[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 50 (Friday, April 22, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4144-S4148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         RELIGIOUS McCARTHYISM

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah for his usual 
courtesy. After all, he has in his lineage a Senator. His father, as 
does he, served as a Senator. He knows, as did his father, the normal 
courtesies that make this place run so much more smoothly. So I 
appreciate it.
  I spoke at the beginning of the week about the alarming rise of 
religious McCarthyism. I hoped that by drawing attention to this 
situation the majority leader and other Republican leaders would speak 
out against any campaign that improperly characterizes Senators as 
being ``against people of faith.'' That demonizing of Senators and 
their motives has no place in this country, and absolutely none in 
debate among Senators. It is a slur. It is a smear. It is untrue. Every 
Senator, Republican and Democratic, knows it. The Republicans should 
denounce a campaign based on bigotry and demagoguery.
  With rare exceptions, they have refused to do so. And even the 
majority leader will apparently act in support of such a campaign this 
weekend.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will yield for one, but I would prefer--
  Mr. BENNETT. It is only one.
  I wonder if the Senator heard my denunciation of that kind of thing 
when I gave my speech?
  Mr. LEAHY. I was about to refer to that. So I now do refer to the 
fact that the Senator from Utah said people should not be demonized as 
being against people of faith if they oppose somebody.
  I appreciate it. It is the first time I have heard that said on his 
side of the aisle. Unfortunately, many others have been saying just the 
opposite. That is why I wish the majority leader would not act in 
support of such a campaign this weekend.
  The upcoming telecast to incite congregants with the false charge 
that those who oppose judicial activists are anti-Christian or anti-
faith is wrong. It is divisive and it is destructive. That Republican 
officials will lend support to that effort through their silence, 
rather than denounce it, is disturbing and disappointing. I appreciate 
the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, finally speaking out, or having a 
voice finally speak out from that side of the aisle denouncing it.
  To divide the American people along religious lines is wrong. It has 
always been wrong. Smearing political opponents as anti-faith is 
despicable. Apparently, some will stop at nothing and stoop to any 
level. No scurrilous charge is too coarse; no baseless accusation is 
too outlandish. When a few of us had the honor of attending the funeral 
of Pope John Paul II in Rome as part of the official Senate delegation 
recently, guess what happened. Democrats, but not Republicans, were 
castigated for not being present in Washington. There were, of course, 
seven Republicans and seven Democrats. The same people who make these 
charges castigated the Democrats for being in Rome.
  When we explain in public session the basis on which we have decided 
to oppose a nomination of somebody we believe does not merit a lifetime 
appointment to the Federal bench, the judicial activism we detail is 
ignored and we are smeared as anti this or anti that. So I thank the 
many religious leaders who have come forward this week to uphold 
America's great traditions of respecting faith, honoring faith, and 
ensuring that the constitutional prohibition against any religious test 
for public office be strictly observed.
  Christian leaders from a variety of denominations, Muslim leaders, 
and Jewish leaders, have joined to reject these disgraceful efforts of 
a few partisans injecting religion into the discussion of judicial 
nominations. They have publicly denounced the efforts of the religious 
demagogues making slanderous charges in a win-at-all-costs bid to rile 
the passions and to further divide Americans one from another. I am 
grateful for the voices of these religious leaders. We need less 
division, not more. We need to work together more, not less. We need to 
unite, not divide.
  I share the disappointment of the more than 400 religious leaders who 
have written to Majority Leader Frist urging him to ``repudiate those 
who misuse religion for political purposes and who impugn the faith of 
any who disagree with them.''
  All of us need to repudiate the message of divisiveness and religious 
manipulation.
  The Reverend Dr. Weldon Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, 
recently wrote to Senator Frist to warn against transforming ``religion 
by baptizing it as a disciple of partisan politics.''
  Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, 
reminded Senator Frist:

       Religious liberty has flourished in our nation precisely 
     because Americans have been steadfast in their commitment 
     against sowing religious discord as a means to achieve 
     political success.

  My Irish and my Italian grandparents, like so many others, came to 
this country seeking a better life for their families, not just a 
better job but the freedoms that have always been so much a part of 
America's great attraction. But it has taken time and pain for us to 
realize as a nation that dream of religious freedom and tolerance.
  I remember my parents talking about days I thought were long past, 
when Irish Catholics were greeted with signs that told them they need 
not apply for jobs. Italian Catholics were told that they and their 
religious ways were not wanted. That is what my grandparents 
experienced and my parents saw. The smears we are seeing today mock the 
pain and injustice that so many American Catholics endured. We have 
come too far to turn back to the darkness of intolerance.
  Partisans these days are seeking to rekindle the flames of bigotry 
for

[[Page S4145]]

short-term political gain. That is more than just wrong, it is 
despicable. To raise the specter of religious intolerance in order to 
try to turn our strong, independent Federal courts into an arm of a 
political party is an outrage. It is shocking that some would 
cavalierly destroy the independence of our Federal courts and with it 
the best protection Americans have of our freedoms.
  This tactical shift follows on the rhetorical attacks on judges over 
the past few weeks in which Federal judges were likened to the KKK and 
``the focus of evil.'' At an event attended by Members of Congress, we 
have heard calls for Stalinist solutions to problems; the Stalinist 
solution being, of course, if you have somebody you don't agree with, 
you kill them. Stalin said: No man, no problem.
  We have heard the calls for mass impeachments. Last week the Senate 
Democratic leadership called upon the President and the Republican 
leadership of Congress to denounce the inflammatory statements against 
judges. This week I renew my call to all Senators--and in particular to 
my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans--to denounce 
the religious McCarthyism that is again pervading this debate. I am sad 
to see so many Senators stay silent when they should disavow these 
abuses. Why Republicans do not heed the clarion call that our former 
colleague, Senator John Danforth, an Episcopalian priest, sounded a few 
weeks ago, I don't know.
  The demagoguery and divisive politics being so cynically used by 
supporters of the President's most extreme judicial nominees needs to 
stop. These smears are lies and, like all lies, depend on the silence 
of others to live and to gain root. It is time for the silence to end. 
The Bush administration has to accept responsibility for the smear 
campaign. They have to end it. This kind of religious smear campaign 
doesn't just hurt Democrats, it hurts the whole country. It hurts 
Christians and it hurts non-Christians. It hurts all of us because the 
Constitution requires judges to apply the law, not their personal 
views. Remember that all of us, no matter what our faith--and I am 
proud of mine--are able to practice our religion as we choose or not to 
practice a religion. The beauty of the first amendment is we can 
practice any religion we wish or none if we wish. It is a fundamental 
guarantee of our Constitution. The Constitution's prohibition against a 
religious test in Article VI is consistent with that fundamental 
freedom.

  All Americans should understand the Constitution is there to protect 
all of us. It is the protection of the Constitution that has allowed 
this country to evolve into a tolerant Nation. It was not always a 
tolerant Nation; it has evolved into one. But the Constitution has 
protected that evolution.
  Those who would try to drag us back into religious intolerance for 
short-term political gains subvert the Constitution and damage the 
country. There are those who say that we are against people of faith if 
we have opposed a handful of the President's nominees. By their false 
logic, the 205 judicial nominees nominated by President Bush whom 
Democratic Senators have helped to confirm would seem not to be people 
of faith, if that is our litmus test. Of course, that is as false and 
ridiculous on its face as are the slurs being insinuated against those 
who have opposed the few other nominees who have not been confirmed.
  Those who hurl these false charges never mention that the same 
Senators they are slandering have supported hundreds of nominees who 
are people of faith. They never hesitate to stoke the flames of bigotry 
and to encourage their supporters to continue the smear in cyberspace 
or the pages of the newspapers or through direct mail or radio ads. 
Maybe this slander is the only thing that tests well in their political 
polls so that even though untrue, it is the one thing they can agree 
upon. Sort of the equivalent of the weapons of mass destruction, the 
justification for attacking Iraq: it turned out it wasn't true, but it 
was certainly convenient.
  Not only must this bogus religious test end, but Senators should 
denounce the launching of the so-called nuclear option, the 
Republicans' precedent-shattering proposal to destroy the Senate in one 
stroke while shifting more power over the Senate to the White House, to 
destroy the kind of checks and balances the Senate has historically 
had.
  I would like to keep the Senate safe and secure and in a ``nuclear-
free'' zone. The partisan power play Senate Republicans are now likely 
to employ will undermine the checks and balances established by the 
Founders in the Constitution. One of the beauties of this country is we 
have always had checks and balances. That is how the most powerful 
Nation on Earth remains a democracy, and it does not have the 
temptation to become a dictatorship, something that none of us, 
Republicans or Democrats, would want.
  If you remove the checks and balances so that you can nominate judges 
who will be basically an arm of one element of the Republican Party, 
then you have taken a giant leap toward an unfettered executive 
controlling all three branches of the Federal Government--a Republican-
controlled House, Republican-controlled Senate, the Presidency, and now 
the Federal judiciary, the one part that should be above politics.
  It will not only demean the Senate--a Senate I have been proud to 
serve in for 31 years--but it will destroy the comity on which it 
depends. It also will undermine the strong independent Federal 
judiciary that has protected the rights and liberties of all Americans 
against the overreaching of the political branches, whether the branch 
is controlled by Democrats or by Republicans.
  Our Senate Parliamentarian, who steps away from politics and simply 
tells us what the rules are, and the Congressional Research Service, 
the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have both said the so-
called nuclear option would violate Senate precedent. I would ask my 
friends on the Republican side, do you really want to blatantly break 
the rules just for some short-term political gain? Do you really want 
to turn the Senate, this unique Chamber, into a place where the 
parliamentary equivalent of brute force is what prevails?
  The recently constituted Iraqi National Assembly was elected in 
January. In April it acted pursuant to its governing law to select a 
presidency council by the required vote of two-thirds of the Assembly. 
It required two-thirds, a supermajority. That same governing law says 
it can only be amended by a three-quarters vote of the National 
Assembly. The use of the nuclear option in the Senate would be akin to 
the Iraqis in the majority political party of the Assembly saying they 
have decided to change the law to allow them to pick only members of 
their party for the government, and to do so by a simple majority vote.
  That is certainly different than what our own President has praised 
it for in requiring that supermajority. They might feel justified in 
acting contrary to law because the Kurds and the Sunni were driving a 
hard bargain and because governing through consensus is not as easy as 
ruling unilaterally. Governing by consensus is not supposed to be. That 
is why our system of government is the world's example.
  If Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds can cooperate in their new 
government to make democratic decisions, I would think it would be a 
lot easier for Republicans and Democrats to do so in the Senate. If the 
Iraqi law and Assembly can protect minority rights and participation, 
so can the rules in the Senate. That has been the defining 
characteristic of the Senate. It is one of the principal ways in which 
it was designed to be so distinct from the House of Representatives.
  This week, the Senate debated an emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill to fund the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The justification for these billions of dollars being spent every 
single week--billions of dollars in American taxpayers' money--is that 
we are seeking to establish democracies.
  How ironic that at the same time we are undertaking these efforts at 
great cost to so many American families, some are seeking to undermine 
the protection of minority rights and the checks and balances 
represented by the Senate through our own history.
  This week the Secretary of State said in Moscow that ``the 
centralization of the state power in the presidency at the expense of 
countervailing institutions like the Duma or an independent

[[Page S4146]]

judiciary is clearly very wrong.'' Just as those developments undercut 
democracy in Russia, so, too, our American democracy is undercut by the 
concentration of power in the Executive, removing checks and balances 
and undermining the independence of the Federal judiciary. It is ironic 
given that the President and Secretary of State speak so eloquently 
about the fundamental requirements of a democratic society--and I 
applaud them for doing that. They do it when they meet with President 
Putin of Russia. At the same time, the Bush administration and Senate 
Republicans are intent to employ the nuclear option to consolidate 
power in this Presidency in this country.
  The President has, in his own words, acknowledged that democracy 
relies on the sharing of power. I publicly applauded his inaugural 
speech when he talked about this issue. He acknowledged that democracy 
relies on the sharing of power, on checks and balances, on the 
independent court system, the protection of minority rights, and on 
safeguarding human rights and dignity. But the so-called nuclear option 
is in direct contradiction to maintaining those values and those 
components of our democracy.
  Just as Abu Ghraib and other abuses make it more difficult for our 
country effectively to condemn torture and abuse when we speak to the 
rest of the world, the nuclear option used as a partisan effort to 
consolidate power in a single political party and institution would 
make all the lectures on democracy we give to leaders of other 
countries ring hollow.
  I spoke to a group of Russian Parliamentarians--if I might tell a 
short story--who came to see me shortly after the Soviet Union 
collapsed. They wanted to talk about our Federal judiciary. Like other 
representatives I heard in other emerging democracies, they asked: ``Is 
it true that the U.S. Government might be a party in a lawsuit, but 
then the Government could lose?''
  I said: Absolutely right.
  They said: You mean people would dare to sue the Government?
  I said: It happens all the time. We have an independent judiciary. 
Yes, they could.
  They said: Well, if the Government actually lost, don't you fire the 
judge?
  I said: No, they are an independent judiciary.
  I have argued cases on behalf of the Government where it might have 
been nice to fire the judge, but that is not the way we do things. It 
amazes people in other parts of the world. They are amazed that people 
have disagreed with their Government and could actually go to court, 
bring a challenge, and seek redress, even if it meant the Government 
would have to lose to get that redress.
  Chief Justice Rehnquist is right to refer to our independent 
judiciary as the crown jewel of our democracy. It is more than a crown 
jewel, it is a dazzling jewel, a light to the rest of the world, 
especially those parts of the world that want to become democratic 
nations.
  Judicial fairness and independence is also essential if we are to 
maintain our freedoms. I would say to the majority leader of the other 
body, Mr. DeLay, and others, stop slamming the Federal judiciary. We 
don't have to agree with every one of their opinions. And we don't on 
either side. Let us respect their independence.
  When the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Presidential election in 
2000, I thought that the 5-to-4 majority--a very close majority, a one-
vote majority--engaged in an incredible and overreaching act of 
judicial activism. But I went on the floor of the body and before the 
television cameras and I called for Americans to respect the opinion of 
the Court, even though I disagreed with it.
  On the Judiciary Committee at the time, I attended the argument of 
Bush v. Gore, side by side with my Republican counterpart. We wanted to 
show the country that we had to get along and work together. Democrats 
didn't ask to impeach Justice Scalia when we wholeheartedly disagreed 
with his action. Instead we took to the floor of this body and the 
other body and to the airwaves and said the Supreme Court has spoken. 
We must uphold the decision of the Court.
  Part of upholding the Constitution is upholding the independence of 
the third branch of Government. One political party or the other will 
control the Presidency, as they have for over 200 years. One party or 
the other will control Congress.
  In my 30 years here, I have been in the majority several times and in 
the minority several times. These things go back and forth. No 
political party should control the judiciary. It has to be independent 
of all political parties. Think of it, that was the genius of the 
Founders of this country: one branch of Government, totally independent 
of the other, independent of political parties. That genius has 
protected our liberties and rights for well over 200 years. It is a 
genius of this country that will continue to protect us, unless we 
allow some to destroy it for short-term political gain. It would be a 
terrible diminution of our rights if we were to remove the independence 
of our Federal judiciary. We are liable to do something that no army 
that marched against us have ever been able to do to this most 
wonderful of democracies. If you take away the independence of our 
Federal judiciary, then our whole Constitutional fabric unravels. And 
that bright promise that brought my ancestors here from Italy and 
Ireland would be diminished--the bright promise that I hope continues 
for my children and grandchildren.
  Mr. President, I have spoken long and I appreciate the courtesy of my 
colleague from Utah.
  I close by asking unanimous consent that copies of letters sent by 
hundreds of religious leaders to Senator Frist, the letter from the 
Interfaith Alliance to Senator Frist, the statement by the National 
Council of Churches, the letter from the Anti-Defamation League to 
Senator Frist, and a statement from Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of 
the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                   April 21, 2005.

    American Religious Leaders and Supporters Opposed to ``Justice 
                    Sunday's'' Manipulation of Faith

     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: We write as religious leaders who 
     cherish America's distinctive tradition of religious respect, 
     tolerance, and pluralism.
       We write as members of religious traditions that revere 
     truth and are guided by prophetic calls to seek justice.
       We are gravely disappointed that you have lent support to 
     those who are trying to create confusion and sow division 
     with false charges of religious discrimination and 
     persecution. Good people can and do differ on policy 
     questions like the filibuster. We emphatically reject claims 
     that those who seek to uphold the country's traditions of 
     checks and balances are forcing Christians to choose between 
     their faith and public service.
       It is simply not truthful to assert that supporting the 
     filibuster amounts to an attack on people of faith. Most, 
     perhaps all, of the 95% of the Bush nominees who have been 
     approved, have been people of faith. They enjoyed support 
     from both sides of the aisle.
       As Senate Majority Leader, you have a responsibility to 
     defend your colleagues on both sides of the aisle, public 
     servants whom you know to be deeply religious people, from 
     shameful and divisive accusations that they are attacking 
     people of faith. You have a responsibility to defend the 
     Nation from efforts utilizing deception and fear-mongering to 
     manipulate Americans of faith. And, perhaps most importantly, 
     as one of our Nation's highest elected officials, you have a 
     responsibility to repudiate those who misuse religion for 
     political purposes and who impugn the faith of any who 
     disagree with them.
       Your participation in the ``Justice Sunday'' event gives 
     your personal stamp of approval and legitimizes an event 
     built on inflammatory falsehoods. We urge you either to 
     withdraw your participation in this event or, if you 
     participate, to use that opportunity to repudiate the message 
     of divisiveness and religious manipulation that is at the 
     core of the gathering.
           Sincerely,
       Signed by 406 religious leaders.
                                  ____

                                                   April 17, 2005.
     Hon. William Frist,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: As President of The Interfaith 
     Alliance, a national, grassroots organization with 150,000 
     members coming from over 75 different faith traditions, I 
     write to you again about your interest in introducing to the 
     United States Senate your so-called ``nuclear option.'' 
     However, the focus of this open letter to you is the 
     association being made between a person's political position 
     on the nuclear option and the

[[Page S4147]]

     legitimacy of that person's religion. Though my personal 
     language to you does not reflect the precise manner in which 
     each of our 150,000 members would speak to you, the crucial 
     concern in my message to you represents a primal interest and 
     resonates with the mindset of these diverse individuals in 
     this inter-religious movement.
       Senator Frist, I suppose it was bound to happen. Leaders of 
     the religious right and politicians pushing a partisan agenda 
     in the name of religion have so intermingled politics and 
     religion that, now, even you, the leader of the United States 
     Senate, appear unable to discern the difference between 
     authentic faith and partisan politics. I can think of no 
     other reason that you would address a group of people and 
     even offer encouragement to people who have announced that 
     opposition to the elimination of the filibuster signals 
     antipathy toward religious faith, thus fostering a 
     redefinition of religion that is blasphemy and a redefinition 
     of democracy that is scary.
       Politically-based judgments about faith are inappropriate 
     at best, but, at worst, they raise suspicions about the 
     motivations of those who make them. Do such politically-
     motivated judgments about religion come from people--
     political leaders or spiritual leaders--attempting to 
     manipulate religion to advance their personal brand of 
     politics? Regardless of the reason for the out-of-bounds 
     judgment, the judgment does not work. Oh, to be sure, it may 
     gain a person or a group an edge in political advantage, but 
     it fails as a valid criterion for evaluating religion. A 
     particular political posture never will be the standard by 
     which to measure the authenticity of a religious conviction! 
     Even the suggestion that a person's support or opposition to 
     religious faith can be determined by that person's support or 
     opposition to a political initiative called ``the nuclear 
     option'' is derogatory of religion and an insult to 
     democracy. I would think that you would want to disassociate 
     yourself from such thought.
       Though I personally disagree with your enthusiasm for 
     eradicating the historic practice of the filibuster, viewing 
     your efforts as a broadside to a democracy that values the 
     rights of the minority whether in the Senate or in society 
     as a whole, I never would pass judgment on the integrity 
     of your religious faith because of your commitment to that 
     political strategy.
       Senator Frist, I grew up in the state that you represent. 
     In a fundamentalist Baptist church in West Tennessee, I was 
     taught the value of religious liberty--its value for 
     Christianity and its value for government. The people in that 
     congregation knew the sad history of a denial of rights to 
     religious minorities prior to the passage of the First 
     Amendment to the Constitution. With gratitude to God for that 
     invaluable education, my conviction about the dangers of 
     entangling religion and government (not faith and politics) 
     has intensified across the years. Please understand that many 
     of us are scared to death that we see a precious 
     constitutional principle being dismantled in order for a few 
     religious people who claim to speak for all religious people 
     to have their religious views imposed on the entire 
     population of the nation through the power of the United 
     States government.
       With a religious conscience as enflamed as the conscience 
     of anybody in the religious right, I oppose the election of 
     judges who will, in the name of religion, make decisions that 
     politicize religion and blunt the vitality as well as 
     compromise the integrity of the rich religious community in 
     this nation. Must my religious conviction be attacked as 
     ``anti-faith'' simply because I do not agree with you when 
     you attempt to destroy a democratic process that has been 
     tried and true? If I feel that way as a person who is a 
     member of your faith tradition, you only can imagine what 
     people from other religious traditions and people within no 
     religious tradition are feeling about such tactics and the 
     implicit, if not explicit, endorsement of those tactics by 
     you and other political leaders.
       For you to use your prestigious Senate position to 
     encourage ferocious attacks on the judiciary launched by the 
     people to whom you plan to speak next Sunday and for you to 
     condone their framing of partisan political posturing as an 
     act of faith so that all who are opposed to their theocratic 
     aggression are dubbed anti-religion are insults to the 
     Senate, a blow to democracy, and a cause for great anxiety in 
     the broader community committed to the historic values of 
     democracy.
       All of us should be clear in understanding that the most 
     anti-faith initiatives in our nation right now are those that 
     seek to transform religion by baptizing it as a disciple of 
     partisan politics. A call for respect for balancing the three 
     branches of government and for respecting minority voices in 
     Congress even as in society is not a religious act, but it is 
     a pervasively patriotic act on the part of people who feel 
     like a few are trying to steal the nation from the many in 
     the same way that they have tried to hijack religion and 
     claim that only their voices represent people of faith.
       Members of The Interfaith Alliance like me personally love 
     this nation too much and appreciate the role of religion in 
     the nation too much to allow a destructive entanglement of 
     religion and politics to go without challenge. I urge you 
     to reconsider your commitment to speak to a group on 
     Sunday evening that seems to love the nation only when the 
     leaders of the nation favor their particular religion and 
     their preferences in politics. If you proceed with the 
     speech, however, I urge you to make clear that neither 
     your politics nor their politics, whether those two are 
     the same or different, represent a religious position. 
     Even though you will be speaking to people gathered in a 
     church, we all know that you are doing politics and 
     claiming a divine blessing depicted as exclusive to your 
     position. Such an act has no place in a house of worship 
     or, for that matter, in the repertoire or rhetoric of a 
     statesman in this great, diverse nation.
           Sincerely,
                                         Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,
       President, The Interfaith Alliance Pastor of Preaching and 
           Worship, Northminster Baptist Church, Monroe, Louisiana
     Member of the Council of 100 Leaders, World Economic Forum.
                                  ____


                     Disagreeing Without Demonizing

       A partisan political campaign to change the Senate 
     filibuster rules has taken a detour through church-state 
     territory, and NCC General Secretary Bob Edgar has challenged 
     the tactics as ``dangerous and divisive'' to the nation's 
     religious and public life. In a statement issued Tuesday, 
     Edgar says:
       ``We are surprised and grieved by a campaign launched this 
     week by Family Research Council and Senate Majority Leader 
     Bill Frist, who said that those who disagree with them on 
     President Bush's judicial nominees are `against people of 
     faith.'
       ``This campaign, which they are calling `Justice Sunday,' 
     should properly be called `Just-Us' Sunday. Their attempt to 
     impose on the entire country a narrow, exclusivist, private 
     view of truth is a dangerous, divisive tactic. It serves to 
     further polarize our nation, and it disenfranchises and 
     demonizes good people of faith who hold political beliefs 
     that differ from theirs.
       ``To brand any group of American citizens as `anti-
     Christian' simply because they differ on political issues 
     runs counter to the values of both faith and democracy. It is 
     especially disheartening when that accusation is aimed at 
     fellow Christians. The National Council of Churches 
     encompasses more than 45 million believers across a broad 
     spectrum of theology and politics who work together on issues 
     important to our society. If they disagree with Senator 
     Frist's political positions, are these 45 million Christians 
     now considered `anti-Christian'?
       ``In the spirit of 1 Timothy 6:3-5, we urge Senator Frist 
     and the Family Research Council to reconsider their plan. We 
     will be praying for the Lord to minister to them and change 
     their hearts so that they will not continue to take our 
     nation down this destructive path.''
                                  ____

                                                   April 15, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Frist
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Frist: We are deeply troubled by reports that 
     you will be participating in the upcoming telecast ``Justice 
     Sunday,'' scheduled for April 24, and we strongly urge you to 
     reconsider lending support to that program. The heated debate 
     regarding the status of the filibuster in the United States 
     Senate is a quintessentially political contest, not a 
     religious struggle. Nor should it be portrayed as such. 
     Whatever one's views may be on this or any other issue, 
     playing the ``religious'' card is as unacceptable as playing 
     the ``race'' card.
       The proposal to change the Senate's procedural rules draws 
     both support and opposition from people of all faiths, as 
     well as from citizens who do not ascribe to religious 
     beliefs. ``Justice Sunday's'' message--that the filibuster is 
     being used as a weapon in the judicial confirmation process 
     to discriminate against ``people of faith''--is deeply flawed 
     and a dangerous affront to fundamental principles of American 
     democracy.
       Religious liberty has flourished in our nation precisely 
     because Americans have been steadfast in their commitment 
     against sowing religious discord as means to achieve 
     political success. History shows that doing otherwise 
     promotes destructive religious competition, discrimination, 
     and even persecution. Responsible leaders must avoid taking 
     this country down that road.
           Sincerely,
                                                Abraham H. Foxman,
     National Director.
                                  ____


  [From the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, April 15, 2005]

 Reform Jewish Movement Calls on Senator Frist to Repudiate Claim That 
    Judicial Nominees Are Victims of a ``Filibuster Against Faith''

       Washington--In response to Senate Majority Leader Bill 
     Frist's plan to join a telecast whose organizing theme is 
     that those who oppose some of President Bush's judicial 
     nominees are engaged in an assault on ``people of faith,'' 
     Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action 
     Center of Reform Judaism, issued the following statement:
       The news that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to 
     join a telecast whose organizing theme is that those who 
     oppose some of President Bush's judicial nominees are engaged 
     in an assault on ``people of faith'' is more than troubling; 
     it is disingenuous, dangerous, and demagogic. We call on him 
     to reconsider his decision to appear on the telecast and to 
     forcefully disassociate himself from this outrageous claim.

[[Page S4148]]

       Senator Frist must not give legitimacy to those who claim 
     they hold a monopoly on faith. They do not. They assert, in 
     the words of Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research 
     Council and organizer of the telecast, that there is a vast 
     conspiracy by the courts ``to rob us of our Christian 
     heritage and our religious freedoms.'' There is no such 
     conspiracy. They have been unable to ram through the most 
     extreme of the President's nominees, and now they are 
     spinning new claims out of thin air.
       Alas, this is not an isolated incident. This past week, the 
     Christian Coalition convened a conference in Washington 
     entitled, ``Confronting the Judicial War on Faith.'' Their 
     special guest speaker was the House Majority Leader, Rep. Tom 
     DeLay. When leaders of the Republican Party lend their 
     imprimatur to such outrageous claims, including, at the 
     conference, calls for mass impeachment of Federal Judges, it 
     should be of deep concern to all who care about religion. It 
     should also be of concern to President Bush whose silence, in 
     the wake of the claims made both at the conference in 
     Washington and in the upcoming telecast, is alarming.
       The telecast is scheduled to take place on the second night 
     of the Passover holiday, when Jews around the world gather 
     together to celebrate our religious freedom. It was in part 
     for exactly such freedom that we fled Egypt. It was in part 
     for exactly such freedom that so many of us came to this 
     great land. And it is in very large part because of exactly 
     such freedom that we and our neighbors here have built a 
     nation uniquely welcoming to people of faith--of all faiths. 
     We believe Senator Frist knows these things as well. His 
     association with the scheduled telecast is, in a word, 
     shameful. We call upon him to disassociate himself from the 
     claim that the Senate is participating in a filibuster 
     against faith, and to withdraw his participation from April 
     24th event.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________