[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 160 (Thursday, November 6, 2003)]
[House]
[Page H10536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CONFIRMATION OF JUDICIAL NOMINEES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I point out to the body and the 
American people that the President had made an excellent nomination in 
the name of Miguel Estrada. And for 28 months Mr. Estrada was held in 
limbo while we waited for the Constitution to be upheld in the other 
body. And that would be the advise and consent clause of the 
Constitution that establishes that the Senate shall confirm the 
President's nominees.
  Now that 28 months and 5 days have passed, Mr. Estrada determined he 
needed to move on with his life. But the rules in the other body that 
establish a 60 percent vote to end a filibuster, have effectively 
established that standard as a requirement for a confirmation of a 
justice.
  And now today, and as I read some of the publications that are out, I 
am heartened to learn that through the newspapers that the other body 
is planning to debate judicial nominations starting on Wednesday 
evening of this week. They pledge to debate the issue all night to get 
their message to the American people. I applaud them in their endeavor, 
and I will do all I can to support their efforts.
  The blockage of judicial nominations by a determined minority is one 
of the most important issues before our Nation. Nothing less than our 
Constitution is at stake. I believe the Constitution is clear: a 
minority cannot impose a supermajority requirement for confirmation of 
a judicial nominee. The President is entitled to confirmation of his 
nominees if they garner a simple majority.
  The advise and consent clause, which is article II, section 2 of the 
United States Constitution requires a simple majority of 51 votes for 
confirmation of a judicial nominee. Many nominees have 51 such votes. 
And that standard is the standard that has existed since the 
ratification of our Constitution in 1789, well over 200 years. But 
there is a new standard now, brought about by the minority. I firmly 
believe that it is unconstitutional to require a higher standard.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members to avoid 
improper references to Senate proceedings, including confirmation of 
judicial proceedings.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that it is 
unconstitutional to require a higher standard for nominees than the 
simple majority specified in our Constitution. Janice Rogers Brown, 
Carolyn Kuhl, Charles Pickering, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen, who 
are all waiting to be confirmed, deserve an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring attention to the House of a few of 
these well-qualified nominees. Janice Rogers Brown.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman will suspend. The Chair 
will again remind Members of the House to avoid improper references to 
Senate proceedings, including using Senate action on particular 
nominees.
  The gentleman may continue.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I will adhere to that directive. I 
will say these are reliable people. And in the case of Janice Rogers 
Brown, she is a classic American success story. She is a daughter of an 
Alabama sharecropper who became a member of the California Supreme 
Court. She was reelected to the Supreme Court by 76 percent, which was 
the largest margin of any justice running that year. More importantly, 
she is a well-qualified and excellent judge. She applies the law 
without bias and with an even hand.
  William Pryor, another nominee, has a model judicial temperament. As 
attorney general, Pryor has demonstrated an ability to make decisions 
in full compliance with the letter of existing law, despite his own 
personal beliefs or preference. Even while Pryor personally opposed 
abortion, he has faithfully applied the Supreme Court's rulings on 
partial birth abortion and instructed Alabama officials not to enforce 
the State's partial birth abortion ban in a way that would violate the 
case law. It is clear that William Pryor would interpret the law, not 
make the law from the bench.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people will support this endeavor.
  I hope the American people will listen next week when the 
qualifications of nominees such as William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown 
and others are debated by the other body. At issue is one of the most 
important Constitutional questions of our time. Will the Constitution 
be upheld? Or will a determined minority be allowed to thwart the clear 
text of the Constitituion and the will of the American people?

                          ____________________