[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23942-23943]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, before we return to the consideration of 
the FAA reauthorization bill, I would like to make a couple of 
comments. Raymond Fisher, just confirmed to the Ninth Circuit, is the 
323rd judge who has been confirmed since President Clinton has been in 
office. 195 of those judges have been confirmed since Republicans took 
control of the Senate in 1995.
  Judge Ronnie White is the first nominee, I believe, to be rejected on 
the floor since Republicans took control of the Senate. One of our 
colleagues said that he hoped that we are not returning to a ``color 
test.'' That is what was said. I am offended by that statement. Many 
people on our side of the aisle didn't know what race Judge White is. 
We did know that 77 of Missouri's 114 sheriffs were opposed to his 
nomination. We did find out that two State prosecutors' offices raised 
their objections. We did know there was a letter from the National 
Sheriffs Association opposing his nomination.
  I believe that we have been very consistent, at least on this side of 
the aisle. We do not want to confirm a nominee where you have major law 
enforcement organizations and leading officials saying they are opposed 
to the nomination, regardless of what race he or she is. I do not 
believe the Senate has ever confirmed anyone when national law 
enforcement organizations or officials have stated that the nominee has 
a poor or weak background in law enforcement. To my knowledge, I have 
never voted to confirm any such nominee, nor have many other members.
  I want to make it absolutely clear and understood that members voted 
no on Judge White's nomination because of the statements made by law 
enforcement officers, in addition to the respect that we have for the 
two Senators from the nominee's state who recommended a no vote. We 
respect their recommendation to us. So I make mention of that.
  I am bothered that somebody said I hope we are not returning to a 
``color test.'' That statement was uncalled for and, I think, not 
becoming of the Senate. I want to make sure that point is made.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. I just want to say a few words not 
in response but maybe in contraposition to what the Senator said.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. I appreciate that. I will ask my 
question.
  It seems to me that whatever the intentions--I am not impugning any 
intentions of any person who voted the other way, but it seems to me 
that the recent vote on the floor of the Senate is going to create 
division and animus in this country of ours.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, regular order. I will answer a question. 
If the Senator wants to make a speech, he can make the speech on his 
own time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will yield back my time to the Senator, retract my 
question, and ask unanimous consent that I might speak for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I didn't know my colleague wanted to engage in this. I 
was not clear that the Senator wanted to make a speech.
  I want to say absolutely and positively that there is no ``color 
test.'' No one raised that suggestion, that I am aware of, during the 
Clarence Thomas confirmation. I want to clarify again. I had several 
colleagues say they did not know what race Mr. White is. I think it is 
very much uncalled for and incorrect for anybody to make that kind of 
implication.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that the pending business 
before the Senate is the vote on the Robb amendment. Unless there is 
unanimous consent to move beyond that vote, debate is not in order.

[[Page 23943]]


  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I respect the right of my friend from New 
York. In behalf of the Senator from Connecticut, who is waiting, we 
have pending business we are trying to finish today. I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senator from New York be allowed to speak for 3 
minutes. Hopefully, we can move on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I very much appreciate the courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold?
  Without objection, the vote on the Robb amendment is laid aside.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could I ask for recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona may clarify his 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, prior to the Senator from New York being 
recognized, I ask unanimous consent the vote on or in relation to the 
Robb amendment be postponed, to occur in the next stacked sequence of 
votes, and, prior to the vote, Senators Robb, Warner, Bryan, and McCain 
be given 5 minutes each for closing remarks and that the amendment now 
be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senators from Arizona, Oklahoma, and 
Connecticut for their courtesy, and the President as well.
  I would like to make some remarks in contraposition to the Senator 
from Oklahoma. I say that without casting any impugning of any 
motivations as to why people voted.
  It seems to me that this being, as I understand it, the first time we 
have this year rejected a Senate candidate on the floor--and I 
understand that there were recommendations from the home State--I still 
find myself very troubled by that rejection. I find myself troubled 
because we do need diversity on our bench. We need to, in my judgment, 
try to have more African Americans on the bench.
  There is not an African American Member of this body. I find that 
regretful. The first impression I had the first day I walked on the 
floor was that. And I guess what I would like to do is just call into 
question why this nomination was rejected. I would ask that we examine. 
I know one of the reasons was the opposition of this nominee to the 
death penalty. I happen to be for the death penalty. I wrote the death 
penalty law when I was in the House. But I would like to ask how many 
other nominees we have rejected because of opposition to the death 
penalty.
  I am told that one of the Senators who objected from Missouri 
actually nominated judges on that State court who agreed with Ronnie 
White on the very case that has been brought into question.
  So if we are not to be accused of maybe having two standards, I think 
we ought to be very careful.
  I respect each Senator's right to oppose nominations for judge. I 
respect the idea that we often defer to our colleagues in their home 
States. But I think there is a higher calling here. That is, because 
this was one of the few African American nominees to reach this floor, 
we ought to be extra careful to make sure the standard was not being 
used that we haven't used for some other nominees who have come before 
this body this year.
  I disagree with that nominee on the issue at hand. But I still think 
that we should have extra sensitivity, given the long history of 
division in this country and the need to try to bring some equality 
onto our bench in the sense that we have a diverse and representative 
judiciary.
  I hope my colleagues will examine those questions. I do not know the 
answers to them. But my guess is, we have unanimously approved or 
approved overwhelmingly judges who have the same view as Judge Ronnie 
White on this very controversial issue.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I would be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. NICKLES. To my knowledge, we have never confirmed a nominee who 
was opposed by the National Sheriffs Association or by a State 
Federation of Police Chiefs. I don't think we have done that in my 
Senate career.
  Does the Senator know of any instance where we have ignored the 
recommendations of major law enforcement officers?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to respond to the 
Senator's question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. I don't know of cases. But I would 
want to have examined the record about those questions and the 
questions I asked before we moved so hastily to reject this nominee. It 
so happened that there were votes on the other side in committee for 
this nominee that abruptly reversed themselves without any explanation 
as to why.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

                          ____________________