[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 25, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S35-S37]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            Lobbying Reform

  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his 
efforts to move the issue of lobbying reform forward. We had a good 
meeting yesterday amongst other Members, and Senator Lieberman and I 
and others also, as the majority leader knows, have introduced 
legislation. There has been input made by other Members, and I know the 
majority leader joins me in saying we need to put together a bipartisan 
coalition to address this issue as quickly as possible. We need to sit 
down with Members of both sides of the aisle in whatever format the 
majority leader and the Democratic leader decide so we can get to work 
right away and get legislation done to curb the lobbying excesses that 
have been brought to light that need to be fixed.
  At another time I would like to talk with the majority leader about 
the issue of earmarks, but I thank the majority leader for urging rapid 
action on this issue. We do have a basis for negotiation, and I hope we 
will be able to immediately sit down with Members from the other side 
of the aisle, come to conclusions and agreements--since it is pretty 
obvious the majority of the fixes that need to be made--and move 
forward. I thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader for 
urging rapid action in addressing this issue which is causing us, our 
image and our reputation to be hurt very badly in the eyes of the 
American people.
  I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, just a very short comment. I have been in 
discussion with the Democratic leader on this issue as well. As our 
distinguished colleague from Arizona has just said, we on the 
Republican side have put together a working group in terms of how to 
address this very important issue. It has to be done in a bipartisan 
way. America is looking at this body to respond to abuses that we have 
all seen in our Government today. I think we all need to be committed 
to address this in a bipartisan way.
  We have a great structure to build upon in the legislation that has 
been introduced in a bipartisan way with Senators McCain and Lieberman. 
I look forward to working with both sides of the aisle in developing an 
appropriate response over the coming days.
  Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the time from 10 a.m. 
until 8 p.m. tonight be divided, with the time from 10 to 11 under the 
control of the majority leader or his designee, the time from 11 to 
noon under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee, with 
each hour rotating back and forth in that same manner. I further ask 
unanimous consent that on Thursday this same division occur, with the 
first hour from 10 to 11 under the control of the Democratic leader or 
his designee.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there an objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today, I am honored to open debate on the 
nomination of Judge Sam Alito to be the 110th Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  I enthusiastically support his confirmation.
  Judge Alito deserves to become Justice Alito. Those who oppose him 
are smearing a decent and honorable man and imposing an unfair 
political standard on all judicial nominees.
  I support Judge Alito because he is exceptionally qualified to be a 
Supreme Court Justice. I support Judge Alito because he is a man of 
integrity and modest judicial temperament. I support Judge Alito 
because he has a record that demonstrates a respect for judicial 
restraint, an aversion to political agendas on the bench, and a 
commitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.

  There is no question that Judge Alito is exceptionally well 
qualified. He is measured, brilliant, deeply versed in and respectful 
of the law, and a man of character and integrity. But there is another 
reason I support Judge Alito. I support Judge Alito because denying him 
a seat on the Supreme Court could have devastating long-term 
consequences for our judicial nomination process. Let me address these 
issues one at a time.
  Exceptional qualifications: From the moment President Bush nominated 
him last October, Judge Alito's exceptional qualifications had a 
``wow'' factor that impressed Senators of both parties. In every 
respect, Judge Alito is a nominee who meets the highest standards of 
excellence.
  He is a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School. He has dedicated 
his 30-year legal career to public service as a Federal prosecutor and 
assistant to the Solicitor General, where he argued 12 cases before the 
Supreme Court, and for the last 15 years as a Federal judge on the 
Third Circuit in New Jersey. He has been unanimously confirmed by this 
body not once but twice. On the Federal bench, he has participated in 
more than 3,500 cases and has written more than 300 opinions. The 
American Bar Association gave Judge Alito its highest rating, 
unanimously ``well qualified.'' He is a man of integrity and modest 
judicial temperament.
  Exceptional qualifications only begin to reveal why Sam Alito should 
be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Throughout his career as a 
prosecutor and a judge, Sam Alito earned a reputation as a man of 
integrity who was fairminded and evenhanded. He earned the trust and 
respect of his colleagues, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. 
That is one reason seven Federal judges endorsed his nomination and 
testified on his behalf.
  Through the Judiciary Committee hearings, we saw a clear picture 
emerge of Judge Alito's modest judicial temperament. Despite enduring 
relentless questioning of his credibility, integrity, and personal and 
political views, Judge Alito remained unflappable, never once raising 
his voice or becoming confrontational, focusing clearly and 
articulately on the facts, the law, and the constitutional questions 
presented to him. He understands the limited role of a judge--judicial 
restraint, impartiality, and a commitment to the rule of law.
  In addition to all of his exceptional qualifications, integrity, and 
temperament, Judge Alito deserves confirmation because he understands 
the limited role of a judge to interpret the law and not legislate from 
the bench. He practices judicial restraint and refuses to prejudge 
cases or apply a personal political agenda on the bench. In his hearing 
before the Judiciary Committee, this philosophy was clear. He said:

       A judge can't have an agenda. A judge can't have any 
     preferred outcome in any particular case. . . . The judge's 
     only obligation--and it's a solemn obligation--is to the rule 
     of law, and what that means is that in every single case, the 
     judge has to do what the law requires.

  In his 15 years on the bench, Judge Alito has done exactly that. Just 
listen to the words of one of Judge Alito's former law clerks, a 
registered Democrat who, by the way, still has a ``Kerry for 
President'' bumper sticker on his car. His words:

       Until I read [Judge Alito's] 1985 Reagan job application, I 
     could not tell you what his politics were . . . When we 
     worked on cases, we reached the same result about 95 percent 
     of the time . . . It was my experience that Judge Alito was 
     (and is) capable of setting aside any personal biases he may 
     have when he judges. He is the consummate professional.

  Long-term consequences for the judicial nominations process: Perhaps 
the most important reason to support Judge Alito has less to do with 
Judge Alito himself and more to do with our judicial nominations 
process. Regardless of their political views, Senators should treat 
judicial nominees with dignity, respect, and fairness, not just because 
it is the right thing to do but because a process that politicizes and 
degrades judicial nominees will drive our very best and our brightest 
away from the bench. I am profoundly disappointed in the unfair and 
unseemly treatment of Judge Alito during this process. His judicial 
record has been distorted and mischaracterized. He has been labeled as 
nonresponsive during his hearings, despite providing candid and 
articulate answers to more than 650 questions and over 18 hours of 
testimony--far more than many, perhaps any Supreme Court nominee in the 
past--and most sadly, he has been the victim of a calculated but 
unsuccessful campaign to smear his character, his integrity, and his 
credibility.
  In an editorial in support of Judge Alito, published on January 15, 
the

[[Page S37]]

Washington Post expressed this concern, even though they would have 
chosen a different nominee than Judge Alito:

       He would not have been our pick for the high court. Yet 
     Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive 
     qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous 
     precedent his rejection would set . . . Supreme Court 
     confirmations have never been free of politics, but neither 
     has their history generally been one of party-line votes or 
     of ideology as the determinative factor. To go down that road 
     is to believe that there exists a Democratic law and a 
     Republican law--which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule 
     of law. However one reasonably defines ``mainstream'' of 
     contemporary jurisprudence, Judge Alito's work lies within 
     it. While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may 
     push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term 
     implications of denying him a seat. No President should be 
     denied the prerogative of putting a person as qualified as 
     Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Washington Post 
editorial of January 15 entitled ``Confirm Samuel Alito on the Supreme 
Court'' be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FRIST. Thirteen years ago, a Republican minority in the Senate 
voted to confirm the qualified nominee of a Democratic President by an 
overwhelming vote of 96 to 3. Despite a well-documented liberal record, 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sits on the Supreme Court today because 
Republican Senators chose to focus on her qualifications and not to 
obstruct her nomination based merely on her judicial philosophy or 
ideology. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Judge Alito by 
applying that same fair standard. As we debate this week, I hope we can 
put aside partisan rhetoric and the politics of personal destruction 
and stand on principle. Qualified judicial nominees such as Judge Alito 
deserve respectful debate and a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate 
floor. As Senators, it is our fundamental constitutional duty and 
responsibility.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 15, 2006]

                          Confirm Samuel Alito

       The Senate's decision concerning the confirmation of Samuel 
     A. Alito Jr. is harder than the case last year of now-Chief 
     Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Judge Alito's record raises 
     concerns across a range of areas. His replacement of Justice 
     Sandra Day O'Connor could alter--for the worse, from our 
     point of view--the Supreme Court's delicate balance in 
     important areas of constitutional law. He would not have been 
     our pick for the high court. Yet Judge Alito should be 
     confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an 
     appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his 
     rejection would set.
       Though some attacks on him by Democratic senators and 
     liberal interest groups have misrepresented his 
     jurisprudence, Judge Alito's record is troubling in areas. 
     His generally laudable tendency to defer to elected 
     representatives at the state and federal levels sometimes 
     goes too far--giving rise to concerns that he will prove too 
     tolerant of claims of executive power in the war on terror. 
     He has tended at times to read civil rights statutes and 
     precedents too narrowly. He has shown excessive tolerance for 
     aggressive police and prosecutorial tactics. There is reason 
     to worry that he would curtail abortion rights. And his 
     approach to the balance of power between the federal 
     government and the states, while murky, seems unpromising. 
     Judge Alito's record is complicated, and one can therefore 
     argue against imputing to him any of these tendencies. Yet he 
     is undeniably a conservative whose presence on the Supreme 
     Court is likely to produce more conservative results than we 
     would like to see.
       Which is, of course, just what President Bush promised 
     concerning his judicial appointments. A Supreme Court 
     nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election. 
     The president's choice is due deference--the same deference 
     that Democratic senators would expect a Republican Senate to 
     accord the well-qualified nominee of a Democratic president.
       And Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the 
     bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging 
     ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and 
     doesn't reach for the political outcomes he desires. His 
     colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him. His integrity, 
     notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached.
       Humility is called for when predicting how a Supreme Court 
     nominee will vote on key issues, or even what those issues 
     will be, given how people and issues evolve. But it's fair to 
     guess that Judge Alito will favor a judiciary that exercises 
     restraint and does not substitute its judgment for that of 
     the political branches in areas of their competence. That's 
     not all bad. The Supreme Court sports a great range of 
     ideological diversity but less disagreement about the scope 
     of proper judicial power. The institutional self-discipline 
     and modesty that both Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts 
     profess could do the court good if taken seriously and 
     applied apolitically.
       Supreme Court confirmations have never been free of 
     politics, but neither has their history generally been one of 
     party-line votes or of ideology as the determinative factor. 
     To go down that road is to believe that there exists a 
     Democratic law and a Republican law--which is repugnant to 
     the ideal to the rule of law. However one reasonably defines 
     the ``mainstream'' of contemporary jurisprudence, Judge 
     Alito's work lies within it. While we harbor some anxiety 
     about the direction he may push the court, we would be more 
     alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat. 
     No president should be denied the prerogative of putting a 
     person as qualified as Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.

  Mr. FRIST. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.