[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 267-328]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE 
                   SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of 
Calendar No. 490, which the clerk will report.

[[Page 268]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Samuel A. 
Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme 
Court of the United States.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
from 10 to 11 shall be under the control of the Democratic side.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today at 4:30, Members of this body will 
be casting an extremely important vote, the implications of which are 
going to be felt not only in the next several months but for a great 
number of years, not only for this generation but for the next 
generation and the following. It is on a nomination for the Supreme 
Court of the United States and whether we are going to move ahead and 
have a final vote tomorrow.
  There is nothing more important than the votes we cast on nominations 
to the Supreme Court, except sending young Americans to war. The 
implications of this vote are far reaching. As one who has followed the 
courts of this country as they moved us to a fairer and more just 
nation, this nomination has enormous consequences and importance. I 
doubt if we will cast another such vote, unless it would be for a 
Supreme Court nominee, any time in the near future.
  I remember the beginning of the great march towards progress this 
Nation made with the Fifth Circuit in the 1950s, the great heroes, 
Judge Wisdom, Judge Tuttle, Judge Johnson, and many others who awakened 
the Nation to its greatness in terms of having America be America by 
knocking down walls of discrimination and prejudice. Our Founding 
Fathers didn't get it right on that as we know. They effectively wrote 
slavery into the Constitution. We fought a Civil War that didn't 
resolve it or solve it. Though, obviously, with President Lincoln and 
other extraordinary leaders, we began to move the process forward to 
knock down the walls of discrimination.
  It was really as a result of the extraordinary leadership of Dr. 
King, his allies and associates in the late 1950s, that America began 
to think about what this country was all about, recognizing the stains 
of discrimination. We had the beginning of the movement to knock down 
the walls of discrimination in the Public Accommodation Act of 1964, 
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1967, housing in 
1968, title XIV in 1973. In 1965, we knocked down the walls of 
discrimination in our immigration laws, the national origin quota 
system. The Asian-Pacific triangle discriminated against Asians. The 
national origin quota system discriminated against groups of countries.
  We have made enormous progress, not that laws themselves are going to 
solve these problems. We had laws that were passed, supported by 
Democrats and Republicans during this time, and we became a fairer and 
more just nation. Still there are important areas we have to move 
toward to complete the march. The stains of discrimination are still 
out there, not nearly as obvious as they were in the earlier part of 
the last century, but they are still out there. They are evident. All 
of us at one time or another still see them. It is not limited to a 
region of the Nation. It exists in my part of the country as well.
  The question is, Are we moving forward to knock down the walls of 
discrimination? That has always been a pretty basic test for me in 
terms of reaching a judgment on the Supreme Court.
  I remember the case of Tennessee v. Lane that was decided not long 
ago. It involved a woman in a wheelchair, a single mom with two 
children, trained as a court reporter. The State was Tennessee. About 
60 percent of all the courtrooms in Tennessee for some reason are on 
the second floor. The question involved the Americans with Disabilities 
Act. I welcomed the opportunity to work closely with my colleague from 
Iowa, Senator Harkin, on that program. By the time we came to the 
floor, we had bipartisan support for that legislation. President Bush 1 
indicated it was the piece of legislation of which he was most proud. 
It wasn't always easy in terms of dealing with the disabled.
  I can remember when we had 4 million children who were kept in 
closets rather than being able to go to school. We had bipartisanship 
on the IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and we 
made enormous progress during that time.
  Then we had Tennessee v. Lane. The question was whether that 
courthouse was going to make reasonable accommodations to let that 
single mother, who was trained as a court reporter, avoid being carried 
up a flight of stairs, avoid being carried into the ladies room, avoid 
other humiliating circumstances because of her disability, was that 
courthouse going to have to make those reasonable accommodations.
  Four Justices on the Supreme Court said no, no, we don't have to make 
those accommodations. But five said yes. Sandra Day O'Connor said yes 
on that and they made those accommodations. That mother was able to 
gain entrance into the courthouse and has had a successful career. She 
appeared before our committee with tears in her eyes. If that decision 
had gone 5 to 4 the other way, all 50 States would have had to have 
passed disability rights acts--not the Americans With Disability Act, 
but a Massachusetts disabilities act, or Connecticut, or Rhode Island. 
But we had the Americans With Disabilities Act, so 42 million fellow 
citizens with physical and mental disabilities are now part of the 
American family today. Just as we have knocked down the walls of 
discrimination on race, religion, ethnicity, and gender, we have done 
so with disability. We have also made some progress in terms of gay and 
lesbian issues as well.
  We have made this march toward progress. The question is whether we 
are going to have a justice who believes in that march of progress, or 
whether we are going to have somebody who is going to be a roadblock in 
that march toward progress. I express my opposition to Judge Alito 
because I think he is the wrong judge at the wrong time on the wrong 
court. I don't believe he is going to be part of the whole movement and 
march toward progress in this country. It is a delicate balance. We 
have seen at times in American history where Executives have led the 
way in making this a fairer country and where Congress has led the way 
and, certainly, we have seen that with Executive power in terms of the 
adoption of the Medicare Programs and Medicaid. We had Presidential 
leadership for a while in the early sixties, and finally we passed 
those. As a result, we are a fairer country. Ask our elderly people if 
we didn't have the Medicare or the Social Security programs where we 
would be as a nation. That is the issue.
  I accepted the challenge of Judge Alito, who said, let's read my 
cases. I am reminded of the fact that to understand a nominee, one has 
to read their dissenting opinions. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Robert Bork 
agreed 91 percent of the time. Isn't that extraordinary about two 
individuals with dramatically different judicial philosophies? They 
agreed 91 percent of the time. Where you found their differences were 
in their dissents.
  That is where I looked with regard to this nominee. That is why I 
came to the conclusion this nominee was not going to be friendly to the 
average worker, friendly on women's rights, friendly on the issues of 
race, friendly on the issues of the environment, and would no doubt be 
willing to accede to a more expansive Executive power.
  I remember the time when the President announced the nomination of 
Judge Alito. It was in the early morning. I happened to be up in 
Massachusetts and I knew the announcement would be made. I didn't know 
Judge Alito. Certainly the representation was that there is a wide open 
kind of net that has been spread out across the country to try to find 
the very best in our Nation who would be a good nominee. I have voted 
for seven Republican nominees for the Supreme Court. We have had a 
great many of those nominees who were virtually unanimous in this 
body--Democrats and Republicans voting together for nominees--and that

[[Page 269]]

is what I think all of us were hoping for. We had seen the fiasco that 
had taken place with Harriet Miers. We saw groups in this country that 
were prepared to exercise a veto. We have seen groups in our Nation 
that were prepared to exercise a litmus test. We have seen groups that 
have said absolutely, no, we are not going to have Harriet Miers. These 
are the same groups that indicated for so long that nominees are 
entitled to a vote up or down.
  We ought to be able to look at a nominee's judicial philosophy and 
all the rest. All of those issues went right out the window when 
Harriet Miers was nominated. The reason was because Harriet Miers 
didn't pass a litmus test. Now we have Judge Alito. Before the 
announcement ended, we see this extraordinary wave of favorability that 
has come over in terms of support for this nominee. I wonder how people 
could be so opposed to Harriet Miers and, as soon as Judge Alito was 
announced, how they could be so overwhelmingly for him. What did they 
know? Who knew?
  One of the things I think of is what our Founding Fathers wanted. 
What did the Constitution say on this issue? The Founding Fathers, in 
debating the Constitution, considered the issue of appointment of 
judges four different times. On three occasions they gave all the 
authority to this body here, the Senate, to recommend and appoint. The 
last important decision at the Constitutional Convention--10 days 
before the end--was to share the power, with the Executive having the 
power to appoint and the Senate having the power to give advice and 
consent. You cannot read the debates, which I have read, and not 
understand that it was a shared responsibility--not this idea that the 
Senate is supposed to be a rubberstamp. I know it suits their 
interests, but our Founding Fathers wanted the shared responsibility. 
Remember the checks and balances, the essential aspect of the 
Constitution of the United States? When they give authority and power 
in one place, they give authority and power to the other--the Commander 
in Chief, Executive, making of war; with the Congress, the power of the 
purse, and the rest of the issues we all are familiar with.
  This is a shared responsibility, and we in this Senate have a very 
important constitutional obligation to review the recommendation. The 
real question for us now when we have a nominee is to find out--not for 
ourselves, but as instruments for the American people--what the beliefs 
of this nominee are; what are the real beliefs are of the nominee for 
the Supreme Court of the United States; do we have the assurances that 
this individual is the best of the best. We have seen that. President 
Reagan gave us Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the best of the best. The 
list went on. We have had extraordinary jurists in the past.
  We approached this to try to find out these things on the Judiciary 
Committee. We have a pretty good sense that the executive branch knows 
the philosophy of this nominee. They have made the recommendation and 
obviously they have inquired of this nominee, so they know where he is.
  I was absolutely startled this morning when I picked up the New York 
Times and saw in Mr. Kirkpatrick's article on the front page exactly 
how this nominee was selected, who selected him, and what the process 
was. All during this period of time, that was something those of us on 
Judiciary Committee had no mind of. Maybe our friends on the other side 
knew about it. But this is on the front page of the New York Times: 
Paving the Way For Alito Began In Reagan Era.
  It goes on extensively, continuing on page A18. I ask unanimous 
consent that the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             In Alito, G.O.P. Reaps Harvest Planted in '82

                       (By David D. Kirkpatrick)

       Last February, as rumors swirled about the failing health 
     of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a team of conservative 
     grass-roots organizers, public relations specialists and 
     legal strategists met to prepare a battle plan to ensure any 
     vacancies were filled by likeminded jurists.
       The team recruited conservative lawyers to study the 
     records of 18 potential nominees including Judges John G. 
     Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr.--and trained more than 
     three dozen lawyers across the country to respond to news 
     reports on the president's eventual pick.
       ``We boxed them in,'' one lawyer present during the 
     strategy meetings said with pride in an interview over the 
     weekend. This lawyer and others present who described the 
     meeting were granted anonymity because the meetings were 
     confidential and because the team had told its allies not to 
     exult publicly until the confirmation vote was cast.
       Now, on the eve of what is expected to be the Senate 
     confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, coming four 
     months after Chief Justice Roberts was installed, those 
     planners stand on the brink of a watershed for the 
     conservative movement.
       In 1982, the year after Mr. Alito first joined the Reagan 
     administration, that movement was little more than the 
     handful of legal scholars who gathered at Yale for the first 
     meeting of the Federalist Society, a newly formed 
     conservative legal group.
       Judge Alito's ascent to join Chief Justice Roberts on the 
     court ``would have been beyond our best expectations,'' said 
     Spencer Abraham, one of the society's founders, a former 
     Secretary of Energy under President Bush and now the chairman 
     of the Committee for Justice, one of many conservative 
     organizations set up to support judicial nominees.
       He added, ``I don't think we would have put a lot of money 
     on it in a friendly wager.''
       Judge Alito's confirmation is also the culmination of a 
     disciplined campaign begun by the Reagan administration to 
     seed the lower federal judiciary with like-minded jurists who 
     could reorient the federal courts toward a view of the 
     Constitution much closer to its 18th-century authors' intent, 
     including a much less expansive view of its application to 
     individual rights and federal power. It was a philosophy 
     promulgated by Edwin Meese III, attorney general in the 
     Reagan administration, that became the gospel of the 
     Federalist Society and the nascent conservative legal 
     movement.
       Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Alito were among the cadre of 
     young conservative lawyers attracted to the Reagan 
     administration's Justice Department. And both advanced to the 
     pool of promising young jurists whom strategists like C. 
     Boyden Gray, White House counsel in the first Bush 
     administration and an adviser to the current White House, 
     sought to place throughout the federal judiciary to groom for 
     the highest court.
       ``It is a Reagan personnel officer's dream come true,'' 
     said Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine 
     University who worked with Mr. Alito and Mr. Roberts in the 
     Reagan administration. ``It is a graduation. These 
     individuals have been in study and preparation for these 
     roles all their professional lives.''
       As each progressed in legal stature, others were laying the 
     infrastructure of the movement. After the 1987 defeat of the 
     Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork 
     conservatives vowed to build a counterweight to the liberal 
     forces that had mobilized to stop him.
       With grants from major conservative donors like the John M. 
     Olin Foundation, the Federalist Society functioned as a kind 
     of shadow conservative bar association, planting chapters in 
     law schools around the country that served as a pipeline to 
     prestigious judicial clerkships.
       During their narrow and politically costly victory in the 
     1991 confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas, the Federalist 
     Society lawyers forged new ties with the increasingly 
     sophisticated network of grass-roots conservative Christian 
     groups like Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs and the 
     American Family Association in Tupelo, Miss. Many 
     conservative Christian pastors and broadcasters had railed 
     for decades against Supreme Court decisions that outlawed 
     school prayer and endorsed abortion rights.
       During the Clinton administration, Federalist Society 
     members and allies had come to dominate the membership and 
     staff of the Judiciary Committee, which turned back many of 
     the administration's nominees. ``There was a Republican 
     majority of the Senate, and it tempered the nature of the 
     nominations being made,'' said Mr. Abraham, the Federalist 
     Society founder who was a senator on the Judiciary Committee 
     at the time.
       By 2000, the decades of organizing and battles had fueled a 
     deep demand in the Republican base for change on the court. 
     Mr. Bush tapped into that demand by promising to name jurists 
     in the mold of conservative Justices Thomas and Scalia.
       When Mr. Bush named Harriet E. Miers, the White House 
     counsel, as the successor to Justice O'Connor, he faced a 
     revolt from his conservative base, which complained about her 
     dearth of qualifications and ideological bona fides.
       ``It was a striking example of the grass roots having 
     strong opinions that ran counter to the party leaders about 
     what was attainable,'' said Stephen G. Calabresi, a law

[[Page 270]]

     professor at Northwestern University and another founding 
     member of the Federalist Society.
       But in October, when President Bush withdrew Ms. Miers's 
     nomination and named Judge Alito, the same network quickly 
     mobilized behind him.
       Conservatives had begun planning for a nomination fight as 
     long ago as that February meeting, which was led by Leonard 
     A. Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society 
     and informal adviser to the White House, Mr. Meese and Mr. 
     Gray.
       They laid out a two-part strategy to roll out behind 
     whomever the president picked, people present said. The plan: 
     first, extol the nonpartisan legal credentials of the 
     nominee, steering the debate away from the nominee's possible 
     influence over hot-button issues. Second, attack the liberal 
     groups they expected to oppose any Bush nominee.
       The team worked through a newly formed group, the Judicial 
     Confirmation Network, to coordinate grass-roots pressure on 
     Democratic senators from conservative states. And they stayed 
     in constant contact with scores of conservative groups around 
     the country to brief them about potential nominees and to 
     make sure they all stuck to the same message. They fine-tuned 
     their strategy for Judge Alito when he was nominated in 
     October by recruiting Italian-American groups to protest the 
     use of the nickname ``Scalito,'' which would have linked him 
     to the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
       In November, some Democrats believed they had a chance to 
     defeat the nomination after the disclosure of a 1985 
     memorandum Judge Alito wrote in the Reagan administration 
     about his conservative legal views on abortion, affirmative 
     action and other subjects.
       ``It was a done deal,'' one of the Democratic staff members 
     of the Senate Judiciary Committee said, speaking on the 
     condition of anonymity because the staff is forbidden to talk 
     publicly about internal meetings. ``This was the most 
     evidence we have ever had about a Supreme Court nominee's 
     true beliefs.''
       Mr. Leo and other lawyers supporting Judge Alito were 
     inclined to shrug off the memorandum, which described views 
     that were typical in their circles, people involved in the 
     effort said. But executives at Creative Response Concepts, 
     the team's public relations firm, quickly convinced them it 
     was ``a big deal'' that could become the centerpiece of the 
     Democrats' attacks, one of the people said.
       ``The call came in right away,'' said Jay Sekulow, chief 
     counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice and 
     another lawyer on the Alito team.
       Responding to Mr. Alito's 1985 statement that he disagreed 
     strongly with the abortion-rights precedents, for example, 
     ``The answer was, `Of course he was opposed to abortion,''' 
     Mr. Sekulow said. ``He worked for the Reagan administration, 
     he was a lawyer representing a client, and it may well have 
     reflected his personal beliefs. But look what he has done as 
     judge.''
       His supporters deluged news organizations with phone calls, 
     press releases and lawyers to interview, all noting that on 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 
     Judge Alito had voted to uphold and to strike down abortion 
     restrictions.
       Democrats contended that those arguments were irrelevant 
     because on the lower court Judge Alito was bound by Supreme 
     Court precedent, whereas as a justice he could vote to 
     overturn any precedents with which he disagreed.
       By last week it was clear that the judge had enough votes 
     to win confirmation. And the last gasp of resistance came in 
     a Democratic caucus meeting on Wednesday when Senator Edward 
     M. Kennedy, joined by Senator John Kerry, both of 
     Massachusetts, unsuccessfully tried to persuade the party to 
     organize a filibuster.
       No one defended Judge Alito or argued that he did not 
     warrant opposition, Mr. Kennedy said in an interview. 
     Instead, opponents of the filibuster argued about the 
     political cost of being accused of obstructionism by 
     conservatives.
       Still, on the brink of this victory, some in the 
     conservative movement say the battle over the court has just 
     begun. Justice O'Connor was the swing vote on many issues, 
     but replacing her with a more dependable conservative would 
     bring that faction of the court at most to four justices, not 
     five, and thus not enough to truly reshape the court or 
     overturn precedents like those upholding abortion rights.
       ``It has been a long time coming,'' Judge Bork said, ``but 
     more needs to be done.''

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America is listening to the President. He 
said: We are going to get the very best nominee we possibly can. That 
is one side of the story. Most of us certainly believed it. Well, this 
is the story. This may be accurate and it may not be. I think it is 
very difficult to read this story and not certainly find a very 
powerful ring of truth in it:

       Last February, as rumors swirled about the failing health 
     of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, a team of conservative 
     grassroots organizers, public relations specialists, and 
     legal strategists met to prepare a battle plan to ensure any 
     vacancies were filled by like-minded jurists.

  So the right wing had a plan. They knew what the thinking of the 
nominee was. The article continues:

       The team recruited conservative lawyers to study the 
     records of 18 potential nominees--including Judges John G. 
     Roberts and Samuel A. Alito--and trained more than three 
     dozen lawyers across the country to respond to news reports 
     on the President's eventual pick.

  So members of the right wing are going to make the pick and we see 
around the country where dozens of lawyers are going to respond to the 
news reports. It continues:

       ``We boxed them in'' . . .

  Boxed whom in? They boxed in the American people. That is what they 
are saying proudly--``we boxed them in,'' one lawyer present during the 
strategy meetings said with pride in an interview over the weekend.
  Boxed whom in? This is a nomination for the Supreme Court of the 
United States. This is supposed to represent all of the people, all 
Americans. No, no, they boxed them in, a lawyer present at the strategy 
meeting said with pride.
  This lawyer and others present who described the meeting were granted 
anonymity because the meetings were confidential and because the team 
had told its allies not to exult publicly until the confirmation vote 
was cast.
  There it is. They can hardly wait. Although I was surprised that--and 
this would be my 23rd Supreme Court nominee--the nominee was up in the 
Capitol last week thanking Senators for their support and receiving 
congratulations prior to the time we even vote on him.
  It has been debated for less than a week on the floor of the Senate. 
Twenty-five Senators from our side have spoken. Only half of our caucus 
had a chance to speak. They will not speak now if we cut it off. They 
have not had a chance to talk. Again, the article says:

       . . . The team had told its allies not to exult publicly 
     until the confirmation vote was cast.

  Then they will pop the champagne and say we pulled one over on you. 
And it continues:

       They laid out a two-part strategy to roll out behind 
     whomever the President picked, people present said. The plan: 
     first extol the nonpartisan legal credentials of the nominee 
     . . .

  They don't even know who the nominee is going to be yet, but they 
have the plan to extol the nonpartisan legal credentials.

       . . . steering the debate away from the nominee's possible 
     influence over hot-button issues. Second, attack the liberal 
     groups they expect to oppose any Bush nominee.

  There it is, that is the strategy. It is not that we are going to 
nominate the best possible nominee and that we are going to work with 
Republicans and Democrats alike to make sure the American people 
understand how this nominee is going to protect your constitutional 
rights and liberties. That is what we thought. That is what has been 
done at other times--not every time, but most of the time. That is what 
the American people expect and what they are entitled to.
  But, oh, no, this group is already saying we know how we are going to 
handle this, whoever it is. We are going to exalt the assets of this 
nominee. The other thing is we are going to launch our attacks on other 
people before the nominee is even out there. This is the confirmation 
process for the Supreme Court of the United States for a nominee who is 
going to make the decisions on your rights and liberties for the next 
30, 40 years? Attack them as soon as the nomination is out there. Exalt 
the nominee's professional credentials. We don't know who it is, but 
you better get them out there doing it, and we have our network wired 
around the country to make sure they are going to come out right on it. 
This for the Supreme Court of the United States? This is what we are 
finding out.
  It continues:

       Mr. Leo and other lawyers supporting Judge Alito were 
     inclined to shrug off the memorandum.


[[Page 271]]


  This is the 1985 memorandum of Judge Alito that he used in an 
application for a job with the Justice Department. He was 35 years old. 
He had argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. He had a number of 
statements in there that were provocative. I will come back to that.
  This memorandum was provocative because it indicated that he was 
against a woman's right to choose, he was against reapportionment, 
which, of course, has had enormous importance in terms of ensuring 
people's right to vote and have that vote counted in a meaningful way. 
There was some concern whether this was going to have any impact. This 
was his real, true view about the Constitution. This was a document 
which showed his real view about it, which would have been helpful to 
the American people to at least understand what Judge Alito's views 
are.
  Those lawyers supporting Alito said we will shrug off the memo:

        . . . which described views which were typical in their 
     circles, people involved in the effort said. But the 
     Conservative Response Concepts, the team's public relations 
     firm, quickly convinced them it was ``a big deal'' that could 
     become the centerpiece of the Democrats' attacks, one of the 
     people said.

  Creative Response Concepts. Who is this Creative Response Concepts? 
The Creative Response Concepts, if you look them up on the Web, right 
above the Alito confirmation hearings is the Swift Boat Veterans for 
Truth--Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the ones who made the distortions 
and misrepresentations about my colleague and friend, John Kerry, and 
his war record. They distorted and misrepresented it. They are now 
advertising the Alito confirmation hearings. They say, Let us get in 
it, and into it they go.
  The American people are entitled to listen to those who believe in 
the nominee, and to listen to those on the other side. No, we are 
getting our message right through a PR firm, Creative Response 
Concepts. We are getting our truth right through them. The American 
people are going to understand his views of constitutional rights and 
liberties from Creative Response Concepts. When we finish doing the 
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, we have the Alito nomination right here. 
This is what the American people are entitled to?

       The team's public relations firm quickly convinced them it 
     was ``a big deal'' that could become the centerpiece of the 
     Democrats' attack, one of the people said.

  The article continues.
  This has been a difficult process to make a judgment and be fair to 
the nominee and also carry forward our responsibilities. But when we 
have the kind of action on the outside and the failure to be responsive 
on the inside, in terms of his response to questions, this is a 
disservice to the American people.
  This has been a longstanding campaign. It has been a stealth 
campaign. I daresay that is not what the Founding Fathers intended, 
that is not what they expected, and the American people deserve a great 
deal better.
  I hope people will have the chance to read the whole article. I am 
not going to go through it now. I have given the essence of it. It is 
very clear how this nominee was selected, why he was selected, and how 
that campaign for him was conducted.
  As the American people are trying to make a judgment on this through 
their elected representatives today and tomorrow, all we are asking for 
is an opportunity to have the kind of full discussion and full debate 
that we ought to and that Members of the Senate who have not had a 
chance to speak have an opportunity. It is not asking too much.
  I have been in the Senate when we really had filibusters. The idea 
that we are here on a Monday and this came to the Senate last Wednesday 
and the opposition is saying, Oh, well, this is delaying the work of 
the Senate--what is more important to the Senate than a vote for a 
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States? What is more 
important? This is the issue, this is the time, this is the nominee, 
and we find out how we have been treated.
  This body deserves better, and the American people deserve better. 
That is what this vote is this afternoon. That is what it is about. 
Let's really find out. Let's have a chance to go through these cases 
and this nominee.
  We know that the right wing now has its campaign in full gear. Their 
mission is to cover up the truth. So we do need a full debate to bring 
out the truth on Judge Alito's record. What is wrong with debate? Are 
they afraid of what Americans would do if they really heard the full 
record? That is what the issue is, and that is why people are entitled 
to the time.
  I was in my State for a few hours on Friday. The people of my State 
were talking to me, in the few hours I was there, about the 
prescription drug bill that they just cannot navigate. There are 35 
different drug plans from which to choose. There are situations where 
if an individual signs up for a particular program--it is interesting, 
the plan itself can change the premiums and the formularies, but the 
person cannot get off that plan. Once they are in it, they are in it. 
Or if they do get off the plan, they pay an extraordinary penalty to 
get onto another. The plan can change deductibles and copays. They are 
very troubled elderly people.
  There are heart wrenching stories. People up there care about the 
cost of their heating oil going right through the roof. People care 
about that in my State. People are absolutely in disbelief over how a 
part of America in New Orleans, Mississippi, and Alabama can be left 
out and left behind. They are continually pained by the continued loss 
of sons and daughters from my State and from across the country in the 
Iraq war with really no end in sight. They are bothered by all of this. 
They are bothered by the whole issue of lobbying and lobbying 
corruption.
  They are working hard because the middle class is having a more and 
more difficult time just trying to make ends meet. They are finding 
that prescription drugs have gone up, heating has gone up, education 
has gone up, gas has gone up, and their wages have not gone up. It has 
been 9 years since we increased the minimum wage. Seven times we have 
increased our own pay, by $30,000, but we cannot afford to increase the 
minimum wage by a dollar.
  Hard-working people are hurting in my State of Massachusetts. Today, 
they are wondering whether tonight they are going to have food on the 
table. Now we are asking them to shift their focus to Judge Alito. 
Judge Alito--how is that going to affect what my family is faced with? 
It will affect a great deal your children and your children's 
children's future.
  Here are some of the issues Supreme Court decisions affect:
  Supreme Court decisions affect the ability of Americans to be safe in 
their homes from irresponsible search and seizures and other government 
intrusions. We had those cases come up in the hearings. I will come 
back and spend some time on them. It is difficult to believe.
  Supreme Court decisions affect whether the rights of employees can be 
protected in the workplace. If you are a worker, you should be 
concerned about this nominee.
  They affect whether families can obtain needed medical care under 
health insurance policies. Decisions on health care, whether they are 
under ERISA, often go to the Supreme Court.
  Decisions affect whether people will actually receive retirement 
benefits they were promised. There was $8 billion lost in the last 5 
years; 700 retirement programs lost, $8 billion, where workers actually 
paid in. Who is going to protect their rights? Is it going to be the 
powerful companies, powerful interests, special interests, or are we 
going to have a judge who is going to be looking out for the worker and 
the worker's interest? It is a legitimate issue.
  If you care about your health care, if you care about your 
retirement, if you care about your conditions of employment, this 
Supreme Court nominee is where you ought to be focused and where you 
ought to give your attention.
  Supreme Court decisions affect whether people will be free from 
discrimination, prejudice, and outright bigotry in their daily lives, 
whether you are going to be told you are not going to get the job 
because of the

[[Page 272]]

color of your skin or because of your gender. There are cases we went 
through during the Judiciary Committee hearings about Judge Alito being 
insensitive in those areas. I will come back to them.
  Do you hear me? Discrimination, prejudice, outright bigotry in their 
daily lives. You are going to have to make sure you are going to have a 
Supreme Court that is going to be fighting for you.
  The decisions affect whether Americans' most private medical 
decisions will be a family matter or subject to government 
interference. Terri Schiavo is a classic example. We have governmental 
solutions to these issues, or should these matters be left to the 
individuals who are closest to any patient--their families, their loved 
ones, their priests, their ministers, their rabbis? We had a debate on 
this issue. People can think that is a long way away from them, but 
there is nobody in this body, nobody in this audience, nobody who is 
watching who doesn't have a real concern for what is going to happen to 
their parents, to their loved ones, and whether we are going to be able 
to deal with that issue or whether the Supreme Court is going to say: 
Well, we think there are appropriate governmental kinds of roles in 
this kind of a situation. We certainly saw where a majority of this 
body legislatively felt the courts ought to become much more involved 
in that situation. They basically retreated on that position, although 
some still defended it even in recent days.
  The decisions affect whether a person with disabilities will have 
access to public facilities and programs. I gave the example of 
Tennessee v. Lane. That is a case that was decided in the last few 
years about disability rights. Who among us doesn't have a member of 
their family who has some kind of challenges, either mental health 
challenges or physical challenges? We have certainly seen it in our 
family, and when we get the chance to talk about disabilities and 
disability rights in this body, it is always amazing--not amazing, it 
is always interesting to me that we give such little attention to those 
who have mental health challenges and disability needs and we give such 
little attention and assistance to them.
  ``Parity'' is the code word, whether we are going to treat people who 
have mental health issues and those with disabilities the same as those 
who have physical issues. We still haven't had it. I certainly hope, 
with the leadership of Senator Domenici, certainly myself, Senator 
Harkin, and many other Members, that we will have a chance to vote on 
that issue this year. It is long overdue.
  Supreme Court decisions affect whether we will have reasonable 
environmental laws that keep our air and water clean. Care about the 
water? Care about the air we have? Does that really make much of a 
difference to us, Senator? Does it really make much difference to us? 
Interesting, we have doubled the number of deaths from asthma this year 
than we had 5 years ago--doubled the deaths for children. I wonder why 
that is. Do you know where they are? They are all in the States and 
cities and communities that, by and large, have inhaled the toxins and 
the dioxins which have come, as a result of changes in the 
environmental laws, from major plants, carbon-producing plants in this 
country.
  We had laws. I don't know what to tell a mother when she sees her 
child having that intense reaction. I know, as a father of a chronic 
asthmatic, they live with it. The idea that people outgrow it--not in 
our family. We see the constant challenge that it is for any young 
person as they grow to adulthood. Asthma is increasing, and there is no 
question about it. It is because of the pollution in the air.
  Are we going to have a judge who will recognize what the Congress 
wanted to do, or someone who is going to say, Oh, no, we have a very 
powerful company down here that seems to have a reasonable argument--as 
we saw with Judge Alito; I will come back to that case as well--so, 
therefore, we are going to find for the company, and we are going to 
let them continue to discharge pollutants into the lakes. Do we care 
about the lakes? Do we care about the streams?
  Mercury advisories apply to nearly a third of the area of America's 
lakes and 22 percent of the length of our rivers, and mercury pollution 
has led 45 states to post fish consumption advisories. Where kids used 
to go out and fish and enjoy it, that is absolutely denied them for 
health reasons. With respect to expectant mothers, that is very real.
  We in Congress pass laws, the President signs them, they go to the 
courts for interpretation, and where will this nominee come out? Will 
he come out for that mother who has a child who has asthma, or that 
parent seeing the pollution taking place in a lake nearby and whose 
child has been affected by those kinds of poisons? Where is he going to 
come out on the issues of discrimination in jobs, issues we have been 
fighting to eliminate under title VII of our civil rights laws and that 
still are a problem.
  We can go through those cases where this nominee fails to shape up. 
Let me just say this vote this afternoon will last for 15 or 20 
minutes. But the implications of that vote, the implications for your 
life, your children's lives and your grandchildren's lives, will 
continue for years to come. We have only one chance to get it right. 
This is not a piece of legislation where you can go ahead and pass it 
and then say, oh, well, we got it wrong.
  I think with respect to the prescription drug bill we will have to 
come back and redo it. I think we should. We can come back and redo a 
prescription drug bill. Americans are entitled to that. Seniors are 
entitled to it. We got it wrong when, effectively, the conference was 
hijacked by the drug companies and the HMOs. There were extraordinary 
payoffs. It was written up in the Washington Post last week about the 
payoff--it was $46 billion to the HMOs back in 2003, now it is $67 
billion.
  People who go to the HMOs are 8 percent healthier, and they got a 7-
percent inflator, a 15-percent advantage. I thought Republicans used to 
say the private sector was more efficient; that we can do it more 
effectively than the Government so we don't need extra help. No, they 
want all the extras, 15 percent more, so it comes to $46 billion more. 
You are asking why people in my State are paying higher copays and 
premiums and all the rest? It is because we have these kinds of 
payouts.
  We can come back and deal with those. People can deal with those in 
the elections next fall. I understand that. You win or lose and we come 
back to it, but not on the Supreme Court of the United States. You get 
one time, one chance, one vote to get it right. There are no second 
times. That is what all of this is really about in this debate we will 
have for the course of the day and this afternoon.
  As I say, I don't know what is more important that we are going to 
deal with. I gave examples of the range of different issues that come 
before the Supreme Court. I doubt if there is anybody who is listening 
to this or watching this who is not affected by at least one or two of 
those different kinds of issues over the course of their lifetime--in 
terms of their work, their retirement, their pay, in terms of 
discrimination, in terms of environmental issues and women's privacy 
issues, which are so at risk at this particular time with this nominee. 
All of those issues are out there. All we are saying is, don't we think 
we ought to try to get it right? Don't we think we ought to have the 
chance to lay this out just a little more?
  In every one of those examples I gave, in those nine different 
titles, there are cases on which Judge Alito has ruled. He has taken a 
position. In many of those cases he has taken the position in strong 
opposition to other judges appointed by Republicans. Judge Rendell 
talked about Gestapo-like tactics that were used when marshals came in 
on a civil action. There was no crime committed. It was a civil action 
in order to repossess a farm in bankruptcy to be sold at public 
auction. People had worked their whole lives for this small farm in 
Pennsylvania, and the marshals came in, they seized it, and grabbed 
these individuals

[[Page 273]]

who had committed no crime. There was no attempt to run. There was no 
attempt to hide. There was no attempt to evade. And we have Judge 
Rendell talking about Gestapo-like tactics by those marshals. Whether 
they were Gestapo-like or they were not Gestapo-like certainly ought to 
be decided by the jury. I think most of us would agree with that, would 
we not?
  Judge Alito said: No, no, we are not going to let that go to the 
jury. They were just performing their own responsibilities. I am not 
going to let that go to the jury.
  Other judges, on issues about whether there is discrimination in 
employment--including some Republican judges who sat with Judge Alito 
and said if we follow Judge Alito's reasoning and rationale we would 
effectively--``eviscerate'' is the word that was used--title VII, title 
VII being the provisions we passed in the 1964 act to make sure we were 
not going to discriminate in employment.
  The list goes on. It is not just myself or others who have expressed 
opposition. We have the very distinguished Cass Sunstein of the 
University of Chicago who has done a review of Judge Alito's cases and 
said that 84 percent of the time Judge Alito decided for the powerful 
or the entrenched interests or the government. Cass Sunstein said that.
  Knight Ridder, that is not a Democratic organ. That is not Democrat 
members of the committee. They have a whole group who analyzed his 
opinions independently. The Knight Ridder newspaper chain reached the 
same decision.
  The Yale study group--gifted, talented students and professors up 
there at Yale University--did a study about Judge Alito's dissents and 
opinions and came to the same conclusion. If you are looking for 
someone who is going to protect the workers, if you are looking for 
someone who is going to protect men and women of color, if you are 
looking for somebody who is going to protect children, if you are 
looking for someone who is going to protect the privacy issues of 
women, this is not your candidate.
  Those are the conclusions of a broad range of different groups who 
have studied this. It was a broad range. They are not just Democrats, 
not partisan. Knight Ridder is not partisan. Cass Sunstein is basically 
in the middle. Some will say this afternoon, oh, well, you can always 
find a few cases. It is not just a few. These are the overwhelming 
number of studies. Even the Washington Post study, in terms of the 
number of victories that people of color had or the workers had over 
the existing power system, reaches the same conclusion.
  It seems to me we ought at least to have the opportunity to make sure 
the American people understand this. It takes time. It took some time 
for the American people to understand what was really happening in 
Iraq. It took some time. They understand now, but it took time. People 
are working hard. They are busy with their jobs and their families, and 
they are trying to do what is right and play by the rules. It takes 
some time for them to understand how this nominee is going to affect 
their lives and their well-being in the future. But there is nothing 
more important. There is nothing more important here in the Senate. 
There is nothing more important in the unfinished business of the 
Senate.
  Just pick up the calendar and look at the unfinished business of the 
Senate. Nothing comes close to it. If you said right behind this is the 
Defense appropriations bill, this is going to delay a decision on armor 
and support for our troops, I would say, fine, let's let that go 
through. Maybe we will find time after that for Judge Alito. But that 
is not here. What are we doing after this? We are doing asbestos 
issues. That is entirely different. We have real questions on that, 
whether there is going to be adequate funding for those people who have 
been sickest and all the rest. We have to have a full debate on that 
issue. But there is no reason in the world we cannot take the time and 
can't have the debate on this issue, which is incalculably more 
important to the lives and well-being of Americans.
  There are sufficient questions across the front pages of America's 
newspapers today that raise very serious issues and questions about 
this whole process that ought to cause our colleagues, friends, 
associates, the Members of this body, some pause. Let's try to think. 
Let's try to get it right. I say let's try to get it right. We will 
have an opportunity to do that this afternoon at 4:30.
  Mr. President, I believe my time is just about up.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority has an additional 3 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in one reference to Judge Rendell and 
also Judge Chertoff on the two cases I referenced, it was Judge Rendell 
who described the tactics of the marshals brandishing shotguns as 
``Gestapo-like'' and Judge Chertoff who criticized Judge Alito's 
position in an equally bad case, Doe v. Groody, which involved the 
strip-search of the 10-year-old girl. I ask the Record reflect that 
change.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Under the previous order, the time from 11 to 12 will be under the 
control of the majority side, and then debate will continue to 
alternate on an hourly basis until 4 p.m.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to talk a 
little bit about the judge issue that is before us. I have not done so 
until now. I have watched this debate with interest because I think it 
is one of the most important things we do.
  The system, of course, is for the President to nominate and for the 
Senate to confirm or reject. So that is really one of the important 
issues before us.
  I must confess I have been a little surprised at the system we have 
gone through. It has been strung out for a very long time and seems to 
me perhaps it has gone on longer than necessary, but nevertheless that 
is where we are. I was very pleased to learn it is not partisan, not 
political. I was a little surprised to hear that. But nevertheless I do 
think it is important.
  I have not practiced law, but I certainly understand in our system 
the Supreme Court is one of the three elements of our Government and is 
a very important one. And so it is important that we deal with it. I 
just would like to say that it seems to me, as I have listened and as I 
have paid as much attention as I could to Judge Alito's hearings, I am 
certainly impressed. I am impressed with his qualifications and his 
experience. I would think surely one of the most important elements of 
the question of confirmation is experience, someone who has the 
qualifications, someone who has had the background. Certainly Judge 
Alito has that--Princeton University, Harvard Law School, Army Reserve, 
DOJ legal counsel, U.S. attorney, unanimously confirmed in New Jersey, 
circuit court judge Third Circuit, unanimously confirmed. He has argued 
12 cases before the Supreme Court. Many attorneys, of course, have not 
had this kind of distinguished opportunity. I would guess for the most 
part many of the candidates for the Supreme Court have not had that 
kind of experience. He has had some 15 years with the Third Circuit, 
some 35,000 votes. So the background is there.
  I think one of the things, certainly, that is a part of the 
confirmation and the confirmation hearing and what we need to 
understand is the positions that these various candidates take, and I 
would like to just share a few quotations, responses that the judge 
gave to questions that were asked.
  In terms of believing in the Constitution and that it protects rights 
for all,

[[Page 274]]

under all circumstances, in times of peace or war, the judge said:

       Our Constitution applies in times of peace and in times of 
     war, and it protects the rights of Americans under all 
     circumstances. It is particularly important that we adhere to 
     the Bill of Rights in times of war and in times of national 
     crisis, because that's when there's the greatest temptation 
     to depart from them.

  It seems to me that is very clear and one that has been talked about 
a good deal currently.
  Another question was: Do you believe anyone, the President, the 
Congress, the courts, rise above the law? The candidate said:

       No person in this country is above the law. And that 
     includes the President and it includes the Supreme Court. 
     Everyone has to follow the law, and that means the 
     Constitution of the United States and it means the laws that 
     are enacted under the Constitution of the United States.

  Again, I think that is a very basic premise. We are all treated 
equally under the law. ``Under the law,'' that is the key.
  I, as we do, go to schools quite often, and having spent some time on 
the Foreign Relations Committee, I often tell students that one of the 
significant differences about our country and most of the rest of the 
world is we have laws under which everyone is treated equally. I think 
that is one of the keys, and that response, it seems to me, is a great 
one.
  He was asked would he base decisions on the Constitution and the rule 
of law, not shifting public opinion. He said:

       The Court should make its decisions based on the 
     Constitution and the law. It should not sway in the wind of 
     public opinion at any time.

  Certainly, that is a very important element as well. He was asked 
about his personal views and how that would affect his decisions. He 
said:

       I would approach the question with an open mind, and I 
     would listen to the arguments that were made.
       When someone becomes a judge, you really have to put aside 
     the things that you did as a lawyer at prior points in your 
     legal career and think about legal issues the way a judge 
     thinks about legal issues.

  When asked about upholding the high standards of integrity and 
ethics, he said:

       I did what I've tried to do throughout my career as a 
     judge, and that is to go beyond the letter of the ethics 
     rules and to avoid any situation where there might be an 
     ethical question raised.

  It seems to me those are the kinds of responses that make you feel 
comfortable with the candidate. So I am very pleased that apparently we 
are going toward the end. Certainly, it is time to get down toward the 
end. There is no reason to continue to drag this out. We know what we 
need to know, it is there, and it is time to do it.
  So I think throughout the process the candidate has answered the 
questions to the best of his ability. Unfortunately, many of the 
questioners spent more time giving speeches and circumventing the 
process than asking relevant questions, but that is part of the 
process.
  I must confess I am getting a little concerned about the Senate 
confirmation process. We ought to take another look at our role and not 
deviate from that role for other unrelated reasons. So I hope Members 
have not taken us down the path of setting a bad precedent, and I am 
sure that is not the case. I am looking forward to completing this 
process starting this afternoon and completing it tomorrow. I think we 
have before us a great opportunity to confirm one of the most capable 
persons that we could have on our Supreme Court.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. 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. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I was here in the Chamber in the role of 
Presiding Officer during the presentation of the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts in which he referred to a story in this morning's New 
York Times with respect to public relations activity aimed at 
supporting Judge Alito. He was quite outraged at what he had read in 
the New York Times and talked about how improper it was for a public 
relations firm or any group of lawyers to gather together and mount a 
campaign on behalf of this nominee; that that should be left to the 
Senate and that there should be no outside interference in this 
process.
  The New York Times had focused on the activities that had been in 
favor of the nominee, and the Senator from Massachusetts found that 
objectionable.
  As I listened to him, I could not help but think of the actions that 
went forward in opposition to this nominee by groups of lawyers who 
gathered together to get their ammunition ready in the public arena, by 
public relations firms that were hired to oppose the nominee.
  I remember the story in the Washington Post when John Roberts was 
proposed where they described those groups that were opposed to the 
President gathering with their press releases to attack the nominee, 
who were forced to strip out the name of the person they thought the 
nominee would be and put in John Roberts' name so that they could issue 
the press releases as soon as the name was made public. They had 
prepared their ammunition to attack the President's nominee before they 
knew who he was, and they were embarrassed by the fact that they had 
guessed wrong. But they did not change a single word of their attack 
once they knew that the actual nominee was someone different than they 
had anticipated.
  My only comments to the Senator from Massachusetts would be that if 
he decries the work that was done in favor of a nominee by outside 
lawyer groups and public relations firms, he should join with some of 
the rest of us and say that the same criticism applies to those who 
were prepared to savage the nominee, whomever he might have been.
  If the Senator from Massachusetts will have a conversation with Ralph 
Neas and the People for the American Way and say to them, Back off, let 
the nominee be made known, let his views or her views be made known, 
have a clear evaluation of where they stand before you start your 
public relations attack, then I will turn to the groups on the right 
and say the same thing: You back off. Let the nominee be known. Let the 
views be examined before you mount your public relations campaign.
  But we saw what happened when people in support of a Republican 
President's nominee back off and allow the field to be dominated by 
those who are on the attack. Out of that first experience of seeing 
attack after attack after attack into an empty field, we have created a 
new word in the English language. It is a verb, to ``Bork.'' The 
nominee was Robert Bork. I had my problems with Robert Bork. I am not 
sure how I would have voted, having heard his record. But I do know 
that the record was distorted and the opportunity to hear his record 
was changed by virtue of the groups that were all prepared to savage 
him, to attack his personality, to destroy any careful analysis of his 
record. He was ``Borked.'' And we heard that other people would be 
``Borked'' by this same savage attack from the left.
  So I have sympathy with the Senator from Massachusetts when he 
complains about the groups on the right that were marshaled in advance 
of the nomination to defend the nominee. But I say to him they were 
marshaled to defend the nominee because they saw what happened when 
such previous activity was not carried forward. With the way in which 
the Chief Justice, John Roberts, moved through here, with both sides 
having their say but ultimately the public demonstrating a sense of 
revulsion about this whole ``Borking'' process, and now with Judge 
Alito moving forward in a manner far more dignified than we have seen 
in the past, I hope ``Borking'' would become a historic artifact and 
would disappear and that groups on the far left and the far right would 
finally realize that the

[[Page 275]]

Senate is not moved by these kinds of tactics; that the ads that are 
run, television ads attacking the nominee boomerang.
  We have seen some of these groups that have attacked Judge Alito have 
had to have their ads taken down because they were false, they were 
attacked by the media generally for the severity and the falsity of 
their position. ``Borking'' does not work anymore. And I hope that both 
sides would recognize that the Senate has demonstrated a level of 
civility and intelligence in this situation that says we will not be 
moved by those who raise large sums of money, who run television ads in 
our home States savaging the nominee. We will be focused on what 
happens in the hearings. We will be focused on the actual record. We 
will not allow this to turn into an electoral circus.
  That was done in the case of Judge Bork. It was not done 
successfully, although it was attempted with Chief Justice Roberts.
  It is not working now with Judge Alito. I hope people on both sides 
will then abandon those tactics, 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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I assume the order of business is to 
speak on the Alito nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I choose to do that.
  I support the nomination of Samuel Alito. Judge Alito, as we heard in 
our hearings, and so far in most of the debate on the floor, is a 
person who is a dedicated public servant, who practices what he 
preaches: integrity, modesty, judicial restraint, and a devotion to the 
law and to the Constitution. He understands a judge should not have a 
personal agenda or be an activist on the bench but should make 
decisions as they should be decided--do it in an impartial manner, do 
it with an open mind, and do it with appropriate restraint and, of 
course, in accordance with the laws and the Constitution.
  Listening to a lot of my colleagues on the committee, and last week, 
I am extremely disappointed that we are looking now at an attempt by 
Senators--and they are all on the other side of the aisle--to delay and 
filibuster this nominee. It is too bad Majority Leader Frist had to 
take the extreme position of filing cloture on this very important 
nomination. No Supreme Court nomination has ever been defeated by 
filibuster if a majority of the Senators stood ready to confirm that 
nominee. Now, that certainly is not the case here because we already 
know a bipartisan majority of Senators will vote to confirm Judge Alito 
if we get to that point tomorrow at 11 o'clock. We also know we have 
had plenty of time to debate this nomination. It is unfortunate that 
certain Senators will vote against this nominee because they think 
doing so is a good political issue for them. These Senators are 
applying a very different standard to what has been the history and the 
tradition in the Senate of considering Supreme Court nominees. The 
position being taken by these Senators is that Judge Alito ought to 
somehow share Justice O'Connor's judicial philosophy in order for him 
to fill that seat where she has been for the last 25 years.
  That sort of thinking is totally at odds with what the Constitution 
requires, but more importantly than what the Constitution requires, 
what has been the Senate's tradition in the last 225 years, and that is 
that Judge Alito does not have to be Justice O'Connor's judicial 
philosophy soulmate to deserve confirmation by this Senate. Because the 
Supreme Court does not have seats reserved for one philosophy or 
another. That kind of reasoning is completely antithetical to the 
proper role of the judiciary in our system of Government.
  My colleagues on the other side, then, have it all wrong. There has 
never been an issue of ideological balance on the Court. If that were 
the case, do you think President Ford would have nominated Justice 
Stevens or President Bush 1 would have nominated Justice Souter--two 
Republican appointees who have turned out to be the most liberal 
members on the Court appointed by Republicans? Those Presidents did not 
think in terms of ideological balance.
  The Senate's tradition, then, has not been to confirm individuals to 
the Supreme Court who promote special interests or represent certain 
causes. The Senate has never understood its role to maintain any 
perceived ideological balance on the Court. To the contrary, the 
Senate's tradition has been to confirm individuals who are well 
qualified to interpret and to apply the law and who understand the 
proper role of the judiciary to dispense justice.
  Recent history, of course, is proof of that because in my years in 
the Senate, but as recently as 10, 12 years ago, when Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg was before the Senate, we gave overwhelming confirmation to 
her--a former general counsel of the very liberal group, the ACLU. She 
replaced a conservative Justice, Byron White, on the Court at that 
time. The Senate confirmed Justice Ginsburg. Why? Because President 
Clinton won an election, campaigning on the basis of the kind of people 
he was going to nominate, and President Clinton did that. That is what 
the Constitution says the role of the President, the role of the Senate 
is.
  Now, some of my colleagues have said elections have results and the 
Constitution says the President gets to nominate Supreme Court 
candidates. Of course, Justice Ginsburg, whether you agree with her or 
not, had the requisite qualifications to serve on the Court.
  Right after her, Justice Breyer came to the Supreme Court, a liberal 
as well, appointed by President Clinton. But the Senate confirmed that 
Justice by a big vote. The President made his choice, sent it to the 
Senate, the Senate found him qualified, and he was confirmed on an up-
or-down vote. No filibuster was ever talked about, and no one talked 
about maintaining any ideological balance on the Court.
  The Supreme Court, then and historically, is not the place to play 
politics. The Court is supposed to be, and as far as I know is, free of 
politics. But the Democrats and liberal outside interest groups want to 
change the rules because they did not win at the ballot box. They want 
to implement their agenda from the Court. Of course, that is a 
dangerous path, making the Supreme Court a superlegislature. The 
Constitution does not presume that. Under our checks-and-balances 
system of Government, we do not want to go down that path. Going down 
that path will create a standard that will seriously jeopardize the 
independence of the judiciary and distort our system of Government, a 
system based upon the judiciary being the arbiter of the war that 
often--I should say continually goes on between the executive branch of 
Government and the legislative branch of Government.
  Democrats want the Supreme Court to assume an expansive role well 
beyond what was originally intended by the Constitution and its 
writers. They want the Court to take on a role that is closer to the 
role of the legislative branch, which is to make policy and bring about 
changes in our society.
  Now, this has consequences when you go down this road. It has brought 
about the politicization of the judicial confirmation process that we 
have seen evidenced, particularly on the Alito nomination, but also on 
the Roberts nomination, or go back 3 years previous to the holding up 
of several circuit court nominees before this body through the threat 
of filibuster or not just the threat but the use of the filibuster.
  Politicizing the judicial confirmation process is wrong. That is 
because when judges improperly assume the role of deciding essentially 
political questions rather than legal questions, the judicial 
confirmation process devolves into one focused less on whether a 
nominee

[[Page 276]]

can impartially and appropriately implement law. Instead, it becomes 
one more focused on whether a nominee will implement a desired 
political outcome, and do it from the bench, regardless of the law and 
regardless of what the Constitution says.
  Americans want what the Constitution writers have always called for: 
judges who will confine their job to interpreting the law as passed by 
legislative bodies and the Constitution as written rather than having 
the same group of men and women make policy and societal changes from 
the bench. We need to reject firmly the notion that the Supreme Court 
should be in the business of political decisionmaking or in the 
business of politicians--you and I who were elected to the Senate.
  The Constitution provides that the President nominates a Supreme 
Court Justice and the Senate provides its advice and consent. Alexander 
Hamilton wrote an awful lot about the role the judiciary was to play 
and what judges were supposed to do because he had to explain that in 
relation to the ratification by the original 13 States. So he wrote 
several papers. But in Federalist 66, he wrote:

       [I]t will be the office of the President to nominate, and, 
     with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There 
     will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the 
     Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and 
     oblige him to make another; but they [meaning the Senate] 
     cannot themselves choose--they can only ratify or reject the 
     choice he may have made.

  The way the Senate provides its advice and consent has been by a 
thorough Judiciary Committee evaluation, and then by an up-or-down vote 
in the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee has an important job 
because its members can ask in-depth questions of the nominee. The 
committee evaluates whether the nominee has the requisite judicial 
temperament, intellect, and integrity. The committee also looks to see 
whether a nominee understands the proper role of a Justice and respects 
the rule of law and the words of the Constitution over any personal 
agenda because no Justice should be sitting on the Court who has a 
personal agenda that he wants or she wants to carry out.
  I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee for more than 25 
years and take this responsibility seriously, as do my colleagues. I 
thought Judge Alito did a very good job answering our questions and 
that he was candid. No doubt he was thorough. As far as I am concerned, 
he was very responsive.
  Judge Alito understands the proper role of the judiciary is not to 
make the law. He will strictly interpret the law as written and do his 
best to remain faithful to the actual meaning of the Constitution. As 
Judge Alito said:

       Judges don't have the authority to change the Constitution. 
     The whole theory of judicial review that we have, I think, is 
     contrary to that notion. The Constitution is an enduring 
     document and the Constitution doesn't change. It does contain 
     some important general principles that have to be applied to 
     new factual situations that come up. But in doing that, the 
     judiciary has to be very careful not to inject its own views 
     into the matter. It has to apply the principles that are in 
     the Constitution to the situations that come before the 
     judiciary.

  To quote Judge Alito again:

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

  Judge Alito also understands that the Constitution provides justice 
for all, for everybody. He told the committee this:

       No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, 
     is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath 
     the law.

  He said:

       Our Constitution applies in times of peace and in times of 
     war, and it protects the rights of Americans under all 
     circumstances.

  Judge Alito understands the importance of the independence of the 
judiciary in our system of checks and balances. We ought to be careful 
to make sure that we only approve judges who understand that. His 
colleagues believe Judge Alito will be an independent judge who will 
apply the law and the Constitution to every branch of Government and 
every person because Judge Alito knows that no one, including the 
President, is above the law. When I said ``his colleagues,'' I meant 
those colleagues who testified before our committee and have worked 
with him for a long time on that circuit.
  One of his colleagues, Judge Aldisert, testified:

       Judicial independence is simply incompatible with political 
     loyalties, and Judge Alito's judicial record on our court 
     bears witness to this fundamental truth.

  Former Judge Gibbons, who now represents clients against the Bush 
administration over its treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, doesn't 
believe that Judge Alito will ``rubber-stamp'' any administration's 
policy if it violates the law and Constitution. He said:

       I'm confident, however, that as an able legal scholar and a 
     fairminded justice, he will give the arguments--legal and 
     factual--that may be presented on behalf of our clients 
     careful and thoughtful consideration, without any 
     predisposition in favor of the position of the executive 
     branch.

  Yet Judge Alito's critics claim he is out of the mainstream. That is 
what the debate last week was all about from the other side, that he is 
a judge with an agenda hostile to individual rights, civil rights, 
women, and the disabled. The truth is, Judge Alito's record has been 
distorted and mischaracterized. First, a statistical analysis that some 
try to use of how many times a certain kind of plaintiff wins or loses 
is not the way we dispense justice in America. It is a bad way to look 
at a judge's record. It is easy to manipulate and cherry pick cases to 
reach certain desired conclusions of why somebody should not be on the 
bench. But the bottom line is, who should win in a case depends on the 
facts presented in that specific case and what the applicable law says. 
What is important to Judge Alito is that he rules on specific facts in 
the case and the issue before the Court, in accordance with the law and 
the Constitution.
  As his colleagues attested, Judge Alito doesn't have a predisposed 
outcome in cases. He doesn't bow to special interests but sticks to the 
law regardless of whether the results are popular. That is precisely 
what good judges should do and what good judging is all about.
  Moreover, when you consider all these accusations, look at what the 
ABA said. They unanimously voted to award Judge Alito their highest 
possible rating, and that is, in their words, ``well qualified.'' A 
panel of Third Circuit Court judges--I already referred to two of 
them--who worked with Judge Alito more than 15 years, in their 
testimony had unqualified support for Judge Alito as they appeared 
before the committee. These colleagues didn't see Judge Alito to be an 
extremist, hostile to specific groups, or with having a personal 
agenda. They testified about Judge Alito's fairness, his impartiality 
with respect to all plaintiffs.
  Judge Lewis, one I have not quoted yet, described himself to the 
committee to be ``openly and unapologet-
ically pro-choice'' and ``a committed human rights and civil rights 
activist.'' But yet a person coming from this end of the legal 
continuum fully endorsed Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, testifying:

       I cannot recall one instance during conference or during 
     any other experience that I had with Judge Alito, but in 
     particular during conference, when he exhibited anything 
     remotely resembling an ideological bent.

  The testimony of Judge Lewis continues:

       If I believed that Sam Alito might be hostile to civil 
     rights as a member of the United States Supreme Court, I 
     guarantee you that I would not be sitting here today . . . I 
     believe that Sam Alito will be the type of justice who will 
     listen with an open mind and will not have any agenda-driven 
     or result-oriented approach.

  Justice Aldisert summarized these judges' testimony best on the day 
they appeared before the committee when he said:

       We who have heard his probing questions during oral 
     argument, we who would have been privy to his wise and 
     insightful comments in our private decisional conferences, we 
     who have observed at firsthand his impartial approach to 
     decision-making and his thoughtful judicial temperament and 
     know

[[Page 277]]

     his carefully crafted opinions, we who are his colleagues are 
     convinced that he will also be a great justice.

  What other conclusion can you come to when you listen to people who 
have been close to him for a long time? We had a lot of people who 
worked with him on the court, who were not judges, who also appeared 
from both political parties. How can you come to any conclusion other 
than Judge Alito is going to do what Justices on the Supreme Court 
ought to do based upon his 15 years on the circuit court, that he is 
fair and openminded and will approach cases without bias and without a 
personal agenda?
  The people who know Judge Alito best believe, without reservation, he 
is a judge who follows the law and the Constitution without a preset 
outcome in mind. They believe he is a man of great integrity, modesty, 
intellect, and insight. They believe he is a fair and openminded judge, 
committed to doing what is right rather than committed to implementing 
a personal agenda.
  After hearing all that, some of my colleagues ought to be ashamed of 
the blue smoke they are making out of this nomination or the ghosts 
they are putting up to scare us. Judge Alito will carry out the 
responsibilities that a Justice on the Supreme Court should, and he 
will do it in a principled, fair, and effective manner.
  If Members have any doubt where I stand, I will cast my vote in 
support of Samuel Alito. This highly qualified nominee deserves to be 
confirmed to the Supreme Court. I hope my colleagues will see that as 
well and vote accordingly, particularly on a very tough vote because of 
the extraordinary majority it takes to also vote to end a filibuster, 
the first filibuster of the 110 nominees to the Supreme Court. 
Hopefully, we will never see another extraconstitutional action taken 
by our colleagues on the floor of the Senate with such a filibuster 
once again. Vote to end the filibuster late this afternoon and then 
vote to confirm Judge Alito tomorrow.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is an incredibly important time in 
our Nation's history. This is the second Supreme Court nominee to come 
before the Senate in the past 6 months. We are truly at a time where we 
are making decisions that will affect our children, our grandchildren, 
and an entire generation of people. Sandra Day O'Connor, the first 
woman Justice, and often the critical deciding vote, is retiring, as we 
know. The nominee who will replace her will have the power to change 
the direction of the Court and, as I indicated, touch people's lives, 
affect people's lives and opportunities for a generation.
  I take this constitutional responsibility very seriously, as I know 
my colleagues do. I have closely studied Judge Alito's written 
opinions, his testimony, as well as the hearing transcript. I commend 
Senators Specter and Leahy for conducting the hearings in a respectful 
and bipartisan manner. The Constitution grants all Americans, as we 
know, the same rights and liberties and freedoms under the law, which 
is why it is so important that we get this right. These are the sacred 
values upon which the United States was founded--not just words, but 
they are values, they are beliefs, they are the motivation for us as 
we, together, fight for the things we want for our families and work 
hard every day as Americans to make sure this democratic process works 
for everybody. We count on the Supreme Court to protect these 
constitutional rights at all times, whether the majority agrees or 
whether it is popular. Every American has the same rights under our 
Constitution.
  Judge Alito's nomination comes at a time when we face new 
controversies over governmental intrusion into people's private lives, 
from secret wiretaps conducted without a warrant or the knowledge of 
the FISA Court, to attempt to subpoena millions of Internet searches at 
random from companies such as Google. One of the most important 
responsibilities of the Supreme Court is to serve as a check on 
excessive Government intrusion into people's lives.
  In light of where we are today and the issues that this Court will 
face, it is even more important to have a Justice who will stand up for 
Americans.
  Unfortunately, Judge Alito's record is clear and deeply troubling. 
When one looks at his writings, his court opinions from over 15 years 
on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and when one looks at the 
hearing transcripts, there is a clear and consistent record of siding 
with the government, siding with other powerful interests at the 
expense of American citizens.
  In case after case, whether it is about job discrimination, pensions, 
illegal searches, or privacy issues, he has been an activist judge who 
has tilted the scales against the little guy. Often, he has been 
criticized by his colleagues as trying to legislate from the bench in 
order to reach the result he desires.
  His views are way outside the mainstream, especially in his dissent 
opinions. There are numerous cases where Judge Alito was the only 
dissenter, which means he felt strongly enough about his personal views 
that he objected to what the other 10 judges supported and wrote his 
own separate opinion on an issue. These dissents give insight into what 
I believe is an extreme ideology on the most basic of American 
freedoms, liberties, and rights.
  Because of his extreme record and after much deliberation, I 
concluded that Judge Alito is the wrong choice to replace Sandra Day 
O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. He may well, as we know, be the 
deciding vote on issues that affect our children and grandchildren and 
an entire generation.
  His record on workers' protections is outside the mainstream. Our 
manufacturers are struggling in Michigan, as well as across the 
country, and every day we see announcements of plant closings and 
filings of bankruptcy. Michigan families are worried. They are worried 
that they will not have a job tomorrow. They are worried that they are 
going to lose their pensions and their health care benefits for 
themselves and their families. We in Michigan need a Supreme Court 
nominee who will stand with us, stand with Michigan's workers and 
families, and Judge Alito is not that nominee.
  In Belcufine v. Aloe, a company in bankruptcy did not give its 
employees the retirement benefits and vacation time they earned before 
the bankruptcy. Under Pennsylvania law, corporate officers are 
personally liable for nonpayment of wages and benefits. The employees 
sued, and Judge Alito sided with the company, saying that the law did 
not apply once a company filed for bankruptcy. Not only did he side 
with the CEOs at the expense of their workers' hard-earned wages and 
pensions, but he legislated from the bench to get the result he wanted.
  Judge Greenberg, a Reagan appointee, wrote a strong dissent accusing 
Judge Alito of trying to rewrite the Pennsylvania law, stating:

       [W]e are judges, not legislators, and it is beyond our 
     power to rewrite the [law] so as to create a bankruptcy 
     exception in favor of statutory employers merely because we 
     believe it would be good for business to do so.

  Again, a colleague indicating that, in fact, Judge Alito was writing 
law instead of just interpreting the law.
  In another case addressing pension benefits, the plaintiff had worked 
in jobs covered by the Teamsters pension fund from 1960 to 1971, had a 
7-year break in service, and then worked under the fund again from 1978 
until his retirement. The majority on the court held that both periods 
of employment would be counted when you are calculating his pension 
benefits, regardless of the break in service. If you are working and 
then you need to take a break, whether it is illness, caring for a 
loved one--regardless of the circumstance--if you come back to work 
under the pension system, you work until retirement, all of the years 
you

[[Page 278]]

worked hard should be counted toward your pension.
  Judge Alito dissented, arguing that the first period of employment, a 
total of 11 years of hard work, should not count, essentially cutting 
the workers' pension benefits. If his dissent had prevailed--and thank 
goodness it did not--workers across this country would have their 
pensions cut, even if they worked 30 years in one job, if there was a 
gap in their employment. That is not right. If you work hard for 30 
years, you should get the entire pension you paid in and you have 
earned.
  The majority once again admonished Judge Alito for ignoring the plain 
language of the law and trying to legislate from the bench, reminding 
him that:

       Changes in legislation is a task for Congress and if our 
     interpretation of what Congress has said so plainly is now 
     disfavored, it is for Congress to cure. We do not sit here as 
     a policy-making or a legislative body.

  Judge Alito has had a clear and consistent record when it comes to 
siding with corporate interests over working Americans and, in many of 
these cases, he has been out of step with the majority of the court. He 
dissented on a case to pay reporters overtime pay under the Fair Labor 
Standards Act. He dissented from a majority opinion that found a 
company in violation of Federal mining safety standards on a site where 
they were removing materials from a refuse heap and sending them to 
powerplants to be processed into electricity. These are laws that exist 
to protect working Americans, to protect their health and their safety. 
The recent tragedies in West Virginia have reminded us of how important 
this is, but Judge Alito argued that the safety standards did not apply 
to this site.
  The same is true for workplace discrimination cases. Time and again, 
he has voted to make it more difficult for victims of discrimination to 
get their day in court as Americans.
  In Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, a hotel employee sued, 
claiming sex discrimination. Over the years, she was promoted from a 
part-time waitress to a supervisory position. She received 
commendations and bonuses for her work. But after she complained about 
sexual harassment, she was demoted, and her work environment got worse 
and worse.
  The trial court dismissed the case, and by a vote of 10 to 1, the 
Third Circuit reversed, saying she had produced enough evidence to 
warrant a jury trial of her peers. Judge Alito was the lone dissenter, 
arguing that she had not presented enough proof and that her case 
should be dismissed. When you are outnumbered 10 to 1, you really are 
outside the mainstream.
  In another dissent, Judge Alito voted to deny a mentally retarded 
young man the chance to challenge severe abuse and sexual harassment. 
In his very first job out of high school, he had suffered vicious 
sexual harassment. He was held down in front of a group of workers, 
subjected to sexual touching, and he feared he would be raped. Judge 
Alito would have denied him a trial, not because the facts were 
disputed but because he felt that the brief was not well written.
  Judge Alito even joined an opinion preventing veterans from suing the 
Federal Government for failing to enforce a law which requires agencies 
to have plans in place to help veterans gain employment.
  The Supreme Court is the ultimate check on Presidential overreaching. 
However, when he was at the Justice Department, Judge Alito advised to 
expand Presidential power and argued that ``the President's 
understanding of a bill should be just as important as that of 
Congress.'' So, in other words, passing a bill for us is not enough; 
equal standing is what the President believes it says or wants it to 
say or his opinion on what it says.
  He recommended that when the President signs a bill passed by 
Congress, he should issue a signing statement announcing his 
interpretation of the law in order to influence the court's 
interpretation, essentially creating a backdoor line-item veto.
  Why is this important? I had one particular case recently which I 
will share with you, Mr. President. Last fall, Senator Vitter from 
Louisiana and I included an amendment in the 2006 Commerce-Justice-
State appropriations bill to prevent the pharmaceutical industry from 
taking advantage of the President's trade promotion authority to insert 
language that prevents prescription drug importation.
  A majority of us in the Senate and in the House believes that we 
should be able to safely bring retail prescription drugs back into our 
country for our citizens at a much reduced price. There was also a 
nearly identical provision put in the House bill, and in the final 
bill, we basically were saying you can't use trade agreements to stop a 
policy that is supported by Congress and use it as a backdoor way to 
stop the reimportation of less expensive prescription drugs for 
citizens.
  Even though this was in the final bill that came to the President's 
desk, in his signing statement, the President stated that this section 
was ``advisory.'' We passed a law--bipartisan, House, Senate--and it 
goes to the President's desk. He signs it but states that this section 
is advisory and basically backdoor-vetoed this new law. The President 
can't pick and choose which provisions of a law he will enact when he 
signs a new law when it is passed by this Congress.
  These views of Presidential power are troubling enough, but Judge 
Alito's record on the bench only reinforces his unwavering support for 
the government's position in case after case. Whether it is the 
President of the United States or a low-level official, he has 
supported the government's position at the expense of Americans' 
liberties and rights.
  One of the most important issues we face today is personal privacy 
and freedom. We are having this debate in the Senate right now with the 
PATRIOT Act reauthorization, and we see it in the news reports with the 
Justice Department seeking unprecedented amounts of information on what 
Americans look up on the Internet.
  When has the government gone too far? It is a question we face in the 
Senate, and the Supreme Court will have to eventually answer. 
Unfortunately, in cases involving privacy, security, and protection 
from unjustified search and seizures, Judge Alito has consistently 
sided with the government interests.
  As an Assistant Solicitor General in the Reagan administration, Judge 
Alito authored a memo on whether the Justice Department should file a 
friend-of-the-Court brief in Tennessee v. Garner, a Supreme Court case 
on the constitutionality of a Tennessee law which allowed police to 
shoot a fleeing suspect, even when the shooting was intended only to 
prevent the suspect from escaping and not to protect the officer or the 
public from harm.
  In this case, a 15-year-old boy broke into a house and stole $10 
worth of money and jewelry. The police arrived while the boy was in the 
process of running away. They ordered him to stop. He did not stop. And 
despite the fact they could see he was unarmed, the officer shot him in 
the back of the head and killed him. The officer did not shoot this 
unarmed 15-year-old because he was a danger to others but to keep him 
from escaping.
  The Sixth Circuit found that this law was unconstitutional, but in 
his memo, Judge Alito argued that the case was ``wrongly decided'' and 
that this was an issue that should be left to the State legislatures.
  The Justice Department did not file a brief in this case, and the 
Supreme Court ultimately rejected Judge Alito's position and found the 
law unconstitutional, writing:

       It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight 
     escapes, but the fact that police arrive late or are a little 
     slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A 
     police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect 
     by shooting him dead.

  In Doe v. Groody, Judge Alito dissented from a majority opinion 
written by now Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to uphold 
the strip search of a 10-year-old girl and her mother, even though 
neither was a criminal suspect, presented any risk or was named in the 
search warrant.
  The search warrant specifically limited the search of persons to the 
suspect, John Doe, but when police arrived, they only found Jane Doe 
and

[[Page 279]]

her 10-year-old daughter inside the house. They took the mother and the 
little girl to another room and strip-searched them, having them lift 
their shirts, drop their pants, and turn around.
  Judge Chertoff held that the warrant clearly limited police authority 
to the search of John Doe and not all occupants in the house. Judge 
Alito dissented, accusing the majority of a ``technical'' and 
``legalistic'' reading of the warrant. The warrant was clear, but Judge 
Alito argued for a broad departure from what was actually written in 
the warrant in a way that would favor governmental intrusion.
  I hear my colleagues from across the aisle saying over and over again 
that they want judges who will follow the law and not legislate from 
the bench. Judge Alito ignored the plain language of a search warrant 
in order to allow the strip search of a 10-year-old girl. How is this 
not legislating from the bench?
  Judge Chertoff certainly thought so. He criticized Judge Alito's view 
as threatening to turn the requirement of a search warrant into 
``little more than the cliche rubberstamp.''
  In another case deeply concerning to me, a family of dairy farmers 
was being forced off their farm by a bankruptcy court. This was in 
Pennsylvania. It could easily have been in Michigan or anyplace else in 
the Midwest. When they refused to leave their farm, seven U.S. marshals 
and a State trooper arrived at their home to evict them by pointing 
shotguns and semiautomatic rifles at the family. The marshals grabbed a 
family friend who was also at the house and used him as a human shield. 
They put a gun to the man's back, led him into another house on the 
property, and told him: If anything goes wrong in here, you are going 
to be the first to go down.
  The family sued, arguing that the marshals used excessive force. 
Judge Alito wrote an opinion saying it was reasonable for marshals, 
carrying out an unresisted civil eviction notice, to point shotguns and 
semiautomatic rifles at a family sitting in their living room. These 
people were not criminals. They were not dangerous. They were dairy 
farmers who had lost their home and their livelihood because of a 
bankruptcy.
  Judge Alito also argued that putting a gun to the man's back and 
using him as a human shield was not an unreasonable search under the 
fourth amendment because the marshals never told him that he wasn't 
free to leave.
  A fellow judge on the court dissented and called the marshals' 
conduct ``Gestapo-like'' since seven marshals had detained and 
terrorized the family and friends and ransacked a home while carrying 
out an unresisted civil eviction. But Judge Alito's decision made sure 
the family never got a trial.
  In another dissent, Judge Alito again would have allowed the invasive 
search of a mother and her teenage son based on a broad reading of a 
warrant. Mrs. Baker and her three children arrived at the home of her 
oldest son for dinner in the middle of a drug raid by police. The 
warrant was limited to the search of her son's home, but when Mrs. 
Baker and her three children started walking up to the house, the 
police threatened them with guns, handcuffed them, and dumped Mrs. 
Baker's purse out onto the ground. They then took her teenage son into 
the house and searched him. Judge Alito once again dissented to keep a 
jury from hearing whether the police acted unlawfully by handcuffing, 
holding at gunpoint, and searching a mother and her teenage children 
who by happenstance walked up to visit the home of a family member.
  This disregard for the personal privacy and freedom of Americans 
extends to the decision on a woman's right to choose, which affects 
every woman in this country. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge 
Alito voted in dissent to uphold a law requiring a woman to notify her 
husband before exercising her constitutional right to obtain an 
abortion. He argued that the spousal notification provision would only 
restrict a small number of women and didn't substantially limit access 
to an abortion, even though the women affected may face physical abuse 
as a result of this requirement. The Supreme Court, including Judge 
O'Connor, affirmed that the spousal notification provision was 
unconstitutional, rejecting Alito's argument, comparing it to 
antiquated 18th century laws that said that women had no legal 
existence separate from their husbands.
  Justice O'Connor eloquently summarized the problem with Judge Alito's 
position, writing, ``women do not lose their constitutionally protected 
liberty when they marry.''
  These cases are not isolated instances. They are part of a long and 
consistent record of siding with powerful interests over Americans--
people who have had their rights violated, people who have been 
injured, people who have lost their pensions, people who have been 
victimized and are asking the court to make things right, make things 
whole, women in this country who want to know they are respected in 
their privacy and their most personal decisions, just like men.
  For 15 years, Judge Alito has said no. A group of schoolchildren, 
ages 6 to 8, were being sexually abused by their bus driver. Despite 
the young age of the children and the fact that the driver had total 
custody of them when they were on the bus, Judge Alito joined an 
opinion dismissing the case, arguing that the school superintendent did 
not have a duty to make sure the children were protected because riding 
the bus wasn't mandatory.
  A disabled student had to drop out of medical school because of her 
severe back pain that made it difficult for her to sit in classes for 
hours at a time. She had requested a special chair during class so she 
could continue her studies and become a doctor. The school failed to 
accommodate her request, and the Third Circuit ruled that her case 
should go forward, she should have her day in court. But Judge Alito 
dissented, arguing that the case should not go to trial; she should not 
get her day in court. The majority wrote that ``few if any 
Rehabilitation Act cases would survive'' if Judge Alito's view 
prevailed.
  A college student died at a varsity lacrosse practice. None of the 
team's coaches were trained in CPR. The nearest phone was 200 yards 
away on the other side of a 8-foot fence, and there was no ambulance on 
the field. The Third Circuit ruled to allow the case to move forward, 
for the family to have their day in court. But once again, Judge Alito 
said no.
  A worker suffered severe injuries after being thrown through the 
windshield of a garbage truck after the brakes of the truck failed. He 
brought a products liability lawsuit, arguing that the damaged 
hydraulic brake lines were a design defect. The Third Circuit ruled in 
favor of the injured worker, but Judge Alito sided with the company.
  When we take a step back and look at the entirety of Judge Alito's 
record, we see a systematic tilt toward powerful institutions and 
against the little guy; a long history of writing ideologically driven 
dissents that are not only out of step with the majority of his peers 
on the Third Circuit but are way outside the mainstream of America.
  Let me say in conclusion, whether it is a family losing their dairy 
farm, workers losing their pensions, a mentally disabled young man who 
was the victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, an unarmed 15-
year-old boy being shot dead in the back of the head, a strip search of 
a 10-year-old girl, or the ability of a woman to make her own 
reproductive health decisions, Judge Alito has consistently said no to 
the daily concerns of average Americans.
  Now we are being asked not just to confirm a nominee who has spent 15 
years tipping the scales of justice against those Americans but to 
confirm a judge who will replace Sandra Day O'Connor, a woman who was a 
consensus builder, a uniter on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  Based on this record, I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for 
Samuel Alito to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The 
Supreme Court is the ultimate check on Presidential overreaching. And 
over and over again, we see this judge siding against Americans.

[[Page 280]]

  We can do better than this nominee at this critical time in American 
history, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this 
nominee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on countless nominations Democrats have 
joined Republicans and Republicans have joined Democrats to send a 
judicial nomination to the floor with a powerful, bipartisan vote. 
Chief Justice Roberts came to the floor 13 to 5. Justice Breyer came to 
the floor unanimously. Justice Ginsburg came to the floor unanimously. 
Justice Breyer won on the floor 87 to 9; Justice Ginsburg, 97 to 3; and 
Chief Justice Roberts, 78 to 22.
  But, in this case, Judge Alito comes to the floor in a straight party 
line, particularly divided vote. In a divided country, at a time of 
heightened partisan tensions, at a time of ideology often trumping 
common sense or broad public interest, the President has chosen to send 
a Supreme Court nominee who comes directly out of a revolt by the 
ideological wing of his party in order to satisfy their demand for 
ideological orthodoxy.
  Some people obviously delight in that. We have read about that today 
in the New York Times. And that is their right. But most don't. Most 
don't think that is the way to pick a Supreme Court Justice. It doesn't 
mean it is good for the country, it doesn't mean it fills our current 
needs, and it doesn't mean it is even the right thing to do.
  As we approach this nominee, we can't forget that he was not the 
President's first choice. His first choice was Harriet Miers, and 
opposition to her nomination came not from Democrats but from the far 
right of the Republican Party. They challenged her ideological purity 
with such conviction that the President capitulated to their demands 
and gave them Judge Alito instead--a nominee who they received with 
gleeful excitement.
  Jerry Falwell ``applaud[ed]'' his appointment. Ed Whelan called it 
``a truly outstanding nomination.'' Rush Limbaugh called the nomination 
``fabulous.'' Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan raved about how it would 
upset liberals. This rightwing reaction can only mean one thing: they 
know what kinds of opinions Judge Alito will issue--opinions in line 
with their extreme ideology.
  All of this is to be contrasted with the standard set out by Justice 
Potter Stewart. He said:

       The mark of a good judge is a judge whose opinions you can 
     read and . . . have no idea if the judge was a man or a 
     woman, Republican or Democrat, a Christian or Jew . . . You 
     just know that he or she was a good judge.

  What he is saying is not really limited to the status of religion, 
gender, or politics, or any other trait by which we categorize people. 
He is saying that a good judge through all their decisions shows no 
discernible pattern of identity that pigeonholes that judge except for 
the purity of their legal reasoning, their genuinely open-minded 
approach to judging.
  But in Judge Alito we do see patterns--patterns which demonstrate a 
bias towards the powerful, patterns which demonstrate a lack of 
skepticism towards government overreaching, and patterns which 
demonstrate a hostility to the disadvantaged and the poor. This doesn't 
mean that Judge Alito never rules in favor of an individual suing the 
government for an unlawful search or a minority suing a corporation for 
unlawful discrimination. But it does mean that in the overwhelming 
majority of cases he has not. And this raises the question of whether 
he approaches each case with an open mind or whether he comes with a 
bias that can only be overcome in the rarest of circumstances.
  So why should the debate on Judge Samuel Alito continue now? Well, to 
begin with, there hasn't been that much debate on this nomination in 
the first place--a nomination of extraordinary consequence. It came to 
the floor on Wednesday the 25th, and cloture was filed the very next 
day on Thursday. To this moment, not more than 25 Democratic Senators 
have had a chance to speak. At this time, the Senate has spent a total 
of 25 hours on a nomination that will last a lifetime.
  The direction our country will take for the next 30 years is being 
set now and this is the time for debate. This is the time when it 
counts. Not after the Supreme Court has granted the executive the right 
to use torture, or to eavesdrop without warrants. Not after a woman's 
right to privacy has taken away. Is history going to care what we say 
after the courthouse door is slammed in the faces of women, minorities, 
the elderly, the disabled, and the poor? No. Except to wonder why we 
didn't do more when we knew what was coming.
  Obviously, I have heard some people try to argue that exercising our 
rights is ``obstructionist.'' But did people suggest it was 
obstructionism when the extreme rightwing of the Republican Party 
scuttled the nomination of Harriet Miers? How many times have we heard 
our colleagues come to the floor and demand that judicial nominees get 
an up-or-down vote? She never got an up or down vote. She never even 
got a hearing. Yet a minority in the Republican Party was able to stop 
a nominee that they considered unfit for the Supreme Court.
  It is hardly obstructionist to use, as the former chair of the 
Judiciary Committee Senator Hatch described it, ``one of the few tools 
that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority 
represents.'' That is exactly what we are doing here. That is why we 
have the Senate and the rules we live by. We are protecting basic 
rights and freedoms that are important to every American: privacy, 
equality, and justice.
  It is important to remember that the rights we are expressing concern 
about didn't come easily. Access to the court house, civil rights, 
privacy rights, voting rights, antidiscrimination laws--all of these 
were hard fought for. They came with bloodshed and loss of life. Their 
achievement required courage and determination. None of these basic 
rights were written into law without a fight, and still today it 
requires constant vigilance to make sure they are enforced and 
maintained. That commitment for vigilance is one of the characteristics 
that should leap out in a Supreme Court nominee.
  We should remember that even though the 13th, 14th, and 15th 
amendments outlawed slavery, provided for equal protection under the 
law, guaranteed citizenship, and protected the right to vote for 
African American Americans, the fact is the Federal Government took 
very little action to enforce them until the 1960s. Few politicians 
were willing to take a stand--to fight for the rights of African 
Americans. Something besides grassroots pressure was ultimately needed 
to prompt the Congress into action. That something was the unanimous 
Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
  Imagine if the Court had not enforced the equality guaranteed by the 
14th amendment. Imagine if it still had the ideological outlook it had 
when Plessy was decided. Or when Dredd Scott was decided. Two of the 
most ideologically driven--and regrettable--decisions ever. Segregation 
would still be a fact of life. African American children would be 
forced to attend their own schools, would be receiving an inferior and 
inadequate education. And, there would have been no catalyst to start 
the civil rights movement.
  So a vote for a Supreme Court nominee is in fact a vote for the 
rights and freedoms we care about and fight for. That is exactly what 
this vote is.
  There is no question in anyone's mind. Samuel Alito will have a 
profound impact on the Supreme Court. This is a pivotal moment in 
history for the Court. You only need to look at his past opinions to 
know that much.
  Let me share with you the story of David D. Chittister. On February 
14, 1997, David requested sick leave from the Pennsylvania Department 
of Community and Economic Development, where he worked. He was granted 
leave, but approximately ten weeks later, his leave was revoked, and he 
was fired. David knew that the Family Medical Leave Act guaranteed him 
12 weeks of sick leave. So he sued the

[[Page 281]]

Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development for 
firing him during that time.
  Put yourself in David's shoes. Imagine that you become sick. You 
become so sick that you are hospitalized, completely unable to work. 
The only reason that you can afford your treatment is because you are 
still employed. And above all you believe that you are protected by the 
Family Medical Leave Act.
  Now imagine that Judge Alito is on the Supreme Court. He is one of 
the nine voices that gets to decide whether the Family Medical Leave 
Act is constitutional. And he votes the way he did on the Third 
Circuit, invalidating that part of the Family Medical Leave Act which 
guarantees an individual 12 weeks of sick leave and applies to you. You 
are out of luck as you face mounting medical bills without any source 
of income.
  This is not hypothetical. That is the decision he made. Health care 
is a very real problem for many more Americans than ever. Many of us 
have been pushing for a national approach to health care for years. Our 
citizens can't get the sick leave they need to take care of themselves. 
They cannot get adequate health insurance--coverage isn't what it 
should be. The Family Medical Leave Act was a step in the right 
direction to deal with family values and health needs. It made sure 
that people could take the time they needed when they became seriously 
ill without losing their income. It was enacted with overwhelming 
bipartisan support in a 71 to 27 vote. But if Judge Alito were on the 
Supreme Court and he follows his own precedent, it would no longer 
protect State employees.
  So I ask my colleagues who voted for the Family Medical Leave Act: 
didn't we do exactly want we meant to do? Didn't we need to protect all 
workers? So is it right, now, to put a person on the Supreme Court who 
will undo the good that we did with that legislation?
  Take another example. Many of us have talked on the floor about how 
Judge Alito routinely defers to excessive government power. And how he 
is willing to overlook clear fourth amendment violations in the 
process. This may seem abstract to a lot of people right now, but 
listen to the facts of this case.
  A family of farmers, the Mellotts, fell on hard times. They had to 
declare bankruptcy and were ordered to leave their farm--like a lot of 
farmers these days. They asked for permission to appeal and were 
denied. They asked that the judge be disqualified and were denied. They 
didn't accept the eviction order and refused to leave their farm. So 
the marshals were sent to evict them.
  When Bonnie Mellott answered the front door, a deputy marshal 
entered, pointed his gun ``right in her face,'' pushed her into a 
chair, and kept his gun aimed at her for the remainder of the eviction. 
Another deputy entered, ``pumped a round into the barrel'' of his 
sawed-off shotgun, pointed it at Wilkie Mellott, and told him ``to sit 
still, not move and to keep his mouth shut.'' When he did this, the 
marshals knew Wilkie Mellott was recovering from heart surgery.
  But that wasn't all. Another marshal ran into the kitchen where a 
guest was on the telephone with a local sheriff. He ``pumped'' his 
semi-automatic gun, ``stuck it right in [her] face and . . . said: `Who 
are you talking to, hang up the phone.''' When she continued talking, 
the marshal put his gun ``to the back of her head'' and repeated the 
order.
  I won't go into further details, but you get the picture. Now 
obviously the Mellotts were in the wrong to stay in their farm. They 
were ordered by the court to leave, and they should have. We all 
understand that.
  But there is no fact in evidence suggesting that once the marshals 
got in the house there was resistance--no facts suggesting there was 
need for force or intimidation. Nothing justified running into a house, 
waiving sawed-off shotguns and screaming at the occupants. These folks 
weren't criminals. They weren't armed. They weren't resisting arrest. 
You know what, it is tough enough to get kicked off your property; it 
is another thing to be treated like a felon, absent cause, with pumped 
shotguns shoved in your face. Most reasonable people would conclude 
that the government's actions were excessive. But Judge Alito did not, 
and he wrote the majority opinion for two of the three judges hearing 
the case calling the law enforcement conduct reasonable. The dissenting 
judge disagreed. He said that once the marshals arrived and realized 
that the Mellotts were neither armed nor dangerous, the use of force 
was ``clearly not objectively reasonable.''
  Where do you come out on this? Which view do you want on our Supreme 
Court?
  Let me also share another story this one about Beryl Bray. Beryl was 
an African-American female who worked her way up from a room attendant 
to a Housekeeping manager for Marriott Hotels in less than three years. 
When the position of Director of Services opened up, Beryl applied. A 
Caucasian woman got the job, and Beryl sued claiming discrimination.
  Now, as a Housekeeping manager, Beryl probably did not make a lot of 
money. She probably used a lot of her resources to bring her 
discrimination claim. She wanted her day in court. If Judge Alito had 
his way, she wouldn't have gotten it. Critical facts were in dispute. 
Facts which, if resolved as Beryl claimed they should be, would 
establish a clear case of discrimination. As the lawyers here know, the 
factual disputes should have been resolved by a jury of her peers. 
Beryl was entitled to her day in court. Judge Alito, however, did not 
agree. He would have resolved the facts on his own in favor of Marriott 
Hotels. He would have ended the case then and there.
  Or let's talk about Harold Glass. Mr. Glass worked at Philadelphia 
Electric Company, of PECO as it is known, for 23 years before he 
retired. While working full-time, Harold attended school to improve his 
career opportunities. Over the years, he earned two associate degrees, 
a bachelor of science degree in industrial and management engineering 
and a bachelor of science degree in engineering.
  In addition to his full-time work and continuing education, Harold 
was a long-time activist on behalf of PECO employees. In 1968, he 
helped organize the Black Grievance Committee to respond to problems of 
racial fairness, including inadequate representation of minorities by 
PECO's uncertified labor organization. He served as an officer. He 
represented employees in handling routine individual grievances before 
management and negotiated with management about employee concerns. In 
addition, he took the lead in organizing witnesses in three legal 
actions against PECO concerning racially discriminatory employment 
practices.
  Over the years, Harold applied for promotions to new positions, but 
each time he was rejected. In addition, he was not able to apply for 
positions he would have liked to have because they were never posted by 
the company. This despite the fact that, in 23 years of employment with 
PECO, Harold received only one performance evaluation which was less 
than fully satisfactory--when he was serving as a junior technical 
assistant. Harold claimed that racial harassment at that time from his 
coworkers and a hostile work environment had affected his job. But the 
trial judge did not allow him to demonstrate these facts.
  On appeal, a divided three-judge panel reversed the trial judge's 
decision. Two of Judge Alito's colleagues believed that Mr. Glass 
should have been allowed to present the evidence of racial 
discrimination to the jury. Judge Alito, however, disagreed. He thought 
that allowing Mr. Glass to tell his side of the story might cause 
``substantial unfair prejudice.'' He called the trial judge's refusal 
to allow Mr. Glass's evidence ``harmless.''
  Harmless. Was it harmless to Mr. Glass? What do you think? Do you 
think its harmless error to keep a discrimination plaintiff from 
showing evidence of discrimination? I think most reasonable people 
would disagree with Judge Alito.
  I believe that is the problem here: Judge Alito has demonstrated a 
pattern of looking at discrimination

[[Page 282]]

claims with a high degree of skepticism. In the dozens of employment 
discrimination cases involving race that Judge Alito has participated 
in, he ruled in favor of African Americans on the merits in only two 
instances. He has never authored a majority opinion favoring African 
Americans in such cases. He has dissented from rulings of his 
colleagues in favor of African-American plaintiffs, and in doing so has 
required an unrealistic amount of evidence before he is willing to step 
in on behalf of wronged individuals. He is not willing to give them the 
benefit of the doubt even to just let a jury decide their case.
  This is an unacceptable view of the way our country works. Americans 
know that what sets us apart from almost any other country is the right 
of any citizen no matter where they come from, what their lot in life 
is to have their day in court. That is what makes America special. This 
little guy can hold the big corporations accountable.
  Our nation is defined by the great struggle of individuals to earn 
and protect their rights--particularly the disadvantaged. We have 
worked hard to ensure that no one is denied their civil rights. Judge 
Alito's track record casts serious doubt on his commitment to that 
struggle. The legislation we pass protecting individuals against 
discrimination requires the courts to fully enforce it. And we just 
don't keep faith with ourselves if we empower individuals to sue large 
corporations who act unlawfully and then have the courts refuse to hold 
them accountable.
  Judge Alito's hostility to civil rights claims is not my observation 
alone. It is an observation shared by many people who have reviewed his 
record. Let's not forget that after reviewing more than 400 of Judge 
Alito's opinions, law professors at Yale Law School--Judge Alito's alma 
matter--concluded that:

       In the area of civil rights law, Judge Alito consistently 
     has used procedural and evidentiary standards to rule against 
     female, minority, age and disability claimants. . . Judge 
     Alito seems relatively willing to defer to the claims of 
     employers and the government, over those advancing civil 
     rights claims.

  That is the opinion of those who have studied his record. Similarly, 
Knight- Ridder concluded that Judge Alito ``has worked quietly but 
resolutely to weave a conservative legal agenda into the fabric of the 
nation's laws'' and that he ``seldom-sided with . . . an employee 
alleging discrimination or consumers suing big business.''
  Judge Alito may believe that it is his duty to keep these types of 
cases away from the jury. He may, and in fact probably does, believe 
that he is doing the right thing. That is his right. But, it is my 
right to judge the facts of these cases and disagree. It is my right to 
say that the record of his reaction to the same facts should not be 
elevated to the Supreme Court.
  A fair amount has been said about Judge Alito's endorsement of the 
unitary executive theory. This is a complicated and somewhat abstract 
theory of constitutional interpretation, but if it is ever endorsed by 
a majority of the Court, it will have a significant practical impact on 
our everyday lives.
  What it says is that the President alone is responsible for enforcing 
the laws. At its most simplistic, it seems somewhat reasonable: 
Congress makes the laws, the President enforces the laws, and the 
judiciary interprets the laws. The theory, in fact, dates back to the 
administration of Franklin Roosevelt, and it has been championed by 
liberal and conservative scholars and administrations as a way of 
asserting the President's ability to retain control over independent 
agencies. But, use of the theory in recent times has been changing.
  During Judge Alito's tenure, the Reagan administration developed new 
uses for the theory. It was used to support claims of limitless 
presidential power in the area of foreign affairs--including the 
actions that became the Iran-contra affair. And, this view of 
Presidential power has been carried on by the current Bush 
administration, claiming in Presidential signing statements, that the 
President can ignore antitorture legislation overwhelmingly passed here 
in Congress. Not only is the substance of that message incredible, but 
the idea that the President can somehow alter congressional intent--the 
meaning of legislation agreed upon by 100 Senators--with a single flick 
of a pen is absolutely ludicrous. It turns the meaning of legislative 
intent on its head.
  In the hearings, Judge Alito attempted to downplay the significance 
of this theory by saying it did not address the scope of the power of 
the executive branch, but rather, addressed the question of who 
controls the executive branch. Don't be fooled by that explanation. The 
unitary executive theory has everything to do with the scope of 
executive power.
  In fact, even Stephen Calabresi, one of the fathers of the theory, 
has stated that ``[t]he practical consequence of this theory is 
dramatic.'' It is just common sense that if the unitary executive 
theory means that the President can ignore laws that Congress passes, 
it necessarily expands the scope of Presidential power--and reduces the 
scope of Congress.
  Judge Alito had numerous opportunities in the hearings to define the 
limits of the unitary executive, but he refused to answer my 
colleagues' questions. He didn't answer when Senator Leahy asked him 
whether it would be constitutional for the Congress to prohibit 
Americans from using torture. He didn't answer when Senator Durbin 
asked whether he shared Justice Thomas's view that a wartime President 
has inherent powers--beyond those explicitly given to Congress. He 
didn't answer when Senator Feingold asked what, if any, limits there 
are on the President's power.
  We all understand that under article II, the President has primary 
responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs. But, the idea that 
the President can simply disregard existing law or redefine statutory 
limits at will in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and 
war is a startling one. And it is one that I cannot accept.
  We needed to know what limits Judge Alito would place on the 
executive branch. We needed him to go beyond simple recitations of 
Supreme Court case law. We needed to know what he actually thought.
  Sadly, however, Judge Alito did not give us those answers. In fact, 
he failed to give us answers on many questions of critical importance. 
He refused to answer questions from Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, 
Senator Feingold, and Senator Biden on the question of the power of the 
presidency. He refused to answer questions from Senator Schumer, 
Senator Durbin, and Senator Feinstein on whether Roe v. Wade was 
settled law--an answer that even Chief Justice Roberts was willing to 
give. He refused to answer Senator Leahy's questions on court 
stripping; Senator Leahy's and Senator Feinstein's questions on 
congressional power and the commerce clause; Senator Feingold's 
questions on affirmative action and criminal law; Senator Schumer's 
questions on immigration.
  These are all questions about issues that routinely come before the 
Court. Judge Alito had an obligation to answer them. He had an 
obligation to explain and clarify the positions he took in his 
speeches, judicial opinions, and Justice Department memoranda. But he 
did not.
  Why are we supposed to think that is OK? Since when is it acceptable 
to secure a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court by hiding behind 
a smokescreen of nonanswers?
  I understand that, for many, voting for cloture on a judicial 
nomination is a very difficult decision, particularly on this Supreme 
Court nominee. I also understand that, for some of you, a nomination 
must be an ``extraordinary circumstance'' in order to justify that 
vote. I believe this nomination is an extraordinary circumstance. What 
could possibly be more important than this?
  This is a lifetime appointment to a Court where nine individuals 
determine what our Constitution protects and what our laws mean. Once 
Judge Alito is confirmed, we can never take back this vote. Not after 
he prevents many Americans from having their discrimination cases heard 
by a jury. Not after he allows more government intrusions into our 
private lives. Not after he

[[Page 283]]

grants the President the power to ignore Federal law under the guise of 
protecting our national security. Not after he shifts the ideological 
balance of the Court far to the right.
  As I have said before, Judge Alito's nomination was a direct result 
of the rightwing's vehement attacks on Harriet Miers, an accomplished 
lawyer whose only failing was the absence of an ideologically bent 
record. The rightwing didn't wait for the next nominee. The rightwing 
didn't leave any of the tools in their arsenal unused. The rightwing 
attacked with every option available to them to prevent Harriet Miers' 
confirmation, secure in their conviction that it was the right thing 
for them to do.
  We believe no less. And we should do no less. We did allow the 
confirmation of three of the most objectionable appellate court 
nominees. There was no talk of prolonged debate on Chief Justice 
Roberts. Now we are presented with a nominee whose record raises 
serious doubt about serious questions that will have a profound impact 
on everyday lives of Americans. What on Earth are we waiting for?
  Many on my side oppose this nomination. They say they understand the 
threat he poses, but they argue that cloture is different. I don't 
believe it is. It is the only way that those of us in the minority have 
a voice in this debate. It is the only way we can fully complete our 
constitutional duty of advice and consent. It is the only way we can 
stop a confirmation that we feel certain will cause irreversible damage 
to our country.
  I will oppose cloture on the nomination of Judge Alito. And, I 
sincerely hope my colleagues will join me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to be an Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court. We are familiar with Judge Alito's academic and 
professional qualifications. He graduated from Princeton and Yale Law 
School, where he served as editor of its prestigious Law Journal. He 
spent his life serving his country as a captain in the Army Reserve, as 
an assistant, and then as U.S. attorney in New Jersey, and for the past 
15 years as a distinguished judge on the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals, to name a few of his qualifications with which we are all 
quite familiar at this point in the process.
  Equally important is his deserved reputation for fairness and for 
integrity and his measured approach to the law. The American Bar 
Association, hardly a bastion of conservatism, found this out during 
its exhaustive review of its record. The ABA solicited the views of 
2,000 people, including 130 Federal judges and every Supreme Court 
Justice. After that, the ABA awarded Judge Alito its highest rating, 
unanimously well qualified. What that means is that every member of the 
committee of the ABA gave Judge Alito the highest possible mark. It is 
like getting straight A+'s on your report card.
  Let me repeat that since some who are watching and listening have 
undoubtedly heard the attacks by Judge Alito's most vociferous 
opponents: The ABA, the largest professional association of lawyers in 
the country, found Judge Alito to be unanimously well qualified for the 
Supreme Court. In the past, this rating was referred to by our friends 
on the other side of the aisle as the gold standard.
  More insightful than the ABA's rating is the testimonials of those 
who know Judge Alito best, his colleagues and his coworkers. Although 
they possess different political philosophies, Judge Alito's colleagues 
enthusiastically praise him as ``thoughtful, intelligent, and fair'' 
and a judge who ``has a great respect for precedent-setting 
decisions.'' To most people, that sounds like the kind of Justice we 
would want on the Supreme Court.
  Judge Timothy Lewis served with Judge Alito for 7 years during which 
Judge Lewis typically voted with the court's liberal members. He 
recounted how when he joined the Third Circuit in 1992 he consulted his 
mentor, the late Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., who was a Carter 
appointee, a former chief judge of the court and a scholar of U.S. 
racial history. According to Judge Lewis, Judge Higginbotham said:

       Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on this court. 
     He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito 
     is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He 
     doesn't have an agenda. He is not an ideologue.

  That is the late Judge Leon Higginbotham. Judge Lewis added his own 
experience bore out Judge Higginbotham's evaluation. Judge Lewis said 
Sam Alito ``does not have an agenda'' and ``is not result-oriented. He 
is an honest conservative judge who believes in judicial restraint and 
judicial deference.'' He ``faithfully showed a deference and deep 
respect for precedent.''
  That is liberal Judge Lewis of the Third Circuit.
  Another former chief judge of the Third Circuit, Edward Becker, 
similarly praised Judge Alito. Here is what he had to say:

       I found him to be a guy who approached every case with an 
     open mind. I never found him to have an agenda. I suppose the 
     best example of this is in the area of criminal procedure. He 
     was a former U.S. attorney, but he never came to a case with 
     a bias in favor of the prosecution. If there was an error in 
     the trial, or a flawed search, he would vote to reverse.

  Judge Becker noted that Judge Alito is ``very principled, very 
analytical, never decides more than he has to in a case. He does 
believe in judicial restraint in the way he writes opinions, with no 
ideological overtones.''
  The Third Circuit current chief judge, Anthony Scirica, succinctly 
said:
        . . . whatever quality you think a judge ought to have, 
     whether it's scholarship or an ability to deliberate, or 
     fairness or temperance, Sam has each one of these to the 
     highest degree.

  That is the current chief judge of the Third Circuit.
  These reflections, which include three former or current chief judges 
of the Third Circuit, are echoed by Judge Alito's former law clerks, 
many of whom are self-described committed Democrats. Jeff Wasserstein 
clerked for Judge Alito in 1998. Here is what he had to say:

       I am a Democrat who always votes Democratic, except when I 
     vote for a green candidate--but Judge Alito was not 
     interested in the ideology of his clerks. He didn't decide 
     cases based on ideology.

  Mr. Wasserstein recounts how in one criminal case the defense 
attorney had submitted a sloppy brief while the prosecutor had 
submitted a neat, presentable brief. Mr. Wasserstein says that in his 
youth and naivete he suggested to Judge Alito it would be easy to 
decide the case for the Government. But Judge Alito stopped him ``cold 
by saying that was an unfair attitude to have before I had even read 
the briefs carefully and conducted the necessary additional research 
needed to ensure that the defendant had received a fair hearing.''
  Mr. Wasserstein's simple anecdote illustrates how Judge Alito 
approaches each case fairly and with an open mind. He observes that 
Judge Alito has a ``restrained approach to the law.''
  Another former law clerk, Kate Pringle, who worked for Senator Kerry, 
whom we heard speak a few moments ago, for his Presidential campaign, 
describes herself as a left-leaning Democrat and a big fan of Judge 
Alito's. She rejects the notion that Judge Alito is an ideologue, 
stating he ``pays attention to the facts of the cases and applies the 
law in a careful way. He is a conservative in that sense. His opinions 
don't demonstrate an ideological slant.''
  That is Kate Pringle, law clerk of Judge Alito and Kerry supporter 
for President in 2004.
  In light of the accolades from those who know him best, in light of 
his brilliant academic and professional achievement, in light of 
receiving the highest possible rating by America's largest association 
of his peers, the ABA, I was hopeful the Senate would provide Judge 
Alito with a fair and dignified process. Sadly, this has not been the 
case.
  In the Senate we have known for over 200 years, a judicial nominee 
with Judge Alito's character, ability, and achievement would command a 
large

[[Page 284]]

bipartisan majority of support. Now it appears Judge Alito will not get 
that tomorrow. Why is that? It is because there has been a change in 
the standards by which the Senate considers qualified judicial 
nominees. In my view, it has not been a change for the better.
  According to the New York Times, in early 2001, some of our 
Democratic colleagues attended a retreat where law professors such as 
Larry Tribe and Cass Sunstein implored them to ``change the ground 
rules'' with respect to how the Senate considered judicial nominees by 
injecting a political ideology test into the confirmation process. Soon 
after that meeting, some of our friends initiated a premeditated and 
sustained effort of serial filibusters of circuit court nominees. We 
saw a lot them. Those most passionate for this tactic thereby wrote a 
new and sad chapter into the pages of Senate history.
  Like many Republicans and Democrats, I had hoped this sad chapter of 
trying to deny judicial nominees a simple up-or-down vote would recede 
into memory as a mere footnote in a long and proud history of the 
Senate. Unfortunately, today some are trying to revive it with the 
Alito nomination.
  We stand today on the brink of a new and reckless effort by a few to 
deny the rights of many to exercise our constitutional duty to advise 
and consent, to give this man the simple up-or-down vote he deserves. 
The Senate should repudiate this tactic, and it will have an 
opportunity to do that at 4:30 this afternoon.
  There is a role for the filibuster for legislative matters. Although 
I may disagree with its application in a particular legislative case, I 
neither deny the tactic nor begrudge it when a colleague employs that 
tactic when there is good reason to do so. I have done so on many 
occasions myself. I have not seen a good reason for employing it in the 
context of judicial nominations. Nor did any Senate prior to the last 
Congress find that tactic should be employed for judicial nominations.
  It certainly is not warranted in the case of Judge Alito. He is 
clearly qualified. His friends, his peers, and, indeed, his entire life 
story tell us so.
  During his hearings and despite the best efforts of those opposed to 
his nomination, he acquitted himself admirably. Over 18 hours of 
testimony he was asked 677 questions and was able to answer 659 of 
them--truly an impressive feat. In doing so, Judge Alito demonstrated 
an impressive command of the law and a model judicial temperament.
  Now, while Judge Alito conducted himself with grace and dignity, 
unfortunately, some Senators did not. In fact, those who listened most 
attentively to the outside pressure groups, such as one whose top 
lobbyist declared ``you name it, we'll do it to defeat Judge Alito,'' 
could have learned a thing or two about grace and dignity by watching 
Judge Alito perform in the face of the most absurd and baseless 
charges.
  Despite the repeated efforts to caricature Judge Alito, the public's 
support for him only increased. After the hearing, the only thing the 
American public was concerned about with respect to Judge Alito was the 
sometimes shabby treatment he received.
  With Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans resisted 
playing base politics and instead measured those two nominees by the 
traditional confirmation standard of integrity and legal excellence and 
not a political ideology standard. We did not grandstand on the 
colorful--to put it delicately--statements Justice Ginsburg had made 
decades before her nomination such as possibly abolishing Mother's Day 
and Father's Day and statements about purported constitutional rights 
to prostitution and polygamy, to name a few. Nor did Republicans seek 
to disqualify Judge Ginsburg from further judicial service because of 
her longstanding leadership of the ACLU and the controversial positions 
it often takes.
  And Republicans did not succumb to the idea of a reckless filibuster 
to gain the approbation of a newspaper or an interest group.
  If Republicans had wanted to demagogue and defeat the Ginsburg 
nomination, we could have done the things to Justice Ginsburg that have 
been done to Judge Alito. In fact, with her highly controversial 
writings and advocacy for the ACLU, it would have been a lot easier to 
do so, but we exercised self-restraint and self-discipline for the good 
of the country.
  In conclusion, I implore my Democratic friends to consider that to 
engage in these tactics is neither fair nor right. If this 
hyperpoliticization of the judicial confirmation process continues, I 
fear in this moment we will have institutionalized this behavior, and 
some day we will be hard pressed not to employ political tests and 
tactics against a Supreme Court nominee of a Democratic President. In 
that case, no one--Republican or Democrat--will have won.
  I urge my colleagues to desist in this tactic of turning the 
confirmation process of a judge into the functional equivalent of a 
political campaign. It is shortsighted, and we will mourn the day this 
tactic became the norm.
  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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hatch). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary has 
recommended that we consent to the President's nomination of Samuel A. 
Alito, Jr. as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
States. I concur in that recommendation. I am convinced that Judge 
Alito will make an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court and will 
be faithful to his judicial oath in neutrally applying the law without 
imposing his personal, political or ideological views to circumvent the 
law or the Constitution.
  First, I wish to commend Chairman Specter and my former colleagues on 
the Judiciary Committee--including the Presiding Officer--for 
conducting nomination hearings which established clearly Judge Alito's 
fitness to serve on the Nation's highest Court. I followed closely 
Judge Alito's responses to questions during the hearings. I was 
impressed by his profound patience, sincerity, and dedication to the 
ethical restraints which compel all nominees to refrain from 
prejudicing any matter which may come before the court. Many of my 
colleagues have complained that Judge Alito ``did not answer some 
questions.'' Their real complaint rather, is that they simply didn't 
like his answers. Judge Alito quite properly declined, as have all 
prior nominees to the Court, to address in advance specific matters 
which may come before them. As Judge Alito stated:

       If a judge or a judicial nominee announced before even 
     reading the briefs or getting the case or hearing the 
     argument what he or she thought about the ultimate legal 
     issue, all of that would be rendered meaningless, and people 
     would lose all their respect for the judicial system, and 
     with justification, because that's not the way in which 
     members of the judiciary are supposed to go about the work of 
     deciding cases.

  That statement, and the time-honored concept which it embodies, is 
profoundly important. Surely, those of my colleagues who have 
criticized Judge Alito in this regard know better. Surely, they do not 
want Justices on the Court to signal in advance how they will rule on 
cases. To the extent they do, they will be judged by the American 
people as perverting our constitutional system itself.
  Others have criticized Judge Alito because he may hold personal, 
political, or ideological views. We all hold personal views. But the 
role of a judge, unlike that of a legislator, is to apply the law 
without respect to his or her personal, political, or ideological 
views. Judge Alito has demonstrated not only his ability to do this 
during 15 years of service as a judge on the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Third Circuit, but his commitment to this principle in 
responding to questions during his confirmation hearings.
  Fidelity to the Constitution and commitment to the rule of law 
without respect to one's personal views is, at

[[Page 285]]

the end of the day, the only principle that provides legitimacy to the 
Federal judiciary--the only unelected branch of our government. The 
unelected status of the judiciary was, correctly, viewed with 
particular suspicion by the Founders, lest that unique status permit 
judges to impose their own views under the guise of judicial decisions, 
without direct accountability to the American people. In a letter to 
Spencer Roan, March 9, 1821, Jefferson stated:

       The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That 
     body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and 
     unalarming advance, [is] gaining ground step by step. . . . 
     Let the eye of vigilance never be closed.

  And so that vigilance now rests upon this body. Let us be vigilant in 
insisting that justices of the Supreme Court, and all other Federal 
judges who are presented to us, are sufficiently committed to the rule 
of law.
  As I noted during my remarks concerning the nomination of Chief 
Justice Roberts at a time when too many of those in the judicial branch 
have sought to use their lifetime tenured position to advance their own 
personal, ideological, or political preferences in deciding matters 
which come before them; at a time when too many within the legal, media 
and political elites have sought to recast the role of the judiciary 
into a superlegislature, approving of, and even urging judges to 
supplant their views for those of the elected representatives of the 
American people--we should be reminded that such actions and such views 
on the part of some are anticonstitutional and contrary to the rule of 
law itself.
  Describing his own fidelity to the Constitution and to the rule of 
law, Judge Alito told the Committee on the Judiciary:

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

  The standard for rendering advice and consent, which I outlined in my 
statement concerning Chief Justice Roberts, is the standard I will 
apply to Judge Alito as well. That standard--demonstrated commitment to 
the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution--is amply met by 
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. I am pleased to support his nomination and will 
certainly vote to confirm him as Associate Justice of the Supreme 
Court. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Make no mistake about it. The American people do not want to see an 
obstructionist attitude in their legislative body. The American people 
are not benefited by an obstructionist attitude. An obstructionist 
attitude towards Judge Alito means not moving forward with affirming a 
cloture vote and then confirming Alito to be Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court. The American people are best served by a bipartisan 
attitude in this body. I hope when the cloture vote is made at 4:30 we 
will see not just the 60 votes needed to not allow a filibuster but 
that we will see a strong bipartisan vote in support of moving ahead 
with giving Judge Alito an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. 
And tomorrow morning, when we consider the confirmation of Judge Alito, 
I certainly hope that once again we will see a strong bipartisan vote 
confirming Judge Alito as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme 
Court.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from New 
Mexico have allotted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls the time until 2 p.m.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself the time until 5 minutes of 2, and I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Alexander and I be permitted to use 5 
minutes of that time to speak to an unrelated subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Protecting America's Competitive Edge

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to speak about a very 
important issue, the competitiveness of the United States and our 
future standard of living and whether we are going to develop the 
brainpower in America to meet the challenges of the future.
  I compliment two Senators who initiated this endeavor--Lamar 
Alexander of Tennessee and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico. They asked me, 
as chairman of the Energy Committee, if they could pursue a study with 
recommendations about how to achieve competitiveness. They did that. 
Now we have the results of that evaluation in a major report 
hereinafter to be called the Augustine report, named after Dr. 
Augustine, former president of Lockheed Martin. Many people know of him 
in many capacities. That report recommends 20 specific ideas to get 
America back on the track of competitiveness in the world.
  Today I want to tell Senators and the world that in a day of 
confrontation and partisanship the implementation of that study is 
encapsulated in three bills. The bills now have 53 cosponsors. Of 
those, 29 are Republicans, 24 are Democrats. The bills are S. 2197, S. 
2198, and S. 2199. Three Senators of the 23 have cosponsored only one 
portion.
  At this early date, to have that many cosponsors is rather historic. 
This means we are going to proceed with the legislation. I am going to 
yield some time now to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, 
closing by saying that the essence of this report says: America, 
produce better brainpower in math, science, and physics; produce more 
engineers of all types; produce more research in basic science; cause 
business to invest through tax credits--and do it as soon as possible. 
Without this, the report says, we will perish.
  Lastly, I want my friend from Tennessee to listen to just one fact. 
We have at various times attempted to equate what we do with what we 
ought to do. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, recently shocked a DC audience 
with a troubling statistic. He said:

       If you want good manufacturing jobs, one thing you could do 
     is educate more engineers. We had more sports exercise majors 
     graduate than electrical engineering majors last year.

  Based on that statistic, he added:

       If you want to be the massage capital of the world, you are 
     well on your way.

  That is very interesting. With that, out of my time, I yield to the 
Senator from Tennessee 3 or 4 minutes to speak to this bill, which is 
called the PACE legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. 
First, there is nothing more important, along with the war on terror, 
than finding a way to keep our jobs from going to China, India, and 
other countries around the world. They have figured out how to increase 
their standard of living, and it has to do with brainpower.
  What I want to say today is, first, I congratulate Senator Domenici, 
without whose leadership this would not have gotten to first base. He 
encouraged Senator Bingaman and I to go to work. He got our meeting 
with the President. It was he who presided over our homework sessions 
with the administration. It is he who has taken the leadership with 
Senator Bingaman on this bill to have 55 cosponsors prior to the 
President's speech tomorrow night. So I thank him first.
  Second, I reiterate where this idea came from. It came not from 
Senators, not from lobbyists, nor from this or that clique. Senator 
Bingaman and I asked the people who should know--the experts at the 
National Academies--sthe answer to this question: exactly what do we 
need to do to keep our advantage in science and technology over the 
next 10 years so we can keep our jobs? They answered that question with 
20 specific recommendations involving kindergarten through the 12th 
grade education, higher education, basic research, maintaining an 
entrepreneurial environment. These are ideas that many Senators on both 
sides of the aisle have advocated for several years, but the fact that 
the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, and the 
National Academy of Engineering joined together to say ``here is the 
blueprint'' is the reason this idea has gone so far. What it does is 
help keep our edge in science and technology.

[[Page 286]]

  I am looking forward to the President's remarks tomorrow night. It is 
my hope that he makes the Augustine report and the whole idea of 
keeping America on top and keeping our edge in science and technology a 
focus of his speech and of his next 3 years.
  So it is my privilege today to ask unanimous consent on behalf of 
Senators Domenici, Bingaman, and myself to add as cosponsors Senators 
Lautenberg, Johnson, McConnell, Snowe, and now Senator Specter of 
Pennsylvania, who have asked to be added to S. 2197, S. 2198, and S. 
2199 as cosponsors, as well as Senator Reed of Rhode Island who has 
asked to be added as a cosponsor of S. 2197, so that we now have 54 
cosponsors of these important pieces of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from Senator Bingaman and myself, encouraged by Senator Domenici, to 
the National Academy of Sciences on May 27, 2005, and a two-page 
summary of the Domenici-Bingaman-Alexander-Mikulski legislation, which 
has 54 cosponsors, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 27, 2005.
     Dr. Bruce Alberts,
     President, National Academy of Sciences,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Dr. Alberts: The Energy Subcommittee of the Senate 
     Energy and Natural Resources Committee has been given the 
     latitude by Chairman Pete Domenici to hold a series of 
     hearings to identify specific steps our government should 
     take to ensure the preeminence of America's scientific and 
     technological enterprise.
       The National Academies could provide critical assistance in 
     this effort by assembling some of the best minds in the 
     scientific and technical community to identify the most 
     urgent challenges the United States faces in maintaining 
     leadership in key areas of science and technology. 
     Specifically, we would appreciate a report from the National 
     Academies by September 2005 that addresses the following:
       Is it essential for the United States to be at the 
     forefront of research in broad areas of science and 
     engineering? How does this leadership translate into concrete 
     benefits as evidenced by the competitiveness of American 
     businesses and an ability to meet key goals such as 
     strengthening national security and homeland security, 
     improving health, protecting the environment, and reducing 
     dependence on imported oil?
       What specific steps are needed to ensure that the United 
     States maintains its leadership in science and engineering to 
     enable us to successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in 
     the global community of the 21st century? How can we 
     determine whether total federal research investment is 
     adequate, whether it is properly balanced among research 
     disciplines (considering both traditional research areas and 
     new multidisciplinary fields such as nanotechnology), and 
     between basic and applied research?
       How do we ensure that the United States remains at the 
     epicenter of the ongoing revolution in research and 
     innovation that is driving 21st century economies? How can we 
     assure investors that America is the preferred site for 
     investments in new or expanded businesses that create the 
     best jobs and provide the best services?
       How can we ensure that critical discoveries across all the 
     scientific disciplines are predominantly American and 
     exploited first by firms producing and hiring in America? How 
     can we best encourage domestic firms to invest in invention 
     and innovation to meet new global competition and how can 
     public research investments best supplement these private 
     sector investments?
       What specific steps are needed to develop a well-educated 
     workforce able to successfully embrace the rapid pace of 
     technological change?
       Your answers to these questions will help Congress design 
     effective programs to ensure that America remains at the 
     forefront of scientific capability, thereby enhancing our 
     ability to shape and improve our nation's future.
       We look forward to reviewing the results of your efforts.
           Sincerely,
     Lamar Alexander,
       Chairman, Energy Subcommittee.
     Jeff Bingaman,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
                                  ____


            PACE Act: Protecting America's Competitive Edge

       Focuses on keeping America's science and technology edge--
     as much as 85 percent of our per capita growth in incomes 
     since World War II has come from science and technology.
       Helps America continue to set the PACE in the competitive 
     world marketplace.
       Keeps our brainpower edge by strengthening K-12 math and 
     science education, attracting bright college students to the 
     sciences and investing in basic research.
       In a package of three bills, the PACE Act implements 20 
     recommendations contained in an October report by the 
     National Academy of Science titled ``Rising Above the 
     Gathering Storm.''
       Protecting America's Competitive Edge through Energy Act 
     (PACE-Energy): Increasing our investment in energy research 
     and in educating future American scientists.
       Protecting America's Competitive Edge through Education and 
     Research (PACE-Education): Investing in current and future 
     math and science teachers and K-12 students, attracting 
     bright international students, and investing in non-energy 
     related basic research.
       Protecting America's Competitive Edge through Tax 
     Incentives (PACE-Finance): Doubling the research & 
     development tax credit and allowing a credit for employee 
     education.


                    Key Provisions of the PACE Acts

     Strengthening the nation's traditional commitment to research
       More research opportunities for scientists and engineers: 
     Increases basic research spending by up to 10 percent per 
     year for seven years at several federal agencies, including 
     the national laboratories. This investment would generate 
     hundreds, maybe thousands, of new inventions and high-tech 
     companies.
       Targeted research grants for early career scientists and 
     engineers: Creates a special research fund for 200 
     outstanding young researchers across the nation each year.
       New federal funds to buy equipment and upgrade research 
     laboratories: Provides a special pool of funds for the 
     nation's research infrastructure to purchase updated research 
     equipment and upgrade lab capabilities.
       A New Agency for Transformational Energy Research: 
     Establishes a new research agency within the Department of 
     Energy tasked with developing transformational energy 
     technologies that bridge the gap between scientific discovery 
     and new energy innovations. This agency would be patterned on 
     the management practices of a Pentagon research agency 
     (DARPA) that contributed to innovations like the Internet, 
     stealth technology and global positioning systems.
       High-Risk, High-Payoff Research: Directs federal research 
     agencies to develop guidelines that allow eight percent of 
     R&D budgets to be devoted to high-risk, high-payoff research 
     which falls outside the peer review and budget allocation 
     process.
     Improving K-12 Science/Math Education
       Scholarships for Future Teachers of Math & Science: Each 
     year, up to 10,000 bright students would receive a 4-year 
     scholarship to earn a bachelor's degree in science, 
     engineering or math, while concurrently earning teacher 
     certification. In exchange for these scholarships, they would 
     be expected to serve for at least four years as a math or 
     science teacher.
       Math & Science Teacher Training Programs: Funds part of the 
     costs for new math and science teacher training programs 
     based in math and science departments at universities across 
     the country. These programs will stress a solid content 
     knowledge of their subject while also providing the training 
     necessary for teacher certification.
       Summer Academies for Teachers: National laboratories and 
     universities across the country would host 1-2 week academies 
     each summer for up to 50,000 math and science teachers so 
     they can get some hands-on experience and take back new, 
     improved ideas for energizing their students.
       Advanced Placement Courses in Math & Science: The federal 
     government would provide funding to help establish non-profit 
     organizations to promote Advanced Placement (AP) classes in 
     math and science--tripling the number of students who could 
     join these college-preparatory programs that consistently 
     produce the highest achievers.
       Specialty Math & Science High Schools: States would be 
     eligible to apply for a grant from the federal government to 
     help establish a new high school specializing in math and 
     science that students from across each state could attend.
       Internships and Summer Programs for Middle and High School 
     Students: Provides unique internship and program 
     opportunities for middle and high school students at national 
     labs and other technology and scientific research facilities.
     Increasing the Talent Pool by Improving Higher Education
       Scholarships and Fellowships for Future Scientists: Each 
     year, up to 25,000 bright young Americans would receive a 4-
     year competitive scholarship to earn a bachelor's degree in 
     science, engineering or math, so that our brightest students 
     pursue studies in these fields which are so critical to our 
     economic growth. Up to 5,000 students who have already earned 
     their bachelor's degree, would compete to receive graduate 
     research fellowships to cover education costs and provide a 
     stipend.

[[Page 287]]

       Attracting the Brightest Foreign Students to our 
     Universities: Provides an efficient student visa process for 
     bright foreign students to come here to study math, 
     technology, engineering and science and then to stay here--
     contributing to our economic growth rather than being forced 
     by an outdated immigration system to go home and produce the 
     best new technology in India or China.
     Growing our Economy by Providing Incentives for Innovation
       Doubling the Research & Development Tax Credit to Encourage 
     Innovation: Doubles the current R&D tax credit and makes it 
     permanent--so companies conduct ground-breaking, job-
     producing research here, rather than building new facilities 
     overseas.
       Creating a Tax Credit to Encourage Employers to Invest in 
     Employees' Education: Establishes a new tax credit to cover 
     costs from providing continuing education to employees--so 
     employees can learn cutting-edge skills.
       Development of Science Parks: Supports the development of 
     science parks through infrastructure planning grants and loan 
     guarantees so that U.S. science parks are competitive with 
     those throughout Asia.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say what a privilege it is today 
to speak once again to the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice and to 
the advice and consent function of the Senate.
  I came here in 1972, so there have been a lot of men and women 
nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States. In my time here, I 
have voted to confirm them all. I based my vote, first, on the fact 
that the President of the United States recommended them and second, on 
whether they were qualified. I determined whether they were qualified 
based upon outside evaluations and personal observations of those who 
knew, trained and taught that particular nominee. For example, I found 
Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, who were confirmed 96-to-3 and 87-to-9, 
to be qualified. In my opinion, neither of those judges, based upon the 
way the Senate is doing things these days, would have come close to 
getting those kinds of votes. As a matter of fact, for those who 
threaten filibuster, I believe there is a serious question.
  If filibusters would have been the rule of the day, at least one of 
those nominees might very well have been filibustered, and the 
filibuster might have been successful. But that wasn't the way things 
were done.
  Qualification was the question upon which we based our decisions; 
that has changed. Rancor has taken the place of reason. Partisanship 
has taken the place of responsibility and fairness. At every step of 
the process with this nominee, the American people have seen what a 
confirmation process can turn into if it is not vested and fair, but is 
instead full of what can be considered as almost hatred, almost fire 
and brimstone. Our colleagues have focused on the negatives of 
everything, however small or irrelevant. Currently, the trend is not to 
do what we have done, which has resulted in some great judges, but 
rather to be fed by the flames of partisan special interests that want 
assurances--they want guarantees.
  I personally believe this is a dangerous course, and I hope and pray 
that this will be the last time we follow such procedure. But I doubt 
that it will be, although I believe such actions are wrong. Rejecting 
the judicial philosophy tests being urged by some is absolutely 
imperative.
  When we apply the appropriate test of qualification, there is no 
doubt that Judge Alito is qualified. He is qualified to be a Supreme 
Court Justice. The American public realizes this and that is why they 
overwhelmingly indicate that we should get on with this and vote. It is 
clear that there has been no nominee--and the occupant of the chair has 
seen many--that has spread before the eyes of the Congress and the 
public more about themselves, their record, their philosophy, their 
vote, their rationale, and their ethics than this man.
  The President, indeed, took a big chance with this nomination because 
to have that much of a record and have a vote and all that goes with it 
here was, indeed, a giant risk. But it paid off because Judge Alito is 
what he purported to be--a scholarly, terrific judge, who is without 
any question, distinguished.
  My second point concerns ``guarantees.'' I believe some members of 
the Judiciary Committee questioned this judge in an effort to get some 
guarantees about how he would vote. It is amazing to consider some of 
the Supreme Court Justices who have been approved by the Senate based 
on their testimony and their record, which were presumed to be 
commitments or guarantees as to how they would vote. We can look back 
to Justice Warren from California as well as two or three members of 
the Court right now. Those who voted for such judges could have, 
indeed, thought they were getting guarantees, and it has turned out not 
to be the case. Those judges' philosophy, their votes, and everything 
else has been different on the Court than what they appeared to be 
guaranteeing during the confirmation process.
  There are no guarantees. Those who are making this a partisan fight 
won't say: We don't have any guarantees, on Roe v. Wade and many other 
issues, that Judge Alito will vote the way we want him to--they won't 
say they are doing that. They will use other words like ``I am 
bothered,'' but that is really their argument.
  Now, as to the cloture vote this afternoon--we are going to do that. 
I have never had to make that vote in 34 years--on 11 Supreme Court 
nominees. I never had to make that vote. Why? Because this Senate has 
not used the filibuster on Supreme Court Justices. Some people say, oh, 
yes we have, or, yes, we almost did. But we did not, and we surely 
didn't when a majority was for the man or woman. That is the case here.
  To have to take this route, I believe the process is headed in the 
wrong direction. To require cloture is not the way to do it. It is not 
in tune with the history of the Senate. It contradicts the significance 
of this body as a fair-minded, deliberative body. I regret to say that 
with no particular people in mind. If the shoe fits, fine. If it fits 
no one, fine. But this has turned into nothing more than a political 
war. Those who are going to vote to continue debate, many of them know 
that this man is as qualified as anyone we are going to get. He is as 
assured to make as good of decisions on behalf of the American people 
as anyone we are going to get. And he is equally as assured to vote 
different than many of us who will vote for or against him expect. Of 
that, I have no doubt.
  I regret that it has taken us so long to confirm Judge Alito. I 
regret that it has turned into the spectacle that it has. But perhaps 
today we will invoke cloture, change things from where they are to 
where they should be, and with an up-or-down vote tomorrow, this 
deserving, honest, well-informed, good man will be confirmed.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Presiding Officer knows that I don't 
always agree with him or he with me, but in response to the Senator 
from New Mexico about the process here, the Presiding Officer was 
exemplary in how Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg were chosen to be 
members of the Supreme Court. There have been books written about it 
and chapters of books written about it.
  The Presiding Officer, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in 
communication with President Clinton, said: I don't like this person, 
this person, this person. And so there was a process set up, nonpublic 
in nature, where the chairman of the Judiciary Committee conferred with 
the President and his people and waded through lots of names that, in 
the judgment of the distinguished Senator from Utah, were not 
appropriate. Now we have two Members on the Supreme Court whom I think 
have distinguished themselves.
  I wish we could have a procedure like that in the future. I think, I 
repeat, it was exemplary. That is the way things used to be done. I 
would hope in the future that the President's men and women would be 
willing to meet with their counterparts in the Senate and come up with 
a procedure that is somewhat along the lines of the distinguished 
Senator from Utah. I would hope that would be the case.
  The hearings of Ginsburg and Breyer were short and directly to the 
point. I

[[Page 288]]

hope in the future we can do more of that. I extend my applause and 
congratulations to the Senator from Utah. No matter what happens in the 
future regarding the long career of the Senator from Utah in the 
Senate, this, as far as I am concerned, will be an important chapter in 
his public service.


               The President's State of the Union Message

  Mr. President, tomorrow night, the President of the United States 
will come to the Capitol and deliver his fifth State of the Union 
Address. This is an important moment for the President and for the 
country. Some say, reading the op-eds over the last week or so, this 
may be the most difficult speech the President will ever give.
  The President comes to the Capitol in the midst of also what some 
write about as the greatest culture of corruption since Watergate. 
Public trust has dropped significantly in this culture in Washington, 
and I need not run through all the problems, but I will run through 
some of them.
  The majority leader in the House of Representatives was convicted 
three times of ethics violations. They even went so far as to change 
the rules so he could stay in his position after having been indicted. 
They changed the rules back because the hue and cry of the American 
people was so intense.
  For the first time in 135 years, someone is indicted working in the 
White House. Mr. Safavian, appointed by the President to handle 
Government contracting--hundreds of billions of dollars a year--is led 
away from his office in handcuffs as a result of his dealings with Jack 
Abramoff and others.
  So I think in his speech, the President is obligated to the American 
people to show that he is committed to restoring the bonds of trust and 
repairing the damage done by this corruption.
  Americans know the country can do better today, and after the year we 
had, a year of trying to privatize Social Security, Katrina, failures 
in Iraq, Terri Schiavo, and a heavy heart I have, Mr. President, as a 
result of how a good woman was--I would not say destroyed because she 
was not; she is stronger than that. But Harriet Miers, how she was 
treated is unbelievable. A good woman was treated so poorly, and the 
people who tried to destroy her are the ones being rewarded now with 
the Alito nomination. Then, of course, this past year we had Medicare 
prescription drugs come into being, which is a puzzle that no one can 
figure out.
  So the American people, after this year we have had, simply will no 
longer be able to blindly accept the President's promises and give him 
the benefit of the doubt.
  Americans will be looking past his rhetoric tomorrow night and taking 
a hard look at the results he intends to deliver. The President's State 
of the Union Message is a credibility test. Will he acknowledge the 
real state of our Union and offer to take our country down a path that 
unites us and makes us stronger, or will he give us more of the same 
empty promises and partisanship that has weakened our country and 
divided Americans for the last 5 years?
  If he takes the first approach, together, Democrats and Republicans 
can build a stronger America. If he gives us more of the same empty 
promises and Orwellian doublespeak, we know he intends to spend 2006 
putting his political fortunes ahead of America's fortunes. We need a 
fresh start, and I hope President Bush realizes that tomorrow night.
  There is much more at stake in his speech than poll numbers. Empty 
promises will no longer work. We need a credible roadmap for our 
future, and we need the President to tell us how together we can 
achieve the better America we all deserve.
  Our first signal that the President intends to move our country 
forward will come in his assessment of the state of our Union. It is 
not credible for the President to suggest the state of the Union is as 
strong as it should be. The fact is, America can do much better. From 
health care to national security, this Republican corruption in 
Washington has taken its toll on our country. We can see it in the 
state of our Union.
  What is the state of our Union? The state of our Union is that we are 
less safe in this world than we were 4\1/2\ years ago because the White 
House has decided protecting its political power is more important than 
protecting the American people.
  We are the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world. Shouldn't 
we be the healthiest? Frankly, we are not because this administration 
decided to take care of the big pharmaceutical companies, the drug 
companies, the HMOs, managed care, instead of 46 million uninsured.
  We have a national debt climbing past $8 trillion. I have a letter I 
received a short time ago from the Secretary of the Treasury saying the 
debt is at $8.2 trillion and we need to raise it more. Over $9 trillion 
is what they are asking because the President squandered the strongest 
economy in the history of this country with reckless spending and 
irresponsible tax breaks for special interests and multimillionaires.
  We have an addiction to foreign oil that has climbed steadily over 
the last 4 years and doubled the price of heat for our homes and gas 
for our cars because the Vice President let big oil companies write our 
energy policy. And we have too many middle-class families living 
literally on the financial cliff. All statistics show the rich are 
getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is 
squeezing smaller and smaller all the time.
  The economic policies of this administration over 5 years has placed 
the needs of the wealthy and well connected ahead of working Americans.
  If President Bush is committed to making America stronger, he will 
acknowledge these facts Tuesday night. He will admit the steep price 
Americans have paid for this corruption, and he will proceed to tell us 
how he can make our country stronger.
  Our second clue that the President is committed to moving America 
forward will come in his remarks about national security. Tomorrow 
night, it is not credible for the President to tell us he has done all 
he can to keep Americans safe for the last 5 years. We know that 
because we have had vote after vote on the Senate floor to take care of 
our chemical plants, our nuclear power facilities, to check the cargo 
coming into this country, what is in the belly of that airplane in the 
cargo, and vote after vote, on a strictly party-line basis, we have 
lost.
  For all of this tough talk, President Bush's policies have made 
America less safe. His failed record speaks for itself.
  Osama bin Laden, the man who attacked us on 9/11, remains on the 
loose because, in his rush to invade Iraq, the President took his eye 
off the ball when we had him cornered in a place called Tora Bora, 
Afghanistan.
  As a result, he is gone. We don't know where he is, and he continues 
to threaten us today in his taunting, vicious, evil manner.
  Then there is the President's ``axis of evil.'' Four years ago, the 
President declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea an ``axis of evil'' 
whose nuclear threats posed risk to the American people, and he was 
right. Well, mostly right. Instead of pursuing the correct policy to 
make it safer, he invaded Iraq. Now two members of the ``axis of 
evil''--North Korea and Iran--are more dangerous, and after spending 
billions of dollars and losing 2,300 American lives, we found out that 
the third, Iraq, didn't pose a nuclear threat at all.
  Then there is what this President has done to our military. Not only 
has he failed to properly equip our troops for battle--we know the 
stories are all over the country about 80 percent of our people who 
have been injured--that is 18,000 and 2,300 dead--80 percent of them 
would have been hurt less, many lives would have been saved had they 
had the body armor that was available.
  According to the Pentagon's independent studies, the Pentagon is 
stretched--stretched in a manner, as indicated in the paper today, as 
having mass advancements in rank, which they have never done before, 
because they are trying to keep people in the military, among other 
things. Our forces are stretched entirely too thin.
  The President's poor planning and refusal to change course in Iraq 
has made progress in 2006 harder to achieve. He

[[Page 289]]

has made it more difficult to spread democracy around the world because 
he has been undermining it right here at home.
  As Katrina made clear, he failed in the 4 years after 9/11 to prepare 
America for the threats we face. New Orleans could have been anyplace 
in America. The difference with Katrina is we had warning it was 
coming. But other threats, that won't be the case.
  America can do better. Tomorrow night, the President needs to provide 
a new way forward. Partisan attacks will only divide us. What we need 
is for the President to rally the country around our most important 
goal: protecting our people and our way of life.
  Democrats have always been willing to work with President Bush to 
make America more secure. We know our national security policy is not 
the place for political games. Democrats look forward to hearing how 
the Commander in Chief will govern and hope we have seen the swagger 
and partisanship of the ``campaigner in chief'' for the last time.
  Our third signal that President Bush understands what it will take to 
make the State of the Union strong will come when he talks about health 
care. Again, we are the wealthiest Nation in the history of the world. 
Shouldn't we be the healthiest? We are not. Because of the President's 
inaction on health care over the last 5 years, America faces a health 
care crisis of staggering proportions. There are 46 million Americans 
with no health insurance and millions more who are underinsured.
  The cost of health care premiums has doubled since 2001. 
Manufacturing giants, such as Ford and General Motors, are laying off 
tens of thousands of people for lots of reasons, but one reason is 
health care costs have skyrocketed.
  With a record such as that, it is not credible for the President to 
claim he has a vision to make health care affordable. He needs to 
present us new ideas that will move America forward, not trot out the 
same tired old policies that serve special interests and not the 
American people. Press reports, I fear, indicate we are in for the same 
old tired ideas. It is rumored that President Bush will again focus on 
something called health savings accounts.
  This administration has taught me that what I learned in college 
studying George Orwell has some validity today. We have Orwellian 
doublespeak such as the Healthy Forests Initiative, one piece of 
legislation that was for clearcutting of trees and other things to make 
our forests less healthy; our Clear Skies Initiative, which polluted 
the skies; Leave No Child Behind, which is leaving children behind; and 
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Talk about Orwellian doublespeak; 
using the President's own numbers, the Deficit Reduction Act increased 
the deficit by $50 billion.
  Now he comes up with Health Savings Accounts. That is classic Bush 
doublespeak. It is not a credible solution to the health care crisis. 
This plan will force most Americans to spend more on health care while 
making it less available to millions of others. HSAs are nothing more 
than another giveaway to the same people the President has favored over 
hard-working Americans for the past 5 years. In fact, remember Social 
Security privatization? HSAs, or Health Savings Accounts, are a lot 
like that. They do nothing to solve the real problem. They make the 
situation worse for the American people and they create a financial 
windfall for the President's friends: HMOs, insurance companies and, of 
course, Wall Street, that will set up all these accounts.
  We do not need the President to offer more of the same on health 
care. We saw with the President's Medicare prescription drug plan that 
his policies too often put special interests ahead of the American 
people. Ask any senior citizen today about how the Medicare plan has 
helped them. Even if they could work a crossword puzzle out of the New 
York Times on Sunday, which is the hardest, day after day after day, 
they still couldn't solve the Medicare Program of President Bush. It is 
impossible.
  What we need is a new direction, one that puts families first. 
Democrats believe that addressing the health care crisis is not just a 
moral imperative, but it is also vital to our economic security and 
leadership in the world. Every day we go without reform is another day 
America takes another step backward from a position as global leader.
  For our families, we must make health care affordable and accessible. 
For our businesses, we must remove the burden of skyrocketing costs 
that is holding our businesses, our economy, and our workers back in 
the global marketplace.
  Our fourth clue that the President knows what America needs will come 
in his remarks about the economy. After all we have seen in the past 5 
years, it will not be credible for the President to claim our economy 
is growing, that his plan to reduce his deficits--and I say his 
deficits--is working, and that Congress is to blame for spending and 
bad decisions. The truth is, the fiscal nightmare we see today belongs 
to President Bush and President Bush alone.
  I love to watch golf on TV. I know I am not like a lot of people, I 
should be watching football or basketball or something. I love to watch 
golf on TV. It is a game of chess. Yesterday, Tiger Woods--this guy is 
fantastic. He is seven strokes behind after the first day. He has a bad 
day yesterday and wins the tournament. He has a bad day and wins the 
tournament.
  I mentioned records--he holds all kinds of records. That was the 47th 
tournament he won--quicker than anyone else, of course. He just turned 
30 years old. He won the Buick Open four times. That is what he won 
yesterday. He holds record after record. I mention these records 
because President Bush holds all the records. The highest deficit, he 
holds them all. There is not a close second. He has them all.
  It is not a record the American people envy, such as that of Tiger 
Woods. His financial record has bankrupted this country. We are going 
to be asked in a couple of days to increase the deficit ceiling--over 
$8.2 trillion.
  Here is another doublespeak Orwell would be proud of we are likely to 
hear tomorrow night. I am sure we are going to talk about the Bush 
competitive agenda. The President can talk all he wants about making 
America competitive, but for 5 years he has done nothing to keep 
America in the game. From what we have read in the press, this plan 
sounds like more empty rhetoric from a President who has spent 5 years 
slashing the funding we need to stay on the cutting edge. He shut the 
doors to thousands of college students by supporting cuts in student 
aid. He has allowed our country to fall further behind our trading 
partners. It is no accident what is happening in South America. 
President Reagan, President Clinton, and the first President Bush 
worked hard to democratize Central and South America. These countries 
are losing their democracy edge because we have so neglected them.
  He has lavished billions on big oil instead of investing in American 
technology and know-how to make us more energy independent. We need to 
hear new economic ideas tomorrow night. The President needs to tell us 
how he is going to begin paying down the debt, his debt, so our 
children and our grandchildren do not pay the price for his reckless 
fiscal record.
  It is so startling to me that Republicans--when I started my 
political career, they were the ones concerned about deficits. They 
have created them. They don't complain about them. It is stunning to 
me. The President has not vetoed a single spending bill. Of course, he 
hasn't vetoed anything, but why should he? We don't have separate 
branches of Government while he is here; the Republican Congress does 
whatever he wants. Maybe beginning the sixth year that will not be the 
case.
  We need the President to speak honestly about tax relief, about 
middle-class families and how they deal with these energy prices. The 
truth about the Bush tax cuts is multimillionaires stand, with his 
newest proposal, to get over $100,000 while the average working family 
will receive pennies on that. The President's priorities are upside 
down. It is time for him to join us and bring fairness to our Tax Code.

[[Page 290]]

  Democrats are ready to work with President Bush, but he needs to 
commit to policies that put the needs of hard-working Americans first. 
One final signal that President Bush is committed to making America 
stronger will come on the issue of reform. Because of connections to 
the culture of corruption and stonewalling about Jack Abramoff, it is 
not credible for President Bush to claim the moral high ground on 
values as an honest government. President Bush needs to set an example, 
if he is going to lead our country forward tomorrow night. He needs to 
come clean about his connections to corruption, with Abramoff--as 
Republicans have called for. Hagel, Thune--Republican Senators have 
called for this. Too many Republicans have shown in recent days that we 
are going to obscure the facts and move on.
  There is legislation pending. We do not need a task force. We need 
Senators Lieberman and Collins to go ahead with the hearings and decide 
what needs to be done. Our legislation may not be perfect, but it is 
legislation we need to start with.
  It is Republicans who control the White House where men are willing 
to break the law and ignore America's best interests so they can 
protect their political power. Safavian, Libby, Rove--it is Republicans 
who control the Congress which sold its soul to special interests and a 
Republican rightwing base, a base that has its sights set on stacking 
our courts with extremist judges. They have acknowledged that. It has 
been K Street, the so-called K Street Project, that has conspired with 
lawmakers to put the well connected first, going so far as having them 
not hire Democrats to work as representatives.
  We have a plan to reform Washington. We need to bring it to the 
Senate floor. We need to do that. President Bush has to join with us. 
Anything less, we will know the President has no interest in changing 
his ways and making America stronger.
  The President faces a tremendous test tomorrow night. It is up to him 
to prove to the American people he intends to denounce the culture of 
corruption that has come to Washington since he arrived and change 
direction in 2006. Democrats are ready to work with President Bush in 
order to move our country forward because we believe that together, 
America can do better. So tomorrow night I hope President Bush will 
join us in putting progress ahead of politics so we can have a State of 
the Union that is as honest and strong as the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the 
President's nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to the Supreme Court of 
the United States. I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this 
and to present reasons why my conclusion is going to be as it is.
  It is no secret that Judge Alito is from my home State and I was 
honored to introduce him to the Judiciary Committee. I talked with him 
privately in my office. He is an accomplished jurist from a 
distinguished family in New Jersey, and at that hearing our colleague 
from Pennsylvania, Chairman Arlen Specter, asked me if I was endorsing 
Judge Alito for this position and I told him I was just presenting 
evidence to the committee and I will let the record speak for itself. I 
was not going to make any prejudgments. I wanted to hear from Judge 
Alito. I wanted to listen to his answers to my colleagues' questions.
  This nomination, as all are when it comes to the Supreme Court, is an 
incredibly important moment for our Nation--particularly because Judge 
Alito has been nominated to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. 
Justice O'Connor, over the past 25 years, has proven she is not an 
ideologically conservative Justice or a liberal Justice. She has not 
brought an agenda to the Court. That is why Justice O'Connor has been 
such an important swing vote--because she always studied the facts and 
the law and tried to apply them fairly.
  I did not always agree with her. But, like many Americans, I knew she 
came at these legal questions fairly and with an open mind. She showed 
respect for precedent. She put the law above her personal beliefs. In 
my view, it is critical that we replace Justice O'Connor with someone 
who shares her openminded approach of looking at the law and the facts 
with no political agenda. Even the mere threat of legal activism on 
this Supreme Court threatens the future of this country and the rights 
of our children, our grandchildren, and other generations.
  Many legal experts--judges, lawyers, professors--have contacted me 
regarding this nomination. Some supported him, some opposed him. Many 
of these experts tried to convince me one way or the other. But when I 
listened to Judge Alito's hearings in the Judiciary Committee, I 
listened with the faces of my grandchildren in my mind; with the 
thoughts of ordinary people who depend on the fairness of our society. 
I was applying Judge Alito's philosophy to the real problems of 
everyday people--in New Jersey and across the Nation.
  I often hear many concerns from my constituents about how powerless 
they feel in the face of insurance companies that are often indifferent 
to their plight, or as an employee unfairly treated in the workplace. 
What rights do everyday Americans have in the face of giant 
corporations or unchecked Government power? At the hearing, it was 
clear that Judge Alito almost always lined up against the little guy 
and with the big corporations and Government. That is the side he came 
out on. In fact, the Knight-Ridder study of Judge Alito's rulings 
showed that he ``seldom sided with . . . an employee alleging 
discrimination or consumers suing big business.''
  The Washington Post analysis of all divided opinions on the Third 
Circuit involving Judge Alito found that he ``has sided against three 
of every four people who claim to have been victims of discrimination'' 
and ``routinely . . . defers to government officials and others in a 
position of government authority.''
  I don't think that is what our Founders wanted when they designed the 
Constitution.
  I want to give two examples. In Bray v. Marriott, an African-American 
motel worker in Park Ridge, NJ, alleged discrimination against her 
employer. The Third Circuit ruled that she deserved her day in court 
because there was enough evidence of discrimination. But Judge Alito 
dissented, citing concerns about the cost of trials to employers. 
Listen to that--citing concerns about the cost of trials to employers. 
I wonder if the Constitution makes any reference to that or does it say 
everybody should have equal rights when it comes to hearing their case 
in the courtroom?
  The other judges in that case criticized Judge Alito's dissent, 
saying that if it were law, then the employment discrimination laws 
would have no real effect.
  In another case, Sheridan v. Dupont, Judge Alito was the only judge 
of 11 judges who heard the case to find against a woman's claim of 
gender discrimination. Judge Alito stated that the alleged victim 
should not even get a trial. That is absolutely contrary to what our 
country is about. This is a nation of laws. The other judges were so 
distressed by Judge Alito's decision that they said ``the judicial 
system has little to gain by Judge Alito's approach.''
  So if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court we ask ourselves the 
question: Will Judge Alito make it more difficult for the everyday 
people to protect themselves and their families against the power of 
big business and unchecked Government? Do they need the help? Is that 
what we are talking about when we enact laws here? I hope not.
  Unfortunately, it appears almost certain.
  Regarding individual rights, there was a very disturbing exchange in 
the hearing involving the Constitutional right to reproductive choice.
  Senator Durbin asked Judge Alito if he would agree with Chief Justice 
Roberts' statement that the right to choose is ``settled law.'' It 
seems to me that it was a ``no-brainer''--of course it is settled law. 
It has been on the books for 33 years and upheld 38 times.

[[Page 291]]

  You don't have to go to law school to figure that one out.
  But Judge Alito refused to say it was ``settled law.'' To me it was a 
telling moment in the hearings.
  I am not a lawyer, but I understand this: The right to choose is 
settled law. That means that is the law as it is seen by Judge Roberts, 
Chief Justice.
  Judge Alito's refusal to acknowledge that the right to choose is 
settled law indicates to me that, even before he sits on the Supreme 
Court, he intends to overturn Roe v. Wade.
  That is the interpretation I make from that.
  For everyday New Jerseyans, especially our State's women, that would 
be the realization of a nightmare. We do not want to turn back the 
clock on women's rights. Even if abortions become illegal, they will 
still happen--but largely in unsafe conditions. It's a nightmare that I 
do not want to risk happening.
  Then there is the issue of abuse of power and the power of the 
Presidency.
  Growing up in New Jersey, it is clear that our state is proud of our 
role in the American War for Independence. More battles of the 
Revolutionary War were fought in New Jersey than in any other state. 
The most famous image of that war is George Washington crossing the 
Delaware River at Trenton.
  New Jersey is a state of immigrants. Many New Jerseyans came to 
America to escape kings, despots and dictators. So we understand why we 
fought the War of Independence to get rid of King George.
  America doesn't want a king or an ``imperial President.'' Neither 
does New Jersey. That's why we have three co-equal branches of 
government.
  So when Judge Alito talked about his theory of a ``unitary 
executive''--a President above the other two branches of government--I 
found that very troubling.
  The Father of our Nation, George Washington, warned the American 
people about allowing a leader to claim too much power. In his farewell 
address to the nation, Washington indicated his concern about the 
Presidency becoming too powerful.
  He said we should avoid allowing:

       the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach 
     upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate 
     the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, 
     whatever the form of government, a real despotism.

  Those are Washington's words. But they have a real resonance today.
  The current administration claims a power beyond the laws that 
Congress has set. It is an administration that believes it can spy on 
Americans without a warrant, despite specific laws to the contrary. 
These are the kinds of abuses that caused the citizens of New Jersey 
and the other American colonies to rise up against King George
  We don't want a King. And we don't want to create a Supreme Court 
that will crown this President--or any future President--Republican or 
Democratic.
  The question before us is not a generic question of whether Judge 
Alito is qualified for the Supreme Court. The real question is whether 
Judge Alito is the right person for this seat on the Supreme Court. The 
seat at issue is Sandra Day O'Connor's seat. It is a seat held by a 
middle of the road, balanced justice.
  As I noted during my testimony introducing Judge Alito to the 
Judiciary Committee: he is a young man. If the Senate confirms him for 
a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, he might serve for three 
decades--or even longer. His decisions would affect not only our 
rights, but also the rights of our children, our grandchildren and 
other future generations.
  That's why, after careful consideration and deliberation, I have 
decided to vote no on the confirmation of Judge Alito. He is a good, 
decent man--an ethical man. I do not think he subscribes to any bigoted 
views. But I believe there is a grave risk that he carries a legal 
agenda with him, one that he will bring to the Supreme Court.
  I don't think this is a black-and-white issue. I think it is a gray 
issue. If there is a gray issue, if there is doubt about where we are 
going to come out, I want to decide on protecting women's rights and 
protecting ordinary people in fairness before a court of law.
  While there will be law professors and others who will disagree with 
my analysis, as I said before, I am more concerned about the effect of 
this nomination on everyday people in New Jersey and across the 
country.
  I am proud that there is a Federal courthouse in Newark that carries 
my name. It was while I was absent from the Senate a while that that 
was done. But I fought hard to get an inscription placed on the wall of 
that courthouse. I wrote it. It reads:

       The true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of 
     justice.

  This Nation of laws has to continue to be just that, and people have 
to know that they are treated fairly and that their personal rights are 
protected and that they can bring courses of action if their rights are 
damaged.
  I believe in that quote. It guides me today.
  For the parents fighting an insurance company for access to health 
care for their child, for the blue-collar worker facing harassment in 
the workplace, for women who want government's hands off their bodies, 
for everyday people, I will oppose this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise, for the first time in this body, 
to speak on the nomination of Samuel Alito to serve on the Supreme 
Court of the United States. No matter one's political persuasion, we 
all take pride in the honor that has been bestowed on a fellow New 
Jerseyan.
  Samuel Alito's story is one that rings familiar to so many New 
Jerseyans, including myself. His parents came to this country in search 
of opportunity, and worked hard to build a better life for their 
children. The son of immigrants, Judge Alito's life is a story that 
demonstrates the power of seizing opportunity and working hard.
  Frankly, it is a story close to my own heart. I too, am the son of 
immigrants who came to New Jersey to seek a better life and greater 
opportunity. Thanks to their hard work, and my own, I was the first in 
my family to graduate from college and law school.
  Yet home State pride is not a sufficient reason for supporting a 
nominee. For a Supreme Court appointment is a life-time appointment. 
When the Supreme Court decides, it is the law of the land and their 
decisions affect the lives of millions of Americans. So, it's not where 
you come from that matters, but where you will take the nation.
  Sam Alito has served his entire legal career in public service, and 
for that he is to be commended. His work as a prosecutor and as an 
appellate judge for the past 15 years has given him substantial 
experience. In his hearings and his meeting with me, he demonstrated 
that he has a keen intellect. Judged simply by that standard, Sam Alito 
is ready to serve.
  But competence and intellect is the very least we should expect from 
someone seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the 
land. Indeed, competence alone might be enough for a nominee for one of 
a myriad of other appointments. But this is about the Supreme Court of 
the United States. The Supreme Court, alone among our courts, has the 
power to revisit and reverse its previous decisions. So surely, we 
should also demand that our justices fairly interpret the law, respect 
judicial precedent, and properly balance the rights of individuals and 
the power of the state. Above all, we should demand that they check 
their personal beliefs at the door.
  The seat that Judge Alito hopes to fill is one of great importance. 
Justice O'Connor has been the deciding vote in key cases protecting 
individual rights and freedoms on a narrowly divided Court, and the 
stakes in selecting her replacement are high. I have not agreed with 
every one of her decisions. But she has shown throughout her tenure a 
respect for law over ideology and a commitment to deciding each case 
not on the personal views she brought to the bench, but on the facts 
before her. When some on the court sought to inject an activist 
political philosophy into judicial decision-making and to

[[Page 292]]

turn back the clock on the liberties afforded the American people under 
the Constitution, it was Justice O'Connor who blocked their path.
  I had hoped Judge Alito would clearly demonstrate that he shares the 
commitment to protecting the individual rights and freedoms that 
Justice O'Connor so often cast the deciding vote to defend. Decades of 
progress in protecting basic rights, including privacy, women's rights, 
and civil rights, are at stake with this nomination. The burden was on 
Judge Alito to be forthright and unambiguous in his answers.
  Unfortunately, his testimony was not reassuring and his record makes 
clear what kind of justice Judge Alito would be. A justice who would 
vote to overturn a woman's right to choose, a justice who has time and 
time again sided with corporations and against average Americans, a 
justice who would allow this administration to continue to stretch and 
potentially violate its legal and constitutional authority. Especially 
with the challenges our Nation faces today and will face tomorrow, 
America cannot afford that kind of justice.
  We live in extraordinary times today. President Bush has sought the 
accumulation of unprecedented powers. He has asserted the authority to 
not only torture detainees and indefinitely detain American citizens as 
enemy combatants, but to also conduct warrantless wiretapping of 
American citizens.
  At different times throughout our country's history, Presidents under 
the cloak of Commander-in-Chief have exercised excessive authority that 
has eroded individual rights and freedoms in the name of protecting the 
Nation. Over 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers purposely established 
our Nation's government with three distinct coequal branches to help 
prevent this concentration and abuse of power. An independent 
judiciary, part of our country's long and proud history of checks and 
balances, is the only thing that stands between the executive branch 
and these potential threats to our rule of law.
  In 2004, the Supreme Court stood up for the rule of law when it found 
that the President cannot ignore the Constitution and confine American 
citizens indefinitely without the ability to challenge their 
detentions. Decisions such as this, which recognize that our Nation's 
security is enhanced rather than undermined by respect of the rule of 
law, are what has always made the United States the envy of people 
around the world.
  The bias Judge Alito has shown in favor of the executive branch 
threatens to undermine the freedoms that our judiciary has historically 
protected. From his work as a government lawyer to a speech before the 
Federalist Society in 2000, he consistently favors the concentration of 
unprecedented power in the hands of the President, even endorsing the 
so-called ``unitary executive'' theory that even many conservatives 
view as being at the fringe of judicial philosophy. It virtually gives 
the presidency exclusive powers that historically have belonged to 
either Congress or the courts. This theory is an activist theory, not a 
theory that reflects mainstream American thinking or values. In fact, 
the Supreme Court has largely rejected it.
  Judge Alito has also backed granting absolute immunity to high-
ranking Government officials who authorized illegal, warrantless 
wiretaps of American citizens, which is another position the Supreme 
Court has rejected. As far back as the Reagan administration, he has 
advocated that the President issue signing statements in an effort to 
shape the meaning of legislation. President Bush has often used this 
practice, most tellingly in December when he claimed the administration 
could ignore the new law banning torture whenever he sees fit. This 
undermines one of the coequal branches of our government, the people's 
elected representatives of the United States Congress.
  Judge Alito has found against congressional authority when he argued 
in dissent in United States v. Rybar against a ban on machine guns that 
five other appellate courts and the Third Circuit itself upheld. Judge 
Alito also authored the majority opinion in Chittister v. Department of 
Community and Economic Development, invalidating parts of the Family 
and Medical Leave Act for exceeding the bounds of congressional 
authority--a position the Supreme Court subsequently rejected.
  Several in-depth reviews show, Judge Alito's rulings, especially his 
dissents, consistently excuse actions taken by the executive branch 
that infringe on the rights of average Americans. One study found that 
84 percent of Judge Alito's dissents favor the government over 
individual rights. Another, the Alito Project at Yale Law School 
conducted a comprehensive analysis of the Judge's 15 years on the 
Federal bench. They found that ``Judge Alito has permitted individuals 
to be deprived of property or liberty without actual notice or a prior 
hearing.''
  During his hearings and in my meeting with him, Judge Alito did 
nothing to distance himself from these positions; in fact, by refusing 
to candidly discuss where he stands on executive power, he only 
strengthened my concerns about his views.
  If it's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take 
the nation, does a Supreme Court with Justice Alito take the nation 
forward or move our Nation back?
  Back to a time when a President suspended the writ of habeas corpus; 
back to a time when a President ordered the internment of individuals 
based upon their ethnicity; and back to a time when a President ordered 
the unlawful breakins and wiretaps against his opponents.
  Our next Supreme Court justice must be a check and balance against 
broad Presidential powers that are inconsistent with our Constitution.
  With respect to reproductive rights, Judge Alito told the members of 
the Judiciary Committee that he would look at such cases with an ``open 
mind.'' However, he has, throughout his career, written that the 
Constitution does not protect a woman's right to choose, worked to 
incrementally limit and eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, so narrowly 
interpreted the ``undue burden'' standard in one specific case as to 
basically outlaw this right for an entire group of women, and refused 
to state whether Roe is ``settled law.''
  When asked by Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter whether he 
continues to believe that the Constitution does not protect the right 
to choose, as he wrote in his 1985 job application at the Department of 
Justice, Judge Alito acknowledged that it was his view in 1985, but 
refused to say whether or not he holds that view today. I found Judge 
Alito' s refusal to answer this question extremely troubling.
  Later, as an Assistant Solicitor General, Judge Alito wrote a memo 
outlining a new legal strategy that the Reagan administration could use 
to ``advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe 
v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects.''
  As a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito alone 
concluded that all of the Pennsylvania restrictions, including the 
spousal notification provision, should be upheld as constitutional in 
Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found 5-4 
that the spousal notification provision was unconstitutional. Justice 
O'Connor, who wrote the opinion, rejected Judge Alito's arguments and 
wrote that the spousal notification provision constituted an 
impermissible ``undue burden'' on reproductive rights. She concluded by 
saying ``Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty 
when they marry.''
  During our meeting, when I asked Judge Alito, ``Do you believe Roe v. 
Wade is the `settled law' of the land,'' he was unwilling to say that 
it is settled law. During the Judiciary Committee hearing, he said 
multiple times in response to questions from three of my distinguished 
colleagues on the Committee that the principle of stare decisis, or 
respect for precedent, is not an ``inexorable command.'' While this is 
undoubtly the case, this language is exactly what Justice Rehnquist 
used in his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey when arguing that 
Roe should be

[[Page 293]]

overturned. Justice Rehnquist wrote, ``In our view, authentic 
principles of stare decisis do not require that any portion of the 
reasoning in Roe be kept intact. `Stare decisis is not . . . a 
universal, inexorable command.'''
  Because I was concerned that his approach to these issues is far 
different than Justice O'Connor's, I gave Judge Alito every opportunity 
in our meeting to alleviate my concerns and those expressed by many New 
Jerseyans. I regret that he did not do so.
  If it's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take 
the Nation, does a Supreme Court with Justice Alito take the nation 
forward or move our Nation back?
  What does Morning in America look like after Judge Alito becomes a 
Supreme Court justice? Will it be an America where a woman's 
constitutional right to privacy is not acknowledged? Will it be an 
America where a woman does not have access to the best medical care? 
Will it be an America where women do not control their own bodies?
  Our next Supreme Court justice must respect both the constitutional 
right to privacy and a woman's right to choose.
  Our Nation's civil rights are needed to provide equal rights in 
employment, voting, or disability, they are designed to eliminate 
discrimination from our society and to provide equal opportunity and 
access. These laws are often the direct result of our country's civil 
rights movement.
  Unfortunately, Judge Alito has consistently applied a narrow 
interpretation of civil rights laws. Over his 15-year judicial career, 
he has more often than not sided with corporations and against 
individuals.
  In five split decisions involving a claim of sex discrimination, 
Judge Alito has sided with the person accused of the sex discrimination 
every time. In Sheridan v. E.I DuPont de Nemours, a woman brought a 
gender discrimination lawsuit after being denied a promotion. A jury 
ruled in her favor, but the trial judge threw out the verdict. The full 
complement of the Third Circuit voted 10-1 to reverse the judge's 
decision in this sex discrimination case and remand the case for 
reconsideration. Judge Alito wrote the lone dissent, arguing that the 
case should be dismissed. If Judge Alito's view was the law of the 
land, virtually no woman who has been wrongfully denied a promotion 
based upon her gender would have her day in court.
  In the area of race discrimination, Judge Alito voted in dissent 
against the plaintiff in both split decisions cases. The Third Circuit 
held that the plaintiff in Bray v. Marriot Hotels had shown enough 
evidence of possible racial discrimination to merit a trial before a 
jury. As in Sheridan, Judge Alito dissented, saying that the plaintiff 
had not produced enough evidence even to get to a trial of a jury of 
their peers. If Judge Alito's view was the law of the land, virtually 
no person of color would be able to pursue discrimination based on race 
in the courts of our nation.
  From the bench, Judge Alito has participated in five split decisions 
in the area of disability rights law and he sided with the defendant 
four out of the five times. In Nathanson v. Medical College of 
Pennsylvania, relating to a college's knowledge of and response to the 
disability needs of a student, the majority held that the facts 
required a jury to hear her claims. Judge Alito disagreed with the 
majority, writing that Nathanson failed to prove that the college acted 
unreasonably in its responses to her requests for alternative seating 
arrangements. If Judge Alito's view was the law of the land, virtually 
no disabled person denied alternative accommodations could seek relief 
from the court.
  These are only symbolic of the many cases where Judge Alito would say 
no to the average American citizen.
  If someone's daughter was seeking relief from discrimination based 
upon her gender, Judge Alito would say no. If an American of color was 
seeking relief from discrimination based upon their race, Judge Alito 
would say no. If someone's handicapped son was seeking relief from 
discrimination based upon his disability, Judge Alito would say no. 
Judge Alito would make it virtually impossible for an individual to go 
to court when his or her rights were violated, and have their day of 
judgment.
  If it's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take 
the Nation, does a Supreme Court with Justice Alito take the Nation 
forward or move our Nation back?
  Back to a time when there was not equal access to schools and 
government programs, back to a time when employers could fire employees 
without just cause; and back to a time when all citizens were not 
guaranteed the right to vote.
  Our next Supreme Court justice must truly subscribe to the 
inscription above the entrance to the United States Supreme Court--
``Equal Justice under Law.''
  The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is one of the two most 
important responsibilities that a Senator has, in my view. The first is 
a decision on war and peace, which is also about life and death. The 
other is deciding who will have a lifetime appointment to the Court 
that decides the laws of the land.
  Make no mistake about it, Judge Alito is a decent, accomplished, 
intelligent man. A man who is proud to call our shared State of New 
Jersey home. But it is not enough to come from New Jersey--the test 
is--will you represent the values of New Jersey and this Nation on the 
highest court in the land?
  In New Jersey we value creating opportunity, we cherish the idea of 
individual freedom and responsibility, and we believe that justice is a 
force that should level the playing field between the individual and 
the powerful.
  I have given careful consideration to this nomination, and I entered 
the process with hopes of supporting Judge Alito. This is my first vote 
in this Senate, and I had hoped to cast it in support of this nominee, 
but after reviewing his record, and his testimony before my fellow 
Senators, I cannot.
  The question for me has been will he tilt the court in its ideology 
so far that he will place in jeopardy decades of progress in protecting 
individual rights and freedoms. I am afraid that answer is yes. In good 
conscience, I regrettably cannot support his nomination for a lifetime 
appointment to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the 
United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on the question of the confirmation of Judge 
Samuel Alito, when you boil everything down and clear away all of the 
other issues, the most important thing each of us wants from a judge is 
fairness and impartiality. None of us would want to go into a courtroom 
and think our judge had already made up his mind before hearing our 
case. Whether we are rich or poor, weak or strong, but especially if we 
are poor or weak, victim or defendant, we need to know we will get a 
fair trial.
  We would not get a fair trial if we faced a judge who had already 
made up his mind. Not only would the deck be stacked against us, we 
would be dealt a losing hand if we had to face a judge with an agenda 
different from our case. That is what justice means--impartial and 
objective. That is the kind of judge we want hearing our case, and that 
is the kind of judge Sam Alito is.
  Everything we have learned about Judge Alito, from his testimony 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his lengthy record of decided 
cases, to the testimonials of his colleagues and peers, tells us that 
Judge Alito will be a fair, impartial, and objective Justice.
  Judge Alito has told us how he believes a judge cannot prejudge an 
issue, a judge cannot have an agenda, a judge cannot have a preferred 
outcome in any particular case.
  I was so glad to see that during his confirmation hearing Judge Alito 
would not allow himself to be forced into prejudging any cases. Now, 
many tried. They went down their list of issues and asked whether Judge 
Alito agreed with their agenda. They wanted to know how he would rule 
on one kind of case or another. They wanted him to decide cases before 
he even heard them. That would not be justice, and that would not be 
Judge Alito.

[[Page 294]]

  Not only does Judge Alito know justice, Judge Alito knows democracy. 
Democracy means that laws governing the people can only be made by 
those elected by the people to make laws. He knows the Members of 
Congress are elected to make laws. The citizens of Missouri elected 
their Representatives and Senators to represent them in Congress, the 
legislative body. I am honored to be one of those so chosen. Judge 
Alito is not.
  The citizens of Missouri are not electing Judge Alito to make laws. 
Judge Alito knows he will not have the power to make laws. Judge Alito 
knows he is neither a Congressman nor a Senator who can pass his own 
legislation from the bench. That is not the role of a judge.
  Judge Alito knows he is not a politician advocating a program. That 
is not what a judge should do. He is not a politician responding to a 
stakeholder, carrying out the agenda of his constituency, whether it be 
New Jersey or any other State in the Nation, taking the pulse of voters 
or watching the polls. That is not how to be a judge.
  Judge Alito has told us he will look at the facts with an open mind 
and then apply the Constitution and the laws as written. He will not 
make up the law when he wants, he will not change the law when he 
needs.
  Judge Alito also knows the law, as many of my colleagues on the 
Senate Judiciary Committee found out. At every stage of his life, he 
has excelled at knowing and applying the law. As a law clerk to a 
Federal judge, Department of Justice official, Federal prosecutor, and 
now a Federal appellate judge with 15 years experience on the bench, 
Judge Alito is one of the most qualified ever nominated for the Supreme 
Court.
  A very good friend of mine is an appellate judge, who in law school 
had the pleasure of supervising a legal document written by Judge 
Alito. He told me Judge Alito had the finest legal, judicial mind he 
had ever encountered. I trust his judgment.
  Judge Alito's peers and colleagues all agree that Judge Alito is 
supremely qualified for the Supreme Court. He comes highly recommended 
by his colleagues and members of the legal profession because of his 
legal knowledge and experience. Even those who have worked with Judge 
Alito and disagree with him on the issues or the outcome of his rulings 
consider him fair-minded and evenhanded.
  In short, Judge Alito will make a great Supreme Court Justice. 
Unfortunately, and regrettably, the Senate's vote will not reflect 
that. Perhaps it was a simpler time, less partisan, less subject to 
politics, less subject to the whims of shifting constituencies and 
pressure groups when we could overwhelmingly support those 
overwhelmingly qualified for the Court.
  For example, both Justices Ginsburg and Scalia received unanimous or 
near unanimous approval. One came from the left, nominated by a 
Democratic President, and an advocate for the ACLU; another is a 
brilliant legal mind, supported by the right. Partisan politics were 
put aside when we voted for these Supreme Court nominees.
  Unfortunately, there are those who want to use Judge Alito as a 
political football. I, for one, believe very strongly our judges and 
our justice system should be above partisan politics. Justice deserve 
better than to have the nominees dragged through the political mud.
  My focus is on the nominee himself and on his legal knowledge and 
experience. In that regard, Judge Alito should be on the Supreme Court, 
and I will proudly vote to place him on the Supreme Court.
  Every case he hears, he will approach with an open mind. Every case 
he considers, he will apply the law and Constitution as written. Every 
case he decides, he will check his personal feelings at the door and 
weigh the scales of justice.
  We can expect, and should expect, nothing more from a Justice, and 
justice deserves nothing less.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics, to put aside 
pressure from special interests, to vote to invoke cloture, and then to 
vote on a majority vote to confirm Justice Alito to the Supreme Court.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have in my hand a number of endorsement 
letters that have been written, starting with the Grand Lodge of the 
Fraternal Order of Police. I ask unanimous consent that these letters 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      Grand Lodge,


                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 2005.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Ranking Member, Committee to the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy: I am writing on behalf 
     of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise 
     you of our strong support for the nomination of Samuel A. 
     Alito, Jr. to be an Associate Justice on the United States 
     Supreme Court.
       Judge Alito has a long and distinguished career as a public 
     servant, a practicing attorney, and a Federal jurist. He 
     currently serves as a justice on the U.S. Court of Appeals 
     for the Third Circuit, the very same Circuit where he began 
     his career as a law clerk for Judge Leonard I. Garth. Judge 
     Alito spent four years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney before 
     becoming an Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General in 1981. 
     During his tenure with the Solicitor's office, he argued 
     thirteen cases before the United States Supreme Court, 
     winning twelve of them. In 1985, he served as Deputy 
     Assistant U.S. Attorney General before returning to his 
     native New Jersey to serve as U.S. Attorney in 1990. 
     Nominated by President George H.W. Bush to the Third Circuit, 
     the Senate confirmed him unanimously on a voice vote.
       The F.O.P. believes that nominees for posts on the Federal 
     bench must meet two qualifications: a proven record of 
     success as a practicing attorney and the respect of the law 
     enforcement community. Judge Sam Alito meets both of these 
     important criteria. In his fifteen years as a Federal judge, 
     he has demonstrated respect for the Consistution, for the 
     rights of all Americans, for law, and for law enforcement 
     officers, who often find it very difficult to successfully 
     assert their rights as employees. Judge Alito demonstrated 
     his keen understanding of this in a case brought by Muslim 
     police officers in Newark, New Jersey (Fraternal Order of 
     Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 1999). The 
     Newark Police Department sought to force these officers to 
     shave their beards, which they wore in accordance with their 
     religious beliefs. Judge Alito ruled in favor of the officers 
     in this case, correctly noting that the department's policy 
     unconstitutionally infringed on their civil rights under the 
     First Amendment.
       The F.O.P. is also very supportive of Judge Alito's 
     decision in a 1993 decision filed by a coal miner seeking 
     disability benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (Cort 
     v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs). Judge 
     Alito ruled in favor of a coal miner, holding that the 
     Benefits Review Board which denied the miner's claim had 
     misapplied the applicable law regarding disability. He 
     ordered that the case be remanded for an award of benefits, 
     instructing that the Board could not consider any other 
     grounds for denying benefits. Members of the F.O.P. and 
     survivor families who have been forced to appeal decisions 
     which denied benefits under workers' compensation laws or 
     programs like the Public Safety Officer Benefit (PSOB) know 
     first-hand just how important it is to have a jurist with a 
     working knowledge of applicable law and a strong 
     identification with the claimants as opposed to government 
     bureaucrats looking to keep costs down.
       Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. has demonstrated that he will be 
     an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court, and that he has 
     rightfully earned his place beside the finest legal minds in 
     the nation. We are proud to support his nomination and, on 
     behalf of the more than 321,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, I urge the Judiciary Committee to 
     expeditiously approve his nomination. Please do not hesitate 
     to contact me, or Executive Director Jim Pasco, through our 
     Washington office if we may be of any further assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
                                               National President.

[[Page 295]]

     
                                  ____
                                                 November 9, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Frist, Minority Leader Reid, Chairman 
     Specter, and Ranking Member Leahy: We are former law clerks 
     of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. We are writing to urge the 
     United States Senate to confirm Judge Alito as the next 
     Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
       Our party affiliations and views on policy matters span the 
     political spectrum. We have worked for members of Congress on 
     both sides of the aisle and have actively supported and 
     worked on behalf of Democratic, Republican and Independent 
     candidates. What unites us is our strong support for Judge 
     Alito and our deep belief that he will be an outstanding 
     Supreme Court Justice.
       Judge Alito's qualifications are well known and beyond 
     dispute. Judge Alito graduated from Princeton University and 
     Yale Law School. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge 
     Alito had a distinguished legal career at the Department of 
     Justice, which culminated in his appointment as the U.S. 
     Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Judge Alito has 
     served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third 
     Circuit for 15 years and has more judicial experience than 
     any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years. During his 
     time on the bench, Judge Alito has issued hundreds of 
     opinions, and his extraordinary intellect has contributed to 
     virtually every area of the law.
       As law clerks, we had the privilege of working closely with 
     Judge Alito and saw firsthand how he reviewed cases, prepared 
     for argument, reached decisions, and drafted opinions. We 
     collectively were involved in thousands of cases, and it 
     never once appeared to us that Judge Alito had pre-judged a 
     case or ruled based on political ideology. To the contrary, 
     Judge Alito meticulously and diligently applied controlling 
     legal authority to the facts of each case after full and 
     careful consideration of all relevant legal arguments. It is 
     our uniform experience that Judge Alito was guided by his 
     profound respect for the Constitution and the limited role of 
     the judicial branch. Where the Supreme Court or the Third 
     Circuit had spoken on an issue, he applied that precedent 
     faithfully and fairly. Where Congress had spoken, he gave the 
     statute its commonsense reading, eschewing both rigid 
     interpretations that undermined the statute's clear purpose 
     and attempts by litigants to distort the statute's plain 
     language to advance policy goals not adopted by Congress. In 
     short, the only result that Judge Alito ever tried to reach 
     in a case was the result dictated by the applicable law and 
     the relevant facts.
       Our admiration for Judge Alito extends far beyond his legal 
     acumen and commitment to principled judicial decision-making. 
     As law clerks, we experienced Judge Alito's willingness to 
     consider and debate all points of view. We witnessed the way 
     in which Judge Alito treated everyone he encountered--whether 
     an attorney at oral argument, a clerk, an intern, a member of 
     the court staff, or a fellow judge--with utmost courtesy and 
     respect. We were touched by his humility and decency. And we 
     saw his absolute devotion to his family.
       In short, we urge that Judge Alito be confirmed as the next 
     Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
           Sincerely,
       Signed by 51 former clerks.
                                  ____

                                                    Edwards Angell


                                           Palmer & Dodge LLP,

                                  New York, NY, November 23, 2005.
     Re Samuel A. Alito.

     U.S. Senate,
     Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee: I am 
     writing to express my enthusiastic and unqualified 
     recommendation that Samuel A. Alito be confirmed as an 
     Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
       I worked with Judge Alito in 1987. He was appointed United 
     States Attorney for the District of New Jersey. At that time 
     I was the Deputy Chief and Acting Chief of the Special 
     Prosecutions Unit. I continued in that capacity for 
     approximately eight months after Sam arrived at the U.S. 
     Attorney's Office. He was an exemplary U.S. Attorney. He was 
     also an exemplary boss. He was at all times knowledgeable, 
     thoughtful and supportive of me and the other lawyers in the 
     office. In his quiet and wryly humorous way, he demonstrated 
     wonderful leadership. It was clear that he was very conscious 
     of the responsibilities of that office and he fulfilled those 
     responsibilities admirably. I was very proud to work for Sam 
     Alito.
       After leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office, I became a 
     private practitioner. I have had the pleasure of appearing as 
     an advocate before Judge Alito in the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Third Circuit in a number of cases. It is a 
     pleasure to appear before Judge Alito due to his genial 
     demeanor and obvious professionalism. His opinions--even when 
     against my cause--were thoughtful, considerate, justifiable 
     and well written.
       Judge Alito did not ask me to write this letter; I 
     volunteered. I am a lifelong Democrat. I am the President-
     elect of a national women's bar association. I chair the 
     Corporate Integrity and White Collar Crime group at a 
     national law firm. I do not speak on behalf of either my law 
     firm or the women's bar association. I speak for myself only. 
     But by providing my credentials as an outspoken women's 
     rights advocate and liberal-minded criminal defense attorney, 
     I hope you will appreciate the significance of my unqualified 
     and enthusiastic recommendation of Sam Alito for the Supreme 
     Court.
       Sam possesses the best qualities for judges. He is 
     thoughtful, brilliant, measured, serious, and conscious of 
     the awesome responsibilities imposed by his position. I 
     cannot think of better qualities for a Supreme Court Justice. 
     It is my fervent hope that politics will not prevent this 
     extraordinarily capable candidate from serving as Associate 
     Justice on the United States Supreme Court.
       I will be happy to provide any further details or 
     information in any private or public forum.
           Respectfully submitted,
     Cathy Fleming.
                                  ____

                                                  January 4, 2006.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
      Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy: We write in support of 
     the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to the United 
     States Supreme Court. Each of us has devoted a significant 
     portion of our legal practice or research to appellate 
     matters. Although we reflect a broad range of political, 
     policy and legal views, we all agree that Judge Alito should 
     be confirmed by the Senate. Judge Alito has a well-deserved 
     reputation as an outstanding jurist. He is, in every sense of 
     the term, a ``judge's judge.'' His opinions are fair, 
     thoughtful and rigorous. Those of us who have appeared before 
     Judge Alito appreciate his preparation for argument, his 
     temperament on the bench and the quality and incisiveness of 
     the questions he asks. Those of us who have worked with Judge 
     Alito respect his legal skills, his integrity and his 
     modesty. In short, Judge Alito has the attributes that we 
     believe are essential to being an outstanding Supreme Court 
     Justice and therefore should be confirmed. Thank you for 
     considering our views.
           Sincerely,
       Signed by 206 lawyers.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I also have in my other hand a series of 
editorials, starting with a Dallas Morning News editorial entitled 
``Confirm Alito.'' These are all editorials from newspapers around the 
country recommending that this body confirm Judge Alito. I ask 
unanimous consent that these editorials be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Dallas Morning News, Jan. 14, 2006]

            Confirm Alito: Nominee Deserves Senate's Backing

       After hearing Samuel Alito testify this week, this 
     editorial board's assessment is that the appellate judge has 
     the intellectual breadth and legal depth to sit on the 
     Supreme Court. With few exceptions, he fielded Senate 
     Judiciary Committee questions with a ready grasp of case law 
     and nuance.
       He also came across as quite reasonable. Just as Clinton 
     nominee Stephen Breyer struck senators as a mainstream 
     liberal, Mr. Alito resides within the 40-yard lines of 
     conservatism.
       We offer this conclusion--and our recommendation of him--
     after comparing his testimony with several questions we 
     raised Monday.
       First, his embrace of judicial precedent was persuasive 
     enough to conclude he wouldn't rush to overturn Roe vs. Wade. 
     He didn't go as far as John Roberts in saying the abortion 
     rights case is settled law. But he repeatedly emphasized his 
     belief in building upon previous decisions.
       True, factors could lead him--or any justice--to reconsider 
     a ruling, but they would be extraordinary ones. We'll sum it 
     up this way: Based upon his testimony, we'd feel very misled 
     and deeply disappointed if he joined in an overthrow of Roe.
       Second, he allayed fears he wholly prefers presidential 
     power. He left wiggle room on issues such as where the 
     president can deploy troops without congressional authority. 
     But he didn't live up to his billing as a justice who'd make 
     light of checks and balances. Most notably, he agreed 
     presidents don't possess unlimited power, even during war.
       Third, his objections to the ``one man, one vote'' doctrine 
     appeared mostly technical. For example, he wondered whether 
     it meant

[[Page 296]]

     congressional districts should have an exactly equal amount 
     of voters each term. He unveiled no willingness to undo the 
     ruling that ensures fair voting weight for minorities.
       It was unsettling that some of the nominee's views appeared 
     different from earlier speeches or writings. A couple of 
     times, his answers had a disturbing then-and-now quality. But 
     Samuel Alito's testimony showed he could become a thoughtful 
     conservative justice. The Senate should give him that 
     opportunity.
                                  ____


                 [From the Miami Herald, Jan. 24, 2006]

                Qualified To Serve on the Supreme Court

       There is little doubt that in the coming days the Senate 
     will confirm the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to replace 
     Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. He 
     deserves to be confirmed. This is not an assessment of his 
     judicial philosophy but of his undoubted qualifications for 
     the job. He has the intellectual heft, judicial temperament 
     and fealty to the U.S. Constitution that are prerequisites 
     for a Supreme Court justice. In 15 years on the federal 
     appellate bench, he has demonstrated a sure grasp of issues.
       Critics have sought to paint Judge Alito as an ideologue 
     whose views are out of the judicial mainstream. In the past, 
     we have found this a reason to raise doubts about some of the 
     more extreme nominations for the federal appeals courts. 
     However, this is not a fair argument to raise against Judge 
     Alito.
       According to statistics compiled by the Court of Appeals 
     for the Third Judicial Circuit, Judge Alito has dissented 
     only 16 times in the last six years, fewer times than some of 
     his colleagues. On civil-rights cases, his co-panelists 
     agreed with Judge Alito's votes and written opinions 94 
     percent of the time. It is possible to take issue with some 
     of his views in those instances where he was in dissent, but 
     this isn't the record of a judge on the fringe of mainstream 
     judicial thinking.
       During 18 hours of hearings--almost twice as long as the 
     interrogation of John Roberts--Judge Alito displayed a deep 
     understanding of the legal issues the court is likely to 
     confront and kept cool under fire. He did everything possible 
     to avoid saying how he would rule on some of the 
     controversial issues, but that is hardly surprising. 
     Unfortunately, given the divisiveness in Washington today too 
     much candor can prove fatal to a nominee.
       In nominating Judge Alito, President Bush fulfilled a 
     campaign promise to appoint judges who shared the views of 
     Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Thus, he 
     delivered a candidate with sound credentials but a decidedly 
     conservative record that many find troubling.
       This record includes a narrow view of abortion rights, 
     apparent support for the expansive powers of the presidency 
     in wartime and a narrow interpretation of the regulatory 
     authority of Congress. Judge Alito likely will help move the 
     court rightward, and some senators, no doubt, will find this 
     a compelling reason to vote against him.
       No justice should be denied a seat on the court, however, 
     solely on the basis of judicial philosophy, particularly 
     someone of Judge Alito's proven ability and experience. The 
     best way for critics--Democrats, mostly--to prevail when it 
     comes to selecting federal judges is to prevail at the ballot 
     box.
                                  ____


          [From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jan. 15, 2006]

               Supreme Court; Alito Deserves Confirmation

       Samuel Alito should be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
       And, barring any last-minute disqualifying revelations, the 
     first step toward that goal should be yes votes in the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee, including from Wisconsin's two senators, 
     both of whom sit on that committee.
       Democrats are understandably concerned about specific red 
     flags in Alito's record but should nonetheless reject a 
     filibuster. Nor should they move, as it appeared likely late 
     last week they would, to delay the committee's vote. Both 
     would be antithetical to the democratic process in this 
     specific case.
       That's because, though we would have preferred Alito to be 
     more open about his judicial philosophy, he did make one case 
     quite effectively. He is a conservative jurist. This is what 
     the electorate, albeit narrowly, indicated it wanted when it 
     reelected George W. Bush as president in 2004. There can be 
     no reasonable claim that voters did not know this to be a 
     likely consequence of their votes.
       Yes, Alito's views peg him as closer to a constitutional 
     originalist than one with more expansive views of that 
     document, a view we prefer. But Alito is likely not the 
     wildeyed, knee-jerk ideologue his critics have depicted. 
     Instead, a broad view of his writings, rulings and character 
     indicate a judge capable of giving proper and due weight to 
     the law. Alito is scholarly, intelligent and eminently 
     qualified to sit on the bench, as attests his rating as such 
     by the American Bar Association.
       This is not to say that there isn't a roll-of-the-dice 
     quality to this choice for the Supreme Court. But this is so 
     with most, if not all, judicial nominations. Just ask 
     Republicans, many of whom now have buyers' remorse over 
     Justices David Souter and Anthony Kennedy.
       Alito's 1985 stance, writing as a lawyer within the Reagan 
     administration, that the Constitution does not support 
     abortion rights is troubling. Unlike John Roberts during his 
     recent chief justice confirmation hearings, Alito refused to 
     state that Roe vs. Wade is settled law. He did assert that it 
     is ``embedded in the culture'' and should be respected as 
     precedent.
       A stronger statement would have been more reassuring, but 
     in a living, breathing Constitution, much, in fact, will not 
     be settled. Were it so, then Plessy vs. Ferguson, which the 
     Supreme Court used in 1896 to enable decades of segregation 
     under a separate but equal rule, could not have been undone 
     by the court in 1954.
       Americans should take some comfort in Alito's 
     acknowledgment of a right to privacy in the Constitution. His 
     refusal to be pinned down more concretely on this point is 
     defensible given that the court will rule on abortion.
       Similarly, the public should take some solace from his 
     contention that no president is above the law, given the 
     controversies sparked by several presidential actions in the 
     war on terrorism.
       Wisconsin is fortunate to have two early votes on judicial 
     nominations. Democratic Sens. Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold are 
     both Judiciary Committee members. Both acquitted themselves 
     ably in questioning the nominee. And both should vote the 
     nominee out of committee.
       Kohl properly probed on abortion and one-person, one-vote 
     and inquired about glowing Alito comments on Robert Bork, 
     denied a Supreme Court seat in 1987. Feingold asked necessary 
     questions on executive powers, Alito's ruling in a case 
     involving a mutual fund in which he invested and on the death 
     penalty. Together, they helped ensure the hearings were more 
     than a GOP lovefest for the nominee.
       But Alito handled himself well in answering. If not as 
     forthcoming as would be ideal, he offered enough assurances 
     to warrant his confirmation. Democrats, however, are most 
     upset over what Alito didn't say rather than what he did. 
     This is not an entirely acceptable standard.
       We're aware that this nomination carries a weighty 
     significance because the nominee will replace Justice Sandra 
     Day O'Connor, often a swing vote in a divided court. And 
     Alito is still an open book on important issues. But, again, 
     elections have consequences. Voters knew what these were, and 
     Alito is not demonstrably beyond the pale of the U.S. 
     mainstream.
       Alito--and Roberts--could disappoint, of course, and renege 
     on their own claims of open-mindedness. If they do, they will 
     have betrayed a trust to the American people. But it is not 
     at all as assured as critics have contended that Alito or 
     Roberts will do this.
       Confirm Alito. It's not risk-free, but it's the right thing 
     to do.
                                  ____


            [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 15, 2006]

                          Confirm Judge Alito

       The Senate should confirm Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., 
     President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court.
       Alito, a member of the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit 
     Court of Appeals, demonstrated during three days of 
     questioning last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee that 
     he does not bring a precast agenda to the job.
       He does bring a cast of mind that causes some legitimate 
     concern. But Alito showed he has the experience, modest 
     temperament, reverence for the law, and mastery of his 
     profession needed to serve on the high court.
       A common complaint about confirmations has been that 
     nominees stonewall the committee. Alito tried to answer 
     nearly every question put to him. Democratic senators may not 
     have liked his responses, but Alito dodged very few 
     questions.
       This endorsement is not enthusiastic. Alito is a more 
     conservative nominee than anyone concerned with the nation's 
     drift toward excessive executive power and disdain for civil 
     liberties would prefer.
       But the Supreme Court should not be stocked with justices 
     all of the same political persuasion, left or right. As the 
     replacement for a valuable centrist, Sandra Day O'Connor, 
     Alito might very well move the court perceptibly to the 
     right. But his methodical, just-the-facts approach to the law 
     does not portend a shocking shift, and would not justify a 
     filibuster of his nomination.
       Alito did fail to allay some important concerns. On 
     abortion, he rebuffed entreaties by Democrats to characterize 
     Roe v. Wade as ``settled law.'' Chairman Arlen Specter (R., 
     Pa.) commended Alito for discussing the issue in more depth 
     than did Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., but this extended 
     discourse was less than encouraging. Alito, who wrote in 1985 
     that the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to 
     abortion, would not say he feels differently today.
       He pledged to ``keep an open mind'' on abortion cases. But 
     he also said Supreme Court precedent is not ``an inexorable 
     command.'' If Alito does consider the Constitution a living 
     document, as he testified, he

[[Page 297]]

     should weigh carefully the expressed desire of a majority of 
     Americans to preserve reproductive freedoms.
       On the question of presidential power, concerns linger that 
     Alito would give undue deference to the executive branch. For 
     all President Bush's talk about ``strict constructionism,'' 
     his freewheeling notions about his powers would have appalled 
     many of the Constitution's framers, who deeply feared an 
     authoritarian executive.
       At the hearings, Alito sought to temper the enthusiasm for 
     presidential prerogative he showed in earlier writings with 
     the statement that the president is not above the law. At 
     least he is on the record with this view now. Being on the 
     high court has been known to focus a justice's mind on the 
     value of the judiciary's constitutional role as a check on 
     the other two branches.
       A distressing point was Alito's membership in the now-
     defunct Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group created in 
     1972 to oppose the admission of women and minorities to the 
     university. His protests that he knew little about the 
     group's agenda, even though he touted his membership on a 
     1985 application for a job in the Reagan administration, were 
     unpersuasive.
       But the example of Alito's life must count for something, 
     and that example diminishes the significance of the Princeton 
     misstep. He is not a bigot. He has hired and promoted women 
     and minorities. Colleagues testify to his basic decency and 
     are mystified that he joined CAP. He has renounced the 
     group's goals.
       Alito has admitted that his failure to recuse himself in 
     2002 from a case involving Vanguard mutual funds, in which 
     Alito had invested, was an ``oversight.'' It was a mistake, 
     even though the conflict of interest was not significant. 
     Investing in a mutual fund is not like owning stock in an 
     individual company. But Alito had pledged to bow out of cases 
     involving Vanguard, then didn't. That was wrong.
       An analysis of Alito's written opinions shows his 
     overriding respect for authority: for the police, for the 
     government, for employers. Given all the recent evidence of 
     how those parties commit deeds that damage individuals, you'd 
     like the high court to take a more balanced view.
       But Alito's cast of mind does not disqualify him. As 
     pragmatic Judge Edward Becker of the Third Circuit testified, 
     he and Alito disagreed only 27 times in 1,050 cases they 
     heard together. Alito is not in the mainstream of judicial 
     thought, but he is not too far to the right of it.
                                  ____


               [From the Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 7, 2005]

                      Judge Alito Is No Ideologue

                      (By Jeffrey N. Wasserstein)

       As a former clerk for Judge Samuel Alito, I can tell you he 
     is not the conservative ideologue portrayed in a recent 
     article by Knight Ridder reporters Stephen Henderson and 
     Howard Mintz (``Alito Opinions Reveal Pattern of 
     Conservatism'').
       I am a registered Democrat who supports progressive causes. 
     (To my wife's consternation, I still can't bring myself to 
     take my ``Kerry for President'' bumper sticker off of my 
     car.) I clerked for Judge Alito from 1997 to 1998. 
     Notwithstanding my close work with Judge Alito, until I read 
     his 1985 Reagan job application statement, I could not tell 
     you what his politics were. When we worked on cases, we 
     reached the same result about 95 percent of the time. When we 
     disagreed, it was largely due to the fact that he is a lot 
     smarter than I am (indeed, than most people) and is far more 
     experienced.
       It was my experience that Judge Alito was (and is) capable 
     of setting aside any personal biases he may have when he 
     judges. He is the consummate professional.
       One example that I witnessed of Judge Alito's ability to 
     approach cases with an open mind occurred in the area of 
     criminal law, an area in which Judge Alito--a former federal 
     prosecutor--had particular expertise. One time, I was looking 
     at a set of legal briefs in a criminal appeal. The attorney 
     for the criminal defendant had submitted a sloppy brief, a 
     very slip-shod affair. The prosecuting attorney had submitted 
     a neat, presentable brief. I suggested (in my youth and 
     naivete) that this would be an easy case to decide for the 
     government.
       Judge Alito stopped me cold by saying that that was an 
     unfair attitude to have before I had even read the briefs 
     carefully and conducted the necessary additional research 
     needed to ensure that the defendant received a fair hearing 
     before the court.
       Perhaps not what one would expect from a conservative 
     ideologue (and former federal prosecutor), but it is 
     indicative of the way Judge Alito approaches each case with 
     an open mind, and it is a lesson I've never forgotten.
       Another example, which reached a result that would seem 
     contrary to a conservative ideologue, was a case I worked on 
     with Judge Alito (U.S. v. Kithcart) in which Judge Alito 
     reversed a conviction of a black male, holding that an all-
     points-bulletin for ``two black men in a black sports car'' 
     was insufficient probable cause to arrest the driver of the 
     car. Notwithstanding the driver's guilty plea, Judge Alito 
     reversed, finding that the initial arrest lacked probable 
     cause, stating, ``The mere fact that Kithcart is black and 
     the perpetrators had been described as two black males is 
     plainly insufficient.''
       This is hardly the work of a conservative ideologue.
       As a former clerk to Judge Alito, I can attest to Judge 
     Alito's deep and abiding respect for precedent and the 
     important role of stare decisis--the doctrine that settled 
     cases should not be continually revisited. Judge Alito has 
     served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit for 
     15 years, and has compiled a distinguished record that 
     conclusively demonstrates respect for precedent.
       The best indicator of how a justice may act on the Supreme 
     Court is the judicial record the justice had before elevation 
     to the court. In Judge Alito's case, one can clearly see a 
     restrained approach to the law, deferring to a prior court 
     decision even if he may have disagreed with its logic.
       While a bald statement that ``the Constitution does not 
     protect a right to an abortion'' in a vacuum might be cause 
     for concern, Judge Alito's statement must be taken in 
     context. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said after her 
     meeting with Judge Alito that he explained that regardless of 
     his statement on the job application, ``I'm now a judge, I've 
     been on the Circuit Court for 15 years and it's very 
     different. I'm not an advocate, I don't give heed to my 
     personal views, what I do is interpret the law.'' Sen. Ted 
     Kennedy, D-Mass., also noted that Judge Alito said ``he had 
     indicated that he is an older person, that he has learned 
     more, that he thinks he is wiser person (and) that he's got a 
     better grasp and understanding about constitutional rights 
     and liberties.''
       Given Judge Alito's respect for precedent and stare decisis 
     as demonstrated by actually adhering to precedent for 15 
     years while on the Court of Appeals--even in cases that 
     reached results that would seem incorrect to a conservative--
     and the open mind with which I saw him approach cases, 
     labeling Judge Alito an ``ideologue'' would be unfair and 
     distorts his record on the bench.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Sam Alito to 
the U.S. Supreme Court. The American people, in public opinion polls we 
have seen reported in the newspapers, indicate they also want Judge 
Alito on the Supreme Court. Yet we are here today, after extended 
debate, because there are a handful of Senators who are determined to 
stop Judge Alito's nomination from even receiving an up-or-down vote. 
Hence, at 4:30 we will have a vote on cloture, whether to close debate. 
It is my sincere hope that at least 60 Senators will vote to close 
debate so tomorrow morning we can have that up-or-down vote that this 
nominee deserves and that the Constitution requires.
  There really is no pretense that this tactic of delay for delay's 
sake is needed for extended debate. Judge Alito was nominated months 
ago, and we have been debating this nomination without interruption 
since last Wednesday. Not only has Judge Alito been investigated by the 
FBI but also by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on 
the Federal Judiciary. He has been investigated by the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, on which I am proud to serve, and been through extended 
televised hearings. The fact is, even the minority leader, the Democrat 
leader, conceded ``[t]here's been adequate time for people to debate'' 
this nomination.
  So this is delay for delay's sake. Fortunately, there is no 
indication this delay tactic will succeed. Judge Alito's supporters in 
this body are so numerous that everyone has conceded--even the 
minority, who is determined to try to filibuster this nomination, 
concedes the filibuster attempt is futile and this nominee will be 
confirmed.
  So what could possibly be the motivation? The Senator from Missouri, 
who just spoke before me, alluded to this. I think it is common 
knowledge that it really is outside interest groups that are putting, 
in some cases, irresistible pressure on Senators to oppose this 
nomination, even though they realize the delay and the potential 
filibuster are futile. These are groups that have declared--and I 
quote, in one instance--``you name it, we'll do it'' to defeat Judge 
Alito. I am very sorry that some of my colleagues have fallen under the 
spell of some of these groups. In my view, it is wrong to place the 
wishes of these interest groups before the wishes of the American 
people.
  I think it is also a mistake to waste the valuable time of the 
Senate, time we could be using to address other real and urgent needs 
that no doubt the President will address tomorrow night in his State of 
the Union speech and which are well known to each of us here. We have 
more important things

[[Page 298]]

to do than to stage events to facilitate fundraising by special 
interest groups. I urge all of my colleagues to stand up against the 
interest groups and to put the American people first by voting against 
the filibuster.
  I also continue to be struck by the lengths some will go in order to 
defeat this good man and good judge. This raises the question of 
``Why?'' Why do liberal special interest groups and their allies in 
this body oppose Judge Alito so vehemently?
  I believe, at bottom, the reason they oppose his nomination is 
because he has refused to do their bidding. After all, Judge Alito is a 
judge who believes in judicial restraint, who understands the 
differences between the roles judges and legislators--elected 
representatives of the people--are to play in our government. He 
believes judges should respect the legislative choices made by the 
American people through their representatives. And he believes, as I 
do, judges have no warrant to impose their own beliefs on the rest of 
us under the guise of interpreting the Constitution.
  It is sad but true that the prospect of a Supreme Court Justice who 
will respect the legislative choices of the American people scares the 
living daylights out of these interest groups and their allies. Why? 
Because the legislative choices of the American people are not the 
legislative choices of these interest groups.
  There are some in this country who are entitled to their opinion but 
whose views are so extreme they will never prevail at the ballot box. 
The only way they could possibly hope to get their views enacted into 
law would be to circumvent the Democratic process and pack the courts 
with judicial activists who will impose their views on the rest of us.
  What are these views? Well, one organization I think makes the point. 
The American Civil Liberties Union is one example. They represent child 
pornographers because they believe that child pornography is free 
speech. Yet at the same time, they litigate against schoolchildren who 
want to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because it invokes ``one nation 
under God.''
  They believe the Constitution protects the right to end the life of a 
partially born child. Yet at the same time, they believe the 
Constitution does not protect marriage between only one man and one 
woman.
  They seem to believe that criminals have more rights than victims. 
And they believe that terrorists should receive special rights never 
before afforded to enemy combatants during a time of war.
  This is the hard left's version of America. It is a place where 
criminals and terrorists run free on technicalities, where 
pornographers may speak but people of faith must keep quiet, where 
traditional values are replaced by social experimentation.
  The liberal special interest groups and those who agree with them in 
this body to oppose Judge Alito do so because Judge Alito's America is 
not the hard left's America.
  What, then, is Judge Alito's America? Well, I found one of the best 
answers to that question in, of all places, the New York Times. On 
January 12, one of their columnists, David Brooks, wrote a column that 
captures perfectly the differences between Judge Alito's America and 
the America envisioned by some on the hard left.
  He wrote:

       If he'd been born a little earlier, Sam Alito probably 
     would have been a Democrat. In the 1950s, the middle-class 
     and lower-middle-class whites in places like Trenton, N.J., 
     where Alito grew up, were the heart and soul of the 
     Democratic party.
       But by the late 1960s, cultural politics replaced New Deal 
     politics, and liberal Democrats did their best to repel 
     Northern white ethnic voters. Big-city liberals launched 
     crusades against police brutality, portraying working class 
     cops as thuggish storm troopers for the establishment.
       The liberals were doves; the ethnics were hawks. The 
     liberals had ``Question Authority'' bumper stickers; the 
     ethnics had been taught in school to respect authority. The 
     liberals thought that an unjust society caused poverty; the 
     ethnics believed in working their way out of poverty.
       Sam Alito emerged from his middle-class neighborhood about 
     that time, made it to Princeton and found ``very privileged 
     people behaving irresponsibly.''
       Alito wanted to learn; the richer liberals wanted to 
     strike. He wanted to join the ROTC; the liberal Princetonians 
     expelled that organization from campus. He was orderly and 
     respectful; they were disorderly and disrespectful.

  Mr. Brooks continues:

       If there is one lesson from the Alito hearings, it is that 
     the Democratic Party continues to repel [middle-class white] 
     voters just as vigorously as ever.
       If you listened to the questions of [Republicans], you 
     heard [Senators] exercised by the terror drug dealers can 
     inflict on their neighborhoods. If you listened to the 
     [Democrats], you heard [Senators] exercised by the terror law 
     enforcement officials can inflict on a neighborhood.
       If forced to choose, most Americans side with the party 
     that errs on the side of the cops, not the criminals.
       If you listened to [Republicans], you heard [Senators] 
     alarmed by the threats posed by anti-American terrorists. If 
     you listened to [Democrats], you heard Senators alarmed by 
     the threats posed by American counterterrorists.
       If forced to choose, most Americans want a party that will 
     fight aggressively against the terrorists, not the [NSA].

  He concluded:

       Alito is a paragon of the old-fashioned working-class 
     ethic. In a culture of self-aggrandizement, Alito is modest. 
     In a culture of self-exposure, Alito is reticent. In a 
     culture of made-for-TV sentimentalism, Alito refuses to 
     emote. In a culture that celebrates the rebel, or the 
     fashionable pseudorebel, Alito respects tradition, order and 
     authority.

  I read a lengthy excerpt from Mr. Brooks' column because I could not 
have said it better. This is Judge Alito's America. It is a place where 
if we err at all, we err on the side of the law, not on the side of 
those who break the law, where we fight terrorists, not those who try 
to stop those terrorists, where we work hard to get ahead, where we are 
more interested in getting the job done than getting credit for it. In 
other words, these are the middle-class traditional values of America, 
Sam Alito's America, and, I believe, our America. They are now 
apparently so foreign to many in the Democratic Party, particularly the 
liberal interest groups that seem to agitate for delay for delay's sake 
and to block an up-or-down vote on this nomination, that they will stop 
at nothing to oppose someone such as Judge Alito who embodies those 
values. You name it, whether smears, distortions or even denying the 
decency of an up-or-down vote, and some will do it. Judge Alito's 
treatment by this hard core of left-leaning groups and their supporters 
says more about them than it does Judge Alito.
  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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on a motion to 
invoke cloture on the nomination of Samuel Alito to be an Associate 
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. We should not even have to take this 
step but should be voting instead on whether to consent to Judge 
Alito's appointment. But since we are being forced to take this 
unnecessary step, let me explain why I believe the case for both 
cloture and for confirmation is compelling.
  Deliberation and debate are hallmarks of the Senate. Our tradition 
has been that once a judicial nomination has reached the Senate floor, 
we debate and then we vote on confirmation. There is no need to revisit 
all of the arguments regarding judicial nomination filibusters. Suffice 
it to say that American history contains but a single example of 
failing to invoke cloture on and then failing to confirm a Supreme 
Court nomination. The 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief 
Justice, however, bears no relationship to the current situation.
  First, while the Fortas nomination did not have majority support, the 
Alito nomination clearly does. Judge Alito enjoys majority bipartisan 
support. I realize his opponents are not happy that Judge Alito will be 
confirmed; no one likes to lose. But the correct response to failure is 
to pick

[[Page 299]]

yourself up and try another day, not to rig the process to get your 
way.
  Second, opposition to cloture on the Fortas nomination was almost 
evenly bipartisan, with 23 Republicans and 19 Democrats. As we are 
about to see, opposition to cloture on the Alito nomination will be 
entirely partisan. The most important reason why the Fortas cloture 
vote is no precedent for this one is that there had not yet been full 
and complete debate on the Fortas nomination when the vote ending 
debate occurred. Senator Robert Griffin of Michigan stated clearly at 
the time that not all Senators had had a chance to speak and that the 
debate was being kept squarely on the many serious issues and concerns 
raised by the Fortas nomination. Senators were debating, not 
obstructing, the nomination.
  The same cannot be said today. Those raising this last-minute call 
for a filibuster have had a full and fair opportunity to air their 
views about this nomination. Let us not forget that debate over a 
nomination, especially to the Supreme Court, begins as soon as the 
President announces his intention to nominate. The Judiciary Committee 
chairman, Senator Specter, accommodated Democrats and waited to hold 
the hearing on the Alito nomination until January. In fact, the 70 days 
between announcement and hearing exceeded the average time for all of 
the current Supreme Court Justices by more than 60 percent. 
Nonetheless, committee Democrats insisted on delaying the nomination 
for an extra week.
  The nomination has now been on the floor for nearly a week. While the 
Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, says that Senators need still 
more time to debate, I recall the long, repeated quorum calls last week 
when Senators who could have spoken chose not to do so. I agree with 
the distinguished minority leader who last Thursday said that ``there 
has been adequate time for people to debate. No one can complain in 
this matter that there hasn't been sufficient time to talk about Judge 
Alito, pro or con.''
  In fact, the last-ditch call for this filibuster came not from this 
floor or even from this country. The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kerry, called for this filibuster from Switzerland. There is a 
difference between not having an opportunity to debate and not winning 
that debate. Nothing is being short circuited here. This floor has been 
wide open for debate. No one can even suggest that the debate has not 
been a full and fair one.
  To their credit, some of my Democratic colleagues who oppose the 
nomination itself have nonetheless said that this 11th-hour filibuster 
attempt is not in the best interest of the Senate.
  The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, said over the weekend that the 
better course for Democrats is to win elections and persuade on the 
merits, rather than what he called overreliance on procedural maneuvers 
such as the filibuster. I agree.
  We should not have to take this cloture vote today. It only further 
politicizes and distorts an already damaged judicial confirmation 
process. Moving beyond that, it is clear that the case for Judge 
Alito's confirmation is compelling. Last week I outlined three reasons 
why Judge Alito should be confirmed. He is highly qualified. He is a 
man of character and integrity, and he understands and is committed to 
the properly limited role of the judiciary, judges.
  During the debate on this nomination, other Senators have explored 
these matters as well, including the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, 
who preceded me here today. Senator Cornyn is a distinguished member of 
the Judiciary Committee and a former State supreme court justice. His 
perspective and insight on judicial matters has been and is extremely 
valuable.
  I wish to explore one specific issue that relates to Judge Alito's 
judicial philosophy which, unfortunately, has been the subject of a 
disinformation campaign by Judge Alito's opponents. That issue is Judge 
Alito's view on the role of precedent or prior judicial decisions in 
deciding cases. Judges settle legal disputes by applying the law to the 
facts in the cases that come before them. The law that judges apply to 
settle legal disputes comes in two basic forms.
  There is the written law itself in the form of constitutional 
provisions, statutes, or regulations. Then there are past decisions in 
which the courts have addressed the same issue. The Latin phrase for 
following precedent or prior decisions is ``stare decisis,'' which 
means ``let the decision stand.'' Mr. President, every judge believes 
in the doctrine of stare decisis. Every judge believes that prior 
decisions play an important role in judicial decisionmaking. That 
includes Judge Alito.
  As I will explain, Judge Alito's views on precedent are sound, 
traditional, and principled. When the Judiciary Committee hearing on 
this nomination opened, I outlined several rules which should guide the 
confirmation process. The first was that we should take parts or 
elements of Judge Alito's record on their own terms, in their own 
context for what they really are. That certainly applies to Judge 
Alito's views regarding the issue of precedent.
  Rather than acknowledging what Judge Alito's views actually are, 
however, some of his opponents have created a caricature of those 
views, which serves their political purposes but which misleads our 
fellow citizens about both Judge Alito's record and this very important 
issue.
  Let me start with Judge Alito's own words. No one expresses his view 
of precedent better than he does. On January 11, 2006, Judge Alito 
offered this summary of his views:

       I have said that stare decisis is a very important legal 
     doctrine and that there is a general presumption that 
     decisions of the Court will not be overruled. There needs to 
     be a special justification for doing so, but it is not an 
     inexorable command.

  This view has several elements.
  First, Judge Alito says plainly that stare decisis is a very 
important legal concept and doctrine. He described why he thinks 
precedent is so important. One of his points stood out, and I believe 
it is worth highlighting. Let me just refer to that point. He said:

       I think the doctrine of stare decisis is a very important 
     doctrine . . . [I]t limits the power of the judiciary . . . 
     it's not an inexorable command, but it is a general 
     presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedent.

  Precedent is an important element of judicial restraint. In contrast 
to the grandiose picture painted by some on the other side of the 
aisle, the judiciary doesn't exist to right all wrongs, correct all 
errors, heal social wounds, and otherwise usher in an age of domestic 
tranquility. Judges have a specific role to play, but, like legislators 
and the executive, they must stay in their proper place.
  Judge Alito believes that giving precedent an important role in 
deciding cases limits the power of the judiciary. If his opponents 
believe instead that judges should have unlimited power and may 
disregard precedent at will, let them try to persuade the American 
people.
  Let me refer again to Judge Alito's summary of his views on 
precedent. In addition to stare decisis being an important legal 
doctrine, Judge Alito also said that there is a general presumption 
that decisions of the Court will not be overruled. If that presumption 
did not exist, there would be little point in paying attention to prior 
decisions at all. In fact, it is that presumption which makes precedent 
useful in limiting the power of the judiciary.
  Judge Alito also said that overruling a prior decision requires a 
special justification. Some of Judge Alito's opponents suggest that he 
has taken a careless or reckless attitude toward the precedents of the 
court on which he now sits. I assume that, by this suggestion, they 
want people to believe that Judge Alito would play fast and loose with 
Supreme Court precedent once he joins the Court. The suggestion is 
certainly false.
  Judge Alito has voted to overrule his own court's precedents only 
four times in the 15 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals--only four 
times. In each of those cases, in which all of the judges in the 
circuit participated, he was in the majority, and in two of them the 
decision

[[Page 300]]

was unanimous. Judge Alito has demonstrated his view that judges should 
not heedlessly overrule past decisions.
  As he explained it, the factors helping judges to handle precedents, 
including ones to overrule or reaffirm them, include when a past 
decision has actually been challenged and the Court has decided to 
retain it. This would, of course, not include cases in which the 
validity of a prior decision was neither challenged nor decided. It is, 
after all, another fundamental principle of judicial restraint, which 
Judge Alito also endorsed, that courts should not decide constitutional 
questions unless absolutely necessary. That would include deciding 
whether prior decisions, especially on constitutional issues, should be 
overruled or reaffirmed.
  Obviously, a court does not decide an issue unless it actually 
addresses and decides it, and a court cannot be said to reaffirm or 
uphold a prior decision unless it actually addresses or decides that 
issue.
  That said, a court strengthens the presumption that a precedent will 
be followed when the court actually does reaffirm such a decision. At 
the same time, Judge Alito has said that adhering to prior decisions is 
not an inexorable command. Those are not his words. As he pointed out 
at his hearing, the Supreme Court has repeatedly used that language, 
holding over and over again that adherence to precedent is not an 
inexorable command.
  This only makes sense. While following prior decisions is a 
presumption, it is a rebuttable presumption. Here is where Judge 
Alito's opponents cry foul the loudest and where they expose their real 
agenda.
  Many of Judge Alito's opponents do not really care about legal 
doctrines; they only care about political agendas. For them, the 
political ends justify the judicial means, and so-called principles are 
infinitely flexible so long as the political goal is achieved. They do 
not care about precedents in general; they only care about certain 
precedents in particular.
  While Judge Alito has presented a thoughtful, principled approach to 
handling any prior decision, his opponents have but one simple, hard, 
political rule: get your hands off the precedents we want to keep. 
Their rule seems to be stare decisis for me but not for thee. Reaffirm 
decisions we like; overrule ones we oppose. This one-way ratchet is 
simply a device for getting the courts to do the political heavy 
lifting and preserving particularly the Supreme Court's role as 
policymaker in chief.
  The real issue for Judge Alito's opponents is not that he rules too 
often for this group or that group, as if judges are supposed to make 
the numbers satisfy some political interest group rather than 
faithfully apply the law. It is not really about theories such as what 
has been called the unitary executive, which to Judge Alito apparently 
means nothing more unusual than that the head of the executive branch 
should be able to control and lead the executive branch. It is not 
about guilt-by-association tactics--accusations of affiliation with 
groups wanting to preserve Princeton's all-male tradition made by 
Senators belonging to all-male clubs.
  No, Mr. President, this is about abortion. That is the be-all and 
end-all issue of those who oppose Judge Alito. I admit there may be an 
exception or two over there, but I really believe it comes down to 
that. That is what is driving this, and that is what the outside 
special interests, the leftwing groups, are using to drive them. The 
800-pound precedent in the room is Roe v. Wade. That is the decision 
Judge Alito's opponents want left alone at all costs.
  Many Senators and leftwing interest groups have demanded to know 
whether Judge Alito, if confirmed, would ever vote to overrule Roe v. 
Wade. I applaud their creativity in getting as close as possible to 
directly asking him that question. For most of Judge Alito's opponents, 
whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided doesn't matter. Whether it 
was a legitimate interpretation of the Constitution does not matter. 
No, abortion advocates take a fluidly flexible approach to precedent, 
at least until they get the one they want. Then they become the most 
rigid and doctrinaire defenders of precedent, insisting on keeping what 
they have. This all seems like a judicial version of ``heads I win, 
tails you lose.''
  Mr. President, I am glad to say that Judge Alito follows principle 
rather than politics on the bench. Can you imagine if the attitude of 
his opponents regarding this one precedent, Roe v. Wade, actually 
prevailed across the board? What if adherence to prior decisions was 
actually an inexorable command? What if the Supreme Court's 
interpretation of the Constitution, once on the books, could never be 
changed? If the doctrine of stare decisis were an inexorable command, 
decisions such as Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson would 
still be on the books.
  Judge Alito put it:

       I don't think anybody would want a rule in the area of 
     constitutional law that . . . said that a constitutional 
     decision once handed down can never be overruled.

  The judiciary must be guided by principles, not by politics. The 
Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the role of precedent is 
actually the weakest in cases involving the Constitution for a very 
simple reason. When the Supreme Court construes one of our statutes 
incorrectly, we can correct that error in short order. When the Supreme 
Court interprets the Constitution incorrectly, correction comes only 
through the cumbersome constitutional amendment process or the Court's 
willingness to review its past decisions.
  I ask unanimous consent that a list of Supreme Court decisions 
affirming the principle that precedent is weakest in constitutional 
cases be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered t9 be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Stare Decisis Is Weakest in Constitutional Cases

       Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203,235 (1997) (quoting Payne 
     v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808,828 (1991))--Justice O'Connor.
       ``As we have often noted, `[s]tare decisis is not an 
     inexorable command, . . .' That policy is at its weakest when 
     we interpret the Constitution because our interpretation can 
     be altered only by constitutional amendment or by overruling 
     our prior decisions.''
       Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808,828 (1991) (quoting 
     Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 196,119 (1940) and Burnet v. 
     Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393,407 (1932))--Chief 
     Justice Rehnquist.
       ``Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it 
     `is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of 
     adherence to the latest decision.' This is particularly true 
     in constitutional cases, because in such cases `correction 
     through legislative action is practically impossible.'''
       Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957,965 (1991)--Justice 
     Scalia.
       ``We have long recognized, of course, that the doctrine of 
     stare decisis is less rigid in its application to 
     constitutional precedents.''
       Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530,543 (1962)--Justice 
     Harlan.
       ``. . . this Court's considered practice not to apply stare 
     decisis as rigidly in constitutional as in nonconstitutional 
     cases. . . .''
       New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572 (1946)--Justice 
     Frankfurter.
       ``But throughout the history of the Court stare decisis has 
     had only a limited application in the field of constitutional 
     law. And it is a wise policy which largely restricts it to 
     those areas of the law where correction can be had by 
     legislation. Otherwise the Constitution loses the flexibility 
     necessary if it is to serve the needs of successive 
     generations.''
       Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649,665 (1944)--Justice Reed.
       ``In constitutional questions, where correction depends 
     upon amendment and not upon legislative action, this Court 
     throughout its history has freely exercised its power to 
     reexamine the basis of its constitutional decisions.''
       St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 98 U.S. 38,94 
     (1936)--Justices Stone and Cardozo, concurring in the result.
       ``The doctrine of stare decisis . . . has only a limited 
     application in the field of constitutional law.''
       Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393,407 (1932)--
     Justice Brandeis, dissenting.
       ``[I]n cases involving the Federal Constitution, where 
     correction through legislative action is practically 
     impossible, this court has often overruled its earlier 
     decisions.''

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in some of these cases, the Justice whom 
Judge Alito would replace, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, is the one 
repeating this principle.
  Let me return once again to how Judge Alito summarized his own view

[[Page 301]]

 of precedent. It is a very important legal doctrine that serves to 
limit judicial power. There is a general presumption that past 
decisions will not be overruled, but this is not an inexorable command.
  Judge Alito takes a sound, traditional, principled view of the role 
of precedent in judicial decisionmaking, and I hope my colleagues will 
consider Judge Alito's view for what it actually is.
  In closing, let me say that the debate over this nomination has been 
going on for about 3 months. It has been long and vigorous, both inside 
the Senate and across the country. I wish to note some of the opinions 
outside of this body on the nomination before us.
  Some of my colleagues on other side of the aisle are fond of quoting 
liberal law professor Cass Sunstein's statistical analysis about which 
sides have won or lost in different categories of cases before Judge 
Alito. They have often said it is in his dissent that we may find his 
true judicial philosophy. I wonder whether they will credit Professor 
Sunstein's conclusions about Judge Alito's dissents, published last 
November in the Washington Post.
  Here is what he said on the contrary:

       None of Alito's opinions is reckless or irresponsible or 
     even especially far-reaching. His disagreement is unfailingly 
     respectful. His dissents are lawyerly rather than bombastic. 
     He does not berate his colleagues . . . Nor has Alito 
     proclaimed an ambitious or controversial theory of 
     interpretation. He avoids abstractions.

  That was November 1, 2005.
  Here is the conclusion of New York Newsday, which is titled 
``Qualifications'':

       Samuel Alito is a modest, decent man and an accomplished 
     jurist, well within the country's conservative mainstream. On 
     that basis he should be confirmed. But the Nation will need 
     him to be a strong guardian of the constitutional rights and 
     protections that make this country special.

  I ask unanimous consent that three other editorials from the 
Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and the Newark Star-Ledger be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered, to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

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

                          Confirm Samuel Alito

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


               [From the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 15, 2006]

                          Confirm Judge Alito

       Having survived the hazing ritual known as a Senate 
     Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Judge Samuel Alito 
     Jr. has demonstrated that he should be confirmed for the 
     Supreme Court.
       He had largely done so before the hearing. His record on 
     the bench is strong. The American Bar Association determined 
     he is highly qualified. But he had to go through the process 
     of proving that he could remain calm through every contorted 
     attempt by senators to challenge his character and fitness. 
     He has done so.
       So what did we learn from the hearing?
       That Alito will not prejudge matters before the court, 
     despite the Democrats' fervent demand that he declare 
     abortion is a matter beyond judicial review. (Good judges, he 
     pointedly said, ``are always open to the possibility of 
     changing their minds based on the next brief that they read 
     or the next argument that's made by an attorney who's 
     appearing before them or a comment that is made by a 
     colleague ... when the judges privately discuss the case.'')
       That Alito finds repugnant the views of a long departed, 
     long forgotten Princeton organization to which he, 
     apparently, had the slimmest of connections.
       That he believes judges should rule on the law, not make 
     law.
       If Democrats on the Judiciary Committee hoped to expose him 
     as a right-wing ideologue, they failed. They did manage, as 
     they did last year in the confirmation hearings for Chief 
     Justice John G. Roberts Jr., to show how pious, preening and 
     pompous they can be.
       Alito probably won't get many Democratic votes, even though 
     he deserves their support. We'll go through the ritual of 
     opposition senators declaring that, after careful 
     deliberation, they cannot vote for this nominee. They've 
     already laid the foundation, as the lawyers say; several 
     Democrats have announced that after more than 18 hours of 
     testimony they still have doubts about his ``credibility.''
       A week of hearings. Fifteen years of judicial opinions, all 
     available for review. But in all that, Alito's opponents have 
     failed to unearth anything damaging--or even to elicit an 
     intemperate remark from the judge, though they did succeed in 
     making his wife cry. It's a wonder anyone is willing to 
     endure this process.
       The special-interest campaigns will thunder on for a few 
     more days. Some Democrats on the committee have demanded the 
     vote be postponed while they ponder their next moves, 
     including a possible filibuster. What a terribly destructive 
     move that would be.
       Alito's integrity, professional competence and judicial 
     temperament ``are of the highest standing.'' That was the 
     judgment of the American Bar Association, reached after 
     interviewing 300 people who know Alito and evaluating 350 of 
     his written opinions and dozens of unpublished opinions, oral 
     arguments and memos.
       He ``sees majesty in the law, respects it, and remains a 
     dedicated student of it to this day.'' That, too, was the 
     judgment of the ABA.
       Alito is, as his colleague, federal Appellate Judge Edward 
     R. Becker, testified, ``a real judge deciding each case on 
     the facts and the law, not on his personal views, whatever 
     they may be.''
       He deserves every senator's vote.
                                  ____


              [From the Newark Star-Ledger, Jan. 17, 2006]

                       Confirm Alito to the Court

       The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court 
     nominee Samuel Alito Jr. have been a remarkable tutorial--not 
     in the law but in just how low partisan politics have sunk.
       Democrats have painted Alito as someone ready to turn back 
     the clock 50 years on civil, reproductive and workers' 
     rights. They have attempted to draw a public portrait of 
     Alito, sometimes relying on half-truths, that those who know 
     him best barely recognize.

[[Page 302]]

     Republicans responded to this onslaught with a slew of 
     softball questions designed not to elicit information but to 
     present the nominee in the best possible light.
       Neither side has served the public particularly well.
       For their part, Senate Judiciary Committee members 
     interjected a level of senatorial logorrhea that was 
     stunning, droning on and on about matters that had nothing to 
     do with Alito's fitness to serve on the nation's highest 
     court.
       Despite the spectacle of the hearings, we are convinced 
     Alito, a New Jerseyan who sits on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court 
     of Appeals, is eminently qualified to serve as an associate 
     justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and should be confirmed by 
     the committee and ultimately by the full Senate, and, yes, 
     with the support of New Jersey's two Democratic senators.
       Our support is not an uncritical ode to homegrown talent. 
     It is based, in part, on the respect and praise Alito has 
     garnered from those who have worked with him throughout his 
     distinguished legal and judicial career. Democrats and 
     Republicans, conservatives and liberals, many of whom, 
     perhaps, philosophically disagree with Alito, have 
     consistently maintained he is well-suited for the court.
       We think they make a compelling case.
       Among those who speak highly of him are Rutgers Law School 
     Associate Dean Ronald Chen, an outspoken liberal who was just 
     named by Gov.-elect Jon Corzine to be public advocate; 
     retired Chief Judge John Gibbons of the 3rd Circuit Court of 
     Appeals, who since leaving the bench has worked aggressively 
     to eliminate the death penalty; well-known Democratic lawyer 
     Douglas Eakeley, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton 
     to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corp.; 
     Democratic criminal defense attorney Joseph Hayden and former 
     Attorney General Robert Del Tufo, who served in Democrat Jim 
     Florio's cabinet and worked with Alito in the U.S. Attorney's 
     Office.
       None of these folks had to stand up for Alito, but they 
     did.
       Similarly, the judges who sit with Alito on the 3rd Circuit 
     in Philadelphia came forth in an unprecedented show of 
     support, insisting he was not an ideologue, had scrupulously 
     adhered to precedent and had shown no signs of hostility 
     toward a particular class of cases or litigants.
       The American Bar Association declared Alito ``well-
     qualified''--the highest approval rating given by the ABA.
       This is not to say we like everything we heard from Alito 
     in the hearings.
       Given our strong and long-standing support for abortion 
     rights, we worry that Alito's refusal to describe Roe vs. 
     Wade as settled law could mean he'll be inclined to take 
     positions that chip away at a woman's right to abortion. At a 
     time when questions are being raised about the abuse of 
     presidential power in the war on terror, we're discomforted 
     by Alito's expansive view of presidential authority.
       The hard truth is that selecting nominees for the Supreme 
     Court is a presidential choice. And it is reasonable and 
     appropriate for a president to pick someone who reflects his 
     values. During the 2004 presidential race, candidate George 
     Bush made no bones about his intention, if given a chance, to 
     select conservatives.
       Some Democrats have argued against that standard. They've 
     said nominees have to reflect a political ``mainstream.'' But 
     if that were the case, Clinton's nomination of Ruth Bader 
     Ginsberg would never have been confirmed by a 96-3 vote. 
     Republicans overwhelmingly supported Ginsberg, even though 
     she is the very picture of a left-wing ideologue. She was 
     general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union and 
     directed the ACLU's Women's Rights Project, arguing numerous 
     controversial abortion rights cases.
       Alito is a conservative, but he is not an ideologue. He has 
     demonstrated that he has the intellect and temperament to 
     serve the nation well.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I also note that the attorneys general of 
20 States, Democrats and Republicans, have signed a letter urging this 
body to confirm Judge Alito. I am proud that Mark Shurtleff, attorney 
general of my home State of Utah, is among them. They write:

       Judge Alito represents the best of the Federal bench and we 
     believe he will be an excellent Supreme Court justice.

  I agree, and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed into 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                  January 6, 2006.
     Re Judicial confirmation of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to 
         the Supreme Court of the United States.

     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Frist, Minority Leader Reid, Chairman 
     Specter, and Ranking Member Leahy: We, the undersigned 
     Attorneys General of our respective states, are writing in 
     support of the confirmation of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to 
     serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the 
     United States.
       We are confident that Judge Alito will bring to the Court 
     not only years of legal experience and judicial temperament, 
     but also modesty and great personal character.
       We reflect diverse views and constituencies and are united 
     in our belief that Judge Alito will be an outstanding Supreme 
     Court Justice and should be confirmed by the United States 
     Senate.
       As the Senate prepares for the confirmation process of 
     Judge Alito, it is important to look beyond partisan politics 
     and ideology and focus on the judicial experience of this 
     extremely well qualified nominee. Judge Alito has served the 
     United States as an Assistant to the Solicitor General, as a 
     United States Attorney, and for the past 15 years, as a Judge 
     on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
       Judge Alito's record on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals 
     demonstrates judicial restraint. He has proven that he seeks 
     to apply the law and does not legislate from the bench. Judge 
     Alito's judgments while on the bench have relied on legal 
     precedent and current law, and he has a long-standing 
     reputation for being both tough and fair. In short, Judge 
     Alito represents the best of the federal bench and we believe 
     he will be an excellent Supreme Court Justice.
       We urge the Senate to hold an up or down vote and confirm 
     Judge Alito.
           Sincerely,
         John W. Suthers, Attorney General of Colorado; Troy King, 
           Attorney General of Alabama; Charlie Crist, Attorney 
           General of Florida; Lawrence Wasden, Attorney General 
           of Idaho; Tom Corbett, Attorney General of 
           Pennsylvania; David W. Marquez, Attorney General of 
           Alaska; Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General of Hawaii; 
           Stephen Carter, Attorney General of Indiana; Phill 
           Kline, Attorney General of Kansas; Jon Bruning, 
           Attorney General of Nebraska.
         Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General of North Dakota; Henry 
           McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina; Lawrence 
           Long, Attorney General of South Dakota; Judith Williams 
           Jagdmann, Attorney General of Virginia; Michael A. Cox, 
           Attorney General of Michigan; George Chanos, Attorney 
           General of Nevada; Jim Petro, Attorney General of Ohio; 
           Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas; Mark Shurtleff, 
           Attorney General of Utah; Rob McKenna, Attorney General 
           of Washington.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the votes we take today and tomorrow give 
us an important opportunity. The Los Angeles Times editorial of January 
15, 2006, got it right, saying that trying to derail this nomination by 
filibuster rather than on the merits is wrong.
  I urge my colleagues to preserve this body's tradition by rejecting 
this desperate filibuster attempt, and then in a vote tomorrow, I urge 
my colleagues to honor the judiciary's important but limited role in 
our system of government by confirming this qualified and honorable man 
to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is time for the debate on the 
nomination of Judge Alito to end. It is time for the Senate to act on 
the President's nomination of Samuel Alito to serve as a Justice on the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  We have had ample time to review this nomination. The Judiciary 
Committee has conducted a thorough review of Judge Alito's background 
and qualifications. Senator Specter, as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, ensured that all the questions that should be asked of this 
nominee were asked and answered.
  The Judiciary Committee thoroughly reviewed the story of Judge 
Alito's life and questioned him on a wide range of issues. In the 
process, Judge Alito demonstrated his ability, intelligence, and his 
fitness to serve as a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  In almost 3 months of intense scrutiny and over 18 hours of personal 
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito provided 
clear and candid answers to all the questions that were asked.
  All Senators have had an opportunity to meet with Judge Alito, to 
review the

[[Page 303]]

opinions he has written, to read the articles he has written in law 
reviews and other publications, to become familiar--as familiar as 
anyone can--with his thinking, his judicial philosophy, his past 
performance as a judge, as a solicitor, as a lawyer in private 
practice, as a student in law school, and as a fellow judge. Judge 
Alito has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in 
over 70 years.
  In my opinion, the most impressive and persuasive testimony at the 
hearings in the committee came from the panel of judges with whom he 
served on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. They testified before the 
committee and discussed the way Judge Alito approached questions before 
that court, the way he acted during deliberations among other members 
of the court about the decision that should be reached in each case, 
and generally the way he went about discharging the enormously 
important duties he had as a member of that court. And despite 
differences in politics and viewpoints and backgrounds among some of 
the judges with him, they were all enthusiastically supporting his 
confirmation for service on the Supreme Court.
  Judge Alito has earned the respect of those who know him best--his 
colleagues on the Federal courts, as well as his current and former law 
clerks, and the members of the bar who have appeared before him in 
court. He is widely respected for his even temperament, his integrity, 
his sound legal judgment, and his respect and courtesy for others.
  I am confident Judge Alito will serve with great distinction as a 
Justice on the Supreme Court. I think reciting Judge Alito's own words 
is the best way for me to conclude my remarks. He said:

       Fifteen years ago, when I was sworn in as a judge of the 
     Court of Appeals, I took an oath. I put my hand on the Bible, 
     and I swore that I would administer justice without respect 
     to persons, that I would do equal right to the poor and the 
     rich, and that I would carry out my duties under the 
     Constitution and the laws of the United States. And that is 
     what I have tried to do to the very best of my ability for 
     the past 15 years. And if I am confirmed, I pledge to you 
     that that is what I would do on the Supreme Court.

  It is time to end this debate. It is time to confirm the President's 
nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I know there are a number of people who 
wish to speak on Judge Alito. I want to add a few comments of my own on 
this nomination. If I may inquire of the Chair, is there time that 
needs to be yielded?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may speak up until 4 o'clock.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I sat in on the hearings for Judge Alito. I personally 
interviewed Judge Alito. I talked with him in my office. I sat through 
the hearings and was able to question him in the Judiciary Committee. I 
am on the Judiciary Committee, so I sat through those hearings to hear 
his testimony. I feel as if we had a good chance to take the measure of 
the man, and he is outstanding. I believe he is going to be an 
outstanding jurist.
  He answered hundreds of questions, more than I believe any prior 
nominee has answered in the history of the Republic. He answered them 
deftly. He answered them with an encyclopedic knowledge of the law. It 
was amazing to me to see that he did not have a note in front of him 
the whole time, and if you asked him any constitutional question on any 
case at any time in the history of the Republic, he would say here are 
the facts of that case, here is how the law was decided, this case is 
still in question or it isn't. He is a brilliant jurist. He wasn't 
particularly good on international law, and I was particularly glad to 
hear he wasn't good on law, on what would happen in other countries.
  He has a long history on the bench which I think is important. For a 
series of years now, only so-called stealth candidates could be 
approved. Judge Alito is a man with years of experience on the Third 
Circuit Court of Appeals. He has written a number of opinions that we 
could dissect them and see. People were looking into his background, 
trying to determine does he lean this way or that way, but he has 
hundreds of published opinions, and through them we can see which way 
he leans.
  He is a known commodity--well known, well respected, and well 
regarded across the board. I do think where he is going to contribute 
to the country, the Republic, is in the areas of religious freedom and 
free expression. This has not gotten much play at all in the media or 
in much of the hearings, but it is one of the areas he has written the 
most extensively on and in which he is a legal scholar.
  He believes in a robust public square, a public square where we can 
celebrate faith, and where faith can be presented. He believes in this 
for all faiths and faith traditions. You see that in cases where he has 
ruled in favor of menorah candles being put forward, Christmas trees, 
and Muslim police officers being able to dress appropriately to their 
religion and still be able to be police officers.
  He believes in a separation of church and state, but he also believes 
this is a country full of people of faith and that they should, under 
the free expression clause, be allowed to express and to live that 
faith and to be able to show it. I think he is very clear and 
thoughtful.
  If there is an area of the law that needs clarity, it is this because 
we have rules and tests all over the country. I think he is going to 
contribute in this area. This is one of the areas that did not get much 
review, it did not get much comment, but I think he is going to make a 
clear impression, and I think he is going to make a very helpful 
impression for this Nation whose motto, as the Chair looks at it, is 
``In God We Trust.''
  There is a reason for that. This is a nation of faith. It is one we 
seek to celebrate, not have an imprimatur from the state saying this is 
the religion or that is the religion, but rather saying we want you all 
to be here, have your own faith, be able to celebrate it, and be able 
to bring it forward in this Nation. I think he is going to contribute 
greatly in this particular category.
  The area of abortion got the most review, and it is unknown how he 
would rule in the case of Roe v. Wade or anything along that line. He 
did not state an opinion one way or the other. It is an area of open 
case law. It is an area, in my opinion, that is not in the 
Constitution. There is no constitutional right for a woman to abort her 
child. I believe it to be a matter that should be decided by bodies 
such as this, or in States around the country.
  I remind my colleagues, as they all know, if Roe v. Wade or any 
portion of it were overturned, the issue goes back to the States. That 
is the group, that is the body that resolves this issue. It is not 
something where the ruling automatically shuts everything down. What 
happens is it goes back and California decides its rules and New York, 
Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, and other States decide theirs.
  I don't see what is so untrustworthy about States resolving this 
issue. They did prior to 1973, and we didn't have near the level of 
conflict or difficulty in this country on those laws when the States 
were resolving these issues.
  I strongly doubt all the States would resolve them the same. I doubt 
a State in a certain part of the country would be identical to another 
one. Yet I do think it would reflect the will of the people. But we do 
not know how Judge Alito he will rule on this issue. The Democrats 
don't know, the Republicans don't know, I don't know. This is an issue 
I care deeply about, and we don't know. That is probably as it should 
be because it is an area of active case law and one that is going to 
come in front of us.
  The other area he was challenged so much on was Executive rights and 
privileges. I believe this man will be very clear in standing up to the 
executive branch when the executive branch

[[Page 304]]

needs to be held in check. I have no doubt at all about that.
  One area we talked about that has not again gotten much review, but 
needs a lot, is the area of judicial restraint. We need a judiciary 
that will restrain itself. There are three separate branches of 
Government, each having a sphere and not to overlap the other. The 
judiciary has not restrained itself in the past. Judge Alito, along 
with John Roberts, previously coming before the committee and this 
body, both spoke significantly and clearly about the need for judicial 
restraint. I believe if we don't start seeing a judiciary that shows 
some restraint and says it is not an all-powerful judiciary in every 
area, it cannot appropriate money, that is left to the Congress, that 
we will start to see these bodies remove judicial review by the 
Congress, as is allowed in the Constitution. It is not an area that has 
been used much, but I think we are going to start seeing it used much 
more, if the judiciary does not show some level of restraint. This has 
been expressed by both John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
  I believe Judge Alito will be an outstanding jurist if we are able to 
get cloture in this body to end debate, to get the 60 votes necessary 
to end debate. He is one of the most qualified individuals we have had. 
His is a beautiful story of immigrant parents coming to the United 
States and working hard to get a good education.
  He is one of sterling character. Probably one of the saddest chapters 
that has taken place is the challenge to his character, which is 
nothing short of sterling. This is a gentleman who has worked all his 
life to uphold the traditions of his family, to make his family proud 
and see his dad pleased that his son stood for right against wrong.
  At the end of the day, I believe he will exercise justice and 
righteousness, doing both what is just and what is right. That is what 
we need in this country, a country that is both just and right.
  In the greatest traditions of this Nation, we need to do what is 
right, and we need to be just to the strong, to the weak, to those who 
cannot speak for themselves. We need to stand up and speak for their 
rights even if they cannot speak for their own.
  I support the nomination and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 4 p.m. 
having arrived, the Democratic leader or his designee shall be 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of my colleagues rely on 
the ABA's determination that Judge Alito is ``well qualified'' as a 
reason--sometimes as reason enough--to vote for his confirmation. But 
there is a reason why an ABA ranking alone is not all that is required 
to be confirmed to the bench, let alone the highest Court in the land.
  With a decision as fundamental--as irrevocable--and as important to 
the American people as the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, it 
is important we tell the Americans the full story about the ABA and 
those rankings.
  When making its determination, the ABA considers analytical skills. 
They consider knowledge of the law. They consider integrity, 
professional competence, and judicial temperament. But United States 
Senators must consider more than these criteria.
  What the ABA does not look at is the balance of the Supreme Court. 
What they do not look at is ideology. What they do not look at is 
judicial activism. What they do not look at is the consequences of a 
judge's ideologically driven decisions for those who have been wronged 
and who just want to get their day in court. No matter how smart he may 
be, no matter how cleverly his opinions may be written, no matter how 
skillfully he manipulates the law, their standards don't consider the 
impact of his decisions on average Americans. In short, they don't 
measure what will happen to average Americans if Judge Alito becomes 
Justice Alito. That is our job.
  None of these measurements consider whether Judge Alito routinely 
cuts off access to justice for the most disadvantaged Americans--those 
that need it the most. They don't ask whether he consistently excuses 
excessive government force when it intrudes into the privacy of 
individuals. They don't consider that the only statement he has ever 
made about a woman's right to privacy is that she doesn't have one.
  These are things that we must consider here in the United States 
Senate. These are things that are on the line in this vote this 
afternoon. And these are the things that I believe most Americans want 
us to consider. We have to consider whether a judge we confirm to a 
lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court will undermine the laws that 
we have already passed that benefit millions of Americans, like the 
Family Medical Leave Act. We have to consider whether Judge Alito will 
place barriers in the way of addressing discrimination, whether he will 
serve as an effective check on the abuse of executive power, whether he 
will roll back women's privacy rights or whether he will enforce the 
rights and liberties that generations of Americans have fought and bled 
and even died to protect. None of the rights we are talking about came 
easily in this country. There were always those in positions of power 
who fought back and resisted. What we need in a Justice is somebody who 
is sensitive to that history. Senator after Senator has described 
specific cases and the way in which Judge Alito has had a negative 
impact in these areas--often standing alone, in dissent against 
mainstream beliefs.
  This long record is a record that gave the extreme right wing cause 
for public celebration with his nomination. That just about tells you 
what you need to know. The vote today is whether we will take a stand 
against ideological courtpacking.
  Nothing can erase Judge Alito's record. We all know what we are 
getting. No one will be able to say, in 5 to 10 years, that they are 
surprised by the decisions Judge Alito makes from the bench. People who 
believe in privacy rights, who fight for the rights of the most 
disadvantaged, who believe in balancing the power between the President 
and Congress need to take a stand now.
  I understand that, for many, voting for cloture on a judicial 
nomination is a very difficult decision, particularly on this Supreme 
Court nominee. I also understand that, for some, a nomination must be 
an ``extraordinary circumstance'' in order to justify that vote. Well, 
I believe this nomination is an extraordinary circumstance. What could 
possibly be more important than this--an entire shift in the direction 
of the Court?
  This is a lifetime appointment to a Court where nine individuals 
determine what our Constitution protects and what our laws mean. Once 
Judge Alito is confirmed, we can never take back this vote. Not after 
he prevents many Americans from having their discrimination cases heard 
by a jury. Not after he allows more government intrusions into our 
private lives. Not after he grants the President the power to ignore 
Federal law rather than protecting our system of checks and balances. 
These questions do not arise out of speculation. They do not arise out 
of mere statement. They arise out of the record the judge has carved 
for himself.
  These issues and the threat that Judge Alito's nomination poses to 
the balance that the Supreme Court has upheld in all the years that 
Justice O'Connor has served there--all of this constitutes an 
``extraordinary circumstance.''
  I understand that many Senators oppose this nomination, and I believe 
the vote tomorrow will indicate that if we are not successful today. 
They say that they understand the threat Judge Alito poses, but they 
argue that somehow a vote to extend debate, when there have been a mere 
30 hours or so of debate, is different. I do not believe it is. I 
believe it is the only way that those of us in the minority have a real 
voice in the selection of this Justice or any Justice. It is the only 
way we can fully complete our constitutional duty of advice and 
consent. It is the only way we can

[[Page 305]]

be a voice for those Americans who do not have a voice today. It is the 
only way we can stop a confirmation that we feel will certainly cause 
irreversible harm to the principles and values that make a real 
difference in the lives of average Americans. It is the only way we can 
keep faith with our belief, and the Constitution's promise, of equal 
justice. That is a position that we can and we should defend anywhere, 
at any time.
  I thank those who have stood to be counted in this effort and who 
will continue to take a stand with their vote. I particularly thank my 
senior colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy.
  I think the remainder of the time Senator Kennedy will use.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have 7\1/2\ minutes, am I correct in that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield myself 7 minutes.
  First of all, I thank my friend, Senator Kerry, for his strong 
commitment on this issue and his eloquence, passion, and support of 
this position. This is a time in the Senate that a battle needs to be 
fought. This vote that we are casting with regard to Judge Alito is 
going to have echoes for years and years to come. It is going to be a 
defining vote about the Constitution of the United States, about our 
protections of our rights and our liberties in the Constitution of the 
United States.
  People in my State at this particular time are concerned about the 
difficulties they are having with prescription drugs. They are 
concerned about the problems they are having in paying their oil bills. 
They are concerned about their problems in paying for the education of 
their children. They are troubled by what they see as a result of 
Katrina. They are bothered by what they hear about the corruption in 
Washington and are deeply troubled by what is happening in Iraq. They 
have not had a chance to focus on what is the meaning of this vote in 
the Senate this afternoon.
  But all you have to do is look back into history. Look back into the 
history of the judiciary. Look back to the history of the Fifth Circuit 
that was making the decisions in the 1950s. Look at the record of 
Justice Wisdom, Judge Tuttle, Judge Johnson of Alabama and the courage 
they demonstrated that said at last we are going to break down the 
walls of discrimination in this country that have gripped this Nation 
for 200 years. Our Founding Fathers failed the test when they wrote 
slavery into the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln pointed the way, and we 
passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and had a Civil War, but we 
did not resolve this issue. It was only until the courage of members 
of--what branch of Government? Not the Congress. Not the Senate. Not 
the executive. The judiciary, the Fifth Circuit. We are talking now 
about the Supreme Court, but they are the ones who changed this country 
inevitably with what we call the march toward progress, the march 
toward knocking down the walls of discrimination that permitted us to 
pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act in public accommodations, so people 
whose skin was not White could go into restaurants and hotels--public 
accommodations; the 1965 act for voting, voting rights; the 1968 act on 
public accommodations; the 1973 act to say that women are going to be 
treated equally; the Americans with Disabilities Act that say the 
disabled are going to be part of the American family. All of that is 
the march to progress. My friends, the one organization, the one 
institution that protects it is the Supreme Court of the United States.
  Too much blood has been shed in those battles, too much sweat, too 
many tears, to put at risk that march for progress. And that is what we 
are doing with this nominee. He failed to demonstrate before the 
Judiciary Committee that he was committed to the continued march toward 
progress. He doesn't have to say how he is going to vote on a 
particular case, but he has to make it clear that he understands what 
this Nation is all about, why we are the envy of the world with the 
progress that we have made to knock down the walls of discrimination 
and prejudice and open up new opportunities for progress for our 
people. That is the definition of America.
  Why are we going to put that at risk by putting someone on the 
Supreme Court who is not committed to that progress? We are not asking 
that they take a particular position on an issue. That is what is 
before us. We have a responsibility to try to present this to the 
American people. Our constituents who are working hard, taking care of 
their kids, trying to do a job across this country--they are beginning 
to focus on it. It came to the Senate floor last Wednesday. Today is 
Monday. What is the next business? What is the next measure on the 
calendar? Asbestos? Isn't that interesting? Is there anything more 
important than spending time and permitting the American people to 
understand this issue? I don't believe so, and that is what our vote at 
4:30 is about.
  If you are concerned and you want a Justice who is going to stand for 
the working men and women in this country--it is not going to be Judge 
Alito. If you are concerned about women's privacy rights, about the 
opportunity for women to gain fair employment in America--it is not 
Judge Alito. If you care about the disabled, the Rehabilitation Act 
that we passed, the IDEA Act to include children in our schools, that 
we passed, that has been on the books for 25 years, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act that we have passed to bring all of the disabled into 
our society, if you are looking for someone who is going to be a friend 
of the disabled--it is not going to be Judge Alito.
  Finally, if you are looking for someone who is going to be willing to 
stand up to the executive branch of Government at a time that he is 
going to exceed his power and authority and the law of this country--it 
is not going to be Judge Alito. It is not going to be. He is not going 
to be similar to Sandra Day O'Connor who, in the Hamdi case, said: Oh, 
no. No President, even in times of war, is above the law in this 
country. He is not going to be similar to Warren Burger, who said ``No, 
Mr. President. No, you have to surrender the papers,'' at the time of 
the Watergate break-ins. ``No, Mr. President.''
  This is the time. This is the issue. This happens to be the wrong 
judge at the wrong time for the wrong Court.
  I hope this body will give us the time to be able to explain this in 
greater detail to our fellow Americans so a real vote can be taken. 
When it is, I believe this nominee will not be approved.
  I understand my time has expired.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I began the hearing on this nomination by 
putting forward what for me was the ultimate question during the 
consideration of a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: Would 
Judge Alito, if confirmed by the Senate to the Supreme Court, protect 
the rights and liberties of all Americans and serve as an effective 
check on government overreaching?
  Since this debate began last Wednesday, I have posed the fundamental 
question that this nomination raises for this body: whether the Senate 
will serve its constitutional role as a check on Executive power by 
preserving the Supreme Court as a constitutional check on the expansion 
of Presidential power.
  This is a nomination that I fear threatens the fundamental rights and 
liberties of all Americans now and for generations to come. As 
astonishing as the facts may seem, it does not overstate them to point 
out that the President is in the midst of a radical realignment of the 
powers of the government and of its intrusiveness into the private 
lives of Americans. This nomination is part and parcel of that plan. I 
am concerned that if confirmed, this nominee will further erode the 
checks and balances that have protected our constitutional rights for 
more than 200 years. This is a critical nomination, one that can tip 
the balance on the Supreme Court radically away from constitutional 
checks and balances and the protection of Americans' fundamental 
rights.
  The procedural vote just taken was in large measure symbolic. Its 
result was foreseen by Senators on both sides of the aisle and on both 
sides of the question. The next vote the Senate

[[Page 306]]

takes on this critical nomination is not symbolic. It has real 
consequences in the lives of the 295 million Americans alive today, and 
it will influence the lives of generations of Americans to come. It 
will affect not only our rights but the fundamental rights and 
liberties of our children and our children's children. In short, it 
matters, and it matters greatly. The vote the Senate will take tomorrow 
will determine whether Samuel A. Alito, Jr., replaces Justice Sandra 
Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States.
  I appreciate why Senators who voted against cloture believe this 
matter deserves more searching attention by Senators and the American 
people. Among Democratic Senators, each is voting his or her conscience 
and best judgment. There will be many Democratic Senators who, like the 
Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee who have closely studied 
the record of this nominee, will be voting against the nomination. 
There will be some Democratic Senators who will vote to confirm the 
nominee. Among those voting against, there are some who believe that it 
is not appropriate to withhold the Senate's consent by extending 
debate. The Senate debated Chief Justice Roberts' nomination during 8 
days and over a 10-day calendar period. Although much more divisive and 
controversial, the Alito nomination will be debated for just 5 days 
over a 7-day calendar period by the time the vote is called tomorrow.
  It is true that Democratic Senators do not all vote in lockstep. Each 
Democratic Senator individually gives these questions serious 
consideration. They honor their constitutional duty. I am proud of the 
Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee for the statements they 
made last week when the committee considered this nomination and during 
the course of the last few days. Their hard work in preparing for three 
Supreme Court nominations over the last few months is to be commended. 
I thank and commend the many Democratic Senators who came to the floor, 
who spoke, who set forth their concerns and their views. That includes 
Democratic Senators opposing the nomination and those in favor. It is 
quite a roster: Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Mikulski, Clinton, Kerry, 
Nelson of Florida, Reed, Murray, Feinstein, Inouye, Harkin, Bingaman, 
Lincoln, Lieberman, Salazar, Carper, Levin, Obama, Dayton, Feingold, 
Johnson, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Lautenberg, Menendez, and, in addition, 
Senator Jeffords. These Senators approached the matter seriously, in 
contrast to those partisan cheerleaders who rallied behind this White 
House's pick long before the first day of hearings.
  I respect those Senators who are giving this critical nomination 
serious consideration but come to a different conclusion than I, just 
as I continue to respect the 22 Senators who voted against the Roberts 
nomination. I have candidly acknowledged that over the course of 
history, their judgment and vote may prove right. I took Judge Roberts 
at his word in the belief that his words and the impressions he 
understood them to be creating had meaning. I continue to hope that as 
Chief Justice he will fulfill his promise and steer the Court to serve 
as an appropriate check on abuses of Presidential power and protect the 
fundamental liberties and rights of all Americans.
  Filibusters of judicial nominees--and, in particular, of Supreme 
Court nominees--are hardly something new. When Justice Fortas was 
nominated by President Johnson to be the Chief Justice, a filibuster 
led by Strom Thurmond and the Republican leader resulted in an 
unsuccessful cloture vote and in that nomination being withdrawn. That 
was the most recent successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. 
But that was not the first or last Supreme Court nomination to be 
defeated. President George Washington, the Nation's first and most 
popular President, saw the Senate reject his nomination of John 
Rutledge to the Supreme Court at the outset of our history. Over time 
approximately one-fifth of Presidents' Supreme Court nominees have not 
been confirmed.
  The last time the country was faced with the retirement of the 
pivotal vote on the Supreme Court was when Justice Lewis Powell 
resigned in 1987. A Republican President sought to use that opportunity 
to reshape the U.S. Supreme Court with his nomination of Judge Robert 
Bork. Judge Bork had been a law professor, a partner in one of the 
Nation's leading law firms, a judge on the DC Circuit for 5 years, and 
he had served as Solicitor General of the United States and even as the 
Acting Attorney General at a critical juncture of our history.
  Many myths have arisen about why the Senate rejected that nomination. 
I was here and, along with the other Senators, both Republican and 
Democratic, who voted to defeat that nomination, I know that the 
nominee's views were the decisive factor in his failure. His rejection 
of the constitutional right to privacy was a large part of his own 
undoing. Soon thereafter, President Reagan announced and withdrew the 
nomination of Judge Ginsburg and then turned to a conservative Federal 
appellate court judge from California named Anthony Kennedy. Justice 
Kennedy, though conservative, was confirmed overwhelmingly and in 
bipartisan fashion. He continues to serve as a respected Justice who 
has authored key decisions protecting Americans from unfair 
discrimination because of their sexual orientation.
  When the Senate was considering a successor to Justice Powell almost 
20 years ago, I said that I believed a Supreme Court nominee's judicial 
philosophy should play a central role in our consideration. I noted:

       There is no question that the nominee who is confirmed to 
     succeed Justice Lewis Powell will be uniquely influential in 
     determining the direction of the Supreme Court's 
     interpretation of the Constitution for years to come. There 
     can hardly be an issue closer to the heart of the Senate's 
     role than a full and public exposition of the nominee's 
     approach to the Constitution and to the rule of the courts in 
     discerning and enforcing its commands. That is what I mean by 
     judicial philosophy.

  The same remains true today as we consider a successor to Justice 
Sandra Day O'Connor. I strongly believe that Judge Alito's judicial 
philosophy is too deferential to the government and too unprotective of 
the fundamental liberties and rights of ordinary Americans for his 
nomination by President Bush to be confirmed by the Senate as the 
replacement for Justice O'Connor.
  Judicial philosophy comes into play time and again as Supreme Court 
justices wrestle with serious questions about which they do not all 
agree. These include fundamental questions about how far the government 
may intrude into our personal lives. Senators need to assess whether a 
nominee will protect fundamental rights if confirmed to be on the 
Supreme Court.
  Several Republican Senators said that judicial philosophy and 
personal views do not matter because judges should just apply the rule 
of law as if it were some mechanical calculation. Senator Feinstein 
made this point exceptionally well during the debate. Personal views 
and judicial philosophy often come into play on close and controversial 
cases. We all know this to be true. Why else did Republican supporters 
force President Bush to withdraw his previous nominee for this vacancy, 
Harriet Miers, before she even had a hearing? She failed their judicial 
philosophy litmus test.
  Indeed, Harriet Miers is the most recent Supreme Court nominee not to 
have been confirmed. It was last October that President Bush nominated 
his White House Counsel Harriet Miers to succeed Justice O'Connor. He 
did so after the death of the Chief Justice and withdrawing his earlier 
nomination of Judge Roberts to succeed Justice O'Connor. The democratic 
leader of the Senate quickly endorsed the selection of Ms. Miers as the 
kind of person, with the kind of background, he found appealing. 
Democratic Senators went about the serious business of preparing for 
hearings on the Miers nomination. But there were those from among the 
President's supporters who castigated Ms. Miers and the President for 
the nomination. The President succumbed to the partisan pressure from 
the extreme rightwing of his own party by withdrawing his nomination of 
Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court after repeatedly saying that he 
would never do

[[Page 307]]

so. In essence, he allowed his choice to be vetoed by an extreme 
faction within his party, before hearings or a vote. As Chairman 
Specter has often said, they ran her out of town on a rail. In fact, of 
course, she has remained in town as the President's counsel, but his 
point is correct. Like the more than 60 moderate and qualified judicial 
nominees of President Clinton on whom Republicans would neither hold 
hearings or votes, the Miers nomination was killed by Republicans 
without a vote--by what was in essence a pocket filibuster. That eye-
opening experience for the country demonstrated what a vocal faction of 
the Republican Party really wants. Their rightwing litmus test demands 
justice and judges who will guarantee the results that they want. They 
do not want an independent federal judiciary. They want certain 
results.
  Instead of uniting the country through his third choice to succeed 
Justice O'Connor, the President has chosen to reward one faction of his 
party, at the risk of dividing the country. Those so critical of his 
choice of Harriet Miers as a nominee were the very people who rushed to 
endorse the nomination of Judge Alito. Instead of rewarding his most 
virulent supporters, the President should have rewarded the American 
people with a unifying choice that would have broad support. America 
could have done better through consultation to select one of the many 
consensus conservative Republican candidates who could have been 
overwhelmingly approved by the Senate. Instead, without consultation, 
the President withdrew the Miers nomination and the next day announced 
that his third choice to succeed Justice O'Connor was Judge Alito.
  At his hearing, Judge Alito began by asking how he got this critical 
nomination. Over the course of the hearings, I think we began to 
understand the real answer to that question. It has little to do with 
Judge Alito's family story and a great deal to do with the pressures 
that forced the President to withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers 
and this President's efforts to avoid any check on his expansive claims 
to power.
  This is a President who has been conducting secret and warrantless 
eavesdropping on Americans for more than 4 years. This President has 
made the most expansive claims of power since American patriots fought 
the war of independence to rid themselves of the overbearing power of 
King George III. He has done so to justify illegal spying on Americans, 
to justify actions that violate our values and laws against torture and 
protecting human rights, and in order to detain U.S. citizens and 
others on his say so without judicial review or due process. This is a 
time in our history when the protections of Americans' liberties are at 
risk as are the checks and balances that have served to constrain 
abuses of power for more than 200 years.
  Judge Alito's opening statement skipped over the reasons he was 
chosen. He ignored his seeking political appointment within the Meese 
Justice Department by proclaiming his commitment to an extreme and 
activist rightwing legal philosophy. His testimony sought to minimize 
the Federalist Society and his seeking to use membership in Concerned 
Alumni of Princeton for advancement. He attempted to revise and 
redefine the theory of the ``unitary executive.'' That is a legal 
underpinning being used by this President and his supporters to attempt 
to justify his assertions of virtually unlimited power. The President 
wanted a reliable Justice who would uphold his assertions of power, his 
most extreme supporters want someone who will revisit the 
constitutional protection of privacy rights, and the business 
supporters wanted someone favorable to powerful special interests.
  Supreme Court nominations should not be conducted through a series of 
winks and nods designed to reassure the most extreme Republican 
factions while leaving the American people in the dark. No President 
should be allowed to pack the courts, and especially the Supreme Court, 
with nominees selected to enshrine Presidential claims of government 
power. The checks and balances that should be provided by the courts, 
Congress, and the Constitution are too important to be sacrificed to a 
narrow, partisan agenda. The Senate stood up to President Roosevelt 
when he proposed a court-packing scheme and should not be a rubberstamp 
to this President's effort to move the law dramatically to the right. I 
do not intend to lend my support to an effort by this President to 
undermine checks and balances or to move the Supreme Court and the law 
radically to the right.
  So what do we know about the Samuel Alito who graduated from 
Princeton University and Yale Law School and obtained a plum job in the 
office of the Solicitor General of the United States? We know that he 
wanted political advancement and was committed to the radical legal 
theories of the Meese Justice Department. The job application that was 
the subject of some question at the hearing is most revealing. I will 
ask that a copy of that job application be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my statement so that the American people can see it.
  This confirmation process is the opportunity for the American people 
to learn what Samuel Alito thinks about their fundamental 
constitutional rights and whether he will serve to protect their 
liberty, their privacy and their autonomy from Government intrusion. 
The Supreme Court belongs to all Americans, not just the person 
occupying the White House, and not just to a narrow faction of a 
political party.
  We have heard from Judge Alito's supporters that those opposing this 
nomination were ``smearing'' him by asking substantive and probing 
questions at the hearing and by addressing concerns about his record 
during this debate. The Republican leader opened the debate with that 
attack. He said this before a single minute of debate or opening 
statement by any Democratic Senator. These Republican talking points 
ring hollow and are particularly inappropriate after President Bush was 
forced by an extreme faction in his own party to withdraw his 
nomination of Harriet Miers.
  Democratic Senators should not be criticized for taking seriously 
their constitutional role in trying to assess whether Judge Alito is 
suitable for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. Democrats also 
asked tough questions of Justices Ginsburg and Breyer during their 
confirmation hearings, which is in stark contrast to the free pass 
given to Judge Alito by Republican Senators during his hearing.
  Those critical of the Democrats have a short and selective historical 
memory. Republican Senators engaged in a party-line vote in committee 
against the nomination of Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court. 
Republican Senators, in an unprecedented party-line vote, blocked the 
nomination in 1999 of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White, an 
extremely qualified nominee for a Federal district court judgeship. In 
fact, Republicans pocket-filibustered more than 60 of President 
Clinton's judicial nominees by holding them up in the Judiciary 
Committee.
  This President continues to choose confrontation over consensus and 
to be a divider rather than being the uniter that he promised to be. 
This is in stark contrast to President Clinton's selection of Justices 
Ginsburg and Breyer after real consultation. In his book, ``Square 
Peg,'' Senator Hatch described how in 1993, as the ranking minority 
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he advised President Clinton 
about possible Supreme Court nominees. Senator Hatch recounted that he 
warned President Clinton away from a nominee whose confirmation he 
believed ``would not be easy.'' He wrote that he then suggested the 
names of Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both of whom were 
eventually nominated and confirmed ``with relative ease.'' President 
Bush, who had promised to be a uniter, not a divider, failed to live up 
to his promise or to the example of his predecessor, as described by 
Senator Hatch. The result is that, rather than sending us a nominee for 
all Americans, the President chose a divisive nominee who raises grave 
concerns about whether he will be a check on Presidential power and 
whether he understands the role of the

[[Page 308]]

courts in protecting fundamental rights.
  The Supreme Court is the ultimate check and balance in our system. 
Independence of the courts and its members is crucial to our democracy 
and way of life. The Senate should never be allowed to become a 
rubberstamp, and neither should the Supreme Court.
  This is a nomination to a lifetime seat on the Nation's highest Court 
that has often represented the decisive vote on constitutional issues. 
The Senate needs to make an informed decision about this nomination. 
This process is the only opportunity that the American people and their 
representatives have to consider the suitability of the nominee to 
serve as a final arbiter of the meaning of Constitution and the law. 
Has he demonstrated a commitment to the fundamental rights of all 
Americans? Will he allow the government to intrude on Americans' 
personal privacy and freedoms?
  In a time when this administration seems intent on accumulating 
unchecked power, Judge Alito's views on government power are especially 
important. It is important to know whether he would serve with judicial 
independence or as a surrogate for the President who nominated him. 
Based on a thorough review of his record and that from his hearing, I 
have no confidence that he will act as an effective check on government 
overreaching and abuses of power.
  As we began the hearings, I recalled the photograph that hangs in the 
National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA. It shows the first 
woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States taking 
the oath of office in 1981. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor served as a 
model Supreme Court Justice.
  She is widely recognized as a jurist with practical values and a 
sense of the consequences of the legal decisions being made by the 
Supreme Court. I regret that some on the extreme right have been so 
critical of Justice O'Connor and have adamantly opposed the naming of a 
successor who shares her judicial philosophy and qualities. Their 
criticism reflects poorly upon them. It does nothing to tarnish the 
record of the first woman to serve as an Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. She is a Justice whose graciousness 
and sense of duty fuels her continued service nearly 7 months after she 
announced her intention to retire.
  As the Senate prepares to vote on President Bush's current 
nomination--his third--for a successor to Justice O'Connor, we should 
be mindful of her critical role on the Supreme Court. Her legacy is one 
of fairness that I want to see preserved. Justice O'Connor has been a 
guardian of the protections the Constitution provides the American 
people.
  Of fundamental importance, she has come to provide balance and a 
check on government intrusion into our personal privacy and freedoms. 
In the Hamdi decision, she rejected the Bush administration's claim 
that it could indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen. She upheld the 
fundamental principle of judicial review over the exercise of 
government power and wrote that even war ``is not a blank check for the 
President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.'' She 
held that even this President is not above the law.
  Her judgment has also been crucial in protecting our environmental 
rights. She joined in 5-to-4 majorities affirming reproductive freedom, 
religious freedom, and the Voting Rights Act. Each of these cases makes 
clear how important a single Supreme Court Justice is.
  It is as the elected representatives of the American people--all of 
the people--that we in the Senate are charged with the responsibility 
to examine whether to entrust their precious rights and liberties to 
this nominee. The Constitution is their document. It guarantees their 
rights from the heavy hand of government intrusion and their individual 
liberties to freedom of speech and religion, to equal treatment, to due 
process and to privacy.
  The Federal judiciary is unlike the other branches of Government. 
Once confirmed, Federal judges serve for life. There is no court above 
the Supreme Court of the United States. The American people deserve a 
Supreme Court Justice who inspires confidence that he, or she, will not 
be beholden to the President but will be immune to pressures from the 
government or from partisan interests.
  The stakes for the American people could not be higher. At this 
critical moment, Democratic Senators are performing our constitutional 
advice and consent responsibility with heightened vigilance. I urge all 
Senators--Republicans, Democrats and Independents--to join with us. The 
Supreme Court is the guarantor of the liberties of all Americans. The 
appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice must be made in the 
people's interest and in the Nation's interest, not to serve the 
special interests of a partisan faction.
  I have voted for the vast majority of President Reagan's, President 
Bush's, and President Bush's judicial nominees. I recommended a 
Republican to President Clinton to fill Vermont's seat on the Second 
Circuit, Judge Fred Parker, and recommended another Republican to 
President Bush to fill that seat after Judger Parker's death, Judge 
Peter Hall. I voted for President Reagan's nomination of Justice Sandra 
Day O'Connor, for President Reagan's nomination of Justice Anthony 
Kennedy, for President Bush's nomination of Justice Souter, and for 
this President's recent nomination of Chief Justice Roberts. In fact, I 
have voted for eight of the nine current Justices of the Supreme Court.
  I want all Americans to know that the Supreme Court will protect 
their rights and will respect the authority of Congress to act in their 
interest. I want a Supreme Court that acts in its finest tradition as a 
source of justice. The Supreme Court must be an institution where the 
Bill or Rights and human dignity are honored. In good conscience, based 
on the record, I cannot vote for this nomination. I urge all Senators 
to use this last night of debate to consult their consciences and their 
best judgment before casting their votes tomorrow. That vote will 
matter.
  In my 30 years in the Senate, I have cast almost 12,000 votes here in 
the Senate. Few will be as important as the vote we cast tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the application to 
which I referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    PPO Non-Career Appointment Form

       From: Mark R. Levin.
       To: Mark Sullivan. Associate Director, PPO.
       Date Sent: 11/18/85.
       Canadidate: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
       Department: Department of Justice.
       Job Title: Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
       Grade: ES-I.
       Supervisor: Charles J. Cooper.
       Race: White.
       Sex: Male.
       Date of Birth: Apr. 1, 1950.
       Home State: New Jersey.
       Previous Government Service: Yes.
       If yes, give departments, dates career or non-career 
     positions held: Assistant to the Solicitor General, Dept. of 
     Justice, 1981 to present; Assistant U.S. Attorney, N.J., 
     1977-1981; Law clerk to Judge Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of 
     Appeals, Third Cir., 1976-1977,
       A complete Form 171, political and personal resumes, 
     complete job description, and letters of support must be 
     included for White House clearance to begin.
       1980 Domicile (State): New Jersey.
       Please provide any information that you regard as pertinent 
     to your philosophical commitment to the policies of this 
     administration, or would show that you are qualified to 
     effectively fill a position involved in the development, 
     advocacy and vigorous implementation of those policies.
       Have you ever served on a political committee or been 
     identified in a public way with a particular political 
     organization, candidate or issue?
       (Please be specific and include contacts with telephone 
     numbers.)
       I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to 
     the same philosophical views that I believe are central to 
     this Administration. It is obviously very difficult to 
     summarize a set of political views in a sentence but, in 
     capsule form, I believe very strongly in limited government, 
     federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected 
     branches of government, the need for a strong defense and 
     effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government

[[Page 309]]

     role in protecting traditional values. In the field of law, I 
     disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary 
     decisionmaking authority that should be exercised by the 
     branches of government responsible to the electorate. The 
     Administration has already made major strides toward 
     reversing this trend through its judicial appointments, 
     litigation, and public debate, and it is my hope that even 
     greater advances can be achieved during the second term, 
     especially with Attorney Meese's leadership at the Department 
     of Justice.
       When I first became interested in government and politics 
     during the 1960s, the greatest influences on my views were 
     the writings of William F. Buckley, Jr., the National Review, 
     and Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign. In college, I developed 
     a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large 
     part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions particularly 
     in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, 
     and reapportionment. I discovered the writings of Alexander 
     Bickel advocating judicial restraint, and it was largely for 
     this reason that I decided to go to Yale Law School.
       After graduation from law school, completion of my ROTC 
     military commitment, and a judicial clerkship, I joined the 
     U.S. Attorney's office in New Jersey, principally because of 
     my strong views regarding law enforcement.
       Most recently, it has been an honor and source of personal 
     satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor 
     General during President Reagan's administration and to help 
     to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very 
     strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in 
     recent cases in which the government has argued in the 
     Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be 
     allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to 
     an abortion.
       As a federal employee subject to the Hatch Act for nearly a 
     decade, I have been unable to take a role in partisan 
     politics. However, I am a life-long registered Republican and 
     have made the sort of modest political contributions that a 
     federal employee can afford to Republican candidates and 
     conservative causes, including the National Republican 
     Congressional Committee, the National Conservative Political 
     Action Committee, Rep. Christopher Smith (4th Dist. N.J.), 
     Rep. James Courter (12th Dist. N.J.), Governor Thomas Kean of 
     N.J., and Jeff Bell's 1982 Senate primary campaign in N.J. I 
     am a member of the Federalist Society for Law and Public 
     Policy and a regular participant at its luncheon meetings and 
     a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, a 
     conservative alumni group. During the past year, I have 
     submitted articles for publication in the National Review and 
     the American Spectator.
       Applicant Signature: Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
       Date: Nov. 15, 1985
       Associate Director Recommendation: Approved, Mark Sullivan.

  Mr. DORGAN. We work on many important issues here in the Congress, 
but none more important than choosing a Justice to serve on the Supreme 
Court.
  Providing a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court is a very 
serious matter for both the President and the U.S. Senate. Our choice 
will impact our country well beyond the term of office for the 
President and for most of the Senate.
  Those nominations are also very important to the citizens of our 
country and my State of North Dakota, many of whom--on both sides--have 
contacted my office and whose counsel I have heard and valued.
  This is the second nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court that has 
been sent to the Senate by President Bush in the span of a few short 
months.
  During consideration of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to 
become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, I studied his record 
carefully. I reviewed the hearing records of his appearance before the 
Senate Judiciary committee as well as his record as a Federal judge on 
the Circuit Court.
  And in the end, I voted to confirm Judge Roberts. I concluded that he 
was very well qualified, and I also felt after meeting with him that he 
would not bring an ideological agenda to his work of interpreting the 
U.S. Constitution.
  In short, I felt he would make a fine Chief Justice.
  The Supreme Court nomination we are now considering is that of Judge 
Samuel Alito.
  This has been a difficult decision for me.
  Judge Alito has substantial credentials. His education, work history, 
and his 15 years of service on the Circuit Court are significant.
  However, in evaluating Judge Alito's rulings, writings, and his 
responses during his nomination hearings, I have been troubled by 
several things.
  First, he has a clear record over many years of a tendency to favor 
the big interests over the small interests. That is, when an individual 
is seeking justice in the courts by taking on the government or a large 
corporation, Judge Alito's rulings are often at odds with the rulings 
of his colleagues on the Court and tend to overwhelmingly favor the 
government or the big interests.
  People who live in small States like North Dakota have, over many 
years, found it necessary to use the courts to take on the big economic 
interests. Whether it is taking on big corporations, the railroads, big 
financial interests, or the U.S. Government, as farmers have had to do 
in recent decades, I think it is important that a Supreme Court Justice 
be someone who will give the people a fair hearing.
  Judge Alito's rulings on the circuit court have, I believe, tilted 
heavily on the side of the big interests.
  One of the key questions for me about a new Justice for the Supreme 
Court is ``will this person interpret the Constitution in a manner that 
expands personal freedom and liberty, or will this person interpret it 
in a way that restricts personal freedom and liberty?''
  I believe Judge Alito's record is one that leans in the direction of 
restricting the freedom and liberty of individual citizens.
  I am also concerned by Judge Alito's view of what is referred to as 
the unitary executive. This is an issue about Presidential power in our 
form of government. The judicial branch of Government is designed to be 
a check and balance on the expansion of Presidential powers. I believe 
Judge Alito's answers in the Judiciary Committee to questions about the 
unitary executive tilt toward showing deference toward expanded and 
unchecked Presidential authority. His views on this issue concern me.
  For all of these reasons, I have decided to cast my vote against the 
nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. I take no joy in opposing his 
nomination, but for the reasons I have mentioned above, I am not 
comfortable voting to confirm him for a lifetime appointment on our 
Nation's highest Court.
  Over the years, I have supported about 97 percent of the nominees for 
the Federal court sent to us by President Bush. My record has been one 
of substantial support for the President's nominees.
  But for me, a nomination to the Supreme Court carries much more 
weight and greater potential consequences for the country.
  Judge Alito is replacing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Court. 
Justice O'Connor has been a key swing vote on so many issues that have 
been decided by a 5-to-4 vote in recent years.
  I believe that Judge Alito's nomination, if approved by the Senate, 
would tilt that Court in a direction that will restrict personal 
freedoms, strengthen the role of government and corporations in our 
lives, and allow the expansion of power of the Presidency.
  For those reasons, I have decided to vote no on this nomination.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to share my thoughts and 
concerns about the President's nomination of Samuel Alito to be an 
Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
  It goes without saying that the decision whether to confirm a nominee 
for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court is among the Senate's most 
serious and solemn constitutional obligations.
  My ultimate test for whether to support a nominee to the Supreme 
Court rests with two questions: will the nominee protect the best 
interests of West Virginians and will the nominee uphold the 
fundamental rights and freedoms of all Americans that are set out in 
the Constitution and in our laws. It is a high standard, as it must be 
for a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land.
  In the last few weeks and months, through careful consideration, I 
have attempted to answer those two questions. I have concluded that 
Judge Alito's judicial record, his writings, and his statements portray 
a man who will not do enough to stand up against power when the rights 
of average Americans are on the line and who will

[[Page 310]]

not do enough to stand up against the President when the checks and 
balances in our Constitution are on the line.
  I will not support a filibuster because I see it as an attempt to 
delay his certain confirmation. But I will register my grave concerns 
about Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court by voting against 
confirmation when that final vote is before us.
  My decision is the result of a long and deliberative process.
  As my record plainly shows, I have never applied a partisan or 
ideological litmus test to nominees. George W. Bush was elected as a 
conservative President, and I have supported his conservative choices 
at every level. On the judiciary alone, I have voted to confirm 203 out 
of 212 judges nominated by President Bush. Just 4 months ago, I voted 
in support of Chief Justice John Roberts, a true conservative, because 
I concluded that he would consider fully the lives of average people, 
the lives of those in need and those whose voices often are not heard. 
I believed on balance that he would be his own man in the face of 
inevitable outside pressures.
  In recent weeks and months, I have heard from hundreds of West 
Virginians through letters, telephone calls, and personal 
conversations. Many have expressed strong opposition to Judge Alito, 
and many have expressed strong support for him. I have weighed all of 
their views carefully.
  I also have labored over Judge Alito's record--his early writings, 
his rulings, his speeches, and his Senate testimony--and I met 
personally with Judge Alito. I wanted to hear directly from him, in his 
own words, what kind of an Associate Justice he would be.
  There is no question he is an intelligent man with a deep knowledge 
of our legal system. During our conversations, he was a gentleman in 
every sense of the word. But for me these important character traits 
are not enough to warrant elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  I have concluded that although Judge Alito is a well-qualified 
jurist, I cannot in good conscience support a nominee whose core 
beliefs and judicial record exhibit simply too much deference to power 
at the expense of the individual.
  Particularly in the committee hearings, when pressed on issues such 
as individual rights and Presidential powers, Judge Alito's answers 
troubled me--they were limited and perfunctory. I was left with a 
strong sense of his ability to recite and analyze the law as it stands 
but with very little sense of his appreciation for the principles and 
the real people behind those laws.
  Unfortunately, Judge Alito's record does not allay those concerns. As 
a government lawyer, a Federal prosecutor, and a 15-year Federal judge 
on the Third Circuit, with lifetime tenure, Judge Alito has repeatedly 
sided against people with few or no resources. The average person up 
against a big corporation, an employer, or even the government itself, 
all too often comes out on the short end of the stick in front of Judge 
Alito.
  I am particularly troubled by one case, RNS Services v. Secretary of 
Labor. In RNS Services, Judge Alito argued, in a lone dissent, against 
protecting workers in a Pennsylvania coal plant by not enforcing the 
jurisdiction of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA. Judge 
Alito claimed that the coal processing plant was closer to a factory 
than a mine, and therefore should be governed by the more lenient 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, standards. 
Fortunately for the miners, the majority of judges in the case did not 
agree with Judge Alito, and MSHA's standards prevailed.
  Outside the courtroom, Judge Alito has at various times in his career 
suggested, directly and indirectly, that he supports a 
disproportionately powerful President and executive branch. As a mid 
career government lawyer, his writings showed a solicitous deference to 
the executive branch and a willingness to undercut the constitutional 
authority of Congress. As recently as 2000, Judge Alito forcefully 
argued in support of a controversial theory known as the ``unitary 
executive'' which would allow the President to act in contravention of 
the laws passed by Congress in carrying out his duties.
  As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have 
developed an even greater appreciation for the wisdom of our Nation's 
Founders in creating a system of checks and balances among the 
judicial, executive and legislative branches of Government. The 
interaction between the President and the Congress on matters of 
national security, classified and unclassified, is incredibly important 
to our safety and our future. Today there is a serious legal and 
constitutional debate going on in our country about whether the 
President, who already has enormous inherent powers as the leader of 
our country, has expanded his executive reach beyond the bounds of the 
law and the Constitution. The fact is the President does not write the 
laws, nor is he charged with interpreting them--the Constitution is 
unequivocally clear that lawmaking resides with the Congress and 
interpretation resides with the courts--yet this President, on many 
fronts, is attempting to do both.
  This alarming trend has been exacerbated by the fact that we have a 
single party controlling both the White House and the Congress, 
resulting in minimal congressional oversight of an overreaching 
executive branch.
  The Supreme Court, in the coming months and years, will be forced to 
rule on any cases related to expansion of Executive power. This nominee 
will play a pivotal role in settling the legal questions of today and 
charting a course for the legal questions of our children's and 
grandchildren's generations.
  These are core questions: What is the scope of presidential power 
under the Constitution? What is the appropriate balance between the 
President and the Congress? When must the constitutionally protected 
rights of average Americans--workers' rights, families' rights, and 
individuals' rights--prevail?
  At the end of the day, I am left with the fear that Judge Alito 
brings to the Court a longstanding bias in favor of an all-powerful 
presidency and against West Virginians' basic needs and interests.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, while I had expected that the Senate would 
move directly to an up-or-down vote on Judge Alito's nomination to the 
Supreme Court without a vote on cloture, because I strongly oppose this 
nomination, as I explained in my remarks last week, and because the 
filibuster has been a time-honored and accepted part of the checks and 
balances on the President's appointment powers, I will vote against 
cloture on this nomination.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of 
Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to become an Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court. After following the confirmation process and reviewing 
Judge Alito's qualifications, I am pleased to support this nomination 
and congratulate President Bush on another outstanding pick for our 
Nation's highest Court. Although there are no guarantees about how any 
judicial nominee will carry out his or her responsibilities once 
confirmed, I believe that Judge Alito will serve our country well as 
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has done for almost a quarter of a century 
on the Supreme Court.
  To explain why I support the nomination of Judge Alito, let me first 
begin my remarks by referring to article II of the U.S. Constitution--
in particular, section 2, which states that it is up to the President 
to appoint individuals to our highest Court. As he pledged to the 
voters who elected him, President Bush has exercised his appointment 
powers to pick someone who firmly believes in the rule of law, the 
importance of protecting the rights of all Americans, and the Founding 
Fathers' wisdom of leaving policy decisions to the elected branches of 
Government. The President has followed through on his promise to the 
American people by choosing Judge Alito.
  With that said, Judge Alito is not simply the fulfillment of a 
campaign promise--he is also one of the sharpest legal minds in the 
Federal appellate ranks and a dedicated public servant. A former editor 
of the Yale Law Journal

[[Page 311]]

and Army reservist, Judge Alito has served as a law clerk for Judge 
Leonard Garth of the Third Circuit, an assistant U.S. attorney for New 
Jersey, an Assistant to the Solicitor General, Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal 
Counsel, and the U.S. attorney for New Jersey. After his first 15 years 
of public service, he then went on to serve as a judge on the Third 
Circuit, for which he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 1990. 
In total, Judge Alito has served our Nation for 30 years, using his 
legal experience and talents for public good rather than for personal 
profit. We should all applaud and support such a record of public 
service, especially when you consider the fact that Judge Alito has 
more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in over 70 
years.
  Unfortunately, however, there are a number of my colleagues from 
across the aisle who somehow believe that this record of public service 
is something to deride and distort. Forget the fact that nearly 
everyone who has worked with Judge Alito or has taken an impartial 
review of this man's record and credentials, such as the American Bar 
Association, supports this nomination wholeheartedly. Forget the fact 
that Judge Alito has garnered the near unanimous support of his 
colleagues on the Third Circuit and lawmakers from both parties--
including Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania--who know him best. 
Forget the fact that Judge Alito has ruled in favor of minorities who 
have alleged racial discrimination or were convicted of crimes. Forget 
that Judge Alito is known by those who have worked with him as a good 
and decent man who does not put ideology over public responsibility. 
Some of my colleagues do not want to consider any of these facts, or 
they somehow distort all of them as they try to smear the President's 
nominee. And why? Well, because Judge Alito is simply that; he is 
President Bush's nominee.
  As someone who supported both of President Clinton's nominations to 
the Supreme Court, I find this type of partisanship appalling. Instead 
of accepting the obvious fact that Judge Alito is more than well 
qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, some of my colleagues want to 
cherry-pick and distort a few opinions out of the hundreds that he has 
written, hype up his alleged relationship with a university 
organization, or huff and puff about the Vanguard recusal matter even 
though the American Bar Association and most well regarded legal ethics 
experts have found nothing unethical. As opposed to qualifications, 
some of my colleagues across the aisle want to focus solely on these 
petty matters that are borne simply out of personal vendetta or the 
echo chamber of liberal blogs. They now want the Senate and the 
American people to forget everything else and base this important vote 
on a few dubious claims.
  None of this is healthy for the Senate or for our Nation. It does not 
take a genius to realize that most Americans are tired of this petty 
partisanship, and the personal attacks on Judge Alito and the 
distortion of his record will only further discourage, not encourage, 
future nominees who have lengthy records of public service and judicial 
experience. This is troubling, and I hope that the previous few months 
are not more evidence of a trend towards partisanship at all costs. 
Whether some may like it or not, President Bush was elected by the 
American people. His nominees therefore deserve fair and dignified 
consideration by the Senate, even by those who opposed the President's 
election or his views on certain issues.
  Perhaps these past few months should not have been a surprise to 
people like me who believe that the Senate should not let politics or 
ideology stand in the way of qualified nominees. After all, maybe all 
of this was foreseen by the Founding Fathers when they established the 
nomination process in article II, section 2 of the Constitution and 
gave the Senate only a limited advice and consent role. As Edmund 
Randolph noted, ``Appointments by the Legislatures have generally 
resulted from cabal, from personal regard, or some other consideration 
than a title derived from the proper qualifications.'' Looking at how 
some of my colleagues have approached the nomination of Judge Alito, I 
believe that Mr. Randolph, sadly, may have been right when he said this 
more than 200 years ago.
  Fortunately, there are a greater number of colleagues here in the 
Senate who do view the issue of judicial nominations as being about 
qualifications, not politics. They include the majority leader and the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who have both done a commendable 
job of moving this nomination forward and giving us the opportunity to 
have an up-or-down vote. I congratulate them on their efforts and look 
forward to casting my vote in support of Judge Alito. He certainly 
deserves it, as well as the support of the rest of the Senate.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
nomination of Samuel Alito to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme 
Court.
  The Supreme Court is entrusted with an enormous power--the power to 
interpret the Constitution, to say what the law is, to guard one branch 
against the encroachments of another, and to defend our most sacred 
rights and liberties.
  The decision of whether to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court is 
a solemn responsibility of the Senate and one that I approach with the 
utmost care. It is a duty that we must perform despite the fact that 
nominees are constrained in the information they can provide us.
  Some interest groups, and even some of my colleagues, have called on 
nominees to promise to vote a certain way; they demand allegiance to a 
particular view of the law or a guarantee in the outcome of cases 
involving high-profile issues. These efforts are misguided.
  To avoid prejudging and to ensure impartiality, a nominee should not 
discuss issues in areas of the law that are ``live''--where cases are 
likely to come before the Court. Parties before the Court have a right 
to expect that the Justices will approach their case with a willingness 
to fully and fairly consider both sides.
  The cases that come before the Supreme Court each year present legal 
issues of tremendous complexity and import, and Justices should not be 
asked to speculate as to how they would vote, or make promises in order 
to win confirmation. Justice Ginsberg stated during her hearing that a 
nominee may provide ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews'' on issues 
likely to come before the Court. As Justice Ginsberg's statement 
underscores, the Justices should reach a conclusion only after 
extensive briefing, argument, research, and discussion with their 
colleagues on the Court.
  We must also recognize that there are limits to our ability to 
anticipate the issues that will face the Court in the future. Twenty 
years ago, few would have expected that the Court would hear cases 
related to a Presidential election challenge, would try to make sense 
of copyright laws in an electronic age, or would face constitutional 
issues related to the war on terrorism.
  While we cannot know with certainty how a nominee will rule on the 
future cases that will come before him or her, we are not without 
information on which to base our judgement. We must engage in a 
rigorous assessment of the nominee's legal qualifications, integrity, 
and judicial temperament, as well as the principles that will guide the 
nominee's decisionmaking. In fact, in Judge Alito's case, I note that 
we have significantly more information on which to base our judgement 
than with other nominees, given his long tenure as a judge on the Third 
Circuit Court of Appeals.
  The excellence of Judge Alito's legal qualifications is beyond 
question. Even his fiercest critics acknowledge that he is an 
extraordinary jurist with an impressive knowledge of the law, a 
conclusion also reached by the American Bar Association, ABA.
  The ABA Standing Committee on the Judiciary conducted an exhaustive 
review of his qualifications. During this process, the Committee 
contacted 2,000 individuals throughout the Nation,

[[Page 312]]

conducted more than 300 interviews with Federal judges, State judges, 
colleagues, cocounsel, and opposing counsel, and formed reading groups 
to review his published opinions, unpublished opinions, and other 
materials. Based on its review, the committee found Judge Alito's 
integrity, his professional competence, and his judicial temperament to 
be of the highest standard, and decided unanimously to rate him ``well 
qualified''--the highest possible rating.
  When asked at his hearing what type of Justice he would be, Judge 
Alito directed Senators to his record as a judge on the Third Circuit. 
I agree this is the appropriate focus.
  During his 15 years of service on the Third Circuit, Judge Alito has 
voted in more than 4,800 cases and has written more than 350 opinions. 
His record on the bench is one of steady, cautious, and disciplined 
decisionmaking. He is careful to limit the reach of his decisions to 
the particular issues and facts before him, and he avoids inflammatory 
or politically charged rhetoric. And despite this extensive record, 
there is no evidence that his decisions are results-oriented. For 
example, in the area of reproductive rights, I note that he has reached 
decisions favoring competing sides of the political debate.
  After reviewing Judge Alito's dissenting opinions, Cass Sunstein, a 
well-known liberal law professor from the University of Chicago, 
reached the following conclusion: ``None of Alito's opinions is 
reckless or irresponsible or even especially far-reaching. His 
disagreement is unfailingly respectful. His dissents are lawyerly 
rather than bombastic. . . . Alito does not place political ideology in 
the forefront.''
  During his hearing, the committee heard the testimony of seven judges 
from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the court on 
which Judge Alito currently serves. The panel was comprised of current 
and retired judges, appointed by both Democratic and Republican 
Presidents, and holding views ranging across the political spectrum.
  Who better to know how Judge Alito thinks, reasons, and approaches 
the law, than those with whom he worked so closely over the past 15 
years? And it is significant that these colleagues were unanimous in 
their praise of Judge Alito--in his legal skills, his integrity, his 
evenhandedness, and his dedication to precedent and the rule of law.
  As Judge Becker commented, ``The Sam Alito that I have sat with for 
15 years is not an ideologue. He's not a movement person. He's a real 
judge deciding each case on the facts and the law, not on his personal 
views, whatever they may be. He scrupulously adheres to precedent. I 
have never seen him exhibit a bias against any class of litigation or 
litigants.''
  Judge Aldisert, who was appointed by President Johnson, had this to 
say: ``The great Cardozo taught us long ago the judge, even when he is 
free, is not wholly free. He is not free to innovate at pleasure. This 
means that the crucial values of predictability, reliance and 
fundamental fairness must be honored. . . . And as his judicial record 
makes plain, Judge Alito has taken this teaching to heart.''
  Judge Lewis, a committed human rights and civil rights activist who 
described himself as ``openly and unapologetic pro-choice,'' said: ``I 
cannot recall one instance during conference or during any other 
experience that I had with Judge Alito . . . when he exhibited anything 
remotely resembling an ideological bent. . . . If I believed that Sam 
Alito might be hostile to civil rights as a member of the United States 
Supreme Court, I guarantee you that I would not be sitting here 
today.''
  Judge Alito's colleagues provided compelling testimony of his deep 
and abiding commitment to the rule of law, the limited role of a judge, 
and the obligation to decide the case based on the facts and the record 
before him. They also testified that Judge Alito's decisions have been 
constrained by established legal rules and specifically by a respect 
for the rules of precedent. The weight of their testimony is 
substantial--they know far more about Judge Alito's judicial philosophy 
than we could hope to learn in a few days of public hearings.
  A nominee's judicial philosophy matters to me. When I met with Judge 
Alito, I specifically asked him about his views on the importance of 
precedent and stare decisis--the principle that courts should adhere to 
the law set forth in previously decided cases.
  During both our meeting and his hearing, Judge Alito evidenced a 
strong commitment to the principle of stare decisis. Judge Alito 
acknowledged the importance of this principle to reliance, stability, 
and settled expectations in the law.
  At his hearing, Judge Alito, referring to the landmark Roe v. Wade 
decision, testified as follows: ``[I]t is a precedent that is 
protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis. . . 
.''
  Similarly, Chief Justice Roberts, who was confirmed with a strong 
bipartisan support, made a nearly identical statement at his hearing. 
He said that Roe is ``a precedent of the court, entitled to respect 
under the principles of stare decisis.''
  After a careful comparison of these statements and others, I find 
that on substance, there is little that distinguishes the two nominees' 
statements on this issue. Both nominees clearly acknowledged the 
importance of precedent, the value of stare decisis, and the factors 
involved in analyzing whether a prior holding should be revisited. Both 
agreed that the Constitution protects the right to privacy, and that 
the analysis of future cases involving reproductive rights begins not 
with Roe but with the Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe's central 
holding. And both testified that when a case has been reaffirmed 
multiple times, as Roe has, this increases its precedential value.
  Despite the strong testimony of both Chief Justice Roberts and Judge 
Alito, the reality is that no one can know for certain how a Justice 
will rule in the future. History has shown us that many predictions 
about how other Justices would decide cases have proven wrong.
  At her hearing in 1981, Justice O'Connor vigorously defended her 
belief that abortion was wrong and stated that she found it 
``offensive'' and ``repugnant.'' Justice Souter once filed a brief as a 
State attorney general opposing the use of public funds to finance what 
was referred to in the brief as the ``killing of unborn children.'' 
Justice Kennedy once denounced the Roe decision as the ``Dred Scott of 
our time.''
  Yet, in 1992, all three of these Justices joined together to write 
the joint opinion in Casey reaffirming Roe based on the ``precedential 
force'' of its central holding.
  Based on my review of his past decisions, I doubt that I will agree 
with every decision Judge Alito reaches on the Court, just as I do not 
agree with all of his previous decisions. I anticipate, however, that 
his legal analysis will be sound, and that his decisionmaking will be 
limited by the principle of stare decisis and the particulars of the 
case before him.
  Judge Alito has demonstrated his fitness for this appointment with 
his clear dedication to the rule of law. After an exhaustive review 
process, the ABA has given him its highest possible rating. His 
colleagues on the Third Circuit, both Republican and Democrat 
appointees alike, have been unqualified in their praise of his 
nomination.
  Based on the record before me, I believe that Judge Alito will be a 
Justice who will exercise his judicial duties guided not by personal 
views, but based on what the facts, the law, and the Constitution 
command.
  For these reasons, I will vote to confirm Judge Alito. I hope and 
expect that he will prove his critics wrong and that his record on the 
Supreme Court will show the same deference to precedent, respect for 
the limited role of a judge, and freedom from ideologically driven 
decisionmaking that he has demonstrated during his tenure on the Third 
Circuit.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I explained last Wednesday that I would 
support the nomination of Judge Alito. Since then, I have been somewhat 
frustrated at how this Senate debate has progressed. Time and time 
again, some

[[Page 313]]

Senators have mischaracterized the cases and record of Judge Alito. I 
would like to take a few minutes and walk through just a few of those 
misstatements.
  First, let me address the case of Sheridan v. DuPont.
  On January 26, the junior Senator from Colorado indicated that Judge 
Alito was unlikely to support principles of diversity because he ruled 
against a female plaintiff in a gender discrimination case. The Senator 
said, ``In Sheridan, Judge Alito registered the lone dissent among 
thirteen judges voting to prevent a woman who had presented evidence of 
employment gender discrimination from going to trial.'' The Senator's 
summary of the case requires additional elaboration, though.
  According to the record of that case, the plaintiff, Barbara 
Sheridan, was employed as head captain of the Green Room restaurant in 
the Hotel DuPont. Initially, she received good performance reviews, but 
DuPont claimed that her performance began to deteriorate in 1991. At 
that point, her manager met with her to ask her to stop using the 
restaurant bar for smoking and grooming. Apparently Sheridan was 
frequently late to work, and other employees had complained about food 
and drinks she gave away. In February 1991, the hotel decided to 
reassign Sheridan to a nonsupervisory position that did not involve the 
handling of cash. She would not suffer any reduction in pay because of 
this job transfer. Rather than accept reassignment, Sheridan resigned 
in April 1992 and sued for gender discrimination.
  When the case came before him on appeal, Judge Alito joined a 
unanimous three-judge panel that ruled for Ms. Sheridan. He held that 
her case should go to trial because it was plausible that a jury could 
agree with her. Judge Alito explained, ``a rational trier of fact could 
have found that duPont's proffered reasons for the constructive 
termination were pretextual.''
  Later, however, the case was heard by the full Third Circuit. At that 
time, Judge Alito expressed doubt about the applicable Third Circuit 
precedent. Hesitant about the court's broad rule that affected all 
cases with varying factual situations, he explained that when the 
employee makes out a case like this, she should usually, but not 
always, be accorded a trial. He reached this conclusion after parsing 
the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. 
And most importantly for present purposes, the Supreme Court later 
agreed with Judge Alito's view in a unanimous opinion authored by 
Justice O'Connor. That case, Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, can 
be found at 533 U.S. 133, and was decided by the Supreme Court in 2000.
  The job of an appellate court judge is to faithfully interpret the 
Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretations of statutes. The 
history of this case demonstrates that Judge Alito got it right when he 
examined pleading standards in title VII cases.
  Let's move on to another case, the 1996 case of U.S. v. Rybar, in 
which Judge Alito dissented.
  On January 25, the Senior Senator from Rhode Island said that Judge 
Alito ``advocated striking down Congress's ban on the transfer and 
possession of machine guns.'' He further said that Judge Alito had 
argued that he was ``not convinced by Congress' findings on the impact 
of machine guns on interstate commerce. He substituted his own policy 
preferences in a way that the Third Circuit majority found was, in 
their words, counter to the difference that the owes to its two 
coordinate branches of government.''
  I discussed this case with Judge Alito during his confirmation 
hearings. The description we have just heard does not tell the whole 
story.
  Judge Alito's dissent in that case had nothing to do with being 
``convinced'' by Congress's findings. Rather, Judge Alito based his 
dissent, in part, on the fact that Congress made no explicit findings 
regarding the link between the intrastate activity regulated by these 
laws, the mere possession of a machine gun, and interstate commerce. 
Note that this case was about possession, not transfer or commercial 
activity.
  Second, the dissent had nothing to do with Judge Alito's own policy 
preferences regarding the possession of machine guns. Rather, it was a 
careful application of the then-recent decision in United States v. 
Lopez, which reminded courts to take seriously the limits of Congress's 
powers under the commerce clause. In Lopez, the Supreme Court had held 
that Congress's power to regulate commerce among the several States did 
not include the power to regulate possession of a gun near a school 
where the gun never crossed State lines. It was for the Third Circuit 
to decide whether Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce 
included the power to regulate possession of a machine gun where the 
machine gun never crossed State lines. In Judge Alito's view, the 
Supreme Court's decision ``require[d] [the court] to invalidate the 
statutory provision at issue.'' He relied on and cited Lopez at least 
22 times in his 9-page dissenting opinion.
  Again, this is the job of an appeals court judge: to interpret 
Supreme Court precedent and apply it to new cases.
  I should also point out that Judge Alito's dissenting opinion 
provided a virtual roadmap for how Congress could regulate the 
possession of guns in a way consistent with the Constitution and 
Supreme Court case law. This is hardly the behavior of someone bent on 
imposing a ``policy preference'' against regulating machine guns. 
According to Judge Alito, all Congress had to do was make findings as 
to the link between the possession of firearms and interstate commerce 
or add a requirement that the government prove that the firearm moved 
across State lines.
  Let me add one last word on the Rybar case. It is often said that 
Judge Alito always sides with the government. Well, this case was 
called ``United States versus Rybar,'' and Judge Alito was on the side 
of Mr. Rybar. Of course, he did not think of himself being on anyone's 
side. He was just doing as he believed the Constitution and Supreme 
Court required. And he would have felt the same way if the law required 
the opposite conclusion.
  Let us now move on to another case, that of Riley v. Taylor.
  Speaking at the executive business meeting for the nomination of 
Judge Alito, the senior Senator from Illinois left a misimpression of 
the facts of this case, so I would like to clear up any confusion.
  In that case, Judge Alito found there was insufficient evidence to 
support a criminal defendant's claim that the prosecutor had violated 
his constitutional rights by striking three minorities from the jury 
pool. The Senator said that the prosecutor had ``in three previous 
murder cases, used every challenge they had to make certain that only 
white jurors would stand in judgment of black defendants.'' That is not 
accurate. While it is true that the criminal defendant relied heavily 
on the anemic evidence that in three previous trials no African 
Americans ended up on the jury, it is also the case that the prosecutor 
had struck both Blacks and Whites from those juries. Indeed, Judge 
Alito pointed out in his decision that, of the excluded jurors in the 
previous trials, only 24 percent were African Americans. He suggested 
that this might not even be disproportionately high in a county where 
the most recent census indicated that 18 percent of the population was 
Black.
  Most importantly, Judge Alito's opinion rejected the selective use of 
statistics based upon the sample size of three trials. In so ruling, 
Judge Alito was in agreement with multiple State and Federal judges who 
had heard the case before him. On the full Third Circuit, four other 
judges, half of them Democratic appointees, joined in his opinion on 
this point. Not a single judge thought the statistical argument settled 
the case.
  As a postscript, when Riley was given a new trial by the Third 
Circuit, he was again convicted of all charges. When he again appealed, 
the Delaware Supreme Court found that his petition was ``wholly without 
merit.''
  Let me turn to another case, one also discussed by the senior Senator 
from Illinois, but during his January 25 floor speech, that of Pirolli 
v. World Flavors.

[[Page 314]]

  The Senator from Illinois stated: ``Another case involved an 
individual who was the subject of harassment in the work place. This 
person had been assaulted by fellow employees. He was a mentally 
retarded individual.'' The Senator continued, ``His case was dismissed 
by a trial court, and it came before Judge Alito to decide whether or 
not to give him a chance to take his case to a jury. And Judge Alito 
said no. The man should not have a day in court.''
  Several corrections are needed here.
  First, the plaintiff in this case did have his day in court; he just 
did not reach a jury. During the course of the proceedings, the 
plaintiff presented his argument to not one, but four judges--one 
district court judge and three appellate court judges. The rules of the 
Third Circuit require that a plaintiff present his case in a minimally 
adequate fashion in order to be considered. The plaintiff must, at a 
minimum, state what happened to him and provide the basis for his 
claim. But the plaintiff in this case, a man who had a lawyer, never 
did that. The Third Circuit judges in this case were not provided with 
enough facts to make an adequate and informed decision. Judge Alito 
emphasized, ``I would overlook many technical violations of the Federal 
Rules of Appellate Procedure and our local rules, but I do not think it 
is too much to insist that Pirolli's brief at least state the ground on 
which reversal is sought.''
  Second, with regard to the plaintiff's sexual harassment claim, Judge 
Alito refused to accept the arguably demeaning stereotype which the 
plaintiff's lawyer advanced, which was ``that retarded persons are any 
more (or less) sensitive to harassment than anyone else.'' Judge Alito 
required evidence on which to base his ruling and refused to rely on 
the proposed stereotype.
  Let's move on to another case, that of Doe v. Groody.
  This case was mentioned by several Senators but in particular by the 
Junior Senator from Massachusetts on January 25. The Senator said that 
Judge Alito did not support individual rights because he dissented in 
Doe v. Groody. He said, ``Judge Alito's hostility to individual rights 
isn't limited to civil rights. He consistently excuses government 
intrusions into personal privacy, regardless of how egregious or 
excessive they are. In Doe v. Groody,'' the Senator from Massachusetts 
argued, ``dissented from an opinion written by then-Judge Michael 
Chertoff because he believed that the strip search of a ten year-old 
was reasonable.''
  First, let's get the legal question straight. The issue in Doe v. 
Groody was whether police officers should be able to be personally sued 
for money damages when they misunderstand the scope of the search 
warrant they were given.
  Second, let's look at what happened during the event in question. On 
March 6, 1998, as a result of a long-term investigation of a John Doe 
for suspected narcotics dealing, officers of the Schuylkill County Drug 
Task Force sought a search warrant for Doe and his residence. The typed 
affidavit in support of the warrant stated, among other things, that a 
reliable confidential informant had purchased methamphetamine on 
several occasions from John Doe at his residence. The affidavit sought 
permission to ``search all occupants of the residence and their 
belongings.''
  However, the printed sheet entitled ``Search Warrant and Affidavit'' 
contained an entry naming only John Doe under the question, ``specific 
description of premises and/or persons to be searched.'' When the 
officers entered the house to commence the search, they decided to 
search Jane Doe and her daughter, Mary, age 10, for contraband. A 
female officer removed both Jane and Mary Doe to an upstairs bathroom 
where she searched them for drugs. No contraband was found. Once the 
search was completed, both mother and daughter returned to the ground 
floor to await the end of the search.
  As a matter of policy, the sad reality is that drug dealers often 
hide weapons and drugs on children in the home. Judge Alito 
acknowledged in his opinion that he found the fact that the search 
occurred to be unfortunate. Accordingly, police officers sometimes 
request warrants that allow them to search all persons found during a 
drug bust.
  The Does sued the police officers personally for money damages. The 
issue was how to read the warrant in light of the affidavit. And the 
legal question question was whether a reasonable officer could have 
believed that the search warrant allowed the officers to search 
everyone in the house. Two judges on the panel said no, while Judge 
Alito said yes.
  Why did Judge Alito believe that the police officers should not be 
liable personally? He concluded that a reasonable police officer could 
think that the warrant should be read in conjunction with the attached 
affidavit. Judge Alito reasoned that a ``commonsense and realistic'' 
reading of the warrant authorized a search of all occupants of the 
premises. Judge Alito found that the officers in this case ``did not 
exhibit incompetence or a willingness to flout the law. Instead, they 
reasonably concluded that the magistrate had authorized a search of all 
occupants of the premises.''
  So, on the law, Judge Alito did not, as he has been accused 
repeatedly over the past few days, authorize the strip-search of a 10-
year-old girl. He just tried to sort out a practical, on-the-ground 
problem for law enforcement. It is sad but predictable that this case, 
with its inflammatory facts, would come up repeatedly, but repetition 
is not going to change the record of what happened.
  Mr. President, let's move on.
  I want to address a claim by the junior Senator from Illinois in a 
January 26 speech that, whenever Judge Alito has discretion, he will 
rule against an employee or a criminal defendant. To quote, the Senator 
said, ``If there's a case involving an employer and employee and the 
Supreme Court has not given clear direction, Judge Alito will rule in 
favor of the employer. If there's a claim between prosecutors and 
defendants if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear role of 
decision, then he'll rule in favor of the state.''
  This just is not the case. There are 4,800 cases that could be 
reviewed to demonstrate the inaccuracy of that claim, but let's just 
look at a few.
  In Zubi v. AT&T, an employee claimed that AT&T had fired him based on 
his race, but the record was far from clear. Judge Alito clearly had 
room to rule against the employee. After all, the other two judges 
deciding the case on appeal did so and threw out the employee's claim. 
They held that the employee had waited too long to bring his claim. In 
contrast, Judge Alito issued a lone dissent arguing that the employee 
was entitled to bring his discrimination claim. Later, the Supreme 
Court unanimously vindicated Judge Alito's view.
  As another example to counter the Senator from Illinois's claim, 
consider the case of United States v. Igbonwa. There, a criminal 
defendant argued that the prosecutor had failed to honor his plea 
agreement. The majority of the court voted against the defendant and in 
favor of the prosecutor. Clearly, Judge Alito had legal grounds to do 
the same. Instead, Judge Alito issued a lone dissent arguing that the 
prosecutor was required to fulfill this promise to the defendant.
  In yet another example, in Crews v. Horn, Judge Alito ruled that a 
prisoner was entitled to more time to bring his habeas petition. Again, 
the Supreme Court and Third Circuit had never decided the question, and 
the statute was unclear. Judge Alito could have ruled either way, yet 
he ruled in favor of the prisoner's claim.
  This is a good time to remind the Senate what Third Circuit Judge 
Edward Becker, who served with Judge Alito for 15 years, had to say on 
this point. He testified, ``The Sam Alito that I have sat with for 15 
years is not an ideologue. He's not a movement person. He's a real 
judge deciding each case on the facts and the law, not on his personal 
views, whatever they may be. He scrupulously adheres to precedent. I 
have never seen him exhibit a bias against any class of litigation or 
litigants.'' As Judge Becker summarized Judge Alito's career, ``His 
credo has always been fairness.''

[[Page 315]]

  Mr. President, I want to turn to some of the mischaracterizations of 
Judge Alito's past record as a government official.
  In her January 25 speech, the junior Senator from New York said that 
Judge Alito had written that ``in his estimation it is not the role of 
the federal government to protect the health, safety, and welfare of 
the American people.''
  As best I can tell, the Senator is referring to a 1986 document 
addressing the Truth in Mileage Act, a bill to require States to change 
their automobile registration forms to include the mileage of the car 
every time it was sold. That document did not, as the Senator said, 
offer Alito's ``estimation'' on anything. Judge Alito was drafting a 
veto message for President Reagan. Accordingly, he drafted that message 
in President Reagan's voice and restated President Reagan's policy on 
federalism. The first-person pronoun in that message is President 
Reagan, not Alito.
  It is also worth nothing that Judge Alito did not challenge 
Congress's powers. His cover memo acknowledged that ``Congress may have 
the authority to pass such legislation.'' He did point out that the 
legislation was ``in large part unnecessary since only five states and 
the District of Columbia do not already have'' title forms that meet 
this requirement.
  Let's move to another statement from the Senator from New York. She 
stated that Judge Alito's ``time on the bench shows an unapologetic 
effort to undermine the right to privacy and a woman's right to 
choose.''
  In fact, Judge Alito's record confirms that he is not an ideologue on 
a crusade to curtail Roe v. Wade. In his 15 years on the bench, he has 
confronted seven restrictions on abortion, and he struck down all but 
one. Judge Alito has upheld a woman's right to choose even when he had 
the discretion to limit abortion rights.
  For example, in the 1995 case of Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center 
for Women v. Knoll, Judge Alito struck down two abortion restrictions 
by the State of Pennsylvania. The first provided that a woman who 
became pregnant due to rape or incest could not obtain Medicaid funding 
for her abortion unless she reported the crime to the police. The 
second provided that if a woman needed an abortion to save her life, 
she had to obtain a second opinion from a doctor who had no financial 
interest in the abortion. The question was whether these laws 
conflicted with a Federal regulation issued by the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services. There was no binding Supreme Court precedent on 
point, and Judge Alito easily could have upheld the abortion 
restrictions if he had such a preset agenda. But Judge Alito voted to 
strike down both laws in favor of a woman's right to choose. This is 
not the behavior of someone bent on chipping away at Roe v. Wade. This 
is the behavior of a jurist who understands the importance of 
precedent.
  The junior Senator from New Jersey came to the floor earlier today 
and criticized the work Judge Alito had done on behalf of the Reagan 
Justice Department on abortion cases. He suggested that those efforts 
showed a bias against Roe v. Wade that would matter in the future. But 
the record shows just the opposite, as discussed above. How else to 
explain the Knoll case? Moreover, the Senator said that Judge Alito 
would not describe Roe v. Wade as, quote, ``settled law.'' Judge Alito 
addressed this question repeatedly during the hearing. A judge cannot 
call an area of law ``settled'' when it is likely that cases dealing 
with that area will come before him. This demand to say that Roe is 
settled is little more than a desire to prejudge all those cases, 
including cases pending before the Supreme Court today. Judge Alito 
simply cannot do that without violating his judicial ethics and 
depriving those litigants of their fair day in court.
  I will move on.
  Earlier today, the junior Senator from Michigan said that Judge Alito 
had ``been criticized by his colleagues for trying to legislate from 
the bench in order to reach the result that he desires.'' I am not 
aware of a single example of any member of the Third Circuit, or of any 
other court in the Nation, claiming that Judge Alito had any tendency 
toward quote, ``legislating from the bench.''
  In fact, just the opposite is true. It is especially surprising to 
hear such a claim given the testimony of Judge Alito's colleagues on 
the Third Circuit. Would seven current and former Third Circuit judges 
testify for Judge Alito if they believed he was a judicial activist or 
otherwise unqualified for the bench? Those listening now or reading the 
Congressional Record in future years should go to the Judiciary 
Committee records on the Internet and read what those judges had to say 
when they testified on January 12. When I spoke last week, I entered in 
the Record a series of excerpts from that testimony that the Senate 
Republican Policy Committee, which I chair, had compiled. The complete 
testimony is worth reviewing, too. Again, I am not aware of a single 
time that any judge has accused Judge Alito of legislating from the 
bench.
  As one last point, I must address this unitary executive issue. The 
senior Senator from New Jersey and others have said that Judge Alito 
somehow believes in making the executive more powerful than the 
legislative and judicial branches. One wonders how many times this 
misstatement has to be corrected. Judge Alito made clear during his 
testimony that his past comments regarding the unitary executive theory 
only--only, Mr. President--dealt with who has the power to control 
executive agencies. As he said repeatedly, insofar as this theory deals 
with the scope of Presidential power, he does not--repeat, does not--
subscribe to it. What else can he say? He has made this extremely 
clear. He has said it repeatedly.
  Mr. President, there have been other misstatements and mischaracter-
izations of Judge Alito's record. I can only respond to so many. I will 
simply encourage future students of this debate to look at the cases in 
question, and to carefully review the Committee record, before reaching 
conclusions based on floor debate.
  I look forward to Samuel Alito serving on the Supreme Court for many 
years to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority leader 
or his designee will be recognized for the final 15 minutes prior to 
the vote on the motion to invoke cloture.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture on 
the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court and to support him 
on the final vote.
  As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I sat through every 
minute of the proceedings, reviewed in advance some 250 cases of Judge 
Alito's, his work in the Justice Department, his work as U.S. Attorney, 
as Assistant U.S. Attorney, his academic record, and I found him to be 
eminently well qualified.
  The objections which have been raised to the nomination turn on those 
who think he should have been more specific on answering certain 
questions. But to have been more specific, he would have had to in 
effect state how he would rule on cases to come before the Court, and 
that is going too far. He went about as far as he could go.
  With the critical question of women's right to choose, his testimony 
was virtually identical to Chief Justice Roberts, and he affirmed the 
basic principles of stare decisis, a Latin phrase which means ``let the 
decision stand.''
  He is not an originalist. He characterized the Constitution as a 
living document, as Cardozo did, reflecting the values of our country, 
the importance of the reliance on precedent, and articulated those 
views. He also indicated that he had an open mind on the

[[Page 316]]

issue of a woman's right to choose, notwithstanding what he had done in 
an advocacy role for the Department of Justice, notwithstanding any 
views he had expressed at an earlier date.
  When it came to the critical question of Executive power, as to how 
he would handle cases, he subscribed to Justice Jackson's concurrence 
in the steel seizure cases, which is the accepted model. And here 
again, he went about as far as he could go in discussing the 
considerations and the factors which would guide his decisions.
  When it came to Executive power, again he discussed the 
considerations which would guide him on his decisions but necessarily 
stopped short of how he would decide a specific case.
  He disagreed with the Supreme Court of the United States, which has 
declared acts of Congress unconstitutional because of our method of 
reasoning, saying that our method of reasoning somehow was defective 
compared to the Court's method of reasoning. Judge Alito rejected that.
  Perhaps most importantly in evaluating the prospects as to how Judge 
Alito will rule, we have to bear in mind that history shows the rule to 
be that there isn't a rule. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice 
Anthony Kennedy, Justice David Souter before coming to Court all 
expressed their sharp disagreement with abortion rights; once they got 
to the Court they have upheld a woman's right to choose. Then there is 
the classic case of President Truman's nominees on the big Youngstown 
case on steel seizure, voting contrary to what the President, their 
nominator, had expected.
  We heard enormously powerful testimony coming from seven circuit 
judges, some past, some senior, and some currently active who have 
worked with Judge Alito. There were precedents for other judges coming 
forward to testify on behalf of a nominee--but not quite in this 
number, not quite in this magnitude. The seven judges were uniform in 
their assessment that Judge Alito has no agenda and has an open mind. 
These are jurists who know his work well, jurists who go with him after 
oral arguments into a closed room--no clerks, no secretaries, no 
recording--they see how he thinks and how he considers cases.
  I think two judges were especially significant. The first was Judge 
Edward R. Becker, the winner of the Devitt Award as the outstanding 
Federal jurist a couple of years ago. Judge Becker has sat with Judge 
Alito on more than 1,000 cases. He is well known as a centrist and is a 
highly respected judge. He testified that Judge Alito and he had 
disagreed on a very small number of cases, about 25. The second was 
Judge Timothy Lewis, an African American who identifies himself as 
being very strongly pro-choice, very strong for civil rights. He was 
seated on the left-hand side of the panel--he made a reference to that 
reflecting his position on the philosophical spectrum--and testified 
very strongly on Judge Alito's behalf, saying that if he did not have 
every confidence in Judge Alito he would not have appeared as a witness 
in the proceeding.
  The prepared statement which I filed in the record last week details 
a great many cases where Judge Alito has decided in favor of the so-
called little guy.
  In the context of the hundreds of decisions that Judge Alito has 
written and the thousands of cases where he has sat, you could pick out 
a few and put him with any position on the philosophical spectrum of 
the court.
  Candidly, it is a heavy responsibility to cast a vote on a Supreme 
Court nominee, especially one who is taking the place of Justice 
O'Connor, a swing vote. But when we look at the traditional standard as 
to intellect, this man is an A plus. When we look at the traditional 
standard of character, again he is an A plus. When you look at the 
standard of experience and public service, he is an A plus. When you 
look at his analytical style as a jurist, again he is an A plus.
  Some have objected to nominees because, as some have put it, there is 
no guarantee. Guarantees are for used cars and washing machines, not 
for Supreme Court nominees.
  I believe Judge Alito is well qualified to receive an affirmative 
vote by the Senate and be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court.
  I note the distinguished majority leader on the floor. The time left 
before the cloture vote--almost a full minute--I yield to Senator 
Frist.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be using some leader time. For my 
colleagues, the vote will be in about 10 minutes or so.
  In a few moments the Senate will decide whether to invoke cloture to 
close debate on the nomination of Sam Alito to be the 110th Associate 
Justice of the Supreme Court.
  Before we vote, I want to take a minute to reflect just a bit on the 
progress that we have made in this overall judicial confirmation 
process over the last 12 months.
  In the Senate, I really wear three hats. One is the Senator from the 
great State of Tennessee; second, the Republican leader; and third, 
majority leader. Wearing the third hat as majority leader, I have 
become a steward of our institution, steward in the sense of its rules 
and its precedents, its practices and the customs of this Senate.
  My job is to bring Senators together, both sides of the aisle, to 
govern. That is why we are here, to govern with meaningful solutions to 
people's real problems, problems today, problems in the future, to 
identify what those problems are and then to resolve them and to secure 
America's future by honoring its past and by building on a record of 
accomplishment every day as we move forward.
  Three years ago, when I assumed this position as majority leader, 
there was probably no single greater challenge or obstacle than the 
judicial confirmation process. In a word, it was broken. The minority 
party had decided to put partisanship first in the judicial 
confirmation process by, at that time, orchestrating regular, almost 
routine filibusters to block what we all know were highly qualified 
nominees from getting fair up-or-down votes. This partisan 
obstructionism began in 2001, it continued into 2002, in 2003, and then 
2004.
  If we look back to the 108th Congress alone, the Senate voted 20 
times to end debate on 10 different nominees. Each time, cloture 
failed. We spent more time debating judicial nominations during those 2 
years than in any previous Congress. This partisan obstructionism was 
unprecedented. This routine use of the filibuster was wrong. Never in 
214 years had a minority denied a nominee with majority support that 
fair up-or-down vote. The minority had used the filibuster to seize 
control of the appointments process. They used it unfairly to apply a 
new political standard to judicial nominees and to deny a vote to any 
nominee who did not subscribe to a liberal, activist, ideological 
agenda.
  To justify this unprecedented obstruction, Democratic leaders 
unfairly attacked the character of these nominees. They sought to paint 
them as extremists and radicals and threats to our society and our 
institutions. But the American people saw through the attacks. They saw 
them for what they were, purely partisan.
  Finally, early this year the Republican leadership said: Enough is 
enough; enough obstruction, enough partisanship, enough disrespect to 
these good, decent, and accomplished professionals. We put forward a 
very simple, straightforward principle. A nominee with the support of a 
majority of Senators deserves a fair up-or-down vote. And we led on 
that principle. Because we did that, seven nominees who had been 
previously filibustered, or blocked, obstructed in the last Congress--
and we were told at the time would be blocked in this Congress--got 
fair up-or-down votes and were confirmed and now sit on our circuit 
courts. A new Chief Justice of the United States, Chief Justice 
Roberts, now sits at the helm of the High Court.
  If we had not led on principle, there would have been no Gang of 14. 
Filibusters would have become even more routine and led to more 
obstruction. However, the sword of the filibuster has been sheathed 
because we are placing principle before politics, results before 
rhetoric.

[[Page 317]]

  With the nomination of Sam Alito before the Senate, this Senate must 
again choose principle or partisanship. Should we choose to lead on the 
principle that judicial nominees, whether nominated by a Republican or 
a Democrat, deserve an up-or-down vote, or should we revert to the 
partisan obstructionism of the past? I believe a bipartisan group of 
Senators will choose today to put principle first.
  Last week, the distinguished minority leader said there has been 
adequate time for people to debate. No one can complain in this matter 
that there has not been sufficient time to talk about Judge Alito, pro 
or con. I could not agree more with my colleague and friend. It is time 
to end debate. It is time to move on. Since President Bush announced 
Judge Alito's nomination on October 31, Senators have had 91 days to 
review his nomination, to review his records, his writings.
  To put that in perspective, Chief Justice John Roberts' confirmation 
took 72 days, even including an extra week's delay to pay respects to 
his predecessor, Chief Justice Rehnquist. Justice O'Connor, who Judge 
Alito will replace, was confirmed in 76 days. President Clinton's two 
Supreme Court nominees, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, got a fair up-or-
down vote in an average of 62 days. Judge Alito today is at 91 days.
  During this 3-month period since Judge Alito was nominated, Members 
have had an abundance of his written materials, documents, and opinions 
to review. They have had over 4,800 opinions from his tenure on the 
Third Circuit Court of Appeals spanning 27,000 pages; another 1,000 
pages of documents from Judge Alito's service at the Department of 
Justice; numerous speeches and news articles. The list goes on and on.
  Members have had 30 hours of testimony from Judge Alito's judicial 
committee hearings; statements of 33 witnesses, including 7 who are 
Judge Alito's colleagues on the Third Circuit; Judge Alito's answer to 
over 650 questions, doubling the number of questions that either of 
President Clinton's Supreme Court nominees answered; and 4 days of 
debate in the Senate.
  Despite all this, some Members have launched a partisan campaign to 
filibuster this nominee and have forced the Senate to file cloture 
which we will be voting on. Certainly, it is any Senator's right to 
force this vote, but it sets an unwelcome precedent for the Senate.
  As a reminder to my colleagues, the Senate did not have a cloture 
vote on any of the nine Justices currently sitting on the Supreme 
Court. Judge Alito has majority support. A bipartisan majority of 
Senators stands ready to confirm him and have announced their support. 
Judge Alito deserves to be Justice Alito. He has the professional 
qualifications, the judge temperament and integrity our highest Court 
deserves.
  Whether Members agree with me, whether Members support him, we should 
not prevent Judge Alito from getting a vote. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting for cloture. It is our constitutional obligation of 
advise and consent, because it is fair and because it is the right 
thing to do.
  Senators stand for election; judges should not. Absent some 
extraordinary evidence, we should not challenge a nominee's personal 
character, credibility, or integrity. Continuing down this path could 
deter qualified men and women from putting their names forward for 
nomination, from volunteering to serve their country as Federal judges. 
It could threaten the quality Americans most desire in their judiciary: 
fairness and independence.
  A vote today for cloture is a vote to support all we have done over 
the past 3 years to repair what was broken. True, it is a vote to bring 
Sam Alito's nomination to a fair up-or-down vote, but it is also a vote 
that is so much more. It is a vote to demonstrate Members working 
together to end partisan obstructionism and to lead on that simple 
principle that every judicial nominee, with majority support, deserves 
a fair up-or-down vote.
  In closing, if I may borrow the words of my good friend Senator 
Kennedy from 1998:

       We owe it to Americans across the country to give these 
     nominees a vote. If our [colleagues] don't like them, vote 
     against them. But give them a vote.

  I agree with Senator Kennedy's statement. I say to my colleagues, if 
you do not like Judge Alito, vote against him. That is your right. But 
let's give him a vote. That is our constitutional duty.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will use leader time.
  I want the record spread with the fact that Senator Ensign will miss 
the vote today. The Senate is very fortunate. He was in a head-on 
collision in Las Vegas going to the airport to return to Washington, 
DC. I spoke to him from the hospital. He is going to be fine. He has no 
head injuries. The bags inflated, and I am sure saved him great bodily 
pain. I talked to him. He was under some medication. He said he is sore 
but he is going to be fine.
  With all the travel we do, we all live on the edge of something 
happening. I am so happy Senator Ensign is fine. He is a wonderful man. 
He has great faith. He is a good friend of mine and to all of the 
Senate. I know all of our thoughts and prayers will be with him. I am 
confident he is going to be fine.
  As indicated, I spoke with him. I want Darlene, especially, to know 
our thoughts are with her and the children.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 4:30 
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to a vote on the motion to 
invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 490.
  Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey to be an Associate 
     Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
         Bill Frist, Elizabeth Dole, Michael B. Enzi, Jim DeMint, 
           Wayne Allard, Kit Bond, John Ensign, Arlen Specter, 
           Rick Santorum, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Pete Domenici, 
           Judd Gregg, Lisa Murkowski, Norm Coleman, George Allen, 
           Mitch McConnell.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
Executive Calendar No. 490, the nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of 
New Jersey, to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory 
under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Hagel).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Iowa 
(Mr. Harkin) would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 72, nays 25, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 1 Ex.]

                                YEAS--72

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

[[Page 318]]



                                NAYS--25

     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Clinton
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Ensign
     Hagel
     Harkin
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, yeas are 72, the nays are 25. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, would my friend extend his unanimous consent request to 
include the following Democratic Members: Senator Boxer for 20 minutes, 
Senator Baucus for 20 minutes, Senator Dodd for 20 minutes, and Senator 
Biden for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I do add that to the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                       State of the Union Address

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, today the Democratic leader, Harry Reid, 
gave what was billed as a ``prebuttal'' to the President's upcoming 
State of the Union Address.
  I am, frankly, astounded that he would criticize a speech so harshly 
that has not even been given yet.
  I will let the President speak for himself when he addresses the 
Nation tomorrow night, but this misleading partisan rhetoric put forth 
on this floor by the Senator from Nevada cannot go unanswered, rhetoric 
which, unfortunately, further proves Democrats will say anything but do 
nothing.
  Today, we heard many of the same tired cliches from the minority 
leader. He talks about a credibility gap. Well, the largest credibility 
gap in American politics is between what Democrats say and what they 
do. Democrats promised months ago to bring forth their own legislative 
agenda, but the Nation is still waiting. Day after day, the Democrats 
launch attack after attack on Republicans and our agenda, but how are 
we to take them seriously when they cannot articulate a clear plan of 
their own? They will say anything to get a media sound bite, but when 
it comes to solving today's challenges, Democrats do nothing.
  It has been 4 years since 9/11, and after all their rock-throwing, 
Democrats still have no plan for victory in the war on terror. In fact, 
they have undermined the war effort with partisan attacks on the 
President.
  They have complained about the economy since President Bush took 
office, but almost everything they do makes it harder for American 
businesses to compete.
  Democrats spent the last year criticizing Republican efforts to 
strengthen Social Security but still offer nothing to fix this system 
in crisis. They even refuse to guarantee benefits for today's seniors 
and blocked a bill that would have stopped Congress from spending 
Social Security dollars on other Government programs.
  They have decried looming deficits but offer no map to a balanced 
budget, instead calling for higher taxes and more spending programs.
  How are we to take seriously a party that has no legislative agenda, 
that has no solutions or ideas to solve America's greatest challenges?
  In stark contrast to the Democrats' invisible agenda, Republicans 
have clearly articulated and delivered a bold agenda to secure 
America's future. And while we have had some victories in recent years, 
the truth is that Democrats have fought bitterly to block progress for 
America every step of the way. Then these same Democrats come to this 
floor and blame inaction on Republicans.
  To give just one example, Republicans have been working for decades 
to secure America's energy independence. However, Democrats, at the 
behest of extreme environmental activists, oppose real solutions to 
high energy prices such as increasing production of domestic oil and 
natural gas supplies and removing barriers to oil refinery investment 
such as onerous permitting requirements and a proliferation of boutique 
fuel blends.
  Just last month, Democrats blocked energy exploration and production 
on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which would 
provide millions of barrels of oil a day, or about 4.5 percent of the 
current U.S. consumption, with no significant environmental impact.
  It is not just in Alaska where Democrats oppose efforts to access our 
Nation's energy resources. It has been estimated that enough natural 
gas lies under the Outer Continental Shelf and in the interior Western 
States to supply 27 years' worth of natural gas consumption, the 
primary fuel used to heat Americans' homes. Yet Democrats support 
policies that have closed these areas to exploration and production.
  The administration has attempted to cut regulatory redtape, reduce 
regulatory costs, and streamline regulatory processes to allow more 
sensible use of the Nation's energy resources, while maintaining 
environmental standards--efforts that have been largely rebuffed by 
Democrats in Congress.
  The obstacle to America's energy independence is clear: it is the 
blockade formed by the Democratic Party. In seeking to appease far-left 
interest groups, Democrats have blocked Republican efforts to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil and have needlessly allowed energy prices 
to climb higher and higher for America's families.
  Senator Reid likes to say Democrats can do better. I think he is 
right, Democrats should do better. They have been conducting a war of 
rhetoric for years without offering anything positive to the public 
debate. Americans are rightly frustrated with a Democratic Party that 
will say anything but do nothing.
  Now let me address what has become the favorite sound bite of the 
Democratic Party. Senator Reid said it today and many times over the 
last week, what he likes to call the ``culture of corruption.'' 
Apparently, Democrats believe this media strategy will carry them to a 
sweeping electoral victory in November. I have news for my Democratic 
colleagues: The problem of outside influence on Congress is not a 
partisan issue. This is a bipartisan problem and requires a bipartisan 
solution.
  For those hoping to usher in a new Democratic majority in Congress on 
a media sound bite, history teaches us that elections are won on ideas, 
not rhetoric. Americans are far too smart and today's challenges are 
far too serious for Democrats to expect they can coast to a victory in 
November with no solutions and no ideas.
  Republicans learned this lesson long ago from one of our greatest 
teachers, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan always talked about ideas 
that still resonate with Americans today: limited government, personal 
freedom and responsibility, and peace through strength.
  Republicans did not win on rhetoric in 1994. We won because Americans 
agreed with our solutions: lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, 
traditional values, and strong national defense.
  President Bush has connected with the American people because he has 
run his campaigns on ideas. He promised to lower taxes, and he has. He 
promised to aggressively fight the war on terror to protect American 
families, and he has. He promised to nominate judges who will follow 
the law instead of creating it, and he has.
  Yet, as Senator Reid demonstrated today, Democrats still do not 
understand that Americans want solutions, not more partisan rhetoric. I 
know there are some Democrats who do have some good ideas and desire to 
work together to improve the lives of Americans. I have talked to many 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who do seem to 
understand the reality, but their leadership refuses to allow them to 
break from the party line.
  I urge the Democratic Party to think long and hard about the war of 
rhetoric

[[Page 319]]

they are waging. It is poisoning the atmosphere in the Senate, and it 
is turning off Americans from the public debate. The consequences of 
these actions will be fewer and fewer Democrats returning next year. 
This has been proved out during the last elections, as I and my fellow 
freshman Republican Senators can testify.
  If Democrats sincerely want the opportunity to govern again, they 
need to abandon this ``say anything, do nothing'' stance and put 
forward some ideas and solutions. Regardless, the Republican Party will 
not wait around. We will continue to secure America's future with a 
bold, positive agenda.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to amend the unanimous consent 
agreement to add an additional 10 minutes for Senator Baucus, which 
will give him 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to add to her request 
that following the Democratic-allowed time that has already been agreed 
to, Senator Inhofe be recognized for up to an hour.
  Mrs. BOXER. Certainly. I ask that at the conclusion of Senator 
Biden's remarks, Senator Inhofe be recognized for up to an hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from South 
Carolina. I thought he was going to make some comments about the vote 
that just took place on one of the most important issues facing the 
Senate. Instead, he launched into an attack on Senator Harry Reid.
  Shakespeare once said something to this effect: When someone acts 
that way, he is protesting too much. So Senator Reid must have hit a 
chord with the Senator from South Carolina, and there are reasons for 
it.
  Senator Reid speaks straight from the heart, straight from the 
shoulder. He is fighting for the American people. He wants us to fix 
the mess this President and this Congress made in the Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. He wants us to take care of our men and 
women in uniform. He wants to make sure the budgets are balanced. He 
wants to make sure that our families have health care, that we are 
moving forward on homeland security, and cleaning up the culture of 
corruption which has been brought to us by the ruling party. Remember, 
we have one party that rules Washington.
  So I think his remarks must have deeply touched the Senator from 
South Carolina for him to launch into such a personal attack on the 
Democratic leader. I stand here and say: Keep it up, Senator Reid. You 
must be doing something right to elicit that kind of outrageous 
response.
  Mr. President, many of us have been in elected life for more than a 
decade--in my case, three decades--and we know that when certain issues 
come before us, they are so profound, they are so important to the 
people we represent, they are such a watershed that they need to be 
marked, not rushed.
  The vote on Samuel Alito to be a Justice of the Supreme Court is such 
a moment in our history. Yes, we are having two votes on this 
nomination, one just completed, which gave me and other opponents of 
the nomination an opportunity to signal that this nomination should be 
sent back to the President for a mainstream nominee in the mold of 
Sandra Day O'Connor.
  We fell short of the 41 votes we needed to send this nomination back. 
But yet I am still glad I had the opportunity to go on record twice. 
And do you know why? Because the Supreme Court belongs to the people of 
America. It is their court. It is not George Bush's court. It is not 
any Senator's court. It is the people's court, and the highest court. 
It is their freedoms that are at stake, their protection from a power-
hungry Executive, their right to clean air, to clean water, and safe 
communities, their right to make private decisions with their families, 
not with Senators and Congressmen and a President or Vice President 
breathing down their necks.
  So although we knew the votes were not there for the filibuster of 
Judge Alito, we felt it was appropriate to use that historic Senate 
debate tool so the American people would know that we were willing to 
pursue even a losing effort because the stakes are so high.
  Tomorrow, we will cast our votes on the nomination itself, and I want 
the record to reflect why I will be voting no.
  Mr. President. Every judicial nomination is important, but rarely are 
the stakes as high for the Nation as they are in the case of the 
nomination of Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme 
Court.
  We now have a divided Court, a divided Congress, and a divided 
electorate, as evidenced in the last two Presidential elections. 
Unfortunately, we also have a President who failed to remember his 
promise, which he made in the campaign of 2000: to govern from the 
center--to be ``a uniter, not a divider.'' If he had kept that promise, 
he would not have nominated Samuel Alito.
  Judge Alito was nominated to take the seat of Justice Sandra Day 
O'Connor, the first woman on the Court. She has long been the swing 
vote, and a commonsense voice of moderation, in some of the most 
important cases to come before the Court, including a woman's right to 
choose, civil rights, and freedom of religion.
  The right thing to do for the court and for the Nation would have 
been to nominate someone in the mold of Justice O'Connor, and that is 
what the President should have done.
  Let me be clear: I do not deny Judge Alito's judicial qualifications. 
He is experienced, intelligent, and capable. His family should be proud 
of him, and all Americans should be proud that the American dream was 
there for him and for the Alito family.
  But these facts do not outweigh my deep conviction that Judge Alito's 
extreme views of the law make him the wrong person for this job.
  As a Senator, I have no more solemn duty than to vote on a nomination 
for the Supreme Court of the United States. These are lifetime 
appointments, with extraordinary power to shape the law of the land, 
and to affect the lives of Americans, not just those living now, but 
for generations to come.
  In the 218 years since our Constitution was adopted, our Nation has 
made great strides toward achieving the more perfect Union that the 
Founding Fathers dreamed of Women were given the right to vote. 
African-Americans were given civil rights. A right to personal privacy 
has been recognized for women and families. The accused have a right to 
counsel. Congress has been recognized to have the power to enact laws 
protecting the health and safety of the people. This has led to a 
cleaner environment, safer workplaces and communities, and better 
health care for all Americans.
  We who have enjoyed the fruits of this progress owe it to future 
generations not to let it slip away. Thus, in a vote such as this, 
which will have long lasting effects, it is incumbent on us to consider 
what those effects might be.
  If Judge Alito is confirmed, he will join the far right wing of the 
Court now led by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Should their extreme views 
of the Constitution ultimately prevail--as they may well do in the very 
near future--I fear they will take our Nation on a backward path--
toward a time of fewer rights for individuals and greater restrictions 
on Congress's ability to protect the public health and welfare. In 
addition, I believe that Judge Alito will support Justice Thomas's 
radical ideas about stronger Presidential powers.
  In short, our children could end up living in a very different 
America from the one we treasure. What kind of Nation would that be?
  Abortion undoubtedly would be illegal in many States. Dangerous 
automatic weapons might become broadly available. It might be almost 
impossible to get a claim of workplace discrimination to a jury. Search 
warrants might not have to be issued, or if they were, wouldn't have to 
be specific. The Nation's most important environmental laws might be 
made toothless

[[Page 320]]

for lack of enforcement in the courts. Trial by jury, one of the most 
precious of all rights guaranteed to Americans by their Constitution, 
could be tainted by racism in the selection of Jurors.
  This is a harsh picture, but I believe it is not unrealistic. If you 
consider where the Court is now and consider Judge Alito's record and 
views carefully, you must conclude, as I did, that approving his 
nomination could have dire consequences for our Nation.
  In reviewing Judge Alito's record, I asked myself whether, as a 
Supreme Court Justice, he would be likely to vote to preserve 
fundamental American liberties, values, and interests for all the 
people.
  Would Justice Alito vote to uphold Congress's constitutional 
authority to pass laws to protect Americans' health, safety, and 
welfare? The record says no. When his Third Circuit Court of Appeals 
voted to uphold a ban on machine gun possession, Judge Alito voted to 
strike it down because he said Congress lacked the power to enact such 
a law. His colleagues on the court criticized him, saying his position 
ran counter to ``a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of 
powers.''
  Would Justice Alito vote to protect the right to privacy, especially 
a woman's reproductive freedom? Judge Alito's record says no. We have 
all heard about Judge Alito's 1985 job application which he wrote that 
the Constitution does not protect the right of a woman to choose. When 
given the chance to disavow that position during the hearings, he 
refused to do so. He had the chance to say, as Judge Roberts did, that 
Roe v. Wade is settled law, and he refused.
  When given the chance to explain his dissent in the Casey decision, 
in which he argued that the Pennsylvania spousal notification 
requirement was not an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion 
because it would affect only a small number of women, he refused to 
back away from his position. The Supreme Court, by a 5 to 4 vote, found 
the provision to be unconstitutional, and Justice O'Connor, cowriting 
for the Court, criticized the faulty analysis supported by Judge Alito, 
saying that ``the analysis does not end with the one percent of women'' 
affected. ``it begins there.''
  Judge Alito's ominous statements and narrow-minded reasoning clearly 
signal a hostility to women's rights, and portend a move back toward 
the dark days when abortion was illegal in many States, and many women 
died as a result.
  In the 21st century, it is astounding that a nominee for the Supreme 
Court would not view Roe v. Wade as settled law. The fundamental 
principle of Roe--a woman's right to make reproductive choices for 
herself--has been reaffirmed many times since it was decided.
  Would Justice Alito vote to protect Americans from illegal searches 
in violation of the fourth amendment? Judge Alito's record says no. In 
a 2004 case, he found that a police strip search of a 10-year-old girl 
was lawful, even though she was not named in the warrant. Judge Alito 
said that even if the warrant did not actually authorize the search of 
the girl, ``a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the 
warrant as doing so . . .''
  This cavalier attitude toward one of our most basic constitutional 
guarantees--the fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches--
is stunning. As Judge Alito's own court said regarding warrants, ``a 
particular description is the touchstone of the fourth Amendment.'' 
Americans have reason to fear a Supreme Court justice who does not 
understand this fundamental constitutional protection.
  Would Justice Alito vote to let citizens stop companies from 
polluting their communities? The record says no. In a case involving 
toxic discharges into a major river, Judge Alito voted to stop citizens 
from taking the polluting company to court, as they were authorized to 
do under the Clean Water Act. Fortunately, in another case several 
years later, the Supreme Court overturned Alito's narrow reading of the 
law.
  Would Justice Alito vote to let working women and men have their day 
in court against employers who discriminate against them? Judge Alito's 
record says no. In a 1997 case, Judge Alito was the only judge to say 
that a hotel employee claiming racial discrimination could not take her 
case to a jury. His colleagues on the court said that if his standard 
for getting to a jury were required of a plaintiff, it would 
``eviscerate'' title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which 
prohibits discrimination in the workplace.
  In another case, a female employee sued for discrimination, alleging 
that after she complained about incidents of sexual harassment, she was 
demoted and marginalized to the point that she was forced to quit. By a 
vote of 10 to 1, the Third Circuit found for the plaintiff. Guess who 
was the one? Only Judge Alito thought the employee should have to show 
that discrimination was the main cause of the employer's action. Using 
his standard would make it almost impossible for a woman claiming 
discrimination in the workplace to get to trial.
  Would Justice Alito be an effective check on an overreaching 
executive branch? Judge Alito's record says no. As a Judiciary 
Department lawyer, Alito wrote a memorandum proposing that the 
President assert his own interpretations of statutes by issuing 
``signing statements'' when the laws are enacted. He said this would 
give the Executive ``the last word'' on interpreting the laws.
  The administration is now asserting vast powers, including spying on 
American citizens without seeking warrants, in clear violation of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, violating international 
treaties, and ignoring laws that ban torture.
  We need Justices who will put a check on such overreaching by the 
Executive, not rubberstamp it. Judge Alito's record and his answers at 
the hearings raise very serious doubts about his commitment to being a 
strong check on an ``imperial President.''
  During the hearings, we all felt great compassion for Mrs. Alito when 
she became emotional in reaction to the tough questions her husband 
faced in the Judiciary Committee.
  Everyone in politics knows how hard it is for families when a loved 
one is asked tough questions. It is part of a difficult process, and 
whoever said politics is not for the faint of heart was right.
  Emotions have run high during this process. That is understandable. 
But I wish the press had focused more on the tears of those who will be 
affected if Judge Alito becomes Justice Alito and his extreme views 
prevail.
  I worry about the tears of a worker who, having failed to get a 
promotion because of discrimination, is denied the opportunity to 
pursue her claim in court.
  I worry about the tears of a woman who is forced by law to tell her 
husband that she wants to terminate her pregnancy and is afraid that he 
will leave her or stop supporting her.
  I worry about the tears of a young girl who is strip searched in her 
own home by police who have no valid warrant.
  I worry about the tears of a mentally retarded man who has been 
brutally assaulted in the workplace, when his claim of workplace 
harassment is dismissed by the court simply because his lawyer failed 
to file a well-written brief on his behalf.
  These are real cases in which Judge Alito has spoken. Fortunately, 
his views did not prevail in these cases. But if he sits on the Supreme 
Court, he will have a much more powerful voice. His voice that will 
replace one of moderation and balance, and he will join the voices of 
other Justices who share his severe views.
  Perhaps the most important statement Judge Alito made during the 
entire hearing process was when he told the Judiciary Committee that he 
expects to be the same kind of Justice on the Supreme Court as he has 
been a judge on the Circuit Court.
  That is precisely the problem. As a judge, Samuel Alito seemed to 
approach his cases with an analytical coldness that reflected no 
concern for the human consequences of his reasoning.

[[Page 321]]

  Listen to what he said about a case involving an African-American man 
convicted of murder by an all white jury in a courtroom where the 
prosecutors had eliminated all African-American jurors in many previous 
murder trials as well.
  Judge Alito dismissed this evidence of racial bias and said that the 
jury makeup was no more relevant than the fact that lefthanders have 
won five of the last six Presidential elections. When asked about this 
analogy during the hearings, he said it ``went to the issue of 
statistics . . . (which) is a branch of mathematics, and there are ways 
to analyze statistics so that you draw sound conclusions from them. . . 
.''
  That response would have been appropriate for a college math 
professor, but it is deeply troubling from a potential Supreme Court 
Justice.
  As the great Jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, 
Jr. wrote in 1881:

       The life of the law has not been logic; it has been 
     experience . . . The law embodies the story of a nation's 
     development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt 
     with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a 
     book of mathematics.

  What Holmes meant is that the law is a living thing, that those who 
interpret it must do so with wisdom and humanity, and with an 
understanding of the consequences of their judgments for the lives of 
the people they affect.
  It is with deep regret that I conclude that Judge Alito' s judicial 
philosophy lacks this wisdom, humanity, and moderation. He is simply 
too far out of the mainstream in his thinking. His opinions demonstrate 
neither the independence of mind nor the depth of heart that I believe 
we need in our Supreme Court Justices, particularly at this crucial 
time in our Nation's history.
  That is why I must oppose this nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask unanimous consent the order for recognition of 
Senator Biden be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on the corridor of the first floor of this 
Capitol building appear the words of Samuel Adams:

       Freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in 
     matters of conscience direct their course to this happy 
     country.

  America still stands as the world's beacon of individual rights and 
liberties. Of that I know we are very proud. In large part, it is 
because of our Supreme Court. Our Founding Fathers were very wise 
setting up three separate branches of Government, including a very 
strong, independent judiciary, something many countries have struggled 
to attain, and their failure to achieve greatness is largely because 
they do not have a very strong, independent judiciary--and I mean 
independent.
  The Senate protects the independence of the Supreme Court. How? By 
seriously exercising its responsibility to advise and consent on the 
nominations to that honorable Court. It is in the Constitution. We all 
take that duty seriously. We take it seriously by examining nominees. I 
personally have three criteria I use to examine nominees. They are 
professional competence, personal integrity, and a view of important 
issues within the mainstream of contemporary judicial thought. Let me 
review those three criteria.
  First, professional competence. The Supreme Court must not be a 
testing ground for the development of a jurist's basic values. Nor 
should a Justice require further training. The stakes are simply too 
high. The nominee must be an established jurist already. Of that we 
must be very clear.
  A second criteria is personal integrity. Nominees to our Nation's 
highest court must be of the highest caliber.
  Third, the nominee should fall within the broad mainstream of 
contemporary judicial thought. Justices must possess the requisite 
judicial philosophy to be entrusted with the Court's sweeping 
constitutional powers. I believed that then-Judge and now Chief Justice 
Roberts met those tests. That is why I voted to support his 
confirmation.
  Measuring Judge Alito against these three criteria, I have decided he 
does not meet these three tests. I do not think he is the right choice 
for my State of Montana or for our country.
  This was not an easy decision. I grappled with it. I took my time. I 
have reviewed this nomination very carefully. I reviewed Judge Alito's 
prior writings and case rulings. I reviewed his Judiciary Committee 
testimony and I met with Judge Alito personally for over an hour.
  Nominations to the Supreme Court rank among the Senate's most 
important decisions. Only the brightest, most objective minds should 
serve on the bench. But Judge Alito, in my judgment, stands outside the 
mainstream. I base my decision on what I think is right for my State 
and my country, and that is why I cannot support this nomination.
  I reviewed the Judiciary Committee's hearings. The Judiciary 
Committee held 5 days of hearings. The committee questioned Judge Alito 
for 4 days. The committee heard from panels supporting and opposing his 
nomination. The Judiciary Committee members sought Judge Alito's views 
on many matters, including States rights, antidiscrimination laws, 
immigrant rights, due process, privacy, equal protection, ethical 
considerations, and broad judicial philosophy. Judge Alito responded 
eloquently, but he provided little detail. Members of the Committee 
attempted to pin Judge Alito down on many of his views, but Judge Alito 
did not offer detailed answers to their questions, at least not enough 
information to get a sense of who he was and where he was. Judge Alito 
appeared well prepared for these hearings--very well prepared, I might 
add. He appeared to have been advised to say as little as possible.
  On January 24, the Judiciary Committee voted to report Judge Alito's 
nomination on a party-line vote. Unfortunate, but that is how it turned 
out; again, I think in part because of the nature of the nominee's 
views.
  Let me take a few moments to examine Judge Alito's nomination in 
greater detail against the criteria I have laid out. First, 
professional competence. Mr. Alito received an excellent education. He 
holds an undergraduate degree from Princeton and a law degree from Yale 
School of Law. Judge Alito also has extensive experience as a judge, 
serving 15 years as a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In 
fact, he has served more years on the bench than many nominees to the 
Supreme Court.
  Mr. Alito's work prior to his judicial appointment focused 
exclusively on representing only one client, the U.S. Government. Some 
have raised questions about Judge Alito's experience protecting the 
rights of individuals rather than the Government. I conclude that Judge 
Alito is professionally competent to serve as a Supreme Court Justice.
  Second, personal integrity. Several issues arise from Judge Alito's 
promise to avoid conflicts of interest as a judge. Some raised 
questions about Judge Alito's sensitivity to the avoidance of conflicts 
of interest, and some raised questions about how steadfastly Judge 
Alito keeps his commitments to the Senate.
  In 1990, Judge Alito told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he 
would disqualify himself from any cases involving five matters with 
which he had personal connections. Those matters were the Vanguard 
Companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney, the First Federal 
Savings & Loan of Rochester, New York, his sister's law firm, and 
matters that he worked on or supervised at the United States Attorney's 
Office in New Jersey. In the period of 1995 to 2002, however, Judge 
Alito heard cases related to these matters.
  Judge Alito initially blamed the conflicts of interest on a computer 
glitch. In subsequent correspondence with Senators on the Judiciary 
Committee, Judge Alito argued that his promise during his 1990 
confirmation hearings referred to only his ``initial service.'' He 
argued that as his service continued, he found unduly restrictive his 
1990 promise to recuse himself from

[[Page 322]]

cases involving entities in which he had a financial interest. And he 
argued that the mutual funds in which he was invested were not at issue 
in the case that he heard.
  In his responses to questions concerning Vanguard, Judge Alito 
testified:

       I think that once the facts are set out, I think that 
     everybody will realize that in this instance I not only 
     complied with the ethical rules that are binding on federal 
     judges--and they are very strict--but also that I did what 
     I've tried to do throughout my career as a judge, and that is 
     to go beyond the letter of the ethics rules and to avoid any 
     situation where there might be an ethical question raised.

  But Judge Alito also admitted to Senator Kennedy that ``if I had to 
do it all over again, I would have handled this case differently.''
  Judiciary Committee members also asked about Judge Alito's membership 
in an organization called Concerned Alumni of Princeton. In his 1985 
job application to the Reagan Justice Department, Judge Alito listed 
Concerned Alumni of Princeton as one of his extracurricular activities. 
Concerned Alumni of Princeton is an alumni group that took the extreme 
position of arguing against letting women and minorities attend 
Princeton. When questioned about Concerned Alumni of Princeton, Judge 
Alito claimed that he had no recollection of ever having been a member 
of the group.
  Judge Alito testified:

       I really have no specific recollection of that 
     organization. But since I put it down on that statement, then 
     I certainly must have been a member at that time. . . . I 
     have tried to think of what might have caused me to sign up 
     for membership, and if I did, it must have been around that 
     time. And the issue that had rankled me about Princeton for 
     some time was the issue of ROTC. I was in ROTC when I was at 
     Princeton and then until it was expelled from campus, and I 
     thought that was very wrong.

  Judge Alito's response about Concerned Alumni of Princeton raises 
concerns. In 1985, he apparently thought that his membership in this 
discriminatory organization was important enough to put on his page-
and-a-half job application. His failure of memory now about that 
inconvenient position then raises questions about his credibility.
  I am also disappointed that the White House has chosen not to release 
Judge Alito's tax returns for review by the Joint Committee on 
Taxation. On December 13 of last year, I introduced a bill that would 
require all Supreme Court nominees to submit 3 years of tax returns to 
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation for review on a 
confidential basis. The Joint Committee would report its findings on 
the nominee's tax compliance to the Finance and Judiciary Committee.
  I might add that all nominees who are referred to the Finance 
Committee--from Cabinet Secretaries to Tax Court judges--have their tax 
returns reviewed for compliance. The reviews are discreet and 
confidential. We protect nominees' personal information. And I might 
say that in several cases we found errors of facts, matters that had to 
be attended to--and they were.
  I understand the administration does a ``tax check'' for all Supreme 
Court nominees. They say they already do one. But I believe it is 
important for Congress to do its own due diligence on a nominee's tax 
returns. After all, this is a person who serves on the judiciary. That 
is a separate branch, not the executive, not the judicial. Both 
entities--namely both the Executive and the congressional--have a stake 
in making sure that the nominee's tax returns comply with the law.
  I might also say, as I mentioned earlier, many so-called tax checks 
the administration has taken on other nominees have been very 
inadequate, full of mistakes, and we have had to correct them.
  The Finance Committee views proof of the nominee's tax compliance as 
a testament to the nominee's integrity. What individuals do on their 
tax returns is a window on their ethical decision making. It is a good 
test of integrity and character.
  The American people expect their national leaders to comply 
faithfully with the tax laws. A showing that leaders in the Federal 
Government faithfully comply with the tax laws sends an important 
message to people who might consider cheating on their taxes.
  On January 19, President Bush appeared to agree. He told small 
business leaders in Sterling, VA, that public officials' tax returns 
should be public, because public officials have a ``high responsibility 
to uphold the integrity of the process.''
  When I met with Judge Alito, I asked him to release his tax returns 
for such a review. He initially agreed to do so. But the White House 
official present at the meeting immediately intervened to block the 
release saying that he cannot do so.
  The President was right when he said in Virginia that the release of 
public officials' tax returns contributes to the integrity of our whole 
tax system. And his White House was wrong to withhold that information 
on Judge Alito. I will continue to press future nominees to allow this 
kind of neutral review of their tax, returns because I think it is the 
right thing to do.
  Let me turn now to judicial philosophy.
  I do not believe that a Senator should oppose a nominee just because 
the nominee does not share that Senator's particular judicial 
philosophy. But the Senate must determine whether a nominee is in the 
broad mainstream of judicial thought. Is this a wise person, not an 
ideologue of the far left or the far right. The Senate must determine 
whether a nominee is committed to the protection of the basic 
Constitutional values of the American people.
  What are those values?
  One is the separation of powers of our Federal Government--including 
the independence of the Supreme Court itself.
  Another is freedom of speech. Another is freedom of religion. Another 
is equal opportunity. Another is personal autonomy--the right to be 
left alone. And yet another is an understanding of the basic powers of 
the Congress to pass important laws like those providing for protection 
of the environment.
  These are not unimportant matters. They are hugely difficult--all of 
these are.
  The stakes are high. The Senate has a duty to ensure that the nominee 
will defend America's mainstream Constitutional values.
  Judge Alito's record calls into question his ability to act as a 
check on executive powers. Recently, many have noted with concern the 
National Security Agency's surveillance of American citizens. At the 
Judiciary Committee's hearing, a number of questions focused on Judge 
Alito's interpretations of executive power, and the importance of the 
court's role as an effective check on overreaching presidential power 
and on government intrusion.
  Judge Alito responded that ``no person is above the law.'' But he did 
not provide assurances that he would act on the Court to balance 
executive authority. His prior statements and court rulings indicate 
that he has an expansive view of the scope of executive power and a 
narrow view of Congress's authority to legislate.
  In a 1984 memorandum, Mr. Alito argued that the Attorney General 
deserves blanket protection from lawsuits when acting in the name of 
national security, even when those actions involve the illegal 
wiretapping of American citizens.
  In a 2000 speech to the Federalist Society, Judge Alito said that 
``the theory of a unitary executive . . . best captures the meaning of 
the Constitution's text and structure.'' Judge Alito said: ``The 
President has not just some executive powers, but the executive power--
the whole thing.'' Some have thus interpreted the theory of a unitary 
executive to support the proposition that the Constitution reserves all 
executive power exclusively for the President. The theory would thus 
prohibit other branches of Government from carrying out any power that 
one could characterize as having executive characteristics. This view 
of executive power could limit Congress's ability, for example, to 
create independent agencies such as the SEC with oversight duties. And 
some believe that

[[Page 323]]

this view could allow the President the ability to legislate through 
signing statements.
  When Senator Leahy pressed Judge Alito about his view of the unitary 
executive as well as his strategy of utilizing Presidential signing 
statements to expand executive authority, Judge Alito responded that he 
did not see a connection between these two principles.
  In a 1986 memo, Mr. Alito argued that ``the President's understanding 
of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress.'' He 
argued that signing statements would allow the President to ``increase 
the power of the Executive to shape the law.''
  President Bush has employed this method of Presidential signing 
statements to document his interpretation of congressional legislation, 
again even though he is certainly not a member of Congress. He didn't 
write the law. How could he say what Congress intended to do? He has, 
in fact, issued 108 signing statements expanding his executive 
interpretation of the laws passed by Congress.
  Judge Alito's judicial rulings on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, 
as well as his 1985 job application to the Reagan Justice Department, 
do not indicate an expansive view of civil rights and civil liberties. 
In his 1985 job application, Judge Alito wrote that he developed a 
``deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by 
disagreement with the Warren Court.'' Many credit the Warren Court with 
expanding civil rights and civil liberties.
  Judge Alito has narrowly construed constitutional criminal procedure 
protections, such as the fourth amendment restrictions on search and 
seizure. In the case of Doe v. Grody, for example, Judge Alito wrote a 
dissent. He argued that the strip search of a mother and her 10-year-
old daughter without a proper search warrant did not violate their 
constitutional rights.
  That is his dissent, that is his view.
  Judge Alito testified:

       It was a rather technical issue about whether the affidavit 
     that was submitted by the police officers was properly 
     incorporated into the warrant for purposes of saying who 
     could be searched. And I thought that it was, and I thought 
     that it was quite clear that the magistrate had authorized a 
     search for people who were on the premises. That was the 
     point of disagreement.

  Judge Alito also refused to agree that Congress cannot take away the 
Supreme Court's ability to protect Americans' First Amendment rights.
  In contrast, both Chief Justice Roberts and former Chief Justice 
Rehn-
quist have agreed to the position that Congress cannot take away the 
Supreme Court's ability to protect Americans' first amendment rights. 
This is sometimes called ``court stripping.'' It is extremely critical, 
extremely important. It is no academic matter. Basically it is that the 
Congress can say to the Supreme Court it does not have jurisdiction to 
hear any cases with respect to, say, the first amendment brought by an 
individual citizen; that is, Congress can take away the Court's 
authority to interpret the Constitution with respect to the first 
amendment. That is what that view held. I think it is an outrageous 
view. I don't understand how anybody can tentatively hold that view.
  Judge Alito defended his viewpoint, saying this is an academic debate 
on which scholars are divided. I am astounded at that answer.
  Judge Alito's rulings on civil rights cases appear to set a high bar 
for proving unequal treatment. A review of his record indicates that 
plaintiffs rarely ever prevail. Senator Coburn defended Judge Alito's 
record by noting that Judge Alito ruled for the ``little guy'' in a 
list of 13 cases. Judge Alito's record, however, includes almost 500 
published and unpublished opinions. Thirteen is not very many out of 
500.
  Knight Ridder conducted a survey of Judge Alito's published opinions. 
They concluded that:

       although Judge Alito's opinions are rarely written with 
     obvious ideology, he's seldom sided with a criminal 
     defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee 
     alleging discrimination or consumers suing big business.

  I am also concerned by Judge Alito's responses to privacy questions 
at the Judiciary Committee hearings which conflict with his past 
statements. In his 1985 job application, Mr. Alito wrote:

       It has been an honor and a source of personal satisfaction 
     for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during 
     President Reagan's administration and to help to advance 
     legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly. 
     I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases 
     in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that 
     . . . the Constitution does not protect a right to an 
     abortion.

  In June 1985, Mr. Alito wrote a 17-page memo providing a strategy for 
using the Government's brief in the case of Thornburgh v. American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as an ``opportunity to 
advance the goal of bringing the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade, 
and in the meantime, of mitigating its effects.'' Judge Alito advocated 
a strategy of creating a series of burdens on a woman's right to 
choose. In the hearings, however, Judge Alito responded to Senator 
Feinstein that he ``did not advocate in the memo that an argument be 
made that Roe be overruled.''
  In his hearings, Judge Alito acknowledged that the Constitution 
protects a right to privacy generally. He agreed with the premise in 
the Griswold case, which protects the right to use contraceptives. It 
is unclear, however, how widely the right to privacy extends for Judge 
Alito.
  When pressed, Judge Alito refused to acknowledge that the 
Constitution protects a woman's right to choose. Judge Alito explained 
that he would approach privacy cases with an open mind.
  On the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito also wrote a 
dissent in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania 
v. Casey. In that dissent, he argued that upholding Pennsylvania's 
restrictive spousal notification requirement did not place an undue 
burden on women.
  Yet Justice O'Connor, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, 
wrote that the spousal notification requirement ``embodies a view of 
marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but 
repugnant of our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of 
the rights secured by the Constitution.''
  When questioned specifically about the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, 
Judge Alito commented that he understands the principle of stare 
decisis--that courts should honor precedents. But he also said that 
this principle is not ``an inexorable command.''
  Here again, Judge Alito's statements contrast with then-Judge 
Roberts' comments during his hearings. Judge Roberts said in his 
hearings that Roe v. Wade was settled law. When Senators asked Judge 
Alito about Judge Roberts' statements, Judge Alito responded that ``I 
think it depends on what one means by the term `settled.''' Judge Alito 
engaged in some discussion about what ``settled law'' means to him. His 
interpretation of how settled the right to privacy is remains unclear.
  Judge Alito answered questions about his judicial philosophy by 
testifying that precedent is entitled to respect. But he would not 
provide great detail about specific precedents such as Roe v. Wade. 
Senator Feinstein pushed Judge Alito to clarify the discrepancy between 
answering cases about one- person one-vote, but not responding to 
questions about abortion and precedent. Judge Alito did not give a 
clear answer.
  Judge Alito appears to support deference to the Framers' original 
intent. Judge Alito testified:

       I think we should look to the text of the Constitution, as 
     we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken 
     from the text of the Constitution at the time of its 
     adoption.

  That is called originalism.
  Judge Alito's judicial philosophy of original intent raises concerns 
about whether the Court could adapt to a changing society. And his 
philosophy indicates that he may not take an active role in extending 
Constitutional protections to new situations in the 21st century.
  I have some concern about one ruling that Judge Alito issued related 
to the environment. In 2001, in the case of W.R. Grace & Company v. 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Judge Alito threw out 
the Environmental Protection Agency order

[[Page 324]]

under the Safe Drinking Water Act for an ammonia-spill cleanup near 
Lansing, MI. Judge Alito concluded that the government cleanup standard 
was ``arbitrary and capricious.'' He explained that the reason for not 
upholding the order was that the EPA lacked a rational basis for 
imposing the clean-up standards on the company. This case raises 
sensitivities for me, because in my home state, W.R. Grace has acted 
with complete disregard of the health effects for Montanans in Libby, 
where illness from tremolite asbestos caused by W.R. Grace has hit the 
community hard.
  In 1988, Judge Alito commented that Robert Bork ``was one of the most 
outstanding nominees of this century.'' When I asked Judge Alito about 
that, he did not provide an adequate response. He ducked the question.
  He did not respond adequately to many of my questions. He evaded my 
questions, questions I asked in good faith, intended to elicit what 
kind of Justice he might be.
  He was vague. He seemed not to want to talk to me. He seemed not to 
want to have an honest discussion about what kind of person he is. That 
is why I find it very difficult to support this nominee.
  I supported Judge Roberts for Chief Justice in large part because of 
Judge Roberts' hearing testimony and responses when he met with me 
personally.
  Judge Alito does not meet my standards for a Supreme Court Justice. 
Judge Alito has explained that he will be ``the same person that I was 
on the Court of Appeals.'' Judge Alito's record demonstrates that he is 
a very conservative judge who rules often in favor of expanding 
executive authority and of limiting civil rights and civil liberties. 
If the Senate confirms Judge Alito to Justice O'Connor's seat, he could 
change the balance of the Court, tipping it in a direction that could 
reverse or restrict important constitutional protections.
  Based on all this information, I will vote against this nomination. I 
believe that Judge Alito is out of the mainstream. He is not the right 
choice for our country.
  On a corridor on the first floor of this Capitol building appear the 
words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, who said:

       The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious 
     encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without 
     understanding.

  I shall thus vote against this nomination to carry out seriously my 
responsibility as a Senator to Advise and Consent on nominations to 
that honorable Court. I shall vote against this nomination because I 
believe the nominee is well-meaning, but without sufficient 
understanding of the importance of our cherished rights and liberties. 
And I shall vote against this nomination to help keep this great 
country the world's beacon of freedom.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Connecticut is now recognized for up to 20 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleague, Senator Max 
Baucus from Montana, before he leaves the Floor, for a very fine 
statement. I appreciate his thoughts and comments.
  I rise today to discuss my vote on the nomination of Judge Samuel 
Alito to the United States Supreme Court. First of all, I wish to 
briefly comment on the cloture vote that occurred this afternoon. I 
voted not to invoke cloture on the nomination. I want to explain why.
  As many of my colleagues know, I went through minor surgery to have a 
knee replacement before the holidays and I have been home in 
Connecticut recuperating. I looked forward to coming back to 
participate in the debate on the Judge Alito nomination and I followed 
the confirmation process closely from home. For this reason, I was 
somewhat stunned to learn that Senator Frist filed a cloture motion on 
the nomination a day after it was voted out of the Judiciary Committee.
  I have been a member of this body for a quarter of a century and I 
have voted to confirm the majority of the judicial nominations that 
have come before this Senate. I, too, like my colleague from Montana, 
voted with enthusiasm for the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts only 
a few months ago. The majority leader's action was surprising to me. It 
is exceedingly rare that a cloture motion is filed on debate regarding 
a Supreme Court nomination. In is my experience, cloture motions have 
gotten filed when the majority got frustrated with the minority for 
insisting upon extending debate--beyond a reasonable period of time. In 
this case, I feel strongly that there has not been a reasonable period 
of debate, let alone an extended debate.
  But I am only one Member. Certainly, this institution cannot wait for 
one Member. I was allocated only 5 minutes of time this afternoon to 
comment on this nomination. However, my flight was canceled out of 
Hartford, CT, and thus, I lost that small window of 5 minutes to be 
heard. I consider the matter of confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice 
with great seriousness and solemnity. In my view, some of the most 
important votes that we make in the Senate are to fill vacancies in the 
Judicial Branch, second only to declarations of war. Constitutional 
amendments are not far behind. Therefore, to be notified that I would 
have only 5 minutes to comment on the nomination of a Supreme Court 
Justice who will serve for life, far beyond the tenure of the Chairman 
of the Federal Reserve Board, far beyond the tenure of a President of 
the United States, far beyond the tenure of a Senator or Congressman, I 
found rather disturbing.
  We have always respected one another here, at least we try to, and to 
recognize this is the Senate, different entirely from the body down the 
hall. We are a bicameral body for good reason. This is the place where 
we spend a little more time evaluating issues that come before the 
Senate. To ask for a few more days to have discussion about the nominee 
that has provoked serious controversy in the country, seems little to 
ask.
  Put aside the nominee for a second, put aside your decision to vote 
for or against the nominee, we should respect one another's desire to 
be heard on these matters. Tomorrow is the State of the Union, and 
there will be a photo opportunity for the President. I am deeply 
disturbed that this Senate may have made a decision to rush this 
nomination through, to invoke cloture, in order to provide a photo 
opportunity for a swearing-in ceremony prior to this President's State 
of the Union Message.
  I note the presence of my good friend and colleague from Texas in the 
chair of the Presiding Officer. He serves on the Judiciary Committee. 
He watched the gavel-to-gavel hearing proceedings. While I was at home 
rehabilitating this knee, I had a chance to watch my colleagues do 
their job. The circumstances around this nomination have been 
complicated. The nomination came up after Harriet Miers withdrew. We 
had the Thanksgiving holiday and the recess coming up. In fact, the 
Judiciary Committee met when we were out of session. Obviously, the 
desire was to move this along. I have no objection to that. That seems 
to be a reasonable request to have the committee meet when it did. 
Certainly, we all had an opportunity to watch those proceedings.
  The majority leader stated earlier than we have consumed an excessive 
amount of time on this nomination. This statement is correct if we 
measure it by days on the calendar. If we measure it by days we have 
actually been here during the last couple of months, it is incorrect. 
We have been out of session. There have been only a limited number of 
days in session and only a limited number of votes. Obviously, the 
number of days that have been consumed since the nominee was presented 
to this Senate is more than usual due to the circumstances surrounding 
the nomination and holiday session.
  I cannot allow the moment to pass without expressing my concerns 
about it and the rationale regarding why I voted against cloture. I 
would have preferred not to have voted on a cloture motion at all. If 
this were an extended debate, the majority leader

[[Page 325]]

might have been right to invoke cloture. I am troubled that now we are 
setting a new precedent for invoking cloture within only a short time 
after a nomination comes out of the committee.
  Mr. President, I rise today to explain my vote on this nomination. 
Tomorrow, at 11 a.m., we are going to vote on the Alito nomination.
  I would be remiss, obviously, if I did not thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, and the minority 
ranking member, my good friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for the 
extraordinary service they have rendered to the Senate, along with 
their colleagues, during this nomination process.
  Over the last several months, these members have managed three 
separate nominations to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Roberts, 
Harriet Miers, and now Samuel Alito. They are to be congratulated for 
their commitment to fair hearings and for the manner in which they 
discharged their duties.
  The Constitution, as we know, vests in this great body, the Senate, 
the privilege and the solemn responsibility to advise and give consent 
to the President on Supreme Court nominations--a unique role in our 
governance. The Framers intended for the Senate to take an active role 
in the confirmation process. However, the Constitution does not 
delineate the factors by which each Member of this body should 
determine the fitness of a judicial nominee to serve his or her 
lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. Thus, each Member of the 
Senate, each Senator, must determine for him or herself the acceptable 
criteria in judging a Supreme Court nominee.
  I have never opposed a nominee solely because he or she holds 
different views than my own regarding the Constitution or the Court's 
role in interpreting or applying it. I have supported seven of the last 
nine nominees to the Supreme Court, including the current President's 
nomination of John Roberts to be our country's Chief Justice. As I said 
earlier, I did it with enthusiasm, having witnessed and gone through 
the process and watched the process of his confirmation hearing.
  I, like many of my colleagues, have supported the overwhelming 
majority of the current President's judicial nominees. Of the current 
President's 230 judicial nominees, only 5 have failed to be confirmed, 
a rather remarkable record.
  In the course of my Senate career, I have never imposed a litmus test 
while reviewing Supreme Court nominees. But, due to the nature of a 
lifetime appointment, I feel they are entitled to a higher level of 
scrutiny than other judicial nominees for the Federal bench.
  I have three specific criteria that a Supreme Court must satisfy: 
First, I require that the nominee possess the technical and legal 
skills which we must demand of all Federal judges. Second, the nominee, 
in my view, must be of the highest character and credibility. And, 
finally, I vigorously examine the nominee's record to see whether he or 
she displays a commitment to equal justice for all under the law, in 
order to protect the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the 
Constitution of the United States.
  Now, I waited until after the committee vote had occurred last week, 
and then, in an interview with my local press in Connecticut, indicated 
how I would vote on this nominee. I have always done that. I have 
always reserved the first judgment to be made by the committee. It 
seems to me to respect the committee process is very important, and the 
views of my colleagues are important to me. Whether I agree with them 
or not, I like to hear how they have arrived at their decisions.
  So on Supreme Court nominees, I have never announced a view on a 
nominee until after the committee has completed its review. Hence, less 
than a week after the committee voted, I find myself having to rush to 
the floor to make a hurried statement on this nominee. I am denied the 
opportunity to debate back and forth with other members of the Senate.
  I waited to make my decision because I felt that Judge Alito deserved 
a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. I felt that each of us who 
are not on the committee should have an opportunity to review the 
transcripts of that hearing and then engage, as nonmembers of the 
committee, in a discussion of the merits and demerits of this nominee. 
That has been denied this Member because of the cloture motion filed by 
the majority leader, provoking what I deeply regret that occurred only 
a few hours ago, and that was actually to have to vote on a cloture 
motion.
  I did not like casting that vote. I did not want to vote for it, but 
I felt I deserved the opportunity to be heard. So I do not regret at 
all that I am a part of a very small minority that voted against 
cloture. I wish more Members had. But I wish the majority leader had 
not filed that cloture motion, which provoked the exact scene we saw 
unfold here a few hours ago.
  Now, there is little question in my mind as to Judge Alito's 
intellectual competence and legal experience, and all of that. If this 
were the only criteria, I would be for him.
  Judge Alito received his legal education from Yale University School 
of Law in my home State of Connecticut. He served as a Government 
attorney in a number of positions including: Assistant Solicitor 
General, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal 
Counsel, and U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey under 
President Reagan. In 1990, Judge Alito was nominated by George H.W. 
Bush to U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. In the course of his 15 
years on the Federal bench, Judge Alito has heard more than 3,000 
cases. Furthermore, the American Bar Association has twice unanimously 
awarded Judge Alito with their highest rating of ``well qualified.'' I 
have great respect and admiration for his intellect, legal experience, 
and service to the American people as part of the Judicial Branch.
  Next, I turn to character and creditability. The question is: Does 
Judge Alito possess the qualities of mind and temperament expected of a 
Supreme Court Justice? I do not question whether Judge Alito is 
personally decent or if he has integrity. I was impressed by the 
diverse group of former clerks and colleagues who testified before the 
Judiciary Committee who could not have given him higher praise.
  Let me also say I know there were questions raised. I listened 
carefully regarding these concern including those regarding the 
Concerned Alumni of Princeton and the recusal issues that were raised 
by a number of committee members on the Judiciary Committee. These 
questions, while relevant, and certainly need to be explored, would not 
have decided my vote on this nominee. I do not minimize it. But if my 
decision were to be based solely on the recusal question or Judge 
Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton issue, I would 
be here supporting this nomination.
  Those are not the most important issues to this Member. But what is 
important are other issues that were raised during this nomination. 
Indeed, I am troubled that throughout Judge Alito's hearings, Judge 
Alito failed to provide clear and germane responses to legitimate 
questions.
  A few examples. For instance, when Senator Schumer, our colleague 
from New York, asked Judge Alito if he still believed his statement 
from the 1985 memo that said the ``Constitution does not protect the 
right to an abortion,'' rather than reply with a simple yes or no 
answer, Judge Alito deflected the question and instead replied, ``The 
answer to the question is that I would address the issue in accordance 
with the judicial process as I understand it and as I have practiced 
it.''
  When Senator Feinstein of California asked Judge Alito if Roe v. Wade 
was the settled law of the land--not an unpredictable question, a fair 
one, one you might ask about Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. 
Connecticut, and there is a long list of cases that are considered 
established law, settled law--when she asked the nominee whether Roe v. 
Wade--one in that litany of cases--is settled law, instead of answering 
it directly one way or the other, as Justice Roberts did, in very 
unequivocal terms--others might have

[[Page 326]]

said absolutely not; that would have been a very straightforward 
answer--what did we hear? He said--this is reminiscent of some comments 
that were heard earlier--``I think it depends on what one means by the 
term `well settled.'''
  When Senator Durbin of Illinois asked the same question, Judge Alito 
offered the convoluted response: ``It is--if settled means that it 
can't be re-examined, then that's one thing. If settled means that it 
is a precedent then that is entitled to respect of stare decisis . . . 
then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the 
doctrine of stare decisis in that way.''
  Imagine giving that answer to Brown v. Board of Education. Imagine 
giving that answer to the long list of cases we now have as settled 
law. Now, the answer is, as Justice Roberts said: ``It is settled 
law''. But what you have here with Judge Alito is this dance going on 
here, instead of a direct yes or no. A no answer would have been a very 
honest answer. In fact, I suspect that is what his answer is, but he 
did not have the courage, in my view, to say that, which I would have 
respected. I might have disagreed with it, but I would have respected 
it. That is troublesome to me.
  Finally, I think we should vigorously examine the nominee to see 
whether he or she is capable of and committed to upholding the 
Constitution of the United States and its promise of freedom and 
equality for all. Protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans 
is perhaps the most fundamental duty of a Supreme Court Justice. 
Therefore, I am deeply concerned in his 1985 memo Judge Alito explained 
that his interest in constitutional law was ``motivated in large part 
by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas 
of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment.''
  That is a fairly sophisticated answer in 1985. Many of these 
decisions, of course, compromise the cornerstone of the Supreme Court's 
modern jurisprudence, in enforcing the fundamental democratic principle 
of one person, one vote, in preventing the violation of an individual's 
privacy by the state--a matter that concerns everybody in this country; 
we see a lot of it going on today--and in ensuring procedural fairness 
in criminal trials. To wholeheartedly reject this legacy is also to 
reject the continued pursuit of the constitutional ideals of liberty 
and equality, in my view.
  Before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito defended himself by 
saying he wrote the comments 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, he was 
well into his thirties. This is not some 18-year-old who is writing 
these thoughts. Of course, before becoming a judge, in that case, he 
was merely outlining the development of his thinking about 
constitutional law at the time and pledged to keep an ``open mind'' if 
confirmed to the Supreme Court. Well, that is nice to know. I am glad 
to hear he is going to have an open mind.
  The seven current and former members of the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals stated Judge Alito is ``not an ideologue,'' ``has no agenda,'' 
and ``is attentive and respectful of all views and is keenly aware that 
judicial decisions are not academic exercises but have far-reaching 
consequences on people's lives.'' I think those were certainly 
worthwhile comments to make, and certainly the comments of his fellow 
peers on the court I found to be compelling arguments on his behalf. 
However, I must say, having said all of that--I respect the fact they 
said it in our hearings--Judge Alito's long record as a Third Circuit 
judge, particularly in cases involving questions of individual rights, 
indicates a personal intent on stripping away many of these so-called 
Warren Court era achievements. In Reynolds v. Simms, for instance, 
Justice Warren wrote:

       The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice 
     is of the essence of a democratic society, and any 
     restrictions on that right strike at the heart of 
     representative government. And the right of suffrage can be 
     denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a 
     citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting 
     the free exercise of the franchise.

  Yet, in Jenkins v. Manning, Judge Alito was part of a decision to 
dismiss a suit brought by African-American voters who argued that the 
district's voting system diluted the voting strength of minorities. In 
that case, the dissenters argued that the decision failed to give 
effect to ``the broad sweep of the Voting Rights Act.''
  Judge Alito's long record of opinions and dissents in these, and 
other divided cases lead me to believe that he has a legal philosophy 
which lies outside the mainstream. Several newspapers and scholars 
provided support for this concern. One study conducted by University of 
Chicago Professor Cass Sun-
stein, found that when there was a conflict between institutions and 
individual rights, Judge Alito's dissenting opinions supported the 
institutional interest over individual rights 84 percent of the time. 
Moreover, 91 percent of Alito's dissents take positions more 
conservative than his colleagues--including those appointed by 
Presidents Bush and Reagan.
  Judge Alito has set an incredibly high standard for individuals to 
meet when bringing a claim against the Government or a Corporation. He 
has repeatedly dissented in cases where the majority has ruled in favor 
of an individual alleging racial or gender discrimination. In Bray v. 
Marriott Hotels, for example, a housekeeper manager alleged that she 
was denied a promotion because she was black. While the Third Circuit 
Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff had established the essential 
elements of a case of race discrimination and therefore was entitled to 
go to trial by a jury, Judge Alito dissented. He argued for a 
heightened evidentiary burden in order to protect employers who, in the 
future, would have to choose between--and I quote--``competing 
candidates of roughly equal qualifications and the candidate who is not 
hired or promoted claims discrimination.'' The majority again 
criticized Alito's approach stating that ``Title VII would be 
eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where the dissent suggests.''
  I also fear that if confirmed, Judge Alito may pose a threat to the 
laws that protected disabled citizens from discrimination. In Nathanson 
v. Medical College of Pennsylvania the majority held that the 
plaintiff, a victim disabled by a terrible car accident, should be 
allowed to present, to the jury, evidence that the college had failed 
to make reasonable accommodation for her disability. Alito dissented, 
and again the majority reacted strongly to Alito's analysis: ``few if 
any Rehabilitation Act cases would survive summary judgment if such an 
analysis were applied to each handicapped individual's request for 
accommodations.''
  But, I am especially troubled about Judge Alito's dissent in the 
Third Circuit Case of Chittester v. Department of Community and 
Economic Development. That case involved an employee who was fired 
while taking sick leave and who sought to enforce his rights under the 
Family and Medical Leave Act, which became law in 1993. I was the 
original author of this law which has enabled more than 50 million 
workers to take leave for medical reasons or to care for a child or 
family member. A primary objective of the act is to ensure that both 
male and female workers have access to leave, and that they were not 
punished or discriminated against because of their family 
responsibilities. However, Judge Alito found that the law was not a 
valid exercise of Congressional power to enforce the Equal Protection 
Clause. He said:

       Unlike the Equal Protection Clause, which the Family 
     Medical Leave Act is said to enforce, the Family Medical 
     Leave Act does much more than require nondiscriminatory sick 
     leave practices; it creates a substantive entitlement to sick 
     leave.

  The decision reflects a proscriptively narrow conception of what 
``equal protection'' required. Real equality cannot be achieved, and 
the very real effects of discrimination cannot be remedied, without 
meaningful, substantive action. This is precisely why Congress enacted 
the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Supreme Court recognized this in 
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs. In a 6-3 decision 
authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court held that contrary to 
what Judge Alito said in Chittester, a worker can sue a State employer 
who fired

[[Page 327]]

 him for taking family leave to care for his sick wife. This finding is 
critical to ensure that workers and their families can continue to take 
leave without fearing for their job. This right might be jeopardized if 
Judge Alito is confirmed, as during the hearing Judge Alito continued 
to reject evidence of discrimination in personal sick leave even though 
there is compelling evidence in the legislative history of this law.
  In these cases, the very judges who talked about our nominee as being 
fair and not being an ideologue, in their majority opinions had very 
different things to say about their colleague on some very critical 
cases on which this Appellate Court Judge reached different opinions, 
such as I have cited here, as well as in several others that came 
before that circuit.
  I am also concerned about Judge Alito's ruling regarding the Family 
and Medical Leave Act, which I authored. The Family Medical Leave Act 
has provided meaningful relief to millions of Americans. Judge Alito 
would have made significant changes, if not eliminated the law 
altogether, a great setback, in my view. The Supreme Court strongly 
overruled his decision.
  Finally, I am troubled that the rights of privacy which are so deeply 
valued by Americans could be eroded by a Justice on the bench who does 
not appreciate the importance of these issues.
  I am alarmed by Judge Alito's unwillingness to explain his previous 
statements on the unitary executive theory of Presidential power. In a 
November 2000 speech to the Federalist Society, Judge Alito expressed 
strong support for the unitary executive theory calling it ``Gospel 
according to the Office of Legal Counsel'' referring to the position he 
held in the Reagan Justice Department. Proponents of this theory 
believe that the Constitution vests in the executive complete control 
over the administrative and regulatory branches. Judge Alito's failure 
to shed any light on his professed support for a powerful, unitary 
executive is troubling. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice O'Connor 
acknowledged that the executive power must have reasonable limits, 
asserting that ``a state of war is not a blank check for the President 
when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.'' Judge Alito 
refused to comment on O'Connor's statement, and instead remarked that 
``no person is above the law, and that includes the President.'' Unlike 
Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearing, Judge Alito did not 
identify an affirmative obligation of the courts to block an executive 
action if the Executive acts unconstitutionally. Judge Alito' s answer 
fails to adequately explain in any substantial way, his views on 
limitations to executive power.
  This failure is of particular significance given the current 
political landscape. President Bush and his lawyers adopted an 
expansive interpretation in their view of executive power, particularly 
in relation to the War on Terror and the conflict in Iraq. In fact, 
President Bush has cited the ``unitary executive'' theory in several 
recent instances to override congressional provisions he finds 
objectionable. I am disturbed that the President has claimed, for 
himself, the authority to overrule the will of the Congress in passing 
its antitorture legislation--legislation which received the 
overwhelming support of congressional Members. This undermines the 
separation of powers and democratic principles. I am further troubled 
that in the course of the Judiciary Committee hearing, Judge Alito did 
not adequately distance himself from the current administration's 
belief that this theory provides justification for the NSA to engage in 
the warrantless wirewrapping of U.S. citizens in defiance of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and for the detention of U.S. 
citizens accused of being enemy combatants.
  Defining permissible boundaries of Presidential power is among the 
most pressing of today's constitutional questions, and will almost 
inevitably arrive before the Supreme Court in the years to come. It is 
for this reason that Judge Alito' s inability to shed light on his past 
comments and his current beliefs is so significant. These failures call 
into question whether Judge Alito has sufficiently demonstrated that 
his jurisprudential philosophy allows for the degree of respect for 
democratic checks and balances, and the protection of individual rights 
and freedoms that the Constitution--and the public--demands.
  A Supreme Court Justice influences the most critical issues facing 
this and future generations of Americans. I believe that the Court may 
now be at a pivotal point in which the future direction of our law is 
at stake. Judge Alito, if confirmed, will take the seat of Justice 
Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. While all Supreme Court 
Justices have the same unique obligation--to serve as the ultimate 
guardians of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights and 
liberties of every individual citizen--Justice O'Connor has long 
provided a voice of reason and open-mindedness as she has carried out 
this weighty responsibility. With a moderate temperament and judicial 
independence, Justice O'Connor has often supplied the deciding vote to 
protect fundamental American rights and freedoms. We cannot 
underestimate how much is at stake in filling this critical seat on the 
Court.
  When I spoke on this floor regarding the nomination of Chief Justice 
John Roberts, I stated that for those of us concerned about keeping 
America strong, free and just, his confirmation was no easy matter. 
However, I ultimately concluded that although he was a conservative 
nominee, Judge Roberts was within the mainstream of judicial thinking--
in his judicial philosophy, his respect for precedent and his belief 
that the Constitution cannot be read as a document frozen in time. 
While his responses to questions in the Judiciary Committee may not 
have been as open as I had hoped, I decided that there was sufficient 
evidence to believe that he would honor and protect the individual 
rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution as the majority of 
his record showed him to be a persuasive advocate for his clients 
rather than a radical judge out of the mainstream of judicial thought.
  I regret to say that, having reviewed his judicial record and his 
responses to the committee, I cannot be convinced that Judge Alito 
falls within the judicial mainstream. His evasiveness in the face of 
questioning by the committee, his established record on the bench of 
taking a restrictive view of individual rights, and his inability to 
explain his past comments on executive power all lead me to harbor 
significant concern. Determining whether to confirm a nominee to the 
Supreme Court is never an easy decision. Whether a nominee is 
sufficiently within the mainstream of judicial thinking is often a 
question of degree. While Judge Alito is clearly intellectually 
qualified and legally experienced, I am not convinced that Judge 
Alito's judicial philosophy will allow for the faithfulness to the 
constitutional rights and freedoms, and the protection of equality 
before the law we have come to expect from a Supreme Court Justice.
  After a review of Judge Alito's extensive record, his decisions as a 
judge on the Third Circuit, and his testimony before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, I must oppose this nomination. I have concluded 
that Judge Alito's judicial temperament is out of step with our 
fundamental constitutional values and that his confirmation would not 
be in the best interests of the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DODD. So, Mr. President, for the reasons I have stated, I will 
oppose this nomination. I say this with regret because it will only be 
the fourth occasion in 25 years I will have voted against a nominee for 
the Supreme Court. I will do so tomorrow at 11 a.m.
  I deeply regret that I didn't have the opportunity to engage in a 
fuller discussion. It is somewhat disturbing, that I was only allocated 
20 minutes. Because of the constraints on time, this is all this 
Senator can say about a lifetime appointment to a coequal branch of 
Government, a nominee that will have a huge impact on the course of 
America in the 21st century.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 328]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for up 
to 1 hour.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Connecticut, 
I was surprised to find out he was not a member of the conservative 
caucus. Now I know. But I would agree with him insofar as the 
significance of the confirmation vote that will take place tomorrow. 
There is nothing more solemn, nothing more significant that we have to 
deal with than confirming judges, whether they are nominated by 
Democrats or by Republicans.
  However, I respectfully disagree with the Senator from Connecticut. I 
look forward to voting for the successful confirmation of Judge Alito. 
I have had a chance to talk about him. I believe he will be a strict 
constructionist and will do a good job for the United States, 
specifically for my 20 kids and grandkids.

                          ____________________