[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12067-12107]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF WILLIAM H. PRYOR, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE 
                        FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Calendar No. 
100, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of William H. 
Pryor, Jr., of Alabama, to be United States Circuit Judge for the 
Eleventh Circuit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time from now 
until 10:30 shall be under the control of the majority leader or his 
designee.
  The Senator from Alabama is now recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am delighted to be able to speak on 
behalf of William Pryor--Judge William Pryor now--for the position of 
U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He is an 
extraordinary individual, a wonderful human being, a brilliant lawyer, 
a man of the highest integrity, who has won the respect and support and 
confidence of the people of Alabama to an extraordinary degree. 
Democrats, Republicans, African Americans--the whole State of Alabama 
knows and respects him for the courage and integrity and commitment he 
brings to public service.
  He was appointed attorney general to fill my seat after I was elected 
to the Senate, and he has done a superb job as attorney general. 
President Bush gave him a recess appointment to the Eleventh Circuit 
Court of Appeals after his nomination had been blocked here now for 
over 2 years. So it has been a burden for me to feel the frustration 
that I know he and his family must endure as a result of the 
uncertainty of his nomination process. I could not be more pleased that 
he was one of the nominees who was agreed upon to get a cloture vote, a 
successful cloture vote and an up-or-down vote here in the Senate. That 
is a good decision by the 14 Senators who reached a consensus on how 
they would approach this process of confirmations. I could not be more 
pleased and proud that Judge Bill Pryor was part of the group that was 
agreed upon by those Members of the Senate to get an up-or-down vote.
  Bill Pryor is the kind of judge America ought to have. He grew up in 
Mobile, AL, my hometown. He was educated in the Catholic school system. 
His father was a band director at McGill-Toolen High School, a 
venerable, large Catholic high school there. His mother taught in 
African-American schools. He went to law school at Tulane University 
where he graduated with honors, magna cum laude. He was editor-in-chief 
of the Tulane Law Review. I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator 
from Florida, is a lawyer and understands that editor-in-chief of the 
Law Review is the highest honor a graduating senior can have. To be 
selected as that in a fine law school such as Tulane is a great 
achievement.
  After he left law school, he clerked for Circuit Judge John Minor 
Wisdom, a well-known champion of civil rights in the Federal court 
system--at that time in the old Fifth Circuit. Now it has been divided 
to become the Eleventh Circuit. Judge John Minor Wisdom was a circuit 
court judge in the 1950s and 1960s when much of segregation was brought 
to an end by Federal court action. Bill Pryor was positively impacted 
by his experiences, working with Judge Wisdom, and is a passionate 
believer in equal rights and equal justice, and he has a record to 
demonstrate that commitment.
  He practiced law with one of Alabama's fine law firms before becoming 
assistant attorney general when I was elected attorney general. He 
handled the constitutional issues in our office. He was smart, hard 
working, courageous, intelligent, fair and, more than anybody I know in 
the legal business today, was committed to the rule of law, to doing 
the right thing. That is his very nature. That is the way he was 
raised. That is what he believes in and he will stand in there and do 
the right thing, no matter what others might say, time and time again. 
His record demonstrates his overriding belief that the law is 
preeminent and it should be obeyed, even if he might disagree and would 
like to see it different. I want to show some of the things that 
demonstrate that.
  I say this because it was alleged when his nomination came up that 
somehow he had strongly held beliefs, or deeply held beliefs, and those 
deeply held beliefs were so powerful that, yes, he might be smart, he 
might be a good lawyer, he might be an honest man and all of these 
things people said he was, but because he had strongly held beliefs and 
believed something and had some convictions and had some moral 
principles, that somehow that couldn't be trusted. Maybe he wasn't 
smooth enough. Maybe his beliefs were so strong this would manipulate 
or cause him to manipulate the law and not be a fair adjudicator of the 
law.
  I will share some thoughts about that because I think what that 
overlooks is his fundamental belief and great strength as a judge and a 
lawyer, which is his belief in the law and the primacy of the law. He 
understands, fundamentally, the greatness of our country, more than 
most people realize, is founded upon our commitment to law. We were 
given a great heritage from England. We have built upon that legal 
heritage. As I age and see the world, I know this legal system is what 
makes our country great. A person can go into any court, a company can 
invest in any State, and expect in this country they will get a fair 
day in court. You don't have to bribe the judge; you don't have to 
bribe the jury. You can expect a fair, just result, day in, day out, 
and it occurs in our courtrooms all over America. It is a heritage of 
unparalleled value and we must uphold that heritage. We must adhere to 
the ideal that law can be ascertained by a good judge and enforced 
consistently when litigants come before that judge. That is what we pay 
judges to do.
  I want to say the first and foremost legal principle of Judge William 
Pryor is that a judge should follow the law, and he has a record to 
demonstrate it, even when it disagrees with his personal views.
  First, on the issue of abortion, Judge Pryor has made clear he 
personally does not believe in abortion. He does not believe it is 
right. He believes it is wrong. It is not just because he is a 
Catholic, it is not just that his views are consistent with the Pope's 
or the Catholic Church of which he is a part, or many other churches 
and leaders in our country, but he has thought about this issue 
personally and deeply. He has given it serious consideration. He has 
made a judgment that, in his view, life and freedom and liberty in our 
country are diminished if the unborn are not given protection. That is 
a legitimate position in America, held by tens of millions of people 
and many leaders in this country. Certainly no one can deny that. 
Certainly, because someone believes the pro-life way is the best way, 
they should not be disqualified from being a judge.

[[Page 12068]]

  He has concluded Roe v. Wade was not a principled constitutional 
decision. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the ACLU lawyer who President Clinton 
nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, has also raised 
questions about the constitutional integrity of Roe v. Wade. That is 
his view about it.
  What does that mean, though, when it comes to court? Someone's 
personal views on those matters obviously cannot be the test of whether 
a person will go on the bench. Personal views are not the answer here. 
We cannot look at someone's religious faith or their personal views and 
say: I disagree with your religious values here, I disagree with your 
theology there, therefore you cannot be a judge in the United States of 
America.
  Are we going to ask Muslim nominees to reject their faith before we 
allow them to be confirmed, or some other religious entity with views 
different than I may have or someone else may have? Of course not. That 
cannot be. The test for nominees always must be: Do they respect the 
law and will they follow it?
  Judge Pryor's record shows he will. In August of 1997, not long after 
I had been elected to the Senate and he had become attorney general, 
Alabama passed a partial-birth abortion ban to ban partial-birth 
abortion--a particularly heinous act, in my view, there is strong 
feeling that this is not a good and decent procedure and that it ought 
to be eliminated.
  Judge Pryor certainly opposes partial-birth abortion. But as attorney 
general he exercised his supervisory power over the district attorneys 
of the State of Alabama, as given to him as attorney general, and on 
his own initiative--nobody made him do this--he wrote the district 
attorneys in Alabama a letter and he instructed them--gave them 
instructions--to utilize only a restrictive interpretation of that 
statute, because he concluded that portions of the statute were 
overbroad and unconstitutional. The pro-life forces in Alabama were 
angry with this pro-life attorney general because he had followed the 
law. He had restricted by his opinion the breadth of that statute; one 
even said he gutted the statute. But he did the right thing in 1997, 
long before he was ever considered for a Federal judgeship.
  Three years later, the Supreme Court, in the Stenberg case, struck 
down further the partial-birth abortion statutes of many States. Judge 
Pryor, then-attorney general, wrote the district attorneys another 
letter and told them the statute banning partial-birth abortions in 
Alabama was unconstitutional. He did not have to do that. He believed 
personally that abortion was wrong. He believed that partial-birth 
abortion was certainly wrong. But he wrote them a letter and told them 
not to even attempt to enforce the Alabama statute, because it had been 
held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.
  I don't know that attorneys general do that often. They do not have 
to do that. They can let the district attorneys make their own 
decision. But he felt that was the right thing to do and he did so. In 
his letter he said: ``You are obligated to obey Stenberg.'' That is a 
clear directive to them.
  When there were threats on abortion clinics, Judge Pryor held a high-
profile press conference in the State warning of prosecutions for those 
who participated in those attacks. He said those attacks on abortion 
clinics--although he certainly did not favor abortion clinics--were 
``despicable crimes'' against our fellow citizens that would not be 
tolerated and that he would prosecute people who did so.
  There are some who said his views on church and state are incorrect. 
I will dispute that. I will show he has been courageous in following 
the law of the United States in this area, as well.
  Former Gov. Fob James of Alabama, a strict constructionist, 
conservative, and independent Governor if there ever was one--and he 
appointed Judge Pryor to be the attorney general--wanted Judge Pryor to 
defend prayer in schools. He thought that schools had a right to have 
prayer. He wanted his attorney general, whom he just appointed, to 
defend it and go to court and to argue in court that the First 
Amendment says ``Congress shall make no laws respecting the 
establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' 
In Governor James's view, that meant Congress could not pass any such 
laws, but the State of Alabama could and that the Constitution did not 
apply to the State of Alabama with regard to those rights under the 
First Amendment. Many have tried to make that argument, but the Supreme 
Court has held otherwise.
  Though Judge Pryor had just been appointed attorney general by 
Governor James, he had the courage and followed his duty and just said 
no to the Governor. He told the Governor he could not argue that the 
Establishment Clause did not apply to the States, because the Supreme 
Court had already held that it did. The Governor then had to hire his 
own lawyer to promote his idea of the First Amendment.
  In Attorney General Pryor's brief to the Federal court, he wrote, 
correctly, that as attorney general, he spoke for the State of Alabama 
and not Governor James who had just appointed him. Judge Pryor followed 
the rule of law again when Judge Roy Moore asked him to make certain 
arguments in defense of the Ten Commandments statue that Judge Moore 
had placed in the Alabama Supreme Court building. Attorney General 
Pryor considered the request and refused to make those arguments. He 
did not believe they were consistent with Supreme Court precedent and 
did not believe that the attorney general for the State of Alabama 
ought to make arguments that the Supreme Court had already rejected.
  When Judge Moore ultimately refused to remove that statue of the Ten 
Commandments, as ordered by a Federal judge, Attorney General Pryor was 
responsible for prosecuting Judge Moore before the Judicial Inquiry 
Commission. It was his duty as attorney general under the law to 
prosecute and present that case. He did so with fidelity to duty and 
effectiveness. The Commission made a decision and removed Chief Justice 
Moore duly elected by the people of the State of Alabama from office as 
chief justice.
  They said he is some sort of religious extremist. It is just not so. 
He is committed, as you can see, to what the law says. In fact, after 
this controversy over the prayer in schools with the Governor, Attorney 
General Pryor felt it was his duty to clarify for school boards and 
school principals all over the State what the law actually was, so he 
wrote them a letter defining what could be done with student-led 
prayers in school and what could not be done and what had been held 
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a liberal newspaper in Atlanta, 
praised him for his letter and his definition of the appropriate and 
inappropriate expressions of religious faith in schools. And, in fact, 
the Clinton administration not long thereafter issued their own 
guidelines for schools incorporating much of what Attorney General 
Pryor had put in his letter.
  Some have said, in attacking him, that he does not believe in racial 
equality; that he does not believe in voting rights; and that he is out 
of the mainstream with regard to those issues in the State. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. For example, on the 40th anniversary 
of former Gov. George Wallace's infamous speech in which he said, on 
his inauguration, ``segregation today, segregation tomorrow, 
segregation forever,'' Bill Pryor was inaugurated as attorney general. 
He won by 60 percent of the vote. In his inaugural speech he changed 
those famous words to his own philosophy. This is how he began his 
inaugural speech: ``Equal justice under the law today, equal justice 
under the law tomorrow, equal justice under the law forever.'' That is 
his view. That is his belief. That is who he is. It is absolutely 
unfair, wrong, and even worse, really, to suggest otherwise.
  One of the things that was an issue in the State raised by a State 
representative, an African American, Alvin Holmes, was that Alabama's 
Constitution still had language in it that banned interracial marriage, 
an old segregationist provision. It was unconstitutional, could not be 
enforced, but

[[Page 12069]]

the words were still in that constitution. Mr. Holmes believed it ought 
to be taken out.
  Attorney General Bill Pryor agreed with him. He did not think that 
was right. He thought that was a blot and a stain on Alabama's 
Constitution and it ought to be removed. He took action to do so. He 
mentioned it in his inaugural address as one of his priorities, and he 
led the fight to remove it from Alabama's Constitution. That has 
resulted in the steadfast support for his confirmation by State 
representative Alvin Holmes, who said more than any other person--White 
officeholder in the State--Judge Pryor stood up to remove this stain 
from our constitution.
  He said: ``I'll call anybody you want me to. I'll come to Washington 
to speak on his behalf. This is a good man.'' Alvin Holmes was arrested 
during the civil rights marches for standing up for freedom. No one in 
the State of Alabama will deny that he does not believe in equal 
justice and civil rights and in progress for African-American citizens.
  I have another example of Bill Pryor's fairness in handling issues 
before the State. Republicans challenged a State redistricting plan 
which, in fact, is quite favorable to the Democrats. It was a 
gerrymandered plan that favored the Democrats. For example, five out of 
the seven Congressmen in Alabama are Republican. The Governor and both 
Senators are Republicans. But only a third of the legislature are 
Republicans. Part of that is the way they drew the lines. Republicans 
were not happy with it. They challenged it on a number of grounds. But 
Bill Pryor who is the attorney general for the State of Alabama. He is 
the lawyer for the State of Alabama. He is a Republican. He felt it was 
his responsibility to defend the duly enacted laws of the State 
legislature. He represents the State. The State passed the 
redistricting plan. It was his responsibility to defend it. He did not 
make some of his friends, and some of my friends, happy. They did not 
like that.
  He defended it on a number of grounds. One was a technical procedural 
basis of standing. He said the plaintiffs did not have standing. They 
went to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, on which he now sits as 
a result of an interim recess appointment, and they ruled against him. 
So the Republicans said: Boy, this is over now. We will win this thing. 
He said: No, the court of appeals made an error. I believe that you do 
not have standing to bring this suit. I believe your appeal is not, 
therefore, well taken. I believe I have a duty as attorney general to 
defend the duly enacted laws of the State of Alabama.
  He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and won in the U.S. Supreme 
Court defending a legislative reapportionment plan that clearly favored 
Democrats and African Americans. They appreciated that. They knew he 
was a man of principle and integrity and decency. They have appreciated 
those kind of acts they have seen him carry out.
  He has taken a strong lead on rights for women as well as minorities. 
While he has been attacked in the Senate for an argument he made 
regarding a technical flaw that was in the Violence Against Women Act 
passed by this Congress, his true record on women's issues is reflected 
in his history of fighting to protect women from domestic abuse.
  He is a supporter of Alabama's Penelope House and participates in 
their yearly luncheon where they recognize the importance of partnering 
with law enforcement to eradicate domestic abuse. He testified before 
Congress in 2003, stressing the importance of the Violence Against 
Women Act. He championed a bill in Alabama to increase the penalties 
for repeat violations of protection from abuse orders by judges for 
ordering people to cease abusing their spouses. This is the true record 
of Bill Pryor. He has been a leader in the fight against domestic abuse 
throughout the State. He has incredibly strong support by all the 
women's groups who advocate that, including Judge Sue Bell Cobb on the 
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, who is a Democrat and who has fought 
for these women's issues for years.
  What about other people in the State? How do they think of him? Judge 
Pryor has won the support of people such as Joe Reed, probably the most 
powerful political person in the State who is an African American. He 
is on the Democratic National Committee. He chairs the Alabama 
Democratic Conference. He strongly supports Judge Pryor.
  Another Pryor supporter is Congressman Artur Davis, an African-
American Congressman and Harvard Law School graduate. Alvin Holmes, I 
mentioned earlier, is one of the most outspoken African-American 
leaders in the legislature. Yesterday, I had him in my office, an 
African-American State senator who has been in the Senate for many 
years. I said: ``Senator, do you know an African American--I asked him, 
did he know of a single elected public official in the State who was 
opposed to Judge Pryor for this appointment?'' He said: ``No, I don't 
know of a single one. They know he has given them a fair shake, 
sometimes even to the point of taking serious criticism for it. He has 
been courageous and steadfast in standing up for equal justice under 
the law, which is his guiding principle as a judge and as attorney 
general.''
  There is almost, in fact, universal support for Judge Pryor. Former 
Democratic Governor Don Siegelman, Jerry Beasley, the State's top trial 
lawyer, one of the top trial lawyer Democrats in America, and virtually 
every newspaper in the State supports Judge Pryor. The very liberal 
Anniston Star newspaper, which supports the filibuster of judges here 
by Democrats, a fine newspaper, but they have been very much a 
Democratic newspaper--they have supported the filibustering of judges, 
which I certainly do not agree with--but they support Judge Pryor. They 
say he ought to be confirmed. ``He is the kind of person we ought to 
have on the bench,'' the Anniston Star said. They know his record of 
independence and courage. They know he is the kind of person we need on 
the bench.
  So in closing, I want to say that I believe Judge Pryor has 
demonstrated time and again the kind of courage and commitment to 
principle that are the very values we need judges to possess. We do not 
want people on the bench who do not have any beliefs. We do not want 
people who do not have any values.
  As Lamar Alexander, our colleague, once said, ``Judge Pryor has shown 
courage in a Southern State unlike anyone he has ever seen before.'' He 
said it has almost looked like political suicide, some of the things he 
has done. But regardless of the cost, he has always done the right 
thing. That is what makes him an ideal candidate for the Eleventh 
Circuit.
  He is brilliant. He loves the law. He studies it. He cares about it. 
He wants to see it be better and better and better. He will give his 
life to that, and you can take it to the bank. He will treat everybody 
before him fairly.
  I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thought it would be important to share 
in more detail some of the broad bipartisan support that exists in the 
State of Alabama by those who know Judge Pryor. These are Democratic 
leaders, people who are African Americans, who have been involved in 
the State for many years, who are sensitive to good judgment and good 
leadership. I want to share some of the comments some of these people 
have written on behalf of Judge Pryor.
  First, Congressman Artur Davis of the 7th Congressional District 
wrote this letter. Congressman Davis is a Harvard Law graduate and a 
very fine young Congressman. He said this:
  I understand that the President may be considering Attorney General 
Bill

[[Page 12070]]

Pryor for a seat on the Eleventh Circuit. I have the utmost respect for 
my friend Attorney General Pryor and I believe if he is selected, 
Alabama will be proud of his service.
  Alabama House of Representatives member Alvin Holmes wrote this:

       As one of the key civil rights leaders in Alabama who has 
     participated in basically every major civil rights 
     demonstration in America, who has been arrested for civil 
     rights causes on many occasions, as one who was a field staff 
     member of Dr. Martin Luther King's SCLC [Southern Christian 
     Leadership Conference], as one who has been brutally beaten 
     by vicious police officers for participating in civil rights 
     marches and demonstrations, as one who has had crosses burned 
     in his front yard by the KKK and other hate groups, as one 
     who has lived under constant threats day in and day out 
     because of his stand fighting for the rights of blacks and 
     other minorities, I request your swift confirmation of Bill 
     Pryor to the 11th Circuit because of his constant efforts to 
     help the causes of blacks in Alabama.

  Is that a credible voice? I submit to you it is.
  The Honorable Sue Bell Cobb, a judge on the Alabama Court of Criminal 
Appeals for quite a number of years, who has been involved in the 
Children's First Program in Alabama, who has been involved in women's 
issues in Alabama over a number of years, and who has had occasion to 
work with Attorney General Bill Pryor, wrote this:

       I write, not only as the only statewide Democrat to be 
     elected in 2000, not only as a member of the Court which 
     reviews the greatest portion of General Pryor's work, but 
     also as a child advocate who has labored shoulder to shoulder 
     with General Pryor in the political arena on behalf of 
     Alabama's children. . . . Bill Pryor is an outstanding 
     attorney general and is one of the most righteous elected 
     officials in this state. He possesses two of the most 
     important attributes of a judge: unquestionable integrity and 
     a strong internal moral compass. . . .

  High praise, I submit. She goes on:

       Bill Pryor is exceedingly bright, a lawyer's lawyer. He is 
     as dedicated to the ``Rule of Law'' as anyone I know. I have 
     never known another attorney general'' I guess that includes 
     this one standing before you ``who loved being the `people's 
     lawyer' more than Bill Pryor. Though we may disagree on an 
     issue, I am always confident that the position is a product 
     of complete intellectual honesty. He loves the mental 
     challenge presented by a complex case, yet he never fails to 
     remember that each case impacts people's lives.

  I share with you another statement by Joe Reed, an African American, 
a leader in the State for 30 or more years, probably the preeminent 
African-American leader in the State over the last 35 years. He chairs 
the Alabama Democratic Conference. He is a member of the Democratic 
National Committee. He is a vice chairman of the Alabama Education 
Association. Dr. Joe Reed has always understood the importance of 
Federal courts. He has understood that the civil rights and liberties 
of African-American citizens were enhanced and provided in large part 
by actions of Federal courts. There is no mistaking in his mind on this 
question. This is what he said:

       [Attorney General Pryor] is a person, in my opinion, who 
     will uphold the law without fear or favor. I believe all 
     races and colors will get a fair shake when their cases come 
     before him. As Attorney General for Alabama during the past 
     six (6) years, he has been fair to all people. . . .For your 
     information, I am a member of the Democratic National 
     Committee and, of course, Mr. Pryor is [a] Republican, but 
     these are only party labels. I am persuaded that in Mr. 
     Pryor's eyes, Justice has only one label--justice!

  Mr. President, those are just some of the comments we have received 
from prominent Alabama leaders of a different party, a different race, 
who care about justice in America, who have a record of fighting for 
it, and who believe Judge Pryor shares their values in that regard.
  Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. I 
see my colleague from Georgia has arrived. We appreciate and look 
forward to hearing from him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, first, if the Senator from Alabama will 
remain for a minute, I took the occasion, last week or 2 weeks ago, to 
spend a rather extensive time on the floor, on 2 days, talking about 
Janice Rogers Brown of Alabama, whose appointment was confirmed by this 
Senate. I had the pleasure to meet Justice Brown and meant every word I 
said.
  But I rise today to talk about Judge Pryor because of my tremendous 
personal admiration for a man whom I have not met but know so much 
about because of the way he has conducted himself as a human being and 
as an attorney general.
  I know he succeeded the distinguished Senator from Alabama as 
attorney general; is that not correct?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Correct.
  Mr. ISAKSON. So he obviously had a good role model to follow. Senator 
Sessions' leadership, obviously, contributed greatly to Judge Pryor's 
distinguished service.
  But the reason I rise on the floor of the Senate for a second and 
confirm the reason I am so positively going to cast my vote for his 
confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit is because he has a magna cum 
laude degree in law from Tulane University, but he has a master's 
degree in common sense. He has a Ph.D. in courage.
  If you study Judge Pryor's record, over and over again, he continues 
to lead himself to decisions based on the fundamental principle, 
belief, that in all cases you do what is right.
  I listened to nearly all of the speech of the distinguished Senator 
from Alabama. He recited so many examples of where a statement that 
Judge Pryor might have made in the past did not guide him to a decision 
when it differed with the law, that he always followed the law to its 
fullest extent, not to interpret it as he saw fit but to execute it as 
he knew it was intended.
  I am not a lawyer. I am a real estate guy and a politician. 
Obviously, we deal a lot in words but not nearly the discipline of the 
specifics of the law. I am a citizen of the United States, a father, 
and a businessman. I care deeply about the men and women who will sit 
on the bench of our highest courts. If we can have a man with common 
sense and a commitment to right and doing what is right, then we have 
provided a great service to the people.
  I also rise as an extension of a great Georgian who has submitted a 
letter, on behalf of Judge Pryor, from which I would like to quote.
  I also ask unanimous consent that the entire letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Department of Law,

                                      Atlanta, GA, March 31, 2003.
     Hon. Richard Shelby,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: I have had the great pleasure of knowing and 
     working with Bill Pryor over the past five years. Through the 
     National Association of Attorneys General, Bill and I have 
     worked together on matters of mutual concern to Georgia and 
     Alabama. During that time, Bill has distinguished himself 
     time and again with the legal acumen that he brings to issues 
     of national or regional concern as well as with his 
     commitment to furthering the prospects of good and responsive 
     government.
       During his tenure as Attorney General, Bill has made 
     combating white-collar crime and public corruption one of the 
     centerpieces of his service to the people of Alabama. He 
     joined the efforts of Attorneys General around the country in 
     fighting the rising tide of identify theft, pushing through 
     legislation in the Alabama legislature making identity theft 
     a felony in Alabama. Bill has fought to keep law enforcement 
     in Alabama armed with appropriate laws to protect Alabama's 
     citizens, pushing for tough money laundering provisions and 
     stiff penalties for trafficking in date rape drugs.
       Time and again as Attorney General, Bill has taken on 
     public corruption cases in Alabama, regardless of how well-
     connected the defendant may be, to ensure that the public 
     trust is upheld and the public's confidence in government is 
     well-founded. He has worked with industry groups and the 
     Better Business Bureau to crack down on unscrupulous 
     contractors who victimized many of Alabama's more vulnerable 
     citizens.
       From the time that he clerked with the late Judge Wisdom of 
     the 5th Circuit to the present, though, the most critical 
     asset that Bill Pryor has brought to the practice of law is 
     his zeal to do what he thinks is right. He has always done 
     what he thought was best for the people of Alabama. 
     Recognizing a wrong that had gone on far too long, he took 
     the opportunity of his inaugural address to call on an end to 
     the ban on inter-racial marriages in Alabama law. Concerned 
     about at-

[[Page 12071]]

     risk kids in Alabama schools, he formed Mentor Alabama, a 
     program designed to pair volunteer mentors with students who 
     needed a role model and an attentive ear to the problems 
     facing them on a daily basis.
       These are just a few of the qualities that I believe will 
     make Bill Pryor an excellent candidate for a slot on the 11th 
     Circuit Court of Appeals. My only regret is that I will no 
     longer have Bill as a fellow Attorney General fighting for 
     what is right, but I know that his work on the bench will 
     continue to serve as an example of how the public trust 
     should be upheld.
           Sincerely,
                                                Thurbert E. Baker.

  Mr. ISAKSON. The attorney general of the State of Georgia is my dear 
friend, Thurbert Baker. He is a Democrat, an African American, and a 
close friend with whom I served in the Georgia House of 
Representatives. On March 31, 2003, Thurbert Baker wrote to Senator 
Richard Shelby and Senator Jeff Sessions his personal feelings about 
the nomination of Judge Pryor. I want to read a few excerpts from that 
letter.

       During his tenure as Attorney General, Bill has made 
     combating white-collar crime and public corruption one of the 
     centerpieces of his service to the people of Alabama. He 
     joined the efforts of Attorneys General around the country in 
     fighting the rising tide of identity theft, pushing through 
     legislation in the Alabama legislature making identity theft 
     a felony in Alabama. Bill has fought to keep law enforcement 
     in Alabama armed with appropriate laws to protect Alabama's 
     citizens, pushing for tough money laundering provisions and 
     stiff penalties for trafficking and in date rape drugs.

  The importance of that quote is how consistent that is with what our 
attorney general, Thurbert Baker, has done in Georgia; in particular, 
in his fights on white-collar crime, on trafficking, on drugs, and his 
confirmation of Judge Pryor's commitment to the same.
  I continue to quote:

       Time and again as Attorney General, Bill has taken on 
     public corruption cases in Alabama, regardless of how well-
     connected the defendant may be, to ensure that the public 
     trust is upheld and the public's confidence in government is 
     well-founded. He has worked with industry groups and the 
     Better Business Bureau to crack down on unscrupulous 
     contractors who victimized many of Alabama's more vulnerable 
     citizens.

  The operative words in that quote refer to the courage I mentioned 
earlier; Judge Pryor, as attorney general, courageously and without 
fear took on anyone, regardless of stature and political standing, in 
order to see to it the people of Alabama were protected, their rights 
were protected and right itself was done and any wrong, regardless of 
the perpetrator, was prosecuted.
  I continue to quote:

       From the time he clerked with the late Judge Wisdom of the 
     5th Circuit to the present, though, the most critical asset 
     that Bill Pryor has brought to the practice of law is his 
     zeal to do what [is the right thing to do]. He has always 
     done what he thought was best for the people of Alabama. 
     Recognizing a wrong that has gone too far [and too long], he 
     took the opportunity in his inaugural address to call on an 
     end to the ban on inter-racial marriage in the State of 
     Alabama. Concerned about at-risk kids in schools, he formed 
     Mentor Alabama, a program designed to pair volunteer mentors 
     with students who needed a role model and an attentive ear to 
     the problems facing them on a daily basis.

  As a member of the legislature in Georgia, one who worked on kids' 
programs, I know so much about the value of mentoring and the programs 
established such as Mentor Alabama that fundamentally change lives. For 
a man whose job it is to prosecute the law on behalf of the people of 
Alabama, to illustrate his desire for the future by, at the same time, 
developing a mentoring program so that the youth of Alabama would go on 
the right track in life--not the wrong--shows his absolute commitment 
to right, his absolute commitment to his fellow man, his absolute 
commitment to those who have been less fortunate.
  I close with one last quote from this letter:

       My only regret is that I will no longer have Bill as a 
     fellow Attorney General, fighting for what is right, but I 
     know that his work on the bench will continue to serve as an 
     example of how the public trust should be upheld.

  Bill Pryor has been waiting for this day for some time. I am grateful 
to Senators who allowed the cloture vote to take place and voted in 
favor of giving a chance for Judge Pryor to receive an up-or-down vote 
on his confirmation to his nomination to the Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals. I am confident that later today when we cast our vote--and I 
will cast mine in favor of Judge Pryor--the majority of this Senate 
will confirm a man whose record is impeccable, whose commitment is to 
doing what is right, whose belief is in the people of this country, in 
the fundamental foundations of the law and its strict interpretation 
and application. I commend to all Members of the Senate Judge Bill 
Pryor of Alabama for his confirmation.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is the Senate in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the nomination of William 
Pryor. The majority controls the time until 11:30 a.m.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to address the nomination 
of William H. Pryor, Jr., to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Eleventh 
Circuit.
  Many of my colleagues know that I am Catholic by religion and belief. 
As such, I have watched the debate over Judge Pryor, an acknowledged 
devout Catholic, with much interest.
  I start by saying, and I want to be very clear about this point, that 
I do not believe any of my colleagues are anti-Catholic. However, I am 
becoming increasingly concerned about the apparent creation of some 
kind of religious litmus test for nominees. I would like to provide a 
sample of some of the questions posed to Judge Pryor during his 
confirmation process that I think justify my concern that a nominee's 
religion is becoming some kind of a central part of the confirmation 
process.
  It concerns me when, in the Judiciary Committee, statements such as 
these are made:

       Judge Pryor's beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, 
     that it is very hard to believe, very hard to believe, that 
     they are not going to deeply influence the way he comes about 
     saying, ``I will follow the law.''

  Another:

       I think the very legitimate issue in question with your 
     nomination is whether you have an agenda, that many of the 
     positions which you have taken reflect not just an advocacy 
     but a very deeply held view and a philosophy.

  Third:

       Virtually in every area you have extraordinarily strong 
     views which continue and come out in a number of different 
     ways. Your comments about Roe make one believe, could he 
     really, suddenly, move away from those comments and be a 
     judge?

  It concerns me that these questions continued despite the fact that 
Judge Pryor's record in Alabama as attorney general shows that he can 
and has separated his personal beliefs from his professional 
obligations.
  As Alabama's attorney general, Judge Pryor argued that there should 
be no school-sponsored, government-sponsored religious activity, but 
genuinely student-initiated religious expression was protected by the 
First Amendment. I believe he expressly stated the view that the 
Supreme Court has held in that regard, regardless of his beliefs.
  Second, he issued an opinion stating that Alabama's partial-birth 
abortion law was unconstitutional and could not be enforced. I believe 
he followed the law.
  Third, he personally prosecuted charges against Alabama's Justice 
Moore for refusing to obey a court order to remove the Ten Commandments 
from a display in the Alabama State courthouse.
  The quotes I have referenced and the fact that some Democrats have 
persisted with this line of questioning despite clear evidence that 
Judge Pryor is committed to both religious freedom and separation of 
church and state concern me not because I am accusing

[[Page 12072]]

anyone on the other side of being anti- Catholic or anti-religion; 
rather, statements such as these make me fear that we are creating some 
kind of a religious litmus test for nominees. A nominee's religious 
beliefs have no connection to fitness to serve on the Federal bench.
  It seems to me that such questions suggest that anybody who is an 
Orthodox Jew, deep-seated Christian, Protestant, Muslim, or devout 
Catholic should be rigorously questioned about their religious beliefs. 
But I believe their beliefs should not in any way affect them becoming 
Federal judges. These type of questions effectively say to people in 
the United States: Perhaps if you have deeply held religious beliefs, 
you cannot serve on the Supreme Court, you cannot serve in the Federal 
judiciary.
  I believe we should rid the record of any such inferences, and I am 
just trying to do that today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is an alarming prospect. The Senate 
should consider the nominee on his professional record, not on his 
personal beliefs. I believe this distinguished nominee should be 
confirmed.
  I yield the floor. I thank the Senate for listening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority controls the time until noon, but 
the Senator may be recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes, and if some member of the minority 
appears I will be happy to yield to allow them to proceed under their 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. GREGG and Mr. SESSIONS are printed in today's 
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Alabama. I obviously enjoy 
working with him because he is a voice of reason around here.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what is the order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority controls the time until noon.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is a few minutes to 12. I ask 
unanimous consent that I be able to speak in morning business. If any 
of my colleagues from the other side come to the floor, I will be 
pleased to yield to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have spent over 2 years on the Bill 
Pryor nomination for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He is an 
extraordinary man and an extraordinary jurist, now that he is holding 
that seat as a recess appointment. But a number of allegations have 
been made against him that I think caused some in this body to form an 
impression of him early on that was not correct.
  One of the most prominent was an allegation that he was insensitive 
to the disabled. People For the American Way, who issued their attack 
sheet report--and I hope our colleagues will begin to look far more 
critically at their work than they have in the past--stated it this 
way:

       Of particular concern are Pryor's views on the limits on 
     Congress' authority to enact laws protecting individual and 
     other rights, and how he would seek to implement those laws 
     if confirmed. Pryor is one of the architects of this movement 
     and has been a leading activist in these damaging efforts. He 
     personally has been involved in key Supreme Court cases that, 
     by narrow 5 to 4 majorities, have hobbled Congress's ability 
     to protect Americans' rights against discrimination and 
     injury based on disability, race, or age.

  That is part of their report and part of their complaint. At the time 
he was originally nominated, a number of people from the disabled 
community were told Judge Pryor is against them and that they should 
come. They came and spoke out against him. But truly I do not think 
they understood what the complaint was all about.
  Let me share with you what happened. One of the State universities in 
Alabama was involved in a lawsuit about disability rights. The case was 
University of Alabama at Birmingham v. Garrett. It goes up for 
litigation. The Attorney General of the State of Alabama was Bill 
Pryor. It is his duty as a lawyer to defend his client. As an entity of 
the State, the university is a client of the State of Alabama, so he 
did so. One of the defenses he raised, and raised brilliantly, dealt 
with this act, the ADA. Only 3 percent of the people in Alabama work 
for the State of Alabama. So the defense he raised impacted only State 
employees, that is 3 percent of the people, although repeatedly 
announcements were made that he was gutting the ADA. That is the first 
point.
  Second, what the attorney general of Alabama argued was that, yes, if 
a person were to be dismissed or otherwise not handled fairly as a 
result of a disability, they could sue the State under the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, they could get an injunction, a court order to 
ensure that they were treated fairly by the State of Alabama, they 
could get back wages if they had been terminated--but that provision of 
the act that allowed individuals to sue for money damages against 
corporations--and 97 percent of the people work for private employers 
and corporations and not State governments--that provision could not be 
enforceable because a State has sovereign immunity protection against 
suits for money damages. States can only be sued on grounds that they 
agree to be sued on, because the power to sue is the power to destroy. 
That is constitutional history. And States do not allow themselves to 
be sued except under certain circumstances, and he argued that the 
Congress could not abrogate that historic constitutional principle of 
sovereign immunity by passing a statute--without giving any thought to 
the issue. Anyway, they passed it focusing mainly on private employers, 
not States. He appealed that to the U.S. Supreme Court and won the case 
in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Now they say what he was doing was an indication that he is 
insensitive to people who are disabled. I raise that issue because it 
is not fair to him, and it demeans our entire process.
  I see the Senator from Tennessee is in the Senate, Senator Alexander. 
I know he is interested in this nomination. I am pleased to yield to 
the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama. I am 
delighted to have a chance to join him in support of Judge Pryor. I 
will take a few minutes on that, and when I finish, I will ask 
unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business 
on another matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, none of us, if we end up in court, want 
to go before a judge who has already decided the case before we get 
there. There is an old story from the Tennessee mountains about the 
lawyers who showed up in court and the judge says: ``Fellas, this 
shouldn't take long. I had a phone call last night, and I know most of 
the facts. Just give me a little bit on the law.'' I don't think those 
litigants felt very good about their appearance before that judge.

[[Page 12073]]

  We do not want judges who decide the case before they hear the 
argument, either because they got a phone call the night before or 
because they bring some personal or political agenda to the case. We 
want judges who are fair. We want judges who are independent. We want 
judges who are intelligent, who have good character, who know the law, 
and who are willing to apply it in a fearless way.
  As Governor of Tennessee, I appointed about 50 judges. I appointed 
men and women, Democrats and Republicans. I appointed the first 
African-American Supreme Court justice, the first African-American 
chancellor in our State who happened to be a Democrat. I never asked 
how they felt about abortion. I never asked them how they were going to 
decide cases. I tried to assess their reputation for intelligence and 
fairness, their demeanor, and whether they would treat those who 
appeared before them with respect. That turned out to be a pretty good 
formula.
  If we are looking for a member of the U.S. appellate court who has 
demonstrated before he takes the bench that he can make decisions 
independent of his personal views, then Judge William Pryor ought to be 
exhibit A, No. 1. As has been pointed out many times, Judge Pryor has 
been very honest with the committee and all who question him. He is 
pro-life. He opposes partial-birth abortion. But as attorney general of 
Alabama in August of 1997, on his own initiative, he wrote the district 
attorneys general of Alabama and instructed them to use a restrictive 
interpretation of the partial-birth abortion bill in Alabama, gutting 
the statute, some said, in Alabama. Three years later, General Pryor, 
after further Supreme Court cases, wrote the Alabama district attorneys 
telling them that the Alabama partial-birth abortion law was 
unconstitutional. He was pro-life, but the law said it was 
unconstitutional. He followed the law.
  When there were threats of attacks against abortion clinics in 
Alabama, the attorney general could have waited for something to 
happen. He did not. He held high-profile press conferences to condemn 
what he called ``despicable acts.'' He warned there would be 
prosecutions if those acts actually occurred.
  William Pryor told the committee he is a religious man. He, 
obviously, is a deeply religious person. But he told the Governor, who 
had just appointed him attorney general of Alabama, to get himself 
another lawyer when the Governor wanted him to argue a prayer-in-the-
schools case that General Pryor thought compelled him to take a 
position contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the 
Constitution.
  He prosecuted the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for his 
refusal to take actions to remove the Ten Commandments, not because he 
does not believe in the Ten Commandments, which he does, but because he 
believes in the law, and his job was to enforce the law.
  He has proven his sensitivity toward civil rights, which for those 
who have grown up in the South is even more important. In his inaugural 
address, he pledged to remove the ban on interracial marriage and led 
the fight to pass a constitutional amendment to do it. One might say, 
Of course he should have done that. Well, go down to Alabama and make 
that your first announcement in a new public position at that time in 
our Nation's history. It took courage and it took principle to do it. 
He did it.
  He is a Republican, but he appealed the Alabama reapportionment plan 
to the U.S. Supreme Court, to the dismay of the Republican Party, and 
he won it for the Democrat Party.
  It is fair to say that Judge William Pryor has compiled for himself 
at a relatively young age a record that would make it virtually 
impossible for him to win a Republican primary in Alabama but a record 
that ought to make him a perfect candidate for the U.S. court of 
appeals.
  Of course, there is always the question with these men and women who 
come before the Senate of whether they are qualified. We can look at 
the facts. William Pryor is a magna cum laude graduate of Tulane law 
school, one of the great law schools of our country. He was editor and 
chief of the Tulane Law Journal.
  My favorite example of his competence is that he was a law clerk to 
the Honorable John Minor Wisdom, perhaps the greatest appellate court 
judge of the last 50 years, whose 100th birthday would have been May 
21. I know about his birthday because I knew the judge very well. I was 
his law clerk, too. I hasten to add that I didn't quite qualify to be a 
law clerk in 1965 and 1966. He already had a smart graduate from 
Harvard. But he said: I need two, and I will hire you as a messenger. 
If you work for $300 a month, I will treat you like a law clerk.
  Judge Wisdom is the one who ordered James Meredith to be admitted to 
Ole Miss, and he, with Judge Tuttle and Judge Rives, presided other 
desegregation of the South. He hired as his law clerks some of the most 
distinguished men and women now in the private practice of law anywhere 
in the America. I know many of them.
  Judge Pryor was in New Orleans on May 21 to celebrate Judge Wisdom's 
100th birthday, along with about 40 other law clerks, even though Judge 
Wisdom himself is not still living. I know the respect Judge Wisdom had 
for Judge Pryor's competence. He has demonstrated his independence, he 
has demonstrated his intelligence, and he has demonstrated he will be 
an extraordinary judge.
  I was disappointed at what I heard when the Presiding Officer and I 
came to the Senate a little over 2\1/2\ years ago. I was preparing to 
make my maiden address on American history and civics, and we found 
ourselves in this terrible debate about Miguel Estrada. I was 
astonished by it, to tell the truth. I found myself feeling the same 
way about discussions of Judge Pickering in Mississippi, a man whose 
reputation I knew. When I studied that reputation, I found a man out 
front in the civil rights debate of the 1960s and 1970s, putting his 
children in public schools in Mississippi in the 1960s when everyone 
else was sending them to what they called segregation academies, and 
testifying against the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in the mid-
1960s when that was a dangerous thing to do.
  I heard some of my colleagues questioning his commitment to civil 
rights. Where were they in 1965, 1966, and 1967? What was going on?
  I was very disappointed when I heard these comments about Judge 
Pickering. And he withdrew. I heard the comments about Miguel Estrada, 
a tremendous American success story. And he withdrew. So I pledged, 
then and there, I would never filibuster any President's judicial 
nominee, period. I might vote against them, but I will always see they 
came to a vote.
  I am glad to see--and the Presiding Officer had something to do with 
it--that the logjam has been broken. Maybe we can get back to business 
as usual in the Senate where the President, after consulting with us, 
sends us good nominees, we look them over and take as long as we want 
to talk about them, and then we vote on them. I am glad we have a 
chance to vote on Judge Pryor.
  We do not want judges whose views are decided by a political agenda 
or by a phone call that comes in the night before. Judge Wisdom had 
absolute confidence in William Pryor when he appointed him as his law 
clerk. He was proud of his service as attorney general of Alabama. He 
is not here today to say what he thinks of him, but I am glad that I am 
here today to say I will be proud to cast my vote for William Pryor for 
U.S. circuit judge.
  Mr. President, I received permission to speak on another subject as 
if in morning business, and I would like to proceed to that.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1208 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for 
his time, and I join him in my enthusiasm for the nominee for the U.S. 
court of appeals from his home State, William Pryor.

[[Page 12074]]


  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for 
his very important remarks on the Pryor nomination. He is wise in 
analyzing the realities of being an attorney general in America and the 
difficult choices and political pressures that are on attorneys 
general.
  He is absolutely correct that Attorney General Bill Pryor has 
demonstrated he has the courage to do the right thing regardless of 
short-term complaints that might arise. That is so fundamentally 
obvious to people who get a fair look at it and I am amazed it has not 
been clear to some of our colleagues.
  I thank the Senator from Tennessee for sharing his thoughts.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished 
majority whip and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Alabama, I 
understand that Judge Pryor has been criticized because he has 
sincerely held beliefs against abortion and has also criticized the 
ruling in Roe v. Wade?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. He answered questions about that, 
clearly and directly.
  Mr. McCONNELL. But it is also true, is it not, I say to my friend 
from Alabama, that Judge Pryor swore under oath--under oath--at his 
hearing that he would faithfully apply the law, and included in that, 
of course, is Supreme Court precedent?
  Mr. SESSIONS. As a matter of fact, he was asked explicitly about that 
in the Judiciary hearings. I am a member of that committee, and the 
phrase he used, I say to you, Senator McConnell, was ``Senator, you can 
take it to the bank.'' And he is the kind of man who, when he says it, 
he means it.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Well, he has had an opportunity to demonstrate that, 
has he not, I say to my friend from Alabama, with respect to the laws 
regulating abortion? He has been in a position to demonstrate that he 
is willing to set aside his personally held views and apply the law as 
it is, has he not?
  Mr. SESSIONS. He really has. I think that is so important for us here 
as we consider a nominee. Surely, we can't vote for or against a 
nominee on whether they agree with us on any number of a host of moral 
and religious issues. But these are the facts on it. Although he is a 
pro-life individual--in 1997, Alabama banned partial-birth abortion by 
State statute. As attorney general, Judge Pryor was aware that parts of 
that statute had gone too far under the current state of the law, so he 
issued a letter, a directive, to the district attorneys throughout the 
State of Alabama telling them that they could only construe that 
statute narrowly because it would violate, otherwise, the Constitution 
as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  As a matter of fact, the ACLU praised him at that time in 1997 for 
his directive. And, as a matter of fact, one of the pro-life leaders 
said he gutted the statute.
  Then, I say to you, Senator McConnell, a few years later, in 2000, 
when the Supreme Court ruled on the Stenberg case, in which they really 
overruled many State statutes involving the partial-birth abortion law, 
Attorney General Pryor recognized and advised the district attorneys 
that statute was not sound and called on the State legislature to craft 
a statute consistent with the Supreme Court. And when he wrote the 
State officials, he said that they ``are obligated to obey [the 
Stenberg decision].''
  Mr. McCONNELL. The attorney general of Alabama is an elected 
position; is it not?
  Mr. SESSIONS. It is an elected position.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So Judge Pryor did not have the protection of a 
lifetime appointment or even a lengthy term. Here is an official in 
Alabama basically telling a bunch of Alabama local officials they ought 
to comply with a Supreme Court decision that was overwhelmingly 
unpopular in Alabama; is that correct?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is exactly correct, I say to the Senator, 
absolutely correct. People in Alabama, I think as most Americans, 
believe that partial-birth abortion, at any rate, is a particularly 
gruesome procedure, and he had a lot of pressure on him to declare 
otherwise. In fact, he was criticized by friends who thought he had not 
been supportive of their view.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It would have been very politically convenient for him 
to do that; would it not?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely. I think the point is that he understands 
the importance of adhering to the rule of law even though it may 
disagree with positions you feel strongly about.
  Mr. McCONNELL. With regard to his criticism of Roe v. Wade, I ask my 
friend from Alabama, is it not also the case that some very prominent 
liberals in this country, who probably no doubt liked the outcome of 
Roe v. Wade, were, nevertheless, highly critical of the Supreme Court's 
reasoning and rationale for issuing that particular judgment?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So there is nothing particularly unusual or unique 
about a good lawyer, or certainly a lawyer in a prominent position like 
attorney general, at the time, Bill Pryor, critiquing the decision, 
wholly aside from what their personal views were, because a number of 
prominent liberals, I think, have done the same thing; have they not?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is exactly right. And the attorney general is an 
elected person in Alabama. He has a right to comment on decisions of 
the Supreme Court. I think attorneys general and lawyers and laymen all 
over the country do that on a daily basis. The question is, Will you 
follow it even if you do not agree?
  Mr. McCONNELL. In fact, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 
criticized the Supreme Court's approach in the Roe case. I bet many of 
our colleagues would be surprised to learn that she described Roe as a 
``breathtaking'' decision whose ``[h]eavy-handed judicial intervention 
was difficult to justify.'' That is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, no doubt, 
liked the outcome in Roe, but found the decision, as she put it, 
``breathtaking'' and a ``[h]eavy-handed judicial intervention [that] 
was difficult to justify.''
  So here was someone whose personal views were probably opposite of 
Judge Pryor's, but who reached the same conclusion as Judge Pryor did 
about the rationale for the decision, the basis of the decision.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is a very good point, I say to you, 
Senator McConnell. I know that, for example, Justice Ginsburg was an 
ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, lawyer. Yet she was troubled by 
the reasoning and rationale in some of the matters in Roe v. Wade. And 
she did not mince words about it in terms of the public policy result 
in Roe, nor did she condemn people who criticized Roe. She fully 
understood it was legitimate to discuss that important Supreme Court 
case. In fact, she wrote:

       I appreciate the intense divisions of opinion on the moral 
     question and recognize that abortion today cannot fairly be 
     described as nothing more than birth control delayed.

  So I think she was expressing real sympathy and respect for those who 
may disagree with the decision, even as she expressed concern with the 
decision.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask my friend from Alabama if he is aware that 
liberal constitutional scholar and current Harvard law professor, 
Laurence Tribe--often quoted by Members on the other side as the 
authority on many issues of constitutional law--described Roe as a 
``verbal smokescreen,'' and noted that ``the substantive judgment on 
which it rests is nowhere to be found.'' This is Laurence Tribe 
commenting on Roe v. Wade. Even though, no doubt, he likes the result 
of Roe v. Wade, he is nevertheless criticizing the rationale for it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, the Senator is exactly correct. Conservatives and 
liberals alike have raised questions about different aspects of Roe v. 
Wade. It is perfectly natural that they would do so, I think.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe liberal law professor Cass Sunstein from the 
University of Chicago--who was reported to have advised our Democratic

[[Page 12075]]

colleagues on the need to ``change the ground rules'' on judicial 
nominations, which led us into the impasse we were in last Congress--
noted that there are ``notorious difficulties'' with Roe v. Wade. Is my 
friend from Alabama familiar with that, as well?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, I am.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I could go on with a list of liberal scholars and 
commentators who criticized Roe very directly, but I think my friend 
from Alabama and I hope all of our colleagues get the drift.
  I do have just one more question for the Senator from Alabama. Does 
he remember President Bush's nomination of Michael McConnell to the 
Tenth Circuit?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, I do. I believe he was confirmed by unanimous 
consent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Unanimous consent. Out here on the Senate floor, 
passed on a voice vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Although I am not on the Judiciary Committee now, I 
was at the time of the McConnell nomination. I recall that Judge 
McConnell was then a law professor who had criticized Roe frequently 
and at great length; is that correct?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. But just like Judge Pryor, he swore to uphold Supreme 
Court precedent; did he not?
  Mr. SESSIONS. He did.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So I want to make sure I have this correct. Both Judge 
Pryor and Judge McConnell criticized Roe v. Wade, both swore under oath 
they would follow Supreme Court precedents, including those they may 
personally disagree with, but unlike Judge McConnell, who was a law 
professor at the time of his nomination and did not have the 
opportunity as an academic to enforce the law, Judge Pryor has been a 
public official who has had the chance, on repeated occasions, to put 
his money where his mouth was, and he has consistently followed the 
law?
  Our Democratic colleagues confirmed Judge McConnell by unanimous 
consent but are vigorously objecting to Judge Pryor; is that the case?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is the case.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am puzzled. On this record, our friends' objections 
to Judge Pryor seem inconsistent and arbitrary.
  I thank the Senator from Alabama for his time and remind our 
colleagues that we have confirmed Democratic nominees who have had deep 
personal objections to Supreme Court precedent. I recall we confirmed 
Janet Reno 98-to-0, even though her personal views on the death penalty 
were at odds with Supreme Court precedent. We ought not have a double 
standard. We should applaud Judge Pryor for his forthrightness and his 
commitment to the rule of law, and we ought to confirm this 
distinguished nominee.
  I also want to say to my friend from Alabama, I know he probably 
knows Judge Pryor better than anybody else in the Senate and has had a 
greater opportunity to evaluate his integrity, his intellect, and has 
really seen him in action. I think our colleagues ought to listen to 
the junior Senator from Alabama because he really knows Bill Pryor and 
can attest to the fact that Bill Pryor took actions much like Judge 
Pickering did in the 1960s, to which Senator Alexander was referring, 
that took extraordinary courage given the climate of public opinion in 
the State of Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 30-minute segment has expired.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the 
nomination of William Pryor for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Eleventh Circuit. This is a nomination which I have considered many 
times in the Senate Judiciary Committee and outside the regular 
business of Congress. Senator Jeff Sessions and I occasionally get up 
early in the morning and go to the Senate gym. And on several occasions 
he has raised with me his heartfelt support for William Pryor. I have 
expressed to him my reservations and concerns about Mr. Pryor, and he 
has tried to assure me, in different ways, that the public image of 
this man is much different than who he really is. I struggle with this 
because I do count Senator Sessions as a friend despite our many 
political differences. I would like to give him the benefit of the 
doubt on this nominee who is so important to him personally.
  Unfortunately, the debate that leads up to today's consideration on 
the floor has raised a myriad of questions that need to be resolved, 
questions which go to the heart of this nomination.
  Mr. Pryor was recess-appointed by President Bush when both he and 
Judge Pickering of Mississippi were not approved by the Senate. It was 
historic. It was a decision by the President to use his recess 
appointment power to put Mr. Pryor on the bench, despite the Senate's 
decision on his nomination. I agree with Senator Kennedy that Mr. 
Pryor's recess appointment, which occurred during a brief recess of 
Congress, could easily be unconstitutional. It was certainly confronta-
tional. Recess appointments lack the permanence and independence 
contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution. To confirm Mr. Pryor 
now would validate the President's regrettable decision to defy the 
Senate.
  I am afraid that many aspects of the debate, relative to the Pryor 
nomination, mark a low point in Congress. Many of Mr. Pryor's 
supporters allege that those of us who questioned his nomination or 
opposed him did so because of his religious beliefs. The same ugly 
allegation was raised more broadly at the recent Justice Sunday event 
which took place in a church in Kentucky and featured remarks by 
Majority Leader William Frist. The allegation that any Member of the 
Senate is opposing this nomination because of the nominee's religious 
beliefs is just wrong. In fact, it is not only wrong, it is outrageous.
  Article 6 of the Constitution, which we keep at hand here on the 
floor, makes it clear that it is unconstitutional to use any form of 
religious test for a person who is seeking an office of public trust. 
To suggest that those of us who oppose Mr. Pryor--or any of the 
President's judicial nominees--are violating this article of the 
Constitution is out of line.
  I am troubled, too, by the logic of this position. It appears that 
Mr. Pryor's supporters believe that if he can answer any of our 
questions about public policy, if the position he takes is based on his 
religious belief, then at that point we can't pursue the question, that 
it is a matter of his personal conscience. But think about that for a 
moment. I am a member of the Catholic Church. Some Catholics do not 
support the death penalty. The late Pope John Paul II himself strongly 
opposed capital punishment. Some Christian Scientists do not support 
many aspects of medical treatment. Some Quakers do not support war. 
Some people because of their religious beliefs have strong views on the 
role of women in society, strong views on divorce, on sexual 
orientation. I can't believe it is the position of Mr. Pryor's 
advocates that Senators could not raise legitimate concerns about 
positions on public issues if there is any nexus to a nominee's 
religious belief.
  Think of all of the areas where we would, frankly, be unable to even 
ask a question because the person could say: I am sorry. That is my 
religious belief, and you can't ask about that.
  The reality is that certain important issues at the center of legal 
and legislative activity are public issues and religious issues. To 
suggest the Senate cannot ask a nominee questions about these public 
issues would prohibit us from fulfilling our constitutional obligation. 
It is not Mr. Pryor's religious affiliation that is troubling. It is 
his history of putting his own personal beliefs ahead of the 
Constitution. He is a staunch judicial activist. Maybe he doesn't reach 
the level of Janice Rogers Brown, who was approved yesterday--the most 
radical nominee sent to us by the Bush White House--but, sadly, some of 
his public comments are close.
  William Pryor believes it is the job of a Federal judge to carry out 
the political agenda of the President. How else could you interpret his 
comment about the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, when he said:


[[Page 12076]]

       I'm probably the only one who wanted it 5-4. I wanted 
     Governor Bush to have a full appreciation of the judiciary 
     and judicial selection so we can have no more appointments 
     like Justice Souter.

  These are the words of William Pryor. Does that suggest to you that 
he is looking for a nonpartisan judiciary? Sadly, it suggests the 
opposite. He is looking for a bench filled with partisans of his 
stripe, and he used that case as a lesson to the White House: Be 
careful, if you pick someone who is independent, they may just rule 
against you on a political issue. Those are hardly the kind of words 
you want coming from the mouth of a man who wants to ascend to the 
second highest court in America.
  On another occasion, Mr. Pryor stated:

       [O]ur real last hope for federalism is the election of Gov. 
     George W. Bush as president of the United States, who has 
     said his favorite justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence 
     Thomas.
       Although the ACLU would argue that it is unconstitutional 
     for me, as a public official, to do this in a government 
     building, let alone at a football game, I will end my prayer 
     for the next administration: Please God, no more Souters.

  He was referring again to Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. I 
asked Mr. Pryor, a Federalist Society member, whether he agrees with 
the mission statement of the Federalist Society, where he pays his dues 
and attends meetings. It reads:

       Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly 
     dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which 
     advocates a centralized and uniform society.

  I have asked this question of almost every Federalist Society member 
nominated by President Bush, and there have been quite a few. Mr. Pryor 
is the only person who gave me a one-word answer: ``Yes.''
  I appreciate his honesty, but I am troubled by his beliefs. Mr. Pryor 
is just over 40 years old. If confirmed, he will have the chance to put 
this philosophy into practice well into the 21st century with a 
lifetime appointment.
  It is not just law and politics that Mr. Pryor has problems keeping 
separate. He has problems with the separation of church and State. I am 
concerned about his blurring of a very important line when it comes to 
the conduct of government vis-a-vis religion. He is so ideological 
about this issue that he has confessed:

       I became a lawyer because I wanted to fight the ACLU.

  The ACLU is one of the main defenders of the separation of church and 
State. I asked Mr. Pryor if he would be willing to recuse himself in 
cases involving the ACLU because he has made his views very clear that 
he cannot be objective. He said no. But he pledged:

       As a judge, I would fairly evaluate any case brought before 
     me in which the ACLU was involved.

  It is hard to believe that he could follow that pledge. This is a man 
who, by his own admission, became a lawyer so that he could ``fight the 
ACLU.'' Now he tells us he will be objective on their cases.
  Many of you remember Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and his midnight 
installation a few years ago of a 6,000-pound granite Ten Commandments 
monument in the middle of the Alabama State courthouse. Mr. Pryor and 
his supporters like to point out that Mr. Pryor criticized Chief 
Justice Moore for defying a Federal court order to remove the monument. 
What they don't like to talk about nearly as much or nearly as openly 
is the fact that Mr. Pryor was an early supporter of Chief Justice Roy 
Moore. He represented Moore vigorously in the litigation of this issue.
  The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the display was patently 
unconstitutional, and a district court subsequently issued an 
injunction to have the monument removed. Had Mr. Pryor continued to 
side with Moore and refused to comply with this injunction, he would 
have exposed the State of Alabama to substantial monetary sanctions and 
possible criminal liability. This is what Mr. Pryor and his supporters 
offer as proof that he understands and respects the venerated, 
historic, and traditional wall between church and State.
  Mr. Pryor's advocates call him a ``profile in courage'' for enforcing 
the Eleventh Circuit decision that the monument must be removed from 
the Alabama State courthouse. I call it doing your job.
  Let me provide another example of his insensitivity. At Mr. Pryor's 
confirmation hearing, Senator Feinstein asked him to explain his 
statement that ``[t]he challenge of the next millennium will be to 
preserve the American experiment by restoring its Christian 
perspective.'' He ducked the question.
  If you are going to serve this Nation and its Constitution, you have 
to have some sensitivity to the diversity of religious belief in 
America. Many of us are Christians. But to impose a so-called Christian 
perspective on everything is to, frankly, take a position which many of 
different religious faiths would find offensive and intrusive by their 
Government.
  Our Founders may have been mostly Christian, but America today is a 
nation of religious diversity and this diversity is protected by the 
Constitution. Judge Pryor has difficulty in grasping this concept.
  On the issue of federalism, Mr. Pryor has been a predictable, 
reliable voice for those who seek to limit the people's rights in the 
name of States' rights. It is an old ploy in America. As the Alabama 
Attorney General, he filed brief after brief with the U.S. Supreme 
Court arguing that Congress has virtually no power to protect State 
employees who are victims of discrimination. Under his leadership, 
Alabama was the only State in the Nation to challenge the 
constitutionality of parts of the Violence Against Women Act. Thirty-
six States filed briefs urging this important law be upheld in its 
entirety, while William Pryor, attorney general of Alabama, was the 
only one who used his position to try to tear down the Violence Against 
Women Act.
  Mr. Pryor also filed a brief in the Supreme Court case Nevada v. 
Hibbs. In it, he argued that Congress has no power to ensure that State 
employees have the right to take unpaid leave from work under the 
Family Medical Leave Act. Think about it. Mr. Pryor, as Alabama 
attorney general, said Congress had no power to enforce a Federal law.
  The Supreme Court rejected his argument and said: Mr. Pryor, this 
time you have gone too far.
  On the issue of women's rights, he clearly opposes a woman's right to 
choose. He once called Roe v. Wade ``the worst abomination of 
constitutional law in our history.'' At Mr. Pryor's hearing, Senator 
Specter asked him if he stood by his statement. He said he did. He went 
on to say that Roe v. Wade is ``unsupported by the test and structure 
of the Constitution'' and ``has led to the slaughter of millions of 
innocent unborn children.''
  We are not talking about a nominee who made an overheated statement 
30 years ago as a college student. Mr. Pryor said this at his own 
confirmation hearing.
  Understand the constitutional principle that underlies Roe v. Wade. I 
know abortion is an issue that is very divisive. People feel very 
strongly one way or the other. But most people concede that underlying 
that Roe v. Wade decision is the right to privacy, a right which was 
enshrined in the Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut 40 years 
ago this week.
  The State of Connecticut, urged by religious groups, had banned the 
sale of contraceptives and family planning to anyone in the State of 
Connecticut. If you purchased any family planning--a birth control 
pill, for example--it was a violation of the law, and the pharmacist 
who filled that prescription could be arrested and prosecuted.
  Think about it. Only 40 years ago that was the case. There was a 
group who believed that their religious beliefs were so compelling 
about birth control that they installed it as a State law.
  The law was challenged. It came before the Supreme Court. The Supreme 
Court came down with what has now become a time-honored decision that 
said, no, built into this Constitution there may not be the word 
``privacy,'' but the concept of privacy. There are certain things that 
we, as individuals,

[[Page 12077]]

should be protected to make decisions about--the intimacy of marriage, 
the privacy of our personal life.
  What I hear in the language of Mr. Pryor, and many others of his 
point of view, is really questioning this fundamental concept of 
protecting individual, personal privacy. It is their belief, many of 
them, that the Government should rule on these decisions.
  On the issue of voting rights, Mr. Pryor has urged Congress to take 
steps that would undermine the right of African Americans to vote. 
While testifying before the Judiciary Committee in 1997, he urged 
Congress to ``consider seriously . . . the repeal or amendment of 
section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.'' This is a key provision that 
guarantees the right of African Americans and other racial minorities 
to achieve equal opportunity in voting.
  Section 5 requires certain States to obtain preapproval before 
changing their voting rights standards, such as redistricting or the 
location of polling places. It is clearly a vestige of America in 
transition from racial division and discrimination to a more open, 
equal policy.
  Mr. Pryor, as attorney general of Alabama, raised questions as to 
whether or not the Federal Government should continue to try to meet 
that standard. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. He called 
section 5 ``an affront to federalism and an expensive burden that has 
far outlived its usefulness.''
  I say to Mr. Pryor and others who are white Americans that we cannot 
possibly understand how much this means, what it means to an individual 
to have the right to vote, particularly a person of color, a minority 
in America, and section 5 is there to guarantee it.
  As attorney general of Alabama, Mr. Pryor testified that it had 
outlived its usefulness. I disagree with his sentiment. Thankfully, so 
did the Supreme Court and most Members of Congress.
  There are so many other issues. Tobacco is another one. When it comes 
to tobacco, Mr. Pryor has been one of the Nation's foremost opponents 
of a critical public health issue--compensation for the harms caused by 
tobacco companies. He has ridiculed lawsuits against tobacco companies 
saying:

       This form of litigation is madness. It is a threat to human 
     liberty, and it needs to stop.

  Remember, those are the lawsuits against tobacco companies that had 
openly deceived Americans into believing their product was safe, 
leading to addictions, disease, and death. And when lawsuits were 
brought by attorneys general across America against the tobacco 
companies, they settled, knowing they would lose in court, and paid 
billions of dollars, confessing, in the process, their own wrongdoing.
  Despite that, Attorney General Pryor, in Alabama, said this was a 
threat to human liberty to bring these lawsuits against tobacco 
companies. What was he thinking?
  His fellow State attorneys general have been highly critical of him 
for his comments on these tobacco lawsuits. Former Mississippi Attorney 
General Michael Moore said:

       Bill Pryor was probably the biggest defender of tobacco 
     companies of anyone I know. He did a better job of defending 
     the tobacco companies than their own defense attorneys.

  Former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, a Republican, said this 
of Mr. Pryor:

       He's been attorney general for about 5 minutes, and already 
     he's acted more poorly than any other attorney general.

  These are his colleagues commenting on his view of the law and his 
personal philosophy.
  Gun control is another issue where Mr. Pryor has demonstrated 
disregard, if not downright hostility, to even reasonable firearm 
restrictions.
  In United States v. Emerson, he filed an amicus brief with the 
Supreme Court, arguing the man who was the subject of a domestic 
violence restraining order should be allowed to possess a firearm.
  I can tell you, from my life experience and legal experience, that is 
a very bad position to take. We know that if someone has a restraining 
order against them because they are going to commit domestic violence, 
the last thing we want to give them is a gun. That is what the case is 
about. Mr. Pryor in that case said, no, they have a right to have a 
firearm, even if they have a domestic abuse restraining order against 
them.
  He called the Government's position a ``sweeping and arbitrary 
infringement on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms.''
  I will stand here and defend to the end the right of an individual to 
own a firearm legally in America, to use it for legitimate purposes--
for self-defense, for hunting, for sport--but to think Mr. Pryor 
believes the second amendment right is so absolute that we should give 
guns to men who batter their wives, I just do not understand it. It 
does not show common sense, let alone an understanding of the law.
  Incidentally, he was the only attorney general in the United States 
of America who took that position.
  Mr. Pryor once called those who exercised their legal rights against 
gun dealers and manufacturers ``leftist bounty hunters.'' The list goes 
on and on.
  On environmental protection, Mr. Pryor was the only State attorney 
general in the country to file a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court 
arguing that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to 
protect waters that provide a habitat for migratory birds.
  In another case, he was the only State attorney general to file a 
brief urging the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional Federal 
efforts to protect wildlife on private lands under the Endangered 
Species Act.
  He has written that his ``favorite victory of the 2000 term'' was the 
Supreme Court ruling in Alexander v. Sandoval, an infamous decision 
that made it more difficult to bring environmental justice cases under 
title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
  Judge Pryor has served as a recess appointment on the Eleventh 
Circuit for about a year now. Senator Specter, chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, whom I respect very much, has now tried to make 
the case that he would be a moderate, fairminded judge based on 1 year 
of service, under the glare of spotlights, as people watched every 
decision handed down. He suggests he is going to change, he is not 
going to be the old William Pryor, if we give him an appointment to the 
Eleventh Circuit. He will be less political. Chairman Specter said he 
will be less of an activist.
  I am not persuaded. He has not really had an opportunity to rule on 
the full spectrum of issues he will face in a lifetime on the bench.
  There have been only so many cases which he has considered. Some you 
can consider liberal in his decisionmaking, some conservative, but to 
take this 1 year of a probationary period, with this close scrutiny, 
and say that is what he is all about, I think is to overstate the case.
  Mr. Pryor and his supporters have a simple strategy to try to 
convince the Senate to grant him a lifetime position as a Federal 
judge. Rather than talk about his troubling record or radical views, 
they focus on his religious affiliation and accuse anyone who questions 
him of religious discrimination. I think that is wrong.
  We should take care and understand what the Constitution says very 
directly about religion. There are three references, and the three 
references have really done a good job for America in over 200 years. 
The first is each person is entitled to his or her religious beliefs. 
Believe what you want to believe in the name of religion or do not 
believe anything. That is your right, your freedom of conscience to 
make that decision.
  Secondly, this Government will not establish a church. We are not 
going to say this is a Christian nation and everything we do will be 
handled by the standards of Christ's teachings. We cannot do that under 
our Constitution. We should not do that because of diversity of 
religious belief.
  Finally, that there be no religious test under the Constitution for 
anyone seeking office, as I mentioned earlier.
  I think we have to be careful here about the use of religion in the 
debate

[[Page 12078]]

about William Pryor and careful about it as we speak on the floor. It 
is not Mr. Pryor's ideas about religion that trouble me. It is his 
views and record on women's right, voting rights, inmates' rights, 
consumers rights, the constitutional principle of separation of church 
and State. Time and again, as Alabama attorney general, Mr. Pryor has 
taken extreme positions, made extreme statements on such a wide range 
of issues that the 25 to 30 minutes I have spoken here cannot possibly 
cover it.
  He and his supporters say he will be a changed person. He will go 
through the so-called confirmation conversion. This will be the new 
William Pryor. Sadly, I believe, given a lifetime appointment, he will 
revert to form. He will follow the pattern of his life, the pattern of 
his statements, and the pattern of his beliefs.
  Based on review of his record, it is a risk I cannot, in good 
conscience, take, and I will vote against Mr. Pryor's nomination.


                              Big Tobacco

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on a separate subject, there was a 
decision reached this week by the Department of Justice which was very 
troubling. A lawyer sold out his client. It happens all the time. It is 
wrong, but it happens. What makes this case unique is the lawyer is the 
Attorney General and the client is the people of America. In a lawsuit 
that had been brought against the tobacco companies, there was expert 
testimony to the fact these tobacco companies should pay up to $130 
billion over 25 years for lying to the American people and for all the 
medical expenses their deadly product created. A similar lawsuit was 
brought by the States not that long ago. So the Department of Justice, 
slow to begin this process, was taking the tobacco companies to court.
  Then, out of the blue, came the following, and this was reported in 
the press:

       After 8 months of courtroom argument, Justice Department 
     lawyers abruptly upset a landmark civil racketeering case 
     against the tobacco industry yesterday by asking for less 
     than 8 percent of the expected penalty.

  Suing for $130 billion, the lawyer for the people of the United 
States walked into the courtroom this week and said: Oh, we just want 
$10 billion. The story goes that this Justice Department lawyer, 
Stephen Brody, even shocked the tobacco company representatives by 
announcing that he only needed $10 billion over 5 years. The 
Government's own expert said $130 billion over 25 years. What a 
discount. Here is the lead from the story:

       Government lawyers asked two of their own witnesses to 
     soften recommendations about sanctions that should be imposed 
     on the tobacco industry if it lost a landmark civil 
     racketeering case, one of the witnesses and sources familiar 
     with the case said yesterday.

  Matt Myers, a person I know and worked with in the past, said he was 
asked to basically change his testimony to lighten up on the tobacco 
companies. He confirmed in this article. The second witness declined 
comment, but four separate sources familiar with the case said the 
Justice Department asked the same of him.
  By the time the Government opened its racketeering case against 
tobacco companies last September, it had already spent $135 million to 
develop its case. Why, at the 11th hour, would the Government's own 
lawyers, the people's own lawyers, fold under the pressure of the 
tobacco companies and give away so much potential recovery for the 
taxpayers of America?
  Why would they ignore the advice of their own expert witness to seek 
a penalty of $130 billion and reduce their demand to $10 billion over 5 
years?
  Even the lawyer for Philip Morris tobacco company coordinating the 
case said as follows:

       They've gone down--

  Meaning the Government, your lawyer, the attorney--

     from $130 billion to $10 billion with absolutely no 
     explanation. It's clear the Government hasn't thought through 
     what it's doing.

  End of quote from Dan Webb, the lawyer from the tobacco company, who 
could not believe what he had heard when the Department of Justice 
walked into the courtroom and said: We are going to deeply discount the 
amount we are trying to recover.
  Why is this money important? There are 45 million smokers in America. 
Many of them want to quit. The money was going to be used for cessation 
programs, reducing disease and death in America, and the Bush 
administration walked away from it, walked away from the vast amount 
already established in court as the amount necessary to move these 
programs forward.
  In court yesterday, a Philip Morris lawyer tried to explain away the 
reduced fine by claiming that the Government's case was in disarray. 
The judge in the case interrupted the tobacco lawyer who was trying to 
put some credibility into the new position of the Bush administration 
by saying that was not true.
  So what is the reason? Sadly, it is because there is too much 
political impact by the tobacco lobby on this administration, 
particularly on Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum, Jr.
  Who is he? This is what the L.A. Times said about him:

       Before his appointment in the Justice Department . . . he 
     had been a partner at Alston & Bird, an Atlanta-based firm 
     that had done trademark and patent work for R. J. Reynolds 
     Tobacco. In 2002, McCallum signed a friend-of-the-court brief 
     by the administration urging the Supreme Court not to 
     consider an appeal by the Government of Canada to reinstate a 
     cigarette smuggling case against R. J. Reynolds that had been 
     dismissed. The Department's ethics office had cleared 
     McCallum to take part in the case.

  Let me point out, in fairness to Mr. McCallum, that he is not the 
only friend of the tobacco industry in the Bush administration. There 
are many.
  Does this have something to do with the surprise announcement 
yesterday that the Justice Department was selling out its client, the 
American people, those addicted to tobacco? That is why Senators 
Lautenberg, Kennedy, Wyden, and I have sent a letter to the inspector 
general of the Justice Department, asking him to investigate this 
reversal of position by the Attorney General.
  Just why in the world has the Attorney General of the United States 
thrown in the towel, given up, when he was supposed to be fighting for 
people across America who need this public health assistance?
  I think that is a critical and unanswered question, which I hope the 
inspector general will address.
  I yield the floor and 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. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the nomination of Bill Pryor, to serve on the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
  I have known Bill for many years and have the highest regard for his 
intellect and integrity. He is an extraordinarily skilled attorney with 
a prestigious record of trying civil and criminal cases in both the 
Federal and State courts. He has also argued several cases before both 
the Supreme Court of the United States and the supreme court of the 
State of Alabama.
  As the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Judge Pryor 
established a reputation as a principled and effective legal advocate 
for the State and distinguished himself as a leader on many important 
State issues. During his tenure as Attorney General, it was his duty 
and obligation to represent and defend the laws and interests of the 
State of Alabama. And while he may not have always agreed with those 
laws, he consistently fulfilled his responsibility dutifully and 
responsibly.
  Long before being nominated to the Eleventh Circuit, Judge Pryor made 
it a priority to be open and honest about his personal beliefs, which 
is what voters expect from the persons whom they elect to represent 
them. Yet he has shown again and again that when the

[[Page 12079]]

law conflicts with his personal and political beliefs, he follows the 
law as articulated by the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
  Despite his detractors, I believe it is important to note that 
actions speak louder than words, and certainly, Judge Pryor's actions 
since joining the Eleventh Circuit speak volumes about his fairness and 
impartiality. During his brief tenure on the Court, Judge Pryor has 
authored several opinions that effectively demonstrate his willingness 
to protect the rights of those often overlooked in the legal system.
  In light of all of the information that has been presented here 
today, I believe that we must confirm Judge Pryor. Bill Pryor is a man 
of the law and that is what we need in our Federal judiciary. Whether 
as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, the Attorney General of the State 
of Alabama, or a Federal judge, he understands and respects the 
constitutional role of the judiciary and specifically, the role of the 
Federal courts in our legal system. Indeed, I have no doubt that he 
will make an exceptional Federal judge because of the humility and 
gravity that he brings to the bench. I am also confident that he will 
serve honorably and apply the law with impartiality and fairness--just 
as he has done during his brief tenure on the Eleventh Circuit.
  I again encourage my colleagues to support Judge Pryor's nomination 
because I believe it is what is right for our people, and it is what is 
right for our country.
  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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
nomination of Judge William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  I would like to respond to the accusations by some of my colleagues 
concerning Bill Pryor's comments related to Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act. Judge Pryor has an outstanding record on civil rights and a 
demonstrated commitment to seeking equal justice for persons of all 
races.
  Nevertheless, some of my colleagues on the other side have tried to 
characterize Bill Pryor as ``out of the mainstream'' because, as you 
have heard, he has called for the amendment of Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act.
  Judge Pryor is not out of the mainstream on this issue, and I'll 
explain why.
  After you hear who agrees with Judge Pryor on his reasoning here, I 
think you will agree with me that if Bill Pryor is ``out of the 
mainstream'' on his critiques of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 
he's ``out there'' with some great Americans.
  First, let me explain what Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is 
about. Section 5 requires any ``covered States''--States that are 
subject to the Voting Rights Act--to pre-clear any decision to change 
``any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, 
practice, or procedure with respect to voting.''
  The Supreme Court in Allen v. State Board of Elections has made it 
clear that the:

     legislative history on the whole supports the view that 
     Congress intended to reach any State enactment which altered 
     the election law of a covered State in even a minor way.

  In practice, this means that Section 5 requires Federal officials at 
the Department of Justice to approve even very minor practices related 
to voting.
  For example, if a State moved a polling place from one side of a 
street to another, this action would have to be pre-cleared by the 
Justice Department pursuant to Section 5.
  Bill Pryor has called the Voting Rights Act ``one of the greatest and 
most necessary laws in American history,'' but he has taken to task 
Federal courts that have ``turned the Act on its head and wielded . . . 
power to deprive all voters of the right to select . . . public 
officers,'' even though the Act ``was passed to empower minority voters 
in the exercise of the franchise.''
  As Alabama Attorney General, Bill Pryor was by no means alone in his 
criticisms of the Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
  In a brief before the Supreme Court in the case of Georgia v. 
Ashcroft, Thurbert Baker, our State Attorney General in Georgia, who 
himself is a Democrat and African-American, called Section 5 an 
``extraordinary transgression of the normal prerogatives of the 
states'' and ``a grave intrusion into the authority of the states.''
  General Baker also stated that:

       Section 5 was initially enacted as a ``temporary'' measure 
     to last five years precisely because it was so intrusive.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of a letter 
that General Baker wrote back in 2003 to Senators Shelby and Sessions 
of Alabama, in which General Baker describes Bill Pryor as ``an 
excellent candidate for a slot on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals,'' 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Department of Law,

                                      Atlanta, GA, March 31, 2003.
     Hon. Richard Shelby,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jeff Sessions,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: I have had the great pleasure of knowing and 
     working with Bill Pryor over the past five years. Through the 
     National Association of Attorneys General, Bill and I have 
     worked together on matters of mutual concern to Georgia and 
     Alabama. During that time, Bill has distinguished himself 
     time and again with the legal acumen that he brings to issues 
     of national or regional concern as well as with his 
     commitment to furthering the prospects of good and responsive 
     government.
       During his tenure as Attorney General, Bill has made 
     combating white-collar crime and public corruption one of the 
     centerpieces of his service to the people of Alabama. He 
     joined the efforts of Attorneys General around the country in 
     fighting the rising tide of identity theft, pushing through 
     legislation in the Alabama legislature making identity theft 
     a felony in Alabama. Bill has fought to keep law enforcement 
     in Alabama armed with appropriate laws to protect Alabama's 
     citizens, pushing for tough money laundering provisions and 
     stiff penalties for trafficking in date rape drugs.
       Time and again as Attorney General, Bill has taken on 
     public corruption cases in Alabama, regardless of how well-
     connected the defendant may be, to ensure that the public 
     trust is upheld and the public's confidence in government is 
     well-founded. He has worked with industry groups and the 
     Better Business Bureau to crack down on unscrupulous 
     contractors who victimized many of Alabama's more vulnerable 
     citizens.
       From the time that he clerked with the late Judge Wisdom of 
     the 5th Circuit to the present, though, the most critical 
     asset that Bill Pryor has brought to the practice of law is 
     his zeal to do what he thinks is right. He has always done 
     what he thought was best for the people of Alabama. 
     Recognizing a wrong that had gone on far too long, he took 
     the opportunity of his inaugural address to call on an end to 
     the ban on inter-racial marriages in Alabama law. Concerned 
     about at-risk kids in Alabama schools, he formed Mentor 
     Alabama, a program designed to pair volunteer mentors with 
     students who needed a role model and an attentive ear to the 
     problems facing them on a daily basis.
       These are just a few of the qualities that I believe will 
     make Bill Pryor an excellent candidate for a slot on the 11th 
     Circuit Court of Appeals. My only regret is that I will no 
     longer have Bill as a fellow Attorney General fighting for 
     what is right, but I know that his work on the bench will 
     continue to serve as an example of how the public trust 
     should be upheld.
           Sincerely,
                                                Thurbert E. Baker.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. General Baker goes on in his letter to my colleagues 
from Alabama to say:

       My only regret is that I will no longer have Bill as a 
     fellow Attorney General fighting for what is right, but I 
     know that his work on the bench will continue to serve as an 
     example of how the public trust should be upheld.

  Judge Pryor's concerns about Section 5 have been borne out in 
Georgia, where the State appealed to the Supreme Court in Georgia v. 
Ashcroft to have a recent redistricting plan approved following the 
2000 decennial census, and after a Federal district court found that 
Georgia's plan violated Section 5.
  During the litigation in the district court, Congressman John Lewis, 
a hero of the civil rights movement, testified on behalf of the State 
of Georgia in

[[Page 12080]]

support of the plan, noting that Georgia:

     is not the same state it was. It's not the same state that it 
     was in 1965 or in 1975, or even in 1980 or 1990. We have 
     changed. We've come a great distance.

  John Lewis knows that thoughtful review of Section 5 could be of some 
benefit.
  According to the New York Times, Georgia's plan, pushed by both 
``white and black Democrats,'' represented an attempt:

     to reverse [a] trend in Georgia and elsewhere by 
     redistributing some of the black voters and re-integrating 
     suburban districts to gain a better chance of electing 
     Democrats.

  That is a quote from a New York Times article of January 18, 2003 at 
A12.
  The New York Times further notes that Georgia currently has:

     some safe Democratic districts with large black majorities, 
     along with a sharply increased number of Republicans elected 
     from suburban districts that had become increasingly white.

  In his brief in Georgia v. Ashcroft, Georgia Attorney General 
Thurbert Baker cited his own election as an example of how African-
American candidates can take ``the overwhelming majority of the total 
vote against their white opponents'' without the benefit of 
supermajority districts.
  The Federal Government opposed Georgia's plan on the ground that 
Section 5 does not give Georgia the power to eliminate supermajority 
minority legislative districts, even in the name of increasing overall 
minority voting power.
  Section 5 has not only placed a burden on covered States, but also on 
the Justice Department, which has wasted time by being forced to pre-
clear a huge number of changes in voting practices that have nothing to 
do with minority voting rights.
  Section 5 requires covered states to pre-clear any decision to 
change:

     any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or 
     standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.

  Again, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the:

     legislative history on the whole supports the view that 
     Congress intended to reach any state enactment which altered 
     the election law of a covered State in even a minor way.''

  That statement is included in Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 
U.S. 544, 566.
  For example, if a State moved a polling place from one side of a 
street to another, this action would have to be pre-cleared by the 
Justice Department pursuant to section 5, which indicates that ``any 
change in the boundaries of voting precincts or in the location of 
polling places'' requires pre-clearance.
  Another great American, the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis 
Powell also criticized section 5 of the Act.
  President Clinton has called Justice Powell ``one of our most 
thoughtful and conscientious judges'' and a Justice who reviewed cases 
``without an ideological agenda.''
  In 1973, in another case styled as Georgia v. United States, Justice 
Powell wrote in a dissenting opinion that:

     It is indeed a serious intrusion, incompatible with the basic 
     structure of our system, for federal authorities to compel a 
     state to submit its [reapportionment] legislation for advance 
     review [under section 5].

  The most important point I would like to stress is that despite Mr. 
Pryor's well-documented concerns about Section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act, he has vigorously enforced all provisions of the Act.
  Let me give you two examples. First, when Alabama state legislator 
J.E. Turner died and the new candidate wanted to use stickers to place 
his name on the ballot, Attorney General Pryor issued an opinion 
stating that the use of stickers required pre-clearance under Section 5 
of the Act. Certainly this illustrates that Bill Pryor was able to 
separate his personal disagreement with the requirements of Section 5 
from his duty as Alabama's Attorney General to enforce the provision 
despite his personal views.
  A second example involved Mr. Pryor's successful defense of several 
majority-minority voting districts, approved under Section 5, from a 
challenge by a group of White Alabama voters in the Sinkfield v. Kelley 
case. The voters, who were residents of various majority-White voting 
districts, sued the State of Alabama in Federal court, claiming that 
Alabama's voting districts were the product of unconstitutional racial 
gerrymandering.
  The districts were created under a state plan whose acknowledged 
purpose was the maximization of the number of majority-minority 
districts in Alabama. Attorney General Pryor personally defended the 
majority-minority districts all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, 
which held that the White voters could not sue because they did not 
reside in the majority-minority district and had not personally been 
denied equal treatment.
  When some of these provisions of the Voting Rights Act are up for 
renewal, we should review and consider them in a very deliberative, 
bipartisan manner to make sure that the law today reflects the 
realities of our society here in the 21st Century.
  Thurbert Baker and Bill Pryor, as attorneys general of two 
neighboring states in the South, know this to be the case one is 
African-American and one is White; one is a Democrat and the other is a 
Republican, but together they share a vision of making the voting 
rights laws of our country effective and enforceable in today's times.
  To sum up, Bill Pryor has established an impressive record as a fair, 
diligent, and competent public servant. Two of my fellow Georgians, 
John Lewis and Thurbert Baker, have expressed concerns with Section 5 
of the Voting Rights Act, just as Bill Pryor did and just as the late 
Justice Lewis Powell did.
  This is not out-of-the-mainstream thinking; it's thoughtful and 
sincere analysis.
  Even the liberal New York Times had to concede as much in its 
comments regarding Georgia's redistricting plan.
  Bill Pryor's nomination to the Eleventh Circuit enjoys strong 
bipartisan support in his home State of Alabama, and in my home State, 
which is also part of the Eleventh Circuit.
  A month ago, I visited with a number of my district court judges, all 
of whom said that in their contact with the Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals, they had nothing but great things to say about the job Bill 
Pryor is doing as an interim appointee to the Eleventh Circuit. I urge 
my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the nomination of 
William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. Bill Pryor's nomination is the 
last of the three covered by the deal worked out by 14 of our 
colleagues to avoid meltdown in the Senate.
  Yesterday was the vote on Janice Rogers Brown. It was a sad vote. Not 
a single Republican Senator broke with his or her party to vote against 
a nominee whom even the National Review, George Will, and others 
singled out for her judicial activism and radicalism. It showed again 
that the other side is willing to march in almost total lockstep with 
the President. If they had their way, the Senate would be a complete 
rubberstamp for any nominee the President proposes--totally against 
what the Founding Fathers intended this Senate to be.
  The count is 2,921 to 2. Out of almost 3,000 votes on appellate court 
nominees, 44 in all, only twice have Republican Senators dared to 
deviate from the party line. Is that the kind of independent thinking 
that an up-or-down vote entails? It is a sad day, indeed. For sure, 
Janice Rogers Brown's views do not mirror those of most of my 
colleagues or even come close.
  In a moment, I will go through all the reasons I am opposed to Judge 
Pryor's nomination and all the things he said with which I strongly 
disagree. Here is one I agree with. In his testimony before the Senate 
in 1997, Judge Pryor told Senators, ``Your role of advice and consent 
in judicial nominees cannot be overstated.'' On this point, Judge Pryor 
and I see eye to eye.
  As we await a slew of new nominations from the President, as we await 
the possible retirement of a Supreme Court Justice, and as we vote on 
the current nominees in the wake of an agreement that specifically 
urged

[[Page 12081]]

President Bush to consult the Senate in advance of nominations, I again 
plead with the President and my colleagues to look to the future. Look 
to a future where harmony can replace acrimony in the Senate, where 
bipartisanship can replace one-upmanship, and where discourse can 
replace demagoguery. How can that be done? It is very simple. The 
President can, as he said he would in a recent press conference, 
consult meaningfully with Senators before trying to jam extreme 
nominees down our throats.
  The renomination of Bill Pryor was the most breathtaking example of 
the President's ignoring checks and balances and bypassing the Senate's 
role in the nomination and confirmation process. The President stuck a 
thumb in the eye of bipartisanship when he renominated people like 
Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Richard Myers after they were 
rejected by the Senate.
  But the President did not get his way with William Pryor, and then he 
took the truly extraordinary step of making a recess appointment. While 
the renomination of rejected judges was a thumb in the eye to 
bipartisanship, the recent appointment of Bill Pryor was a punch in the 
face. This was particularly outrageous because not only is Bill Pryor 
one of the most ideologically driven nominees we have ever seen but 
also because there were questions about his credibility with the 
committee, and there was an unfinished investigation regarding the 
Republican Attorney General Association that he founded.
  It is not enough for him or any other nominee to simply say: I will 
follow the law. His views are too well known. His record is clear about 
how he will vote as a judge. We all know that judging is not a rote 
process. We all know our own individual values and thoughts influence 
how we interpret the law. If it were just by rote, we would have 
computers on the bench instead of men and women in black robes. There 
is a degree of subjectivity, especially in close cases and 
controversies on hot-button issues. It is hard to believe that the 
incredibly strong ideological bent of this nominee will not have an 
impact on how he rules.
  As my colleagues know, I have no litmus test when it comes to 
nominees. I am sure most of this President's judicial nominees have 
been pro-life, but I voted for so many of them because I have been 
persuaded they are committed to upholding the rule of law. I, for one, 
believe a judge can be pro-life and yet be fair and balanced and uphold 
the woman's right to choose. But for a judge to set aside his or her 
own personal views, the commitment to the rule of law must clearly 
supersede his or her personal agenda. That is a trick some can pull 
off. Not everybody can.
  Let's take a moment to review some of the more radical remarks 
William Pryor has made and some of the more polemical positions he has 
taken. On criminal justice issues, I tend to be conservative. I tend to 
agree with most of my Republican colleagues. But there are lines which 
should not be crossed.
  William Pryor defended his State's practice of handcuffing prisoners 
to hitching posts in the hot Alabama Sun for 7 hours without even 
giving them a drop of water to drink, and then he criticized the 
Supreme Court--hardly a liberal court--when it held this practice 
violated the eighth amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. We 
do have standards. We are not a medieval society, even for those of us 
who believe in tough punishment. What Pryor did, he goes far, too far, 
to say the least. In criticizing the Supreme Court's decision, he 
accused the Justices of applying their own subjective views on 
appropriate methods of prison discipline. The Supreme Court, which I 
believe was unanimous--or maybe 8 to 1--in rejecting William Pryor's 
view, was far more appropriate than he was.
  He also called the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda--something 
that is part of judicially accepted law--one of the worst examples of 
judicial activism.
  He has vigorously opposed the exemption of retarded defendants from 
being executed. He submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in 
Atkins v. Virginia, and he argued that mentally retarded individuals 
should be subjected to the death penalty like anyone else.
  When issues have been raised about the fair and just administration 
of punishment, particularly in some of these cases, Mr. Pryor's 
reaction has been to scoff.
  When asked what steps Alabama would take to ensure that the death 
penalty was fairly applied--and I have supported the death penalty--
regardless of the defendant's race, he said:

       I would hate for us to judge the criminal justice system in 
     a way where we excuse people from committing crimes because, 
     well, we have imposed enough punishment on that group this 
     year, and that's precisely what you are being asked to think 
     of with that kind of analysis.

  It is ridiculous. The analysis simply said, don't take race into 
account. This is a judge who will be fair and impartial and open to 
advocates' positions on both sides of an issue?
  How about States rights? Mr. Pryor has been one of the staunchest 
advocates of efforts to roll back the clock, not just to the 1930s but 
to the 1890s. He is an ardent supporter of an activist Supreme Court 
agenda cutting back Congress's power to protect women, workers, 
consumers, the environment, and civil rights.
  As Alabama's attorney general, Mr. Pryor filed the only amicus brief 
from among the 50 States. Only 1 attorney general out of all 50 filed a 
brief urging the Supreme Court to undo significant portions of the 
Violence Against Women Act. I am a proud author of that act. I carried 
the bill in the House when I was a Congressman. And to be so opposed to 
preventing women from being beaten by their husbands and taking 
remedies to deal with women who are so beaten makes no sense to me.
  In commenting on that law, Pryor said:

       One wonders why [VAWA] enjoys such political support, 
     especially in the Congress.

  One wonders why it enjoys such support when, for the first time, we 
in Washington, hailed by Republicans and Democrats, started trying to 
help women who were beaten by their husbands? When they used to go to 
certain police stations, they were told--not out of malice but out of 
ignorance--go home, it is a family matter; whose children had watched 
them be hit? And he cannot understand why it enjoys such political 
support? He is not the kind of man I want on the court of appeals.
  How about child welfare? Bill Pryor's ardent support of States rights 
extends even to the realm of child welfare. At the same time he was 
conceding that Alabama had failed to fulfill the requirements of a 
Federal consent decree regarding the operation of a child's welfare 
system, he was demanding his State be let out of the deal.
  On environment, we have more of the same concerns. Pryor was the lone 
attorney general to file an amicus brief arguing the Constitution does 
not give the Federal Government power to regulate interstate waters as 
a habitat for migratory concerns.
  When it comes to disabilities, contrast Mr. Pryor's approach with the 
approach he took in Bush v. Gore. Bill Pryor was the lone State 
attorney general to file an amicus brief supporting the Supreme Court's 
intervention in Florida's election dispute. Every other attorney 
general, Democrat and Republican, had the sense to stay out of this 
dispute. Not Mr. Pryor.
  Yet when it came to the ADA, the disabilities act, Mr. Pryor was the 
driving force behind the case in which a nurse contracted breast 
cancer, took time off to deal with her illness, and when she returned--
in violation of the ADA--she found that she was demoted.
  In conclusion, Mr. Pryor is extreme. Again, why is he, over and over 
again, 1 of the 50 attorneys general--there are a lot of conservative 
attorneys general--to file these briefs? Why is he, on things that are 
part of the mainstream of American feelings and jurisprudence--
environment, Americans With Disabilities Act--way over?
  Why did he say:

       I will end with my prayer for the next administration. 
     Please, God, no more Souters?

  That is what he said before the Federalist Society, a Republican 
appointee to the bench. The man is clearly an

[[Page 12082]]

ideologue. The man does not respect the rule of law in too many 
instances.
  As I have said before, Bill Pryor is a proud and distinguished 
ideological warrior. But ideological warriors, whether from the left or 
from the right, are bad news for the bench. They tend to make law, not 
interpret law. That is not what any of us should want from our judges. 
Ideological warriors, whether from the left or the right, do not belong 
on courts of appeals.
  I will suggest that you do not need to take my word for it. Here is 
what Grant Woods, the former attorney general of Arizona, and a 
conservative Republican, said of Mr. Pryor: While I would have great 
question of whether Mr. Pryor has an ability to be nonpartisan, I would 
say he was probably the most doctrinaire and partisan attorney general 
I have dealt with in 8 years. So I think people would be wise to 
question whether or not he is the right person to be nonpartisan on the 
bench.
  I could not have said it better myself.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am here to speak again, as so many 
before me, on the nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit 
Court of Appeals.
  Now, we have heard many concerns and complaints about Mr. Pryor. We 
have heard that Mr. Pryor cost his State millions of dollars when he 
refused to join litigation seeking to hold tobacco companies 
accountable for the cost of smoking because he believes that ``smokers, 
as a group, do not impose the cost of their habit on the government'' 
and, listen to this, that the premature deaths of smokers actually save 
the Government the cost of ``Social Security, pensions, and nursing 
home payments.''
  We have heard about Mr. Pryor's vigorous defense of Alabama's use of 
the hitching post as a punishment, a practice the Supreme Court held to 
be cruel and unusual punishment.
  So there has been a lot of talk about different things about Mr. 
Pryor and what he has stood for, but I am here specifically to talk 
about Mr. Pryor's persistent, repeated efforts to eliminate the ability 
of people with disabilities to receive equal treatment in our society. 
I am here to talk about this nominee's hostility toward the Americans 
with Disabilities Act.
  Most of my colleagues know that I had a brother who was deaf. Through 
his eyes, my family and I saw firsthand what discrimination against 
persons with disabilities looks like. It was, and still is, very real.
  When we in Congress sought to remedy this history of discrimination, 
we spent years laying out, piece by piece, a legislative record fully 
documenting the overwhelming evidence that discrimination against 
people with disabilities in America was rampant. At the time we passed 
this bill, we took care to make sure that this important civil rights 
law had the findings and the constitutional basis to pass muster with 
the Supreme Court. The signing of the ADA was the culmination of a 
monumental bipartisan effort that sought to right decades worth of 
wrongs.
  So what did William Pryor have to say about this bill that was signed 
by President Bush in 1990, supported overwhelmingly by the American 
people, supported overwhelmingly by both Republicans and Democrats in 
the Senate and the House? What did he have to say about it? In the case 
of Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, he argued 
that Congress did not identify ``even a single instance of 
unconstitutional conduct'' to support the Americans with Disabilities 
Act.
  This is complete and utter nonsense. We documented it, hundreds and 
hundreds and hundreds of cases of unconstitutional discrimination 
against people with disabilities--cases of the forced sterilization of 
people with disabilities, the denial of educational opportunities, 
unnecessary institu- tionalizations, among others.
  Mr. Pryor has made no secret of the fact that he does not believe we 
in Congress have the power to pass laws to protect people from 
discrimination. He has worked hard to find cases with which to 
challenge the power of Congress to protect victims of domestic 
violence, victims of age discrimination, and women seeking to take 
maternity leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. He has also 
repeatedly filed cases challenging Congress's authority to allow 
Americans with disabilities to live full and productive lives under the 
Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Now, some of my colleagues may remember that 2 years ago I stood on 
this floor and asked Senators to oppose the nomination of Jeffrey 
Sutton because Mr. Sutton had devoted a significant portion of his 
legal career to trying to have the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
other laws designed to protect Americans from discrimination declared 
unconstitutional. At that time, many of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle argued that Jeffrey Sutton should be confirmed because he 
was simply doing the work on behalf of his client. Well, guess who his 
client was. The client was William Pryor, then-attorney general of 
Alabama.
  It is hard to imagine any other nominee with such a record of 
aggressive negative activism. Given the record of William Pryor, it is 
impossible to imagine that someone with a disability rights or civil 
rights claim will get a fair decision by him.
  So I cannot support putting someone on a Federal circuit court who 
has gone out of his way and worked hard affirmatively to undermine the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. And that is what he has done.
  Mr. President, I have a list of 68 groups, disability-related groups. 
They represent the interests of individuals with disabilities, both 
nationally and some in States. I ask unanimous consent that the list of 
these 68 organizations, along with a few letters from a number of the 
groups, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Disability Community Opposition to Pryor


                                national

     AAPD
     ACCESS FOR AMERICA
     ADA WATCH
     Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
     National Association of the Deaf (NAD)
     National Coalition on Self Determination, Inc.
     National Disabled Students Union (NDSU)
     National Council on Independent Living (NCIL)
     United Spinal (formerly Eastern Paralyzed Veterans)
     World Association of Persons with Disabilities


                                alabama

     Independent Living Center of Birmingham, Alabama
     Center for Independent Living of Jasper, Alabama


                                 Alaska

     Southeast Alaska Independent Living


                                Arizona

     Arizona Bridge to Independent Living (ABIL) of Phoenix, AZ
     Services Maximizing Independent Living and Empowerment 
         (SMILE) of Yuma, AZ
     New Horizons Independent Living Center, (Prescott Valley, AZ)


                               California

     California Council of the Blind
     California Democratic Party Disabilities Caucus
     Disability Resource Agency for Independent Living, (Stockton, 
         CA)
     Independent Living of Southern California
     Independent Living Center (Claremont, CA)
     Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco, CA
     Independent Living Resource Center (Ventura, CA)
     Placer Independent Resource Services
     Southern California Rehabilitation Services
     California Foundation for Independent Living Centers (CFILC)


                                Colorado

     Center for Independence Grand Junction (Grand Junction, CO)


                                Florida

     Access Now
     Center for Independent Living of South Florida (Miami, FL)
     Self Reliance, Inc. (Tampa, FL)


                                 Idaho

     Disability Action Center NW, Inc. (Coeur D'Alene, ID)


                                ILLINOIS

     Center for Independent Living of Illinois/Iowa
     Lake County Center for Independent Living
     Illinois Network of Centers for Independent Living

[[Page 12083]]




                                  IOWA

     Center for Independent Living of Illinois/Iowa


                                 KANSAS

     Southeast Kansas Independent Living Resource Center (SKIL)
     Prairie Independent Living Resource Center (PILR) 
         (Hutchinson, KS)
     Cherokee County Advocacy Group


                                KENTUCKY

     Kentucky Disabilities Coalition


                                 MAINE

     Maine Developmental Disabilities Council


                                MARYLAND

     Eastern Shore Center for Independent Living (Cambridge, MD)
     The Freedom Center (Frederick, MD)


                             MASSACHUSETTS

     Stavros Center for Independent Living (Amherst, MA)


                              MISSISSIPPI

     Mississippi Statewide Independent Living Council
     Mississippi Coalition for Citizens with Disabilities


                                MONTANA

     Summit Independent Living Center, Inc. (Missoula, MT)
     Living Independently for Today and Tomorrow (Billings, MT)


                               NEW JERSEY

     Center for Independent Living of South Jersey (Westville)
     Heightened Independence and Progress (Hackensack)


                                NEW YORK

     ARISE (Syracuse)
     Southern Tier Independence Center (Binghamton)
     The Genesee Region Independent Living Center (Batavia, NY)
     Northern Regional Center for Independent Living (Watertown)


                                  OHIO

     The Ability Center of Defiance, OH
     The Ability Center of Greater Toledo (Sylvania)
     Tri-County Independent Living (Akron, OH)


                                 OREGON

     Disability Advocacy for Social and Independent Living (DASIL) 
         (Jackson County, OR)


                              PENNSYLVANIA

     Pennsylvania Statewide Independent Living Council
     Pennsylvania Council for the Blind


                             SOUTH CAROLINA

     Disability Resource Center, (North Charleston, SC)


                               TENNESSEE

     Tennessee Disability Coalition


                                 TEXAS

     Houston Area Rehabilitation Association
     ABLE Center for Independent Living (Odessa, TX)


                                VIRGINIA

     Disabled Action Committee (Dale City, VA)


                             WEST VIRGINIA

     Fair Shake Network (Institute, WV)
     Mountain State Centers for Independent Living (Huntington)


                               WISCONSIN

     Options for Independent Living (Green Bay, WI)

     Unknown: Options Center for Independent Living--Illinois or 
         MN/ND?
                                  ____

                                     ADA Watch, National Coalition


                                        for Disability Rights,

                                    Washington, DC, June 10, 2004.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy.
       Dear Senator Leahy: ADA Watch is an alliance of hundreds of 
     disability and civil rights organizations united to protect 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the civil 
     rights of people with disabilities. The disability community 
     is opposed to the confirmation of Alabama Attorney General 
     William Pryor because we do not believe a person with a 
     disability would receive a fair hearing from a ``Judge 
     Pryor.''
       Pryor has demonstrated a commitment to extremism rather 
     than to justice. Pryor's right-wing ideology is far outside 
     the mainstream of American legal thought. Pryor has led the 
     battle to undo the work of a democratically-elected Congress 
     to legislate federal protections for American citizens. 
     Despite widespread bipartisan support for the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act (ADA), Pryor said he was ``proud'' of his 
     role in weakening the ADA and ``protecting the hard-earned 
     dollars of Alabama taxpayers when Congress imposes illegal 
     mandates on our state.
       William Pryor, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
     the Eleventh Circuit, has been a leader in the effort to 
     limit congressional power to enact laws protector civil 
     rights. Pryor has prevailed in a series of 5-4 cases before 
     the Supreme Court that have curtailed civil rights, including 
     the Board of Trustees of Alabama v. Garrett, which 
     successfully challenged the constitutionality of applying the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to states as 
     employers.
       Pryor argued that the protections of the ADA were ``not 
     needed'' to remedy discrimination by states against people 
     with disabilities. This decision prevents persons with 
     disabilities from collecting monetary damages from state 
     employers. Most significantly, it has resulted in fewer 
     attorney being willing to represent individual in ADA cases 
     against state employers. Despite the massive record of 
     egregious conduct toward individuals with disabilities by 
     states that Congress has compiled--including instances of 
     forced sterilization of individuals with disabilities, 
     unnecessary institutionalization, denial of education, and 
     systemic prejudices and stereotyping perpetrated by state 
     actors--Pryor argued that states were actually in the 
     forefront of efforts to protect the rights of individuals 
     with disabilities.
       Pryor is a leading architect of the recent ``states' 
     rights'' or ``federalism'' movement to limit the authority of 
     Congress to enact laws protecting individual and other 
     rights. He is among those fighting to eliminate federal 
     protections and leave us with a patchwork of uneven civil 
     rights protections dependent on an individual's zip code.
           Sincerely,
     Jim Ward.
                                  ____


  Opposition to Confirmation of Nominee William H. Pryor, Jr. to U.S. 
               Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

       The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) is opposed to 
     the confirmation of nominee William H. Pryor, Jr., to the 
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
       Currently the Attorney General for the State of Alabama, 
     Pryor is a ``states' rights'' and ``federalism'' ideologue, a 
     leader in the movement to limit the authority of Congress to 
     enact laws protecting individual civil rights. Pryor has 
     fought aggressively against the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act (ADA) and other laws that protect Americans with 
     disabilities and other minorities.
       The NAD is opposing Pryor because of his outspoken activism 
     against federal civil rights protections for people with 
     disabilities and other minorities. His commitment is to 
     ideology, not to justice.
       Established in 1880, the NAD is the nation's oldest and 
     largest nonprofit organization safeguarding the accessibility 
     and civil rights of 28 million deaf and hard of hearing 
     Americans across a broad range of areas including education, 
     employment, health care, and telecommunications.
       The NAD is a dynamic federation of 51 state association 
     affiliates including the District of Columbia, organizational 
     affiliates, and national members. Primary areas of focus 
     include grassroots advocacy and empowerment, policy 
     development and research, legal assistance, captioned media, 
     information and publications, and youth leadership.
     Kelby N. Brick,
       Associate Executive Director, National Association of the 
     Deaf Law and Advocacy Center.
                                  ____

                                          Illinois/Iowa Center for


                                           Independent Living,

                                   Rock Island, IL, July 21, 2003.
       Please note that the Illinois/Iowa Center for Independent 
     Living opposes the nomination for William Pryor. We strongly 
     feel that Mr. Pryor and his record as the Attorney General in 
     Alabama does NOT support nor represent the millions of people 
     with disabilities or their basic civil rights. Please know 
     that we will do all we can to see that his nomination is 
     stopped! Thank you for your cooperation and help!
     Susan A. Sacco.
                                  ____

                                             The Ability Center of


                                               Greater Toledo,

                                      Sylvania, OH, July 14, 2003.
       To The Senate Judiciary Committee: The Ability Center of 
     Greater Toledo expresses its adamant opposition to the 
     nomination of William Pryor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
     the Eleventh Circuit. Our opposition is based on his record 
     as an attorney, as an Attorney General and on his comments 
     made publicly which represent his personal views.
       Mr. Pryor's professional position in cases such Garrett v. 
     Alabama, and Alexander v. Sandoval, to name a few, indicate a 
     distinct inclination toward the protection of states from 
     individual's attempt to protect themselves under federal 
     civil rights laws. The results of cases like these seriously 
     weaken the enforcement of laws like the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act and therefore seriously affect the 
     independence and quality of life of American citizens with 
     disabilities.
       Mr. Pryor's publicly declared notion that the ADA was not 
     needed, that there was no pattern of discrimination by the 
     states, that Congress therefore had no authority to enact its 
     protections, flies in the face of the thousands of cases of 
     discrimination identified by Congress. His attitudes are a 
     slap in the face of American citizens who were forced to be 
     sterilized, institutionalized and otherwise denied access to 
     places and things that able-bodied people take for granted. 
     The passage of the ADA opened doors, literally and 
     figuratively, to thousands of individuals to live, work and 
     play when and where they chose. Unfortunately there continues 
     to be defiance and ignorance of employers, businesses and 
     government entities regarding the right to

[[Page 12084]]

     access and opportunity granted to all citizens. The ADA, and 
     other civil rights legislation, is the only defense people 
     with disabilities can call on to realize their independence 
     and potential. There is no other protection or defense.
       The Ability Center asks that you oppose this nomination as 
     a statement that the civil rights of all U.S. citizens are a 
     priority above all else. Oppose the nomination to send a 
     message that any judicial candidate who demonstrates, in word 
     and deed, extreme ideology is not an appropriate choice for 
     the judicial bench. Oppose the nomination because it is a 
     lifetime appointment and that such an appointment represents 
     a serious and real threat to millions of citizens with 
     disabilities. Appoint individuals to the federal court system 
     who have demonstrated an ability to interpret the law without 
     bias and extreme ideologies. This is not William Pryor.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Susan Hetrick,
     Advocacy Director.
                                  ____

                                           Heightened Independence


                                                 and Progress,

                                    Hackensack, NJ, July 14, 2003.
       Heightened Independence and Progress (HIP) Center for 
     Independent Living strongly opposes the confirmation of 
     William Pryor to the U.S. Court of AppeaIs for the Eleventh 
     Circuit.
       People with disabilities have worked long and hard to bring 
     about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and rely on 
     the Act's protections to ensure that employers, schools, 
     governmental entities and business both large and small do 
     not discriminate against anyone because of a disability.
       William Pryor has taken positions about ADA related cases 
     that cause disability advocates to have serious concerns 
     about his ability to be objective in such cases. We strongly 
     urge that William Pryor not be confirmed to a position on the 
     Eleventh Circuit Court of Appea1s.
     Nancy Hodgins,
       Advocacy Coordinator.
     Eileen Goff,
       Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                    June 10, 2003.

       Dear Senator Leahy: The disability community is opposed to 
     the confirmation of Alabama Attorney General William Pryor 
     because we do not believe a person with a disability would 
     receive a fair hearing from a ``Judge Pryor.''
       Why?
       Pryor has demonstrated a commitment to extremism rather 
     than to justice. Pryors right-wing ideology is far outside 
     the mainstream of American legal thought.
       William Pryor, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
     the Eleventh Circuit, has been a leader in the effort to 
     limit congressional power to enact laws protecting civil 
     rights. Pryor has prevailed in a series of 5-4 cases before 
     the Supreme Court that have curtailed civil rights, including 
     the Board of Trustees of Alabama v. Garrett, which 
     successfully challenged the constitutionality of applying the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to states as 
     employers.
       Pryor argued that the protections of the ADA were ``not 
     needed'' to remedy discrimination by states against people 
     with disabilities. This decision prevents persons with 
     disabilities from collecting monetary damages from state 
     employers. Most significantly, it has resulted in fewer 
     attorneys being willing to represent individuals in ADA cases 
     against state employers. Despite the massive record of 
     egregious conduct toward individuals with disabilities by 
     states that Congress had compiled--including instances of 
     forced sterilization of individuals with disabilities, 
     unnecessary institutionalization, denial of education, and 
     systemic prejudices and stereotyping perpetrated by state 
     actors--Pryor argued that states were actually in the 
     forefront of efforts to protect the rights of individuals 
     with disabilities.
       Pryor has led the battle to undo the work of a 
     democratically-elected Congress to legislate federal 
     protections for American citizens. Despite widespread 
     bipartisan support for the Americans wi1h Disabilities Act, 
     (ADA). Pryor said he was ``proud'' of his role in 
     ``protecting the hard-earned dollars of Alabama taxpayers 
     when Congress imposes illegal mandates on our state.''
       Pryor is a leading architect of the recent ``states' 
     rights'' or ``federalism'' movement to limit the authority of 
     Congress to enact laws protecting individual and other 
     rights. He is fighting to reverse the results of our nation's 
     civil war and leave us with a patchwork of uneven civil 
     rights protections dependent on an individual's zip code.
       He personally has been involved in key Supreme Court cases 
     that, by narrow 5-4 majorities, have restricted the ability 
     of Congress to protect Americans' rights against 
     discrimination and injury based on disability, race, and age. 
     Worse, he has urged the Court to go even further than it has 
     in the direction of restricting congressional authority. Just 
     last month, for example, the Court, in an opinion by Chief 
     Justice Rehnquist, rejected Pryor's argument that the states 
     should be immune from lawsuits for damages brought by state 
     employees for violation of the federal Family and Medical 
     Leave, Act.

     Victoria Wolf,
       Assistive Technology Specialist, Disability Resource Agency 
     for Independent Living.
                                  ____

                                        Eastern Paralyzed Veterans


                                                  Association,

                               Jackson Heights, NY, July 14, 2003.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Orrin G. Hatch: The Eastern Paralyzed Veterans 
     Association strongly opposes the confirmation of William 
     Pryor to the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In the 
     past, Mr. Pryor's attempts to limit Congressional authority 
     in the area of disability rights have directly undermined the 
     protections given to people with disabilities through the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other disability 
     rights laws.
       In Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 
     Mr. Pryor formulated the argument that Congress did not have 
     the authority under the Constitution to apply the ADA to 
     States in employment discrimination suits for damages. 
     Additionally, Pryor successfully persuaded in 5-4 majority of 
     the Supreme Court in Alexander v. Sandoval that individuals 
     cannot sue to enforce regulations under Title VI of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964. Since the decision was issued states have 
     begun to use its reasoning in efforts to persuade the courts 
     that people with disabilities should not be allowed to 
     enforce regulations under the ADA and Section 504 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act requiring reasonable accommodations, 
     integration of individuals with disabilities, and accessible 
     public housing.
       Mr. Pryor's positions in these and other cases (i.e., 
     Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey and 
     California Board of Medical Examiners v. Hason) clearly 
     represent an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause, 
     Spending Clause, and Commerce Clause that would dramatically 
     restrict Congress's authority and hinder its ability to pass 
     laws protecting the rights of Americans with disabilities, 
     older workers, and others under the Constitution. For this 
     reason, Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association strongly urges 
     you not to confirm Mr. Pryor to the court.
       People with disabilities have fought long and hard to 
     achieve the protections afforded by the ADA and like-minded 
     laws. We must continue the fight to ensure that an activist 
     court does not abridge these rights and protections. Please 
     vote against William Pryor's confirmation.
       Thank you.
           Sincerely.
                                                     Jeremy Chwat,
     Director of Legislation.
                                  ____

                                      Independent Living Center of


                                    Southern California, Inc.,

                                                    July 14, 2003.
       To Whom It May Concern: This letter is written on behalf of 
     the Independent Living Center Of Southern California, to 
     oppose the nomination of Mr. William Pryor, to the U.S. Court 
     of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
       Please note that this nomination would gravely affect the 
     civil rights of persons with disabilities.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Peter Huard,
     Client Assistance Program.
                                  ____



                                      The Freedom Center, Inc.

                                     Frederick, MD, Ju1y 21, 2003.
     Jim Ward,
     Executive Director, ADA Watch Coalition, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim: I am the Executive Director for the Freedom 
     Center, a center for independent living in Frederick, MD. We 
     empower persons with disabilities to lead self-directed, 
     independent, and productive lives in a barrier-free 
     community. We work to ensure the removal of physical and 
     attitudinal barriers that are faced by Americans with 
     disabilities.
       We, on behalf of the disability community, are strongly 
     opposed to the nomination of Alabama Attorney General William 
     G. Pryor. We are strongly opposed to the confirmation of his 
     appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 
     Circuit. This is a lifetime appointment which could 
     eventually lead to an appointment to the Supreme Court. 
     Attorney General Pryor's right-wing ideology is far outside 
     the mainstream of American legal thought. He is responsible 
     for the weakening of the ADA in recent Supreme Court battles. 
     He took a position against Patricia Garrett in her case 
     against the State of Alabama when she was wrongly 
     discriminated against because of her disability. He followed 
     her to the Supreme Court and was responsible for influencing 
     the Supreme Court by hiring an extreme Federalistic, right 
     wing, and a State's Rights activist lawyer to represent the 
     State of Alabama. Because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of 
     the State of Alabama against Ms. Garrett, the ADA has been 
     weakened. One can no longer sue a state government or entity 
     under the Federal ADA. It is Attorney General Pryor's belief 
     that the ADA is unconstitutional. In this respect, he has 
     undermined Congress's effort to protect all Americans 
     regardless of what state they live in. He

[[Page 12085]]

     has attacked Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act, and all basic 
     civil rights against people with disabilities. gender and 
     race. He not only has held a position in the University of 
     Alabama v. Ganett case but has filed Amicus Briefs in 
     Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey and Medical Board 
     of California v. Hason. He also took opposition to the 
     Alexander v. Sandoval case. All of his oppositions also 
     include running amok in his own state using the state laws to 
     his own belief. It is because of his ideology that we have 
     laws such as the Federal ADA, IDEA, Civil Rights, etc. The 
     laws were implemented to protect Americans from individuals 
     like him. Because of his track record, he cannot be a Federal 
     Judge. A Federal Judge must be unbiased and have full 
     understanding of the total law. A Federal Judge cannot 
     interpret Federal laws to fulfill his own beliefs as a 
     State's Rights activist. A Federal Judge cannot use his 
     position to further his own cause. It is imperative that we 
     do all that we can do to help our legislators to understand 
     the importance of approving a nomination that is nonpartisan 
     of any individual who would take his position seriously and 
     for the good of the American people and not for his own 
     beliefs or reasons.
       You may sign our name to any petition or letter that 
     opposes the confirmation of Alabama Attorney General William 
     G. Pryor. You have permission to use our letter to give to 
     members of Congress to help them to be our voices and 
     understand why we are so opposed to his confirmation to the 
     U.S. Court of Appeals to the Eleventh Circuit. Thank you very 
     much for your attention to this very urgent matter. Let's all 
     work together to prevent deteriorization to the ADA and other 
     disability civil rights.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jamey George,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                       Independent Living Resource


                                        Center--San Francisco,

                                   San Franciso, CA, July 3, 2003.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     San Francisco, CA.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I am contacting you with great 
     concern about the possible appointment of an anti-ADA 
     judicial activist to the 11th Circuit Federal Court of 
     Appeals, Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor. I am asking 
     you, on behalf of the over 150,000 people with disabilities 
     in San Francisco that our agency represents to firmly oppose 
     Mr. Pryor's appointment.
       Attorney General Pryor has proved on many occasions that he 
     is an opponent not only of the ADA, but of other civil rights 
     legislation as well. Mr. Pryor did not support the passage of 
     an Alabama State disability rights law; has opposed 
     enforcement of ADA Title II to state prisons (arguments that 
     were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court); has supported 
     denial of patients' rights for Medicaid recipients; among 
     other affronts to civil rights. This is hardly a neutral 
     judicial appointment.
       We are concerned, Senator, that you hear the voices of your 
     constituents with disabilities. We find it ironic on the eve 
     of our country's `independence day' that such an opponent of 
     independence for people with disabilities should be a nominee 
     to such a key judicial post. Please oppose this nomination.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Pamela S. Fadem,
                                      Information Manager, ILRCSF.

  Mr. HARKIN. Here are 68 different disability groups from all over the 
United States.
  This is from the National Association of the Deaf:

       The National Association of the Deaf is opposing [Mr.] 
     Pryor because of his outspoken activism against federal civil 
     rights protections for people with disabilities and other 
     minorities. His commitment is to ideology, not to justice.

  Here is the Illinois/Iowa Center for Independent Living:

       We strongly feel that Mr. Pryor and his record as the 
     Attorney General in Alabama do NOT support nor represent the 
     millions of people with disabilities or their basic civil 
     rights.

  The National Disabled Students Association stated the nomination of 
Judge Pryor would be ``devastating to the rights of over 54 million 
Americans with disabilities protected by the Americans with 
Disabilities act. . . .''
  So, Mr. President, there may be a lot of reasons that people have for 
opposing this nominee to go on the circuit court. I want to make it 
crystal clear that my major objection to this person going on the 
circuit court is his open, consistent, and persistent opposition to the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. He has made no secret of it. He does 
not think we had the power to pass it.
  He said, in his own opinion, that we did not even document one single 
instance of unconstitutional conduct against people with disabilities. 
Well, I am sorry, courts have held differently: forced sterilizations 
of people with disabilities, forced institutionalizations of people who 
did not need to be institutionalized, denying people with disabilities 
educational opportunities. Maybe he never heard of the case of PARC v. 
Pennsylvania. Perhaps he did not know that courts had held there was a 
record, a strong record, of discrimination in public education against 
kids with disabilities, not letting them go to school, denying them 
educational opportunities.
  The courts held that as long as a State provides a free public 
education, just as they could not discriminate on the basis of race, or 
sex, or national origin, they cannot discriminate on the basis of 
disability either. So the courts held that there is a constitutional 
right for kids in our country to get a free, appropriate public 
education, as long as the State is providing that. The kids with 
disabilities have to be allowed in the public schools, also.
  But for Mr. Pryor, no. He says, no, not even one instance do we have 
of an unconstitutional discrimination. I do not know where Mr. Pryor 
went to law school. I did not even look it up. It does not make any 
difference to me. But whatever he learned there he must have forgotten. 
It seems to me, here is an individual with an ideological perception 
that he is right and everyone else is wrong, that only he knows what is 
constitutional and not--not the Congress, not the Senate, not even the 
Supreme Court. He alone has a right to decide that. He alone has a 
right to decide whether people with disabilities are protected under 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  We have come too far in our country. We spent years developing the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. When President Bush signed it in 1990, 
we had accumulated a voluminous record of discrimination, from the 
earliest childhood to the latter stages of life, with people with 
disabilities being discriminated against. We sought to remedy that with 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  When it passed the Senate, I said it was the proudest day of my 
legislative career, and it still is--when the ADA passed the Congress 
and was signed into law. And we have not looked back. We look around 
our country now and we see people with disabilities in education, 
traveling, going out to eat, holding down good jobs, getting the civil 
rights that all the rest of us enjoy.
  But for Mr. Pryor, people with disabilities do not have those rights. 
They only have the right--these are my own words--it seems to me Mr. 
Pryor has said, in his decisions and in his writings and in his 
perceptions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, that people with 
disabilities only have the right to be pitied, they only have the right 
to get whatever it is that those of us who are not disabled choose to 
give to them.
  Well, I am sorry, that is not enough. People with disabilities have 
every right, Mr. President, that you and I have. So it is for that 
reason, that he has gone out of his way--I could see if a judge made 
one mistake and maybe made a decision but came back and rectified it, 
looked at the law, looked at the history, but Mr. Pryor did not do 
that. He did not go back and look at the history of the ADA. He did not 
go back and find out all these examples that we had come up with that 
is in the record. He just simply said: I know what is best. I know what 
is best for people with disabilities.
  Well, people with disabilities have been hearing that for far too 
long in our country: We know what is best for you--that paternalizing 
attitude. People with disabilities said: No, we are going to be on our 
own. We are going to have our own civil rights. We are going to decide 
our own future. We are going to decide how we want to live, not how 
you, the Government, or you, society, want us to live.
  Well, we have come a long way in 15 years since the ADA was signed. 
This is one circuit court judge who would turn the clock back. And he 
will get these cases. He will get them. And people with disabilities 
will be on the short end of the stick.

[[Page 12086]]

  So for that reason, and perhaps a lot of other reasons but for that 
reason alone--for that reason alone--Mr. Pryor should not be confirmed 
for this circuit court position.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination 
of William Pryor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 
or, to put it more precisely, I rise to support the permanent 
appointment of Judge William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit.
  Judge Pryor's credentials, his character, and commitment to judicial 
restraint already make a compelling case for his appointment. His 
continuing service on the Eleventh Circuit only adds to that compelling 
case.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for confirmation so Judge William Pryor 
can continue to be a valuable member of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
  Debate about this nomination did not just begin. President Bush 
nominated William Pryor more than 2 years ago. During a lengthy hearing 
before the Judiciary Committee in June 2003, he answered more than 185 
questions. It has now become common practice for Senators to deluge a 
nominee with post-hearing written questions. Judge Pryor answered 
nearly 300 of those as well. The Judiciary Committee debated this 
nomination during three different business meetings and favorably 
reported it twice here to the Senate floor where we have already 
debated it in the context of two previous attempts to invoke cloture.
  Here we are debating the Pryor nomination again. I am one of many 
Senators who believes we should have confirmed this nomination a long 
time ago. Yesterday more than one of our Democratic colleagues 
complained that we are debating judicial nominations when, they said, 
``we should be doing legislative business.'' That is exactly what we 
would be doing were it not for the confirmation obstruction campaign 
led by those very same Democratic Senators. They are the ones who met 
in 2001 to change the confirmation ground rules. They are the ones who 
demand dozens and dozens of unnecessary rollcall votes that have eaten 
up literally days of floor time. They are the ones who launched this 
campaign of outrageous and unprecedented judicial filibusters.
  Our Democratic colleagues have changed the way we do judicial 
confirmation business in the Senate, and that has changed the way we do 
legislative business. They have no one to blame but themselves. To come 
in here and complain that we are not doing the business of the people 
when one-third of the separated powers in this country involves judges 
is pretty much out of line.
  Under the standards the Senate traditionally applied to judicial 
nominations, we would already have confirmed the nomination before us. 
Although some across the aisle have attempted to change the ground 
rules, I am pleased we have now invoked cloture and are in the final 
stretch of debate on this very important nomination. There is light at 
the end of the confirmation tunnel.
  We have become accustomed to the pattern of attack by those who 
oppose President Bush's judicial nominees. They equate a nominee's 
personal views with that nominee's judicial views. They create the most 
wretched and distorted caricature of a nominee, turning him into some 
creature one might see on ``Law and Order'' or ``America's Most 
Wanted.''
  What it boils down to is the wrongheaded notion that no one who 
thinks for himself, who does not toe the leftwing line, whose 
perspective or values did not turn the liberal litmus paper the right--
or left--color, or who as a judge may fail consistently to deliver 
politically correct results is acceptable. These advocates of an 
activist judiciary are not foolish enough to attack every nominee. They 
will remind us of how many of this President's judicial nominees they 
have supported. But the circumstances that have brought us here today 
demonstrate the confirmation ground has shifted.
  I urge my colleagues not to be persuaded by the caricatures created 
by Washington-based lobbyists and leftwing groups which need to send 
out the next fundraising appeal. Instead I urge my colleagues to listen 
to those who actually know William Pryor, who have worked with William 
Pryor, because they are among his strongest supporters.
  Dr. Joe Reed, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference--yes, 
that is right, the Alabama Democratic Conference, the State Democratic 
Party's African-American caucus--knows William Pryor. He has worked 
with William Pryor, and he strongly supports William Pryor. Note what 
Dr. Joe Reed has to say about this nominee.
  He says that William Pryor:

     will uphold the law without fear or favor. I believe all 
     races and colors will get a fair shake when their cases come 
     before him. I am a member of the Democratic National 
     Committee and, of course, General Pryor is a Republican, but 
     these are only party labels. I am persuaded that in General 
     Pryor's eyes, Justice has only one label--Justice!

  Any of us would certainly be hard pressed to come up with a better 
endorsement or a more substantive compliment for any judge on any court 
anywhere in America.
  Listen to Alvin Holmes, an African American who has served in the 
Alabama House of Representatives for nearly three decades. He 
introduced a bill to remove the State Constitution's ban on interracial 
marriage. Representative Holmes says that while White political leaders 
in the State, Democrats and Republicans, either opposed the bill or 
kept quiet, then-Attorney General William Pryor spoke out. William 
Pryor urged Alabamans to vote for removing the ban on interracial 
marriage and then, when it passed, he defended the measure in court 
against legal challenge.
  Representative Holmes knows William Pryor. He has worked with William 
Pryor, and he strongly supports William Pryor. Listen to what 
Representative Holmes says about this nominee, this African-American 
leader of the Alabama House of Representatives:

       I request your swift confirmation of Bill Pryor to the 11th 
     Circuit because of his constant efforts to help the causes of 
     blacks in Alabama.

  Or consider the opinion of Judge Sue Bell Cobb who sits on the 
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. This is what she says:

       I write, not only as the only statewide Democrat to be 
     elected in 2000, not only as a member of the Court which 
     reviews the greatest portion of General Pryor's work, but 
     also as a child advocate who has labored shoulder to shoulder 
     with General Pryor in the political arena on behalf of 
     Alabama's children. It is for these reasons and more that I 
     am indeed honored to recommend General Pryor for nomination 
     to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

  That is the Honorable Sue Bell Cobb, judge of the Alabama Court of 
Criminal Appeals.
  Think about that. These are people who know William Pryor. These 
testimonies--and there are many more like them--describe a man who 
cares deeply about what is right and who has the character to do what 
is right, no matter what the political cost. People such as these are 
in the best position to know the real William Pryor. If this were a 
court of law, their testimony would be deemed especially credible. 
Theirs is not hearsay testimony such as we are hearing from some with 
the other side. They are not repeating someone's talking points. They 
are not offering generalities or cliches.
  Talking points, generalities, and cliches, however, are all that 
Judge Pryor's opponents have to offer. The far left-wing Washington-
based lobbyists who appear to make their living opposing President 
Bush's judicial nominations repeat the same rhetoric about nominee 
after nominee. Sometimes I wonder whether they put together their press 
releases and action alerts simply by cutting and pasting in the name of 
a new nominee.

[[Page 12087]]

  They use the same mantra now, saying Judge Pryor is hostile to civil 
rights, hostile to virtually every right under the sun. Perhaps he is 
also the cause of childhood asthma, global warming, and rising interest 
rates.
  I would listen to the people I have just quoted who know the man. 
They are all Democrats, by the way.
  If there is any reason to believe such a thing as these awful 
comments that have been made by our colleagues on the other side, then 
these left-wing Washington lobbyists should be able to convince Dr. Joe 
Reed, Alvin Holmes, and Judge Sue Bell Cobb that Judge William Pryor is 
hostile to civil rights. I wish them luck because I know they can't do 
that. And they know they can't do it. That is what is reprehensible.
  Perhaps the most important element of judicial duty is the commitment 
to follow the law regardless of personal views. Throughout his career 
William Pryor has not just stated such a commitment to judicial 
restraint, he has demonstrated it. We all know, for example, that 
William Pryor is pro-life. His belief in the sanctity of human life no 
doubt helps explain his advocacy for children. Like millions of 
Americans, most Alabamians apparently share such pro-life values. In 
1997, the State legislature enacted a ban on partial-birth abortion. If 
William Pryor were what his critics claim, that would surely have been 
his chance to take a stand, stake a claim, defy the Supreme Court, and 
to seek to impose his personal moral code. He did no such thing, 
proving once again that his critics are flat wrong.
  (Mr. Alexander assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HATCH. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart 
that a State legislative ban on partial-birth abortion is 
unconstitutional, Attorney General William Pryor instructed State law 
enforcement officials to abide by that decision, even though he 
personally disagreed. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, 
presiding in the Chair right now, reminded us earlier today that this 
was at General Pryor's own initiative. The law, not his personal views, 
formed how he carried out his official duties.
  Attorney General Pryor filed an amicus brief in the Lawrence v. Texas 
case defending a State's right to prohibit certain sexual conduct. 
Alabama had a statute similar to the Texas statute being challenged in 
that case. When the Supreme Court ruled against his position, he 
immediately released an official statement that the Supreme Court 
decision rendered Alabama's law unenforceable.
  Similarly, the entire country knows that as Alabama Attorney General, 
William Pryor took an unpopular stand regarding the Ten Commandments 
display in the Alabama judicial building. One respected religious 
magazine placed a picture of Judge Pryor on its cover with a headline 
asking whether his legal stance amounted to political suicide. It is 
clear that Judge Pryor places the law above personal priorities and 
political expediency. This stuff about following the law rather than 
personal opinions is not rhetoric, talking points, or window dressing. 
This is not just William Pryor's stated commitment, this is his 
demonstrated commitment.
  It is a record that makes former Alabama Attorney General Bill 
Baxley, another Democrat, strongly support Judge Pryor's nomination. 
Here is what General Baxley, a leading Democrat in Alabama, said about 
William Pryor:

       In every difficult decision he has made, his actions were 
     supported by his interpretation of the law, without race, 
     gender, age, political power, wealth, community standing, or 
     any other competing interest affecting judgment. I often 
     disagree, politically, with Bill Pryor. This does not prevent 
     me from making this recommendation because we need 
     fairminded, intelligent, industrious men and women, possessed 
     of impeccable integrity, on the Eleventh Circuit. Bill Pryor 
     has these qualities in abundance. . . . There is no better 
     choice for this vacancy.

  That is Bill Baxley, former Alabama Attorney General, leading 
Democrat in the State.
  Just think about that. These Democratic leaders from Alabama paint a 
very consistent picture of William Pryor. He will uphold the law 
without fear or favor. He makes decisions without regard to political 
or irrelevant factors. He is fairminded, intelligent, and industrious. 
I certainly agree with this assessment, though it does not come first 
from the Senator from Utah. Democrats such as Dr. Joe Reed, 
Representative Alvin Holmes, Judge Sue Bell Cobb, and Attorney General 
Bill Baxley know the difference between private views and public duty. 
They know the difference between personal opinion and judicial opinion. 
And they strongly support William Pryor's nomination to the Eleventh 
Circuit.
  I wish some of my Democratic colleagues and their left-wing enablers 
knew the difference. Instead they focus only on results. All that 
matters, it appears, is that a judge rules right or left, as the case 
may be.
  On Tuesday a Democratic Member of this body summed up their results-
oriented litmus test approach when he said:

     with respect to a whole series of issues, this nominee is 
     profoundly wrong.

  No doubt each of us in this body has heard something like that in a 
campaign commercial. We might hear it here when the Senate is in 
legislative session. But this is a judicial nomination we are debating. 
What does it mean to say that the judicial nominee is wrong on the 
issues? Never mind being judicially correct, just be politically 
correct. Results are all that matters.
  Yesterday during the debate on the Brown nomination, the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer, took a similar tack. She put up one poster 
after another, each stating in the most simplistic terms the results of 
a case, and then claimed that Justice Brown personally favored the 
result for which she voted.
  This insidious tactic claims, for example, that if a judge votes that 
the law does not prohibit racial slurs, then the judge must favor 
racial slurs. If a judge votes that the law does not prohibit an 
employer's hiring decision, then the judge must favor that hiring 
decision. In March of 2000, 29 current Senators, including my friend 
from California, Senator Boxer, voted against a constitutional 
amendment to allow protection of the American flag. How would any of 
them respond--how would the Senator from California respond--to the 
accusation that by that vote, they were siding with the flag 
desecraters?
  That would be an outrageous charge, and we all know that.
  Yet opponents of these judicial nominees, including the Senator from 
California, are using exactly the same tactic, exactly the same logic. 
They continue doing so in this debate over William Pryor's nomination. 
But this tactic misleads the American people about what judges do, and 
it twists and distorts these debates about whether to confirm judicial 
nominees.
  I am reminded of a 1998 article written by the distinguished Judge 
Harry Edwards, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC 
Circuit by President Jimmy Carter, in which he warned that giving the 
public a distorted view of judges' work is bad for the judiciary and 
the rule of law. The tactics being used against nominees such as 
William Pryor are, indeed, giving the public a distorted view of 
judges' work.
  Thankfully, Judge Pryor knows the difference between personal views 
and the law. He knows the difference between means and ends. And I am 
proud to say that Judge Pryor refuses to go down the politicized road 
of judicial activism. He has demonstrated where his commitment lies. He 
has shown, in each phase of his career, that he will follow the law.
  Our colleague and my fellow Judiciary Committee member, Senator 
Sessions, has worked very hard to educate this body about this fine 
nominee. He has a special perspective on Judge Pryor's commitment to 
follow the law. He hired William Pryor in the Alabama attorney 
general's office and Judge Pryor replaced him when then-Attorney 
General Sessions joined us here in the Senate. I thank our colleague 
for his tireless and principled efforts. I know this Senator's 
understanding of this nominee is better as a result.
  William Pryor is demonstrating that same commitment on the U.S. Court 
of

[[Page 12088]]

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. That is exactly what America needs in 
her judges, and I urge my colleagues to support a permanent appointment 
for Judge William Pryor.
  Mr. President, I have taken a minute or two over my allotted time. I 
apologize to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the confirmation of William 
Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. I think he is a truly outstanding 
individual and, most importantly, after all these years of waiting, I 
am pleased he is finally going to get an up-or-down vote on his 
nomination. I am pleased, in just a few hours, Bill Pryor will be 
confirmed as a Federal appellate judge. He more than deserves to be 
confirmed by the Senate. Bill Pryor is doing a great job now, and he 
will continue doing a great job in the future.
  The problem is how we have gotten to where we are with the hangup and 
these judges not being voted on. I continue to be troubled by the road 
we have been going down in this judicial nomination process. 
Unfortunately for Bill Pryor, he has been one of the prime targets of 
the slash-and-burn program of the left-wing liberal interest groups. He 
and several other good candidates nominated by President Bush have been 
subject to off-base, trumped-up charges which just smear an 
individual's record without regard to the reality of that record.
  We need to look at the merits of a candidate, and, on the merits, 
Bill Pryor is one of the more impressive nominees coming before the 
Senate.
  William Pryor graduated magna cum laude from Tulane Law School, where 
he was editor in chief of the law review. He served as a law clerk to 
civil rights legend and champion Judge John Wisdom. He practiced law 
for several years before joining the attorney general's office in the 
State of Alabama. He also taught law as an adjunct professor at 
Cumberland Law School. So without a doubt, and going even beyond the 
good attributes I pointed out, Bill Pryor has the legal experience to 
serve on this Federal bench. But that is not all. William Pryor has the 
unwavering support of the people who knew him best--the citizens of his 
very own State of Alabama. His support among Alabama Republicans is 
near unanimous. But furthermore, and maybe more importantly, some of 
the most important members of the Alabama Democratic leadership are 
just as supportive of this Pryor nomination.
  For example, the chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, which 
is the State Democratic Party's African-American caucus, said that Bill 
Pryor is a first-class public official who will be a credit to the 
judiciary and a guardian of justice.
  Former Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman described Bill Pryor as an 
incredibly talented, intellectually honest attorney general who calls 
the issues like they ought to be called.
  These are just some of the comments made by Democrats, of which I am 
aware, who support this good man.
  But that does not seem to stop some groups or people inside the 
beltway from upping that ante and spreading lies. The usual suspects 
are back in the saddle again, however, with a vengeance to 
mischaracterize this man's record and drag his good name through the 
mud.
  But if one really takes a close look at Bill Pryor's record, one can 
only find that he is a man who embodies the characteristics that any 
Federal judge ought to have. The fact is that William Pryor is a man 
who puts law before politics. The role of a Federal judge, as all my 
colleagues know and as best stated by Chief Justice John Marshall, is 
to ``say what the law is.''
  That is exactly upon which Bill Pryor has built a distinguished law 
career. The truth is, in the face of opposition from both Democrats and 
Republicans, Bill Pryor has steadfastly based his legal decisions on 
court rulings and not on his own political beliefs. Bill Pryor's 
actions are the only record that we need to look at to see that this is 
an individual who truly believes in the rule of law. He is the right 
man for the job, and we should keep this man on the Eleventh Circuit 
Court.
  I have looked at Bill Pryor's record and some of the allegations made 
against him. Bill Pryor wins hands down, no contest.
  I would like to refer to an article in the ``Mobile Press Register,'' 
``Civil Rights Guardian, Outstanding Nominee.'' In this article, Willie 
Huntley took the opportunity to distinguish the views of Alabamians and 
most Americans from those shared by some inside-the-beltway, left-wing 
interest groups. Mr. Huntley is an African-American attorney. He is 
from Bill Pryor's hometown. He expressed why the people of Alabama 
should continue to trust in this man, Bill Pryor, rather than in the 
liberal special interest groups, such as People for the American Way, 
organizations that are so powerful here with some Members of Congress.
  I would like to read some of what this article has to say about Bill 
Pryor, again, emphasizing Willie Huntley, an African-American attorney 
from Bill Pryor's hometown:

       People for the American Way asserts that Pryor's 
     appointment would devastate civil rights. What its people 
     don't say is that after about 100 years of inaction by other 
     leaders, Bill Pryor led a coalition that included the NAACP 
     to rid the Alabama Constitution of its racist ban on 
     interracial marriage.
       Bill Pryor then defended the repeal against a court 
     challenge by a so-called Confederate organization. Our 
     Attorney General also took the side of the NAACP in 
     successfully defending majority-minority voting districts--
     all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court--against challenges by 
     white Alabama Republicans.
       Bill Pryor further opposed a white Republican redistricting 
     proposal that would have hurt African-American voters. He did 
     not back down to criticism from his own party--not one inch.
       He then played a key role in the successful prosecution of 
     former Ku Klux Klansmen Bobby Frank Cherry and Thomas 
     Blanton, Jr., for the 1963 bombings of the 16th Street 
     Baptist Church in Birmingham.
       Pryor started a mentoring program for at-risk kids and 
     regularly goes to Montgomery public schools to teach African-
     American kids to read.
       Because Bill Pryor has a civil rights record that very few 
     can equal, it is no wonder that African-American leaders who 
     know and who have worked with him--like Artur Davis, Joe 
     Reed, Cleo Thomas, and Alvin Holmes--support his nomination 
     to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
       Ignoring Pryor's defense of voting rights for African-
     Americans, People for the American Way charges that he 
     opposes the landmark Voting Rights Act. The truth is, he has 
     dutifully enforced all of the Voting Rights Act every time a 
     case has come up.

  The article goes on to conclude:

       The truth and the record show that Bill Pryor has fought 
     for the civil rights and voting rights of African-Americans 
     in Alabama when People for the American Way were nowhere to 
     be found. Now that President Bush has nominated Pryor to a 
     Federal judgeship, People for the American Way assumes that 
     it can come here and attack him. . . .We who actually know 
     Bill Pryor support him 100 percent.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the 
article from which I quoted so people can read it in its entirety.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            [From CFIF.ORG]

               Civil Rights Guardian, Outstanding Nominee

                       (By Willie J. Huntley Jr.)

       The Washington-headquartered, liberal witch-hunt against 
     President Bush's federal judicial nominees has targeted its 
     next victim, and it is one of our own: Bill Pryor, the 
     attorney general of Alabama.
       Among those leading the charge against Pryor is the mis-
     named group People For the American Way. This should be no 
     surprise; PFAW has led vicious attacks against Attorney 
     General John Ashcroft, Justice Clarence Thomas, Priscilla 
     Owen, Miguel Estrada and numerous other Republican nominees.
       PFAW is a radical leftist group that has supported broad 
     court protection for child pornography; burning the American 
     flag, and publicly funded art portraying the Virgin Mary 
     splattered with elephant dung. Most recently, PFAW helped 
     coordinate protests against the war in Iraq--the war in which 
     some Alabamians gave their lives for their country.
       PFAW is funded by the pornography industry and Hollywood 
     radicals, including Playboy magazine, the Screen Actors 
     Guild, and the Center for Alternative Media & Culture. (And 
     they call Bill Pryor an extremist.)
       PFAW asserts that Pryor's appointment would devastate civil 
     rights. What its people don't say is that after about 100 
     years of inaction by other leaders, Bill Pryor led a 
     coalition that included the NAACP to rid the

[[Page 12089]]

     Alabama Constitution of its racist ban on interracial 
     marriage.
       Pryor then defended the repeal against a court challenge by 
     a so-called Confederate heritage organization.
       Our attorney general also took the side of the NAACP in 
     successfully defending majority-minority voting districts--
     all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court--against a challenge by 
     white Alabama Republicans.
       Bill Pryor further opposed a white Republican redistricting 
     proposal that would have hurt African-American voters. He did 
     not back down to criticism from his own party--not one inch.
       He then played a key role in the successful prosecution of 
     former Ku Klux Klansmen Bobby Frank Cherry and Thomas Blanton 
     Jr. for the 1963 bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist 
     Church in Birmingham. In fact, he will personally argue to 
     uphold Blanton's murder conviction before the Alabama Court 
     of Criminal Appeals later this month.
       Pryor started a mentoring program for at-risk kids, and 
     regularly goes to Montgomery public schools to teach African-
     American kids to read.
       Because Bill Pryor has a civil rights record that very few 
     can equal, it is no wonder that African-American leaders who 
     know and have worked with him--like Artur Davis, Joe Reed, 
     Cleo Thomas and Alvin Holmes--support his nomination to the 
     11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
       Ignoring Pryor's defense of voting rights for African-
     Americans, PFAW charges that he opposes the landmark Voting 
     Rights Act. The truth is, he has dutifully enforced all of 
     the Voting Rights Act every time a case has come up.
       Pryor has simply stated that a procedural part of the 
     Voting Rights Act--Section 5--has problems that Congress 
     should fix. Section 5 requires federal officials in 
     Washington to approve even minor changes in voting practices 
     that have nothing to do with discrimination.
       For example, last year, Pryor issued an opinion that 
     required a white replacement candidate for a deceased white 
     state legislator to get Washington approval under Section 5 
     to use stickers to put his name on the ballot over the name 
     of the deceased candidate.
       Thurbert Baker, the African-American Democratic attorney 
     general of Georgia, has voiced similar concerns about Section 
     5 before the U.S. Supreme Court.
       Undeterred, PFAW and its allies also charge that Pryor 
     believes in ``states' rights''--their code words for racism. 
     The truth is that he believes in the Constitution. He has 
     fought to protect the state's treasury from lawsuits that 
     would have taken our tax dollars away from the state--away 
     from salaries for teachers and medical care for poor people.
       It is the job of an attorney general to defend his client--
     the state. In fact, the key Supreme Court case on defending a 
     state from lawsuits was won not by Pryor, but by Democratic 
     Attorney General Bob Butter-
     worth of Florida.
       Democratic attorneys general like Eliot Spitzer of New 
     York, Jim Doyle of Wisconsin and others have all made the 
     same arguments to defend their state budgets. I guess they 
     are all ``right-wing extremists,'' too.
       PFAW and its allies have also attacked Pryor for being 
     extremist on abortion rights. As a dedicated Roman Catholic, 
     Bill Pryor loves kids and is against abortion, no doubt about 
     it.
       But even though he disagrees with abortion, he instructed 
     Alabama's district attorneys to apply Alabama's partial-birth 
     abortion law in a moderate way that was consistent with U.S. 
     Supreme Court precedent.
       Again, he was criticized by Republicans; pro-life activists 
     accused him of gutting the statute. Again, he didn't back 
     down.
       Not surprisingly, PFAW and its allies have attacked Pryor 
     for supporting the display of the Ten Commandments in 
     courthouses. But Pryor simply took the position that if a 
     representation of the Ten Commandments can be carved into the 
     wall of the U.S. Supreme Court's courtroom, it can be placed 
     in an Alabama courtroom.
       PFAW also has attacked Pryor for the position he took in 
     the Alexander vs. Sandoval case, in which a person who didn't 
     speak English sued to force Alabama to spend its money on 
     printing driver's license tests in foreign languages.
       As broke as our state is, there are better things to spend 
     our money on--like teaching kids to read English so they can 
     take the test and read road signs, and also paving the roads 
     for them to drive on. Pryor fought this attempt to drain our 
     state budget, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with him.
       The truth and the record show that Bill Pryor has fought 
     for the civil rights and voting rights of African-Americans 
     in Alabama when PFAW was nowhere to be found. Now that 
     President Bush has nominated Pryor to a federal judgeship, 
     PFAW assumes that it can come here and attack him.
       I, for one, suggest that PFAW pack up its pro-pornography, 
     flag-burning, anti-religious, attack-dog tactics and go back 
     to Hollywood and Washington.
       We who actually know Bill Pryor support him 100 percent.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will see through 
all the smoke and mirrors that have been kicked up by groups such as 
the People for the American Way. I hope my colleagues will take a very 
close look at the facts and reject those allegations that are not true, 
just as many Alabamians have so rejected because the people who know 
this man best ought to be the ones to whom we listen.
  I hope that Bill Pryor's true record will shine through and that my 
colleagues will join me in supporting his nomination.
  I close by, once again, telling my Senate colleagues that if the role 
of a Federal judge is to say, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, ``to 
say what the law is,'' then there are very few candidates as qualified 
as William Pryor.
  Being a good judge is not about doing what is popular, and it is not 
for sure about giving in to liberal special interest groups, and it 
certainly is not about legislating the left-wing's agenda from the 
bench. Being a good judge is about fairly applying the law, fairly 
applying the law no matter who the person is, no matter how unpopular 
the cause or the argument being advocated is. It is not the role of a 
judge, nor should it ever be the role of a judge, to serve as a puppet 
to the popular position. That is what William Pryor has built his 
career on--the rule of law, enforcing the law, carrying out the law.
  I know that is what William Pryor will continue to do when he is 
finally confirmed by this Senate for the Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we are under a time 
consideration. I believe I have half an hour. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair remind me when I have 5 minutes 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. 
Pryor's nomination. Contrary to the widespread impression of a partisan 
breakdown in the judicial nominations process, Democrats in this 
closely divided Senate have sought to cooperate with the President on 
the issues. And we have largely succeeded. We have confirmed 210 of 
President Bush's nominees in the past 4 years; 96 percent of the 
nominees have been confirmed.
  Only 10 nominees did not receive the broad bipartisan support needed 
for confirmation, because their records showed that they would roll 
back basic rights and protections.
  Mr. Pryor's nomination illustrates the problems. His views are at the 
extreme right wing of legal thinking. It is clear from his record that 
he does not deserve confirmation to a lifetime seat on an appellate 
court that often has the last word on vital issues for millions of 
people who live in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, the States that 
comprise the Eleventh Circuit.
  Mr. Pryor is no true conservative. He has sought to advance a radical 
agenda contrary to much of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence over the 
last 40 years, and at odds with important precedents that have made our 
country more inclusive and fair.
  Mr. Pryor has fought aggressively to undermine the power of Congress 
to protect civil and individual rights. He has tried to cut back on the 
Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 
the Clean Water Act. He has been contemptuously dismissive of claims of 
racial bias in the application of the death penalty, and has 
relentlessly advocated the use of the death penalty, even for persons 
with mental retardation. Mr. Pryor has even ridiculed the current 
Supreme Court Justices, calling them ``nine octogenarian lawyers who 
happen to sit on the Supreme Court.'' He even has his facts wrong. Only 
two of the nine Justices are 80 years old or older.
  In addition to these serious substantive concerns, his nomination was 
rushed through the Judiciary Committee in violation of the committee's 
rules, before the committee could complete its investigation of major 
ethical

[[Page 12090]]

questions raised by the nominee's own testimony at his hearing and by 
his answers and non-answers to the committee's follow-up questions. 
When these serious problems in Mr. Pryor's record prevented him from 
receiving the Senate support needed for confirmation, President Bush 
made an end-run around the constitutional system of checks and balances 
by giving him a recess appointment during a brief Senate recess that 
was, in all likelihood, an unconstitutional use of the recess 
appointment power.
  In the last Congress, some Members of the majority presented a 
version of the history of the nomination and the committee's 
investigation which did not comport with the facts. The history is 
important, because it shows that Democrats have in fact acted 
expeditiously and responsibly, and that the rush to judgment in the 
committee in the last Congress was clearly an effort to cut off a 
needed further investigation.
  As the extraordinary rollcall vote in the Judiciary Committee on July 
23, 2003 shows, every member of the minority voted, ``no, under protest 
for the violation of Rule IV.''
  Democrats did not invent the issue that provoked such an 
unprecedented protest. Years before Mr. Pryor's nomination, lengthy 
articles in Texas and D.C. newspapers raised the question of the 
propriety of the activities of the Republican Attorneys General 
Association.
  It was reported that the organization sought campaign contributions 
to support the election of Republican attorneys general, by arguing 
they would be less aggressive than Democratic attorneys general in 
challenging business interests for violations of the law. Some 
descriptions of this effort characterized it as a ``shakedown'' scheme.
  The leaders of the association denied the allegations, but refused to 
disclose its contributors. They were able to maintain their secrecy by 
funneling the contributions through an account at the Republican 
National Committee that aggregated various kinds of State campaign 
contributions, and avoided separate public reporting of the 
contributions or the amount of their gifts.
  The issue received significant press coverage during the 2002 Senate 
campaign in Texas, especially after several Republican attorneys 
general denounced the association as fraught with ethical problems.
  Because Mr. Pryor had been identified publicly as a leader of the 
association's efforts, and the ethical issues raised by it were 
obviously relevant to his qualifications, he was asked about the issue 
at his nomination hearing and in written follow-up questions. His 
responses avoided the issue and raised more questions than they 
answered.
  In July 2003, the Judiciary Committee began a bipartisan 
investigation of the matter, in accordance with an investigative plan 
provided to the majority. No witnesses were ever questioned under oath 
as part of the investigation, and in fact, the investigation was cut 
short by the committee majority almost as soon as it began. The 
Republican investigator actually instructed interviewees that they did 
not have to answer questions from the minority investigator, or comply 
with document requests from the minority.
  As a result, all of the committee Democrats, having considered the 
information available up to that point, wrote to the chairman and 
informed him that the investigation was producing serious and 
disturbing information, that it would require substantial additional 
time, that his investigators were interfering with it, and that after 
it was complete, the minority members would want to question the 
nominee under oath.
  The Republican staff had offered informal staff interviews with the 
nominee before that time, but the Democratic investigators had, as any 
serious investigator would, declined that offer until the basic 
investigative work had been done. In any event, the Democratic members 
wanted to question the nominee in person under oath at the appropriate 
time.
  At the committee meeting to consider the issue, the chairman rejected 
the minority's unanimous request out of hand. He insisted on a vote on 
the nomination without completion of the investigation and without 
further questioning of the nominee under oath. That was the situation 
when Senator Leahy invoked the committee's rule IV to prevent a 
premature vote on the nomination. The party line vote was 10-9.
  The fact that no minority member was among the 10 should have 
prevented an immediate vote on the nomination and allowed the 
investigation to continue. But the chairman refused to follow rule IV 
and insisted on an immediate vote.
  The 9 Democrats on the committee all voted against reporting the 
nomination, each noting an objection to the violation of rule IV.
  The 10 Republicans voted to report it, with one Republican stating 
that his vote to report it did not mean he would necessarily vote for 
the nominee on the floor. He also stated that he would want to review 
the results of the investigation with the nominee before any Senate 
vote.
  Despite the lack of cooperation from the majority staff, the minority 
staff attempted to obtain further information, and did develop new 
information which expanded both the scope and the gravity of our 
original concerns. However, in the face of the majority's refusal to 
cooperate, a further investigation involving the witnesses was 
impossible.
  I mention this to make clear that the matters raised by this 
investigation are very serious, and we should not sweep these questions 
under the rug. We are not doing our job in reviewing this nomination if 
we look the other way in the face of these serious ethical questions. 
The Judiciary Committee should have completed the investigation in 
2003, reviewed its findings, heard from the nominee under oath, and 
then decided whether he should be listed for debate and consideration.
  This year, when the committee again considered Judge Pryor's 
nomination, the majority offered to permit a few phone calls to 
witnesses whose telephone interviews were not completed or who could 
not be found in 2003. That offer was appreciated, but, as was obvious 
from the first call, it was too little and too late.
  The well of evidence had been poisoned by the majority investigator's 
negative statements to witnesses in 2003, and now it would take an even 
more concerted inquiry to elicit the full story from witnesses who were 
adverse to begin with. Nevertheless, because some day that story will 
probably come out, this aspect of the nomination remains a ticking-
ethical time bomb.
  The rush to judgment on this nomination is particularly troubling, 
given the serious substantive problems in Mr. Pryor's record. His 
supporters say that his views have gained acceptance by the courts, and 
that his legal positions are well within the legal mainstream, but many 
disagree. Mr. Pryor has consistently advocated to narrow individual 
rights and freedoms far beyond what any court in this land has been 
willing to hold.
  The Supreme Court rejected his argument that States could not be sued 
for money damages for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act. Had 
Mr. Pryor prevailed, it would have been far more difficult to protect 
workers who need time off because of their own health problems or to 
care for a loved one.
  The Supreme Court also rejected Mr. Pryor's sweeping argument that 
Congress lacked authority to pass the Clean Water Act's protections for 
wetlands that are home to migratory birds.
  The Court rejected his argument that States should be able to 
criminalize private sexual conduct between consenting adults. It 
rejected his far-reaching argument that counties should have the same 
immunity from lawsuits that Sates have. It rejected his argument that 
the right to counsel does not apply to defendants with suspended 
sentences of imprisonment. It rejected his argument that it was 
constitutional for Alabama prison guards to handcuff prisoners to 
hitching posts for hours in the summer heat.
  Mr. Pryors opposition to the rights of the disabled is particularly 
disturbing.

[[Page 12091]]

In one case, in an opinion Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court 
unanimously rejected his argument that the Americans with Disabilities 
Act does not apply to State prisons.
  In another case, the Supreme Court rejected his view that provisions 
of the act ensuring that those with disabilities have access to public 
services are unconstitutional. In that case, a plaintiff who uses a 
wheelchair had challenged the denial of access to a public courthouse. 
He had refused to crawl up the courthouse stairs to reach the public 
courtroom. In his brief in the case, Mr. Pryor argued that Congress has 
no power to require States to make public facilities accessible to the 
disabled. He argued that denying access to courthouses does not violate 
the principle of equal protection, because the disabled have no 
absolute right to attend legal proceedings affecting their rights.
  In arguing that the legislative history did not show a need for them 
to act, Mr. Pryor dismissed congressional findings of discrimination 
against the disabled, and evidence that the University of Georgia had 
located its office of handicapped services in an inaccessible second-
floor room. According to Mr. Pryor, such ``anecdotes provide no 
indication of the extent of the inaccessibility, or whether the 
inaccessibility lacked a rational basis and was therefore 
unconstitutional.'' That is nonsense. It is obvious that the wording of 
this legislative history clearly describes the extent of the 
inaccessibility. And there is no rational justification for a State 
university to put an office serving disabled students in an 
inaccessible second-floor location.
  The Supreme Court also rejected Mr. Pryor's radical view of what 
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in the use of the death 
penalty. It rejected his argument that executing retarded persons does 
not offend the eighth amendment. The Eleventh Circuit, a court 
dominated by conservative, Republican appointees, later unanimously 
rejected Mr. Pryor's attempt to evade the Supreme Court's decision. He 
had tried to prevent a prisoner with an IQ of 65, who even the 
prosecution agreed was mentally retarded, from raising a claim that he 
should not be executed.
  The Supreme Court also rejected his attempt to limit the right to 
counsel for the poor. Mr. Pryor argued that the poor have no right to 
counsel in misdemeanor cases, even if they risk imprisonment if found 
guilty. He told the Court during oral argument that it is reasonable 
for the State to preserve its own resources, just as a more affluent 
defendant would preserve its resources and not incur the cost of 
counsel in this kind of circumstance. The Supreme Court held that the 
right to counsel when the accused faces possible imprisonment is more 
important than Mr. Pryor's financial concern.
  Again and again, his far-reaching arguments like these have been 
rejected by the courts. Mr. Pryor is not a nominee within the legal 
mainstream.
  He and his supporters pretend that he is only ``following the law,'' 
but in fact Mr. Pryor repeatedly tried to make different law, using the 
Alabama Attorney General's office as a political platform for his own 
radical agenda.
  We are expected to believe that despite the intensity with which he 
has advocated for these radical legal positions and the many years he 
has devoted to dismantling basic rights, he will start to ``follow the 
law'' if he receives a lifetime appointment to the Eleventh Circuit. 
Repeating that mantra again and again and again in the face of his 
extreme record does not make it credible that he will do so.
  His many inflammatory statements show that he lacks the temperament 
to serve on the Federal court. He ridiculed the Supreme Court of the 
United States for granting a temporary stay of execution in a capital 
punishment case. Alabama was one of only two States in the Nation that 
uses the electric chair as its sole method of execution. The Supreme 
Court granted review to determine whether the use of the electric chair 
was cruel and unusual punishment.
  For Mr. Pryor, however, the Court should not even have paused to 
consider the Eighth Amendment. He said the issue: should not be decided 
by nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the Supreme Court. 
This does not reflect the thoughtfulness we seek in our Federal judges.
  He is dismissive of concerns about fairness in capital punishment and 
the possible execution of persons who are innocent. He has stated: make 
no mistake about it, the death penalty moratorium movement is headed by 
an activist minority with little concern for what is really going on in 
our criminal justice system.
  On the issue of women's rights, Mr. Pryor has criticized 
constitutional protections against gender discrimination. He dismissed 
as ``political correctness'' the Supreme Court's decision that a State-
run military academy could not deny admission to women because of 
stereotypes about how women learn.
  In a 1997 statement to Congress, Mr. Pryor opposed section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act, which has been indispensable in ensuring that all 
Americans have the right to vote, regardless of race or ethnic 
background. He called this important law an affront to federalism and 
an expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness.
  In March, we commemorated the 40th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, in 
which Martin Luther King, Congressman John Lewis, and others were 
brutally attacked on a peaceful march in Mr. Pryor's home State of 
Alabama while supporting the right to vote for all Americans, 
regardless of race. Yet we are now being asked by the administration to 
confirm a nominee who opposes the Voting Rights Act.
  The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of 
section 5, but Mr. Pryor's derisive statements--criticizing both the 
act and the Supreme Court itself--give no confidence that he will 
enforce the law's provisions. There is too much at stake to risk 
confirming a judge who would turn back progress on protecting the right 
to vote.
  It is no surprise that this nomination is opposed by leaders of the 
civil rights movement, including the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, a 
leader of the Alabama movement for civil rights, the Reverend C.T. 
Vivian, and many of Dr. Martin Luther King's other close advisors and 
associates.
  It is clear that Mr. Pryor sees the Federal courts as a place to 
advance his political agenda. When President Bush was elected in 2000, 
Mr. Pryor gave a speech praising his election as the ``last best hope 
for federalism.'' He ended his speech with these words--a ``prayer for 
the next administration: Please God, no more Souters.'' He was 
referring to Justice Souter, a Republican nominee to the court, whose 
opinions Mr. Pryor apparently disagreed with.
  In another speech, he said he was thankful for the Bush v. Gore 
decision. I wanted Governor Bush to have a full appreciation of the 
judiciary and judicial selection so we can have no more appointments 
like Justice Souter.
  Some have argued that Mr. Pryor's record in his year as a recess 
appointee on the Eleventh Circuit somehow erases his long career of 
opposition to fundamental rights. The fact that Mr. Pryor has voted 
with other judges during the period when he was temporarily appointed 
to the court says nothing about what he would do if given a lifetime 
appointment and the freedom from Senate oversight. It is no wonder that 
he might be cautious when he only has a temporary appointment to the 
court. We should not be swayed by ``confirmation conversions,'' and 
especially not by ``recess appointment conversions.''
  My colleagues on the other side have brought up every argument they 
could find to save him. His record is full of examples of extreme 
views, and they try to rebut each one. They call Senate Democrats and 
citizens who question Mr. Pryor's fitness--including more than 204 
local and national groups--a variety of names. They even accuse us of 
religious bias.
  They claim that those who oppose Mr. Pryor's nomination do so because 
of his faith. That's ridiculous given the record. Such a claim is 
unworthy of the Senate. Most of us would have had no idea what 
religious views are held by Pryor, or any other nominee, if Republicans 
had not raised the issue.

[[Page 12092]]

  The real question is why, when there are so many qualified Republican 
attorneys in Alabama, the President would choose such a divisive 
nominee? Why pick one whose record raises so much doubt as to whether 
he will be fair? Why pick one who can muster only a rating of partially 
unqualified from the American Bar Association?
  At stake is the independence of our Federal courts. We count on 
Federal judges to be intelligent, to have the highest integrity, to be 
open-minded. Most of all, we count on them to treat everyone fairly and 
not to prejudge a case based on ideology. Mr, Pryor is free to pursue 
his agenda as a lawyer or as an advocate, but he does not have the 
open-mindedness and fairness needed to be a Federal judge, and I urge 
my colleagues to defeat this nomination.
  Mr. President, I have, I believe, just a few minutes left. How much 
time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have pointed out at other times in 
recent days that we have been tied up with these Federal judges--the 
handful of Federal judges who will have enormous impact in terms of our 
court systems--we have been tied up with this issue for weeks and weeks 
when this President could have appointed, as I mentioned in the final 
moments of my speech, outstanding, distinguished jurists who could have 
gone through here like 95 or 96 percent of the other nominees.
  While we have been taking weeks and weeks, let me just mention a few 
of the things that have been happening that are affecting real American 
families. Let's just take the last week, for example. Let's take the 
New York Times last Sunday:

       Tax Laws Help to Widen the Gap at the Very Top. The share 
     of the Nation's income earned by those in the uppermost 
     category has more than doubled since 1980.

  There is a long article about what is happening in our country 
between the working families, middle-income families, and the super-
wealthy, and the reasons for it. Are we debating or considering or 
thinking about doing anything about that? No, not the Senate.
  Here is Monday, New York Times:

       College Aid Rules Change and Families Pay More.

  Are we doing anything about that this week? Are we having a debate on 
that issue, about what we can do to make college tuition more available 
to families here in the United States? No, no. That is not on the 
agenda.
  Then look at Tuesday:

       Pension Law Loopholes Help United Hide Its Troubles.
       Loopholes in the federal pension . . . allow United 
     Airlines to treatment its pension fund . . . solid for years 
     when in fact it was dangerously weakened.

  And it basically collapsed.
  Pensions, retirement for working families, a matter of principal 
concern for millions of our workers--are we doing very much about that 
on the floor of the Senate? No.
  Wednesday:

       G. M. Will Reduce Hourly Workers by 25,000. General Motors 
     said Tuesday it will cut 25,000 from its blue collar 
     workforce.

  We don't have a silver bullet to answer that, but don't we think we 
should be thinking about, if we lost 25,000 workers, what we ought to 
do and what we might do in terms of helping working families and 
looking at an industry? That was Wednesday.
  Here we have Thursday, front-page story:

       Limit for Award in Tobacco Case Set Off Protests.

The Justice Department's decision to seek $10 billion instead of what 
the professional attorneys in the Justice Department said that they 
should, $130 billion.

  They were going to use that $130 billion to educate primarily 
teenagers, primarily teenage girls. Four thousand teenagers start 
smoking every day, and 2,000 become addicted. Try to educate them with 
$130 billion? What happened to the Justice Department? They threw in 
the towel. You would think we would talk about that.
  That is in this last week. These issues affect middle-income working 
families, and what do we spend our time on here in the Senate for the 
last 6, 7, 8, 9 weeks? Debating these judges, when we know if we had a 
President who would offer nominees in the mainstream of judicial 
thinking, those individuals would be confirmed, like 96 percent of them 
were. Then perhaps we would have a chance to do something that has been 
talked about on every front page of every newspaper just this last week 
and that affects in a very real and important way the quality of life 
of children in this country, working families, and retirees.
  Finally, I think I join with Senator Levin and Harry Reid, wondering 
why in the world next week we are not going to be considering the 
Defense Authorization bill instead of going to the Energy bill. We need 
an energy bill but, as has been pointed out by the supporters of the 
Energy bill, passage of that bill will not reduce the gas price by 1 
cent. The Defense Authorization bill will send a very clear message 
about our commitment on death benefits, on uparmoring humvees, on 
looking after families in terms of health insurance--all of these 
issues that are out there. We would send a very clear message that the 
Senate of the United States is behind that reauthorization. We may have 
our questions about Iraq policy, but everyone in this body supports our 
troops. Why aren't we considering the Defense Authorization bill?
  These are some of the concerns many of us have who think this Senate 
is not meeting its responsibilities to the American people or to our 
national security and defense.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to support the 
nomination of Judge William H. Pryor, Jr., to be a judge for the 
Eleventh Circuit. It has been divided.
  Judge Pryor comes to this position with a very distinguished record. 
He graduated from Northeast Louisiana University in 1984, magna cum 
laude; from the Tulane University School of Law in 1987, again magna 
cum laude; was editor-chief of the Law Review of the Tulane University 
School of Law, which is no minor achievement. There are not too many 
editors-in-chief around. That is quite an accomplishment. So the 
academic career is really extraordinary.
  Following graduation from law school, he was law clerk to Judge John 
Minor Wisdom for the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a very 
distinguished jurist. A I speak on this subject, the Presiding Officer 
is Senator Lamar Alexander, who, as I recollect, was also a law clerk 
to Judge John Minor Wisdom and, on the recommendation of Senator 
Alexander, he spoke very highly of William Pryor, the people who knew 
him in a very distinguished clerkship, one of America's great, 
historical jurists. Bill Pryor was his law clerk.
  He then had a distinguished record in the practice of law, working 
for the firm of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal; was an 
adjunct professor at the Samford University, Cumberland School of Law; 
and came back into the practice of law for 4 more years with Walston, 
Stabler, Wells, Anderson & Bains. Then, from 1995 to 2004, he was 
Deputy Attorney General and also Attorney General of the State of 
Alabama and has been on the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit 
now for a year, having obtained an interim appointment from President 
Bush.
  Judge Pryor has been criticized for his views, expressed very 
forcefully, in opposition to the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in Roe v. Wade. The quotation attributed to him was that 
it was the ``worst abomination of constitutional law in our history,'' 
which is pretty strong language. That is about as strong as you can 
get.
  The issue is not what is his personal view of Roe v. Wade. The issue 
is what would he do as a circuit court of appeals judge when faced with 
the responsibility to uphold the law of the land, of the Supreme Court.

[[Page 12093]]

  This subject came up during the confirmation hearing of Judge Pryor 
before the Judiciary Committee on June 11, 2003. I propounded the 
following question to Judge Pryor:

       The Chairman [Senator Hatch at the time] has asked about 
     whether you have made some comments which you consider 
     intemperate, and I regret I could not be here earlier today, 
     but as you know, we have many conflicting schedules. But I 
     note the comment you made after Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 
     where you were quoted as saying--first I would ask you if 
     this is accurate. I have seen a quote or two not accurate. 
     ``In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey the Court 
     preserved the worst abomination of constitutional law in our 
     history,'' . . . is that an accurate quotation of yours?
       Mr. Pryor. Yes.

  It is pretty hard to get a simple answer of a witness anywhere and I 
appreciated that kind of brevity.
  I continued:

       Senator Specter. Is that one which would fall into the 
     category that Senator Hatch has commented on, you wish you 
     had not made?
       Mr. Pryor: No, I stand by the comment.

  Then I asked:

       Why do you consider it an abomination, Attorney General 
     Pryor?

  And he responded:

       Well, I believe that not only is the case unsupported by 
     the text and structure of the Constitution. But it has led to 
     a morally wrong result.

  And he goes on to give his reasons for his conclusion.
  He was very candid, very steadfast, and stood up to what he had said 
and was not running from it.
  Later, he made it plain he would abide by the law of the land, that 
his personal views of Roe v. Wade were not determinative. The record 
shows my own view has been to uphold the Supreme Court decision in Roe 
v. Wade, a subject I will not discuss as to my own views, but I respect 
a difference of opinion.
  In looking for the confirmation of a Federal judge, the issue is, 
will he follow the law of the land. He said he would and said so very 
emphatically on the record.
  On March 3 of this year, I wrote to Senator Reid because this 
question had come up. I cited the applicable page of the record June 
11, page 45 of the transcript where the following exchange occurred:

       Chairman Hatch. So even when you disagree with Roe v. Wade 
     you would act in accordance with Roe v. Wade on the Eleventh 
     Circuit Court of Appeals?
       Mr. Pryor. Even though I strongly disagree with Roe v. Wade 
     I have acted in accordance with it as Attorney General and 
     would continue to do so as a Court of Appeals judge.
       Chairman Hatch. Can we rely on that?
       Mr. Pryor. You can take it to the bank, Mr. Chairman.

  Again, that is about as emphatic as you can be on that subject.
  During the course of Judge Pryor's tenure on the Court of Appeals, he 
has handed down quite a number of opinions which show maturity, which 
show growth, and which undercut many of the objections of his critics.
  I ask unanimous consent the relevant portions of the transcript I 
have just referred to from the Judiciary Committee hearing and the 
letter which I sent to Senator Reid dated March 3, 2005, be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Shortly after becoming chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, within a week, by memorandum dated January 12 of this year, 
I sent to all members of the Judiciary Committee a memorandum including 
summaries of some of Judge Pryor's statements which I thought merited 
analysis and reconsideration by those who had opposed him in the past. 
Those opinions included the decision in DIRECTV v. Treworgy, where 
Judge Pryor ruled against a major satellite transmission corporation, 
instead siding with a private citizen to shield him from liability. 
Also, a case on Judge Pryor's decision protecting religious liberty, 
Benning v. Georgia, also decided in the year 2004. A case illustrating 
Judge Pryor's protection of civil rights in the case of Wilson v. B/E 
Aerospace, Incorporated. A case which involved a district court's 
dismissal of a female employee's gender discrimination claims. Judge 
Pryor reinstated her claim of bias as to promotion and remanded back to 
the district court.
  By way of amplification of the case I referred to on Benning v. 
Georgia, that involved a situation when the Georgia prison system 
refused an inmate's request to practice his Jewish faith. Judge Pryor 
enabled the prisoner to continue to worship in his preferred manner.
  The case involving Sarmiento-Cisneros, where Judge Pryor ruled 
protecting immigrants' rights, involved a Mexican immigrant who desired 
to remain in the United States with his family. Judge Pryor vacated the 
deportation order, enabling the family to remain together, and brought 
a commonsense interpretation to a harsh ruling by the Bureau of 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  The case of Brown v. Johnson is an illustration of Judge Pryor's 
judgment and decision in protecting prisoners' rights. Judge Pryor 
recognized the need for improvement in the treatment of an inmate 
afflicted with HIV and concluded that prison officials were not 
sufficiently concerned about the serious medical needs under the Eighth 
and 14th Amendments.
  Judge Pryor also stood by the petitioner, permitting him to proceed 
in forma pauperis.
  Judge Pryor has faced, in his capacity as Attorney General of 
Alabama, quite a number of situations where he took positions which 
were very unpopular politically and contrary to his own views, but did 
so because of his determination and his recognition that he was 
supposed to uphold the law of the land.
  In a very highly celebrated case nationally and internationally, as 
Attorney General for Alabama he proceeded against Alabama Chief Justice 
Roy Moore for refusing to remove the large depiction of the Ten 
Commandments on display in the Alabama Supreme Court after the Federal 
courts ruled the display was unconstitutional. In that case, Judge 
Pryor commented that his personal beliefs were contrary to what he was 
ruling. He took a lot of criticism from his Alabama constituency and 
when asked about his decision to enforce the law against Alabama Chief 
Justice Moore, Judge Pryor stated:

       This was not a tough call. I believe that our freedom 
     depends on the rule of law. The reason the American 
     experiment has been successful is because we are a nation of 
     laws and not of men. No person is above the law. We have to 
     abide by the law even when we disagree with it. That is the 
     guiding principle of my public service.

  Hard to structure a response better than that. Cannot do any better 
than that, when you say you disagree with something and you disagree 
strongly, but you recognize your obligation to enforce the law.
  On other occasions, then-Attorney General Pryor set aside personal 
beliefs and instructed State law enforcement officials to enforce the 
Supreme Court rulings. Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 
ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, he released a press statement through the 
Web site of the Office of Attorney General saying that in light of the 
Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence:

     the law of Alabama . . . which prohibits consensual sodomy 
     between unmarried persons, is now unenforceable.

  Similarly, after the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart, 
which struck down a Nebraska law prohibiting partial-birth abortion, 
then-Attorney General Pryor issued a statement to State officials 
saying State officials ``are obligated to obey the Stenberg ruling 
until it is overruled or otherwise set aside.''
  Judge Pryor's record shows commitment to improving race relations and 
protecting racial equality. As attorney general, Judge Pryor worked 
with President Clinton's U.S. attorney Doug Jones to prosecute former 
klansmen who bombed Birmingham's 16th Street Baptist Church in the 
1960s which resulted in the death of four young girls. He helped to 
start a drive to rid the Alabama Constitution of its racist prohibition 
on interracial marriage and then stepped up to head the effort to end 
the ban, ultimately to its victory in November of 2000.

[[Page 12094]]

  He dedicated much of his career to protecting the interests and the 
safety of women. As Attorney General, he supported and lobbied for 
legislation that created a State crime of domestic violence.
  I ask unanimous consent the summaries of the cases which I referred 
to previously be printed in the Record, with a pertinent letter, at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. SPECTER. In conclusion, it is a very healthy situation in that we 
are now proceeding to take up these nominees individually. That is 
something which I had sought to do since taking over the chairmanship 
of the Judiciary Committee. We have moved ahead now with three 
controversial nominees. It is my hope we will continue to take up these 
nominees, one at a time, and evaluate them on their merits.
  As I have said in a number of floor statements, we have reached the 
current confrontation because of a practice which goes back almost 20 
years, starting with the last 2 years of the Reagan administration and 
continuing with 4 years of President Bush, and when the Democrats took 
control of the Senate and the Judiciary Committee, they stopped the 
processing of judges and slowed it down.
  Then when we Republicans won the election in 1994, for the last 6 
years of the Clinton administration we slowed down the process and tied 
up some 70 judges in committee, a practice that I objected to at the 
time, and supported Judge Paez and Judge Berzon and others. Then the 
controversy was ratcheted up with the unprecedented systematic 
filibustering of judges, and then the unprecedented move by President 
Bush in the interim appointment, after the Senate rejected a judge, 
albeit by the route of not getting cloture.
  My time has expired, and I note the presence of the distinguished 
Democratic leader, so I yield the floor in midsentence, Mr. President.

                               Exhibit 1

       Senator Specter. The Chairman has asked about whether you 
     have made some comments which you now consider intemperate, 
     and I regret, that I could not be here earlier today, but as 
     you know, we have many conflicting schedules. But I note the 
     comment you made after Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where you 
     were quoted as saying--first I would ask you if this quote is 
     accurate. I have seen a quote or two not accurate. ``In the 
     1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey the Court preserved 
     the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history,'' 
     close quote. Is that an accurate quotation of yours?
       Mr. Pryor. Yes.
       Senator Specter. Is that one which would fall into the 
     category that Senator Hatch has commented on, you wish you 
     had not made?
       Mr. Pryor. No, I stand by that comment.
       Senator Specter. Why do you consider it an abomination, 
     Attorney General Pryor?
       Mr. Pryor. Well, I believe that not only is the case 
     unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, 
     but it had led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the 
     slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children. That's my 
     personal belief.
       Senator Specter. With that personal belief, Attorney 
     General Pryor, what assurances can you give to the many who 
     are raising a question as to whether when you characterized 
     it an abomination and slaughter, that you can follow a 
     decision of the United States Supreme Court, which you 
     consider an abomination and having led to slaughter?
       Mr. Pryor. I would invite anyone to look at my record as 
     Attorney General, where I've done just that. We had a partial 
     birth abortion law in our State that was challenged by 
     abortion clinics in Alabama in 1997. It could have been 
     interpreted broadly or it could have been interpreted 
     narrowly. I ordered the district attorneys of Alabama to give 
     it its narrowest construction because that was based on my 
     reading of Roe and Casey. I ordered the district attorneys to 
     apply that law only to post-viable fetuses. I could have read 
     it easily more broadly. The governor who appointed me was 
     governor at the time and a party to the lawsuit, disagreed 
     with me and openly criticized me. A pro-life activist in 
     Alabama criticized me. But I did it because I thought that 
     was the right legal decision. I still had an obligation to 
     defend Alabama law. This was a recently-passed Alabama law. 
     When the Supreme Court of the United States later of course 
     struck down this kind of partial birth abortion law, we 
     conceded immediately in district court that the decision was 
     binding, but until then I was making the narrowest argument I 
     could make, trying to be faithful to the Supreme Court's 
     precedent, while also being faithful to my role as Attorney 
     General and my oath of office to defend a law recently passed 
     by the legislature.
       Senator Specter. When you talk about post-viability and you 
     have the categorization of partial birth or late-term 
     abortion, is not that statute necessarily directed toward 
     post-viability?
       Mr. Pryor. That was one of the main arguments I made in 
     construing it, but if you look at the actual language--
       Senator Specter. Well, I asked you that question as to 
     whether there was a basis for construing it to the contrary. 
     When you talk about partial birth abortion, we are talking 
     about an event in the birth canal which is definitely post-
     viability. When you talk about late-term abortion, we are 
     also talking about post-viability. So aside from having some 
     people who will raise a question about anything, whether 
     there is a question to be raised or not, was it not 
     reasonably plain on the face of the statute that they were 
     talking about post-viability?
       Mr. Pryor. No, I don't think anyone would contend life. I 
     believe that abortion is morally wrong. I've never wavered 
     from that, and in representing the people of Alabama, I have 
     been a candid, engaged Attorney General, who has been 
     involved in the type of--
       Chairman Hatch. What does that mean with regard to the 
     Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals? If you get on that court, 
     how are you going to treat Roe v. Wade?
       Mr. Pryor. Well, my record as Attorney General shows that I 
     am able to put aside my personal beliefs and follow the law, 
     even when I strongly disagree with it, to look carefully at 
     precedents and to do my duty. That is the same duty that I 
     would have as a judge. Now, as an advocate for the State of 
     Alabama of course I have an obligation to make a reasonable 
     argument in defense of the law, but as a judge I would have 
     to do my best to determine from the precedents what the law 
     actually at the end of the day requires. My record 
     demonstrates that I can do that.
       Chairman Hatch. So even though you disagree with Roe v. 
     Wade you would act in, accordance with Roe v. Wade on the 
     Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals?
       Mr. Pryor. Even though I strongly disagree with Roe v. Wade 
     I have acted in accordance with this as Attorney General and 
     would continue to do so as a Court of Appeals Judge.
       Chairman Hatch. Can we rely on that?
       Mr. Pryor. You can take it to the bank, Mr. Chairman.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, March 3, 2005.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: When we talked earlier this week, we 
     discussed the question of whether or not Judge Pryor had 
     testified that he would follow Roe v. Wade. I have had the 
     transcript reviewed from Judge Pryor's hearing on June 11, 
     2003. I think that you will find the following exchange 
     between Senator Hatch and Judge Pryor, which can be found on 
     page 45 of the transcript, dispositive:
       Chairman Hatch: So even though you disagree with Roe v. 
     Wade you would act in accordance with Roe v. Wade on the 
     Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals?
       Mr. Pryor: Even though I strongly disagree with Roe v. Wade 
     I have acted in accordance with it as Attorney General and 
     would continue to do so as a Court of Appeals Judge.
       Chairman Hatch: Can we rely on that?
       Mr. Pryor: You can take it to the bank, Mr. Chairman.
       I am enclosing a copy of the transcript.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                 Washington, DC, January 12, 2005.
       To Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: As you know, 
     Judge William Pryor has been sitting on the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for the past eleven 
     months. The President has stated his intention to re-submit 
     Judge Pryor's name for confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit. 
     In light of his expected renomination, I have asked my staff 
     to examine Judge Pryor's Eleventh Circuit opinions.
       I thought you might be interested in knowing some more 
     about these opinions. In particular, I'd like to bring to 
     your attention several opinions that demonstrate Judge 
     Pryor's willingness to protect the rights of individuals 
     often overlooked in the legal system. It is my hope that 
     these opinions and his record on the Eleventh Circuit for the 
     past eleven months will be considered by the Committee on 
     evaluating him on his re-nomination.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                  ____


                               Memorandum

       During his tenure on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 
     Judge William Pryor has

[[Page 12095]]

     authored several opinions demonstrative of his willingness to 
     protect the rights of those often overlooked in the legal 
     system.
       Standing up to Corporations: DIRECTV, Inc. v. Treworgy, 373 
     F.3d 1124 (11th Cir. 2004)
       Judge Pryor ruled against a major satellite-transmission 
     corporation, siding instead with a private citizen to shield 
     him from liability.
       Background: DIRECTV (DTV), a provider of satellite 
     television, encrypts transmissions of pay-per-view and 
     premium programming. The security encryption can be illegally 
     circumvented by using ``pirate access devices,'' which allow 
     users to intercept and decrypt DTV's transmissions. Mike 
     Treworgy bought two pirating cards, which enable someone with 
     a satellite dish to receive signals without paying for the 
     service. There was no evidence that Treworgy actually 
     intercepted a signal wth his cards. DTV sued Treworgy for 
     possessing these devices under the Electronic Communications 
     Privacy Act of 1986 (Wiretap Act), which criminalizes the 
     intentional manufacture, distribution, possession and 
     advertising of piracy devices. Treworgy argued that the 
     Wiretap Act did not create a private right of action against 
     persons merely in possession of access devises.
       Holding: The Eleventh Circuit, Judge Pryor writing, held 
     that DTV did not have a private right of action against 
     Treworgy for mere possession of intercepting technology, and 
     required that the device must have been used to pirate 
     programming before private rights of action arise. ``Congress 
     chose to confine private civil actions to defendants who had 
     `intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used' [a 
     communication] . . . possession of a pirate access device 
     alone, although a criminal offense, creates nothing more than 
     conjectural or hypothetical harm.''
       Protecting Religious Liberty: Benning v. Georgia, 2004 WL 
     2749172 (11th Cir. 2004)
       When the Georgia prison system refused an inmate's requests 
     to practice his Jewish faith, Judge Pryor enabled the 
     prisoner to continue to worship in his preferred manner.
       By finding that RLUIPA is a proper exercise of Congress' 
     Spending authority, the Eleventh Circuit kept viable similar 
     legal remedies for the elderly, disabled and other victims of 
     discrimination.
       Background: Ralph Benning, an inmate in the Georgia prison 
     system, asserted that as a ``Torah observant Jew'' he was 
     being prevented from fulfilling his religious duties, such as 
     eating only kosher food, and wearing a yarmulke. Georgia 
     moved to dismiss and argued that Sec. 3 of The Religious Land 
     Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) exceeds the 
     authority of Congress under the Spending and Commerce 
     Clauses, and violates the Tenth Amendment and the 
     Establishment Clause. RLUIPA imposes strict scrutiny on 
     federally funded programs or activities that burden the 
     religious rights of institutionalized persons.
       Holding: The Eleventh Circuit, Judge Pryor writing, ruled 
     that Congress did not exceed its authority under the Spending 
     Clause in enacting Sec. 3 of RLUIPA. The court held that 
     Congress' spending conditions need meet only a ``minimal 
     standard of rationality.'' The court found that protecting 
     religious exercise of prisoners is a rational goal, and the 
     United States ``has a substantial interest in ensuring that 
     state prisons that receive federal funds protect the federal 
     civil rights of prisoners.'' The Eleventh Circuit also 
     concluded that the statute did not violate the Tenth 
     Amendment by infringing on areas reserved to the states, nor 
     did it violate the Establishment Clause. Judge Pryor further 
     recognized that, ``given the necessarily strict rules that 
     govern every aspect of prison life, the failure of prison 
     officials to accommodate religion, even in the absence of 
     RLUIPA, would not be neutral; it would be hostile to 
     religion.''
       Protecting Civil Rights: Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 
     F.3D 1079 (11th Cir. 2004)
       When the district court dismissed a female employee's 
     gender discrimination claims, Judge Pryor reinstated her 
     claim of bias as to a promotion, and remanded back to the 
     district court.
       Background: Loretta Wilson filed an employment 
     discrimination action against B/E Aerospace, Inc. (B/E) 
     alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 42 U.S.C. sections 
     2000e et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. 
     sections 760.01 et seq. She claimed that B/E discriminated 
     against her on the basis of sex by not promoting her to the 
     position of Site Vice President and by later terminating her.
       Procedural Summary: B/E filed a motion for summary judgment 
     at the conclusion of discovery. The district court granted 
     the motion in its entirety finding that Wilson failed to both 
     provide direct evidence of discrimination and establish a 
     prima facie case of discrimination.
       Holding: Judge Pryor, writing for the Eleventh Circuit, 
     allowed Wilson's case to proceed against the corporation. 
     Focusing on the two distinct types of conduct alleged--
     discrimination in promotion and discharge--the court 
     concluded that an admission by a supervisor at B/E that 
     Wilson was ``the obvious choice'' and the ``most qualified'' 
     for the then-pending promotion created a genuine issue of 
     fact, prompting Judge Pryor to remand as to the failure-to-
     promote claim. As to the discharge claim, the court concluded 
     that Wilson had offered no evidence that her termination was 
     based on sex.
       Protecting Immigrant Rights: Sarmiento-Cisneros v. U.S. 
     Attorney General, 381 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2004).
       Judge Pryor stood up for a Mexican immigrant who desired to 
     remain in the United States with his family.
       By vacating the deportation order, Judge Pryor enabled a 
     family to remain together and brought a commonsensical 
     interpretation to the harsh Bureau of Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement order.
       Background: Jose Sarmiento-Cisneros was an alien from 
     Mexico who was deported and then reentered the United States 
     illegally, married an American citizen, and then applied for 
     an adjustment of status before the effective date of 8 U.S.C. 
     1231(a)(5). The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
     (BICE) sought to reinstate a removal order under 8 U.S.C. 
     1231(a)(5) and argued that the statute's provisions barring 
     an alien from filing an application for discretionary relief 
     apply retroactively.
       Holding: After examining the statute, Judge Pryor, writing 
     for the Eleventh Circuit, joined five other circuits in 
     concluding that 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5) does not apply 
     retroactively. The court therefore granted the petition for 
     review and vacated the BICE deportation order. Sarmiento 
     Cisneros was thus able to enjoy discretionary relief 
     available to him prior to the BICE's rescission of the 
     previously granted relief.
       Protecting Prisoners' Rights: Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 
     1344 (11th Cir. 2004).
       Judge Pryor recognized the need for improved treatment for 
     an inmate afflicted with HIV, concluding that prison 
     officials were indifferent to his serious medical needs under 
     the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
       Judge Pryor not only stood up for the prisoner, but enabled 
     him to proceed in forma pauperis.
       Background: John Brown, a prisoner in the Georgia State 
     Prison, had been prescribed medication for HIV and hepatitis. 
     Two months after this prescription had been granted, a 
     different doctor ceased treatment. Eight months later, Brown 
     filed a Sec. 1983 claim against the second doctor and the 
     Medical Administrator for the Georgia State Prison alleging 
     deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in 
     violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth 
     Amendment and the Eighth Amendment. Additionally, Brown filed 
     a petition to proceed in forma pauperis.
       Procedural Summary: The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) 
     establishes the procedures for courts to use to assess 
     prisoner complaints brought in forma pauperis. The provision 
     of the PLRA in question, 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g) (often 
     referred to as the ``three strikes rule''), bars a prisoner 
     from proceeding in forma pauperis after he has filed three 
     meritless lawsuits, unless the prisoner is in imminent danger 
     of serious medical injury. A magistrate judge recommended 
     that Brown's petition to proceed in forma pauperis be denied 
     and that his complaint be dismissed without prejudice because 
     Brown had filed at least three meritless lawsuits previously, 
     and had not met the imminent physical injury exception. Brown 
     then filed timely objections to the recommendation and he 
     filed a motion to amend his complaint. The district court 
     denied Brown's motion to amend his complaint because the 
     complaint was subject to ``three strikes'' dismissal. 
     Subsequently, the district court adopted the recommendation 
     of the magistrate judge and dismissed Brown's complaint 
     without prejudice. Brown then appealed, and the district 
     court granted him permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
       Holding: Judge Pryor, writing for the Eleventh Circuit, 
     determined that the district court's dismissal of Brown's 
     motion to amend his complaint under the PLRA, and its 
     conclusion barring Brown from proceeding in forma pauperis, 
     were in error. Further, Judge Pryor found that the district 
     court abused its discretion in denying him the right to amend 
     his complaint pursuant to FRCP 15. The amended complaint, 
     sufficiently alleging imminent danger of serious physical 
     injury under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), permitted Brown to proceed in 
     forma pauperis. Finally, Judge Pryor found that Brown had 
     stated a valid claim of deliberate indifference to serious 
     medical needs under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 
     Therefore the district court's judgment was reversed and 
     remanded for further proceedings, effectively allowing 
     Brown's suit to go forward, and enabling him to get necessary 
     medical treatment.

  (At the request of Mr. Leahy, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to express my 
opposition to the nomination of William H. Pryor, Jr., to the Eleventh 
Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. Pryor has a distinguished legal career. He graduated magna cum 
laude from Tulane University Law School, clerked for a judge on the 
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, was a law professor

[[Page 12096]]

at Samford University, and served as attorney general for the State of 
Alabama. While he deserves recognition for his legal background, that 
alone is not enough in my estimation to be confirmed for a lifetime 
appointment to the Federal bench. In my review of Mr. Pryor's 
statements, actions, and writings, I am concerned that Mr. Pryor's 
personal opinion, rather than the law, will compel his decisions in 
some cases.
  My areas of concern arise in areas of the law that I have spent my 
career working to address, including the environment, reproductive 
rights, and gay rights.
  On the environment, for example, Mr. Pryor urged the U.S. Supreme 
Court to declare unconstitutional Federal efforts to protect wildlife 
on private lands under the Endangered Species Act. In regard to this 
case, the lower court stated that Mr. Pryor's constitutional arguments 
would ``place in peril the entire federal regulatory scheme for 
wildlife and natural resource conservation.'' The case is Gibbs v. 
Babbitt.
  In another important case, Solid Waste Authority of Northern Cook 
County v. United States, Mr. Pryor urged the Supreme Court to strike 
down Federal efforts to protect waters and wetlands that provide 
habitat for migratory birds. Finally, Mr. Pryor has advocated in 
testimony before the Senate that States should not be held accountable 
in court for failing to enforce minimum Federal standards from the 
joint hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works and the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 16, 
2002.
  On reproductive rights Mr. Pryor in 1997 called the Roe v. Wade 
decision, ``the day seven members of our highest court ripped the 
Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children.'' 
In a speech during that same year, Mr. Pryor criticized the 1992 
Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by stating that 
this decision ``preserved the worst abomination of constitutional law 
in our history: Roe v. Wade.''
  Finally, during Mr. Pryor's career he has actively worked to oppose 
gay rights. In fact, he has gone so far as to seek out cases to file 
briefs, or spoken out on the merits of such cases, that have no 
connection to the job he was currently performing. For example, even 
though Alabama had no similar statute, Mr. Pryor filed an amicus brief 
in the Romer v. Evans case supporting Colorado's law prohibiting local 
governments from enacting laws protecting gays and lesbians from 
discrimination. In addition, despite the fact that the Lawrence v. 
Texas case did not involve Alabama law, Mr. Pryor's interest was so 
keen that he petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to participate in 
the oral argument and filed a brief on the merits of the case.
  Some have argued that Mr. Pryor should not be held to all these 
briefs and statements because he was just doing his job and protecting 
the rights and positions of his client or employer. However, the 
problem with this argument is that many of the positions he has taken 
have not related to the requirements of the job he was performing, but 
were positions he singularly advocated because he believed in them and 
sought out cases to express and uphold his beliefs. It is this fact 
that concerns me and leads me to believe that Mr. Pryor will use his 
personal beliefs rather than settled law to decide cases.
  His actions as a recess appointment to the Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals have not diminished my concern, especially when Mr. Pryor was 
the deciding vote that prohibited the full Eleventh Circuit to consider 
the unique Florida law banning gay adoption. Given these facts and Mr. 
Pryor's history, I opposed limiting debate on his nomination in 2003, 
and continue to do so today.
  Unfortunately, I will be necessarily absent for the votes that will 
occur related to this nominee. However, I feel it is necessary to 
express my position on this important nomination.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the nomination of William H. Pryor, Jr., 
to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is nothing more than a 
political promotion cloaked in the thin veil of a judicial nomination. 
Judge Pryor has been an active and dutiful soldier in the 
administration's systematic assault on the Constitution and individual 
rights, effectively making his nomination for a lifetime appointment to 
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals political payback for a job 
perceived well done. Given Judge Pryor's disdain for the Constitution 
and individual rights, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing 
Judge Pryor's nomination.
  If confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Eleventh Circuit Court 
of Appeals, Judge Pryor would pose an enormous threat to the rights, 
protections, and freedoms of all Americans. Judge Pryor's professional 
record demonstrates a willingness to contort the law in order to make 
it fit his political agenda. During his 7-year tenure as attorney 
general of Alabama, Judge Pryor advanced his own personal, conservative 
agenda not only through litigation in which Alabama was a party, but 
also by filing amicus curiae briefs in cases in which Alabama was 
neither an interested party nor under any obligation to participate. As 
attorney general of Alabama, Judge Pryor amassed a stunning record 
replete with hostility for the rights of Americans and contempt for 
constitutionally mandated protections. In addition to attacking the 
validity of constitutional freedoms, Judge Pryor advocated for the 
dissolution of congressionally required protections intended to 
preserve individual rights, to safeguard our environment and to 
maintain the barriers that separate church and state.
  Judge Pryor has advocated a view that the Constitution does not 
harbor some of our most critical individual rights and freedoms. He has 
taken the position that these freedoms should be decided by the States, 
based on majority vote, regardless of whether constitutional rights are 
violated. The danger of this simple thinking is of course to 
regionalize the Constitution, making one's constitutional rights 
dependent on where one resides. But much more egregious is what this 
proposal would do to our Bill of Rights; it effectively makes our 
inalienable rights as Americans open to public and political debate. 
This surely could not have been what the Framers envisioned when they 
drafted our Constitution.
  Judge Pryor's general contempt for the Constitution is clear in the 
positions he advocated as attorney general of Alabama. In one amicus 
brief to the Supreme Court, Judge Pryor defended a State practice of 
handcuffing prisoners to a hitching post and exposing them to the hot 
sun for 7 hours at a time without water or bathroom breaks. This cruel 
and unusual brand of punishment advocated by Judge Pryor was later 
rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that ``the use of the 
hitching post under these circumstances violated `the basic concept 
underlying the Eighth Amendment, [which] is nothing less than the 
dignity of man.'''
  Showing disdain for constitutionally protected reproductive freedom, 
Judge Pryor has called Roe v. Wade ``the worst abomination of 
constitutional law in our history.'' In this spirit, he has endorsed 
the formation of unconstitutional barriers that would thwart the 
practice of reproductive freedom, going as far as defending Alabama's 
so-called ``partial-birth abortion'' ban despite the fact that it 
lacked the constitutionally required exception to protect the health of 
the pregnant woman.
  But Judge Pryor's attacks against privacy interests are not only 
relegated to reproductive rights. Judge Pryor believes that it is 
constitutional to imprison gay men and lesbians for having sex in the 
privacy of their own homes. In an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court 
to uphold Texas' ``Homosexual Conduct'' law, Judge Pryor advocated 
criminalizing homosexual intercourse between consenting adults, 
ignoring the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. In his 
brief on behalf of the people of Alabama, Judge Pryor equated sex 
between two consenting adults of the same gender with ``activities like 
prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child 
pornography, and even incest and pedophilia . . .'' This is from a 
brief in

[[Page 12097]]

Support of Respondent at 25, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 2003.
  Judge Pryor's disrespect for the rule of law however, is not limited 
to his disregard for the Constitution. Judge Pryor has long been a foot 
soldier in the conservative movement's attack on the authority of 
Congress to enact laws protecting individual and other rights. He and 
like-minded conservative ideologues have hidden behind the labels 
``States rights'' and ``federalism,'' when what they are truly 
advocating is the restriction of Congress to protect Americans' rights 
against discrimination and injury based on disability, race, and age.
  Again as attorney general of Alabama, Judge Pryor abused his 
discretion, making Alabama the only State to file an amicus brief in 
support of striking down part of the Violence Against Women Act. As 
Alabama's attorney general, Judge Pryor filed briefs calling for the 
elimination of protections contained in the Family and Medical Leave 
Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Clean Water Act, and 
the Endangered Species Act. On two separate occasions, he testified in 
Congress against EPA enforcement of the Clean Air Act and against key 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
  In one Supreme Court case in which his office again filed an amicus 
brief, Judge Pryor urged the Supreme Court to hold that State employees 
cannot sue for damages to protect their rights against discrimination 
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In a narrow 5-to-4 decision, 
the Court agreed with Judge Pryor's ``States' rights'' argument. After 
the decision, Judge Pryor expressed tremendous satisfaction for his 
part in dismantling a portion of one of this generation's seminal 
pieces of civil rights legislation. Judge Pryor said he was ``proud'' 
of his role in ``protecting the hard-earned dollars of Alabama 
taxpayers when Congress imposes illegal mandates on our state.''
  Americans deserve better than this. They deserve even-tempered 
jurists who will not use the bench as a pulpit for the advancement of 
their own political agenda. Given Judge Pryor's disregard for 
individual rights, the Constitution and congressionally mandated 
protections, I cannot in good faith extend my constitutionally required 
consent to his nomination, and I encourage my Senate colleagues to 
again withhold their support as well.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I would like to discuss the nomination of William Pryor to the 
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I have closely reviewed Judge 
Pryor's record, and based upon it, I believe that Judge Pryor would 
have difficulty putting aside his extreme views in interpreting the 
law. Consequently, I do not believe that Judge Pryor should be 
confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  Before President Bush's recess appointment of William Pryor to the 
Eleventh Circuit in February 2004, Pryor had not been a judge. As a 
result, he lacks a record as a sitting judge through which his judicial 
temperament and impartiality may be examined. Consequently, one must 
look to Judge Pryor's actions and statements throughout his career.
  In his career, Judge Pryor has primarily been a politician, and 
considering the vehemence with which he has advocated his political 
views, I have serious concerns that he can set aside those views and 
apply the law in an independent, non-partisan fashion.
  First, I want to be very clear about one thing. My objection to 
confirming Judge Pryor to a lifetime seat on the Eleventh Circuit Court 
of Appeals has nothing to do with Judge Pryor's personal religious 
beliefs.
  There are those who have been spreading the false statement that some 
Democrats vote against judicial nominees because of a nominee's 
religious beliefs. And that has been said about me. The majority leader 
even had on his Web site a newspaper column that says I voted against 
Judge Pryor because of his religious beliefs.
  So I went back and I took a look at my statement on the floor, and I 
took a look at my statement in the Judiciary Committee markup, and they 
are both clear that my concerns with Judge Pryor have nothing to do 
with his religious beliefs. As I stated before this body in July of 
2003:

       Many of us have concerns about nominees sent to the Senate 
     who feel so very strongly and sometimes stridently and often 
     intemperately about certain political beliefs, and who make 
     intemperate statements about those beliefs.

  So we raise questions about whether those nominees can truly be 
impartial, particularly when the law conflicts with those beliefs.
  It is true that abortion rights can often be at the center of these 
questions. As a result, accusations have been leveled that, at any time 
reproductive choice becomes an issue, it acts as a litmus test against 
those whose religion causes them to be anti-choice.
  But pro-choice Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have voted for 
many nominees who are anti-choice and who believe that abortion should 
be illegal--some of whom may . . . have been Catholic. I do not know, 
because I have never inquired.
  So this is truly not about religion. This is about confirming judges 
who can be impartial and fair in the administration of justice.
  Before the Judiciary Committee, I said of Judge Pryor that, ``I think 
his faith speaks favorably to his nomination and to his commitment to 
moral values, which I have no problem with. I would like people in the 
judiciary with positive and strong moral values.''
  I am troubled that legitimate and serious concerns over Judge Pryor 
and other nominees have been brushed aside, and instead it is said that 
we on this side are trying to make a case against people of faith. That 
simply is not true.
  Thomas Jefferson wrote of the establishment clause of the first 
amendment, ``I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the 
whole American people which declared that their legislature should 
`make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the 
free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between 
church and state.''
  The Supreme Court has written that ``the most important of all 
aspects of religious freedom in this country is that of the separation 
of church and state.''
  It is because the separation of church and state ensures religious 
freedom, that some of Judge Pryor's actions and statements concern me.
  There are those who have minority-held religious views. There are 
those who have majority-held religious views. But one of the beautiful 
things about America is that it is a pluralistic society and that the 
government has stayed out of religion. The founding fathers, looking at 
the history of Europe, recognized the sectarian strife and religious 
oppression that can arise from favoring one religion over another. They 
came here and they founded a government where there was to be a 
distinct line drawn between government and religion, and it has served 
this country well.
  So when people confuse arguments that are made to support the 
separation of religion and government with an opposition to people of 
faith, they could not be more wrong. And I think this has to be made 
increasingly clear. We've all seen the inflammatory ads. We've all 
heard the commercials.
  I hope that a more responsible tone will be struck, because the value 
of the separation between church and state is based on the fact that 
once that bright line is broken, what one has to grapple with is which 
religion do you put in the courtroom? Which religion do you allow to be 
celebrated in a governmental framework?
  If the separation of church and state, that has been a part of this 
Nation since its founding, is abolished, these become very real and 
very disturbing questions.
  Accordingly, I am extremely concerned by Judge Pryor's actions and 
statements promoting the erosion of the division between church and 
state.
  As deputy attorney general and attorney general of Alabama, Judge 
Pryor vigorously defended the display of a statue of the Ten 
Commandments

[[Page 12098]]

 in the Alabama supreme court. However, when questioned about whether 
it would be constitutional to display religious artifacts or symbols 
from other religions in the court room, Pryor was noticeably silent.
  According to an April 4, 1997 Associated Press account, Pryor said 
that ``the State has no position on whether the Alabama supreme court 
Chief Judge's right to pray and have a religious display in his 
courtroom extends to people of other faiths.'' That Judge Pryor did not 
take that opportunity to make clear that all religions are equal before 
our courts is distressing.
  Also while Deputy Attorney General, Judge Pryor defended the Alabama 
supreme court Chief Judge's practice of having Christian clergymen give 
prayers when jurors first assembled in his courtroom for a trial. Judge 
Pryor sought to have an Alabama trial judge declare this practice 
constitutional under the U.S. and Alabama constitutions. The trial 
judge ruled against Pryor, concluding that the prayer was 
unconstitutional.
  The judge cited the Chief Judge's own statements that ``acknowledged 
that through prayer in his court, he is promoting religion.'' Pryor's 
decision to pursue this case despite the Chief Justice's own admission 
that the prayer was intended to promote religion--thereby violating the 
establishment clause of the Constitution--is perplexing.
  It is imperative that our judges--particularly judges on our Courts 
of Appeals--respect and follow the law, especially the Constitution. I 
do not believe that a lawyer with Judge Pryor's record of consistent 
attacks on the establishment clause and the separation of church and 
state enshrined therein should be given a lifetime appointment to the 
Eleventh Circuit.
  Another concern I have with Judge Pryor is the extreme positions he 
has advocated regarding a woman's right to choose. I have voted for 
numerous anti-choice judicial nominees. However, Judge Pryor's 
positions are beyond the mainstream even of those who oppose the right 
to choose. Furthermore, his incendiary remarks on the subject 
demonstrate not only a lack of appropriate judicial temperament, but a 
lack of respect for the Supreme Court.
  Judge Pryor opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest and 
supports an exception only where a woman's life is endangered. He has 
called Roe v. Wade ``the worst abomination of constitutional law in our 
history,'' and said, ``I will never forget January 22, 1973, the day 
seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped 
out the life of millions of unborn children.''
  As attorney general of Alabama, Judge Pryor called Roe and Miranda v. 
Arizona, the well known Supreme Court decision requiring that criminal 
defendants be informed of their right to remain silent, ``the worst 
examples of judicial activism.'' This depth of hostility to the 
established precedent of the Supreme Court is disquieting in an 
appellate court nominee.
  At his confirmation hearing, Judge Pryor had the opportunity to 
clarify or step back from these inflammatory remarks. Nevertheless, he 
stood by his statement that Roe is the ``worst abomination of 
constitutional law in our history''--worse than Plessy v. Ferguson, the 
decision upholding segregation, the Dred Scott decision, which denied 
citizenship and court access to all slaves and their descendants, or 
the Korematsu case, validating the government's internment of Japanese 
citizens during World War II.
  That a nominee for a court just below the Supreme Court believes that 
an existing precedent of the Supreme Court protecting a woman's right 
to choose is worse than long discredited decisions denying Blacks 
citizenship or permitting segregation is deeply disturbing and out of 
line with the last hundred years of American jurisprudence.
  In statements addressing the scope of Federal Government, Judge Pryor 
has promoted a role so limited that the Federal Government would be 
forced to abdicate many of its central responsibilities. For example, 
he has stated that Congress ``should not be in the business of public 
education nor the control of street crime.''
  I do not believe that the Federal Government should ignore critical 
matters like education and crime, and neither do most Americans. 
However, my larger concern is not that Judge Pryor's position is 
contrary to my viewpoint or even that it is contrary to the views of 
most Americans, but that it is contrary to binding Supreme Court 
precedent establishing the breadth of the Federal Government's powers.
  This extremely limited view of the role of Federal Government is 
reflected in the positions Judge Pryor has taken on a number of 
important issues.
  Testifying before the Judiciary Committee as attorney general of 
Alabama in 1997, Judge Pryor urged the repeal of Section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act, calling it an ``affront to federalism, and an 
expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness.''
  Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires any changes in voting 
laws in states with a specific history of voting discrimination to be 
pre-cleared by the Justice Department or the Federal District Court in 
Washington, DC to ensure they have no discriminatory purpose or effect. 
In this way, Section 5 of the Votings Rights Act has been a critical 
tool in guaranteeing the voting rights of minorities.
  Today, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act continues to ensure voting 
rights. In the last 10 years, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has 
been applied in more than a half-dozen states to ensure that districts 
are not redrawn to intentionally dilute minority votes and that polling 
places are not moved for the primary purpose of discouraging minority 
voting.
  Judge Pryor's strong criticism of this important safeguard of civil 
rights, particularly on federalism grounds--meaning he believes that 
the Federal Government has no right to intervene, even where a 
citizen's right to vote is threatened--concerns me.
  One of Judge Pryor's legacies as attorney general of Alabama is his 
effort to weaken and undermine the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
passed in 1990 to protect the rights of the disabled. For example, in 
Tennessee v. Lane, Pryor, then attorney general of Alabama, submitted 
an amicus brief seeking to deny a disabled defendant access to his own 
trial.
  Pryor argued that the constitutional guarantees of equal protection 
and due process ``do not require a State to provide unassisted access 
to public buildings'' and even took the extraordinary position that 
there is no absolute right for a defendant to be present at his own 
criminal trial, stating that ``even as to parties in legal proceedings, 
there is no absolute right to attendance.'' The Supreme Court rejected 
these extreme positions advocated by Pryor.
  Pryor's repeated attempts to use judicial means to undo the 
legislation protecting basic civil rights raise questions about both 
his willingness to protect individual's civil rights and his propensity 
to judicial activism-- using the courts as a partisan vehicle to undo 
legislation he does not support.
  Supporters of Judge Pryor's nomination point to his brief record as a 
recess appointee to the Eleventh Circuit as evidence of Judge Pryor's 
ability to set aside his strong political views. While Judge Pryor, in 
his short tenure on the Eleventh Circuit has not authored any 
particularly controversial opinions, decisions he has written addressed 
what are largely technical and uncontroversial legal issues.
  Judge Pryor's brief stint as a recess appointee may or may not offer 
a representative preview of the opinions he would render as a lifetime 
member of the Eleventh Circuit.
  Ultimately, my concern is that Judge Pryor does not display the 
dispassionate, independent view that we want from our judges. While in 
private practice, Pryor's commitment to the Republican Party apparently 
interfered with his representation of clients. Valstene Stabler, a 
partner at the Birmingham firm of Walston, Stabler, Wells, Anderson & 
Baines, described Pryor as being ``so interested in what the Republican 
Party was doing in the state, he was having trouble devoting attention 
to his private clients.''

[[Page 12099]]

  A Washington Post editorial observed that:

       Mr. Pryor's speeches display a disturbingly politicized 
     view of the role of the courts. He has suggested that 
     impeachment is an appropriate remedy for judges who 
     ``repeatedly and recklessly . . . overturn popular will and . 
     . . rewrite constitutional law.'' And he talks publicly about 
     judging in the vulgarly political terms of the current 
     judicial culture war. He concluded one speech, for example, 
     with the following prayer: ``Please, God, no more Souters'' a 
     reference to the betrayal many conservatives feel at the 
     honorable career of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter.

  Republicans who have worked with Judge Pryor have voiced concerns 
over his ability to be an independent, non-partisan judge. Grant Woods, 
the former Republican attorney general of Arizona said that ``he would 
have great question of whether Mr. Pryor has an ability to be non-
partisan. I would say he was probably the most doctrinaire and most 
partisan of any attorney general I dealt with in 8 years. So I think 
people would be wise to question whether or not he's the right person 
to be non-partisan on the bench.''
  A judge must be able to set aside his views and apply the law evenly 
and fairly to all. Mr. Pryor's intemperate legal and political beliefs, 
and his strident statements and actions in furtherance of those 
beliefs, have led me to question whether he can be truly impartial.
  Aside from his brief tenure on the Eleventh Circuit as a recess 
appointee, Judge Pryor has no judicial record upon which to evaluate 
him. Consequently, we must consider his fitness for the Eleventh 
Circuit on the basis of his actions and statements as deputy attorney 
general and attorney general of Alabama. Looking back on this highly 
partisan and controversial tenure, I cannot vote for Judge Pryor's 
confirmation to a lifetime appointment on the Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my continued 
opposition to the nomination of William Pryor to be a judge on the 
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Pryor's record was extensively 
considered and examined by the Senate when he was first nominated for 
this position in 2003. After he failed to obtain confirmation, 
President Bush used a recess appointment to appoint him to the Eleventh 
Circuit, an appointment that will expire at the end of the year, and 
now has renominated him to a permanent seat on the court. I find no 
reason today to alter my earlier conclusion that his record of 
extremism makes clear that he falls far outside the mainstream, and 
that I have no choice but to vote against his confirmation.
  When considering a nominee to a Federal court judgeship, we consider 
many things. The nominee should possess exemplary legal skills, 
judgment, and acumen. The nominee should be learned in the law. And the 
nominee should be well regarded among his peers, and in his or her 
community. Perhaps most important of all is the nominee's judicial 
temperament.
  An appeals court judge's solemn duty and paramount obligation is to 
do justice fairly, impartially and without favor. An appeals court 
judge must be judicious--that is, he or she must be open minded, must 
be willing to set his personal preferences aside, and judge without 
predisposition. And, of course, he or she must follow controlling 
precedent faithfully, and be able to disregard completely any views he 
or she holds to the contrary.
  In the case of Judge Pryor, we are presented with a nominee whose 
views are so extreme that he fails this basic test. In case after case, 
and on issue after issue, Judge Pryor compiled a public record as 
Alabama's attorney general of taking the most extreme positions, often 
at odds with controlling Supreme Court precedent, and in the most hard-
line and inflexible manner.
  Judge Pryor's views are outside of the mainstream on issues affecting 
civil rights, women's rights, disability rights, religious freedom, and 
the right to privacy. During his confirmation hearings at the Judiciary 
Committee 2 years ago, he assured us that despite these views, he would 
follow settled law and Supreme Court precedent. But he made this 
promise only after making extreme statements to the Committee and 
during his hearing and refusing to disavow other zealous positions that 
he has taken throughout his career. I concluded then--and do not 
believe differently now--that I had no basis to believe Judge Pryor 
could put his personal views aside and apply the law of the land as 
decided by the Supreme Court.
  Judge Pryor's supporters argue that his record in the year since he 
has sat as a judge on the Eleventh Circuit as a recess appointee 
demonstrates that he is worthy of confirmation. Yet, in each of the 
decisions that his supporters rely on for this judgment, Judge Pryor 
joined unanimous panels in supporting results virtually mandated by 
controlling precedent. Much more relevant than Judge Pryor's short and 
temporary tenure on the Eleventh Circuit is his record during all the 
years of his professional career prior to his recess appointment, 
especially his seven years of service as Alabama's attorney general, as 
well as his testimony before our committee in 2003.
  And his record of extremism and ideologically motivated decision 
making during his years as attorney general could not be more clear. 
While attorney general of Alabama, Judge Pryor actively sought out 
cases where he could expand on his cramped view of federalism and 
challenge the ability of the Federal Government to remedy 
discriminatory practices. Many of the cases in which he took his most 
extreme legal positions were on behalf of the State of Alabama where he 
had the sole decision under State law as to what legal position to 
assert. These cases include his assertion of federalism claims to 
defeat provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the 
Americans With Disabilities Act; his opposition to Congress's authority 
to provide victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers 
in Federal Court; his argument that Congress exceeded its authority in 
passing the Family and Medical Leave Act; and many other cases. The 
extreme legal positions advanced in these cases were fully and entirely 
the responsibility of this nominee while he served as Alabama's 
attorney general.
  Of course, Judge Pryor has every right to hold his views, whether we 
agree with him or not. He can run for office and serve in the 
legislative or executive branches should he convince a majority of his 
fellow Alabamians that he is fit to represent them. But he has no right 
to be a Federal appeals court judge. Only those who we are convinced 
are impartial, unbiased, fair, and whose only guiding ideology is to 
follow the Constitution to apply equal justice to all are fit for this 
position. Unfortunately, we can have no confidence that he will set 
these views aside and faithfully follow the Constitution and binding 
precedent. For these reasons, I must oppose his confirmation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
from 3:15 until 3:30 shall be under the control of the Democrats, and 
the time from 3:30 until 3:45 shall be under the control of the 
Democratic leader.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the time I have left over from the 15 
minutes that is from 3:30 to 3:45 I will leave to Senator Leahy. I am 
going to use part of his time now.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
the nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
  At the outset, let me note the unusual fact that we are considering 
whether to confirm this nominee to a court on which he has been sitting 
for over a year as a recess appointee. In my view) this nomination is 
entitled to no special deference as a result of the nominee's status as 
a sitting Federal judge.
  There are serious constitutional questions about the validity of Mr. 
Pryor's recess appointment, and his confirmation at this time does not 
answer those questions with regard to cases heard by this or other 
recess appointees. Nor should it embolden President Bush to continue 
the questionable

[[Page 12100]]

practice of appointing judges without the advice and consent of the 
Senate.
  I oppose this nominee because his views on a wide range of vital 
issues are far outside the mainstream of legal thought, and I question 
his ability to put those views aside to decide cases impartially.
  I said during the floor debate yesterday that Janice Rogers Brown is 
President Bush's most objectionable nominee. But I want to be clear: on 
the critical issue of civil rights, William Pryor holds views that are 
equally offensive as those of Justice Brown. The Pryor nomination 
deserves to be defeated just as the Brown nomination deserved to be 
defeated.
  Any analysis of Mr. Pryor's judicial philosophy should begin with his 
views on federalism. This nominee has been a self-styled leader of the 
so-called federalism revolution conservative legal circles, a movement 
that challenges the authority of Congress to remedy civil rights 
violations.
  Now, I am certainly thankful that the Framers of the Constitution had 
the wisdom to create a Federal system that divided power between the 
national and State governments. But for Mr. Pryor, the word 
``federalism'' is more than that--it is a code word or a systematic 
effort to undermine important Federal protections for the disabled, the 
aged, women, minorities, labor, and the environment.
  While attorney general of Alabama, Pryor told a Federalist Society 
conference that Congress:

     should not be in the business of public education nor the 
     control of street crimes . . . With real federalism, Congress 
     would . . . make free trade its main domestic concern. 
     Congress would not be allowed to subvert the commerce clause 
     to regulate crime, education, land use, family relations, or 
     social policy . . .

  One proponent of the federalism movement is Michael Greve, a 
conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Greve told 
the New York Times that:

       what is really needed here is a fundamental intellectual 
     assault on the entire New Deal edifice.

  Greve said he thinks this attack on the New Deal will get a good 
hearing from judges like William Pryor. Greve says of Pryor:

     [he] is the key to this puzzle; there's nobody like him.

  Let's look at some of the bedrock laws that Mr. Pryor has challenged 
under the banner of federalism. Mr. Pryor has argued that the Federal 
courts should narrow, or throw out entirely, all or portions of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment 
Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Clean Water Act, the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Violence Against 
Women Act, and the Voting Rights Act.
  What would America look like if this federalist revolution were to 
take hold in the Federal courts? University of Chicago Law Professor 
Cass Sunstein describes it well:

       Many decisions of the Federal Communications Commission, 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Administration and possibly the National Labor 
     Relations Board would be unconstitutional. It would mean that 
     the Social Security Act would not only be under political but 
     also constitutional stress . . . the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission and maybe even the Federal Reserve would be in 
     trouble. Some applications or the Endangered Species Act and 
     Clean Water Act would be struck down as beyond Congress's 
     commerce power.

  As attorney general of Alabama, Pryor had the sole power to decide 
what legal action the State and its agencies would take, and he used 
that power to file ``friend of the court'' briefs attacking many of 
these statutes. In fact, Alabama was the only State to file a brief 
against the Violence Against Women Act, while 36 States submitted 
briefs in support of the statute--which had passed Congress with 
bipartisan support.
  With regard to the Voting Rights Act, Mr. Pryor had the following to 
say when he testified before Congress in 1997:

       I encourage you to consider seriously, for example, the 
     repeal or amendment of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 
     which is an affront to federalism and an expensive burden 
     that has far outlived its usefulness, and consider modifying 
     other provisions of the Act that have led to extraordinary 
     abuses of judicial power.

  The Voting Rights Act is still of vital importance, and section 5 is 
one of its most important sections. I have grave concerns that if Mr. 
Pryor cannot understand the continuing need for voting rights 
protections for minorities, he is unlikely to rigorously enforce the 
act in cases before the Circuit. This is especially important since all 
of the States within the circuit are covered, in whole or in part, by 
Section 5.
  Mr. Pryor has waged an assault on other civil rights laws. In the 
case of Alexander v. Sandoval, Pryor filed a brief for Alabama which 
urged the Court to drastically restrict title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act, which bars discrimination in federally funded programs. In a 5-to-
4 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court agreed with 
Pryor and held that there is no private right of action to enforce 
title VI regulations. This ruling was a dramatic setback for the civil 
rights movement and continues to impede the enforcement of civil rights 
laws.
  While five Supreme Court Justices agreed with Pryor about title VI, 
his outside-the-mainstream views have often been rejected by the 
current conservative Supreme Court. In fact, the Court unanimously 
rejected three of Mr. Pryor's federalism arguments: that sovereign 
immunity applies not only to States but to counties; that the Americans 
with Disabilities Act does not apply to State prisons; and that a law 
barring a State from selling the personal information of its citizens 
without permission is unconstitutional.
  It is no wonder that the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, in an 
editorial entitled ``Right-wing Zealot is Unfit to Judge,'' wrote that 
Mr. Pryor's nomination:

     is an affront to the basic premise that a candidate for the 
     federal bench must exhibit respect for established 
     constitutional principles and individual liberties. Pryor may 
     be a good lawyer and a faithful Republican, but his lifelong 
     extremism disqualifies him for a federal judgeship.

  And there is more.
  There is Mr. Pryor's view of the equal protection clause, which led 
him to oppose a 7-to-1 ruling by the Supreme Court that opened the 
Virginia Military Institute, a State-funded university, to women. 
Predictably, Mr. Pryor called that case an example of the Supreme Court 
being ``both anti-democratic and insensitive to federalism.''
  There is Mr. Pryor's contempt for what he called the ``so-called wall 
of separation between church and state'' and his belief that this 
important doctrine was created by ``errors of case law.'' In fact, Mr. 
Pryor remarked at a graduation ceremony that ``the challenge of the 
next millennium will be to preserve the American experiment by 
restoring its Christian perspective.''
  There is his view of the Constitution's prohibition on cruel and 
unusual punishment. The Supreme Court--which has not exactly been 
liberal on this issue--rejected Mr. Pryor's argument that prison guards 
could handcuff prisoners to a hitching post in the Alabama sun and deny 
them bathroom breaks or water. It also rejected his argument that it is 
permissible to execute the mentally retarded. It also rejected his 
argument that counsel need not be provided to indigent defendants 
charged with a misdemeanor that carries a jail sentence.
  Is this the kind of judge we want to confirm to a lifetime seat on a 
Federal appellate court?
  Do we want a judge who, when the Supreme Court questioned the 
constitutionality of Alabama's use of the electric chair in 2000, 
lashed out at the Court by saying ``[T]his issue should not be decided 
by nine octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the U.S. Supreme 
Court''?
  Do we want a judge who, on the day after the Supreme Court's final 
ruling in Bush v. Gore, said:

       I'm probably the only one who wanted it 5-4. I wanted 
     Governor Bush to have a full appreciation of the judiciary 
     and judicial selection so we can have no more appointments 
     like Justice Souter.

  On another occasion he said:

       Please God, no more Souters.


[[Page 12101]]


  This kind of temperament served Pryor well as a Republican 
politician, but this doesn't represent the kind of judicial temperament 
we want on the Federal bench.
  The Senate must exercise its advice and consent responsibility with 
great care. In fact, we should follow Mr. Pryor's own advice. He once 
told a Senate subcommittee that:

     your role of advice and consent in judicial nominations 
     cannot be overstated.

  I agree with him on that point. For these reasons, I urge my 
colleagues to withhold the in consent to this very unacceptable 
nomination.
  Mr. President, I apologize to my friend. Since he was not here, I 
used my time a little early. So the record is clear, my friend is the 
great Senator Pat Leahy from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is available?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Vermont has such time until 3:45 remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate that.
  Mr. President, last month 80 American service men and women died in 
Iraq, along with more than 700 Iraqis. This week, there are reports 
that the Army National Guard and the Marines are not meeting their 
recruitment goals, in spite of the bonuses and benefits being offered. 
The price of gasoline, prescription drugs, health care, and so many 
essentials for American working families are rising a lot faster than 
their wages. This week, the Washington Times reported that the rate of 
increase in the Consumer Price Index doubled in the last year. This 
week, we have learned that General Motors has planned to lay off 
another 25,000 workers and that other companies are not expanding or 
are, even worse, downsizing. The report of only 78,000 jobs created 
last month puts us back to the dismal levels that have characterized so 
many months during this administration. A loss of our manufacturing 
jobs continues at a steady drip. Millions are suffering and dying in 
Africa. The British Prime Minister visited to urge greater efforts to 
help.
  But, of course, we debated none of these issues in the Senate. The 
Republican leadership continued to force us to expend our precious days 
debating something else. And what is that? The Senate's time has been 
focused not on these things that touch the pocketbooks of Americans but 
almost exclusively on this administration's divisive and contentious 
judicial nominees.
  Over the last several months, and for many days and weeks over the 
last few years, the work of the Senate has been laid aside by the 
Republican leadership to force debate after debate on divisive 
nominations, on people who are going to be paid almost $200,000 a year 
in lifetime jobs. Those who are barely able to make their week's rent 
or their month's mortgage ask what we are doing in the Senate.
  Among the matters the Senate has neglected this week in order to 
devote its attention to these nominations are many issues that concern 
the American people. One matter is the consideration and passage of the 
NOPEC bill. It is bipartisan legislation. It affects all Americans, 
Republicans and Democrats. Senator DeWine, a Republican of Ohio, 
Senator Kohl, a Democrat of Wisconsin, are key sponsors. The sponsors 
of the bill include Senator Grassley, Senator Specter, Senator Coburn, 
and Senator Snowe.
  With an increase in gasoline prices of almost 50 percent during the 
four years of the Bush Presidency, with Americans having to pay so much 
more to drive to work, to get their kids to school, just to get around 
to conduct the daily business of their lives, the Republican leadership 
of the Senate is ignoring this substantial burden on American working 
families.
  This week, the national average price for a gallon of regular 
gasoline was $2.12. When the President took office, it was $1.46. We 
just heard reports that in Vermont and New Hampshire home heating oil 
prices will be up another 30 percent this fall and winter.
  The artificial pricing scheme enforced by OPEC affects all of us, and 
it is especially tough on our hard-working Vermont farmers. Rising 
energy expenses can add thousands of dollars a year to the costs of 
operating a 100-head dairy operation, a price that could mean the 
difference between keeping the family business alive for another 
generation or shutting it down.
  With summer coming, many families are going to find that OPEC has put 
an expensive crimp in their vacation plans. Some are likely to stay 
home; others will pay more to drive or to fly so that they can visit 
their families or take their well-deserved vacations.
  Americans deserve better. If the White House is not going to 
intervene, then Congress has to act. It is past time--it is past the 
time--for holding hands and exchanging kisses with Saudi princes, 
princes who have artificially inflated the price of gasoline. The 
President's jawboning with his close friends in Saudi Arabia has proven 
unsuccessful. It is time to act, but the Senate, under Republican 
leadership, is choosing instead to revisit another extreme judicial 
nomination, one that has already been considered.
  The production quota set by OPEC continues to take a debilitating 
toll on our economy, our families, our businesses, industry, and 
farmers. Last year and again earlier this year, the Judiciary Committee 
voted to report favorably to the full Senate the bipartisan NOPEC bill, 
which is short for No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act. Our 
legislation would apply America's antitrust laws to OPEC's anti-
competitive cartel. It would prohibit foreign states from working 
together to limit production and set prices, restrain the trading of 
petroleum and natural gas, when such actions affect the United States. 
It would give the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade 
Commission authority to enforce the law through antitrust actions in 
Federal courts.
  Why not give the Justice Department clear authority to use our 
antitrust laws against the anti-competitive, anti-consumer conduct in 
which the OPEC cartel is engaged here in the United States?
  This bipartisan bill was reported by the Judiciary Committee more 
than a year ago, in April of last year. It was reintroduced this year 
and reported, again, in April of this year. It has been stalled on the 
Senate Business Calendar for too long. It is a bipartisan initiative 
that could help in the fight to reduce gasoline prices now and heating 
oil prices in the fall and winter. It deserves a vote. Why not have an 
up or down vote on this measure without further delay by the Republican 
leadership? Why can't we do that when we have seen gasoline go from 
$1.46 to $2.12 in this President's administration? No, instead we spend 
weeks and months, not passing legislation that would win the support of 
a majority of Republicans and Democrats, but talking about a handful of 
people who are going to get lifetime, well-paid jobs.
  Another consequence of the Republican leadership's fixation on 
carrying out this President's attempt to pack the Federal courts with 
activist jurists may be much-needed asbestos compensation reform. For 
more than 3 years, I have been working on asbestos reform to provide 
compensation to asbestos victims in a fair and more expedited fashion. 
Chairman Specter and I have worked closely on S. 852, the FAIR Act. It, 
too, is pending on the Senate Business Calendar, even though it was 
voted out in a bipartisan effort last month.
  Chairman Specter deserves enormous credit for this achievement, even 
though we were slowed significantly by the extensive debate on 
contentious nominees and the nuclear option the past few months. We 
have been working in good faith to achieve a bipartisan legislative 
process on this issue.

[[Page 12102]]

We have done so, despite criticism from the left and the right. In 
fact, after the bill was successfully reported by the committee, 
Senator Hatch called it the most important measure the Senate would 
consider this year for the American economy. Are we debating it on the 
floor? No. We are debating a handful of right-wing activist judges for 
lifetime, highly paid jobs.
  There are many items that need prompt attention. The Armed Services 
Committee completed its work on the Department of Defense authorization 
bill. But we are seeing the Republican leadership delay action on the 
Defense authorization bill at a time when we have so many of our men 
and women under arms overseas. I don't know why they are doing it, 
unless it is to allow more activist judges to come through. At a time 
when we have young men and women serving their country around the 
world, and we are talking about the recently recommended base closings, 
I would have thought the Defense authorization would be more of a 
priority than three or four activist judges.
  The Senate Energy Committee successfully completed its consideration 
of an Energy bill, and it was reported to the Senate with a strong 
bipartisan majority. Despite its balance and a bipartisan vote, the 
Senate Republican leadership said, no, we can't talk about it. We have 
to talk about a couple more right-wing activist judges.
  Another matter that deserves timely attention is the Stem Cell 
Research Enhancement Act which was just passed by the House of 
Representatives. It is another bipartisan effort that deserves our 
attention. It had 200 House sponsors, led by Congressman Castle and 
Congresswoman DeGette. It passed with 238 votes. It is critically 
important. It authorizes work on embryonic stem cells which otherwise 
would be discarded, work which holds great promise and hope for those 
families suffering from debilitating disease and injury. More effective 
treatments for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, for spinal 
cord injuries, for many other diseases are all possibilities. Why are 
we not debating that? We have three or four more activist right-wing 
judgeships for lifetime, highly paid positions. That is far more 
important than stem cell research.
  While the administration continues to talk about its efforts to 
weaken Social Security, there is bipartisan legislation we should be 
considering, the Social Security Fairness Act. Are we going to talk 
about that? No. Will we talk about the fact that the administration is 
raiding the Social Security fund to pay for their war in Iraq? That is 
something they don't want to talk about. They want to talk about Social 
Security failing, but they don't talk about the fact that they have to 
take the money out of the Social Security fund to pay for the war in 
Iraq. We can't talk about the Social Security Fairness Act here on the 
floor because we have to take the time for three or four more right-
wing activist judges.
  The bill I talked about is a bill that Republican and Democratic 
Senators have cosponsored over the years to protect the Social Security 
retirement of police officers. Those on the front lines protecting all 
of us from crime and violence should not see their Social Security 
benefits reduced. That needs fixing. We could have done that easily 
this week. But, no, we can't protect our police officers. Instead, we 
will make sure that a handful of right-wing activist judges get highly 
paid lifetime jobs.
  These are merely examples of some of the business matters the 
Republican majority of the Senate has cast aside to force more debate 
on more contentious nominees. The Senate could be making significant 
legislative progress on an agenda that would result in much-needed and 
tangible relief to the American people on a number of important fronts. 
We could be acting to lower gas prices, authorize actions against 
illegal cartels, make asbestos compensation efficient and effective, 
authorize vital scientific research, provide fairness to police 
officers and to make health care more affordable, create new and better 
jobs and give our veterans and their families the support they need and 
deserve. Instead, the Republican leadership of the Senate continues its 
narrow focus on helping this Administration pack the federal courts 
with extreme nominees.
  For more than four years, we have seen the Republican congressional 
leadership and the administration ignore the problems of Americans with 
a single-minded effort to pack and control the Federal courts. 
Unemployment, gas prices, the number of uninsured, the Nation's budget, 
the trade deficit were all lower when President Bush assumed office. 
Through Republican Senate obstruction of more than 60 of President 
Clinton's moderate and qualified judicial nominees, more than 60 of 
President Clinton's nominees who were subjected to a pocket filibuster 
by Republicans, judicial vacancies went up. But let's take a look.
  Since President Bush came in, what are the things that have gone up? 
Unemployment has gone up 21 percent. Since President Bush came in, what 
has gone up? The budget deficit has gone up. It has gone from a $236 
billion surplus under President Clinton to a $427 billion deficit under 
President Bush--$663 billion down the rat hole. What else has gone up? 
The price of gas has gone from $1.42 to $2.10. That is not helping the 
average American. Let's take a look at the trade deficit. It has gone 
up from $36 billion to $55 billion. How about the percentage of the 
uninsured? That has gone up another 10 percent.
  But the full-time, highly paid positions of judgeships is the one 
thing that has come down. Judicial vacancies have come down 49 percent.
  It seems that is far more important than seeing projected trillions 
of dollars in surpluses go to trillions of dollars in projected 
deficits, far more important than the problem we create when we allow 
the Saudis, the Chinese, the South Koreans, the Japanese, and others to 
pay our bills but then be able to manipulate our economy. It seems 
wrong.
  We helped the President confirm a record number of his judges, but we 
Democrats would like to see us talk about the people who are out of 
work, the price of gasoline, the huge deficits that have been created 
by this presidency.
  We know that yesterday the Senate confirmed Janice Rogers Brown to 
the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, despite the fact she is a 
divisive and controversial nominee. She was opposed by both her home 
State Senators because she had a record so extreme it marked her as one 
of the most activist judicial nominees ever chosen by any President.
  In the past, when both Senators from a nominee's State opposed them, 
the person, even if highly qualified, would be turned down. In this 
case, we have somebody who is not qualified, an activist judge opposed 
by both of her State's Senators, who still passed. I mention that 
because I remember Justice Ronnie White, now the first African American 
to serve as Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court. When the two 
Senators from his home State, Republican Senators, said they were 
opposed to him, what happened? In 1999, every Republican Senator came 
on to the floor and voted down Justice Ronnie White, even though he had 
been voted out of the Judiciary Committee with heavy support. They 
said: Whoops, he may be this distinguished African-American jurist from 
Missouri. But we have two Senators from his State who oppose him so we 
will vote him down. And they did.
  But yesterday, what a difference. What a difference if you have a 
Republican in the White House. Those same Republican Senators, joined 
by new Republican Senators, the same Republican Senators who told me, 
``We know that Justice Ronnie White is well qualified, but, after all, 
we have to follow the fact that the two Senators from his State say 
they don't want him, so we have to vote him down,'' those same Senators 
come up here and meekly come in, in lockstep, and vote for Judge Brown, 
even though the two home-state Senators, for very good reasons, opposed 
her.
  Last week, all but one Republican Senator voted to confirm Priscilla 
Owen.
  Yesterday's vote on the Brown nomination apparently indicates 
Republican

[[Page 12103]]

Party discipline has been restored. For all the talk about profiles in 
courage and Senators voting their conscience, the Republican majority 
has reduced the Senate to a rubberstamp of this President's extreme and 
activist nominees. Even though Senators will tell you privately they 
would vote against this person if it was secret ballot, the White House 
tells them what to do.
  William Pryor has argued that Federal courts should cut back on the 
protections of important and well-supported Federal laws, including the 
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Clean Water Act, the Violence 
Against Women Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act. That should be 
enough to vote against him, but it won't be, not with this rubberstamp. 
He has repudiated decades of legal precedents that permitted 
individuals to sue States to prevent violations of Federal civil rights 
regulations. Is that going to cause us to vote him down? Heck no.
  His aggressive involvement in the Federalist revolution shows he is a 
goals-oriented activist who has used his official position to advance 
his cause. While his advocacy is a sign to most people of the 
extremism, he trumpets his involvement. He is unabashedly proud of his 
repeated work to limit congressional authority to promote the health, 
safety, and welfare of all Americans.
  His passion is not some obscure legal theory but a legal crusade that 
has driven his actions since he was a student and something that guides 
his actions as a lawyer. His speeches and his testimony before Congress 
demonstrate just how rooted his views are, how much he wants to effect 
a fundamental change in this country.
  Just remember this: These judicial nominees are being confirmed for 
life. They do not leave or get reconsidered after the congressional 
elections next year or after this administration ends. They serve as 
lifetime appointments to the Federal court.
  It is one thing for us to ignore all the things we should be doing 
for the American people, but I urge all Senators, on both sides of the 
aisle, to end this up-or-down rubberstamp, fulfill the Senate's 
constitutionally mandated duty to evaluate with clear eyes the fitness 
of judicial nominees, even President Bush's nominees, when they are for 
lifetime appointments. Stop telling me privately how you would vote if 
it was a secret ballot. Have the courage to vote in an open ballot the 
same way.
  In the last Congress, following one of the most divisive debates I 
have seen on the floor of the Senate, I explained why I felt strongly 
about voting against the nomination of William Pryor to the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit--in committee and in two 
unsuccessful cloture attempts. The President disregarded the advice 
given to him by the Senators opposing this nomination, and he installed 
Mr. Pryor as a recess-appointed judge on the Eleventh Circuit where he 
will serve until the end of this year. Today, because the President 
continues to insist on pushing his most divisive nominees in a group 
that he renominated to the Senate, we are here voting yet one more time 
on this nomination.
  I expect some will try to point to the few cases he has worked on 
during his time ``auditioning'' on the circuit court as evidence that 
he should be confirmed. But nothing Judge Pryor has done in the 
intervening period has changed my view that based on his entire career 
and record, if he were to receive life tenure on the Federal bench, he 
would put ideology above the law. I cannot support him.
  In the course of their march toward the ``nuclear option''--a 
development thankfully averted--the President and the Republican 
leadership escalated the rhetoric surrounding this issue in alarming 
ways. The majority leader last month participated in a telecast 
smearing opponents of the most extreme judicial nominees as ``against 
people of faith.'' Arrayed behind the podium at that gathering were 
photos of the filibustered nominees, and speaker after speaker accused 
Democrats of opposing nominees such as Judge Pryor because of his 
faith. These are baseless and despicable accusations, and it is time 
the Republican leadership and other Republicans in and out of the 
Senate disavow them.
  Senate Democrats do not oppose William Pryor because of his faith. We 
oppose the nomination of William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit because 
of his extreme--some, with good reason, use the word ``radical''--ideas 
about what the Constitution says about federalism, criminal justice and 
the death penalty, violence against women, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, and the Government's ability to protect the 
environment on behalf of the American people. Of course, those 
substantive concerns will not do much to advance Republicans' political 
ambitions and the agendas of polarizing interest groups. So some 
Republican partisans are putting the truth to one side. They dismiss 
the views of Democratic Senators doing their duty under the 
Constitution to examine the fitness of every nominee to a lifetime 
position on the Federal bench and choose, instead, to use smears and 
accusations.
  The last time Judge Pryor came before this committee and the Senate, 
slanderous accusations were made by Republican Senators, and scurrilous 
newspaper advertisements were run by a group headed by the President's 
father's former White House counsel and a group whose funding includes 
money raised by Republican Senators and even by the President's family. 
Other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee and of the Senate 
stood mute in the face of these McCarthyite charges, or, worse, fed the 
flames. Now, the same type of rhetoric--identifying opponents as 
against faith--has again reared its ugly head.
  This kind of religious smear campaign hurts the whole country. It 
hurts Christians and 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. That is a fundamental guarantee of our 
Constitution. The Constitution's prohibition against a ``religious 
test'' in Article VI is consistent with that fundamental freedom. I 
hope that Republican Senators will debate this nomination absent the 
scurrilous charges that marked it the past and the discourse during the 
``nuclear option'' last month.
  Instead, the Senate's debate should center on the nominee's 
qualifications for this lifetime post in the Federal judiciary. There 
is an abundance of substantive and compelling reasons why William Pryor 
should not be a judge on the Eleventh Circuit. Opposition to Judge 
Pryor's nomination is shared by a wide spectrum of objective observers. 
Judge Pryor's record is so out of the mainstream that a vast number of 
editorial boards and others have weighed in with significant 
opposition.
  Even The Washington Post, which has been exceedingly generous to the 
Administration's efforts to pack the courts, has termed Judge Pryor 
``unfit'' and consistently opposed his nomination. In Alabama, both the 
Tuscaloosa News and the Hunstville Times wrote against the nomination. 
Other editorial boards across the country have spoken out, including 
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The New 
York Times, the Charleston Gazette, the Arizona Daily Star, and The Los 
Angeles Times.
  We have also heard from a large number of organizations and 
individuals concerned about justice before the federal courts. The Log 
Cabin Republicans, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the AFL-
CIO, the National Partnership for Women and Families and many others 
have provided the Committee with their concerns and the basis for their 
opposition. We have received letters of opposition from organizations 
that rarely take positions on nominations but feel so strongly about 
this one that they are compelled to publicly oppose it, including the 
National Senior Citizens' Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and 
the Sierra Club.
  The ABA's evaluation also indicates concern about this nomination. 
Their

[[Page 12104]]

Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Mr. Pryor a partial 
rating of ``not qualified'' to sit on the Federal bench. Of course this 
is not the first ``not qualified'' rating or partial ``not qualified'' 
rating that this administration's judicial nominees have received. More 
than two dozen of President Bush's nominees have received indications 
of concerns about their qualifications from the ABA's peer reviews, 
which have been less exacting and much more accommodating to this 
administration than to previous ones. I would note that this softer 
treatment follows the changes in the process imposed by the Bush 
administration.
  Judge Pryor has long been a leader of the federalist movement, 
promoting State power over the Federal Government. A leading proponent 
of what he refers to as the ``federalism revolution,'' Judge Pryor 
seeks to revitalize state power at the expense of Federal protections, 
seeking opportunities to attack Federal laws and programs designed to 
guarantee civil rights protections. He has urged that Federal laws on 
behalf of the disabled, the aged, women, minorities, and the 
environment all be limited. Not long ago, in a New York Times Magazine 
article about the so-called ``Constitution-in-Exile'' movement, Michael 
Greve, was quoted as saying, ``Bill Pryor is the key to this puzzle; 
there's nobody like him. I think he's sensational. He gets almost all 
of it.'' That is precisely why he should not be confirmed.
  William Pryor has argued that the Federal courts should cut back on 
the protections of important and well-supported Federal laws including 
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Clean Water Act, 
the Violence Against Women Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. 
He has repudiated decades of legal precedents that permitted 
individuals to sue states to prevent violations of Federal civil rights 
regulations. His aggressive involvement in this ``federalist 
revolution'' shows that he is a goal-oriented, activist conservative 
who has used his official position to advance his ``cause.'' Alabama 
was the only state to file an amicus brief arguing that Congress lacked 
authority to enforce the Clean Water Act. He argued that the 
Constitution's commerce clause does not grant the Federal Government 
authority to prevent destruction of waters and wetlands that serve as a 
critical habitat for migratory birds. The Supreme Court did not adopt 
his narrow view of the commerce clause powers of Congress. While his 
advocacy in this case is a sign to most people of the extremism, he 
trumpets his involvement in this case. He is unabashedly proud of his 
repeated work to limit congressional authority to promote the health, 
safety and welfare of all Americans.
  His passion is not some obscure legal theory but a legal crusade that 
has driven his actions since he was a student and something that guides 
his actions as a lawyer. His speeches and testimony before Congress 
demonstrate just how rooted his views are, how much he seeks to effect 
a fundamental change in the country, and how far outside the mainstream 
he is.
  Judge Pryor is candid about the fact that his view of federalism is 
different from the current operation of the Federal Government--and 
that he is on a mission to change the government to fit his vision. His 
goal is to continue to limit Congress's authority to enact laws under 
the Fourteenth Amendment and the commerce clause--laws that protect 
women, ethnic and racial minorities, senior citizens, the disabled, and 
the environment--in the name of sovereign immunity. Is there any 
question that he will pursue his agenda as a judge on the Eleventh 
Circuit Court of Appeals reversing equal rights progress and affecting 
the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come?
  Judge Pryor's comments have revealed insensitivity to the barriers 
that disadvantaged persons and members of minority groups and women 
continue to face in the criminal justice system. This is what is at 
stake for Americans, the consumers of our justice system. This is the 
type of judge this President and this Republican leadership are intent 
on permanently installing in our justice system.
  In testimony before Congress, William Pryor has urged repeal of 
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--the centerpiece of that landmark 
statute--because, he says, it ``is an affront to federalism and an 
expensive burden that has far outlived its usefulness.'' That testimony 
demonstrates that Judge Pryor is more concerned with preventing an 
``affront'' to the States' dignity than with guaranteeing all citizens 
the right to cast an equal vote. It also reflects a long-discredited 
view of the Voting Rights Act. Since the enactment of the statute in 
1965, every Supreme Court case to address the question has rejected the 
claim that Section 5 is an ``affront'' to our system of federalism. 
Whether under Earl Warren, Warren Burger, or William Rehnquist, the 
United States Supreme Court has recognized that guaranteeing all 
citizens the right to cast an equal vote is essential to our democracy 
not a ``burden'' that has ``outlived its usefulness.''
  His strong views against providing counsel and fair procedures for 
death row inmates have led William Pryor to doomsday predictions about 
the modest reforms in the Innocence Protection Act that would create a 
system to ensure competent counsel in death penalty cases. When the 
United States Supreme Court questioned the constitutionality of 
Alabama's method of execution in 2000, William Pryor lashed out at the 
Supreme Court, saying: ``[T]his issue should not be decided by nine 
octogenarian lawyers who happen to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.'' 
Aside from the obvious disrespect this comment shows for the Nation's 
highest court, it shows again how results-oriented Judge Pryor is in 
his approach to the law and to the Constitution. Of course an issue 
about cruel and unusual punishment ought to be decided by the Supreme 
Court. It is addressed in the Eighth Amendment, and whether or not we 
agree on the ruling, it is an elementary principle of constitutional 
law that it be decided by the Supreme Court, no matter how old its 
members.
  Judge Pryor has also vigorously opposed an exemption for persons with 
mental retardation from receiving the death penalty, exhibiting more 
certainty than understanding or sober reflection. He authored an amicus 
curiae brief to the Supreme Court arguing that the Court should not 
declare that executing mentally retarded persons violated the Eighth 
Amendment. After losing on that issue, Judge Pryor made an unsuccessful 
argument to the Eleventh Circuit that an Alabama death-row defendant is 
not mentally retarded.
  Judge Pryor has spoken harshly about the moratorium imposed by former 
Illinois Governor George Ryan, calling it a ``spectacle.'' Can someone 
so dismissive of evidence that challenges his views be expected to hear 
these cases fairly? Over the last few years, many prominent Americans 
have begun raising concerns about the death penalty including current 
and former supporters of capital punishment. For example, Justice 
O'Connor recently said there were ``serious questions'' about whether 
the death penalty is fairly administered in the United States, and 
added: ``[T]he system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to 
be executed.'' In response to this uncertainty, Judge Pryor offers us 
nothing but his obstinate view that there is no problem with the 
application of the death penalty. This is a position that is not likely 
to afford a fair hearing to a defendant on death row.
  Judge Pryor's troubling views on the criminal justice system are not 
limited to capital punishment. He has advocated that counsel need not 
be provided to indigent defendants charged with an offense that carries 
a sentence of imprisonment if the offense is classified as a 
misdemeanor. The Supreme Court nonetheless ruled that it was a 
violation of the Sixth Amendment to impose a sentence that included a 
possibility of imprisonment if indigent persons were not afforded 
counsel.
  Judge Pryor is overwhelmingly hostile to a woman's right to choose.

[[Page 12105]]

There is every indication from his record and statements that he is 
committed to reversing Roe v. Wade. Judge Pryor describes the Supreme 
Court's decision in Roe v. Wade as the creation ``out of thin air [of] 
a constitutional right,'' and opposes abortion even in cases of rape or 
incest.
  Judge Pryor does not believe Roe is sound law, neither does he give 
credence to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He has said that ``Roe is not 
constitutional law,'' and that in Casey, ``the court preserved the 
worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.'' When Judge 
Pryor appeared before the Committee, he repeated the mantra suggested 
by White House coaches that he would ``follow the law.'' But his 
willingness to circumvent established Supreme Court precedent that 
protects fundamental privacy rights seems much more likely.
  Judge Pryor has expressed his opposition to fair treatment of all 
people regardless of their sexual orientation. The positions he took in 
a brief he filed in the Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas were 
entirely repudiated by the Supreme Court majority two years ago when it 
declared that: ``The petitioners are entitled to respect for their 
private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their 
destiny by making their private conduct a crime.'' Judge Pryor's view 
is the opposite. He would deny certain Americans the equal protection 
of the laws, and would subject the most private of their behaviors to 
public regulation.
  Capping Judge Pryor's record of extreme activism were sworn 
statements made by former Alabama Governor Fob James and his son, both 
Republicans, explaining that Judge Pryor was only chosen by James to be 
the State's Attorney General after promising that he would defy court 
orders, up through and including orders of the Supreme Court of the 
United States. In sworn affidavits, Governor James and his son recount 
how Pryor persuaded them he was right for the job by showing them 
research papers he had supervised in law school about 
``nonacquiesence'' to court orders. Indeed, under penalty of perjury, 
the former Republican Governor and his son say that Judge Pryor's 
position on defying court orders changed only when he decided he wanted 
to be a Federal judge.
  If true, this information, consistent with the activism and extremism 
present elsewhere in Judge Pryor's record, is revealing. To think that 
this man would come before the Senate after having made a promise like 
that--to undermine the very basis of our legal system--and ask to be 
confirmed to a lifetime position on the Federal bench, is beyond 
belief.
  Indeed, William Pryor's activism has often transcended judicial 
philosophy and entered the realm of pure partisan politics to the point 
where it appeared political concerns openly affected his legal views. 
As Attorney General of Alabama, Pryor was one of the founders of the 
Republican Attorneys General Association, or RAGA, an organization 
which raised money from corporations for Republican candidates for 
state Attorney General positions. Before RAGA was founded, Attorney 
General candidates usually shied away from corporate fundraising 
because of the potential for conflicts of interest with an Attorney 
General's duty to go after any corporate wrongdoing.
  But William Pryor not only ignored the tradition of keeping Attorney 
General's races above politics, he embraced with both hands the mixing 
of law and politics. He spoke out, vocally and often, against state 
attorneys general bringing aggressive cases against the tobacco 
industry, the gun industry, and other corporate interests. And then 
RAGA, Pryor's organization, raised money for attorney general campaigns 
from these very industries and others like them that hoped to avoid 
lawsuits and prosecution. Pryor's philosophy of opposing mainstream 
government regulation of corporations advanced his politics and his 
organization's fundraising, and his political interests in turn 
informed his pro-corporation legal philosophy. Curiously, when asked 
about RAGA at his hearing, Mr. Pryor could remember very little about 
the organization or his role in it.
  His partisan, political worldview colors the way he thinks about the 
role of the courts as well. He ended one speech with the prayer, 
``Please God, no more Souters!''--a slap at a Supreme Court Justice 
seen by some as insufficiently conservative. And he said he was pleased 
the Court's vote in Bush v. Gore was a 5-4 split because that vote 
would give President Bush ``a full appreciation of the judiciary and 
judicial selection;'' in other words, it would show the president that 
he needed to appoint partisan conservatives to the bench. These are the 
sentiments of an activist and a politician. They are not the considered 
deliberations that all of us, as Republican or Democrat would expect 
from an impartial judge.
  On a full slate of issues--the environment, voting rights, women's 
rights, gay rights, federalism, and more--William Pryor's record of 
activism and advocacy is clear. That is his right as an American 
citizen, but it does not make him qualified to be a judge. As a judge, 
it is his duty impartially to hear and weigh the evidence and to impart 
just and fair decisions to all who come before the court. In their 
hands, we entrust to the judges in our independent Federal judiciary 
the rights that all of us are entitled to enjoy through our birthright 
as Americans.
  Judge Pryor's time on the Eleventh Circuit brings out the very 
problem with recess appointments of controversial judges. The 
Constitution sets out that Article III judges receive lifetime 
appointments precisely so that they can be independent. Judge Pryor, in 
contrast, cannot be independent during the pendency of his recess 
appointment because he is dependent on the Senate for confirmation to a 
lifetime position. He is, in essence, trying out for the job. 
Accordingly, the opinions he writes while temporarily on the court are 
not much of a predictor for what he would do if he did receive a 
lifetime appointment and became truly independent.
  What is a good predictor for what he would do as a permanent Eleventh 
Circuit judge? Quite simply, his actions and statements in the many 
years of his professional life before he was appointed provide the best 
insight. And these actions and statements paint a clear and consistent 
picture of a judicial activist whose extreme views place him far 
outside the mainstream. A year of self-serving restraint does little to 
alter this picture.
  The President has said he is against what he calls ``judicial 
activism.'' How ironic, then, that he has chosen several of the most 
committed and opinionated judicial activists ever to be nominated to 
our courts.
  The question posed by this controversial nomination is not whether 
Judge Pryor is a skilled and capable politician and advocate. He 
certainly is. The question is whether--not for a 2-year term but for a 
lifetime--he would be a fair and impartial judge. Could every person 
whose rights or whose life, liberty or livelihood were at issue before 
his court, have faith in being fairly heard? Could every person rightly 
have faith in receiving a just verdict, a verdict not swayed by or 
yoked to the legal philosophy of a self-described legal crusader? To 
see Judge Pryor's record and his extreme views about the law is to see 
the stark answer to that question.
  I oppose giving Judge Pryor a lifetime appointment to the Eleventh 
Circuit where he can impose his radical activist vision on the many 
people whose lives and disputes come before him. I believe the 
President owes them a nominee who can unite the American people.
  Mr. President, I believe my time has expired.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
  Under the previous order, the time until 4 o'clock is under the 
control of the majority leader.

[[Page 12106]]

  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is a great honor for me to stand in 
this great Senate Chamber to share a few thoughts about my friend, one 
of the best lawyers I have ever known, now Judge Bill Pryor, serving on 
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, to speak in favor of his 
confirmation.
  He is principled. He is highly intelligent. He is committed to doing 
the right thing. He has won the support, respect, friendship, and 
admiration of people on both sides of the aisle--African Americans, 
Whites, Democrats--throughout our State of Alabama. He has virtually 
unanimous support among those groups, and he has earned that by his 
principled approach to being attorney general, his love and respect for 
the law, his courageous commitment to doing the right thing.
  He has views about the law and public policy in America, and he 
expresses those, but he absolutely understands that there is a 
difference between advocacy and being on a bench and having to judge, 
that you are not then an advocate, you are a referee, you are a judge, 
a person who is supposed to fairly and objectively decide how the 
dispute should be settled. He understands that totally. That is true 
with most good lawyers in America, but I think he understands it more 
than even most good lawyers. Most good lawyers have been good 
advocates, and they have become good judges. Certainly we understand 
that.
  Criticism has been raised against him that is painful to me. I think 
much of it is a result of misinformation. For example, my colleague 
from Iowa, who is such a champion of the disabled, always is a champion 
of the interests of the disabled, suggested that Bill Pryor is not a 
believer in rights for the disabled because in a disabilities act that 
was passed by this Congress it allowed people to sue their employers 
for back pay, for injunction, and for damages if they were wronged by 
an employer. But the Congress never thought at that time what it meant 
if it involved a State.
  Three percent of the people in Alabama work for the State of Alabama. 
He understood, as a skilled constitutional lawyer, that the Congress 
would have then undertaken, if the law was to be interpreted so that 
damages could be rendered against the State, to wipe out the doctrine 
of sovereign immunity. That is a doctrine that prohibits States from 
being sued for money damages. He said, yes, the employee can get the 
job back, yes, the employee can receive back pay if they were 
discriminated in any way as a result of that disability, but they 
cannot, in a case against the State of Alabama or any State, get money 
damages because that violates the constitutional principle of sovereign 
immunity.
  He took that to the Supreme Court and won. Nobody in Alabama or 
anywhere else who knows anything about disabilities would think this 
represented an action by him to harm the disabled. It was simply to 
clarify this important principle as to what power the Congress has 
under these kinds of legislation to wipe out the traditional historic 
right of a State under sovereign immunity.
  That is how these issues become confused. That is what hurts me about 
this debate process. So often nominees are accused of things based on 
results or maybe outcome of any one given case, and they are said to be 
against poor people or against education or against the disabled.
  I will offer for the Record an editorial from the Mobile Press that 
totally analyzes the complaints and allegations that were raised by 
Senator Kennedy about fundraising for the Attorney Generals 
Association. It completely refutes those allegations. We had a full 
look at it. I think everybody who was involved in the Judiciary 
Committee and the staff people who made lots of phone calls found there 
was absolutely nothing to show any wrongdoing.
  How do we decide what a good person is or a good nominee is? I do not 
know. You may know them and respect them personally. You have seen 
their integrity and their courage in trying to do the right thing 
daily. What do others say who may have a different political 
philosophy? Let me read a letter from Alvin Holmes, a member of the 
State House of Alabama.
  I see the majority leader here. I will be willing to yield to him or 
take a couple minutes, if he allows me.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will start voting about 4. If I can 
start in a couple minutes, that will be good.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will state what Representative Alvin 
Holmes said. He is an African American. He starts off saying:

       Please accept this as my full support and endorsement of 
     Alabama's Attorney General Bill Pryor to the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
       I am a black member of the Alabama House of Representatives 
     having serving for 28 years. During my service . . . I have 
     led most of the fights for civil rights of blacks, women, 
     lesbians and gays and other minorities.

  He lists seven different points where Attorney General Bill Pryor has 
stood up for minority rights and African-American rights in the State, 
including a mentor program where he for 3 years worked every week 
reading as a tutor to Black children.
  He goes on to note a number of points. He finally concludes this way:

       Finally, as one of the key civil rights leaders in Alabama 
     who has participated in basically every major civil rights 
     demonstration in America, who has been arrested for civil 
     rights causes on many occasions, as one who was a field staff 
     member of Dr. Martin Luther King's SCLC, as one who has been 
     brutally beaten by vicious police officers for participating 
     in civil rights marches and demonstrations, as one who has 
     had crosses burned in his yard by the KKK . . . as one who 
     has lived under constant threats day in and day out because 
     of his [stands] . . . I request your swift confirmation of 
     Bill Pryor to the 11th Circuit because of his constant 
     efforts to help the causes of blacks in Alabama.

  Bill Pryor has the support of every Democratic official in the State, 
the top African-American leaders, the people of Alabama. They know him 
and respect him to an extraordinary degree.
  I am pleased to now yield the floor. I see the majority leader is 
here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Alabama for his leadership. I mentioned to him yesterday it was just a 
few weeks ago that it was uncertain whether we would ever reach this 
moment--about 3\1/2\ weeks ago and I remember the conversation. We 
committed to have an up-or-down vote, whatever it took. Indeed, I am 
delighted to say that in a few moments we will vote up or down on 
William Pryor's nomination to serve on the Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals. This body will be allowed that opportunity to give Judge Pryor 
what he deserves, and that is the respect of an up-or-down vote.
  He was first nominated to the Federal bench on April 9, 2003, over 2 
years ago. So it has been a long time coming. That wait is almost over. 
It will be over in about 6 or 7 minutes. The partisan charges and 
obstruction leveled against him are going to be brought to a close. 
Soon William Pryor will get the fairness and the respect he deserves 
with that vote.
  Judge Pryor's experience and achievements in the legal profession 
have prepared him well to serve on the Federal bench. He graduated 
magna cum laude from Tulane University School of Law where he served as 
editor in chief of the Law Review.
  He began his legal career as a law clerk for a legendary civil rights 
advocate, the late Judge John Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit.
  While practicing law at two of Alabama's most prestigious firms, 
Judge Pryor also taught several years as adjunct professor at Samford 
University's Cumberland School of Law.
  Later he served as deputy attorney general and then attorney general 
of Alabama. As attorney general, he was overwhelmingly reelected by the 
people of Alabama in 2002.
  Two years later, President Bush, in 2004, recess appointed Judge 
Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. During this time, Judge Pryor has served 
with distinction. While on the appellate bench,

[[Page 12107]]

many of Judge Pryor's opinions have been supported by judges appointed 
by both Democrats and Republicans.
  But this should not come as a surprise. His rulings as a Federal 
judge are entirely consistent with his past record. William Pryor 
believes in interpretation of the law, not rewriting the law according 
to his own political views.
  He has an outstanding record on civil rights. Dr. Joe Reed, chairman 
of the African-American caucus for Alabama's Democratic Conference, 
said of Judge Pryor: He ``will uphold the law without fear or favor. I 
believe all races and colors will get a fair shake when their cases 
come before him.''
  Many other prominent African-American leaders have submitted letters 
of support for Judge Pryor praising him for his commitment to upholding 
civil rights and equality for all Americans. It is simple. Those who 
criticize Judge Pryor's record have not examined it with the care and 
respect that every nominee's record deserves.
  His record consistently proves his unwavering dedication to the 
protection of individual liberties and his commitment to treating all 
people fairly.
  Further, those who study his record, as I have, know that Judge Pryor 
understands and appreciates the obligation of the judiciary branch to 
interpret the law, not to write the law. He stated in his hearing 
before the Judiciary Committee the following:

       I understand my obligation to follow the law, and I have a 
     record of doing it. You don't have to take my word that I 
     will follow the law. You can look at my record as Attorney 
     General and see where I have done it.

  It has been over 2 years since the President sent William Pryor's 
nomination to the Senate. In that time, he has endured a hearing before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee lasting 4 hours where he answered over 
185 questions.
  Judge Pryor answered another 45 written questions from Senators and 
submitted over 26 pages in response.
  On two separate occasions, his nomination has been favorably voted 
out of the Judiciary Committee, consuming another 4 hours of debate.
  Two times his nomination has come to the Senate floor for a cloture 
vote, and twice the motion to invoke cloture failed because of partisan 
obstruction.
  But that day is over. During the last 2 days, we have continued to 
debate the nomination of Judge Pryor, and now it is time to give him 
that long overdue vote. With the confirmation of Justice Owen and 
Justice Brown, and the upcoming vote on Judge Pryor, the Senate does 
continue to make good progress, placing principle before partisan 
politics and results before rhetoric.
  I hope and I know we will continue working together. As the debate on 
judicial nominees has shown, we can disagree on whether individual 
nominees deserve confirmation, but we can all agree on the principle 
that each nominee deserves a fair up-or-down vote.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the confirmation of 
Judge William H. Pryor.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Under the previous order, the hour of 4 o'clock having arrived, the 
question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of 
William H. Pryor, Jr., of Alabama, to be United States Circuit Judge 
for the Eleventh Circuit? The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 133 Ex.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Jeffords
     Murkowski
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The President will be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________