Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 12, S. Con. Res. 6.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Byrd and Senator Harkin.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Senator.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 10, S. Res. 17.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 11, S. Res. 18.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, today the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 248, the United Nations debt reduction legislation. Senators should be prepared to vote on the legislation at approximately 2 p.m. today. Therefore, those Senators who intend to debate the bill should work with the bill managers to schedule floor time as soon as possible. Senators will be notified as soon as the vote time has been locked in. I wish to thank my colleagues for their cooperation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 12:30 p.m., with Senators Durbin, Daschle, and Hutchison in control of the time. By previous consent, at 12:30 p.m. the Senate will recess for the weekly party conference meetings. Upon reconvening at 2:15 p.m., the Senate will begin consideration of the nomination of Robert Zoellick to be U.S. Trade Representative. There will be up to 2 hours debate on the nomination, with a vote scheduled to occur at 4:15 p.m. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Just for a point of clarification, is the Senator referring to the Fraternal Order of Police sending a letter in support of Judge White?

Mr. NICKLES. Wasn't that letter sent after Judge White was defeated?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, just to give a little different flavor, I don't like the word ``ambush'' applied to Judge White. To clarify again a couple of things that happened, the reason why this Senator voted against him--and I would guess the reason why the majority of Republicans voted against him--was because we received a letter from the National Sheriffs' Association that said: Vote against Judge White. They had good reasons expressed in that letter. In this principal case that we are talking about, three deputy sheriffs were murdered, and the wife of a sheriff was murdered, and Judge White was the sole judge saying: Let's retry it; let's have a new hearing. The Missouri law enforcement community was very opposed to that. In addition to that, several Chiefs of Police contacted us and suggested we vote no, and to review this dissent. We also heard from prosecutors about this case and other cases who said vote no on Judge White. The Missouri Fraternal Order of Police sent us a letter in support of Judge White, but they sent that letter after the vote. Why did we have the vote at that time? Our colleagues 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 letters of law enforcement did not come up until after he was approved by the Judiciary Committee. I will grant my colleague from Vermont that later there were other letters from law enforcement. The letter from the National Sheriffs' Association was not before the Judiciary Committee. I wish they would have written it before the Judiciary Committee had voted, but they did it afterwards when it was the pending nomination before the floor of the Senate. One other clarification I wish to repeat is that I am just very troubled by the allegation that he was opposed because of his race because most people did not know what his race was. I sat through a meeting where these letters by law enforcement were discussed, 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 opposition and at that time the only law enforcement letters we saw were in opposition. If we had the letter from the FOP saying confirm him, maybe that would have made a difference, and probably would have. Maybe if the sheriffs' organizations would have gotten their letter out before the Judiciary Committee vote, it might have made a big difference in the Judiciary Committee. Timing is important. But it is important to remember that the reason why we had the vote on the floor at that time, I believe, was because our colleagues on the Democrat side were clamoring for a vote. I don't like the word ``ambush.'' Maybe that vote should have been delayed so we could have had a little more discussion of why these law enforcement groups were against him. Maybe some might have been for him given more time to enter into that debate. But that didn't happen, and I wasn't involved in scheduling the vote. But my point is I didn't feel as though he was ambushed. I do say what was unique was that during my 20 years in the Congress, this is the only time I can remember national law enforcement agencies coming up and saying vote against this person, which is what they did in contacting Members of the Senate. I think that is the reason Judge White went down. Be that as it may, there are lots of other issues dealing with John Ashcroft. Again, I think John Ashcroft is one outstanding individual who is more than qualified to be Attorney General of the United States. And I am absolutely confident that when he is confirmed, we will look back and say he is an outstanding Attorney General for the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. President, I rise in total and complete support of John Ashcroft to be the next Attorney General of the United States. I do that with great pleasure, and with pride, because I know him. And I am not amused when I hear people talking about John Ashcroft in a way that is not the John Ashcroft I know. I know John Ashcroft. I have served with John Ashcroft. I have spent hours and hours and hours with John Ashcroft on a multitude of issues. I have absolute, total, and complete confidence that he is going to be one outstanding Attorney General of the United States. He is as qualified as anybody that has ever been an Attorney General. If you look at his qualifications, he was attorney general for the State of Missouri for 8 years. He was named head of the National Association of Attorneys General which means the other attorneys general all across the country elected him to be their leader. I have heard some of my colleagues say he is extreme. That is not the type of person a bipartisan group of Attorneys General would pick. He would not have been picked as the head of the National Association of Attorneys General. He served for 8 years as Governor of the State of Missouri. He was elected head of the National Governors' Association. Again, that is not an extremist. That is not somebody outside the mainstream. He was elected by his peers, by the bipartisan group of Governors, to be head of the National Governors' Association. He then was elected to the Senate which is how I really got to know him. Of course, I had known him by reputation as being an outstanding attorney general and outstanding Governor. He was an outstanding Senator. He served 6 years in this institution. I served with him in countless meetings, and I could not have come away knowing a person of greater intellect and integrity--a person of conviction, a person who can get things done, a person who is willing to listen to all people on all sides, a person who is fair. Again, I have come to the conclusion that he will be an outstanding Attorney General. I am bothered by the opposition. I wonder where it comes from because maybe they are talking about a different person. On the issue of fairness, I have heard people say that we have done a good job since we have confirmed all of President Bush's nominees except one, and it has only taken a couple weeks. I go back 8 years ago, after President Clinton was elected, when every one of President Clinton's nominees were confirmed by voice vote, unanimously, by January 21, except for one, and that was for Attorney General. And that delay was not because Republicans were fighting the Attorney General nomination. It was because President Clinton ended up sending three names to the Senate because he had some problems with the first two before he submitted his final nominee. The delay was not because of Senate opposition. It was because he had some problems with the first couple of nominees he submitted. When we eventually got to Janet Reno, after he submitted her to the Senate, she was confirmed in very short order without all this rancor, without all this partisan nonsense. She was confirmed 98-0. She was every bit as liberal as John Ashcroft is conservative--every bit. In addition, Ms. Reno said she was going to uphold the law. I have heard the intensity of this debate since John Ashcroft is pro-life. Will he enforce the law and access to abortion clinics? John Ashcroft said he would. He took an oath. He said: I will uphold the law of the land. In comparison, it is interesting to note that the Beck decision is the law of the land. Attorney General Reno and the Clinton Administration did not enforce that decision. Also, the law of the land on campaign finance says it is unlawful to solicit or receive funds on Federal property. She did not enforce that statute in spite of the fact that her own people in the Justice Department said: You need to appoint a special counsel. She did not do it. Although it was the law of the land, she did not enforce it. Some of us are troubled by that. Maybe I wish I had my vote back. If people want to vote against John Ashcroft, they can vote against him, but to make these character assassinations is totally unfair. It certainly is not what happened 8 years ago. Let me touch on a couple other things. I have heard he should not be confirmed because he was opposed to Judge White. Well, I voted against Judge White, and I would vote against him again. Why? I have been in the Senate for 20 years almost as long as Senator Leahy, the ranking minority member on the committee. I don't remember a single time a national law enforcement group or association contacting Senators to say please vote no on a Federal judge. I remember getting a letter from the National Sheriffs' Association saying: Vote no on Judge White. I said: Why? Well, there was a case where three deputy sheriffs were murdered and a sheriff's wife was murdered and the defendant confessed. That case is the reason they wrote the letter. Of seven Missouri Supreme Court judges, Judge White was the sole dissenter who said: Let's review this case. There may be extenuating circumstances and the defendant deserves another trial. The sheriffs didn't feel that way. The prosecutors didn't feel that way. Other prosecutors, the sheriffs, and the chiefs of police in Missouri, said: Don't confirm Judge White. I can't remember, again, another nomination where you had the chiefs of police all across the State who know the particular judge say: Don't confirm him. That was something I needed to know. I am also troubled when some people say: You didn't confirm Judge White because of his race. Most of us didn't know what race he was. We knew law enforcement was against him, and we voted no. I make no apologies for that vote. To imply that someone is a racist because they oppose a nominee is wrong. Most of us opposed Judge White because he was opposed by law enforcement groups. I heard somebody say: John Ashcroft, back when he was Governor, opposed a court decision on desegregation. Then we find out that Senator Danforth, who is probably as respected a moderate as anybody, also opposed that decision, and Congressman Gephardt opposed that decision. At that time, I think Mel Carnahan, who was also an elected official in the State of Missouri, opposed that decision. Yet some people are trying to make that a reason to oppose John Ashcroft. John Ashcroft has had about three decades of public life. His record has been scrutinized to the nth degree. People are almost making up things to try to oppose his nomination. I think it is unwarranted. It is unfounded. A lot of it is below the belt and is beneath the dignity of the Senate. People have a right to oppose a nomination. If they want to oppose somebody, they can vote no, but they should not mischaracterize his record. I think what has happened repeatedly is beneath the dignity of the Senate, below the civility of the Senate. I urge people to be cautious when they make personal attacks against other individuals, and especially against a former colleague. Again, many of us in this body have had the privilege to know John Ashcroft. We know him. We know him well. I know him well. I am very proud to cast my vote today in support of John Ashcroft to be the next Attorney General. I look forward to him being the next Attorney General. I am confident he will represent this country extremely well in that capacity. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate my colleague's comments. I echo that. I encourage all Senators who wish to speak on the Ashcroft nomination to come to the floor earlier today, rather than later today. It was a little regrettable because I think both leaders had stated publicly we intended to be in session late last night for this nomination. But we could not get additional speakers so we adjourned earlier than planned. I thank my friend and colleague from Nevada. I might also add when he said we moved forward expeditiously, I am pleased we have confirmed all but one nominee. But I might remind my colleagues, 8 years ago every Clinton nominee was confirmed by January 22, unanimously, by voice--every single one. The only one that was not was the Attorney General, and the reason for that was that the Clinton administration had withdrawn a couple of nominees. The eventual nominee for Attorney General, Janet Reno, was confirmed 98-0 after very short debate. I just make those points to clarify the record. Eight years ago Congress moved very expeditiously to confirm all nominees. All were confirmed by January 21--by voice vote, I might add. The only recorded vote was Janet Reno and that was 98-0.

Mr. NICKLES. I yield.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I also wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues the fact we had significant debate on this last night. Senator Sessions did an outstanding job in making his presentation. I encourage colleagues to review his statements and encourage all colleagues who wish to speak on this nomination to come to the floor early and make their statements so we can confirm John Ashcroft, or have a vote on his confirmation by tomorrow.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30, with Senators Brownback and Durbin in control of the time. Following morning business, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of John Ashcroft to be the Attorney General of the United States. Debate on the nomination will be the business of the day, and the Senate will remain in session into the evening to allow all Members adequate time to discuss this nomination. It is hoped a vote on the confirmation of John Ashcroft will occur early in Thursday's session. Senators will be notified as that vote is scheduled. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object to further reading of this bill at this time.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, tragedy struck my State, as members of the Oklahoma State basketball team and news organizations were killed in a tragic plane crash just outside of Denver. Of course any plane crash is not anticipated, but this was especially painful and tragic because it snuffed out the lives of 10 outstanding individuals, who were well known on campus and throughout the state. Two team members were killed. They were outstanding athletes. Eight other individuals that were on the plane were a part of the team in various capacities and it is a real tragedy, a tragedy to our State and to our university. Today there is a memorial service taking place at Oklahoma State University to memorialize these 10 exceptional individuals. One of the individuals was Nate Fleming. His sister served as an intern in my office. He was a nephew of one of my best friends and an outstanding athlete. Nate was a National Honor Society member and valedictorian of his class. He was only 20 years old. Another team member, Daniel Lawson, 21, was a junior and played guard. He was originally from Detroit, Michigan. Another was Pat Noyes, 27. Pat was director of basketball operations at Oklahoma State University. Brian Luinstra, 29, the athletic trainer, leaves a wife and two children. Will Hancock, 31, was in his fifth year as coordinator of media relations. His wife, Karen, is the coach of the OSU women's soccer team and they had their first child just this last November. Jared Weiberg, 22, was a student manager and nephew of the Big 12 commissioner, Kevin Weiberg. Jared was a part of the team and will most certainly be missed by all. Bill Teegins, 48, was the play-by-play voice of the Oklahoma State University Cowboys for many seasons and was sports director for Channel 9 in Oklahoma City. He was honored several times as sportscaster of the year. He was known by everyone across the state and needless to say, he did an outstanding job. Kendall Durfey, 38, was a producer and engineer for the OSU radio network. Denver Mills, the pilot, from Oklahoma City, was well liked and was a great aviator. Bjorn Falistrom was the copilot, originally from Sweden. This is a real loss for their families, for Oklahoma State University, for Oklahoma and the nation. The contributions these individuals made to the State and to the University will always be remembered. We extend our condolences to Coach Sutton and to President James Hallogan and the extended family of Oklahoma State University. It is with deep sadness that we extend our prayers to their families, and to their friends in mourning such a great loss. Certainly, they will be missed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.