Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing in Room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Friday, September 5, 2003, from 9:30 am to 1 pm.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, at this time the conferees of the Senate and House are meeting with regard to the prescription drug bill and the Medicare reform that is part of that bill. I know the Presiding Officer represents the State of Texas, and having worked with some of the issues I am going to address, I think no State would benefit more from the reforms I will be talking about than the State of Texas. What most Americans do not know is when a person goes to a hospital for surgery, for example--and over half the people who go to the hospital for surgeries in America today--their health care is paid for by Medicare, senior citizens on Medicaid, low-income people, is paid for predominantly by the Federal Government. There are formulas that decide how the hospitals and providers get paid for doing the services they provide. The net result, and the way the system is working today, there is a very substantial difference in how much a hospital in Alabama or Texas would get paid compared to a hospital in a State with a high wage index. Of course, within States there are differences. Even within a State, at hospitals a few miles from one another, one hospital is paid substantially more for a gallbladder operation, for heart surgery, for a mastectomy, or many other surgeries. The system is out of control. It is unjust and it is unfair. The driving factor behind it is the formula called the wage index. Unfortunately, when determining how much Medicare pays for a hospital to perform a medical procedure, 71.4 percent of that formula is determined by the wage index--how much they say salaries will be in that hospital, in that region. One expert's independent study says the real percentage should be 56 percent. The CMS, the Federal agency that handles this, admits it ought to be 62 percent, not 71 percent, of the allocation of money based on wage index. This bill fixes that. This bill has the wage index at only 62 percent--not as low as I think it should go--but 62 percent of the formula to determine how much they should be paid. This will narrow the disparity somewhat, not enough, but it is a very significant first step. Currently, we are rewarding the rich. In this system, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. For example, there is a hospital that comes out with the low wage index. They receive less money per surgery than a hospital in a larger city down the road. What do they have to do? They have to cut costs. So maybe they reduce the number of RNs, maybe they reduce the salaries of their hospital workers and nurses, or a number of things to cut costs. What happens then? A year or two later, or the next year, they come in and recalculate wage costs and say: Yours went down; you are getting by with less, so we do not have to give you as much as we gave you last year. The one who got more money, who was able to raise salaries and pay more, has increased costs. So they come out, in the current formula, showing they need more. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It is not right. It is a transfer of wealth from poorer areas to wealthy areas of the country. It is too big a gap. We can do something about it. This fix for which I advocated, and we passed in this Senate, is part of the bill. Likewise, it was made part of the House bill. So both bills are in conference and have fixes for the wage index according to the terms I just mentioned. It needs to be in the final bill. I have to insist it be in the final bill. We have seen in times past bills get manipulated in conference, even when something has passed both Houses and should be in a bill. I appreciate the chairman of the Senate conference and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley. He has stood firm on this issue. He understands the issue. He is not going to accept any erosion of this legislation. He has communicated that clearly to the conferees. There has been some discussion about it. He has communicated very clearly, in my presence, to President Bush, and President Bush agreed with him. This would be in the bill. We are moving forward with the possibility of a significant reform this time. We need to watch it. There are a lot of competing demands for money. A lot of people in conference may have another priority, but it passed both Houses. Senator Grassley is standing firm, standing like a giant oak tree. I don't believe he is going to be moved. I thank him for his leadership and determination to see this matter to its end and to make at least this significant reform in that legislation. If we do it, we will find these two classes of health care will not be continued in America where rich hospitals and rich centers get more and the rural areas get less. There are some programs out there for rural hospitals to give them special benefits. But Alabama, like Texas, has a lot of areas that are metropolitan but not high-cost centers, or not perceived to be high- cost centers, centers in cities with 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 people. They do not get the benefits of rural assistance, nor do they get the benefit of a big city. That factor has been hurting us. We worked hard on this. We will be watching this legislation very carefully. The fix in it for wage index and rural health care needs to remain in the bill. I thank Senator Grassley for his determination to ensure that it remains in the bill. If the bill is passed as it came out of this Senate, and I hope it will be, we will see some benefit to our hospitals, many of whom are hurting. In particular, I note Alabama hospitals have the lowest wage index in the Nation. Why, I cannot imagine. For example, the University of Alabama Birmingham University Medical Center is one of the finest medical centers in the world. People come from all over the world to be treated there. They are No. 1 in the world in liver transplants and No. 3 in kidney transplants. They do some of the top work for the National Institutes of Health. The University of South Alabama in Mobile, likewise, is a first-rate medical school and medical center. Yet somehow this weird formula comes out in our State providing substantially less. It is just not right. Our people pay the same Medicare tax. A Texan pays the same Medicare tax as a person does in New York. But their hospitals do not get paid the same for the surgery. We need to make some reform. We have an opportunity to make a nice step forward. It is not the end of the road. It is still too much of a gap. If we are lucky and things go as I hope, this bill will come back as it left this body. Then we can know that our hospitals, at least, had one good step forward as a result of Medicare reform and the prescription drug bill. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:15 a.m., Friday, September 5. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge the morning hour be deemed expired. I assume we will still be able to have a prayer and pledge in this body and that the courts will not have struck it down sometime in the interim. I ask unanimous consent that the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2660, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, with the time until 9:30 a.m. equally divided between the two bill managers or their designees; provided that at 9:30 a.m. the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Clinton amendment No. 1565, to be immediately followed by a vote in relation to the Harkin amendment No. 1575; provided further that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the vote, and there be 5 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form prior to the second vote.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I note that Senator Specter certainly has been working our side to get that agreement. Without dispute, there will certainly be far fewer amendments pursued to vote on from the Democratic side. But that is all right. I know the Senator is close to having that done. I thank the Senator for working his side.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it is a sad day for the Senate today. Miguel Estrada, after having been nominated by the President to the Court of Appeals of the DC Circuit, after having waited 28 months, almost 2\1/2\ years, felt it imperative that he get on about his private business, his law practice. He has asked the President to withdraw his name. It is with great sadness that occurred. For many in this body, Miguel Estrada is one of the finest nominees to come before this Senate. The American Bar Association evaluated him. This is certainly no rightwing group. They evaluated him and unanimously concluded he was well qualified for the Court of Appeals. Indeed, he is. The sad thing about it was the ground rules of Senate confirmation have been changed. Miguel Estrada was a victim of a sustained filibuster. It was for the first time in history that a sustained filibuster had defeated a circuit or district court judge. He was the first one subjected to a filibuster in this Congress. He is the first one to be forced to withdraw because he has to get on with his life. And he had 55 votes in the Senate for an up-or-down vote and a like number, I am sure, for confirmation. For the first time, 45 Senators have blocked and defeated a nominee. This is an unprecedented change in our Senate policy. It is something that is not good for this Senate. It has diminished the independence of the judiciary. It has diminished the power of the executive branch to nominate and it has harmed the Senate when we change the historical rule from 50 votes to 60 votes for a confirmation. It is not good public policy. I ask why it is that this Senate, for all these years since the founding of this Republic, has not had a filibuster for one of these nominees? The reason is pretty clear. The Senators believe the Constitution suggests confirmation should be by majority vote. For example, the Constitution says the Senate shall advise and consent on treaties provided two-thirds agree and shall advise and consent on certain nominees, including judges. From that implication it is clear that two-thirds were required for advice and consent on treaties but only a majority for the judicial nominees. That is what we have done until this year. This plan to block nominees was designed after President Bush was elected and the Democrat Senators had a retreat with a number of liberal law professors, including Lawrence Tribe, Cass Sunstein, Marcia Greenberg. These liberal professors they talked of changing the ground rules for confirmation and Democrat Senators decided to change the historic rules of this Senate and block more nominees. Of course, President Bush nominated nine judicial candidates when he took office. Two were Democrats. One was a renomination of a Clinton nominee, a Democrat, and the renominated Clinton nominee was promptly confirmed. Nine out of the 11 sat. The Democrats had the majority in the Senate and they refused to bring those candidates up for hearing in the Judiciary Committee. Finally, when the election occurred and one of the issues in the election was the obstructionism in the Senate by the Democratic majority and a new majority was constituted with the Republicans in the majority, they moved some of these nominees forward. Estrada was moved out of committee, Priscilla Owen and others were moved forward. We then found ourselves facing for the first time in history a filibuster of Miguel Estrada. Let me mention some things about this extraordinary nominee. He was born in Honduras and came here as a teenager. He struggled with the language. He was able to get himself into Columbia University where he finished and graduated with honors. He then went to Harvard Law School where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review, one of the highest honors for any graduating law senior. He then clerked for the Court of Appeals, the same level court he was nominated to. He served as a law clerk to a Court of Appeals judge in New York, as I recall, and then clerked for the Supreme Court. Very few lawyers ever get selected to clerk for a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. What a great honor. He was selected by Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the moderate swing justices in the Supreme Court, as he is viewed. After that, he took a position with the Department of Justice and he was in the Solicitor General's Office of the Department of Justice. The Solicitor General's Office is where the Department of Justice has the top appellate lawyers arguing the position of the United States of America in circuit courts and in the United States Supreme Court. What a great position. Most lawyers say the Solicitor General of the United States is the greatest lawyer position in the world. Every day you go to court and represent the United States of America in the highest court in the land. Miguel Estrada was there for 6 years. Every year he was there he got the highest possible rating the Department of Justice evaluators give to an employee. This is particularly important to note. In 5 of the 6 years he was in the Solicitor General's Office, it was in the Clinton Department of Justice. He served by far the great majority of his time in the Clinton Department of Justice and was given each year the highest possible ratings. Since then, he has been highly successful in law practice. He has argued as many as 10 or 15 cases before the Supreme Court. Most lawyers in America will never argue a case before the United States Court of Appeals, much less have 15 cases before the Supreme Court. He was selected for those arguments because he was known to be an extraordinarily skilled appellate lawyer. I saw his testimony. He was open and candid and brilliant in his answers. I remember one Senator tried to pin him down and said, you are a strict constructionist, aren't you? Mr. Estrada said, I am not sure I would call myself that. And he said, the President wants to nominate strict constructionists and President Bush has nominated you so you must be one. First, he said, the President didn't say anything to me about that, but I would call myself a fair constructionist. I believe we ought to fairly construe the law as it comes before us. I don't use the word strict constructionist. He was open and candid with the people asking questions. Then there was constructed an event and a circumstance that put Mr. Estrada in a bad light. It was deliberate and premeditated and calculated, in my view. The Democrat said, well, you served on the staff of the Solicitor General and you wrote all kinds of memoranda that were relevant to important issues before America. We demand you produce every memoranda you wrote while you were in the Solicitor General's Office. And he answered this exactly correctly, but I am not sure the American people and the press and those who asked questions paid attention to his answer. His answer was, Senator, those are not my papers. I was a lawyer in a law firm of the Department of Justice. The papers I prepared belong to the Department of Justice. I do not have the power to reveal to the public such private, legal memorandum from my client, the United States of America. So the question was, then, well, let's have the Department of Justice produce them. And the Department of Justice was absolutely correct in saying unequivocally, no, we are not going to produce those documents. The reason is that those are confidential, internal memoranda of the U.S. Government involving litigation in cases in the United States. In fact, it outraged former Solicitors General of the United States of both parties. All four former Solicitors General of the United States who had served under Democrat administrations wrote a letter that the Department of Justice should not reveal those memoranda, that it was work product and would chill free debate by young lawyers who were asked to submit written memoranda. And every other Solicitor General I know of, who is alive, Republican and Democrat, agreed that the Department of Justice should not produce them. So now we have this viewed as Mr. Estrada wasn't open with the committee because he wouldn't produce all these documents. How bogus can that be? That is really unfortunate, that Members of this Senate would actually suggest that Mr. Estrada somehow has the authority and should, even if he did have the authority, produce and turn over to the public documents that remain part of the work product of the Department of Justice. It would be unethical for him to do so. He should not do so. So that is how we got into this, I suppose. But surely that is not a basis to turn down a nominee of this extraordinary ability. Why would they pick on him? Why would they construct this idea that he is somehow unqualified? It really baffles me. It is a matter I find difficult to fathom. But I would just share a few things that strike me. Yes, he was a Hispanic. Does that mean Democratic Members of this body are prejudiced against Hispanics? I hope not. I would never accuse them of that and don't believe that is so. What I do believe is that President Bush had made clear that he would like to give Hispanics an opportunity to be judges and he would like to see a Hispanic on the Supreme Court of the United States. He made that clear. Everybody knows he would like to see that occur, if possible. Here we were, 2\1/2\ years ago, nominating one of the most brilliant Hispanic lawyers, one of the most brilliant lawyers in America of any background, Miguel Estrada. He was nominated, and had he been confirmed back then as he should have been according to the American Bar Association, rating him unanimously well qualified, their highest qualifications, well qualified; he would had already had 2\1/2\ years of experience writing opinions, proving his skill and ability. At that point, I submit, he would clearly be one of the preeminent nominees under consideration for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the quality of this man. So, he has been denied an opportunity to achieve a prestigious appointment to the court of appeals, and that has in fact denied him the opportunity to again prove his excellent integrity, legal skill, and ability on that bench. And, who knows, maybe that is why some of those thought he would be a perfect nominee for the bench and they would just block him now. If that is so, that is wrong and should not have occurred. I am very frustrated about it. I would also, just one more time, note that he had a majority of the Members of this Senate prepared to vote to confirm him--55 votes he had. Prior to this year, throughout the history of this country, that would have confirmed him easily to this position. So it was by a filibuster. We voted cloture I think six, seven, eight times to try to get him up for an up-or-down vote, blocked each time by the procedural technique of a filibuster that was never before used on a circuit judge in the history of this country. It is just really sad that that has occurred. Let me just say this finally. President Bush wants judges on the bench who follow the law. He wants judges on the bench who care about the law, who believe they are not postmodernist relativists. He believes we have judges who can read words and give those words plain meaning and follow those words. That is what a judge should do. A judge is not empowered to make law. A judge is not empowered to impose their political views or to set public policy. That is not what a judge does. A judge rules on the law. Make no mistake, a Federal judge is a lifetime appointment. They are not able to be voted out of office, as we can if we pass a bad law. We can be voted out of office. We are subject to the will of the public. But a judge is not. So what we want in a judge is one who follows the law and has the history and the discipline to show that he or she will follow the law. Miguel Estrada has that. In fact, that is his guiding legal philosophy, that a judge should show restraint, should follow the law and do the right thing, whether they agree with it or not. That is what we need. Now we have judges who have declared the California three strikes law unconstitutional. They have been in effect for 20 years and no doubt are a major factor in the plummeting of crime rates in California and other States that had those laws. They are helping to reduce crime there. So we have Federal judges saying that is unconstitutional. We have a Federal judge in the Ninth Circuit saying the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. We have Federal judges just recently overturning 170 death penalty matters after juries and judges and appellate courts have ruled on them. They just blithely come in and say: We don't like the way you do this now, and we are just going to wipe out those death penalty decisions. We have bizarre verdicts on litigation. Everybody knows about the coffee case and other things. We are having hearings now on asbestos. The litigation over asbestos has gotten completely out of hand. What is occurring there is one of the saddest eras in legal history, in my view. Only 40 percent of the money paid out by the asbestos companies is getting to the victims. What a horrible stain on the legal system in America. We cannot defend that. These kinds of things impact the American economy. They drive up the cost of insurance. They drive up the cost of doing business. No nation in the world has the legal costs on their economy that this country has. So we need judges with common sense. We need judges who will follow the law. We need judges who show fidelity to the rule of law. That is what President Bush wants. That is what Miguel Estrada is. That is what he has committed his life to. And that is why they don't like him. It will mess up the game where people want the courts to do for them what they cannot win at the ballot box with elected representatives. Now we have Priscilla Owen, also under filibuster. She made the highest possible score on the Texas bar exam, was one of the greatest lawyers in Texas, was elected this last time to the Texas Supreme Court with 87 percent of the vote, and is serving her second term, endorsed by every major newspaper in the State of Texas. She was rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association. And they are filibustering her? I will tell you something else. Priscilla Owen is quite capable of serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. Is that why they are picking on her? And Bill Pryor, the attorney general of Alabama, whom I know and have seen operate, one of the finest, most brilliant people I have known. I have never met a person who has more commitment to the rule of law, doing the right thing, evaluating matters on a legal basis, and doing what the law says regardless of politics, which is why he has, for example, the support of most of the Democrats in leadership in the State. He has the support of four of the very top African-American leaders in the State, including Joe Reed, a member of the Democratic National Committee and vice president of the Teachers Union, Alvin Holmes, one of the most outspoken African Americans in the State legislature, Congressman Artur Davis, and Chris McNair, former county commissioner in the State's largest county and whose daughter was killed in that tragic church bombing event many years ago. Those are the kinds of people who support Bill Pryor. He was editor in chief of the Tulane Law Review--a brilliant lawyer of the highest possible ethics and integrity, a man of deep religious faith, a man who has proven that he will follow the law regardless of what his personal beliefs are and has handled himself again in recent days in a very difficult situation involving the chief justice of the State of Alabama and the Ten Commandants. He has agonized over it. I know. He has studied the law and he simply has done what Bill Pryor has always done. He has followed the law regardless of what people may say about it. That is his life. That is what he believes in. And that is what he will do if he is put on the bench. You can't find a person in America better qualified. These filibusters unprecedented in the history of this Senate. It is a very sad day that we are here today to see the success of the first filibuster of a circuit judge in history--to be successful with the withdrawal of Miguel Estrada. What a sad, sad day. This Senate needs to think through what we have done. This knife can cut both ways. We do not need to establish this as a policy of this Senate. I urge my colleagues to reevaluate what they have been doing and not to continue down this road because it is not going to go away lightly. Those on this side will use that same knife and use those same tactics in the future. We are not going to go away quietly on this when we see nominees of this ability and of this character and integrity--with sound judicial philosophies that believe in following the law and not using the bench as a forum for a personal agenda. I conclude by expressing my appreciation to Miguel Estrada for offering himself in service. I hope he will have an opportunity in the future to serve this country which he has adopted in some other capacity--maybe even in this capacity in the future. He certainly is qualified. He would make a great judge at any number of levels. My respect for him after watching him testify and after seeing how he handled this difficult time has only increased. I thank the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would add that during the 8 years President Clinton was President, 377 judges were confirmed. This Senate voted down only one. Most of the time the Republicans were in the majority and we did not vote down his nominees. Forty-one were left pending when President Clinton left office. There were 54 left pending when former President Bush left office. But anyway, I know we can talk about that off and on. But I did want to make that point.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume debate on the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. At approximately 9:30 a.m., the Senate will begin two back-to-back rollcall votes. The first vote will be in relation to the Clinton amendment on bioterrorism workforce, which will be immediately followed by a vote in relation to the Harkin amendment on school renovation. Following those votes, Members are encouraged to remain in the Chamber to offer and debate their amendments. The chairman and ranking member will be here to accommodate those Members who are available to offer amendments tomorrow.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. SESSIONS. I have not seen that editorial, but we are receiving a flood of those kinds of communications.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I was taught by my parents from early on never to laugh at somebody's religion, never to make fun of it, respect people's personal faith. I think that is a classic American principle we ought to live by. I would say that is what is happening in a subtle but very practical way is that Bill Pryor's strongly held beliefs, pro-life beliefs, are being attacked. Therefore, they are suggesting he is not fit for the bench because he has these beliefs and those beliefs just happen to be the same beliefs of the Catholic Church and many other church groups throughout America. We cannot have that kind of test. We cannot expect nominees to come before this Judiciary Committee and renounce their beliefs as a condition to be confirmed. The question simply is, will they obey the law that is afoot in the United States by either statute, Constitution, or Supreme Court interpretation. With regard to the resolution that has been proposed, that is just a political gimmick. It has no meaning whatsoever. I am surprised it has been offered in a body that considers itself serious. I believe, as was discussed last night between Senator McConnell and Senator Hatch and others before, that you have a right to ask nominees questions. If a nominee has a religious belief and his church he supports has a certain belief that has been not the law of the land, it is all right to ask that person about it. It is all right to say, your church believes this or that, the Supreme Court has held differently. Will you follow Supreme Court law. That is the question. We have every right to ask that. What we cannot say is, because your beliefs are contrary to maybe a Supreme Court ruling or a temporary majority in the Congress, that you are no longer fit for the bench. Everybody has beliefs. Everybody has ideas and concepts. They are free to do so in this country. What you should ask and determine is whether or not the nominee will follow the law. Bill Pryor has a demonstrated record of that. And on abortion, where he has strong beliefs, the only thing I have found he has ever done involving the manner of abortion was to use his power as attorney general. I was a former Attorney General of Alabama. I know the attorney general can define the law for prosecuting attorneys throughout the entire State, the district attorneys. And Bill Pryor, after Alabama passed a partial-birth abortion statute--a procedure I abhor, most Americans abhor and Bill Pryor abhors--he wrote them and said: Large portions of that bill are unconstitutional and cannot be enforced by you. He directed them not to enforce substantial portions of it. A pro-life leader in the State criticized him and said he gutted the bill. The only other thing I have ever heard him say about abortion was that he would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who violate and protest abortion clinics in violation of the law. He has never abused his position to further his personal views about abortion or any other, for that matter. It is unbelievably frustrating to me to be on this floor and have Senators from New York and Massachusetts and Vermont stand up and say: This man is radical. He is out of the mainstream. He is unfit for the bench--just say those words about one of the most decent, caring, honest public servants I have ever met, a public servant who has demonstrated without any doubt his capacity to do the right thing under the most tough political circumstances. I talked about that in depth last night but nobody seems to care. He has been accused of not being for civil rights. The former county commissioner from Jefferson County, the largest county in the State, Chris McNair, whose daughter was killed in the 16th Street church bombing by the Klan many years ago, has written in support of Bill Pryor. He strongly supports him. Bill Pryor helped complete prosecutions in that case recently. Doug Jones, the prosecutor in that case, a Clinton U.S. Attorney, supports Bill Pryor. Artur Davis, Alabama Congressman, Harvard graduate, assistant United States Attorney, brilliant young congressman, supports Bill Pryor. Joe Reed, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, probably the most powerful political individual in Alabama, every Presidential candidate for the Democratic nomination knows Joe Reed personally and has probably talked to him a half a dozen times, a member of the Democratic National Committee, he writes a letter and says: . . . I am a member of the Democratic National Committee and, of course, Mr. Pryor is a Republican, but these are only party labels. I am persuaded that in Mr. Pryor's eyes, Justice has only one label--Justice! I am satisfied that if you appoint Mr. Pryor . . . he will be a credit to the Judiciary and will be a guardian of justice. He goes on to say other things. I want to share this letter from Alvin Holmes, a State Representative in Alabama for many years. He says: I am a black member of the Alabama House of Representatives having served for 28 years. During my time of service in the Alabama House of Representatives, I have led most of the fights for civil rights of blacks, women, lesbians and gays and other minorities. I consider Bill Pryor a moderate on race. We have had Senators Kennedy and Schumer and others saying Bill Pryor is unfair on the question of race. They say he questioned some portion of the Civil Rights Act. But he questioned section 5, the same portion Attorney General Thurbert Baker of Georgia, an African-American Democrat, has also criticized. This African-American Attorney General in Georgia has explicitly written in support of Bill Pryor for his confirmation. This is what Mr. Holmes says: From 1998 to 2000, Bill Pryor sided with the NAACP against a white Republican lawsuit that challenged the districts [in Alabama] for the Legislature. Pryor fought the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won . . . The lawsuit was filed by Attorney Mark Montiel-- I know Mr. Montiel, as does Mr. Pryor. --a white Republican, and the 3-judge district court ruled 2 to 1 in favor of Mr. Montiel. Bill Pryor took it to the Supreme Court on behalf of the existing districts and won the case. In 2001, [he] sided with the Legislature when it redrew districts for Congress, the Legislature, and the State Board of Education. Mark Montiel challenged that in Federal court. Bill Pryor defended the legislature, and the reapportionment plans that favored the Democrats in the State because it was a duly enacted legislative plan of Alabama. He worked with Doug Jones to prosecute the KKK murderers at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. As I said, Mr. Chris McNair, the father of one of those young girls who was killed, strongly supports Bill Pryor. He created the sentencing commission in Alabama for ending interracial disparities in sentences. In 2000, he started Mentor Alabama, a program to recruit positive adult role models for at-risk youth. This is Mr. Alvin Holmes talking: In 2001, I introduced a bill . . . to amend the Alabama Constitution repealing Alabama's racist ban on interracial marriage. This was an amendment that had been declared unconstitutional but was still in the State Constitution. He continues: It was passed with a slim majority among the voters and Bill Pryor later successfully defended that repeal . . . Every prominent white political leader in Alabama, Republicans and Democrats, opposed or remained silent on the bill except Bill Pryor who openly and publicly asked white and black citizens to repeal the law.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I very much thank the Senator from Iowa. I have been inclined to be supportive of these two treaties with Singapore and Chile. They came up in the Judiciary Committee. I was very surprised to see we will be amending immigration law. As I listened to the debate from other members of the committee, I concluded at that point I could not support the treaties. I voted no. I don't think there were a large number of people in the committee who voted no. But I did not like the fact that the first fast-track treaty had come up with amended immigration law which is under the plenary power of the Congress, and it is not capable of being amended. It is not capable of being changed. I think it is a bad mistake to do that. Subsequent to that, we have worked hard to put in as part of the passage of this treaty a sense of the Senate. That sense of the Senate says: Trade agreements are not the appropriate vehicle for enacting immigration-related laws or modifying the current immigration policy; and future trade agreements to which the United States is a party and the legislation implementing the agreements should not contain immigration-related provisions. This is really an important issue. I want to support this treaty. I hope to be able to support this treaty. Maybe I will be able to support this treaty. But I certainly respect the people of Singapore and respect the people of Chile. They are allies and friends. We want to work with them and improve trade. Hopefully, we will be able to do that. In my home State of Alabama, Singapore has a 1,000-personnel company that is doing great business. I am proud of their work and enjoy getting to know those people. It is an important part of the community of which I am a part, which is an example of some of the good things that come from trade. But we are concerned. A lot of the Members of this body are concerned. This crystal-clear sense of the Senate without equivocation says do not bring us any more treaties with these kinds of amendments on them. If you do, they are going to be in danger. Immigration Provisions in the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements While I want to support agreements, the inclusion of immigration- related provisions in the legislation before us is deeply troubling. Let met tell you what has happened-The U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, by implementing new immigration provisions in treaty negotiations, has encroached on the role of the legislative branch, without consent from this Congress. The ``temporary entry'' sections that are in the Singapore and Chile trade agreements should not be there. Because of the fast-track process, Congress is not allowed to take out the immigration provisions that we don't like, no amendments are allowed. We are only allowed to vote up or down on these agreements. The inclusion of immigration provisions in the Free Trade Agreements with Chile and Singapore has directly interfered with Congress' plenary power to regulate the nation's immigration policy. The power to make immigration law belongs to Congress alone and includes both the temporary and permanent admissions of foreign nationals into the United States. Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution authorizes Congress ``to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States'' and Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have power to ``establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.'' The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Constitution to grant Congress plenary power over immigration policy. As the Court found in Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531 (1954), ``the formulation of policies [pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here] is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly imbedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic as any aspect of our government.'' And, as the Court held in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 766 (1972) (quoting Boutilier v. INS, 386 U.S. 123 (1967)), ``[t]he Court without exception has sustained Congress' `plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden.' '' At the hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on these agreements, the witness for the U.S. Trade Representative, Mrs. Regina Vargo, was asked what legal authority the U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, was relying on as a basis for including immigration law negotiations in trade treaties. The USTR witness responded by differentiating between temporary and permanent entries into the United States, stating that because the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements only contained provisions regarding temporary entries of foreign persons, the USTR was acting within the bounds of its negotiating authority. This assumed authority was again stated by the USTR in the written answers that they submitted to the written questions submitted by members of the Judiciary Committee. This is not the case and I want to make it clear to the USTR that they do not have the authority to negotiate immigration law on behalf of the Congress. By negotiating and including immigration law provisions in a binding bi-lateral treaty that Congress does not have the power to amend, the USTR has established a dangerous precedent that will not be tolerated in future trade agreements. Instead of changing the immigration law under these agreements for citizens of Singapore and Chile, it would have been especially appropriate for the USTR to ensure that employers who repeatedly use the visa programs established under these trade agreements abide by all current U.S. laws governing the entry of these foreign workers. As a Senator of this committee, which has jurisdiction over immigration policy, it is my duty to preserve the plenary power of Congress to make immigration policy. I am dedicated to opposing any erosion of that power. After the Judiciary Committee Hearing, I, along with Senator Graham of South Carolina and Senator Feinstein, sent a letter to the USTR asking them to withdraw the trade agreements and submit them again without the temporary-entry/immigration provisions. Before we vote on the Chile and Singapore Trade Agreements, this Senate will unanimously pass a resolution I introduced. The resolution states that it is the sense of this Senate that: Trade agreements are not the appropriate vehicle for enacting immigration-related laws or modifying current immigration policy; and future trade agreements to which the United State is a party and the legislation implementing the agreements should not contain immigration related provisions. I am glad that a strong statement defending Congress' authority over immigration law will be made today. I fully intend to defend that statement and ensure that future trade agreements comply with the unanimous desire of this body. One reason I am so concerned about the inclusion of the immigration provisions is that four visa categories are permanently affected by the agreements. The legislation before us today effects four types of current visas: No. 1. The H-1B--``highly skilled worker''; No. 2. the B-1--business visitor; No. 3. the E-1--treaty trader or investor visa; and No. 4. the L-1--intra-company transfer visa. H-1B requirements under the Chile and Singapore agreements are weaker than the requirements for other H-1B workers. The agreements require, without numerical limit, that business persons in the other three visa categories be entitled to entry. Under the H1-B category, this legislation permits the admission of up to 5,400 professionals from Singapore and up to 1,400 professionals from Chile each year. This legislation also permits the almost unlimited renewal of the H1- B visas each year, which could have the effect of turning a temporary entry visa program into a permanent visa program; and These agreements also require that dependent spouses and children be allowed to join the H1-B professionals that enter under these agreements--with no numerical cap. I am concerned about including permanent immigration changes in trade agreements when we have unemployment among U.S. workers. I am dedicated to preserving the jobs of U.S. workers whenever possible. I welcome, when appropriate, foreign industries within our borders, and, when appropriate, I fully support foreign workers coming here to work. But, I also believe that the suspected abuse surrounding some immigration visas should be examined--such abuse is possibly contributing to the level of unemployment in the U.S.--including the record unemployment level for U.S. high-tech workers. The only way to protect the job market for American workers is to preserve Congress' plenary power to make laws that affect the ability of foreign workers to displace American workers from their jobs. That is why the Judiciary Committee has hearings to oversee how the visa programs we have enacted are working. Just this week we held a hearing to examine the L-1 visa, one of the visa categories affected by these trade agreements. After that hearing, Congress may decide that we need to reform the L- 1 visa category. Any provision of a future trade agreement that restricts the ability of this Congress to reform such programs and to therefore protect U.S. jobs will not be looked upon favorably. If the U.S. Trade Representative continues to negotiate treaty terms such as the ones before us today, I will be unable to support them. I deeply desire to support Chile and Singapore and had fully planned on voting for the Free Trade Agreements at every turn. I look forward to working with colleagues from each nation, but in particular, the businessmen and women who are engaged in the expansion of trade between our respective business communities. In Alabama we are indeed fortunate that several companies from Singapore found opportunities in Alabama-- opportunties they developed into thriving businesses. One such business is located in my home town of Mobile, Alabama. Mobile Aerospace Engineering--MAE--is Singapore owned, but more importantly it is a vibrant business employing over 1,000 local workers. MAE is a community leader not just in the number of its employees, but in its community outlook and community involvement. My visits have revealed that Singapore is indeed a valued economic partner and trusted ally. I believe the Governments of Singapore and Chile clearly understand the message my colleagues and I have communicated to the USTR. Our commitment to trade is not diminished; our message however is quite clear: trade agreements are not the appropriate vehicle for enacting immigration-related laws or for modifying current immigration policy. I thank so much the distinguished Senator from Iowa for his courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Iowa would allow me to proceed for 2 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. I have researched his record and background. I find that even though he does firmly believe that abortion is an immoral practice, that other than the matter I just raised about directing on partial-birth abortion not to enforce parts of the law, he has not taken any action in any way to use the power of his office to undermine the law of the Supreme Court on that matter. I just wonder if the Senator would agree with that?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one more question.

Mr. SESSIONS. I wanted to clear up a misstatement.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank so much the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has been a consistent defender of an independent judiciary. He takes those issues exceedingly seriously. He has defended them when there was a Democratic President and he was Chairman of the majority-Republican Judiciary Committee. He defended the President's legitimate prerogatives in nominations. He has been consistent on that and everybody knows it. There is no basis to criticize him. Bill Pryor is a friend of mine. He is one of the finest, most decent people I have ever known. There is not a Member of this body or a member of any of these outside groups that has any more integrity, any more decency, any more character than Bill Pryor. He is a sterling individual, an honest man. He tells the truth. When asked, ``if you disagree with a law or a court opinion that goes against your values, will you enforce it?'', he said: ``Senator, you can take it to the bank.'' Not only did he say that, as so many of our nominees have and as we have accepted, he has demonstrated it time and time again as Attorney General of Alabama. It is really extraordinary to me. I don't think there is a politician in America who has so consistently taken very difficult positions in a political environment--positions most people would say a politician was crazy to take--than Bill Pryor. He did it, and there is only one principle guiding him. What is that principle? It was required by the law. He is a man of the law. Yes, he is a Christian gentleman. When he makes a statement, part of his religion teaches that it ought to be an honest statement. So when he said, ``if the courts rule on something I don't agree with, if it my contradicts my views on abortion, I will follow the law,'' you can take it to the bank. That is the kind of man Bill Pryor is. There has been an awful lot of railing about this ad by the Committee for Justice. It has a courthouse chambers with a little sign on it, and the sign says ``Catholics need not apply.'' Isn't this a legitimate commentary on how people feel about what is happening here? You can agree or disagree, and say it is not a really an accurate statement if you want to. I say it is legitimate commentary. My colleagues went into a conniption fit about it. The ranking member twice, in two separate hearings, called this ad despicable. Let me read for you what it says. As Alabama Attorney General, Bill Pryor regularly upheld the law even when it was at odds with his personal beliefs. Raised a Catholic, those personal beliefs are shared by Mainers all across the Pine Tree State. But some in the U.S. Senate are attacking Bill Pryor for having ``deeply held'' Catholic beliefs to prevent him from becoming a Federal judge. Don't they know the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office? Bill Pryor is a loving father, a devout Catholic, and an elected Attorney General who understands the law. The job of a judge is to uphold the law, not legislate from the bench. It's time for his political opponents to put his religion aside and give him an up-or- down vote. It is the right thing to do. Thanks Senators Snowe and Collins for making sure that the Senate stops playing politics with religion. I think that is a legitimate ad. It represents the view of a lot of Americans. There is nothing despicable about that. But I will tell you what is despicable. It is despicable to lie and distort and misrepresent this fine man's reputation, to impugn his integrity, to suggest he did one thing wrong when he and a group of attorneys general raised money for the Republican Attorneys General Association. They are candidates for office. They raise money all the time. There is nothing wrong with that. But the Democrats insisted there be an investigation, even though they had the records for many weeks. Parenthetically, let me just talk about how they got those records. The records came to Senator Kennedy, not to the chairman of the committee, myself, or the senior Senator from Alabama. Senator Kennedy had them for some time before anyone else knew they existed. The lady who gave them to him had been an associate of a certain Lannie Young in Alabama, who recently pled guilty to a bribery scheme investigated by the United States Attorney's Office and Attorney General Bill Pryor. So she leaks those documents to Senator Kennedy, and then, at his staff's suggestion, to Senator Leahy. And then the Democrats want to have an investigation. So the chairman's staff says, OK, let's get the attorney general on the phone. You can interview him, ask him any questions you want to ask him about this effort to raise funds for the committee. The bipartisan investigative staff had the phone call. The chairman's staff asked many detailed questions, and Attorney General Pryor's answers corroborated his testimony before the committee during his hearing and in written questions. The Democrats refused to ask Attorney General Pryor any questions. Why? Because they wanted to stall his vote in committee. It was already the fourth time his hearing had been set. The time had come up for a vote to be cast on his nomination in committee. The Democrats didn't want a vote. So they dragged it out, partly by invoking a rarely used two-hour rule, cut off debate, and obstructed a vote. The chairman then said we were going to continue the investigation again that night. He gave the Democrats another chance to call Attorney General Pryor on the phone. They again turned down this opportunity. So the investigation dragged on for over another week. They were given yet another chance to get Attorney General Pryor on the phone and ask him any questions they had about this alleged issue. Instead, they called 20 of the alleged contributors on the list. They called employees of the Republican Attorneys General Association. Not one contradiction was found. Nothing unethical was found. Yet the Democrats continue to sully his reputation by implying that the investigation proved that Pryor misled the Committee. This is wrong, because not one person in this body has the integrity of Bill Pryor, I would say. This is a fine, decent man who has lived his life doing the right thing. I feel strongly about that. I won't back down. I will tell you some other things that are despicable in the attack on Bill Pryor. One of our Senators just said recently on this floor, with regard to Bill Pryor's participation in a certain Supreme Court case: He used his power as attorney general to obstruct the enforcement of the Violence Against Women Act in Alabama. Now that is the kind of thing People for the American Way do. That is the kind of attack the Alliance for Justice puts out. I am sure some staff person put that language together for the Senator, and perhaps she made her speech and didn't really understand what she was saying. That is a false and unfair statement. Let me tell you what he argued with respect to the Violence Against Women Act. He participated as amicus in an appeal to the Supreme Court questioning whether the part of that act creating a federal civil remedy for a purely intrastate act violated the Commerce Clause. Pryor argued his position to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agreed with him. This falsehood about Bill Pryor's indifference to violence against women is also ironic, because he has a tremendous reputation in the State of Alabama for standing up for the victims of domestic violence. Kathryn Coumanis is one of the leaders in the State in the movement to protect women against domestic violence. She heads the Penelope House. She has written on Bill Pryor's behalf and noted that the women's groups in the State involved in the issue of violence against women put Bill Pryor in their Hall of Fame. Yet we have people on this floor and we have outside groups saying Bill Pryor does not care about violence against women. That is flat-out wrong. We have seen some outside groups attack Bill Pryor, saying that he was against the disabled. These groups should have been ashamed of themselves. Who are they? The ACLU, the People for the American Way, the National Abortion Rights Action League, Alliance For Justice. They work together and they have a tremendous amount of money. They created this supposed issue, sent out information to newspaper editors and made these allegations that Bill Pryor had gutted the Americans With Disabilities Act, and he didn't care about people with disabilities. They said so directly. But what did he really do? He argued in the Garrett case against the constitutionality of one small part of the Americans With Disabilities Act that said a State employee could sue the State of Alabama, or any other State, for money damages in federal court for violations of the Act. It was a suit against the University of Alabama, a State institution; and the Attorney General of Alabama, charged with the responsibility of defending the State, said this in his brief: I believe in the Disabilities Act. I believe people with disabilities should be treated fairly. The State of Alabama believes that under the Federal statute this person can get his or her job back. The Federal court can issue an injunction against the State of Alabama to remedy a violation. But the Congress could not allow this State employee to sue the State for money damages because, under the Eleventh Amendment principle of sovereign immunity, a state cannot be sued for money damages in federal court. This is because the power to sue is the power to destroy. A State always controls and limits the power of a suit against itself. Bill Pryor took this argument to the Supreme Court. What did the Supreme Court do? The Supreme Court ruled Attorney General Pryor was correct. And in any event, this affected only 4 percent of all the cases that might be brought, because only 4 percent of the employees in America work for States. Most States have disability rights protections, anyway. They don't need to file under the Federal Act. This is why it is wrong and despicable and dishonest to say Bill Pryor lacks sensitivity for the disabled simply because he legitimately defended the State of Alabama and won in the Supreme Court. This attack should not have been made. Some say Bill Pryor is an activist. I would say he is an active attorney general. He is constantly working to preserve the rule of law and protect the legitimate interests of the people of Alabama. That is what he is paid to do. He is absolutely not an activist in the way Chairman Orrin Hatch defines it. As Chairman Hatch defines it, an activist is a nominee for the bench who will not restrain himself or herself to the law, but in fact seeks to carry out and further their personal ideological agenda by twisting the meaning of words in statutes and the Constitution, and to otherwise act in a way that allows their personal views to dominate their legal requirements. An activist who seeks to be on the bench is someone who ought to be scrutinized carefully. Bill Pryor is no activist. In fact, he is absolutely committed to the rule of law. His whole life and whole political philosophy has been built on the fact that judges should be true to the law whether they agree with it or not. That is the whole purpose of the rule of law. That is why this Nation is so wonderful, why we have so much freedom. We follow the law to an extraordinary degree. A lot of countries that have great potential never reach it because they don't have a rule of law that ensures predictability and justice. As attorney general, Bill Pryor had to be an advocate. He proved to be a great one. As attorney general, he consistently has followed the law courageously, even when he knew he might face complaints from friends and allies. Members of the Senate should study his testimony carefully and evaluate his real record, not the trumped-up charges, not the bogus attack sheets being produced by outisde groups, and not mischaracterizations by these groups, some of which themselves have very out-of-the-mainstream positions. Let me say, parenthetically, that a number of these groups have extreme views on the separation of church and State. Some of these groups believe there can be no drug laws, that we ought to legalize drugs. Some believe there can be no laws against pornography. The ACLU opposes laws against child pornography. Who is out of the mainstream here? And let me ask you this: Why would leading African-American Democrats like our Congressman Artur Davis, a Harvard graduate and a lawyer himself, former U.S. Attorney; why would Representative Joe Reed, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, a member of the Democratic National Committee, one of the most powerful political figures in Alabama for 30 years; why would Representative Alvin Holmes, Representative Holmes, a lieutenant with Dr. Martin Luther King, who has been beaten for his commitment to civil rights, all speak up for him? Why does the former Democratic Governor of Alabama speak so highly of him? Why does the Speaker of the Alabama House speak so admiringly of him? All these people support him because he is not as Beltway attack groups have caricatured him. He has been a champion of liberty and of civil rights. Much has been changed in Alabama over the years. We have the highest number of elected African-American officeholders in the United States. On the day we had General Pryor's nomination hearing, it marked the anniversary of a sad day in which Governor Wallace stood in a schoolhouse door. But you must know that Bill Pryor was not part of that. He was a mere child at that time. Secondly, his parents were John F. Kennedy Catholic Democrats. I suspect this hearing might change some of their views. When he gave his inaugural speech after winning election as attorney general, with 59 percent of the votes, he opened that speech with these very telling words: Equal under the law today; equal under the law tomorrow; equal under the law forever. Not segregation today, tomorrow, and forever, but equality. That is how he led off his speech, and that is the kind of man Bill Pryor is. Those words were a fitting response 40 years after a promise of another kind. Bill Pryor is one of the good guys. He does the right thing. He frequently has refused pleas from his Republican friends when he thought the law didn't support their position. For example, those friends rightly believed the legislative district lines had been gerrymandered in the State, making it very difficult for Republicans to win legislative seats. In fact, although we had in Alabama two Republican Senators, five Republican Congressmen, and a Republican Governor, only a third of the state legislature was Republican. Some Republicans felt that this was a redistricting problem. So they filed a voting rights suit arguing that the majority-minority legislative districts were improper. They asked for support from the Republican Attorney General. He would not take their side. He courageously led the case, as it turned out, for the African-American Democratic position. He lost before the three-judge district court--and backed up by an amicus brief from the NAACP--won in the U.S. Supreme Court. His argument was plain and simple. He said the plaintiffs did not have standing to file a lawsuit. Whether the lawsuit had been meritorious or not, it was not a legitimate lawsuit because they did not have standing. Attorney General Pryor took it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled with him. Some of my friends and some of Bill's friends are still mad about that situation, but he believed that was the right thing to do under the law, and he made that call as the attorney general for the State of Alabama. He had taken an oath to defend the State of Alabama. These gerrymandered districts were the laws of the State of Alabama, endorsed by the legislature. So he defended the districts even when it went against the interest of his political allies. That is why Joe Reed and Alvin Holmes speak highly of Bill Pryor. They have seen him in action. On one of the church-and-state issues that came up not long after he was appointed Attorney General by our former Governor, the Governor had a firm view about separation of church and State. Basically, he did not think there was much separation. He read the Constitution pretty plainly. The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, and the Governor thought that meant the United States Congress, not the State of Alabama. He did not adhere to the view that the 14th amendment incorporates the First and applies it to the States. Then-Governor James said: What is wrong with coaches leading the players in prayer? He wanted Bill Pryor to file a lawsuit to vindicate him. Shortly after having been appointed Attorney General--at a very intense and emotional time in the State, with the Governor of the State speaking up for prayer in schools--Bill Pryor had to make a tough decision. He had to review the law carefully. What did he do? He filed a respectable brief in court. He would not file the brief the Governor wanted, so the Governor got his own lawyer and he also filed a brief. As I know as a former Attorney General of Alabama, only the Attorney General is legally allowed to speak for the State in court. So Bill Pryor, as Attorney General, filed a brief saying that the Governor--who had just appointed him--did not speak for the State of Alabama. Opponents said that Bill Pryor somehow is a tool of the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, who has deep convictions about how the Constitution and the laws ought to be applied with regard to separation of church and State, and who put in a monument in the court recently that had the Ten Commandments on it. The judge did not think anything was wrong with that. He met with the Attorney General, and they discussed legal actions against him to remove the monument. They did not reach an accord. The attorney general did not agree with the Chief Justice on his views of what the law was. So eventually, the Chief Justice had to hire his own lawyer and file his own brief, and Attorney General Pryor filed a more limited brief pointing out that if you go to the Supreme Court of the United States, there are several different depictions of the Ten Commandments on the walls of the U.S. Supreme Court. He basically said: What is good for the U.S. Supreme Court ought to be good for the Alabama Supreme Court. Opponents say Bill Pryor is extreme on religious issues. That is not true. For example, I mentioned earlier how he stood up and did what was right with regard to the pressure from the Governor on school prayer. After that decision, there was much confusion in the State. School boards did not know what to do; teachers were leading prayer; others said you cannot do that. What was the law? To answer that question, Attorney General Pryor wrote guidelines for school systems in Alabama advising them on what they could legally do as teachers, principals, and coaches, and what they could not do, and what children could do and what they could not do. The Atlanta Journal Constitution wrote an editorial praising him for stepping up in a tough, emotional time and providing good leadership. And, indeed, the Clinton Administration basically adopted verbatim Bill Pryor's guidelines, and sent them around the country to other schools. This idea that he is some sort of extremist is absolutely false. This is a courageous lawyer who does the right thing day after day, time after time to a degree I have never seen before by any politician in my life. On abortion, they say he has deeply held beliefs about abortion; he cannot be trusted to be a judge. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky a few moments ago hit it exactly correctly. When a nominee has taken a view that they believe abortion is wrong, then it is perfectly proper for the Senate to inquire about that. What should the inquiry be? Senators should not say: Mr. Pryor, we want you to grovel down here on the floor; we want you to renounce your views about abortion; we want you to say, ``I don't believe that anymore,'' as a price for being confirmed--that is absolutely wrong. What should Senators say? They should say: Mr. Pryor, you have expressed your view that abortion is bad, that you do not think Roe v. Wade was rightly decided; but will you follow it? Then see what he says. Senators do not have to accept what he says; they can inquire further. To those inquiries, Bill Pryor said ``Of course, I will follow the law, Senator. You can take it to the bank.'' What is significant is that Bill Pryor has a record showing that he will live up to that answer. As far as I can tell, there have been only two instances in his public life in which he has dealt with abortion. The first had to do with Alabama's partial-birth abortion statute, that severely restricted partial-birth abortion. Partial-birth abortion is a very horrible procedure. Overwhelmingly, Americans reject it. The American Medical Association said it is never justified as a medical procedure. And Alabama passed legislation to virtually eliminate it. As Attorney General, he superintended the State's district attorneys who enforced this law. He sent them a directive in 1997 stating that parts of the partial-birth abortion bill were unconstitutional and could not be enforced. Isn't that proof that he will follow the law even if he disagrees with it? The other example involving abortion was when Attorney General Pryor issued stern warning that those who threatened violence against abortion clinics, or against those who sought to exercise the constitutional right to abortion at those clinics, would be fully prosecuted. So outside groups attack him on his deeply held beliefs, even deeply held religious beliefs, and they suggest that somehow he is an extremist because he personally thinks that abortion is a taking of innocent human life. Bill is a thoughtful person. He is not some automaton for any church or any person. He thinks about these issues carefully. He has shared his views about it. He believes that the life that is in the womb has all the characteristics of what that life will be as an adult. There is no doubt that it is going to become a human being. He believes that we ought not to withdraw the law's protection from that life. That is his view. But the Supreme Court has not bought it. In Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey they held differently. Bill Pryor said: I understand that. I will follow the Supreme Court precedents. How do we know he will? Because he did it even with respect to the partial-birth abortion statute in Alabama. So I do not know what more a person can do to prove his fidelity to the rule of law. Bill has gained great support in the State. He is a man who is respected across party lines, across racial lines. Representative Alvin Holmes wrote this powerful letter on his behalf, and he told the story about Alabama's old constitutional provision that prohibited interracial marriages. Of course, that had been struck down some time ago by the United States Supreme Court. It was unconstitutional, but it remained in the constitution. Alvin Holmes, as a lieutenant for Dr. Martin Luther King, and still a vibrant battler for civil rights in Alabama, said it ought to come out of the constitution. Attorney General Bill Pryor, as Alvin Holmes said, was the only white politician in the State, Democrat or Republican, who supported him. They got it out of the legislature, put it on the ballot, and the people of Alabama eliminated it from our constitution. Bill Pryor campaigned for that elimination throughout the State because he thought it was wrong that our constitution would have those words still in it. This is a man of quite extraordinary character, a man of great skill and ability, who has taken cases to the Supreme Court and won them to an extraordinary degree. So I submit there is nothing wrong with the ad that that group put out to defend Bill Pryor. It is basically an honest evaluation of the situation. Somebody might disagree with it, but it is honest. In contrast, many of the attacks on Bill Pryor have not been honest. Outside groups have been unfair and have deliberately twisted his record. What they have done is not right. Some in this chamber say we need collegiality. They say Republicans should renounce this outside ad about ``Catholics need not apply.'' I would say this to my friends: Let's see you renounce some of these ridiculous, obscene, despicable misrepresentations of Bill Pryor's record and his character. I would like to see that. Yes, we do have a problem with collegiality, but I do not think it is the result of Chairman Hatch's leadership. When he was Chairman of the Committee, we moved 377 Clinton nominees. Only one was voted down. When he was Chairman of the Committee, not one time did we vote down a Clinton nominee on a party-line vote. During that short time, a year and a half or so, that the Democrats had a majority in the Senate Judiciary Committee, they voted down in committee, on a party-line vote, two President Bush nominees. In May, President Bush nominated 11 judges for the court of appeals. He renominated one Democrat who had been nominated by President Clinton, but not confirmed, and two Democrats overall. The Democratic Judiciary Committee promptly moved the 2 Democrats and confirmed them. Almost 2 years later, several of the remaining nine had not even had a hearing in committee. This was an unprecedented slowdown of the confirmation process. The Democrats met and decided deliberately and consciously to change the ground rules for confirmation. There is no doubt about that. Who is changing the ground rules? I submit it is the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee, by some of their tactics. They started an effective filibuster in the committee, creating a situation in which 9 out of the 19 members of the committee could withhold a vote by relying on a misinterpretation of Rule IV. I have never heard of that. The chairman properly ruled under Rule IV that the chairman has the prerogative to bring a matter up for a vote. Their citation of rule IV ignores what it says the purpose of that rule. The first sentence says to bring a matter up for a vote and to deal with a recalcitrant chairman who will not allow a matter to be voted on, if you get one member of the other party and a majority vote, then you can bring a matter up for a vote even if the chairman does not agree. But the rule does not give a group a right to filibuster and keep a vote from occurring, which is what they wanted to do. We have had two open, notorious and unprecedented filibusters on the floor against superb circuit court nominees, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. Both received the highest rating by ABA, and both have extraordinary records. In the history of this country, we have never had filibusters of circuit and district judges, but the Democrats have started two now because they decided to change the ground rules. Now we have these Members come down on the Senate floor and act all upset that somehow collegiality is being upset here. They do not know why the chairman has determined to move nominations forward and not let them be obstructed and delayed. I call on the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle who speaks for this party. There would not be a filibuster of these nominations if he did not approve it. He needs to remember the history of this body. It is a mistake for him to lead the Democrats into an unprecedented period in which we filibuster Presidential nominees for the federal courts. I firmly believe a fair reading of the Constitution is that nominations for judgeships should be confirmed based on a majority vote. Any fair reading of the Constitution will show that. That is why we have never filibustered in the history of the country, but the Democrats have now created what in effect is a supermajority requirement to block the right of nominees to an up-or-down vote. There are many more things I could say about Bill Pryor. But I will not do that tonight. I appreciate the indulgences of my colleagues and the staff. This battle to allow people to have honest personal views, so long as those views do not influence their official interpretations of existing law, is an important battle for America. I intend to be a part of it and a lot of others do, too. It is not going away. We are not backing down. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Is the Senator aware, being an Alabama official myself and keeping up with these things, that when Attorney General Pryor, not required to do so but following what he believed was the proper procedure, directed the district attorneys who would be enforcing this partial-birth abortion law to construe the statute narrowly, that he was criticized by pro-life groups, sincere, wonderful people, and one went so far as to say that his decision had gutted the partial-birth abortion law?

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield for another question.

Mr. SESSIONS. I note that the Senator made quite clear that elected Senators have the responsibility to decide matters, and they cannot be driven by forces outside. We have to do it on the facts and the law, and he has been honorable and consistent on that. He deserves great praise. Some of the criticism that has come his way from those who are now altering the historic ground rules of confirmation is unjust and wrong. As a former attorney general of Alabama and knowing that the attorney general had the power in Alabama to direct district attorneys on how to enforce certain Alabama laws, I ask the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee is he aware that even though Attorney General Pryor strongly believes that partial-birth abortion is one of the worst forms of abortion of all, that he wrote a letter directing district attorneys to narrowly construe an Alabama partial-birth abortion statute because he had concluded under the Supreme Court law that parts of it was unconstitutional?

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield for a further question?