lawyers for the civil-
     rights office made the major decision in prosecuting the 
     case.
       In a move that baffled and later angered Judge Pickering, 
     Civil Rights Division prosecutors early on decided to make a 
     plea bargain with two of the three suspects. The first, 
     Mickey Thomas, had an unusually low IQ, and prosecutors 
     decided to reduce charges against him based on that fact. The 
     second bargain was with the 17-year-old. Civil Rights 
     Division lawyers allowed both men to plead guilty to 
     misdemeanors in the cross-burning case (the juvenile also 
     pleaded guilty to felony charges in the shooting incident). 
     The Civil Rights Division recommended no jail time for both 
     men.
       The situation was different for the third defendant, Daniel 
     Swan, who, like the others, faced charges under the hate-
     crime statute. Unlike the others, however, Swan pleaded not 
     guilty. The law requires that the government prove the 
     accused acted out of racial animus, and Swan, whose defense 
     consisted mainly of the contention that he was drunk on the 
     night of the cross burning, maintained that he simply did not 
     have the racial animus necessary to be guilty of a hate crime 
     under federal law.
       The case went to trial in Pickering's courtroom. During the 
     course of testimony, Pickering came to suspected the Civil 
     Rights Division had made a plea bargain with the wrong 
     defendant. No one questioned the Justice Department's 
     decision to go easy on the low-IQ Thomas, but the 17-year-
     old was a different case. ``It was established to the 
     satisfaction of this court that although the juvenile was 
     younger than the defendant Daniel Swan, that nevertheless 
     the juvenile was the ring leader in the burning of the 
     cross involved in this crime,'' Pickering wrote in a 
     memorandum after the verdict. ``It was clearly established 
     that the juvenile had racial animus. . . . The court 
     expressed both to the government and to counsel for the 
     juvenile serious reservations about not imposing time in 
     the Bureau of Prisons for the juvenile defendant.''
       In addition to the 17-year-old's role as leader, there was 
     significant evidence, including the fact that he had once 
     fired a shot into the mixed-race couple's home, suggesting 
     that he had a history of violent hostility to blacks that far 
     outweighed any racial animosity felt by Daniel Swan. Swan had 
     no criminal record, and seven witnesses testified that they 
     were not aware of any racial animus he might have held 
     against black people. On the other hand, one witness 
     testified that he believed Swan did not like blacks, and Swan 
     admitted under questioning that he had used the ``N'' word in 
     the past. In the end, Swan was found guilty--there was no 
     doubt that he had taken an active role in the cross burning--
     and the Justice Department recommended that he be sentenced 
     to seven and a half years in jail.
       At that point, the Justice Department had already made a 
     no-jail deal with the 17-year-old. When it came time to 
     sentence Swan, Pickering questioned whether it made sense 
     that the most-guilty defendant got off with a misdemeanor and 
     no jail time, while a less-guilty defendant would be 
     sentenced to seven and a half years in prison. ``The 
     recommendation of the government in this instance is clearly 
     the most egregious instance of disproportionate sentencing 
     recommended by the government in any case pending before this 
     court,'' Pickering wrote. ``The defendant [Swan] clearly had 
     less racial animosity than the juvenile.''
       Compounding Pickering's concern was a conflict between two 
     federal appeals-court rulings over the applicability of a 
     statutory mandatory minimum sentence to the case. The Justice 
     Department insisted that Swan be sentenced to a minimum of 
     five years under one statute and two and a half years under a 
     separate law. Pickering doubted whether both were applicable 
     to the case and asked Civil Rights Division lawyers whether 
     the same sentencing standards were used in cases in other 
     federal circuits. The prosecutors said they would check with 
     Washington for an answer.
       Pickering set a sentencing date of January 3, 1995. As the 
     date approached, he waited for an answer from the Justice 
     Department. He asked in November, 1994 and received no 
     response. He asked again in December and received no 
     response. He asked again on January 2, the day before the 
     sentencing, and still received no response. He delayed 
     sentencing, and on January 4 wrote a strongly-worded order to 
     prosecutors demanding not only that they respond to his 
     questions but that they take the issue up personally with 
     Attorney General Janet Reno and report back within ten days.
       Shortly after issuing the order, Pickering called assistant 
     attorney general Frank Hunger, a Mississippian and friend of 
     Pickering's who headed the Justice Department's Civil 
     Division at the time (Hunger was also well known as the 
     brother-in-law of vice president Al Gore). Pickering says he 
     called Hunger to express ``my frustration with the gross 
     disparity in sentence recommended by the government, and my 
     inability to get a response from the Justice Department in 
     Washington.'' Hunger told Pickering that the case wasn't 
     within his area of responsibility. It appears that Hunger 
     took no action as a result of the call. (Hunger later 
     supported Pickering's nomination to the federal appeals 
     courts.)
       Finally, Pickering got word from Civil Rights Division 
     prosecutors, who said they had decided to drop the demand 
     that Swan be given the five-year minimum portion of the 
     recommended sentence. Pickering then sentenced Swan to 27 
     months in jail. At the sentencing hearing, Pickering told 
     Swan, ``You're going to the penitentiary because of what you 
     did. And it's an area that we've got to stamp out; that we've 
     got to learn to live, races among each other. And the type of 
     conduct that you exhibited cannot and will not be tolerated . 
     . . . You did that which does hinder good race relations and 
     was a despicable act . . . . I would suggest to you that 
     during the time you're in the prison that you do some reading 
     on race relations and maintaining good race relations and how 
     that can be done.''
       So Swan went to jail, for a bit more than two years rather 
     than seven. Every lawyer in the case--the defense attorneys, 
     the prosecutors, and the judge--faced the difficulty of 
     dealing with an ugly situation and determining the 
     appropriate punishment for a bad guy and a somewhat less-bad 
     guy. Pickering, who believed the Civil Rights Division went 
     too easy on the 17-year-old bad guy, worked out what he 
     believed was the best sentence for Daniel Swan. It was a 
     real-world solution to the kind of real-world problem that 
     the justice system deals with every day. And it was the end 
     of the cross-burning case until Pickering was nominated by 
     President Bush to a place on the Fifth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals.
                                  ____


     [From Byron York, NR White House Correspondent, Jan. 13, 2003]

         The Cross-Burning Case: What Really Happened, Part II

       After the publication last Thursday of ``The Cross Burning 
     Case: What Really Happened,'' readers have asked follow-up 
     questions about the 1994 trial that Democrats cite to accuse 
     federal-appeals-court-nominee Charles Pickering of ``racial 
     insensitivity.'' New York Sen. Charles Schumer and others 
     charge that Pickering, a U.S. District Court judge in 
     Mississippi who has been nominated for a place on the Fifth 
     Circuit Court of Appeals, abused his powers to win a light 
     sentence for a man convicted of burning a cross in the front 
     yard of a mixed-race couple. Here are some of the questions 
     that have been asked about the case, along with answers based 
     on the best available information:
       Why did the Clinton Justice Department give a no-jail 
     misdemeanor plea bargain to the 17-year-old defendant--who 
     was the ringleader in the crime, who appeared to be motivated 
     by racial hatred, and who had on an earlier occasion fired a 
     shot into the home of the mixed-race couple--while demanding 
     that the other defendant, Daniel Swan--who was not the 
     ringleader, who apparently did not share the 17-year-old's 
     racial animus, and who had no role in the shooting incident--
     be sent to jail for seven and a half years?
       The answer is not entirely clear; the Justice Department's 
     prosecution memos and other internal deliberation documents 
     are

[[Page S13551]]

     confidential, and no one who was involved in the prosecution 
     has publicly explained the department's motives. but there is 
     enough publicly available evidence to suggest a few 
     conclusions. First, and most obviously, the 17-year-old 
     agreed to plead guilty, which often helps a defendant receive 
     a reduced sentence. (It's not clear why the Justice 
     Department dealt with the 17-year-old as a juvenile; given 
     the seriousness of the crime, he could have been treated as 
     an adult.) Swan did not agree to plead guilty. While he never 
     denied that he took part in the cross burning, he did deny 
     that he acted out of racial animus, which is required for a 
     heavy sentence under the federal hate crimes statute. He 
     chose to take his chances at trial, and was convicted. At 
     that point, there was no question he would go to prison. 
     Pickering felt strongly that Swan should serve time, but he 
     believed that seven-and-a-half years was too long, in light 
     of the leniency given to the 17-year-old and the other 
     circumstances of the case (discussed below).
       Another possible explanation for the easy treatment given 
     to the 17-year-old is that the no-jail plea offer was made by 
     the United States Attorney's Office in Mississippi (and 
     accepted by the defendant) before all the facts of the case 
     were known. The government's insistence on a mandatory 
     minimum seven-and-a-half year sentence for Swan came later, 
     after lawyers from the Justice Department's Civil Rights 
     Division became involved. While they wanted a stiff sentence 
     for Swan, it appears that the Civil Rights Division lawyers 
     also realized that letting the 17-year-old off with no jail 
     had been a mistake. In a February 12, 2002 letter to 
     Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, Pickering cited the transcript 
     of an open court session in which he told Civil Rights 
     Division lawyer Brad Berry that he felt the Swan case was an 
     example of disparate sentencing. Berry answered, according to 
     the transcript cited by Pickering, that, ``Perhaps the 
     lesson--the lesson that I take from that, your Honor, is that 
     perhaps the government should have been more tough--should 
     have asked for a more stringent or stronger or longer 
     sentence for the other defendants in this case.''
       There are also some indications that at least one Justice 
     Department lawyer involved in the case agreed with Pickering 
     that the department's sentencing demand for Swan was too 
     severe. In a January 5, 1995 memo to Linda Davis, who was 
     head of the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division, 
     federal prosecutor Jack Lacy recounted several sessions with 
     Pickering on the Swan issue (memo was made public as part of 
     Pickering's confirmation hearings.) ``The impulse to the 
     conversation is always the same,'' Lacy wrote. ``He thinks 
     the sentence facing Swan is draconian, and he wants a way 
     out. He has been careful to phrase his concern in such terms 
     as, `I wish you could suggest some way that this harsh 
     sentence could be avoided.''' Later in the letter, Lacy wrote 
     that he ``personally agreed with the judge that the sentence 
     is draconian,'' but said he also reminded Pickering that Swan 
     could have pleaded guilty but instead, ``the defendant 
     repeatedly chucked our offers in our teeth.''
       Finally, as the last few words of that passage suggest, it 
     is possible that Swam--and the whole vexing case--simply made 
     prosecutors mad. They could not undo the damage they had done 
     by letting the 17-year-old off with no jail time, but they 
     could compensate by meting out heavy punishment to Swan.
       How did Pickering know that the 17-year-old harbored the 
     racial animus required for a severe sentence under the hate 
     crime statute, while Swan did not?
       The first and clearest reason is the earlier incident in 
     which the 17-year-old had fired a shot into the home of the 
     mixed-race couple in whose yard he and Swan would later burn 
     the cross. (The Justice Department allowed the 17-year-old to 
     plead guilty to a felony in that incident, all as part of the 
     no-jail plea bargain.) Swan had nothing to do with that 
     shooting, and had no criminal record. The other evidence of 
     racial animus came out during the sentencing phase of the 
     trial--well after the government had agreed to the juvenile's 
     guilty plea. This is how Pickering explained it in his 
     February 12, 2002 letter to Hatch:
       ``At sentencing. . . . courts must also take into account 
     evidence of the defendant's history. This is where the 
     breadth of disparity in racial animus between the 17 year-old 
     and Swan became clear. While the 17 year-old and Swan had 
     both used the ``N-word'' previously, the 17 year-old's own 
     grandmother stated that he did not like ``blacks'' and his 
     own mother stated that he ``hated N - - - - s.'' (Emphasis 
     added.) In contrast, seven witnesses and Swan's mother stated 
     that he had no racial animus; only one witness stated that 
     Swan did not like African Americans, and this was disputed. 
     Further, the 17 year-old had acted on his ``hate'' by 
     fighting with African Americans at school, resulting in his 
     suspension. Swan had neither fought with African Americans 
     nor been suspended for any racial incident. Moreover, the 17 
     year-old had shot a firearm into the home of the mixed-race 
     couple in whose yard the cross was later burned and bragged 
     about ``shooting at some N - - - - s.'' Swan had never shot 
     at or into the home of African Americans, or anyone else. In 
     short, even though both participated in the heinous crime, 
     the 17 year-old defendant also had a history of escalating 
     violence motivated by the racial hatred that culminated in 
     his participation in the cross burning, while Swan did not.''
       Was Pickering's communication with the Justice Department 
     improper?
       At Pickering's second confirmation hearing, North Carolina 
     Democratic Sen. John Edwards accused him of violating the 
     Code of Judicial Conduct by calling top Justice Department 
     official (and fellow Mississippian) Frank Hunger to discuss 
     the Swan case. In that call, Pickering expressed his 
     frustration with the Justice Department's position; Hunger 
     told Pickering the case wasn't within his area of 
     responsibility, and the two men ended the conversation.
       The section of the Code to which Edwards referred is a rule 
     intended to prevent judges from making secret deals with one 
     side or another in a case. It says: ``A judge should . . . 
     neither initiate nor consider exparte communications on the 
     merits, or procedures affecting the merits, of a pending or 
     impending proceeding.'' Pickering explained to the Judiciary 
     Committee that he had previously discussed his concerns at 
     length with both sides in the Swan case and that the call to 
     Hunger was a ``follow-up'' to see if the Justice Department 
     was going to respond to his questions about the sentencing. 
     None of that, he explained, touched on the merits of the 
     case, and thus the call was not improper.
       In addition, last February, Hunger, a lifelong Democrat who 
     also happens to be Al Gore's brother-in-law, wrote a letter 
     to the Judiciary Committee saying, ``I think it appropriate 
     that it be known that I have little or no recollection of the 
     call. The significance of this to me is that had I felt at 
     the time that there was anything inappropriate or improper 
     about Judge Pickering's call I would most assuredly remember 
     it today.'' Continuing, Hunger told the committee, ``I have 
     known Judge Pickering for nearly thirty years and have the 
     utmost respect for him as a fair-minded judge who would never 
     knowingly do anything improper or unethical.;;
       Had Pickering ever shown similar concerns about heavy 
     sentencing of other defendants, particularly African 
     Americans, in cases that had nothing to do with race?
       On March 14, 2002, at the Judiciary Committee meeting in 
     which Democrats killed the Pickering nomination, Sen. Edward 
     Kennedy suggested that Pickering practiced a selective form 
     of leniency--that he went easy on a racist cross burner and 
     tough on everybody else, including blacks convicted of crimes 
     in his court. One week later, on March 21, Pickering sent 
     Hatch a letter in which he said,``I have consistently sought 
     to keep from imposing unduly harsh penalties on young people 
     whom I did not feel were hardened criminals.'' (Swan was a 
     first-time offender.) Pickering went on to describe several 
     cases in which ``departed downward,' that is, reduced the 
     sentences of first-time offenders from the mandatory minimums 
     required by law.
       ``One case involved a 20-year-old African American male who 
     faced a mandatory minimum five year sentence,'' Pickering 
     wrote. ``I departed downward to 30 months. I also recommended 
     that he be allowed to participate in the intensive 
     confinement program which further reduced his sentence.'' 
     Pickering also described the case of a 58-year-old black man 
     who faced a five-year mandatory sentence, plus a minimum of 
     46 months for a separate drug charge. Pickering again 
     sentenced the man to 30 months. In two other cases, he threw 
     out any jail time for men who faced prison terms of 18 and 40 
     months, respectively. Both defendants were black. ``I have 
     departed downward in far more cases involving African 
     Americans than I have in cases involving white defendants,'' 
     Pickering wrote.
       Pickering sent Hatch the names of the cases, the case 
     numbers, letters from the defense lawyers involved, and the 
     phone numbers of people to call to check his account of his 
     sentencing practices. Of course, by that time, Democrats on 
     the committee had already killed his nomination on a straight 
     party-line vote.
                                  ____


         [From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mar. 9, 2003]

The Cross-Burning Trial, Judge's Handling of One Case Gave His Critics 
                               Ammunition

                            (By Bill Rankin)

       Charles Pickering has heard hundreds of legal arguments and 
     handed down thousands of rulings, but his judicial reputation 
     hangs almost entirely on one explosive case.
       In 1994, the federal judge put extraordinary pressure on 
     federal prosecutors to slash the sentence of Daniel Swan, a 
     man who had burned a cross outside an interracial couple's 
     home in rural Mississippi. Democrats and liberal interest 
     groups have hammered Pickering with the case, branding him as 
     racially insensitive and unfit to serve on a federal appeals 
     court.
       ``Why anyone would go the whole 9 yards, and then some, to 
     get a lighter sentence for a convicted cross-burner is beyond 
     me,'' Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said during a hearing on 
     Pickering's first appeals court nomination last year. ``Why 
     anyone would do that in 1994, and in a state with 
     Mississippi's sad history of race relations, is simply mind-
     boggling.''
       But a review of the case by The Atlanta Journal-
     Constitution, part of the newspaper's broad look at 
     Pickering's record on the bench, finds that the judge 
     apparently acted out of a concern for fairness. Two cross-
     burning co-defendants, including the purported ringleader, 
     had received far lighter sentences than Swan, and Pickering 
     saw that as unjust.

[[Page S13552]]

       Prosecutors would have no reason to sympathize with the 
     judge, as it was the stiff sentence they sought that the 
     judge was attacking. Yet an internal Justice Department 
     account of a closed-door meeting held by Pickering shows the 
     judge deeply troubled by the sentencing disparity.
       At the same time, the Justice Department memo, written by a 
     lawyer in the case, lends at least some support to the 
     charges of Pickering's opponents. It depicts the judge 
     worrying about how a harsh sentence on Swan would play in the 
     community--presumably the white community--a factor that 
     should be irrelevant to the pursuit of justice.
       In the case, two men and a 17-year-old boy were out 
     drinking on the night of Jan. 9, 1994. They set fire to an 8-
     foot-tall cross outside the Improve, Miss., home of a white 
     man and his African-American wife.
       Two defendants--Mickey Herbert Thomas and the juvenile--
     pleaded guilty to federal civil rights charges. Following 
     recommendations from prosecutors, Pickering sentenced both to 
     probation with home confinement. As it turned out, the 17-
     year-old was likely the instigator, who would later admit to 
     firing a shot through the interracial couple's window.
       The final defendant, Swan, 20, went to trial. He admitted 
     being at the scene but said he was not there out of racial 
     animosity. The jury found otherwise, convicting him on three 
     counts. Federal prosecutors then asked Pickering to sentence 
     Swan to 7\1/2\ years in prison.
       Pickering strongly criticized the sentencing disparity. He 
     persuaded prosecutors to drop one count in order to void one 
     conviction that required a five-year mandatory sentence. 
     Pickering eventually sentenced Swan to two years and three 
     months in prison.


                     faith in justice ``destroyed''

       That move troubled Brenda Polkey, one of the victims of the 
     cross-burning incident. Last year, she wrote to the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee in opposition to Pickering's appeals 
     court nomination, fueling the Democrats' attack.
       Polkey, who had lost a family member to a racial killing, 
     said she had ``experienced incredible feelings of relief and 
     faith in the justice system'' when a predominantly white jury 
     convicted Swan.
       ``My faith in the justice system was destroyed, however, 
     when I learned about Judge Pickering's efforts to reduce the 
     sentence of Mr. Swan,'' she wrote. ``I am astonished that the 
     judge would have gone to such lengths to thwart the judgment 
     of the jury and to reduce the sentence of a person who caused 
     so much harm to me and my family.''
       The AJC review of the judge's rulings, however, shows that 
     Pickering--like many other federal judges who face rigid U.S. 
     sentencing rules--has gone out of his way many times to 
     reduce prison sentences in cases where he thought the result 
     would be unreasonable. And many of the defendants who 
     benefited are black.
       William Moody, an African-American drug defendant, was 
     arrested in 2000, seven years after his indictment. 
     Authorities could not find him because he was living in New 
     York, holding a steady job and supporting his family. Upon 
     learning about Moody's apparent turnaround, Pickering delayed 
     his sentencing a year, allowing his continued good behavior 
     to be used as a basis for punishment with no prison time.
       Five years earlier, in a large-scale cocaine case, 
     Pickering learned months after sentencing black defendant 
     Richard Evans to 12\1/2\ years in prison that prosecutors 
     were recommending he sentence a more culpable co-defendant 
     also an African-American, to no more than nine years. 
     Pickering quickly vacated Evans' sentence and later sent him 
     to prison for 10 years--five months less than what the co-
     defendant received.
       ``He has tried to treat people fairly,'' said Lloyd Miller, 
     a U.S. probation officer who prepared sentencing reports in 
     Pickering's courtroom for more than a decade. ``It didn't 
     matter whether you were black or white, whether you were a 
     pauper or if you had money.''
       Pickering, who would not comment for this article pending a 
     vote on his renomination, has said that in almost all the 
     criminal cases that came before him involving nonviolent 
     first offenders, he has tried to lessen their sentences.
       ``I have consistently sought to keep from imposing unduly 
     harsh penalties on young people whom I did not feel were 
     hardened criminals,'' Pickering wrote in a letter to Senate 
     Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) following his 
     combative confirmation hearings last year.
       Pickering has not addressed his reported worry about a 
     white backlash in the cross-burning case because the Justice 
     Department memo has not been publicized until now. But there 
     is substantial evidence, both from his civic life and 
     judicial record, to believe that he does not cater to white 
     people's particular interests.
       In a 1999 essay on race relations in the Jackson Clarion-
     Ledger, Pickering addressed racial bias in the courts, 
     empathizing with black, not white, concerns. He counseled 
     whites who were angry about the recent acquittal of a black 
     murder suspect to look at the justice system from a black 
     perspective.
       White Mississippians may not realize that African-Americans 
     are treated differently by the system, he wrote, but ``it is 
     the truth and a most disturbing one if you are black.''
       As a judge, Pickering has thrown out only two jury 
     verdicts, both times because he felt the verdicts were biased 
     against minority plaintiffs.
       In one of the cases, in 1993, an African-American woman was 
     injured at a restaurant. The jury awarded the woman only what 
     the restaurant argued she should receive. Pickering ordered a 
     new trial, and the second jury awarded the woman a larger 
     judgment.


                              other issues

       Interest groups opposing the judge maintain the cross-
     burning case is just part of a pattern of the judge's 
     racially questionable rulings.
       Opponents point to the Pickering's ruling involving the 
     Voting Rights Act, an important civil rights law that 
     mandates federal oversight of Southern elections to keep 
     white authorities from suppressing the black vote. The law 
     has allowed black-majority voting districts to be created in 
     some cases, boosting the number of minorities elected to 
     political office.
       Laughlin McDonald, director of the American Civil Liberties 
     Union's Southern regional office in Atlanta, acknowledged 
     that Pickering had enforced the Voting Rights Act to the 
     satisfaction of minority plaintiffs in some cases.
       ``But what is disturbing is the philosophy that seems to 
     pervade his decisions,'' he said. ``He has an obvious 
     hostility to the federal courts getting involved in this 
     issue.''
       In several cases reviewed by the AJC, Pickering did 
     question how far the federal courts should go to resolve 
     certain voting-rights issues. The judge wrote from the 
     perspective of a former legislator who once had to draw lines 
     for voting districts himself--and who still respects 
     lawmakers' prerogatives.
       In a 1993 decision, Pickering wrote at length about the 
     history of the one-person, one-vote principle, suggesting 
     courts may have applied it too rigidly sometimes.
       The courts ``should be cautions in their obtrusion into 
     what otherwise would be a legislative manner,'' he wrote in 
     denying a challenge to election districts in Forrest County, 
     Miss.
       Legislative bodies, when drawing voting districts, must 
     consider the convenience of new districts to voters and their 
     costs, Pickering wrote. Court rulings that ordered some 
     districts be redrawn have shown, Pickering added, ``that very 
     few of those responsible for handing down these decisions 
     ever had the responsibility themselves of carrying out these 
     decisions or trying to comply with them.'' Pickering's 
     application of judicial restraint is in line with that of 
     many federal judges. Like many other jurists put on the bench 
     by Republican presidents, Pickering appears disinclined to 
     tinker at the margins of social dilemmas as would a more 
     activist judge.
       As such, Pickering would find himself at home at the 5th 
     U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, widely considered one of the 
     more conservative appellate courts in the country.


                         A will to get his way

       Liberal critics have complained about the judge's general 
     conservatism. But it is questionable how much those 
     complaints would resonate without the cross-burning case 
     against Swan and his two co-defendants.
       The case shows Pickering exerting his will and the power of 
     the federal bench to get his way from the Justice 
     Department's civil rights lawyers in Washington.
       At trial, Swan was convicted of three counts: violating the 
     interracial couple's civil rights, interfering with their 
     federally protected housing rights and using fire when he 
     committed a crime, which prosecutors said carried a 
     mandatory, consecutive five-year sentence.
       Pickering not only thought the 7\1/2\-year sentence sought 
     by prosecutors for Swan was unfair, but he also questioned 
     whether a five-year mandatory sentence for one of the counts 
     applied to the cross-burning case, as prosecutors contended. 
     Pickering noted there was a split in the federal appeals 
     courts on that very issue.
       Pickering repeatedly asked Civil Rights Division lawyers to 
     explain to him whether the same sentencing standards were 
     being used in other cases across the country. After receiving 
     no answers, Pickering demanded the issue be addressed to 
     then-U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. Pickering even called 
     Vice President Al Gore's brother-in-law, Frank Hunger, a 
     longtime friend who headed the Justice department's Civil 
     Division, to express his frustration.
       Pickering summed up his thoughts about the sentencing 
     disparities in the cross-burning case clearly when Swan was 
     to be sentenced on Nov. 15, 1994.
       ``He committed a reprehensible crime, and a jury's found 
     that,'' Pickering said from the bench. ``And he's going to 
     pay a price for it. But I have never, since I've been on this 
     bench, seen a more contradictory, inconsistent position by 
     the government than they're taking in this case.''
       Bradford Berry, a civil rights prosecutor from Washington, 
     responded by saying perhaps the Justice Department should 
     have asked for harsher punishment against Swan's two co-
     defendants.
       ``You're the one working for the Justice Department, not 
     me,'' Pickering shot back. ``I didn't take that position. The 
     Justice Department took that position.''
       Pickering postponed the sentencing another two months. He 
     also called all the lawyers involved back to his chambers, 
     without a court reporter to transcribe the discussion.

[[Page S13553]]

       In a memo written after the meeting, Berry gave an 
     extraordinary account of what transpired.
       Pickering told the lawyers about his civil rights 
     background, saying that while not at the forefront of the 
     movement, he was a supporter, according to Berry's memo. 
     Pickering said he'd testified against a Ku Klux Klan leader, 
     had twice thrown out jury verdicts in trials when he thought 
     the results were tainted with racism and had encouraged his 
     son to make certain his fraternity at the University of 
     Mississippi was not discriminating against a black student 
     who wanted to join.
       ``Pickering said he has carefully examined his conscience 
     in this case an is confident that his discomfort with the 
     sentence is not the product of racism,'' berry wrote.
       But Pickering also gave another reason the case disturbed 
     him, Berry noted. The judge said that ``in the current racial 
     climate in that part of the state, such a harsh sentence 
     would serve only to divide the community.''
       Pickering then asked prosecutors to consider agreeing to 
     dismiss the count against Swan that mandated a five-year 
     sentence. By the time prosecutors returned for Swan's 
     sentencing two months later, they had capitulated, agreeing 
     to drop it.
       Don Samuel, former president of the Georgia Association of 
     Criminal Defense Lawyers, who studied Berry's memo, said 
     Pickering's aggressive posture in the cross-burning case is 
     not uncommon among the federal judiciary.
       ``There are judges who want a just result and try to 
     convince the parties to find a way that enables them to do so 
     under the federal sentencing guidelines, which can be very 
     harsh and rigid,'' Samuel said. ``These things happen. Often 
     it's very well-intentioned to get around a harsh result.''
       But Samuel said he found troubling Berry's account of 
     Pickering's concern about a harsh sentence dividing the 
     community. ``That doesn't seem like a very good basis and it 
     shouldn't be,'' the defense lawyer said.
       University of Georgia criminal law professor Ron Carlson 
     said the only part of the community that would be divided by 
     such a sentence would ``probably be rural white people.''
       But Carlson said it is unfortunate that Pickering has been 
     condemned for his action in the cross-burnings case. ``That's 
     because this is certainly not a racist judge overseeing the 
     cross-burning case,'' he said. ``Quite the opposite. He's 
     very fulsome in his condemnation.''
       When the sentence was finally imposed on Jan. 23, 1995, 
     Pickering told Swan he had committed ``a despicable act.''
       ``The type of conduct you exhibited cannot and will not be 
     tolerated,'' the judge said. He suggested to Swan that 
     ``during the time that you're in prison . . . do some reading 
     on race relations and maintaining good race relations and how 
     that can be done.''

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I will not dwell on the lifelong record 
of Mr. Pickering. But his testimony against Sam Bowers was not an 
isolated instance. I will not dwell on the charge some have made about 
a 1994 case. Senator Hatch dealt with that, although I ask unanimous 
consent to include two articles, one from the National Review Online 
and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution explaining what really happened. 
In short, the Justice Department botched the case and the ringleader in 
the cross burning was turned loose. Pickering then properly reduced a 
juvenile accomplice's sentence from seven and one half years to 27 
months, severely criticizing him.
  In terms of the struggle for equality and freedom, I have seen the 
South and our Nation change for the better during my lifetime. I have 
tried to help bring about that change. When I look back now, it seems 
embarrassingly slow and amazing that it was so hard. I remember as a 
student at Vanderbilt in 1962, when we raised the issue of integrating 
the student body, the student body voted no. I remember in 1980 I 
appointed the first Black Tennessee supreme court justice, and he was 
defeated in the next election. I remember it was 1985 before we had the 
Martin Luther King Holiday, and the legislature nearly voted it down. I 
appointed the first two African American vice presidents of the 
University of Tennessee, but that did not happen until 1989.
  Our country, from its beginning, has truly been a work in progress. 
And on this issue, racial justice, we have had an especially hard time 
making progress. We have had a hard time changing our minds. The truth 
is, most members of my own generation have had one view about race in 
the 1960's and another view today. Many of the men and women who are 
judges, who are mayors, who are legislators, who are Senators today, 
opposed integration in the 1950s, opposed the Voting Rights Act in the 
1960s. They were against the Martin Luther King holiday in the 1980s, 
and we welcome them to society today. We have confirmed some of them to 
the Federal bench, some of them Democrats, some of them Republicans.
  What is especially ironic about this incident is that Judge Pickering 
was not one of those people whose ideas we have to excuse. He led his 
times. He spoke out. He would have, I am certain, joined Judge Wisdom, 
Judge Tuttle, Judge Rives, and Judge Brown in ordering Ole Miss to 
admit James Meredith to the University of Mississippi 40 years ago.
  Why would we not now recognize this man, who lived in the Deep South, 
who did what we all hope we would have had the courage to do, but might 
not have done in the late 1960s? Why would we not now honor and 
recognize that service by confirming his nomination to this appellate 
court?
  I care about the court. I care about these issues. I have studied the 
record as carefully as I could. All of the evidence supports the fact 
that Charles Pickering is a worthy successor on the Fifth Circuit to 
the court of Judge John Minor Wisdom, Judge Elbert Tuttle, Judge 
Richard Rives, and Judge John R. Brown.
  Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words concerning the 
nomination of Judge Charles Pickering.
  Throughout the entire history of the Senate, no judicial nominee has 
ever been defeated by a filibuster. Yet in this session alone, four 
nominations have been blocked by this unconstitutional obstruction. 
Soon, there will be five, six, and likely even more nominees facing 
partisan filibusters. this obstruction flies in the face of more than 
200 years of Senate tradition, the constitutional role of the Congress, 
and the consent of the governed.
  While all of these filibusters are wrong, it seems to me that the 
tactics employed against certain nominees is particularly disgraceful.
  First, we witnessed the hostile attitude towards Leon Holmes, a 
nominee for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Despite having earned the 
support of each of his home state Senators--both members of the 
minority--Mr. Holmes was sharply criticized--not for his legal work, 
but for his personal writings about his religious views.
  Then we witnessed the strident animus directed toward Alabama 
Attorney General, Bill Pryor--who was repeatedly challenged over 
whether his ``philosophy'' and ``deeply held views,'' particularly 
those arising from his religious beliefs, precluded him from becoming a 
judge.
  And now, today, we are witnessing the terrible treatment of Judge 
Charles Pickering. This is an issue that is of particular importance to 
my state, because Judge Pickering has been nominated to a long-standing 
vacancy on the Fifth Circuit--which covers Texas and Louisiana in 
addition to Mississippi.
  Like the other nominees, Judge Pickering is a deeply religious man. 
He is also a man from the South. And I believe he is clearly qualified 
to serve on the federal bench, as he has been serving for over a 
decade. Yet Judge Pickering has, like others, become the target of a 
venomous special interest group campaign, one directed against 
Southerners and against those who take their faith seriously. A 
representative of one of these groups recently called Judge Pickering a 
``racist,'' a ``bigot,'' and ``a woman-hater.''
  It is sad to see this shameful caricature of a well-qualified, 
respected man. And it is sadder still to see these special interests 
dominate the other side of the aisle. I hoped such tactics would never 
gain apologists among any members of this body, but hearing this debate 
today, I fear that my hope was all for naught.
  This Nation, both North and South, has for too long suffered from the 
scourge of racism. We have made a great deal of progress so far, and 
there is more to go. but even as we condemn racism with all our might, 
we must also condemn false charges of racism. Every false charge of 
racism weakens a true charge of racism, and ultimately, that hurts us 
all.
  Judge Pickering has been praised and supported by those who know him 
best--by those who have worked by his side, and seen him fight racism 
in his home state of Mississippi.
  My fellow Southerners who have reviewed the record carefully agree. 
All six Mississippi statewide officeholders, including five Democrats, 
have stated that Judge Pickering's ``record demonstrates his commitment 
to equal

[[Page S13554]]

protection, equal rights and fairness for all.'' The senior Senator 
from Louisiana has applauded Pickering's lifelong campaign against 
racism, characterizing them as ``acts of courage.'' And the Senators 
from Georgia have written that, ``Pickering's critics have and will 
continue to unfairly label him a racist and segregationist,'' and that 
``nothing could be further from the truth.''
  But perhaps the most compelling views on this subject have been 
expressed by Mr. Charles Evers. He is the brother of the slain civil 
rights leader Medgar Evers, and he has personally known Judge Pickering 
for over 30 years. He is intimately familiar with Judge Pickering's 
numerous actions throughout his career to fight racism, often with deep 
sacrifice and personal cost.
  Mr. Evers wrote in the Wall Street Journal in support of Judge 
Pickering, saying,

       As someone who has spent all my adult life fighting for 
     equal treatment of African-Americans, I can tell you with 
     certainty that Charles Pickering has an admirable record on 
     civil rights issues. He has taken tough stands at tough times 
     in the past, and the treatment he and his record are 
     receiving at the hands of certain interest groups is shameful 
     . . . Those in Washington and New York who criticize Judge 
     Pickering are the same people who have always looked down on 
     Mississippi and its people, and have done very little for our 
     state's residents.

  I hope that today the Senate will take a stand against the despicable 
tactics of radical special interest groups. We must not allow the 
special interests' exploitation of religious views, stereotypes, or 
false caricatures--concerning Southerners or any other people--to 
decide a vote on any nominee. Such reprehensible practices have no 
place in this debate. And it is a dark day for the Senate and for 
America's independent judiciary when we allow special interests to 
dictate the basis for disqualification.
  I ask my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Judge Pickering, to 
reject the inhuman caricature that has been drawn by special interest 
groups intent on vilifying, demonizing, and marginalizing an admirable 
nominee. I hope that my colleagues will give all these qualified 
nominees what they deserve, and allow them to have an up or down vote.
  For the sake of the Senate, the Nation, and our independent 
judiciary, I hope that these days of obstruction finally end.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I speak today in support of Judge Charles 
Pickering and his nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Judge Pickering was unanimously confirmed to be a Federal district 
judge in 1990, where he has served honorably ever since. He graduated 
first in his law school class at the University of Mississippi while 
serving on the Law Journal and Moot Court. In addition to practicing in 
a law firm, Judge Pickering was both a city and county prosecutor and a 
municipal court judge. Judge Pickering continued his public service in 
the Mississippi State Senate. He also has served his fellow man by 
helping others through organizations like the Red Cross and the March 
of Dimes. Judge Pickering has also devoted his life to Christ, serving 
at the First Baptist Church in Laurel, MS, as a Sunday school teacher 
and a deacon.
  Those things tell us much about the man that Charles Pickering is. 
But there is much more. You see, Judge Pickering has spent his career 
as a leader in race relations in Mississippi. What is truly telling, 
however, is he spent his whole career tearing down barriers for 
minorities in the South, including during the 1960s and 1970s. Those 
actions did not make him a popular man among many in Mississippi at the 
time.
  I remember the 1960s and 1970s. I regularly traveled around the 
country during those years and I remember what race relations were like 
in the South and throughout America. I remember what it was like as 
professional baseball gradually accepted then embraced minorities. It 
was a tumultuous time in our country and many brave men and women 
willingly staked their careers, their reputations, and even their lives 
on doing what was just and right. Charles Pickering was one of those 
men.
  The stories of how Judge Pickering stepped above the fray and reached 
out to bring racial equality to Mississippi have been told many times. 
In recent years Judge Pickering has served on race relations committees 
in Mississippi including the Institute for Racial Reconciliation at the 
University of Mississippi. He has spent time working with at-risk 
minority children.
  Those actions are laudable in and of themselves, but the actions that 
tell the true story of who Charles Pickering really is come from the 
1960s and 1970s, those years when racial tensions were at their highest 
and the South was so volatile. In 1967 Judge Pickering was Prosecuting 
Attorney Pickering in Jones County, MS. Knowing it was to his own 
personal detriment, Charles Pickering took the witness stand to testify 
against the ``Imperial Wizard'' of the Ku Klux Klan in a trial for 
killing a black civil rights activist in a fire-bombing attack. By 
standing up for equality and justice, Prosecuting Attorney Pickering 
put himself and his family in danger and lost his reelection.
  You can never really judge the strength of a man's convictions until 
standing up for those beliefs costs him something. Judge Pickering's 
willingness to stand up against racial violence cost him his job as a 
prosecutor. But that did not dissuade him from continuing to fight for 
racial justice. Possibly the most contentious race issue in the 1960s 
and 1970s was the integration of the public schools. Integration came 
to Laurel, MS, in 1973. Integration has been fought for years and 
creating a plan was not an easy task. The black and white communities 
in Laurel were split and Charles Pickering worked to bring them 
together and create a plan to integrate the schools. In the end many 
white families still moved their children to private schools to avoid 
integration and Judge Pickering easily could have done the same with 
his kids. Instead, he believed in integration and kept his children in 
the public schools.
  Unfortunately, the reason Charles Pickering has been singled out by 
the radical left has nothing to do with the man or his qualifications. 
It has everything to do with ideology and the remaining adherents of a 
failed liberal orthodoxy holding on to their last vestiges of power in 
this Nation--the courts.
  A radical liberal minority in this country is scared of Judge 
Pickering. They do not think he will do a bad job because he is 
unqualified. After all, the American Bar Association rated Judge 
Pickering ``well qualified.'' Last I had heard, the liberal minority 
obstructing Judge Pickering's nomination called that rating their gold 
standard for judicial nominees.
  The reason the liberal special interests are scared of Judge 
Pickering is that he is a judge who knows his role, who follows the 
law, and has a stellar civil rights record. These special interests 
have lost out in the public opinion and mainstream politics. They 
cannot successfully achieve their goals in the normal course of 
governance so they turn to the court system, which they have 
successfully used to roll back traditional values, traditional roles of 
Government, and individual rights. A judge with a proven record of 
following the law and understanding the difference between the 
legislature and the judiciary is a roadblock in their path of 
legislating through the judiciary.
  I really believe Judge Pickering was singled out because of his 
stellar record on civil rights. It seems to me the liberal special 
interest groups that seem to be dictating the moves of the minority 
party in the Senate needed a test case to see if they could stop 
President Bush's nominees at will. They researched all his nominees and 
picked one who would be impossible to defeat on the merits and decided 
to distort his record and assassinate his character. They needed to see 
if they could get away with it. So last year they gave it a shot. And 
it worked. These special interests found willing accomplices in the 
Senate and in the media. Facts became irrelevant as lies flew and 
Charles Pickering was demagogued. But that was only a preview of what 
was to come.
  While the filibustering by a minority of the Senate of Judge 
Pickering is an abdication of constitutional responsibility of the 
Senate, the wholesale assault on President Bush's nominees is truly 
egregious. Judge Pickering is not alone. The minority has taken aim at 
Miguel Estrada, Carolyn Kuhl, Janice

[[Page S13555]]

Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen, and Henry Saad. Each nominee 
has a fantastic story and a stellar record. Each has been singled out 
for his or her adherence to the law and the traditional roles of 
government.
  Radical liberals have long fancied themselves as the champions of 
women and minorities in this country, and I have no doubt that many on 
the left do strive for equality for all Americans. But the radical left 
has achieved its power through the politics of division. A conservative 
Hispanic or conservative woman or conservative Arab or conservative 
black woman or conservative religious man is anathema to their 
dominance of these issues. Rather than celebrating the achievements of 
these gifted human beings ascending to the job for which he or she was 
selected by the President of the United States, these ultra liberals 
would rather defame their characters and demagogue their beliefs.
  There seems to be no end in sight to these tactics and political 
showdowns. But I hope and pray that day will soon come.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today we will vote on whether the 
Senate shall be allowed simply to consider the nomination of Charles 
Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. From my review of 
Judge Pickering's record, I have been struck by one resounding virtue--
moral courage.
  As the tide of racial equality swept America in the 1950s and 1960s, 
it unfortunately met with fierce resistance in certain areas. Laurel, 
MS was one. Unlike New England, integration was not popular in Jones 
County. Unlike New York, the press was not friendly to integration in 
Jones County. Unlike large Southern cities such as Atlanta and 
Birmingham, there was no substantial segment of the community that had 
an enlightened view on race relations. Indeed, the town of Laurel, in 
Jones County, MS, with a small population was the home territory of the 
Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, Sam Bowers.
  In the 1960s, Klan-incited violence escalated in Jones County, MS. 
The Klan would drive by homes in the middle of the night and shoot into 
them. The Klan would firebomb the homes of African Americans and those 
who helped them. The Klan would murder its enemies who stood for civil 
rights.
  Because these shootings, bombings, and murders violated the law, the 
victims looked for justice. They found it in Jones County Attorney 
Charles Pickering.
  On the one hand, Charles Pickering had his duty to enforce the law. 
On the other hand, he had public opinion, the press, and most state law 
enforcement personnel against vigorously prosecuting Klan violence. A 
27-year-old Charles Pickering stared in the face his political future, 
many in his community, and the press and chose to do his duty of 
enforcing the law against the men who committed such violence. In the 
1960s in Mississippi, this took courage.
  Soon County Attorney Charles Pickering found that he had to choose 
against between those in law enforcement who would only go through the 
motions of investigating the Klan and those who sought to vigorously 
prosecute and imprison Klansmen. He chose to work with the FBI to 
investigate, prosecute, and imprison Klansmen. In the mid-1960s in 
Mississippi, this took courage.
  Then came the threats. The Klan threatened to have County Attorney 
Pickering whipped. With the Klan already firebombing and murdering 
other whites whom it viewed as helping black citizens, the Pickering 
family could have easily been next.

  At night, County Attorney Charles Pickering would come back to his 
small home and look into the eyes of his young wife Margaret. He would 
look into the eyes of his four small children who believed daddy could 
do anything and who did not understand hate and murder. One can only 
imagine how his wife Margaret would lie awake in fear, hoping that she 
would hear her husband's footsteps coming home.
  Charles Pickering had no money to protect his family. He had no press 
to stand up for him and his family. He had no covering of popular 
opinion to hide behind. And in this time of hate, bombings and murder, 
Charles Pickering reached down deep in his soul, embraced the only 
thing he did have, his religious faith.
  He then testified against Sam Bowers, the Imperial Wizard of the Ku 
Klux Klan in the firebombing trial of civil rights activist Vernon 
Dahmer in 1967. And Charles Pickering signed the affidavit supporting 
the murder indictment of Klansman Dubie Lee for a murder committed at 
the Masonite Corporation's pulpwood plant in Jones County. The took 
courage.
  While it is easy in Washington, DC, in 2003, to make a speech or sign 
a bill in favor of civil rights after decades have changed racial 
attitudes in schools, in society, and in the press, who among us would 
have had the courage of Charles Pickering in Laurel, MS in 1967? Who 
among us would have had the courage of his wife Margaret to stand with 
him?
  There are those who would say ``We are pleased that Pickering was one 
of the few prosecutors who actually prosecuted crimes committed by the 
KKK in the 1960s, but he should have also gone further by calling for 
immediate integration of schools and the workplace.''
  That argument is tantamount to saying, ``We are pleased that Harry 
Truman integrated the federal armed forces in 1948, but he should have 
gone further and called for the integration of the state national 
guards as well.'' Or to say, ``We are pleased that Lyndon Johnson 
signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, after opposing civil rights, but 
he should have gone further and demanded that all businesses adopt an 
affirmative action hiring plan.''
  To judge the words and actions of these Civil Rights Champions in the 
1940s, 50s, and 60s, by a 2003 standard, would leave them wanting. We 
must remember that in Mississippi and other Southern States in the 
1960s, most elected prosecutors sat on their hands when the 
Klan committed acts of violence. Young Charles Pickering had to deal 
with white citizens and politicans who resisted integration and civil 
rights. He had to deal with these people in language that would not 
incite further violence and with requests for action that he had a 
chance of getting people to take. He did so with moral courage.

  And because he acted with courage at such a young age, Charles 
Pickering was able to continue with more progressive actions decade 
after decade. In 1976, he hired the first African American field 
representative for the Mississippi Republican Party. In 1981, he 
defended a young black man who had been falsely accused of the armed 
robbery of a teenage white girl. In 1999, he joined the University of 
Mississippi's Racial Reconciliation Commission. And in 2000 he helped 
establish a program for at-risk kids, most of whom were African 
Americans, in Laurel, MS--where 35 years earlier he had backed his 
principles with his and his family's lives. This is a record of 
courage. It is a record to be commended.
  In the years since the 1960s, attitudes in Mississippi and elsewhere 
have dramatically improved. Schools are integrated. The Klan is no 
longer a powerful force capable of intimidating whole communities. And 
the support from Mississippians--black and white, men and women--who 
have known Charles Pickering for decades has been overwhelming. This 
support no doubt results from the moral courage of Charles Pickering.
  In 1990, the Judiciary Committee unanimously reported the nomination 
of Charles Pickering, and the Senate unanimously confirmed him to the 
district court bench. In his 12 years on the bench, he had handled 
4,500 cases. In approximately 99.5 percent of these cases, his rulings 
have stood. The American Bar Association rated Judge Pickering ``well 
qualified'' for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals--once upon a time, 
the vaunted ``gold standard'' of my Democrat colleagues.
  I was present at Judge Pickering's confirmation hearing. I listened 
to the testimony and reviewed the record. I have measured the 
allegations and those who made them, against the entire record and the 
courage of Judge Pickering. I have found the allegations to be 
unfounded and the special interest group accusers lacking in the moral 
courage that Judge Pickering possesses.
  The Senate now has a chance to show the courage that Charles 
Pickering has consistently demonstrated. Unfortunately, I fear it will 
shrink from this

[[Page S13556]]

moment. And for that I apologize, in advance, to Judge Pickering and 
his family. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I was going to speak first, but I 
understand the senior Senator from New York, as happens with so many of 
us, is supposed to be in two places at once. While he is capable of 
many good things, that is one thing he has not figured out how to do 
yet.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York. Once he has finished, 
I will then speak and answer some of the things that have been said on 
the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. President, this is a difficult decision in a very certain sense. 
I listened to the sincere words of my colleague from Tennessee. I think 
they were heartfelt and well spoken. I have tremendous respect for my 
two colleagues from Mississippi, and I know particularly to my friend 
Senator Lott how much this means. He has worked very hard and 
diligently on behalf of Judge Pickering's nomination.
  I must rise to oppose it, and let me explain both to my colleagues 
and to everybody, I guess, why. I am a patriot. I love America. My 
family came to this country 5, 3, and 2 generations ago, poor as church 
mice, discriminated against in Europe. My dad could not graduate from 
college, and I am a United States Senator. God bless America. What a 
great country.
  I study the history of America. One of the things I try to study is 
what are our faults, what are our strengths, how do we make sure what 
happened to the Roman Empire and the British Empire does not happen to 
this country. One of the most profound scholars who studied America was 
Alexis de Tocqueville. He came to America in 1832 or so, traveled 
across the country, including upstate New York, and he wrote a couple 
of things. First, he wrote then when we were a small nation, not mighty 
like the great European nations of Britain, France, or Russia. He wrote 
that we would become the greatest country in the world. That was pretty 
omniscient. But he also wrote that there was one thing that could do 
America in, and that was the poison of race.
  We have made great progress. We all know it and everybody knows it. 
Much of the progress was made--all of it just about--in the last 40 
years. We did not make much progress from 1865 to, say, 1960 or 1955.
  I guess Brown v. Board started the whole wellspring. Frankly, for the 
first time in my life I am optimistic about racial relations in 
America. I think, over time, things will heal. I didn't used to think 
that, even 5 years ago.
  But we still have a lot of healing to do, despite the progress. I 
have to say I don't think the nomination of Judge Pickering--I know he 
is people's friend; I know lots of fine people think he is a fine man--
helps that healing. I think it hurts it. I base my decision not only on 
his record, which--I would have to disagree, in all due respect, with 
my friend from Tennessee--on race issues is, at best, mixed. The cross-
burning case bothers me greatly because if you are sensitive to race, 
even if you think a case was wrongly decided, you don't go through the 
extra legal means, on a cross-burning case, to do what you have to do.
  Does that mean a person should be put in jail or excoriated? No. Does 
it mean if he runs for public office that he is going to lose? No.
  But on the Fifth Circuit, the circuit that has had the great names at 
healing race and racial divisions that my colleague from Tennessee 
mentioned, should not we be extra careful about trying to bring a 
unifying figure to that bench, particularly when it represents more 
minorities than any other?
  The bottom line is, while we can find individual names, to me it is 
overwhelmingly clear that the Black community in Mississippi--which 
ought to have pretty good judgment about who did what, when, and how 
far we have come--is quite overwhelmingly against Judge Pickering.
  You can say it is politics. But when we hear the head of the NAACP 
say, as he told us yesterday, that every single chapter--I don't 
remember how many there were, like 140--were against Judge Pickering, 
that means something. When you hear that all but a handful of the Black 
elected officials in Mississippi are against Judge Pickering, that 
means something.
  Frankly, in this body we don't have an African American to give voice 
to their view, the African American view, diverse as it is, about 
whether Judge Pickering is a healing figure and deserves to be on this 
exalted circuit. We are not demoting him. We are not excoriating him. 
We are debating whether he should be promoted to this important bench, 
particularly when it comes to race and civil rights. And the 
overwhelming voice is no.
  I ask unanimous consent from my colleague to be given an additional 3 
minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield another 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator 
from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. So the overwhelming voice is no. The elected Black 
officials of Mississippi--I don't know the percentage, but I think it 
is against him. The only Black Member of Congress speaks strongly 
against him. He doesn't just say, well, I wouldn't vote for him, but it 
is an either/or situation, and that has to influence us. It is not 
dispositive. People can say ``these groups.'' Well, the NAACP is not 
just a group. It has been the leading organization. It is a mainstream 
African-American organization.
  There are groups on the other side lobbying for Judge Pickering. 
There are groups on this side against. I don't know why my colleagues, 
some on the other side, say the groups that lobby against what they 
want are evil, and the groups that lobby for are doing American 
justice. That is what groups do, and we listen to them sometimes.

  I, from New York, don't know that much about this. I try to study 
history, but I haven't lived there. I haven't gone through the history 
that my colleagues from Mississippi or Tennessee have. But I have to 
rely on other voices as well.
  So the fork in the road we come to here is this: On this nomination 
in this important circuit which has, indeed, done so much to move us 
forward--and I do believe we will continue to move forward as a 
country; even as Alexis de Toqueville said, on the poison of race--do 
we appoint a man who, on racial issues, has a record that at best is 
mixed, and who recently, at a very minimum, has shown insensitivity on 
the cross-burning case? Sure, there was a disparity of sentence. One 
thing I know quite well, in criminal law there are always disparities 
of sentence when there is a plea bargain, and prosecutors always go to 
someone in the case and say: If you plea bargain, you will get fewer 
years than if you don't. So that is not a great injustice. It happens 
every day in every court in this land. On this particular case, that is 
where Judge Pickering's heart was, to take it to a higher level. It is 
bothersome, particularly when it comes to nominating someone, not just 
to be a district court judge--which he is now--but nominated to the 
exalted Fifth Circuit, the racial healer in America for so long.
  So in my view--no aspersions to my colleagues from Mississippi who 
feel so strongly about this; no aspersions to my colleague from 
Tennessee who was eloquent, in my opinion; and no aspersions to Judge 
Pickering as well--but we can do better, particularly on the Fifth 
Circuit, when it comes to the issue of race, which has plagued the 
regions of the Fifth Circuit and plagued my region as well. We can do 
better.
  I urge this nomination be defeated.

                          ____________________