ALL THAT HE WORKED FOR ALL OF HIS LIFE WAS SENT TO NAUGHT AND
           IT WAS DONE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. THAT IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE
           OBJECTED TO. THAT IS CERTAINLY WHERE THE LETTERS I HAVE
           RECEIVED, INCLUDING A CONCERN EXPRESSED BY PEOPLE WHO TELL ME
           FIRST AND FOREMOST THEY VOTED FOR THEN-GOVERNOR BUSH TO BECOME

           PRESIDENT BUSH, BUT FELT THIS WAS WRONG. A SENATOR: MR.
           PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA.
           

           A SENATOR: TO GIVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT FLAVOR, I DON'T LIKE THE
           WORD "AMBUSH" ON JUDGE WHITE.
           

           MR. NICKLES: TO CLARIFY AGAIN A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAPPENED,
           THE REASON THIS SENATOR VOTED AGAINST HIM AND I WOULD GUESS THE
           REASON THE MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST HIM BECAUSE WE
           RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHERIFFS
           SAID VOTE AGAINST JUDGE WHITE. THEY HAD GOOD REASONS IN THAT
           LETTER. THEY HAD A VERY GOOD REASON. THIS INDIVIDUAL CASE THAT
           WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THREE DEPUTY SHERIFFS WERE MURDERED AND
           THE WIFE OF A SHERIFF WAS MURDERED AND JUDGE WHITE WAS THE SOLE
           JUDGE SAYING WAIT A MINUTE, LET'S RETRY IT. LET'S HAVE A NEW

           HEARING. THEY WERE OPPOSED TO THAT. IN ADDITION TO THAT WE HAD
           CHIEFS OF POLICE WHO CONTACTED US WHO SAID VOTE NO OR REVIEW
           THIS CASE IN OPPOSITION. WE LAD PRNGTORS IN THIS CASE AND OTHER
           CASES THAT SAID VOTE NO ON JUDGE WHITE. THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF
           POLICE, SENATOR LEAHY'S -- DID SEND A LETTER AND SUPPORTED
           JUDGE WHITE. THEY SENT THAT LETTER AFTER THE VOTE. WHY DID WE
           HAVE THE VOTE AT THAT TIME?
           OUR COLLGUES ON THE DEMOCRAT SIDE WERE CLAMORING FOR A VOTE.
           WHY DID PEOPLE VOTE FOR JUDGE WHITE IN COMMITTEE AND THEN VOTE
           AGAINST HIM ON THE FLOOR?

           THE LETTER AND THE CAMPAIGN BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, NOT ALL THE
           LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY -- I'LL GRANT MY COLLEAGUE OM VERMONT
           THAT -- DID NOT COME UP UNTIL AFTER HE WAS APPROVED BY
           JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. THE LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL SHERIFFS
           ASSOCIATION CAME NOT BEFORE THE JUDICIARY. I WISH THEY WOULD
           HAVE DONE IT BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAD VOTED. BUT THEY
           DOES IT AFTER WHEN IT WAS A PENDING NOMINATION BEFORE THE FLOOR
           OF THE SENATE. AND SO IT WAS THEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME. ONE
           OTHER POINT OF CLARIFICATION I WISH TO REPEAT. I'M JUST VERY

           TROUBLED IF ANYBODY EVER MAKES THE ALLEGATION THAT HE WAS
           OPPOSED BECAUSE OF HIS RACE BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW
           WHAT HIS RACE WAS. I SAT THROUGH A MEETING WHERE IT WAS
           DISCUSSED BY THESE LETTERS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUDGE WHITE'S
           RACE WAS NEVER MENTIONED. I KNOW THAT TO BE THE CASE. I SAT IN
           THAT MEETING. THAT WASN'T AN ISSUE. IT DIDN'T COME UP. WHAT
           CAME UP WAS LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL. AT THIS TIME THE ONLY
           LAW ENFORCEMENT LETTERS WE SAW WERE IN OPPOSITION. IF WE HAD

           THE LETTER FROM THEM SAYING CONFIRM, MAYBE THAT WOULD HAVE MADE
           A DIFFERENCE. PONEL WOULD HAVE. MAYBE IF THE SHERIFFS
           ORGANIZATION WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THEIR LETTER OUT BEFORE THE
           JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HAD A VOTE, IT MIGHT HAVE MADE A BIG
           DIFFERENCE IN JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. SO TIMING IS IMPORTANT. THE
           REASON WHY WE HAD E VOTE AT THAT TIME IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE
           COLLEAGUES ON THE DEMOCRAT SIDE WERE CLAMORING IF A VOTE. SO I
           DON'T LOOK AT THAT AS AN AMBUSH. MAYBE THAT VOTE SHOULD HAVE
           BEEN DELAYED SO WE COULD HAVE HAD A MORE THOROUGH DISCUSSION OF
           WHY ARE THESE LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS AGAINST HIM. MAYBE SOME

           MIGHT BE FOR HIM. GIVE HIM TIME TO ENTER INTO THAT DEBATE. THAT
           DIDN'T HAPPEN. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN SCHEDULING THE VOTE. BUT MY
           POINT IS, I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE HE WAS AMBUSHED. I DID SAY IT'S
           SOMEWHAT UNIQUE. MY 20 YEARS IN THE SENATE IS THE ONLY TIME I
           CAN REMEMBER NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES COMING UP AND
           SAYING VOTE AGAINST THIS PERSON AND BECAUSE THEY DID, BECAUSE
           THEY CONTACTED MEMBERS OF THE SENATE, I THINK THAT'S THE REASON
           WHY JUDGE WHITE WENT DOWN. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THERE ARE LOTS OF
           OTHER ISSUES DEALING WITH SENATOR ASHCROFT. THIS IS ONE I KNOW

           SOMETHING ABOUT. AND AGAIN, I THINK JOHN ASHCROFT IS ONE
           OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUAL, MORE THAN QUALIFIED TO BE ATTORNEY
           GENERAL OF THE UPS. I'M ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT THAT WHEN HE'S
           CONFIRMED, WE'LL LOOK BACK AND SAY HE WAS AN OUTSTANDING, IS AN
           OUTSTANDING ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
           MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR AND I SUGGEST THE ABSENCE OF A
           QUORUM.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
           

           A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
           QUORUM CALL BE DISPENSED WITH.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE SENATOR FROM
           VERMONT IS RECOGNIZED.
           

           MR. LEAHY: MR. PRESIDENT, SO THE RECORD IS STRAIGHT, LAW
           ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS -- THERE WAS NO CONTACT WITH ANYBODY ON
           THIS SIDE. SENATOR ASHCROFT SAID THAT THE REASON HE STOPPED
           JUDGE WHITE WAS AT THE URGE WILLING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS
           BUT THEN SUBSEQUENT PRESS REPORTS AND THE REPORTS BY THE LAW
           ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS THEMSELVES AND SENATOR ASHCROFT'S SWORN
           TESTIMONY AT HIS HEARING. CONTRADICTED THAT AND SAID HE HAD
           ORCHESTRATED THE GROUPS' OPPOSITION TO RONNIE WHITE. I'M NOT

           SUGGESTING THAT RONNIE WHITE WAS DEFEATED BECAUSE HE WAS AN
           AFRICAN-AMERICAN. BUT IT WOULD BE HARD FOR ANYBODY TO KNOW HE
           WAS NOT IN SO FAR IT WAS MENTIONED AT GREAT LENGTH IN THE
           DEBATE THE DAY BEFORE AND JUST BEFORE THE VOTE BY THOSE WHO
           WERE ON THE FLOOR DEBATING THIS. I NOTICED -- I NOTICE WE'RE
           INTO THE TIME OF THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT. I YIELD THE
           FLOOR.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDER, THE TIME
           
           UNTIL 10:45 A.M. SHALL BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE SENATOR FROM
           CONNECTICUT, MR. LIEBERMAN. THE CHAIR SO RECOGNIZES THE
           SENATOR.
           

           MR. LIEBERMAN: I THANK THE CHAIR. MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE KNOWN
           JOHN ASHCROFT FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS AS A COLLEGE CLASSMATE, A
           FELLOW STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND A COLLEAGUE IN THE SENATE.
           THROUGHOUT THAT TIME, OUR VIEWS ON IMPORTANT ISSUES HAVE QUITE
           OFTEN DIVERGED, SOMETIMES WIDELY. BUT I HAVE NEVER HAD REASON
           TO DOUBT HIS SINCERITY OR HIS INTEGRITY. IT STRIKES ME IN THIS
           REGARD THAT THE OFTEN NOTED AND SOMETIMES NOTION THAT SENATORS
           JUDGE THEIR COLLEAGUES MORE LENIENTLY THAN OUTSIDERS MISSES AN

           IMPORTANT POINT. IT IS NOT THAT WE REFLECTISM DEFER TO OUR
           FORMER COLLEAGUES. IT IS INSTEAD THAT WE AS HUMAN BEINGS FIND
           IT TREMENDOUSLY DIFFICULT TO PASS JUDGMENT ON THOSE WE HAVE
           WORKED WITH AND KNOW WELL. AND IT IS BECAUSE I HAVE KNOWN
           SENATOR ASHCROFT FOR SO LONG THAT I FIND THE CONCLUSION I HAVE
           REACHED TODAY, WHICH IS TO OPPOSE HIS NOMINATION, SO FRANKLY
           AWKWARD AND UNCOMFORT AL. BUT THAT IS WHERE MY REVIEW OF THE

           RECORD REGARDING THIS NOMINATION AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
           SENATE'S RESPONSIBILITY UER THE ADVICE AND CONSENT CLAUSE LEAD
           ME. THROUGHOUT MY TENURE IN THE SENATE, I HAVE VOTED ON
           HUNDREDS OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES. IN EACH CASE I HAVE ADHERED
           TO A BROADLY DIFFERENTIAL STANDARD OF REVIEW. AS I EXPLAINED IN
           MY FIRST SPEECH ON THE SENATE FLOOR IN WHICH I OFFERED MY
           REASONS FOR OPPOSING THE NOMINATION OF FORMER SENATOR JOHN
           TOWER TO SERVE AS DEFENSE SECRETARY. THE HISTORY OF THE DEBATES

           AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION MAKE CLEAR THAT THE PRESIDENT
           IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT IN HIS APPOINTMENTS.
           THE QUESTION I CONCLUDED THEN, I SHOULD ASK MYSELF IN
           CONSIDERINNOMINEES IS NOT WHETHER I WOULD HAVE CHOSEN THE
           NOMINEE BUT WHETHER THE PRESIDENT'S CHOICE IS ACCEPTABLE FOR
           THE JOB IN QUESTION. THAT DOES NOT MEAN, OF COURSE, THAT THE
           SENATE SHOULD SERVE PEERLY AS A RUBBER STAMP OR THAT THE CASE,
           THE FRAMERS WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE SENATE NO ROLE IN THE
           APPOINTMENTS PROCESS. INSTEAD, THE SENATE'S CONSTITUTIONAL

           ADVICE AND CONSENT MANDATE OBLIGES US TO SERVE AS A CHECK ON
           THE PRESIDENT'S APPOINTMENT POWER. AS I PUT IT IN MY STATEMENT
           ON SENATOR TOWER'S NOMINATION, I BELIEVE THIS REQUIRES SENATORS
           TO CONSIDER SEVERAL THINGS. FIRST, THE KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE,
           AND QUALIFICATION OF THE NOMINEE FOR THE POSITION. SECOND, THE
           NOMINEE'S JUDGMENT AS EVIDENCED BY HIS CONDUCT AND DECISIONS AS
           WELL AS HIS PERSONAL BEHAVIOR. THIRD, THE NOMINEE'S ETHICS,
           INCLUDING CURRENT AND PRIOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. IN UNUSUAL

           CIRCUMSTANCES, SENATORS CAN ALSO CONSIDER FUNDAMENTALLY AND
           POTENTIALLY IRRECONCILABLE POLICY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
           NOMINEE AND THE MISSION OF THE AGENCY HE OR SHE IS TO SERVE. ON
           A FEW OCCASIONS IN FACTORING MY 12 YEARS IN THE SENATE, I HAVE
           DETERMINED THAT THE VIEWS OF CERTAIN NOMINEES ON BOTH ENDSS OF
           THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM FELL SUFFICIENTLY OUTSIDE THE MAINSTREAM
           TO COMPEL ME TO OPPOSE THEIR NOMINATIONS. IN EACH CASE I HAD
           SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT WHETHER THEY COULD CREDIBLY CARRY OUT THE

           DUTIES OF THE OFFICE FOR WHICH THEY WERE NOMINATED. IN 1993,
           FOR EXAMPLE, I VOTED AGAINST PRESIDENT CLINTON'S NOMINEE TO
           HEAD THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES BECAUSE I
           BELIEVED THAT HIS ACTIVE SUPPORT OF SO-CALLED SPEECH CODES CAST
           DOUBT ON HIS ABILITY TO ADMINISTER THE NEL APPROPRIATELY. THAT
           SAME YEAR I EXPRESSED OPPOSITION TO ANOTHER OF PRESIDENT
           CLINTON'S NOMINEES, THIS ONE ULTIMATELY WITHDRAWN. HIS CHOICE
           TO HEAD THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION BECAUSE
           I FEARED THAT HER WRITINGS AND SPEECHES DEMONSTRATED AN

           IDEOLOGICAL VISION OF WHAT THE VOTING RIGHTS LAWS SHOULD BE
           THAT WERE SO FAR IF WHAT THEY HAD BEEN THAT I WAS RELUCTANT TO
           PUT HEIN CHARGE OF ENFORCING THOSE LAWS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
           OR NOT SHE HAD PLEDGED TO ABIDE BY THE LAW AS IT EXISTED. IN
           1999, JUST LAST YEAR, I CONCLUDED THAT A NOMINEE TO THE FEDERAL
           ELECTIONS COMMISSION HELD VIEWS ON THE NATION'S CAMPAIGN
           FINANCE LAWS THAT WERE SO INCONSISTENT WITH THE F.E.C.'S

           MISSION THAT I COULD NOT IN GOOD CONIOUS VOTE TO PLACE HIM IN A
           POSITION OF AUTHORITY OVER THAT AGENCY. AND JUST THIS WEEK, TWO
           DAYS AGO, I REACHED A SIMILAR CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO
           PRESIDENT BUSH'S NOMINEE TO LEAD THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT. IN
           SHORT ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTION CASTS THE SENATE
           ADVICE ROLE IS A LIMITED ONE AND COUNSEL SENATORS TO BE
           CAUTIOUS IN WITHHOLDING THEIR CONSENT, I NEVERTHELESS HAVE

           OPPOSED NOMINEES WHERE THEIR POLICY POSITIONS, STATEMENTS, OR
           ACTIONS MADE ME QUESTION WHETHER THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO
           ADMINISTER THE AGENCY THAT THEY HAD BEEN NOMINATED TO LEAD IN A
           CREDIBLE AND APPROPRIATE MANNER. REGRETFULLY, I CONCLUDE THAT
           SUCH A DETERMINATION IS AGAIN WARRANTED ON THIS CRITICALLY
           IMPORTANT NOMINATION BECAUSE OF THE RECORD OF THE NOMINEE AND
           BECAUSE OF THE POSITION FOR WHICH HE HAS BEEN NOMINATED. THE
           JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OCCUPIES A UNIQUE ROLE IN THE STRUCTURE OF

           OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AS ITS MISSION STATEMENT DECLARES, THE
           JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EXISTS "TO ENSURE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL
           ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FOR ALL AMERICANS." NO OTHER AGENCY
           EVERY DAY AND EVERY HOUR MAKES DECISIONS ABOUT HOW AND TO BRING
           TO BEAR THE FORCE OF THE LAW, CRIMINAL AND CIVIL, MAKING
           COUNTLESS DECISIONS NOT ONLY ON WHOM TO PROSECUTE OR SUE BUT
           ALSO ON HOW HARSH A SENTENCE TO SEEK, AND EVEN ON WHO IN THE

           NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD FACE DEATH AS A
           PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR ACTIONS. NO OTHER AGENCY HAS SUCH BROAD
           AND SWEEPING AUTHORITY TO TAKE AWAY OUR CITIZENS' LIFE,
           LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY. AN AUTHORITY WE AS AMERICANS ACCEPT
           BECAUSE NO OTHER AGENCY HAS MORE CONSISTENTLY SOUGHT TO
           EXEMPLIFY THE RULE OF LAW AND THE ABIDING AMERICAN ASPIRATION
           FOR EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL. NO OTHER OFFICIAL OF THE UNITED
           STATES GOVERNMENT BEARS AS GREATER A RESPONSIBILITY AS DOES THE

           ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR PROTECTING AND ENFORCING THE RIGHTS OF THE
           VULNERABLE AND THE DISENFRANCHISED IN OUR SOCIETY. IF WE ARE TO
           SUSTAIN POPULAR TRUST IN THE LAW WHICH IS SO IMPORTANT, SO
           FUNDAMENTAL TO WHAT OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS CALLED DOMESTIC
           TRANQUILITY, IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT THE DEPARTMENT
           WHICH IS CHARGED WITH ENFORCING THE LAW NOT ONLY BE
           ADMINISTERED ACCORDING TO THE LAW BUT ALSO THAT THE GREAT
           MAJORITY OF AMERICANS HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE FAIRNESS OF ITS

           LEADERSHIP. UNFORTUNATELY, SENATOR ASHCROFT'S PAST STATEMENTS
           AND ACTION HAVE GIVEN UNDERSTANDABLE SUSPICIONS TO MANY
           CITIZENS, PARTICULARLY SOME OF THOSE WHOSE RIGHTS HISTORICALLY
           HAVE BEEN MOST AT RISK, THAT HE WILL NOT LEAD THE DEPARTMENT IN
           A MANNER THAT WILL PROTECT THEM. OTHERS HAVE DETAILED HIS
           RECORD SO EXTENSIVELY HERE ON THE FLOOR THAT I NEED NOT DO SO
           AGAIN. SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT ON ISSUES RANGING FROM CIVIL

           RIGHTS TO PRIVACY RIGHTS, SENATOR ASHCROFT HAS REPEATEDLY TAKEN
           POSITIONS CONSIDERABLY OUTSIDE OF THE MAIN STEAM OF AMERICAN
           THINKING THINKING. WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER LAWS
           AS MISSOURI'S GOVERNOR AND ENFORCE THEM AS MISSOURI'S ATTORNEY
           GENERAL, HE TOOK ACTIONS THAT TODAY RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS
           AMONG MANY IN THIS COUNTRY ABOUT HIS COMMITMENT TO THE BEDROCK
           AMERICAN VALUES AND CONCEPTS OF EQUAL JUSTICE AND QUAM
           OPPORTUNITY -- AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. AND SPEECHES AND

           ARTICLES, HE HAS SPOKEN IN WRITTEN WORDS THAT HAVE PARTICULARLY
           LED MANY IN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY TO QUESTION HIS
           SENSITIVITY TO THEIR RIGHTS AND THEIR CONCERNS. AND WHEN ACTING
           ON NOMINEES IN THE SENATE, PARTICULARLY JUDGE RONNIE WHITE AND
           AMBASSADOR JAMES HORMEL, HE HAS MADE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE
           RAISED SINCERE QUESTIONS IN THE MINDS OF MANY ABOUT WHETHER HE
           WILL MAKE FAIR AND APPROPRIATE DECISIONS REGARDING GROUPS OF
           AMERICANS THAT HAVE FREQUENTLY BEEN VICTIMIZED BY

           DISCRIMINATION. MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT I
           MIGHT HAVE UP TO FIVE MORE MINUTES TO COMPLETE MY REMARKS.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
           WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE GENTLEMAN FROM -- THE SENATOR FROM
           CONNECTICUT IS ALLOTTED FIVE MORE MINUTES.
{END: 2001/02/01 TIME: 10-45 , Thu.  107TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}