[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 133 (Tuesday, October 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11932-S11933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF RONNIE WHITE

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
affording me this opportunity to make some remarks regarding the vote 
on the nomination of Ronnie White.
  Yesterday, in accordance with the unanimous consent agreement entered 
into last week, we set aside substantially over an hour to debate not 
only the White nomination but a number of other nominations which came 
before the Senate today. I was here for that debate, I engaged in that 
debate, and I outlined my opposition to Judge White, not my opposition 
based on anything personal or based on my distaste in any way for the 
judge, but based on my real reservations about his record as it relates 
to law enforcement.
  After the conclusion of the vote today, there were a number of 
individuals who secured integrals of time to speak about that 
nomination and about that vote and raised questions that more properly 
should have been raised in the debate, and, secondly, deserve a 
response. So I come to respond in that respect.
  I want to explain why I believe Judge White should not have been 
confirmed, and I believe the Senate acted favorably and appropriately 
in protecting the strong concerns raised by law enforcement officials.
  The National Sheriffs Association expressed their very serious 
opposition to the nomination of Judge White. The Missouri Federation of 
Chiefs of Police expressed their opposition. The Missouri Sheriffs 
Association raised strong concerns and asked for a very serious 
consideration. In my conferences with law enforcement officials, 
prosecutors and judges, they raised serious concerns; so that when 
those who come to the floor today talk about this nomination in a 
context that is personal rather than professional and is political 
rather than substantive, I think they miss the point.
  There are very serious matters addressed in his record that deserve 
the attention of the Senate and which, once having been reviewed by 
Members of the Senate, would lead Senators to the conclusion that, 
indeed, the Senate did the right thing.
  Judge White's sole dissent in the Missouri v. Johnson, a brutal cop 
killer, an individual who killed three law enforcement officials over 
several hours, holding a small town in Missouri in a terrified 
condition, that opinion which sought to create new ground for allowing 
convicted killers who had the death

[[Page S11933]]

penalty ordered in their respect, allowing them new ground for new 
trials, and the like, is something that ought to trouble us. We do not 
need judges with a tremendous bent toward criminal activity or with a 
bent toward excusing or providing second chances or opportunities for 
those who have been accused in those situations.
  Missouri v. Kinder is another case where he was the sole dissenter, a 
case of murder and assault, murder with a lead pipe, the defendant was 
seen leaving the scene of the crime with the lead pipe and DNA evidence 
confirming the presence of the defendant with the person murdered.
  The judge in that case wrote a dissent saying that the case was 
contaminated by a racial bias of the trial judge because the trial 
judge had indicated that he opposed affirmative action and had switched 
parties based on that.
  Another case, Missouri v. Damask, a drug checkpoint case. The sole 
dissent in the case was from Judge White who would have expanded 
substantially the rights of defendants to object to searches and 
seizures.
  I believe that law enforcement officials had an appropriate, valid, 
reasonable concern. That concern was appropriately recognized and 
reflected in the vote of the Senate. Not only Missouri needs judges, 
but the entire country needs judges whose law enforcement experience is 
such that it sends a signal that they are reliable and will support 
appropriate law enforcement.
  I am grateful to have had this opportunity. No time was expected for 
debate on this issue today, and as an individual who was involved in 
this matter, I am pleased to have had this opportunity. I thank the 
Senate. I thank the Senator from Arizona for helping make this time 
available to me.

  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________