Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on pending committee business, off of the floor, after the first vote of the Senate.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. That is agreeable. It is my understanding we have 4 hours equally divided. Mr. President, how much time have I used?

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. I, for one, am grateful because they are good people. I missed what the Senator said. He wants to have a vote?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Vermont that the Solicitor General must be a person of the highest integrity. This is very important if the Solicitor General is to represent the interests of all Americans and to be a valuable assistant to the Supreme Court. Mr. Olson himself acknowledged this high standard in his testimony to the committee. I believe that Mr. Olson has exemplified this high level of candor and integrity in all of his dealings with the committee. Some of my colleagues have alleged that Mr. Olson misdirected the committee in his answers. But this is simply untrue. Mr. Olson told us what he did with the American Spectator and the Arkansas Project. He wrote several articles for that magazine--copies of these articles were all provided to the committee with Mr. Olson's questionnaire. Mr. Olson also told us that he was on the board of the magazine and became aware of the Arkansas Project in 1997. He has not attempted to hide any of these activities from the committee. Rather he has cooperated fully, submitting numerous responses to questions from members of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Olson enjoys the support of many prominent liberal scholars and lawyers, as I have detailed already. Many of his colleagues at the Office of Legal Counsel have attested to his fairness and his consummate ability to serve as a government lawyer in a nonpartisan manner. Indeed, many of the allegations against Mr. Olson have arisen from reports in The Washington Post. But the Post has advocated the confirmation of Mr. Olson. Mr. Olson is one of the most qualified nominees ever for the position of Solicitor General. I hope that this body will confirm him today so that he can begin his important work litigating on behalf of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following letters we have received in support of Mr. Olson. These include letters from Robert Bennett, Larry Simms, Michael Horowitz, James Ring Adams, Terry Eastland, Floyd Abrams, Laurence Tribe, William Webster, R. Emmett Tyrell, Wladyslaw Pleszczynski, Douglas Cox, David Henderson, and Stephen Boynton. These letters demonstrate the depth and breadth of the support for Mr. Olson's nomination.

Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays on those votes. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to ask for the yeas and nays on the other two votes.

Mr. HATCH. For the information of all Senators, under this agreement, there will be three consecutive rollcall votes on these nominations. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Olson nomination.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on the motion and the motion be agreed to. I further ask consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the nomination and that the vote occur on the confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate. I also ask unanimous consent that following the vote on the confirmation of the Olson nomination, the Senate then proceed to two additional votes, the first vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 83, Viet Dinh, to be followed by a vote on the confirmation of Calendar No. 84, Michael Chertoff. Finally, I ask consent that following those votes, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as you know, we have been trying to make sure that the Justice Department has its full complement of leaders because if there is a more important Department in this Government, I don't know which one it is. There may be some that would rate equally but that Department does more to help the people of this country than any other Department. One of the most important jobs in that Department is the Solicitor General's job. The Solicitor General is the attorney for the people. He is the attorney for the President. He is the attorney for the Department. He is the attorney who is to argue the constitutional issues. He is the attorney who really makes a difference in this country and who makes the primary arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. In addition, he has a huge office with a lot of people working to make sure this country legally is on its toes. In the case of Ted Olson, I am very pleased that we are able to have this motion up at this time. I am pleased that we have colleagues with good faith on the other side who are willing to see that this is brought to a vote today because we should not hold up the nomination for the Solicitor General of the United States of America. We have had all kinds of Solicitors General. We have had some who have been very partisan but have been great Solicitors General, and we have had some who have hardly been partisan at all and have been weak Solicitors General. We have had some not very partisan at all who have been great Solicitors General. You would have to make an analysis yourself to determine how your own personal philosophy fits. But in terms of some great ones, there was Archibald Cox, who was never known for conservative politics. He was not very partisan by most Republicans' standards, but he turned out to be an excellent Solicitor General of the United States. We could go on and on. But let me just say this, that it is interesting to me that Ted Olson has the support of some of the leading attorneys and law professors in this country who have the reputation of being active Democrats. Let me just mention a few. And I really respect these gentlemen for being willing to come to bat for Ted Olson. Laurence Tribe, the attorney for former Vice President Gore, in Bush v. Gore, on March 5, 2001, said: It surely cannot be that anyone who took that prevailing view-- He is referring to Bush v. Gore-- and fought for it must on that account be opposed for the position of Solicitor General. Because Ted Olson briefed and argued his side of the case with intelligence, with insight, and with integrity, his advocacy on the occasion of the Florida election litigation, as profoundly as I disagree with him on the merits, counts for me as a plus in this context, not as a minus. If we set Bush v. Gore aside, what remains in Ted's case is an undeniably distinguished career as an obviously exceptional lawyer with an enormous breadth of directly relevant experience. I have known Laurence Tribe for a long time. I have a great deal of respect for him. I do not always agree with him, but one time he asked me to review one of his books. Looking back on that review, I was a little tough on Larry Tribe to a degree. But I spent time reading his latest hornbook just this last week, read it through from beginning to end--I think it was something like 1,200 pages--it was very difficult reading, and I have to say I came away after reading that hornbook with a tremendous respect for the legal genius of Larry Tribe. Although I disagree with a number of his interpretations of constitutional law, there is no doubt about the genius and effectiveness of this man, and I think it is a tribute to him that he was willing to stand up for Ted Olson and write it in a letter. Walter Dellinger is the former Clinton Solicitor General. He is one of the great lawyers of this country. He is a liberal and some thought he was extremely partisan, although I questioned that personally, just like I question those who say Ted Olson is partisan. No question that Walter Dellinger is a very strong and positive Democrat, a very aggressive Democrat. But he also is a man of great intelligence and integrity. On February 5, 2001, Mr. Dellinger said that when Olson served in the Justice Department as the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, he ``was viewed as someone who brought considerable integrity to the decisionmaking.'' Virtually everybody who worked with Ted Olson at the Office of Legal Counsel--in fact, all that I know of--said he was a man of integrity who called them the way he saw them, who abided by the law and did not allow partisan politics to enter into any thinking. There are two offices where partisan politics could work to the detriment of our country. One is the Office of Legal Counsel, which he handled with distinction, with ability, with fairness, in a nonpartisan way. The other is the Office of the Solicitor General, which I assert to this body he will handle in the same nonpartisan way. He will certainly try to do what is constitutionally sound and right. And he will represent the Congress of the United States in these battles. He may not always agree with the Congress of the United States when we are wrong, but you can at least count on him doing what is right and trying to make the best analysis and do what he should. Now, Beth Nolan is a former Clinton White House counsel and Reagan Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel attorney. Beth is a considerable Democrat, and she is someone I respect. We have had our differences, but I have to say that she deserves respect. In a September 25, 1987, letter signed by other Department of Justice lawyers she had this to say: We all hold Mr. Olson in a very high professional and personal regard because we believe he made his decisions with integrity after long and hard reflection. We cannot recall a single instance in which Mr. Olson compromised his integrity to serve the expedience of the Reagan administration. That is high praise coming from Beth Nolan, a strong Democrat who has served both in the White House Counsel's office and at Justice in the office of Legal Counsel. One of the most esteemed first amendment lawyers in the country, a strong Democrat, one of the men I most respect with regard to first amendment interpretations and first amendment constitutional challenges, is Floyd Abrams--again, I submit, a liberal Democrat. On March 4, 2001, he had this to say about Ted Olson: I have known Ted since we worked together on a Supreme Court case, Metro Media v. San Diego, 20 years ago. I have always been impressed with his talent, his personal decency, and his honor. He would serve with distinction as a Solicitor General. This is one of the greatest lawyers in the country, a man of distinction himself who has great judgment, who is a leading trial lawyer in this country. And that is what Floyd Abrams had to say about Ted Olson. These are all Democrats. How about Harold Koh, former Clinton administration Assistant Secretary of State. On February 28, 2001, he had this to say: Ted Olson is a lawyer of extremely high professional integrity. In all of my dealings with him I have seen him display high moral character and a very deep commitment to unholding the rule of law. That is high praise from a former Clinton administration high-level employee. All of these are Democrats, leading Democrats, some partisan Democrats, but who have found Ted Olson to be a man of honor and integrity. One of the greatest lawyers in the country is Robert Bennett, attorney for former President Clinton. Robert Bennett is known by virtually everybody in this body for having been an independent counsel himself, and having done his jobs with distinction. Nobody doubts he is one of the greatest lawyers in this country. Nobody doubts that the two Bennett brothers are personalities about as compelling as you can find. Well, Robert Bennett happens to be a Democrat, and a leading Democrat, one of the great attorneys in this country. And here is what the attorney for former President Clinton had to say on May 15, 2001: While I do not have any personal knowledge as to what role if any Mr. Olson played in the Arkansas Project or the full extent of his relationship with the American Spectator, what I do know is that Ted Olson is a truth teller and you can rely on his representations regarding these matters. He is a man of great personal integrity and credibility and should be confirmed. I am submitting to this body that people of good will, that people who want good government, people who want the best of the best in these positions at the Justice Department, ought to vote for Ted Olson regardless of their political affiliation, regardless of the fact that Ted Olson handled Bush v. Gore and won both cases before the Supreme Court--something that some of my colleagues bitterly resent. They should vote for him regardless of the fact that, yes, he has been a strong Republican--some think too partisan of a Republican. But he has a reputation of being a person who calls them as he sees them, an honest man of integrity. This is backed up by these wonderful Democratic leaders at the legal bar, Laurence Tribe, Walter Dellinger, Beth Nolan, Floyd Abrams, Harold Koh, Robert Bennett, just to mention six terrifically strong Democrats. If anybody wants to know, they ought to listen to people in the other party who have every reason to be partisan on nominations in some ways, but who are not allowing partisanship to enter into hurting the career or hurting the opportunity of Ted Olson to serve as Solicitor General. I personally know Ted Olson. I have known him for many years. I have seen him courageously take on client after client across the ideological spectrum and do a great job in each case for his clients. This is an exceptional lawyer. He is one of the exceptional people in our country. He has the capacity and the ability to be a great, and I repeat great, Solicitor General of the United States. He is respected by the Supreme Court before whom he has appeared at least 15 times. And for those who might not remember, he was the attorney for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, and made two arguments before the Supreme Court, both of which he handled with dexterity, with skill, with decency, and with intelligence. I have to say he deserves this job, he deserves not having people play politics with this position. In my opinion, he will make a great Solicitor General of the United States. Let me just dispel some of the allegations surrounding this nomination and explain why I believe further delay is unwarranted. First, there have been allegations that Mr. Olson has misled the committee concerning his involvement in something called the Arkansas Project and his representation of David Hale. Let me say that I listened to my colleagues on the committee when the Washington Post article first appeared, and delayed a vote, against my better judgment actually, until we weighed the allegations because it was fair to do so. My colleagues wanted that, they deserved that, and we delayed it so we could weigh those allegations. Then I took several days and extensively reviewed the testimony during the hearings, his answers to written questions, and his subsequent letter. I am convinced that those responses showed no inconsistencies or evidence that Mr. Olson misled or was less than truthful to the committee anyway. Rather, they show him to be forthright and honorable. Although I have not seen any discrepancies or inconsistencies in Mr. Olson's testimony and answers, I have tried to respect the concerns of other members of this committee and joined the distinguished ranking Democratic member in looking further into this matter and asking further clarifying questions from the Office of the Independent Counsel. We look into some insinuations against Mr. Olson concerning his involvement with the Arkansas Project and his legal representation of David Hale. In order to verify Mr. Olson's statements, the committee has had access to a great volume of materials, including all relevant portions of the Shaheen Report that could be provided by law, letters from key individuals involved with the Arkansas Project, and just yesterday, at Senator Leahy's request, a copy of David Hale's testimony at another trial, and more information from the Office of Independent Counsel. These together simply confirm Mr. Olson's statements and show that there is no need for additional investigations. Now, I would like to relate some of my findings in investigating the record and alleged inconsistencies. With regard to the Arkansas Project, Mr. Olson repeatedly stated that he learned about the project while he was a member of the board of directors and that he did not know about it prior to his service on that board. He also consistently stated that he learned of the project in 1997. In an early response he stated that he became aware of it in ``1998, I believe.'' He later clarified that it was in 1997 and has consistently maintained that he learned of the project in 1997. Each of the quotations used by Senator Leahy in his so-called ``summary of discrepancies'' confirms this fact and does not provide, despite the title of the document, any real discrepancies in Mr. Olson's testimony. Key individuals intimately involved with the Arkansas Project have written letters to the committee confirming Mr. Olson's account of events. These individuals include James Ring Adams, Steven Boynton, Douglas Cox, Terry Eastland, David Henderson, Michael Horowitz, Wladyslaw Pleszczynski, and R. Emmett Tyrell. From their different positions, each person corroborates the fact that Mr. Olson was not involved with the origination or management of the Arkansas Project. R. Emmett Tyrell, the editor-in-chief of the magazine, stated unequivocally that Mr. Olson's statements with regard to his involvement with the project are ``accurate and thus truthful.'' Terry Eastland, former publisher of the American Spectator, conducted a review of the project and stated he ``found no evidence that Mr. Olson was involved in the project's creation or its conduct.'' Other letters make similar statements about Mr. Olson's lack of involvement before 1997. All of them are consistent with his testimony, and they are not rebutted by any other credible evidence. Mr. President, let me summarize for my colleagues. We have Mr. Olson's sworn testimony along with the statements of key players in the project and numerous letters by Democrats and Republicans who praise Mr. Olson's integrity and honesty, against the luke-warm allegations of one former staffer who has recently backed away from his remarks. Even if Mr. Brock's factual allegations were true, they do not contradict Mr. Olson's testimony. Now the second possible allegation against Mr. Olson is that, contrary to his testimony, he might have received payment for his representation of David Hale. Mr. Olson has repeatedly answered questions about this representation. He testified that he received no money for this representation, although he had expected to be paid. Then in a letter of May 9, 2001, in response to further questions, he again stated that he received no payments for his representation of David Hale. He wrote, ``Neither I nor my firm has been compensated by any other person or entity for those services--although I am not aware of any legal prohibition against another person or entity making such a payment.'' He have this report and I urge my colleagues to read it. I have extra copies of this and other recent material with me, if any colleague cares to further review it. Now, I have seen no, let me repeat, no evidence suggesting this testimony is not accurate. Mr. Olson responded to questions about these issues at his hearing and in three sets of written questions--each time his answers have been clear and consistent. But you don't just have to take Mr. Olson's word for it. His answers are clearly supported by the conclusions reached by Mr. Shaheen and reviewed independently by two respected retired federal judges. Under a process jointly approved by the Independent Counsel and Attorney General Janet Reno, Mr. Shaheen was appointed to review the allegations concerning alleged payments to David Hale. In order to get all the facts, Mr. Shaheen was given authority to utilize a grand jury to compel production of evidence and testimony. In addition, another important element of this independent review process was that the results of the investigation were to receive a final review--not by the Independent Counsel or Attorney General Reno--but by two former federal judges Arlin Adams and Charles Renfrew. At the conclusion of their review, they issued a statement on July 27, 1999, in which they concurred with the conclusions of the Shaheen Report that ``many of the allegations, suggestions and insinuations regarding the tendering and receipt of things of value were shown to be unsubstantiated or, in some cases, untrue.'' And if the Shaheen Report was not sufficient, Senator Leahy requested a transcript of David Hale's testimony at the trial of Jim Guy Tucker and Jim and Susan McDougal, apparently because of accounts of that testimony in Joe Conason and Gene Lyons' book, ``The Hunting of the President.'' The Office of the Independent Counsel has graciously made David Hale's trial transcript available to the committee in response to Senator Leahy's May 14, 2001 letter. A review of the transcript clearly shows further that Mr. Olson's testimony was accurate. In the transcript, David Hale testified that Ted Olson was retained to represent him before a congressional committee. When asked, ``Who pays Mr. Olson to represent you?'' Mr. Hale replied, ``I do.'' Mr. Hale did not say that he or anyone on his behalf actually paid Mr. Olson. The transcript of the trial is fully consistent with Mr. Olson's testimony regarding the Hale representation--namely that he never received payment for the representation, that Mr. Hale intended to pay for these services, and that no one else was responsible for the payments. Mr. Hale also testified that he first contacted Mr. Olson in 1993 in connection with a possible congressional subpoena, and that Olson did represent him in 1995-1996. Mr. Olson wrote in his letter (May 9, 2001) that he was ``ultimately engaged by Mr. Hale and undertook that representation sometime in late 1995 or early 1996.'' Thus, with regard to David Hale, there is no evidence from any source that Mr. Olson received payment for this representation. Mr. Olson's testimony, David Hale's testimony, the Independent Counsel report, and review of the matter by two former federal judges all confirm that Mr. Olson received no payment for his brief representation of David Hale. I should also note that we send further questions on this matter to the Office of the Independent Counsel, whose responses have been completely consistent with Mr. Olson's testimony. Again, let me say that I appreciated and respected the need for members of this committee to satisfy themselves about the integrity of executive branch nominees. That is why I had delayed an initial committee vote. The committee had ample opportunity to verify the statements of Mr. Olson--no discrepancies have appeared, nor is there any credible evidence to refute any part of his testimony. We have the statements of individuals involved with the Arkansas project. Staff members of the committee have been able to view the Shaheen report and the trial testimony of David Hale. I know that internal information has been requested from the American Spectator magazine, but I am concerned that such demands may tread on precious first amendment prerogatives of the press that we should all be careful to protect, even though it frustrates all of us from time to time. And I know that Democratic staff have interviewed Mr. Brock. I believe that the extensive and decisive record before us shows that Mr. Olson has been truthful and forthright on all counts. The facts and conclusions I have just discussed--that there are no discrepancies between Ted Olson's statements and Senator Leahy's allegations--beg the question: What is all this fuss really about? Perhaps it is because some may believe that Mr. Olson is too partisan to serve as the Solicitor General. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ted Olson's career has been as broad as it has been deep. Mr. Olson has advocated for a wide variety of organizations and has associated with people of many different political ideologies. While it is true that Mr. Olson has performed legal work for the conservative American Spectator, to focus myopically on that is to ignore Mr. Olson's distinguished work for many other media organizations including the New York Times, the Washington Post, Times- Mirror, the Los Angeles Times, Dow Jones, LA magazine, NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, Time-Warner, Newsday, Metromedia, the Wall Street Journal, and Newsweek. What does this list show about Ted Olson? Is this the kind of clientele that would seek after a single-issue zealot? No way. This list demonstrates clearly that smart people with a variety of views on public matters turn to--and trust--Ted Olson. Similarly, it is possible to pay too much attention to one person's apparent dissonant opinion when there is a chorus of other harmonized voices. Now, I have to concede that Ted Olson's supporters include a lot of well-known partisans. For example, President Clinton's lawyer, Bob Bennett, said that ``Ted Olson is a truth-teller'' and he is ``confident that [Ted Olson] will obey and enforce the law with skill, integrity and impartiality.'' A similar sentiment was expressed by President Clinton's White House Counsel, Beth Nolan. And Vice President Al Gore's lawyer, Laurence Tribe, has publically announced his support for Ted Olson's confirmation as Solicitor General. Floyd Abrams, who has known Ted Olson for 20 years, and who is no right-wing conspirator, said he has ``always been impressed with [Ted Olson's] talent, his personal decency and his honor.'' President Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Harold Koh, called Ted Olson ``a lawyer of extremely high professional integrity.'' And William Webster said Ted Olson is ``honest and trustworthy and he has my full trust.'' These names demonstrate that Ted Olson's experience, character and associations have a tremendous breadth and depth. It is time for this body to do the right thing and favorably vote to confirm Mr. Olson as the Solicitor General. Mr. President, I would also like to make a few more brief comments on Mr. Olson's nomination to set the record straight. First, there has been repeated insinuation and accusation that Mr. Olson has misled the committee concerning his involvement with the so- called Arkansas Project and his representation of David Hale. I, responding to concerns by some Democrats, listened and delayed the vote May 10 until the committee reviewed the record and weighted the allegations. Since the Washington Post story broke, I and my staff have extensively reviewed Mr. Olson's testimony during his hearing, his answers to writen questions, and his subsequent letters. I am convinced that these responses show no inconsistencies or evidence that Mr. Olson misled or was less than truthful to the committee in any way. Rather they show him to be forthright and honest. In order to verify Mr. Olson's statements, the committee has had access to a great volume of materials, including all relevant portions of the Shaheen Report that could be provided by law, letters from key individuals involved with the Arkansas Project, and at Senator Leahy's request, a copy of David Hale's testimony at another trial. We have had access to more material from the Office of the Independent Counsel, a number of questions that Senator Leahy and I jointly asked that office and have received the responses. All of these material, and the overwhelming evidence already on the record, continue to support Mr. Olson's veracity and complete candor before the committee. There are none, nor has there been, any specific evidence supporting allegations against Mr. Olson. Key individuals intimately involved with the Arkansas Project have written letters to the committee confirming Mr. Olson's account of events. A host of respected and distinguished lawyers, judges, private and public figures who have worked with Ted Olson have written in and/ or called the committee with their support for Mr. Olson's nomination and have vouched for his integrity and candor. These include the two respected attorney's who argued against Mr. Olson in each of the two Supreme Court arguments in Bush v. Gore. From their different positions, each person corroborates the fact that Mr. Olson as not involved with the origination or management of the Arkansas Project. R. Emmett Tyrell, the editor-in-chief of the magazine, stated unequivocally that Mr. Olson's statements with regard to his involvement with the project are ``accurate and thus truthful.'' Terry Eastland, former publisher of the American Spectator, conducted a review of the project and stated he ``found no evidence that Mr. Olson was involved in the project's creation or its conduct.'' The only evidence that appears to have any possible conflict with Mr. Olson's sworn testimony and the written communications of the key players in the Arkansas Project comes from David Brock, a former writer for the American Spectator, who in last Wednesday's New York Times, appeared to tone down his original account, saying, ``It was my understanding that all of the pieces dating back to 1994 that dealt with investigating scandals pertaining to the Clintons, particularly those that related to his time in Arkansas, were all under the Arkansas Project.'' He did not say that he was sure, or that Mr. Olson knew about the project. Indeed, on a television program last Thursday evening, Mr. Brock said he had no specific recollection about speaking specifically about the Arkansas Project in the presence of Mr. Olson. Moreover, Mr. Brock apparently suggested to one paper that James Ring Adams would have a similar view, But Mr. Adams, one of the lead writers for the project, wrote the committee that ``Mr. Olson had absolutely no role in guiding my development of stories for the magazine or in managing my work.'' So, we have Mr. Olson's sworn testimony along with the statements of key players in the project and numerous letters by Democrats and Republicans who praise Mr. Olson's integrity and honesty, against the luke-warm allegations of one former staffer who has recently backed away from his remarks. Even if Mr. Brock's factual allegations were true, they do not contradict Mr. Olson's testimony. The other allegation against Mr. Olson is that, contrary to his testimony, he might have received payment for his representation of David Hale. He testified that he received no money for this representation, although he had expected to be paid. There is no evidence suggesting this testimony is not accurate. Mr. Olson responded to questions about these issues at his hearing and in three sets of written questions--each time his answers have been clear and consistent. His answers are clearly supported by the conclusions reached by Mr. Shaheen and reviewed independently by two respected retired federal judges. Under a process jointly approved by the Independent Counsel and Attorney General Janet Reno, Mr. Shaheen was appointed to review the allegations concerning alleged payments to David Hale. At the conclusion of their review, they issued a statement noting ``many of the allegations, suggestions and insinuations regarding the tendering and receipt of things of value were shown to be unsubstantiated or, in some cases, untrue.'' I released the redacted portion of this Shaheen report which relates to Mr. Olson to the public. Read the report and its conclusions--and the Independent Counsel's responses to the numerous questions we have sent him regarding the report--it speaks for itself. This is not even a case revolving on the definition of what ``is'' is. There simply is no ``there'' there. As I have noted before, we are at a period where we need to rebut the public's beliefs that we only engage in politics and don't care about the merits of nominee qualifications. We need to gain the public's trust in our government back. I am deeply concerned that what has been happening here might appear to be an effort to paint Mr. Olson's occasional political involvement as the entirety of his career and character, and as reported in the press, possibly as retribution for the man who argued and won the Supreme Court case in Bush v. Gore. Now, I don't think that that is true. I know my colleagues and respect their views. But, I hope that we can begin debating the merits of this nomination and take all of the support and testimony on this man's obvious and overwhelming qualifications and his high integrity into account as we determine our votes for his confirmation. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to judge the record. Judge the man for his qualifications and integrity. And I urge my colleagues to listen to Lawrence Tribe, to David Boies, to read the Shaheen report and responses from the Office of the Independent Counsel, to listen to Robert Bennett--President Clinton's lawyer, to everyone who has worked with and known Ted Olson. I urge you to vote to confirm our next Solicitor General. Mr. President, let me say a few words about Mr. Olson's qualifications. Ted Olson is one of the most qualified people ever nominated to be Solicitor General. He has had an impressive 35-year career as a lawyer--including four years as the Assistant Attorney general in charge of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy under Ronald Reagan. The job of the Solicitor General is to make litigation policy decisions. The Solicitor General represents the United States in all cases before the United States Supreme Court, and it is up to the Solicitor General to approve all appeals taken by the United States from adverse decisions in the lower federal courts. It is important to have a skillful and competent advocate in that position. Ted Olson has argued 15 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. For most lawyers, a single Supreme Court argument would be considered the zenith of their career. Ted Olson has a reputation for considering all viewpoints before making decisions. Walter Dellinger, who served as acting Solicitor General under President Clinton, told the Washington Post that, ``If Ted runs the SG's office the way he ran OLC, he will give deference to views other than his own in making his final decision.'' Ted Olson's Supreme Court arguments concerned issues of great importance to our country, including limits on excessive jury verdicts, the effect of statutes of limitations, caps on punitive damages, the meaning of the Federal False Claims Act, racial and gender classifications, and whether telecommunications companies must provide surveillance capabilities to law enforcement agencies. In addition to his role representing clients, Ted Olson has also worked to reform our civil justice system by writing and speaking on various topics, and he helped advise the government of Ukraine on drafting a new Constitution in the mid-1990's. Ted Olson also has superb academic qualifications. He graduated from the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, where he earned a spot in the prestigious Order of the Coif and was a member of the law review. I have no doubt that Ted Olson will prove to be one of the best Solicitor Generals our country has ever had. Given the extraordinary quality of the people who have held that post, this is no small compliment. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I strongly support the nominations of Michael Chertoff to be Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division and Viet Dinh to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Policy Development. Both nominees have outstanding qualifications. Mr. Chertoff graduated with honors from both Harvard College and Harvard Law School, then served as a law clerk for Justice Brennan of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. In 1994, Mr. Chertoff served as Special Counsel for the U.S. Senate Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater and Related Matters. Most recently he has worked as a partner at the prestigious law firm of Latham & Watkins, where he is national chair of the firm's white collar criminal practice. He was also appointed Special Counsel by the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee in its inquiry into racial profiling by state police. As his distinguished career illustrates, Mr. Chertoff is well suited to lead the Department of Justice Criminal Division-- which explains why his nomination has received significant bipartisan support. Viet Dinh is likewise eminently qualified for the position of Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Policy Development. As Mr. Dinh told us during his confirmation hearing, he came to this country from Vietnam when he was ten years old under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. He went on to graduate from Harvard College and then Harvard Law School with honors. Mr. Dinh completed two federal clerkships, one for Judge Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and the other for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He then served as Associate Special Counsel to the Senate Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater. In 1996, he became a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, where he received tenure last year. His academic writings evince a sharp legal mind and keen judgment--attributes that are essential to lead the Office of Policy Development. Both Mr. Dinh and Mr. Chertoff have distinguished themselves with hard work and great intellect. I am confident that they will do great service to the Department of Justice and the citizens of this country, and I support their nominations wholeheartedly.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Presidents of this country long ago established a tradition of nominating the most eminent of our political leaders to be ambassadors to Japan. Former Senators Mansfield and Mondale, and most recently, Speaker Tom Foley have maintained that tradition of diplomatic excellence and service to our country up until this day. When President Bush nominated my old friend, Howard Baker, to be our next ambassador to our most important Asian ally, he kept the highest standards of this important tradition. That is why I fully expect my colleagues today will concur in supporting this nomination. And while we will all miss the presence in Washington of our dear friend and his wife, another esteemed former colleague, Nancy Kassebaum Baker--who herself established a well-deserved reputation in this Senate as one of our most thoughtful leaders on foreign policy--what we will lose will be more than offset, once again, by the contribution that they will make for our country. Howard Baker has been a public servant all of his life. It is an honor to serve in the Senate, not least because one serves with such distinguished and admirable colleagues, but I must say I have always considered myself particularly fortunate that my career overlapped in part with the three terms the distinguished Senator from Tennessee served here. I was particularly honored to have worked with him during the time he served as our party's majority leader. And as my colleagues well know, Senator Baker never really retired. He left the Senate and became the chief of staff to former President Reagan, serving that great President in an outstanding manner. While it would take too long to enumerate all of the contributions rendered since then by this exceptional public servant, it serves to note that he most recently was a leader of an important commission that conducted an essential review of our nuclear cooperation programs with Russia. The recommendations of that bipartisan commission were key in the new administration's policy review of this very important component of this important bilateral relationship. Now Howard Baker will go to serve another of America's important bilateral relations, as our Ambassador to Tokyo. I have been saying for years that the strategic partnership American must nurture in Asia is not with China, but with Japan. President bush clearly recognizes this reality, and he has demonstrated this with his appointments of Japan experts at the State Department, Pentagon and the National Security Council. The President has capped these selections by choosing Howard Baker as our Ambassador. I commend the President on his strategic thinking, and I think the President could not have made a better selection in filling this post. Howard Baker brings to this position his long experience in the Senate, in the White House and in the corporate sector. All aspects of this experience will be beneficial to his efforts to represent the United States to our Japanese ally. For the Japanese leadership, which has warmly welcomed this nomination, former Senator Baker will bring an appreciation of all of aspects of American society, and a deep respect for Japanese society and culture. The new Japanese leadership of Junichiro Koizumi could not begin its relationship with Washington on a more auspicious note. I have personally known Howard Baker for nearly a quarter of a century. I know him for his steady, calm presence and for his wise counsel. I know him for his love of country, and for his deep understanding of how the world beyond our borders works. He and his dear wife, former Senator Nancy Kassebaum, will be missed in Washington. But we can rest assured that our country's interests in Japan are superbly represented by this exceptionally dedicated and talented couple. I know that my colleagues concur and join me in wishing Howard Baker Godspeed.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in accordance with the provisions of Senate Resolution 8, I would announce to the Senate that the Committee on the Judiciary failed to report the nomination of Ted Olson to be Solicitor General of the United States by a tie vote of 9-9.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, the next amendment is Mr. Conrad's, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have had 8 years where we haven't had any strengthening of Social Security, while there was a Democrat President. There is no question we need to do that, but there is also no question that this is a tax bill and we are trying to reduce taxes so we can stimulate the economy and keep our economy going. When I got here this year, I thought we were surely going to have more bipartisanship, but here we go again. This is another in a long list of amendments meant to slow down and stop this bill. When is this partisanship going to end? I urge the defeat of this amendment. The pending amendment is not germane under the provisions of the reconciliation measure. I therefore raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maryland be given 1 minute, and that we have 1 minute.

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 765

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we oppose this amendment. I yield to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will use 1 minute out of leader time. We just lived through 8 years of a Democratic President, and no one effort was successful--or even tried, as far as I can recall--to help the notch babies. I have always voted in favor of helping the notch people, but the pending amendment is not germane and those on the other side know it. They are getting a great kick out of bringing this up. It is not germane. I raise a point of order against the amendment under 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. HATCH. The Levin amendment is not germane to the provisions of the reconciliation measure. I, therefore, raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.

Mr. HATCH. I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will use 1 more minute. Well, it seems a little odd to me that after all these years, all of a sudden on a tax cut bill where we are trying to stimulate the economy, we get this issue. It is time to vote to reduce taxes. It is time to reduce the games. It is time to quit the partisanship. It is time to end this bill and get a vote up or down. If you can win, you win. If you can't win, you don't win. Let's vote on this bill and quit playing partisan politics.