[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 91 (Tuesday, July 6, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7532-S7541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




[[Page S7532]]



                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF J. LEON HOLMES, OF ARKANSAS, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
               JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 165. The clerk 
will state the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of J. Leon Holmes, of 
Arkansas, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District 
of Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 6 hours of debate equally 
divided.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, we find ourselves today considering the 
nomination of Leon Holmes for the Eastern District of Arkansas. I have 
known Mr. Holmes for a number of years. In fact, I used to practice law 
with him. Even though I count him as a friend, I have to go back to the 
criteria that I use when I consider any nomination for the Federal 
bench.
  Basically, I have a four-part test that I apply. One: Is the nominee 
qualified? Two: Does the nominee have the necessary experience for the 
post? Three: Will the nominee, once he or she is on the bench, be fair 
and impartial? And the fourth criteria is more of a catchall: Are there 
other circumstances--maybe his or her temperament or maybe he or she 
has an agenda--is there something in their background that might 
prevent this person from serving?
  Clearly, Leon Holmes is a qualified nominee. There is no doubt about 
that. Also, clearly he has the necessary experience to serve as a 
district judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Rightly so, people 
can ask and should ask: Can he be fair and impartial?
  There is no question about the fact that Leon Holmes has been a 
strong advocate when it comes to the issue of life and choice. He is 
strongly on the pro-life side. He has been very clear about that point. 
For over two decades now, there is no question, there is no doubt about 
where Mr. Holmes stands on that important issue facing our Nation 
today.
  Let's look at that issue and let's look at some statements he made 
and some things we have learned about Mr. Holmes during this nomination 
process.
  First, let me say, I was attorney general in Arkansas for 4 years 
before I came to the Senate. As such, I can think, in 4 years of 
practice, of only one case of which I am aware that either my office or 
anybody else in the State of Arkansas handled relating to abortion and 
that was directly on point. The fact that he would be a judge for the 
Eastern District of Arkansas--we have two districts--probably would 
mean, given the number of Federal judges we have, given his age, it 
would be very unlikely for him to ever have an abortion case.
  Second, even if he did have an abortion case, Mr. Holmes has 
represented every pro-life group in the State of Arkansas--I cannot 
speak to all of his clients, but he has represented them and has been 
very involved with them. So undoubtedly he would have a conflict if any 
of those cases ever came before him as a judge.
  Mr. Holmes has a very deep conviction and a genuine passion about the 
issue of when life begins and whether this country should allow women 
the right to choose under any circumstance. It is a position that is 
based on much thought and much reason and even much prayer.
  I can say this: After reviewing his record very thoroughly in the 
last year--by the way, this nomination has been pending in the Senate 
for over a year--he has made a number of inflammatory statements, and I 
thought what I would do is read through a few of those very briefly so 
my colleagues will understand what the controversy with Mr. Holmes is 
all about.
  At one point, he wrote:

       Concern for rape victims is a red herring because 
     conceptions from rape occur with the same frequency as 
     snow in Miami.

  I could go through a series of statements he made. Let me read a 
couple more. He, in effect, compared the pro-choice movement to some 
things that were going on in Nazi Germany. I think that is a fair 
statement without trying to get into the long background and quote on 
that point.
  Another item which has been controversial is that he wrote a piece 
for a Catholic newspaper in Arkansas. He also cowrote it with his wife. 
In this piece it says that a wife has the obligation to ``subordinate 
herself to her husband'' and ``to place herself under the authority of 
the man.'' Here, again, this is a reflection of Catholic doctrine. It 
is a teaching that is found in the New Testament. It is something in 
which Mr. Holmes and his wife both participate. When we hear statements 
such as that, naturally questions are raised and people ask: Is this 
the kind of person we want on the Federal bench?
  If we look at most of the statements he has made about abortion and 
other subjects, not every single one, but most are at least 15 years 
old. He has apologized during the course of this nomination process, 
and, for all I know, he has already apologized for this, but he has 
apologized on many occasions for some of the statements he has written 
and said.
  In fact, if I can read some excerpts of the responses from his 
questionnaire he answered before the Judiciary Committee. I am not 
going to try to read all this because there are way too many of them 
and way too long. Let me take selected excerpts.
  At one point he said:

       The sentence about rape victims--

  Which I just quoted--

     which was made in a letter to the editor in 1980 is 
     particularly troublesome to me from the distance of 23 years. 
     Regardless of the merits of the issue, the articulation in 
     that sentence reflects an insensitivity for which there is no 
     excuse and for which I apologize.

  He goes on to say in another paragraph:

       Let me be clear that Roe v. Wade, as affirmed by Casey, is 
     the law of the land. As a district judge, I would be bound to 
     follow it and would do so.

  In another response about when it comes time for him to consider 
whether he should recuse in cases, he said:

       I would follow 28 U.S.C. 455 and the Code of Conduct for 
     United States Judges when making recusal decisions.

  He goes on to say in another paragraph:

       Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. As a judge, I would be 
     bound by oath to follow that law. I do not see how a judge 
     could follow the law but restrict the rights established by 
     the law.

  In other words, he is committing over and over he is going to follow 
the law of the land.
  Again, in answer to another question:

       I recognize the binding force of the court's holding in 
     Griswold and Eizenstat recognizing the right to privacy.

  Once again, people can have a legitimate, genuine concern and can ask 
questions about this point, but time and again he answers his critics.
  He says later:

       Roe v. Wade establishes that the constitutional right to 
     privacy includes a woman's right to have an abortion.

  In another section he says:

       I do not understand that the Court in Roe v. Wade contended 
     that the decision there was mandated by strict construction 
     as the term is defined above.

  He is talking about this phrase in the question.

       I recognize these decisions are, once again, the law of the 
     land. They are binding precedent on all courts. If I am 
     confirmed, I will do my utmost to follow these and all other 
     precedents of the Supreme Court of the United States.

  Then the last couple of excerpts I would like to read are these. Here 
again he is talking about Roe v. Wade:

       As a judge, I would follow every decision of the Supreme 
     Court that has not been subsequently overruled.

  How many times does he have to say that? How many times does he have 
to say he is going to follow the law?
  I know Leon personally. Lawyers in Arkansas have worked with him, and 
they know him personally. We have a high degree of confidence that he 
will follow the law.
  Something that comes through over and over with Mr. Holmes is he has 
an incredibly strong reputation for high ethical standards.
  In fact, as a demonstration of this, at one point during the process 
he met with Senator Lincoln and they talked about a number of issues. 
If we know Senator Lincoln, we know she asked a

[[Page S7533]]

lot of hard questions and she expected clear and definitive answers, 
which she got.
  At some point during the process, other things came to light he had 
not told Senator Lincoln about or that he felt, in fairness to her and 
out of respect for her, she should know about.
  So on his own volition, without being prompted by anyone or anything, 
on April 11, 2003--this was over a year ago because this has been 
pending over a year--he voluntarily wrote Senator Lincoln a letter 
talking about some of these statements that had come out. He says in 
the 1980s he wrote letters to the editors in newspaper columns 
regarding the abortion issue using strident and harsh rhetoric. He goes 
on to say almost all of these are over 15 years old. He says, in a 
later paragraph:

       As I stated in response to written questions from Senator 
     Durbin, I am especially troubled by the sentence about rape 
     victims in a 1980 letter to the editor regarding the proposed 
     Human Life Amendment; and as I said there, regardless of the 
     merits of the issue, the articulation of that sentence 
     reflects an insensitivity for which there is no excuse and 
     for which I apologize. . . .

  Here again, he is talking about something he had written over 24 
years ago. If we were to apply that same standard to us, if we could 
think back 24 years before we ever were in office or even 24 years ago 
for any of us, we would probably look back on some of our statements 
and not be real pleased with some of the things we said.
  He goes on when he talks about a 1987 effort, when he was president 
of Arkansas Right to Life, and he says he asked a rhetorical question 
in the context of some columns and things that had been written and he 
mentioned Nazi Germany. One thing he says to Senator Leahy is: ``I did 
not intend to say that supporters of abortion rights should be equated 
with Nazis,'' and he spends a whole paragraph talking about this, 
trying to clarify and give the context for what he had said.
  He also in his letter to Senator Lincoln wrote about this article he 
had written in his church newspaper. He says that ``the marital 
relationship symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the 
church.'' He stated:

     . . . My wife and I believe that this teaching ennobles and 
     dignifies marriage and both partners in it. We do not believe 
     that this teaching demeans either the husband or the wife but 
     that it elevates both. It involves a mutual self-giving and 
     self-forgetting, a reciprocal gift of self. This teaching is 
     not inconsistent with the equality of all persons, male and 
     female . . .

  Then he goes on to talk about that. So when we look back at these 
statements he made 17 years ago, 23 years ago, 24 years ago in one 
case, Leon Holmes, by his own words, comes to this conclusion in the 
last paragraph of his letter. He says:

       Some of the criticisms directed at things I wrote years ago 
     are just; some of them are not. I hope that my legal career 
     as a whole, spanning the years 1982 through 2003, evidences 
     that I am now ready to assume the responsibility of a United 
     States District Court Judge. I certainly was not ready in 
1980, nor for many years thereafter, and I do not claim that I was. . . 
.

  In other words, he is admitting he had maybe crossed a line and there 
are some things he wished he had not said or wished he had said 
differently.
  I will tell my colleagues about Leon Holmes. He is a very fine 
person. He is a very serious and very sincere Christian man. He is a 
husband, he is a father, and he is a lawyer. He is a man of very deep 
faith. In fact, his faith permeates every aspect of his life. I say 
that very sincerely because I know Leon. Some people might hear those 
words and say, listen, that means he has this rightwing agenda that 
when he gets on the bench he is going to do certain things and hold 
certain ways.
  Well, Leon is much deeper than that. His agenda is justice. The 
hallmark that really distinguishes Leon from so many other people is 
integrity. He is a great example of integrity.
  I have 23 letters. I promise I am not going to read them all. There 
are dozens more I could have brought with me. There is a saying in the 
Bible that if we do not testify about it the stones will cry out. Well, 
what we found in Arkansas is a swelling where the stones are crying 
out, except in this case they are not stones, they are people who have 
practiced with Leon and people who have practiced against Leon.
  I have personally talked with dozens and dozens of lawyers in the 
State of Arkansas. I have asked them: Would Leon Holmes make a good 
Federal judge? In almost every single conversation, there is an 
unequivocal yes, he would be an outstanding Federal judge.
  I will read some of these excerpts. Then I would like to turn this 
over to my colleague, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. One 
excerpt is from a Federal district judge, Bill Wilson. I actually asked 
him to write this letter because I asked him about whether he thought 
Leon Holmes could be fair and impartial. As part of the explanation, 
Judge Wilson says before Leon was nominated and chosen for the bench, 
he was ``a New Deal, new frontier, great society Democrat, and 
unabashedly so.'' He goes on to talk about how Leon Holmes will have a 
detached objectivity, that he will set a standard all judges would be 
proud of. He concludes by saying:

       I have seen Leon Holmes in action on several other 
     occasions, and he is a top-flight lawyer with the nicest 
     sense of personal honor. I believe this to be his reputation 
     with almost all the legal profession in Arkansas.

  That is my impression as well.
  Here is a letter from Philip Anderson. Philip Anderson may not be a 
household name, but Philip Anderson is the former president of the 
American Bar Association. He writes this paragraph:

       I practiced law with Mr. Holmes for many years until he 
     withdrew from our firm two years ago. I believe that he is 
     superbly qualified for the position for which he has been 
     nominated. He is a scholar first, and he has had broad 
     experience in Federal court. He is a person of rock-solid 
     integrity and sterling character. He is compassionate and 
     even-handed. He has an innate sense of fairness. He is 
     temperamentally suited for the bench. He works with dispatch. 
     In short, he has all of the qualities that one would hope to 
     find in a Federal judge, and seldom are they found in a 
     person so amiable and with his degree of genuine humility.

  In fact, I know Philip Anderson is a Democrat and was his law partner 
for a number of years.
  Here is another one. This one is from Kristine Baker of Little Rock. 
She is a lawyer. She goes out of her way to point out she is a 
Democrat. She says: I do not always see eye to eye but I respect him 
and trust his judgment. Above all, he is fair.
  She talks about his respect and his dignity, his intellect, his 
demeanor, his temperament, and his ability.
  Here we have another letter. This one is actually from Tulsa, OK. It 
is from a lawyer named Dana Baldwin who used to practice in Little 
Rock. She is a native Arkansan. She said:

       Despite occasional differences in my and Mr. Holmes' views 
     on social and political issues, I can speak highly of his 
     integrity and compassion for the law. . . .

  She talks about his impartiality. She talks about his commitment to 
follow the law.
  This letter is from Robin Carroll, who is a lawyer down in El Dorado, 
AR.
  Robin happens to be the legal counsel for the Democratic Party of 
Arkansas. He calls Mr. Holmes:

     . . . a brilliant and ethical lawyer.

  He would be a fair and impartial judge. He would be fair and 
impartial on every issue.
  Bear in mind, Mr. Carroll and Mr. Holmes have done battle in the 
courtroom before on election issues, and other party-type issues.
  Here is another one, Nate Coulter. Nate is a very fine lawyer from 
Little Rock. He has been on the statewide ballot twice as a Democrat. 
He says:

     . . . I am writing to endorse enthusiastically Mr. Holmes' 
     nomination to the federal district court.

  He says his political views and party affiliations differ, but those:

     . . . do not affect my very high regard for his character and 
     professionalism.

  He says they have been opposite each other in at least six lawsuits. 
Mr. Coulter talks about Mr. Holmes' intellectual fitness and integrity 
and once again, Nate has done battle with him in the courtroom.
  Also now we have a letter from Beth Deere. She again goes out of her 
way to talk about how she is a Democrat and how they do disagree on a 
number of issues. But she talks about his bright legal mind. Once 
again, she mentions the word ``integrity.'' That comes through over and 
over and over in these letters.
  Margaret Dobson says:

       I have met no man who respects women more.


[[Page S7534]]


  She talks about the respect she has for Leon and Leon has for others. 
She says he is the partner who had most supported her career growth and 
her rise to the level of partner.
  Here again she talks about Leon's political views and hers. They may 
disagree, but he is:

     . . . fair and honest and diligent.

  He has a commitment to follow the law. He has:

     . . . impeccable morals, unquestionable ethics, and supreme 
     intelligence.

  She talks about how respected he is in the legal community in 
Arkansas.
  Here is one from Stephen Engstrom, who is a lawyer in Little Rock. He 
says:

       He is an outstanding lawyer and a man of excellent 
     character.

  Once again, he says:

       Leon Holmes and I differ on political and personal issues 
     such as pro-choice/anti-abortion. [In fact he says] I am a 
     past board member of our local Planned Parenthood chapter. . 
     . .

  But he goes on to say:

     . . . I am confident that Leon Holmes will do his duty as the 
     law and facts of any given case require.

  Here again, I am only reading short excerpts from a few of the 
letters we have received on Mr. Holmes.
  Here is one from David Grace, who is a lawyer in Little Rock and 
practices in downtown. He has a very fine reputation. He says that he 
and I have had several cases. Some of these have been with him and some 
against him.

     . . . Leon has a powerful mind and excellent judgment. He is 
     able to be honestly objective. . . .

  He goes on to say:

     . . . he is among the very best and most respected lawyers in 
     Arkansas.

  Once again, he goes out of his way to say he disagrees strongly with 
some of Leon's political or social views, but they have not:

     . . . affected his analysis of a legal problem or his 
     performance as an attorney.

  We have a law professor from the University of Arkansas Law School, 
where Leon was a student. This is Howard Brill. In fact, he was one of 
my law professors. He says:

       I have no doubt that he is scrupulously fair and will be so 
     on the bench--fair to all individuals, to all groups, to all 
     political persuasions, to all viewpoints on the issues that 
     divide Americans. In his judicial role and temperament, he is 
     not a partisan.

  Here is a letter from a lawyer, Field K. Wassen, Jr., who was 
Governor Bill Clinton's legal counsel. He says Leon Holmes has 
``unquestioned integrity.''
  Here is another one from a plaintiff's lawyer in the State. Her name 
is Eileen Woods Harrison. Her father was a Federal judge and she is a 
lifelong Democrat. In fact, at one point she was on the State Workers 
Compensation Commission and she was released from that post because she 
was considered to be too liberal on some of the issues. And lo and 
behold, who was hired to represent the State against her when she sued 
the State? Leon Holmes. She goes on in this letter to say, even though 
he was ``on the other side,'' he:

     . . . conducted himself in the most professional and ethical 
     manner throughout my case. I gained a great respect for him 
     throughout the course of the litigation.

  This isn't a lawyer who is on the other side, this is a litigant. 
This is a party and he is the lawyer for the other side. In fact, she 
closes with a Bible verse and says:

       ``Let Justice run down like waters, and righteousness like 
     a mighty stream.'' It is my firm belief that Mr. Holmes is a 
     just and righteous man who deserves the appointment to the 
     Federal Bench.

  Here is one from Bradley Jesson, from Fort Smith, a very fine lawyer 
who was for a short time Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court 
and a Democrat. He says:

       My opinion is this is one of the best judicial selections 
     that President Bush has made.

  He says he has been with Leon in a number of cases.

       In some we are on the same side. In others we are on 
     opposing sides. . . . [He's] one of the best prepared lawyers 
     around and most courteous and most professional. . . . His 
     legal work is among the very best I observed. . . . Leon and 
     I frankly disagree about some issues . . .

  But Brad Jesson is convinced Leon will follow the law.
  Here is one from Jack Lavey. He is a great lawyer in the State of 
Arkansas. In fact, he is one of the founding members of the State 
chapter of the ACLU. He calls himself, in this letter, a liberal 
Democrat. He talks about Leon Holmes and he says:

     . . . his professional reputation is outstanding. He is very 
     bright . . . and he's a very ethical lawyer. He is very 
     honest. . . . he has always been very professional and very 
     ethical.

  He says he is honest and fair. He says also he will follow the law. 
He says:

       If a Roe v. Wade issue comes before Mr. Holmes, if he is 
     appointed as a federal district court judge, he will follow 
     the Supreme Court's decision in that case. If I thought 
     otherwise, I would not be writing this letter to you.

  He goes on to talk about him and uses words like ``fairly,'' 
``honestly,'' ``ethically,'' ``in accordance with established law.''
  He says:

       To conclude, I consider it a privilege to highly recommend 
     to the United States Senate the appointment of Mr. Holmes as 
     a federal district judge for the Eastern District of 
     Arkansas.

  Here is one from Sandy McMath. He uses words like ``integrity,'' 
``compassion,'' ``scholarship.'' He says:

       . . . he's an honorable and upright lawyer.

  He goes on to say they have opposed each other vigorously in a case 
involving ERISA, but he was at all times compassionate toward the other 
side's client. He treated the other client with tremendous respect.
  Once again, Sandy McMath, like most of these others, talks about how 
they are on opposite sides of the political fence, but he is confident 
Leon Holmes will make a good judge.
  Also, here is one from Elizabeth Murray. She is with the largest law 
firm in Arkansas, does a lot of defense work, probably insurance 
defense work mostly, and corporate law work. She talks about his 
intelligence, his integrity, and his respect for the law. She says she 
does not share his opinions on a variety of issues, but nonetheless she 
thinks he would be a good Federal judge.
  Jeff Rosenzweig offers his ``wholehearted support.'' He is a criminal 
defense lawyer. He calls himself a libertarian Democrat. I am not even 
sure exactly what that is, but that probably does sum up his political 
views. But he says:

       He's a person of the highest character, intelligence and 
     judgment. He's been an outstanding advocate and if confirmed 
     will be an outstanding judge. If there is any person in the 
     world who will apply the law without regard to what his 
     personal beliefs might be, that person is Leon Holmes.

  Time and time and time again we see that. Here is a letter from 
Charles Schlumberger, a great lawyer in Little Rock and a good friend 
of mine. He says:

       I am a Democrat, I am pro-choice, and I support gender 
     equality.

  He goes on to say:

       If ever there was an individual fully qualified to serve on 
     the federal bench, it is Mr. Holmes.

  He goes on to say:

       I am confident that Mr. Holmes will uphold his duty as 
     jurist to follow the rule of law, without bias or deference 
     to his personal convictions.

  We hear from a lawyer who now lives in Naples, FL, but used to 
practice in Little Rock, Jeanne Seewald. She gives her wholehearted 
endorsement. She talks about how respectful, courteous, and supportive 
he was of her personally at their old law firm when they practiced 
together. She says Leon is a gentleman and a scholar.

       He has been a faithful mentor over the years. His ethics 
     are beyond reproach.

  She talks about his thoughtful and brilliant analysis of issues.
  I could read a couple of paragraphs out of that letter because she 
says so many glowing things about him.
  Here is one from Steven Shults who is, again, a lawyer in Little 
Rock--a very fine lawyer with a great reputation. He talks about how 
they have been on opposite sides of many lawsuits, but ``Mr. Holmes is 
one of the finest lawyers in Arkansas and a premier appellate 
advocate.''
  He talks about his integrity. There is that word again, 
``integrity.'' It comes through time and time again.
  He talks about his ``integrity, judgment, courage, compassion, 
intellect, dedication, patience, and intellectual honesty.''
  Here again, Steven Shults is on the other side of some of these 
issues, but, nonetheless, he thinks he would be a very good judge.

[[Page S7535]]

  Here is one from Luther Sutter, who is a civil rights lawyer in 
Arkansas. In fact, he may have the largest civil rights practice in the 
State. I am not sure, but he is definitely among the largest. He talks 
about Leon Holmes being the consummate professional. He says:

       I assure you that in my eight years of practice, I have 
     learned to identify ideologues who are also lawyers. Such 
     lawyers routinely put their personal and philosophical 
     interests ahead of what I consider to be their clients' best 
     interests. Mr. Holmes never did that.

  He goes on to say:

       I recommend Leon Holmes to the Federal bench, with a full 
     understanding of his politics. Personally, I do not agree 
     with some of his political views.

  He goes on to talk about how he heartily recommends Leon Holmes.
  This is the last letter I will read. I promise because I know I am 
trying the patience of everyone in the Chamber right now. But this is a 
letter that the majority leader referred to a few moments ago from Kent 
Rubens who is a very good lawyer from West Memphis, AK, which is right 
across the Mississippi River from Memphis, TN. Kent Rubens has been a 
pillar of that legal community in this part of the State for a long, 
long time. He says:

       I cannot think of anyone who is better qualified legally or 
     ethically to so serve.

  He uses a funny phrase that I have heard in Arkansas a few times. He 
says, ``I will shoot dice with him over the telephone.''
  He talks about his honesty and how much integrity he has.
  Let me give one little bit of background. He goes on in this letter 
to say:

       I was privileged to represent a litigant who struck down 
     the abortion statutes here in Arkansas after Roe and Doe were 
     decided. There is no one who will argue that my views are 
     anything other than pro-choice.

  This is the lawyer who actually litigated the cases in Arkansas right 
after Roe v. Wade and decided to strike down Arkansas' laws on 
abortion. He is unabashedly pro-choice, and he is unabashedly in 
support of Leon Holmes for this position.
  He says in conclusion:

       As someone who has represented the pro-choice view and 
     holds the pro-choice view, I ask that you urge your Members 
     to support his confirmation.

  I have read these letters and I think I have tried everyone's 
patience. But I will tell you this: From the people who know him best, 
from the people who practice with him and practice against him, from 
the people who have seen him up close and know him and have had 
personal contacts and personal interactions and years of affiliation 
with him in one way or another, they wholeheartedly endorse him to be 
on the Federal bench.
  Going back to my criteria, is he qualified? Yes. There is no doubt 
about it. Does he have the necessary experience? Yes, no question. You 
can look at his resume. It is not even close. He easily has the 
experience you want to see. Will he be fair and impartial? Is there 
anything else in his background that might raise questions such as his 
temperament? Does he have an agenda? Clearly, from his contemporaries 
and from his peers, the answer is yes to those questions.
  He has the attitude of being fair and impartial, and there is nothing 
in his background--no circumstance, even though he has been a staunch 
advocate on the pro-life side, he still has the respect and the 
veneration of his peers in Arkansas and even around the country from 
other States.
  I ask all of my colleagues to give him strong consideration, to wade 
through some of the rhetoric and look back on this with the perspective 
that most of these inflammatory things were written at least 10 years 
ago, and some as long ago as 24 years ago.
  I appreciate his conviction on the issue of abortion. I appreciate 
his compassion and his moral certitude on that question.
  In many cases, people do not always agree with Leon but they have a 
lot of respect for him. They think he would be a good judge in 
Arkansas. They would be proud to have him on the Federal bench.
  With that, I yield the floor and turn this over to my wonderful 
colleague from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the 
extensive and good remarks of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, 
Mr. Pryor regarding the nomination of J. Leon Holmes to be a United 
States District Court judge. Mr. Pryor comes from the State. He knows 
the man. He practiced law with him. He has read newspaper editorials in 
support of this man. He has read a number of letters--a wide variety of 
letters--from Democrats as well as Republicans in the State who say 
this man would make an excellent judge.
  Having known Mr. Holmes personally, he vouched for his integrity and 
his qualifications, and I think we should pay attention to the 
distinguished Senator.
  Of course, Senator Lincoln as well is strongly in favor of Leon 
Holmes for this Federal district judgeship.
  In addition, this man has the highest rating by the American Bar 
Association that you can have--a ``well-qualified'' rating--which means 
he is placed among the higher echelon of great lawyers in this country.
  I think we should heed Senator Pryor's views.
  Of course, I think Senator Pryor makes an overwhelming case that this 
man deserves to sit on the Federal district court bench. So I rise 
today to express my support for the confirmation of J. Leon Holmes of 
Arkansas who has been nominated to be U.S. District Judge for the 
Eastern District of Arkansas.
  Mr. Holmes is widely respected for his intelligence, his legal 
skills, and his commitment to the rule of law. Leon Holmes knows the 
value of hard work. He came from humble roots and is the only one among 
his seven siblings to attend college. He worked his way through college 
and finished law school at night while working a full-time day job in 
order to support his family.
  Anyone would know how difficult that is to do.
  Leon Holmes is an accomplished scholar and has displayed a wide-
ranging academic interest. He is a distinguished graduate of Duke 
University, where he received a doctorate in political science, and the 
University of Arkansas law school. Mr. Holmes finished law school at 
the top of his class, was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa while a doctoral 
student at Duke University, and was named Outstanding Political Science 
Student upon graduation from college.
  He has pretty terrific credentials.
  Mr. Holmes is currently a partner with the Little Rock firm of 
Quattlebaum Grooms Tull & Burrow, specializing in complex business 
litigation, torts, and appellate practice. He has practiced commercial 
litigation at the trial and appellate level in State and Federal court 
for many years, and has acquired significant courtroom experience. Leon 
Holmes is well respected by the Arkansas Bar and is one of the finest 
appellate lawyers in Arkansas. In 2001, the Arkansas Bar Association 
bestowed its Writing Excellence award on Mr. Holmes.
  In addition, Leon Holmes has been an active participant in the 
Arkansas Bar. He has taught continuing legal education courses to the 
bar on numerous occasions. He has been awarded the State bar's Best CLE 
award four times. He sits on the Board of Advisors to the Arkansas Bar 
Association's magazine and has chaired the editorial board for the 
bar's publication of Handling Appeals in Arkansas.
  Mr. Holmes sits on the judicial nominations committee for the 
Arkansas State courts, which recommends attorneys to the Governor for 
judicial appointment in Supreme Court cases where one or more justices 
must recuse themselves. On two occasions, he himself has been appointed 
to serve as a special judge of the Arkansas Supreme Court. This is a 
great honor for a practicing attorney, and the justices praised Mr. 
Holmes for his service in those cases.
  As a person who took advantage of the opportunities presented to him, 
Mr. Holmes believes in giving back to the community. He is committed to 
providing legal services to all, and has given approximately 200 hours 
of pro bono services during each of the last 3 or 4 years.
  Among other cases, he has represented, on a pro bono basis, a 
terminally ill Laotian immigrant woman denied Medicaid coverage for a 
liver

[[Page S7536]]

transplant; an indigent man with a history of drug felony convictions; 
and a woman who lost custody of her children to her ex-husband.
  He represented Ricky Rector, a mentally retarded Arkansas man whose 
execution then-Governor Bill Clinton refused to commute in 1992. He 
represents Clay Ford, who has been sentenced to life in prison for 
shooting at pointblank range and killing a police officer in 1981. He 
defended on appeal the largest jury verdict in Arkansas history, which 
involves a nursing home resident who allegedly died from neglect. Her 
family won a $78 million judgment.
  Leon Holmes has given back to his community in areas outside the law 
as well. He was a houseparent for the Elon Home for Children while a 
graduate student in North Carolina. He also served as the director of 
the Florence Crittenton Home of Little Rock in 1986 and 1987, helping 
young women cope with teen pregnancy.
  Those who work with and personally know Leon Holmes strongly support 
his nomination, as we have already heard from Senator Pryor, the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, and expect to hear from Senator 
Lincoln before the day is out. I certainly appreciate their 
endorsements of Mr. Holmes in his nomination hearing last year.
  Let me address some of the arguments that are being put forward by 
Mr. Holmes' opponents: that he is extreme in his views on abortion, 
that he is anti-woman, and that he is insensitive on matters of race. 
Those are the major arguments that have been brought forth, and I 
believe based upon all of nothing. A full reading of Mr. Holmes' 
writings and, more importantly, a review of his actions in these 
matters, I think, will set the record straight.
  There is no question that Mr. Holmes has been a pro-life activist. He 
served as president of Arkansas Right to Life. He was president from 
1986 to 1987. He also served as secretary of the Arkansas Unborn Child 
Amendment Committee in 1984. Some of the statements he has made in the 
course of his activism he admits have been insensitive, and he has 
expressed regret for such remarks, but in almost every case they are 
decades ago when he was a much younger man.
  For example, in a 1980 letter--think about that; it was 24 years 
ago--to the editor, Mr. Holmes criticized the argument that abortion 
should be available to rape victims as a red herring because 
``conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as 
snowfall in Miami.'' Mr. Holmes has clearly apologized for this remark, 
which he made almost 24 years ago.
  In response to a written question from Senator Durbin, he wrote:

       I have to acknowledge that my own rhetoric, particularly 
     when I first became involved in the issue [of abortion] in 
     1980 and perhaps some years thereafter, sometimes has been 
     unduly strident and inflammatory. The sentence about rape 
     victims which was made in a letter to an editor in 1980 is 
     particularly troublesome to me from a distance of 23 years 
     later. Regardless of the merits of the issue, the 
     articulation in that sentence reflects an insensitivity for 
     which there is no excuse and for which I apologize.

  I believe all of us have made statements in the past that we wish we 
could apologize for. Many of us have apologized for statements we have 
made in earnest and extreme ways. He is no different. He made some 
mistakes and says that he was insensitive at the time, but he 
apologizes for them. You have to look at his overall career and realize 
this man has a great reputation in that State and among his people and 
among his peers. If he is like the rest of us, and apparently on 
occasion has been, he is going to make some statements for which he has 
to apologize. We all have to do that from time to time. There may be 
some perfect in this body who do not have to, but I, for one, have had 
to apologize from time to time myself.
  In a different editorial, Mr. Holmes compared abortion to the 
Holocaust. On another occasion, he wrote:

       The abortion issue is the simplest issue this country has 
     faced since slavery was made unconstitutional, and it 
     deserves the same response.

  In an April 11, 2003, letter to Senator Lincoln, Mr. Holmes 
explained:

       In the 1980's--

  Twenty-four years ago; at least two decades ago--

     I wrote letters to the editor and newspaper columns regarding 
     the abortion issue using strident and harsh rhetoric. I am a 
     good bit older now and, I hope, more mature than I was at the 
     time. As the years passed, I came to realize that one cannot 
     convey a message about the dignity of the human person, which 
     is the message I intended to convey, using that kind of 
     rhetoric in public discussion.

  Again, referring to his 1980 ``snow in Miami'' remark, Mr. Holmes 
wrote:

       I do not propose to defend that sentence, and I would not 
     expect you or anyone else to do so.

  Based upon this letter, Senator Lincoln reaffirmed her belief that 
Mr. Holmes would be a fair judge.
  The fact is, regardless of any personal views, Mr. Holmes will abide 
by the rule of law. He understands that principle, and he is committed 
to it. He understands that his personal views play no role in his duty 
as a judge to honor stare decisis, or prior precedents, and to 
faithfully follow the precedents of the Supreme Court and the Eighth 
Circuit, within which he lives and practices.
  Pro-choice attorneys and others in Arkansas who work with him have 
written to the committee in support of Mr. Holmes' nomination. Those 
who know him well strongly believe that, despite his personal views, 
Mr. Holmes will fairly adjudicate any abortion cases that may come 
before him. His supporters include Robin J. Carroll, legal counsel to 
the Democratic Party of Arkansas; Philip S. Anderson, a former 
president of the American Bar Association and a leading Arkansas trial 
attorney; and Stephen Engstrom, former Little Rock Planned Parenthood 
chapter board member.
  Mr. Engstrom wrote:

       I heartily commend Mr. Holmes to you. He is an outstanding 
     lawyer and a man of excellent character. Leon Holmes and I 
     differ on political and personal issues such as pro-choice/
     anti-abortion. I am a past board member of our local Planned 
     Parenthood chapter and have been a trial lawyer in Arkansas 
     for over twenty-five years. Regardless of our personal 
     differences on some issue[s], I am confident that Leon Holmes 
     will do his duty as the law and facts of any given case 
     require.

  Trial attorney Kent J. Rubens, a pro-choice attorney who successfully 
brought a lawsuit to strike down Arkansas' abortion statutes after Roe 
v. Wade was decided wrote: Q02
       I cannot think of anyone who is better qualified to serve. 
     . . . As someone who has represented the pro-choice view, I 
     ask that you urge your members to support his confirmation.

  Eileen Woods Harrison sent this letter to the committee:

       I am a female attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas. I am a 
     lifelong Democrat and am also pro-choice . . . I commend Mr. 
     Holmes to you. He is a brilliant man, a great lawyer and a 
     fine person.

  Another letter, this one from Cathleen V. Compton, states:

       I heartily recommend Mr. Holmes to you. He is an 
     outstanding lawyer and a fine person. While he and I differ 
     dramatically on the pro-choice/pro-life issue, I am fully 
     confident he will do his duty as the law and facts of a given 
     case require.

  Beth M. Deere wrote the following:

       I am proud to be a Democrat. I am also proud to recommend 
     Leon Holmes as a federal district judge for the Eastern 
     District of Arkansas, even though he and I disagree on 
     issues, including a woman's right to choose whether to 
     bear a child. . . . I support Leon Holmes because he is 
     not only a bright legal mind, but also because he is a 
     good person who believes that our nation will be judged by 
     the care it affords to the least and the littlest in our 
     society. I am not troubled that he is personally opposed 
     to abortion. Mr. Holmes is shot through with integrity. He 
     will, I believe, uphold and apply the law with the utmost 
     care and diligence.

  Another issue which opponents have distorted is that of gender 
equality. Mr. Holmes cowrote an article with his wife entitled ``Gender 
Neutral Language.'' Let's get it straight: he wrote this article with 
his wife. It was for a Catholic newspaper. This article, which appeared 
in a religious newspaper of his faith, stated: ``The wife is to 
subordinate herself to her husband'' and, ``The woman is to place 
herself under the authority of the man.'' Mr. Holmes' opponents believe 
these statements indicate he will not be fair to women appearing before 
him.
  However, let me point out those statements are derived from the New 
Testament in Ephesians, the 5th chapter, verses 22 through 25, and 
represent the orthodox teachings of his religion. Although I do not 
have the same

[[Page S7537]]

version of the Bible, I believe it would read very much the same. But 
if you turn to Ephesians, the 5th chapter, it is interesting because 
starting with verse 21 it says--well, let's start with verse 20

       Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father 
     in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
       Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

  Husband and wife. Then it says:

       Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto 
     the Lord.
       For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is 
     the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body.
       Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the 
     wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

  But then Saint Paul goes on to say:

       Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the 
     church, and gave himself for it. . . .

  I do not think anybody can read this without understanding that the 
husbands have tremendously positive and important obligations in order 
to have the respect of the wives.
  I don't think you could read it without understanding that Paul is 
comparing the husband to the head of the family, even as Christ is head 
of the church, more on the priesthood level than anything else. And the 
article seems to say that.
  It says:

       Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the 
     church and gave himself for it;
       That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of 
     water by the word;
       That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not 
     having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it 
     should be holy and without blemish.
       So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He 
     that loveth his wife loveth himself.

  It gets pretty bad around here when people misconstrue what somebody 
quotes in an article written for a church publication of the person's 
own faith, where the person and his wife quote St. Paul. You might 
disagree with St. Paul, but there are hundreds of millions of people 
who agree with St. Paul and who understand that he was trying to make 
the analogy between the church and Christ and between a husband and 
wife to show how important and sanctified the relationship of marriage 
is.
  This article contains other statements, as I have said, supporting 
the equality of men and women such as:

       All of us, male and female, are equally sons of God and, 
     therefore, brothers of one another.
       The distinction between male and female in ordination has 
     nothing to do with the dignity or worth of male compared to 
     female.
       Men and women are equal in their dignity and value.

  These are quotes within the article. The article, to me, was clearly 
trying to state why the men in the Catholic Church have the priesthood, 
but the women have the family. And you might have written it 
differently, but the fact is, they quoted St. Paul, and St. Paul 
deserves the dignity of respect by this great body whether you believe 
in the New Testament of the Bible or not. I firmly believe in the New 
Testament. What Leon Holmes and his wife were doing was writing about 
traditional Catholic values and beliefs with which I think millions of 
people will agree. It hardly places him outside the mainstream and 
certainly places him in the mainstream as a religious believer and as 
somebody who loves his faith and his church and his wife, by the way.
  Mr. Holmes' wife wrote to the committee to explain that the article 
in question was specifically written for the readership of members of 
their faith, persons who would be familiar with the New Testament 
passages being referenced with regard to the relationship between 
husband and wife. It is just terrible to distort their writings as 
husband and wife. If you read the whole article, you can hardly think 
Mr. Holmes is anti-woman. Furthermore, Mr. Holmes' actions support the 
truth he fully believes that men and women are equals.
  He has supported women in the legal profession and represented women 
as clients. Mr. Holmes' past and present female colleagues in Arkansas 
support his nomination to this position.
  Jeanne Seewald wrote this letter to the committee:

       Leon was a strong proponent of my election to the 
     partnership and, subsequently, encouraged and supported my 
     career advancement, as well as the advancement of other women 
     within the firm. . . . As a colleague, Leon treated me in an 
     equitable and respectful manner. I always have found him 
     supportive of my career and believe he is very supportive of 
     women in general. Leon and I have different political views; 
     however, I know him to be a fair and just person and have 
     complete trust in his ability to put aside any personal 
     political views and apply the law in a thoughtful and 
     equitable manner.

  Another co-worker, Kristine Baker, wrote the following:

       Leon has trained me in the practice of law and now, as my 
     partner, works with me on several matters. His office has 
     been next to mine at the firm for approximately two years. 
     During that time, I worked with Leon as an expectant mother 
     and now work with him as a new mother. Leon's daughters 
     babysit my eleven-month-old son. I value Leon's input, not 
     only on work-related matters but also on personal matters. I 
     have sought him out for advice on a number of issues. 
     Although Leon and I do not always see eye-to-eye, I respect 
     him and trust his judgment. Above all, he is fair. While 
     working with Leon, I have observed him interact with various 
     people. He treats all people, regardless of gender, station 
     in life or circumstance, with the same respect and dignity. 
     He has always been supportive of me in my law practice, as 
     well as supportive of the other women in our firm. Gender has 
     never been an issue in any decision in the firm.

  Lastly, with regard to issues of race, Mr. Holmes has been criticized 
for defending and endorsing Booker T. Washington's view that slavery 
was a consequence of divine providence designed to teach white people 
how to be more Christ-like. Some have alleged--but I hope we don't hear 
this misinformed view repeated during this debate--that Holmes has said 
that ``the Almighty said that slavery was a good thing or that he 
believes slavery is a good institution.'' In fact, nowhere has Mr. 
Holmes said he endorses slavery or that he believes slavery was a good 
institution.
  The article at issue, written for a Christian audience, was an 
expression of his belief, shared by Washington, that God could bring 
good out of evil. So while Washington certainly condemned slavery as 
evil, having experienced it first-hand, he held a belief that ultimate 
good could come out of it. Mr. Holmes's article similarly expressed the 
view that good can come out of evil and that we are called upon to love 
all men and women.
  Mr. Holmes also wrote his doctoral dissertation on the political 
philosophies of three major African-American thinkers and activists, 
W.E.B. DuBois, Booker T. Washington, and Martin Luther King, Jr. He 
argued that King attempted a synthesis of militant nonviolence, 
ultimately unsuccessful, of DuBois's advocacy of political agitation 
and Washington's advocacy of a Christian persuasion as means to achieve 
equality for black Americans.
  However, Mr. Holmes left no doubt that he admired Dr. King's 
achievements in helping to integrate buses, schools, parks, 
playgrounds, lunch counters, and marriages. He noted the progress made 
in terms of the expansion of rights and opportunities for all 
Americans, stating:

       Considering both the extent of the privileged status of 
     Southern whites that has been relinquished and the amount of 
     hate and prejudice that confronted desegregation twenty-five 
     years ago, the accomplishment [of social change] is 
     incredible.

  Although Dr. King's vision has not been completely realized, Holmes 
wrote, ``in light of the unexpected changes in the past ten years, who 
can say that King's dreams will not all come true and `justice will 
roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream?' '' Mr. 
Holmes concluded by urging the reader not to dismiss Dr. King's vision 
of a promised land, quoting the last words of King's final speech 
before he was assassinated.
  Those who know Leon Holmes know he will be an outstanding jurist. The 
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Mr. Holmes' hometown paper that knows his 
record best, strongly supports his candidacy. The paper, writing while 
his candidacy was being considered, indicated that Holmes was a well 
qualified, mainstream nominee:

       What distinguishes Mr. Holmes is the rare blend of 
     qualities he brings to the law--intellect, scholarship, 
     conviction, and detachment. A reverence not just for the law 
     but for ideas, for the life of the mind. All of that would 
     shine through the clutter of argument that awaits any judge. 
     . . . He would not only bring distinction to the bench but 
     promise. . . . In choosing Leon Holmes, [the President] could 
     bequeath a promise of greatness.

  That is a pretty good editorial from the local Democrat Gazette.

[[Page S7538]]

  Considering the total record of Mr. Holmes, a record of distinction 
in academics, of excellence in practice, and of distinction in his 
community, it is not surprising that the American Bar Association gave 
Mr. Holmes their highest rating, a ``well-qualified'' rating. Almost 
everyone around here has called that the gold standard, but especially 
our colleagues on the other side of the Senate floor. If you get a 
``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, you are 
qualified. Yet we have had some who have misconstrued his writings and 
have indicated they will vote against him.
  I hope they will listen to what we have had to say and look at the 
real record. There is no way that anybody who really understands that 
record would vote against this man.
  My colleagues should know--and most of them will agree--that Mr. 
Holmes is a well-qualified nominee and will make a fine jurist. I urge 
the Senate to join me, as well as both Democratic home State Senators, 
Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, who strongly support Leon Holmes' 
nomination, to confirm this outstanding candidate for the Federal 
bench.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's side has 152 minutes remaining. 
The other side has 144 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from Arkansas, I 
am proud to come to the floor and join my colleague Senator Mark Pryor 
today to introduce Leon Holmes to my colleagues here in the Senate and 
express my support for his nomination.
  Mr. Holmes is a native of Hazen, AR, in Prairie County, which is not 
too far from my hometown of Helena. He is the fourth of seven children 
and the first in his family to go to college. He has been married to 
his wife Susan Holmes for 32 years, and he is the proud father of five 
children and has seven grandchildren.
  Most of us having been home not only working during the Fourth of 
July recess but hopefully spending some time with our families 
understand how important our families and our children and future 
generations are to all of us. I know Mr. Holmes has certainly expressed 
that to me.
  After high school, Leon graduated with special distinction from 
Arkansas State University in 1973. He continued his education by 
earning a law degree from the University of Arkansas where he graduated 
first in his class.
  Mr. Holmes later received a master's degree in political philosophy 
from Northern Illinois University and a doctorate in political science 
from Duke University where he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.
  Leon's professional career is equally impressive. In addition to 
being named a partner in the law firm of Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull, and 
Burrow in Little Rock, Mr. Holmes has held a variety of positions, 
including law clerk for Justice Frank Holt on the Arkansas Supreme 
Court, assistant professor at Augustana College in Rock Island, IL, and 
adjunct faculty member of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock 
School of Law.
  As an attorney in private practice, Leon has had a wide-ranging legal 
practice, representing large corporations, small businesses, and 
individual litigants, and although I am not a part of the legal 
community in my home State of Arkansas as a lawyer like my colleague 
Senator Pryor is, I have heard from a number of practicing lawyers, 
judges, and others throughout our State who have worked with Leon and 
have the utmost confidence in his ability to administer the rule of 
law.
  But Leon has not spent his whole life in the library or at a law 
firm. As you well know, Mr. President, that certainly is something that 
is important to me. You may be interested to know that in his youth, 
Leon actually chopped and picked cotton over in our part of the State 
in eastern Arkansas. He worked as a farm laborer in the fields of 
Prairie County and served as a carpenter's helper. While pursuing his 
education, he worked as a door-to-door salesman and as a newspaper 
carrier to help make ends meet.
  In short, during his academic and professional career, Leon has 
distinguished himself as a scholar and an accomplished lawyer. In the 
process, he has earned the trust, admiration, and respect of his 
friends and colleagues with whom he has lived and worked.
  As a farmer's daughter from eastern Arkansas, I believe the fact that 
Mr. Holmes knows the value of an honest day's work both as a lawyer and 
a laborer is a good indication that he has the life experience required 
to administer the law in a very fair and impartial manner, regardless 
of who the litigants are before him.

  If that were the only part of the record before us, the debate we are 
having today would be a very short one. As some of my colleagues have 
said or will say during the consideration of this nomination, Leon is 
also a devoutly religious man who has written articles and made 
statements that are a reflection of his faith, but they are also 
somewhat controversial. We all know that for many of us our faith is 
very important. It is important for us to have an opportunity to 
express our faith, to talk about it, to speak about it, to live it in a 
way that is very important to us and reflective of our own ministry.
  There is no doubt I have been troubled by some of the statements 
attributed to Mr. Holmes, particularly one regarding the role of a 
woman in a marital relationship. As a mother and a wife, I can assure 
you, I consider myself equal in every way to my husband. Our marriage 
is based on mutual love and respect, which sustains our union as a man 
and a wife.
  I think it is so important in this day and age as we talk about 
marriage and its importance to our family, to our children, to the 
stability of the fabric of this great country, that we understand 
marriage does not just happen; it has to be those two individuals who 
come together, a man and a woman, working equally as hard at making 
sure that union is strong and that it is working.
  However, I fully respect the right of Mr. Holmes to practice and 
express his religious beliefs freely, even those with which I may not 
agree, just as I expect others to respect my right to do the same.
  Mr. Holmes also made a comment 20-plus years ago about how women who 
were raped do not get pregnant, which I think most would agree was 
inappropriate and offensive. But Mr. Holmes has apologized for that 
comment. He has acknowledged it was wrong and said he regrets saying 
it. We have all said things we should not and wished we had not said in 
our lives and I, for one, accept his apology. I do believe it is very 
critical we understand the complications, the emotions, and everything 
else that are wrapped up in the circumstances when women find 
themselves in those circumstances of rape or incest or being abused. 
Again, I do accept Mr. Holmes' apology.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Leon Holmes 
to me apologizing for this remark and responding to the criticism of 
other statements be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              Quattlebaum, Grooms,


                                                Tull & Burrow,

                                  Little Rock, AR, April 11, 2003.
     Hon. Blanche Lincoln,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lincoln: Certain issues have surfaced about my 
     nomination since we met, and because they have arisen since 
     we met, you and I have not had the opportunity to discuss 
     them personally. Out of respect for you personally, and out 
     of respect for the important constitutional role of the 
     Senate in the appointment process for federal

[[Page S7539]]

     judges, I wanted to write to you this letter to address some 
     of these issues.
       In the 1980's I wrote letters to the editor and newspaper 
     columns regarding the abortion issue using strident and harsh 
     rhetoric. I am a good bit older now and, I hope more mature 
     than I was at that time. As the years passed, I came to 
     realize that one cannot convey a message about the dignity of 
     the human person, which is the message I intended to convey, 
     using that kind of rhetoric in public discussion. While I 
     cannot speak for those who raise these issues, my impression 
     is that my statements about the abortion issue that they 
     criticize are all more than fifteen years old.
       As I stated in response to written questions from Senator 
     Durbin, I am especially troubled by the sentence about rape 
     victims in a 1980 letter to the editor regarding the proposed 
     Human Life Amendment; and, as I said there, regardless of the 
     merits of the issue, the articulation of that sentence 
     reflects an insensitivity for which there is no excuse and 
     for which I apologize. I do not propose to defend that 
     sentence, and I would not expect you or anyone else to do so. 
     My impression is that, in fulfilling your responsibilities in 
     this matter, you have spoken with or heard from many 
     Arkansans, male and female, who know me well. I hope, and I 
     believe, that their comments have and will give your 
     assurance that this 23 year old sentence is not indicative of 
     how I have conducted myself in the past several years and not 
     indicative of how I would conduct myself as a judge.
       In 1987, when I was President of Arkansas Right to Life, 
     that organization was attacked in a guest column in a 
     newspaper on the ground that its members allegedly defined 
     life too narrowly and were, as I read the column, hypocrites. 
     That same column stated that abortion involves a taking of 
     human life. In response, I wrote that, if the author believed 
     that abortion takes a human life, he should start his own 
     pro-life organization but should not use our defects as a 
     reason not to act on his beliefs. In that context, I asked 
     rhetorical question, what if someone had advanced such a 
     basis as a reason not save lives during the holocaust? I did 
     not intend to say that supporters of abortion rights should 
     be equated with Nazis. I have never intended anything that I 
     said to give that impression, and I do not think my comments, 
     which now are criticized, were taken to mean that when they 
     were written. From 1983 through 1988, when I was active in 
     pro-life activity and was writing most of the columns that 
     are now criticized, I was an associate at a large law firm, 
     and I worked for and with many lawyers who are pro-choice. 
     Since then, most of my partners have been pro-choice. I have 
     had many cases with and against lawyers who are pro-choice. 
     No one raised this concern at that time nor at any time prior 
     to the past two weeks. I believe that no one raised this 
     concern because everyone who knows me recognizes that I did 
     not intend such a thing. The letters written on my behalf by 
     pro-choice colleagues are strong testimony of their 
     confidence in me.
       While I expected that my past activities relating to the 
     abortion issue would draw scrutiny, and properly so, I did 
     not expect that my religious beliefs would draw similar 
     scrutiny, but they have. I am aware that some concern has 
     been expressed about a 1997 column co-authored by my wife and 
     me for our local Catholic newspaper or historic teachings of 
     the Catholic Church. The Catholic faith is pervaded with the 
     view that the visible things symbolize aspects of the 
     spiritual realm. This pervasive element of the faith is 
     manifest in the teaching that the marital relationship 
     symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the Church. My 
     wife and I believe that this teaching ennobles and dignifies 
     marriage and both partners in it. We do not believe that this 
     teaching demeans either the husband or the wife but that it 
     elevates both. It involves a mutual self-giving and self-
     forgetting, a reciprocal gift of self. This teaching is not 
     inconsistent with the equality of all persons, male and 
     female, and, in fact, in that column we say, ``[a]ll of us, 
     male and female, are equally sons of God and therefore 
     brothers of one another.'' This aspect of my faith--the 
     teaching that male and female have equal dignity and are 
     equal in the sight of God--has been manifest, I believe, in 
     my dealings with my female colleagues in our firm and in the 
     profession as a whole. While I am not at all ashamed of my 
     faith, or any part of it, I do not believe that the historic 
     Catholic teaching that the martial relationship symbolizes 
     Christ and the Church is or has been relevant to my conduct 
     in my professional life, nor would it affect my conduct as a 
     judge, should I be fortunate enough to be confirmed.
       Another aspect of my faith is that God brings good out of 
     evil. I wrote about this belief, as taught by Booker T. 
     Washington, in the context of a 1981 article in a religious 
     magazine. Washington taught that God could and would bring 
     good out of evil. Washington, who was born in slavery, 
     recognized it as evil, not only in theory but as part of his 
     earliest experience. Yet, his faith was so great that he 
     believed that God could bring good from that evil; and his 
     love was so great that he hoped that those of his race would 
     become a beacon of God's love to their oppressors. My article 
     combines his view of providence--that God brings good out of 
     evil--with his view that we all are called to love one 
     another. This teaching can be criticized only if it is 
     misunderstood.
       Some of the criticisms directed at things I wrote years ago 
     are just; some of them are not. I hope that my legal career 
     as a whole, spanning the years 1982 through 2003, evidences 
     that I am now ready to assume the responsibility of a United 
     States District Court Judge. I certainly was not ready in 
     1980, nor for many years thereafter, and I do not claim that 
     I was. My impression is that my colleagues in the Arkansas 
     bar--those who know me well and who represent clients in 
     federal court--believe that my legal career as a whole 
     manifests a readiness to assume the responsibilities of a 
     district court judge, and I hope that you believe so as well.
       With best wishes and warmest regards, I am
           Very truly yours,
                                                   J. Leon Holmes.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. In making my decision to support Mr. Holmes' 
nomination, I have considered many factors. There is no question he has 
the necessary legal skills and intellect to perform the duties of the 
position. More importantly, I have been impressed with the overwhelming 
support Leon has received from his friends, coworkers, and colleagues 
in Arkansas' legal community who have firsthand knowledge of his 
temperament, his character, and abilities as a lawyer. I have received 
countless letters, e-mails, and phone calls from all over the State 
expressing strong support for Leon's nomination. Many of these contacts 
are from people I know personally and several, if not most, are from 
very active, self-described, very strong Democrats.
  Those from Arkansas who have contacted me and the Judiciary Committee 
in support of this nomination include a past president of the American 
Bar Association, a former president of the Arkansas Trial Lawyers 
Association, a founder of the Arkansas affiliate of the ACLU, sitting 
Federal judges who are familiar with Leon's work, female attorneys who 
have argued cases with and against Leon, and many others.
  One letter from a self-described liberal Democrat who is also 
decidedly pro-choice summed up how Mr. Holmes is viewed in Arkansas' 
legal community when he wrote that after litigating ``with and against 
Leon for a number of years'' he had so much faith and trust in him that 
he would ``shoot dice with him over the telephone.'' Now that might not 
sound too common to folks up here, but in Arkansas it is a pretty good 
saying, and it certainly indicates a great deal of trust on that 
gentleman's part of the gentleman with whom he was dealing, and that 
was Mr. Leon Holmes.
  In conclusion, I do not determine my support or opposition to a 
nominee based solely on whether we share the same philosophy, ideology, 
or beliefs. Fundamentally, I am interested in knowing a judicial 
nominee can fulfill his or her responsibility under the Constitution to 
apply the law fairly without political favor or personal bias.
  I am satisfied Mr. Leon Holmes has met that standard based on the 
strong support he has received from those who know him the best and his 
assurances to me when we met personally. He assured me personally he is 
willing and able to set aside his personal beliefs to fulfill his 
duties as a Federal district court judge.
  Senator Pryor and I are here to support Leon Holmes. He has done a 
good job in Arkansas.
  He is a good man, a good friend, and a well-trusted lawyer among his 
colleagues. We encourage our colleagues in the Senate to look at the 
evidence we have presented and certainly judge this man on the basis of 
all of these incredible character witnesses, as well as his own 
testimony, in being sure that we can all have the confidence that Mr. 
Holmes will, without a doubt, implement the law, the rule of law, 
according to the rule of law, and not based on his own personal views.
  I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, let me first congratulate both Senators 
from Arkansas for their eloquent statements and their strong defense of 
Mr. Holmes. It speaks volumes of the qualifications and credibility of 
this nominee that these two Senators would step forward and speak as 
straightforwardly as they have and to reflect the values of the people 
in Arkansas who know him best. This is a man who has strong support 
from across the ideological spectrum in Arkansas, again, from the 
people who know him.
  I have had the privilege of standing before the Senate in the last 3 
years to

[[Page S7540]]

speak on behalf of 20 nominees from Pennsylvania who we have moved 
through here and into confirmation. I have seen many of these men and 
women come under assault through this judicial process. It has become 
increasingly contentious, personal, and is reaching a point where we 
almost have a situation where people are now unwilling to step forward 
and enter into this arena of judicial nominations because of this 
attitude that has crept up in the Senate over the last few years.
  I have seen really good people, who obviously otherwise would not be 
nominated for the Federal bench, come under assault for things they 
have said years and years ago, things they may have done years and 
years ago. I have pored through FBI records, as many members of the 
Judiciary Committee have, and seen blemishes, indiscretions of youth 
that have disqualified people from this office that heretofore would 
never have disqualified some of them.
  This is a pretty tough place to put your name in nomination these 
days. One person who has gone through probably as much as anyone over 
the past year has been Leon Holmes. His nomination has been out there 
for well over a year. He is someone who has had a lot of challenges 
made about things he has said and positions he has held. He has stood 
firm in defense of statements that were defensible and apologized for 
those that were not. That sounds to me like a pretty balanced way of 
approaching things. When you believe you were right in saying what you 
were saying, you stand by the feelings you articulated, and when you 
believe you made a mistake and were in error, you have the courage to 
stand up and say you were wrong. I don't think we could ask for any 
more out of someone.

  In the case of Leon Holmes, specifically where he said he was wrong, 
as referred to by the Senator from Arkansas a minute ago, was his 
comments about rape and pregnancy. He was in error. He made a mistake. 
I would argue that he has paid dearly over the past year for that 
statement. However, that is not what he believes and he has not 
believed that for quite a long time. The statement was made over 20 
years ago.
  Again, I remind the Senate how we need to look at the whole person, 
not a statement made 20-plus years ago for which the person has 
subsequently apologized, not just to this body but has said over the 
years that that was a statement in error. We want to look at the whole 
person, as the Senators from Arkansas, Senator Hatch, our leader, has 
described, the whole person, with whom I had a chance to meet a few 
months ago, someone who is a very impressive man, a man who is 
obviously very gifted as a lawyer, a man who is a strong family person, 
believes in the centrality of the family, the importance of his role as 
a husband and father.
  He understands his role in the community. He is someone who gives to 
the community and is an active person in the community as well as in 
the bar, in his profession, and has earned the respect of people 
throughout his community for the tremendous effort he gives and the 
equanimity with which he deals with difficult situations.
  The one thing that struck me when meeting him was--everyone has 
visions of when you meet someone what they are going to look like and 
what they will sound like. He was just a very gentle, kind, 
knowledgeable, professional lawyer, someone with whom I would have felt 
comfortable representing me because I don't share necessarily all those 
qualities. He would be a nice complement to someone representing me in 
the courtroom. This was someone I thought: If I had to appear before a 
judge, I sort of would like to appear with someone who had these kinds 
of qualities and temperament. So he fits in very nicely with what has 
been described by the Senators from Arkansas, at least from my personal 
meeting.
  So what is the problem? You have the two home State Senators of the 
opposite party in support of him. You have the Arkansas Bar and all of 
his colleagues who have come out and been supportive. People who are 
liberal Democrats have said some of the most flattering things I have 
ever heard about people on the floor of the Senate. So what is the 
problem? Is it a statement he made 20-plus years ago? Do you think that 
could cause the defeat of a man who has a record and a distinguished 
career and service to his community and faithfulness to his family and 
a good father? Does that one statement 24 years ago disqualify him from 
being a judge?
  I don't think that is it. What else is out there? There are only two 
issues I have heard of that are out there. The second was an article he 
wrote, an article he wrote with his wife for his diocese, for his 
church, the Roman Catholic Church in Arkansas. It was an article about 
a particular passage in one of Paul's letters discussing marriage and 
the role of husbands and wives. He simply went through with his wife 
and described what you would see described in reading any text 
describing and explaining those verses from the Bible. You would see it 
described in any Vatican text, any text that is in line with the 
teaching of the Catholic Church that would use the same arguments and 
say the same things that Leon Holmes and his wife said in this article. 
What he gave was the orthodox Catholic interpretation of those sections 
of the Bible.
  It is what I have heard in many a Sunday sermon. When that section of 
the Bible has been read and the priest would get up and talk about it, 
he would give almost chapter and verse the explanation that Leon Holmes 
and his wife gave in that dissertation. So was Leon Holmes expressing 
his opinion? Yes. In some respects he was. But as a believing Catholic, 
he was expressing the opinion of the church. As a believing Catholic, 
he was merely reflecting the teachings that he has been taught over the 
years from the church.
  Now, if this were a writing by an individual who took this passage of 
Scripture and took it off in a different direction--something alien to 
the church--then you might be able to say you can criticize him for not 
being a faithful Catholic. You could say, look, this is a man who has 
his own ideas; he wants to reinterpret Scripture to mean something that 
is potentially degrading to men, or women, or both. But that is not 
what he did. What he did--and I didn't ask him this, but I suspect that 
he did what I would have done, which is, as a Catholic, if I am going 
to look at interpreting Scripture, I am going to look at what the 
church says about these writings in the Bible, because the Catholic 
Church has a very rich history of interpreting the Bible. So what I 
would do is go back and look and see what the church has said about 
this and how it interprets these passages and then reflect that in what 
I was going to write, because to me that is what the role of a Catholic 
is.
  Again, that is what the Catholic Church teaches; that is what I 
believe. That is what the Catholic Church teaches; that is what Leon 
Holmes believes.
  Now, what he is being criticized for is for holding these beliefs--
beliefs shared by a billion people. You can say that may be out of the 
mainstream. I don't know. But it is shared by a billion people. It is 
an interpretation that has been around for a couple thousand years. If 
you say, because you hold these beliefs that are central to the faith, 
that you are disqualified for writing an article for your church--not 
writing a political article, not writing a judicial opinion, not 
writing in a secular magazine, but writing an article about Scriptural 
interpretation for your church, that if you do that and it is not 
politically correct, it is not seen as being within the mainstream of 
political dialog today, you cannot be a Federal judge. I find that to 
be rather chilling.
  There was an article in the Washington Times. I have the quote:

       I will tell you, as a person with a Catholic background, 
     that these are troubling statements for him to make.

  This is regarding the statements I talked about on the role of women 
and men in marriage.

       Mr. Holmes' statements reflect a narrow view of Catholic 
     theology and do not embody contemporary standards that would 
     be followed by any Federal judge in any State.

  Think about that. Because of his Catholic faith, because he holds 
these beliefs that the Catholic Church teaches, he cannot be a Federal 
judge. Is that what freedom of religion means in our Constitution? Is 
that what the term ``free exercise of religion'' means in our 
Constitution--that we are going to eliminate anybody who is nominated 
for a Federal judgeship who actually

[[Page S7541]]

exercises their religious beliefs and states them for his own church, 
and that now disqualifies them? Let's start to take sandpaper out and 
scratch out ``in God we trust'' over there; let's start sanitizing this 
place of any faith that is not politically correct or of contemporary 
standards. Isn't that what faith is about, contemporary standards? It 
changes. If your faith doesn't change, you are out. If your faith 
doesn't adapt to the contemporary mores of today in America, you are 
disqualified.
  Mr. President, that is what is being said here today. If you hold a 
traditional religion and stand by it, live it, practice it, espouse it, 
you need not apply, because your religion hasn't adapted to 
contemporary standards and, therefore, you cannot be a judge.

  Imagine what our Founders would be doing right now. Imagine. Free 
exercise of religion. What does ``exercise'' mean? Does it mean sitting 
here like this? Is that exercise? How about going to church on Sunday, 
sitting in the pew, or staying at home and reading your Bible; is that 
exercise? We all know what exercise means. It means to get out and do 
it. They used an active word here. What was Leon Holmes doing? He was 
simply exercising his fundamental constitutional right to express his 
beliefs--not as a member of the legal community, not as a citizen of 
the State of Arkansas, but as a faithful Catholic to other Catholics in 
his Catholic community. And for that we say he cannot be a judge?
  Some in this body today will vote against this man because he had the 
audacity to practice his faith. So we now understand the religious 
litmus test. If you belong to a religion that has not ``adapted,'' has 
not stayed with the times, if you are one of these old-fashioned 
religions who believes the truth was actually laid out and the truth 
doesn't change, and we actually have people who believe--incredibly, to 
some in this body--that God laid out certain truths, communicated them, 
and they have not changed because God has not changed. But if you feel 
that way, you are out. You are out because the narrow views that do not 
embody contemporary standards--God's ``narrow view''--at least some 
believe that, and I argue they have the right to believe in these 
``narrow views'' that have been around for a couple thousand years, but 
they are narrow views. That is right, the path is narrow. Maybe now it 
is too narrow to get you through the Senate. Imagine. Imagine that here 
in a country that professes, as one of its highest ideals, the freedom 
of religion, in a country that, as we try to build a republic and a 
democracy in Iraq, that we had letters signed by people on both sides 
of the aisle in large numbers encouraging religious pluralism in Iraq, 
that we now say religious pluralism doesn't necessarily apply here 
anymore in the Senate.
  This is a dangerous moment for us in the Senate. It is a dangerous 
moment, where a man may not become a judge simply because he holds 
religious tenets that have not kept up with contemporary mores.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 109\1/2\ minutes on the majority 
side, and 110 minutes on the minority side, with time expiring for the 
noon recess.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I conclude by saying this is an important vote. This 
is not just a vote to confirm a district judge in Arkansas. I know that 
does not sound like a big deal to people who are hearing my voice. It 
is a district court, a small court, Arkansas. It is not Washington, DC, 
or New York City. It is not a glamourous place to serve, just like 
western Pennsylvania and central Pennsylvania are not glamourous places 
to serve. But we do justice in these communities because we get good 
people who are from the community, who are good, decent, moral people, 
who live their faith as they are allowed to do by our Constitution.
  If we send a message out today that living your faith, espousing your 
faith, exercising your religion is now cause for defeat on the floor of 
the Senate, if we send the word out today that unless your religious 
beliefs are contemporary or have been contemporized, unless you have 
adapted the popular culture into your faith, you are no longer suitable 
to hold that office, then I think we make a dangerous statement, not 
just to people in this country, but to the world.
  This is a big vote. Anybody who thinks this is not a big vote, let me 
assure them, I will remind people here for quite some time how big a 
vote this was. This is a vote about religious freedom. This is a vote 
about the free exercise of religion, and this is a vote about 
tolerance.
  We hear so much from the other side about tolerance--tolerance, 
tolerance, tolerance. Where is the tolerance of people who want to 
believe what has been taught for 2,000 years as truth. You have a right 
to disagree with that teaching. You have a right to adapt your 
contemporary mores to that teaching. But where is the tolerance of 
people who choose to keep that faith?
  We will have a vote on Judge Leon Holmes, but it will be a bigger 
vote than just on that judge. It will be a vote on the soul of the free 
exercise of religion clause and of tolerance to religion.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________