[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24485-24489]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      APPOINTING JUDICIAL NOMINEES

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Constitution provides that the 
President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of 
the Senate, shall appoint * * * Judges of the Supreme Court, and all 
other Officers of the United States * * *'' Thus, the President has the 
power to nominate persons to serve as federal judges and the Senate has 
the power to render advice and consent on these nominations. And the 
Constitution requires that the President's power to nominate be 
exercised ``with'' the Senate's power to advise and consent in order 
for a final appointment to be made. To the extent such cooperation 
occurs, the appointment process will be fair, orderly, and timely. To 
the extent such cooperation does not occur, the appointment process 
will break down.
  When I assumed the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, I inherited a 
process rocked by public strife and private

[[Page 24486]]

in-fighting. I was determined to lower the temperatures on both sides 
of the Committee and to preside over a process that did not allow 
personal attacks on a nominee's character. To accomplish this I turned 
to the Constitution itself and its requirement that the President and 
the Senate work ``with'' each other in the appointment process and the 
Constitution's limits on the power of federal judges.
  And it has worked. When the President has consulted with the 
Committee and with home-state Senators, a nominee has moved through the 
process smoothly. Under my Chairmanship, the Committee has focused its 
review on each nominee's, integrity, temperament, competence, and 
respect for the rule of law. To date Republicans have confirmed 325 of 
President Clinton's nominees to the federal bench.
  When there have been problems with a nominee, or a potential nominee, 
the President's consultation with the Committee has enabled us to 
address those problems privately. For example, a senator on the 
Committee recently asked me to examine a potential nominee, and when 
there were problems with that nominee, that Senator and I were able to 
deal with the problem privately and I expect another candidate will be 
forthcoming soon. Thus, the process has worked without damaging a 
candidate's reputation or his family.
  When the President works with the Senate the process will adequately 
staff the federal Judiciary. Indeed, after last year's extraordinary 
number of confirmations, the vacancy rate in the federal Judiciary was 
reduced to a very low 5.9%. The Chief Justice in his most recent report 
on the state of the federal Judiciary congratulated the President and 
the Senate, stating ``I am pleased to report on the progress made in 
1998 by the Senate and the President in the appointment and 
confirmation of judges to the federal bench ....''
  As of today, the Judiciary Committee has held 5 hearings for judicial 
nominees and have reported 30 nominees to the floor of the Senate. 
There are currently just 62 vacancies, yielding a vacancy rate of only 
7.4%. This is 1 vacancy less than existed at the end of the 103rd 
Congress when Democrats controlled the Judiciary Committee. Further, 
should the Senate confirm the 8 nominees that are currently on the 
floor and the 4 nominees for which we held a hearing today, the number 
of vacancies will fall to 51, yielding a vacancy rate of just 6%. This 
will be the lowest vacancy rate for any first session of Congress since 
the expansion of the judiciary in 1990. Moreover, it is virtually 
equivalent to the vacancy rate at the end of the last Congress, which 
was the lowest vacancy rate for any session of Congress since the 
expansion of the judiciary in 1990. When the President works with us 
and respects the constitutional advice and consent duties of the 
Senate, the process has, in fact, worked smoothly.
  When the President fails to work with the Senate, however, the 
process does not work smoothly. This was the unfortunate case with 
Judge Ronnie White. The record shows that Judge White is a fine man. 
However, he has written some questionable opinions on death penalty 
cases. The record resulted in both Missouri Senators opposing his 
nomination on the floor. This record resulted in local and national law 
enforcement agencies opposing his nomination as well. Here are just 
some of the letters expressing concern or opposition to Judge White's 
nomination:
  The Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs oppose the nomination; the 
National Sheriff's Association opposed the nomination; the Mercer 
County, Missouri prosecutor opposed the nomination; the Missouri 
Sheriffs' Association expressed deep concern over one of Judge White's 
dissents in a death penalty case involving the murder of one sheriff, 
two deputies, and the wife of another sheriff, and asked the Senate to 
consider that dissent in voting on Judge White's nomination. Indeed, 77 
of 114 of Missouri's sheriffs asked for serious consideration of Judge 
White's record. The sheriff of Moniteau County, Missouri, whose wife 
was murdered by the criminal for whom Judge White would have reversed 
the death sentence wrote in opposition to the nomination.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Sheriffs' Association,

                                  Alexandria, VA, October 4, 1999.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: I am writing to ask you to join the 
     National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) in opposing the 
     nomination of Mr. Ronnie White to the Federal Judiciary. NSA 
     strongly urges the United States to defeat this appointment.
       As you know, Judge White is a controversial judge in 
     Missouri while serving in the Missouri Supreme Court. He 
     issued many opinions that are offensive to law enforcement; 
     one on drug interdiction and several involving the death 
     penalty. Judge White feels that drug interdiction by law 
     enforcement is too intimidating. He is more concerned with 
     his personal view of drug interdiction practices than with 
     the legitimate law enforcement effort to prevent the 
     trafficking of illegal drugs. Drug interdiction is a 
     cornerstone in the fight against crime, and this reckless 
     opinion undermines the rule of law.
       Additionally, judge White wrote an outrageous dissenting 
     opinion in a death penalty case. In 1991 Pam Jones, the wife 
     of Sheriff Kenny Jones of Miniteau, Missouri, was gunned down 
     with three other law enforcement officials while hosting a 
     church service at home. The assailant, who was targeting the 
     Sheriff, was tried and convicted of murder in the first 
     degree. He was subsequently sentenced to death for the four 
     murders. During the appeals process, the case came before the 
     Missouri Supreme Court where six of the seven judges affirmed 
     the conviction and the sentence. Judge White was the court's 
     lone dissenter urging a lower legal standard to allow this 
     brutal cop killer a second chance at acquittal. In our view, 
     this opinion alone disqualifies Judge White from service in 
     the Federal courts. He is irresponsible in his thinking, and 
     his views against law enforcement are dangerous. Please read 
     Judge White's dissenting opinion in this case.
       We urge you in the strongest possible terms to actively 
     oppose the nomination of Judge White. He is clearly an 
     opponent of law enforcement and does not deserve an 
     appointment to the Federal Judiciary. His views and opinions 
     are highly insulting to law enforcement, and we look forward 
     to working with you to defeat this nomination.
           Respectfully,
                                         Patrick J. Sullivan, Jr.,
           Sheriff, Chairman, Congressional Affairs Committee and 
     Member, Executive Committee of the Board of Directors, NSA.
                                  ____

                                             Sheriff's Department,


                                              Moniteau County,

                                  California, MO, August 11, 1999.
       Dear Fellow Sheriff: I am writing to you about Judge Ronnie 
     White of the Missouri Supreme Court, who has been nominated 
     to be a federal district judge. As Sheriffs' we go to work 
     for the people of Missouri every day. Our lives are on the 
     line. Every law enforcement, and every law-abiding citizen, 
     needs judges who will enforce the law without fear or favor. 
     As law enforcement officers, we need judges who will back us 
     up, and not go looking for outrageous technicalities so a 
     criminal can get off. We don't need a judge like Ronnie White 
     on the federal court bench.
       In addition to being Sheriff of Moniteau County, I am a 
     victim of violent crime. So are my children. In December 
     1991, James Johnson murdered my wife, Pam, the mother of my 
     children. He shot Pam by ambush, firing through the window of 
     our home during a church function she was hosting. Johnson 
     also killed Sheriff Charles Smith of Cooper County. Deputy 
     Les Roark of Moniteau County and Deputy Sandra Wilson of 
     Miller County. He was convicted and sentenced to death. When 
     the case was appealed and reached the Missouri Supreme Court, 
     Judge White voted to overturn the death sentence of this man 
     who murdered my wife and three good law officers. He was the 
     only judge to vote this way.
       Please read Judge White's opinion. It is a slap in the face 
     to crime victims and law enforcement officers. If he cared 
     about protecting crime victims and enforcing the law, he 
     wouldn't have voted to let Johnson off death row.
       The Johnson case isn't the only anti-death penalty ruling 
     by Judge White. He has voted against capital punishment more 
     than any other judge on the court. I believe there is a 
     pattern here.
       To me, Ronnie White is clearly the wrong person to entrust 
     with the tremendous power of a federal judge who serves for 
     life. Please write to our U.S. Senators, Christopher S. Bond 
     and John Ashcroft, and ask them to oppose the White 
     nomination. Ask them to persuade other Senators to do 
     likewise. Effective law enforcement saves lives. The 
     deterrent value of capital punishment saves lives. As a 
     federal judge, Ronnie White would hurt law enforcement and he 
     would oppose effective death penalty enforcement.

[[Page 24487]]

       You can write to Senator Bond and Senator Ashcroft at U.S. 
     Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Please speak up before it's too 
     late.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Kenny Jones,
     Moniteau County Sheriff.
                                  ____

                                            Missouri Federation of


                                                Police Chiefs,

                                 St. Louis, MO, September 2, 1999.
     Senators John Ashcroft, and Christopher Bond,
     Kansas City, MO.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft and Senator Bond: We have just 
     learned of the nomination of Judge Ronnie White to be a 
     federal district judge.
       After reading Sheriff Kenny Jones' letter and seeing Judge 
     White's record, we were absolutely shocked that someone like 
     this would even be nominated to such an important position.
       We want to go on record with your offices as being opposed 
     to his nomination and hope you will vote against him. A copy 
     of Sheriff Jones' letter is attached.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bryan Kunze,
     Vice President, MFPC.
                                  ____



                               Missouri Sheriffs' Association,

                           Jefferson City, MO, September 27, 1999.
     Sen. Orrin Hatch,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: Attached please find a copy of the 
     dissenting opinion rendered by Missouri Supreme Court Judge 
     Ronnie White in the case State of Missouri, Respondent, v. 
     James R. Johnson, Appellant.
       Also, please find attached a copy of a petition signed by 
     92 law enforcement officers in Missouri, including 77 
     Missouri sheriffs.
       In December 1991, James Johnson murdered Pam Jones, wife of 
     Moniteau County Sheriff Kenny Jones. He shot Pam by ambush, 
     firing through the window of her home during a church 
     function she was hosting. Johnson also killed Sheriff Charles 
     Smith of Cooper County, Deputy Les Roark of Moniteau County 
     and Deputy Sandra Wilson of Miller County. He was convicted 
     and sentenced to death. When the case was appealed and 
     reached the Missouri Supreme Court, Judge White voted to 
     overturn the death sentence of this man who murdered Mrs. 
     Jones and three good law officers.
       As per attached, the Missouri sheriffs strongly encourage 
     you to consider this dissenting opinion in the nomination of 
     Judge Ronnie White to be a U.S. District Court Judge.
           Sincerely,
                                              James L. Vermeersch,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

       We, the undersigned, understand that Judge Ronnie White of 
     the Missouri Supreme Court, has been nominated to be a United 
     States District Court Judge.
       We need judges who can balance the duty of the law 
     enforcement officer to enforce the law with the preservation 
     of the Constitutional rights of the accused.
       In 1993, one James Johnson was convicted and sentenced to 
     death for the ambush and murder of Pam Jones, the wife of the 
     Moniteau County Sheriff Kenny Jones and three other law 
     enforcement officers. Judge White rendered the only 
     dissenting opinion to reverse this conviction.
       We respectfully request that consideration be given to this 
     dissenting opinion as a factor in the appointment to fill 
     this position of U.S. District Judge.
       Position Agency:
       Sheriff, Mississippi County; Sheriff, Pulaski County; Dade 
     County Sheriff; Sheriff of Vernon County.; Barry County 
     Sheriff; Barry County Deputy Sheriff; Franklin County 
     Sheriff; Sheriff, Mercer County.
                                  ____

                                                     Mercer County


                                         Prosecuting Attorney,

                                 Princeton, MO, September 3, 1999.
     Hon. John D. Ashcroft,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC 20510
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: As Missouri Prosecutors, we work to 
     enforce the laws of our cities, counties, and the state of 
     Missouri on a daily basis. We are aware of significant 
     concern among law enforcement officials regarding the 
     nomination of Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White to 
     the federal bench. We share this concern.
       Judge White's record is unmistakably anti-law enforcement, 
     and we believe his nomination should be defeated. His rulings 
     and dissenting opinions on capital cases and on Fourth 
     Amendment issues should be disqualifying factors when 
     considering his nomination.
       Judge White has evidenced clear bias against the death 
     penalty from his seat on the Missouri Supreme Court. He has 
     voted against the death penalty more than any other judge 
     has. In capital cases, he has dissented more than any other 
     judge. Further, he has filed more lone dissents in capital 
     cases than any other judge. Without question Judge White has 
     displayed an anti-capital punishment bias that is second to 
     none on the Missouri Supreme Court.
       One of the most terrible examples of this bias came in 
     State v. Johnson, when Judge White filed a lone dissent, 
     supporting reversal of the capital sentence imposed on Jim 
     Johnson. Johnson was sentenced to death for the murders of 
     Cooper County Sheriff Charles Smith, Moniteau County Deputy 
     Les Roark, Miller County Deputy Sandra Wilson, and Pam Jones, 
     the wife of Moniteau County Sheriff Kenny Jones. Except for 
     Judge White's dissent, the ruling against this brutal cop 
     killer was unanimous. Judge White was the lone member of the 
     Court to vote to give Johnson a new trial and a second chance 
     to go free.
       In State v. Damask,  and State v. Alvarez, the Supreme 
     Court ruled 6-1 that drug checkpoints on main highways in 
     Franklin and Texas Counties were constitutional. Judge White, 
     again, disagreed alone. Judge White voted to throw out 
     evidence against accused drug traffickers who were arrested 
     at checkpoints on Interstate 44 and U.S. 60.
       Another troubling concern, while not in itself sufficient 
     reason to disqualify, is Judge White's lack of significant 
     experience in trial courts. Certainly the nomination would be 
     less flawed if he had significant experience as either a 
     criminal litigator or trial judge. He has neither.
       On the Missouri Supreme Court, the other six members of the 
     Court routinely override Judge White's outlandish dissenting 
     opinions. In Missouri, we are fortunate to have a Supreme 
     Court that is sympathetic to law enforcement, and prone to 
     interpreting the law as it is written. However, if Judge 
     White is placed on the federal bench, he will be a one-person 
     majority. His flawed opinions will be the only ones that 
     count, and barring an appeal to higher courts, he will be 
     accountable to no one.
       People in the law enforcement community are rightly 
     concerned by Judge White's votes in cases like Johnson and 
     Damask. We urge you to show your support for the hard work of 
     Sheriffs, police officers, prosecutors, and other law 
     enforcement officials, and help defeat the nomination of 
     Judge White to the federal bench.
                                                     Jay Hemenway,
     Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney.
                                  ____



                            Texas County Prosecuting Attorney,

                                     Houston, MO, October 4, 1999.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
       Senator Ashcroft, It is my understanding that the 
     nomination of Ronnie White to the United States Federal Court 
     is coming up for a vote soon in the United States Senate. I 
     have serious concerns about this nomination.
       Judge White's voting record has given law enforcement 
     officials cause for alarm. While on the Supreme Court he has 
     consistently voted against use of the death penalty, even in 
     the most brutal and clear-cut cases. In fact, White has voted 
     against use of the death penalty more than any other judge on 
     the Court.
       White's was also the lone dissenting vote on the case 
     allowing drug checkpoints of major highways in our state. 
     There are other causes of concern, but I think it is best 
     summed up as follows: The Judiciary exists to interpret the 
     law, not make it. Judge White's opinions as a member of the 
     Missouri Supreme Court have caused me to fear more judicial 
     activism and pro-criminal jurisprudence that would run 
     contrary to the will of our founding fathers and to the good 
     of our country.
       Please examine Judge White's record closely, Senator. This 
     is an enormously important decision with the most serious of 
     implications. Thank you for taking the time and making the 
     effort to cast a wise vote on the nomination.
           Most sincerely,
                                                      Doug Gaston.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, had the White House worked with these home-
State Senators and with other Senators to achieve broad support for the 
nominee, perhaps Judge White would not have been defeated. I don't 
know. I might add, had both home-State Senators been opposed to Judge 
White in committee, Judge White would never have come to the floor 
under our rules. I have to say, that would be true whether they are 
Democrat Senators or Republican Senators. That has just been the way 
the Judiciary Committee has operated. Had the President diligently 
worked with Senators to determine that there would not be broad support 
for the candidate, he could have found an alternative, consensus 
candidate. But the President did not. Thus, Judge White's nomination 
failed on the floor of the Senate.
  To compound the problem, the President and some of my colleagues in 
this body made the grave error of suggesting that race was the reason 
that Senate Republicans voted against Judge White. This transparently 
political accusation has, as the administration is well aware, no basis 
in fact. The Judiciary Committee, under my chairmanship, has not kept 
formal statistics on the race of any of these nominees, nor would we 
have informed Democrat or Republican members that Judge

[[Page 24488]]

White is an African American. Many of my Republican colleagues were 
literally unaware of Judge White's race, and that is the way it has 
been. We just haven't made notice of anybody's race as we have 
confirmed these 325 judges that President Clinton has nominated.
  Instead, they were aware of his record in death penalty cases. I 
admit that that awareness happened at a relatively late time in this 
matter. It caught me by surprise as well--the opposition at least. They 
were aware of the opposition of State and national law enforcement 
communities that arose after his committee hearing. They were aware of 
the opposition of both home-State Senators that was announced after his 
hearing. Indeed, I even had a Democratic Senator inform me that had 
that Senator known of the recent law enforcement opposition to Judge 
White's nomination, that Senator would have opposed the nomination as 
well. Senator Bond did support this judge at the hearing but later 
changed his position on this as he became more and more aware of the 
opposition by law enforcement. It was not race that defeated Judge 
White; it was his record and the opposition of the elected leaders of 
his State.
  These same Republican Senators who opposed Judge White overwhelmingly 
supported the nomination of Charles Wilson, an African American, to the 
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Florida. While Senate Republicans 
were mostly unaware of Judge Wilson's race, Members were informed of 
his outstanding record as a Federal Magistrate and U.S. Attorney, the 
strong Florida support for Mr. Wilson, and the support of both home-
State Senators--1 Republican and 1 Democrat--for Mr. Wilson. Most 
members were not informed of his race. But these home-State Senators 
were for Mr. Wilson. And there was broad support in the Senate for Mr. 
Wilson's candidacy. It was not race that confirmed Mr. Wilson; it was 
his record and the support of the elected leaders of his State.
  The same is true for other minority nominations. To mention a few, 
Victor Marrero, Carlos Murguia, Adalberto Jordan--nominees whose 
records show they were qualified and respected the rule of law, who had 
the support of home-State Senators, and who had broad support in the 
Senate. Thus, the suggestion that the Republicans in this body voted 
against Judge White on the basis of race is no more true than a 
parallel accusation that my Democratic colleagues voted against 
Clarence Thomas because of his race. I don't think any of us have made 
that suggestion.
  I am also deeply disappointed by the patently false suggestions from 
the administration, and some in this body, that Republicans 
intentionally delay the processing of minority and women nominees based 
on their race and gender. This would be a surprise to Charles Wilson, 
who was nominated on May 27, reported by the Judiciary Committee to the 
floor of the Senate on July 22, and confirmed on July 30. This would 
also be a surprise to Marryanne Trump Barry, who was nominated on June 
17, reported by the Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate on 
July 29, and confirmed on September 13. Both of these nominees had 
outstanding records reflecting respect for the law, strong home-State 
support, the support of both home-State Senators, and broad support in 
the Senate. Mr. Wilson, Judge Barry, and most of these other nominees 
proceeded smoothly through the confirmation process because the 
President worked with the Senate, not against the Senate.
  The administration is very proud of its record of placing women and 
minorities on the bench, and it makes a point of informing the public 
of its work in this regard. In an address to the American Bar 
Association this summer, President Clinton called the collection of 
judges he has nominated to the Federal bench ``the most diverse group 
in American history.'' Nearly half are women and minorities, he said.
  But each of these judges was confirmed by the Senate, and all were 
confirmed with Republican support. How can it be that a Senate which 
has directly participated in this record of accomplishment can become 
an institution of bias simply by opposing one nominee--a nominee 
opposed by both home-State Senators and by an overwhelming number of 
State and national law enforcement leaders? It cannot be. It simply 
cannot be. The record and the Department of Justice's own numbers speak 
for themselves.
  According to the Clinton administration's own data, the Senate--
whether it was under Democratic or Republican control--has done its 
duty and confirmed qualified women and minorities. For example, in 
1998, based on Department of Justice data, approximately 32 percent of 
judicial nominees were women, and 21.5 percent were minorities. Even 
though the committee does not keep formal statistics, I had my staff 
manually compute the proportion of women and minorities reported to the 
Senate floor. So far this year, over 45 percent of the judicial 
nominees reported to the Senate floor are women or have been 
minorities.
  Yes, some nominees take longer than others--but it is not because of 
their race or gender. My colleagues, I believe, know that. I believe 
the President and his people at the White House know that. Indeed, 
several of the nominees of the past that took longer to confirm had my 
strong support. These included Anne Aiken, Margaret Murrow, and Susan 
Mollway. I have been condemned for that by certain people on the far 
right almost on a daily basis ever since.
  In the end, those who make these troubling accusations either, one, 
believe them to be true or, two, know they are not true, but want to 
politicize the issue. Either motivation is evidence of a serious 
problem within our noble institution, which I hope we, as leaders, can 
work to rectify. That is one reason I am taking this time today. Using 
race as a political tactic to advance controversial nominees is 
especially troubling. I care too much about the Senate and the Federal 
judiciary to see these institutions become the victims of base, cheap, 
wedge politics.
  I would urge my colleagues and the President to reconsider this 
destructive and dangerous ploy. Instead, they should put aside this 
destructive rhetoric and work with us to do what is best for the 
Judiciary, the Senate, and the American people.
  The Ronnie White nomination is an unfortunate example of what I 
believe is an increasing pattern on the part of the Clinton White 
House. I am referring to what appears to be a fire-sale strategy of 
knowingly sending up nominees who lack home-State support. Some time 
ago, I sent the White House Counsel a letter stating clearly that 
consultation was an essential prerequisite to a smoothly functioning 
confirmations process. But over the past several months, a number of 
nominees have been forwarded to the Senate over the objection--both 
private and public--of home-State Senators. Is this a pattern the aim 
of which is to get nominees confirmed, or is this a strategy, the 
object of which, is to create a political show down with the Senate. My 
concern is with the latter.
  To find the answer to the current political crisis, I turn once again 
to the Constitution and its requirement that the President and the 
Senate work ``with'' each other in the nomination and advice and 
consent process. To enable us to return to working together instead of 
against each other, I propose that we take time for both sides to cool 
off. The President and the Senate should take a step back, cool off, 
and then return to working with each other in the nomination and 
confirmation process as the Constitution so plainly requires.
  Mr. President, we have worked well with this President up to now. I 
have certainly taken my share of criticism for being as fair to this 
administration as I can possibly be. But this administration knows the 
rules up here--that when two home State Senators oppose a district 
court nominee, that district court nominee is not going to make it. 
That is the way it is. There is nothing I can do to change that because 
it is the correct rule. It is important that we work together and work 
with home State Senators in order to resolve this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

[[Page 24489]]


  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee for that statement. I have just a word or two to 
say about the same subject.
  The White House made a comment--Mr. Lockhart--that I was one of three 
Republican Senators who voted for Judge White in committee and then 
voted against him on the floor. It is inaccurate to say I voted for him 
in committee because I did not. What happened was, the Judiciary 
Committee had a very abbreviated session off the floor and I went there 
to see if there was a quorum. When there was a quorum, Justice White 
was voted out of committee on a voice vote, but I was not present for 
that voice vote.
  I was especially sensitive to Judge White because Judge Massiah-
Jackson came before the Senate last year and withdrew her nomination in 
the face of very considerable opposition by the State District 
Attorneys Association.
  So I took a close look at the letters, and even had a brief 
conversation with the ranking Democrat before casting my vote, which I 
did at the tail end of the vote on Justice White.
  But contrary to what Mr. Lockhart of the White House said, and 
contrary to what has appeared in a number of press accounts, I did not 
vote for Justice White in the committee.

                          ____________________