[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 135 (Thursday, October 7, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12229-S12230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MOTIVES OF VOTE

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, a couple of days ago on 
the Senate floor, one of my colleagues, Senator Leahy from Vermont, 
made some remarks regarding the possible motives of some of us who made 
a vote on a particular nominee, Ronnie White of Missouri to the Federal 
court. I want to read from the Senate manual what we all know as rule 
XVIIII. I want to indicate before reading that I do not believe Senator 
Leahy violated that rule. That is not the purpose of bringing this up.
  The rule says:

       No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any 
     form of words impute to another Senator or to other 
     Senators--

  Plural--

     any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator.

  That rule is very clear, and it is not very often throughout the 
history of the Senate that rule has been violated.
  I want to quote what Senator Leahy said on October 5 on the Senate 
floor after the vote on Ronnie White. He said:

       Mr. President, I have to say this with my colleagues 
     present. When the full history of Senate treatment of the 
     nomination of Justice Ronnie White is understood, when the 
     switches and politics that drove the Republican side of the 
     aisle are known, the people of Missouri and the people of the 
     United States will have to judge whether the Senate was 
     unfair to this fine man and whether their votes served the 
     interests of justice and the Federal courts.

  Then the Senator from Vermont concluded by saying:

       I am hoping--and every Senator will have to ask himself or 
     herself this question--the United States has not reverted to 
     a time in its history when there was a color test on 
     nominations.

  The reason why I say rule XVIIII was not violated in that case, I 
believe, although the Senator from Vermont may have walked up to the 
line--he did not cross it--is because he said ``I am hoping.'' I, 
therefore, will not make any contest at this point on that.
  It concerned me deeply that those comments were made. I want to say 
for the record, and it is interesting because I spoke to at least a 
dozen colleagues who voted the same way I did, in opposition to this 
nominee--not that it matters--who did not even know what race Mr. White 
was. I didn't know. I had no idea, and I had numerous conversations 
about this nominee over the course of several weeks and months, as his 
nomination was pending. I never knew what his race was nor would I care 
because I wouldn't want to look, frankly. What difference does it make? 
It doesn't make any difference to me.
  This went further than the Senate floor, which is quite disturbing. 
In the Washington Post today is in an article, ``Deepening Rift Over 
Judge Vote, Minorities Confirmed At a Lower Rate.'' That was the 
Washington Post story. Very prominently pictured in the article is a 
picture of Ronnie White, and in addition, Senators Ashcroft and Bond. 
There is an implication there that I don't like.

[[Page S12230]]

  In the article, we have Governor Mel Carnahan, who happens to be the 
opponent of Senator Ashcroft in the election in Missouri for the 
Senate, who said:

       ``Judge White is a highly qualified lawyer and judge and 
     the [death penalty] figures were manipulated by Senator 
     Ashcroft to undermine him,'' Carnahan said.

  Then it got a little worse from the Chief Executive of the United 
States of America. I want to point out, if President Bill Clinton were 
Senator Bill Clinton, and he said what I am about to read, in my view, 
he would have violated rule XVIIII. That is why I bring it up. Here is 
what the President said about all of us who voted against Mr. White's 
nomination:
       Yesterday's defeat of Ronnie White's nomination for the 
     federal district court judgeship in Missouri was a 
     disgraceful act of partisan politics. The Republican-
     controlled Senate is adding credence to the perception that 
     they treat minority and women judicial nominees unfairly and 
     unequally.

  That basically is a direct attack on all of us and our motives, 
basically accusing us of being--the implication is that we are racists, 
that we do not treat minorities fairly, and that we discriminate 
against women as well.
  That came from the President of the United States.
  I will also quote from an article in the Washington Times today in 
relation to J.C. Watts, the most prominent African American Republican 
in the Congress of the United States, who was also deeply offended, as 
he should have been, by these remarks. It is interesting what Chairman 
Watts of the House Republican Conference said. This is J.C. Watts 
talking:

       ``It is fascinating to me that racism often is defined, not 
     by your skin color, but by your ideology,'' said Mr. Watts, 
     the lone black Republican in the House, in a luncheon with 
     editors and reporters at The Washington Times.

  He said further:

       Unless you're a Democrat. It's OK to do it to black 
     Republicans, black conservatives. But don't do it to a black 
     Democrat.

  Then it is racial.
  It really is troublesome to me that we create these barriers between 
us.
  President Clinton said:

       [By voting down] the first African American judge to serve 
     on the Missouri State Supreme Court, the Republican-
     controlled Senate is adding credence to the perceptions that 
     they treat minority and women judicial nominees unfairly and 
     unequally.

  But anyway, it is troubling to me that these kinds of things happen. 
I voted against the nominee because of his views on some issues. I 
spoke to this on the Senate floor on the same day. I am quoting myself 
now:

       In the case of Justice White, who now serves on the Supreme 
     Court in Missouri, he has demonstrated that he is an 
     activist, and has a political slant to his opinions in favor 
     of criminal defendants and against prosecutors. It is my 
     belief that judges should interpret the law, and not impose 
     their own political viewpoints.

  That is why I voted against Ronnie White.
  Prominent law enforcement people in Missouri were also opposed to 
him, and said so, as Senator Ashcroft made very clear.
  It is troubling to me that this issue raises its ugly head when 
somebody happens to be African American. I thought really we would get 
beyond this. It would have been nice if the President of the United 
States had said: Ninety-two percent of the minority nominations that 
have come through this Senate have been confirmed, most of them 
unanimously without even a recorded vote. It would have been nice if 
the President said that was pretty good on the part of this Senate, 
instead of singling out one who had not been confirmed for, I believe, 
good reason.
  One of the things you find out in the Senate, if you stay here long 
enough, is that you probably have said something somewhere along the 
line you would like to take back. I am going to say up front regarding 
my colleague from Vermont, I do not impugn his motives, but it is 
interesting that Senator Leahy did not vote to confirm Clarence Thomas. 
He voted against Clarence Thomas, a very prominent member of the 
Supreme Court who happens to be African American--a man I was proud to 
support. I did not hear the President mention any of us who voted for 
Clarence Thomas, an African American. The reason is very simple: 
Clarence Thomas is a conservative. That is the reason.
  I would never impugn my colleague's motives for voting against 
Clarence Thomas. I assume he voted against Clarence Thomas because he 
was a conservative, he did not like his politics, did not like his 
views on abortion and other issues. I believe that.
  I say, without any hesitation, if my colleague were here on the floor 
now, I would look at him and say: Absolutely, I believe you, that that 
is your motive, and no other motive.
  There was also another vote in 1989 in committee, for a gentleman by 
the name of William Lucas. Lucas was President Bush's pick for 
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. He happens to be African 
American. Lucas's nomination never got to the Senate floor. The vote in 
Judiciary was 7-7. The Senator from Vermont voted no. Again, I would 
never use the issue of race to say that was the reason for his vote. I 
would not even imply it.
  So I think it is important that we move beyond this, stop this 
divisiveness, and give people the benefit of the doubt, and 
particularly Senator Hatch who so many times has brought nominees whom 
you and I--I would say to the Senator in the Chair, I myself have often 
disagreed with Senator Hatch on some of the nominations he has brought, 
but he has brought them forth I think probably more fairly than he 
should have in terms of the nominations he brings forth.

  So to throw that blanket over 54 individuals who voted the way they 
did, or even to imply it, is unfortunate.
  So I say, to set the record straight, I am going to vote against a 
person who I think is an activist, who does not represent the views 
that I believe should be on the court, no matter what the color, and, 
most frankly, without knowing the color if I can help it because I do 
not think it matters. It is unfortunate in this case that we came to 
that.
  Mr. President, I want to touch on one other issue before we close up 
the Senate.

                          ____________________