[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9418-9420]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



NOMINATION OF THEODORE BEVRY OLSON, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE 
                 SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the nomination.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Theodore Bevry 
Olson, of the District of Columbia, to be Solicitor General of the 
United States.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination 
of a Virginian, Theodore ``Ted'' Olson, to serve as the Solicitor 
General of the United States.
  Article II, Section 2 of 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 Constitution provides a role for both the President and the 
Senate in this process. The President has the power to nominate, and 
the Senate has the power to render advice and consent on the 
nomination.
  In fulfilling the constitutional role of the Senate, I have, 
throughout my career, tried to give fair and objective consideration to 
both Republican and Democratic Presidential nominees at all levels.
  It has always been my policy to review nominees to ensure that the 
nominee has the qualifications necessary to perform the job, to ensure 
that the nominee will enforce the laws of the land, and to ensure that 
the nominee possesses the level of integrity, character, and honesty 
that the American people deserve and expect from public office holders.
  Having considered these factors, I have come to the conclusion that 
Ted Olson is fully qualified to serve as our great Nation's next 
Solicitor General.
  The Solicitor General's Office supervises and conducts all Government 
litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Solicitor General helps 
develop the Government's positions on cases and personally argues many 
of the most significant cases before the Supreme Court.
  Given these great responsibilities, it is no surprise that the 
Solicitor General is the only officer of the United States required by 
statute to be ``learned in the law.''
  Mr. Olson's background in the law is impressive. He received his law 
degree in 1965 from the University of California at Berkeley where he 
was a member of the California Law Review and graduated Order of the 
Coif.
  Upon graduation, Mr. Olson joined the firm of Gibson, Dunn, & 
Crutcher in 1965, becoming a partner in 1972. During this time, Mr. 
Olson had a general trial and appellate practice as well as a 
constitutional law practice.
  In 1981, Mr. Olson was appointed by President Reagan to serve as 
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. 
Department of Justice. During his 4 years in this position, Mr. Olson 
provided counsel to the President, Attorney General, and heads of the 
executive branch departments.
  After serving in the Reagan administration, Mr. Olson returned to 
private practice. He has argued numerous cases before the Supreme 
Court, including one that we are all familiar with related to this past 
election and the Florida election results. His vast experience in 
litigating before the Supreme Court will serve him well as Solicitor 
General.
  Based on this extensive experience in the law, it goes without saying 
that Mr. Olson is ``learned in the law.'' Mr. Olson is obviously 
extremely well-qualified to serve as our next Solicitor General.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to support Mr. Ted 
Olson today to be Solicitor General.
  Mr. Olson is one of the most qualified people ever nominated for this 
position. He has had an extensive and impressive legal career, 
specializing in appellate law. He has argued many cases of great 
significance in the Federal courts, including 15 cases before

[[Page 9419]]

the U.S. Supreme Court. He also has written extensively and testified 
before the Congress on a wide variety of legal issues.
  In addition, he served admirably as Assistant Attorney General in the 
Office of Legal Counsel under President Reagan. He provided expert, 
nonpartisan advice based on the law. I am confident he will do the same 
as Solicitor General. For example, he has assured the Judiciary 
Committee that he will defend laws of Congress as long as there is any 
reasonable argument to support them.
  Over the years, he has earned a distinguished reputation in the legal 
community. In fact, he has been endorsed for this position by a wide 
variety of people in the profession, including Harvard Law Professor 
Laurence Tribe.
  Mr. Olson is a decent, honorable man, and a person of high character 
and integrity. He is one of the most capable and distinguished 
attorneys practicing law today.
  Many allegations have been raised about Mr. Olson, but there is no 
merit to these charges. The fact that allegations are raised does not 
mean they are true or that they have any significance. Based on 
reservations raised by Democrats, the Judiciary Committee has closely 
reviewed these matters. Throughout the process, Mr. Olson has been very 
cooperative and straightforward with the committee. It is true that he 
wrote in the American Spectator about the scandals of the Clinton 
administration, and spoke with people involved with the magazine about 
these matters. After all, the Clintons were a major focus of the 
magazine, and there were many scandals to report about. This does not 
mean that Mr. Olson misled the committee about his knowledge of the 
Arkansas Project or anything else. There is nothing to show that he has 
done anything wrong, and there is no reason to keep searching.
  The Washington Post, which is the primary newspaper in which the 
allegations were raised and is not known for conservative editorials, 
concluded that Mr. Olson should be confirmed. It stated that ``there's 
no evidence that his testimony was inaccurate in any significant way.''
  As chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I know that the Justice 
Department needs the Solicitor General to be confirmed as soon as 
possible. The representative for the United States to the Supreme Court 
is an extremely important position that has been vacant for months. For 
the sake of justice, it is critical that the Senate acts on this 
nomination.
  I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Olson today. He deserves our 
support. I recognize that members have the right to vote against a 
nominee for any reason. But, if they do, I firmly believe they will be 
voting against one of the finest and most able men we have ever 
considered for Solicitor General.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have so far voted for all of President 
Bush's nominees for positions in the Department of Justice and other 
executive branch departments. As I have explained before, I believe 
that the President's choices for executive positions are due great 
deference by the Senate. I am very reluctant to vote against a 
qualified nominee for such a position. I have been criticized for some 
of my votes on this President's nominations, including my vote for 
Attorney General Ashcroft, and I'm sure I will take criticism for some 
of my votes in the future.
  But, I have never said I will vote for every executive branch 
nominee, and today I must vote ``No'' on the nomination of Theodore 
Olson to be Solicitor General of the United States.
  I am disappointed that the Senate is moving so quickly to a vote on 
this nomination. I believe that serious questions exist about Mr. 
Olson's candor in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
Although there has been some further inquiry about these matters in the 
past week, after the Judiciary Committee voted 9-9 on Mr. Olson's 
nomination, the Senate has not had time to review and digest even the 
limited additional information that the inquiry uncovered. Without 
further time to resolve the questions that our committee's work has 
raised, I cannot in good conscience vote for Mr. Olson.
  Simply put, I am concerned that Mr. Olson was not adequately 
forthcoming in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee 
particularly on the issue of his involvement with the so-called 
``Arkansas Project,'' which was an effort to unearth scandals involving 
former President Clinton and his wife, undertaken by the American 
Spectator magazine with funding from Richard Mellon Scaife. Let me 
emphasize that I am not alleging that Mr. Olson committed perjury or 
told an out and out lie. But it seems to me that Mr. Olson was 
attempting to minimize his participation in the Arkansas Project and 
portray it in the least objectionable light to those of us on the 
Democratic side, rather than simply answering the questions 
forthrightly and completely. As the dispute developed, Mr. Olson's 
supporters have gone to great lengths to argue that he answered 
truthfully when he said: ``I was not involved in the project in its 
origin or its management.'' But Senator Leahy did not ask if he was 
involved in the origin or management of the Arkansas Project. He asked: 
``Were you involved in the so-called Arkansas Project at any time.'' 
Mr. Olson was not adequately forthcoming in his answer to that 
question.
  The Solicitor General of the United States is an extremely important 
position in our government. It is not only the third ranking official 
in the Justice Department, it is the representative of the executive 
branch before the Supreme Court of the United States. I want the person 
in that position to be not just technically accurate and truthful in 
answering the questions of the Justices, but to be forthcoming. I want 
the Solicitor General to answer the Justices' questions not as a 
hostile witness would, narrowly responding only to the question asked 
and revealing as little information as possible, but as a trusted 
colleague would, trying to give as much relevant information as 
possible in response not only to the question as framed, but to the 
substance of the question that the Justice might have been asking, but 
might not have precisely articulated.
  That is also how I want nominees before Senate committees to answer 
questions. Our questions at nominations hearings are not a game of 
``gotcha.'' We are not trying to trap nominees. We are attempting to 
elicit information that is relevant to our decision as to whether a 
nominee should serve in the office to which he or she has been 
nominated. We deserve forthcoming and complete answers, not just 
technically truthful answers. We shouldn't have to frame our questions 
so precisely as to preclude an evasive or disingenuous answer. We are 
not in a court of law. We don't ask leading questions of nominees in 
order to pin them down to ``yes'' or ``no'' answers. We want and expect 
nominees to give us complete and open answers, to put on the record all 
the information they have at their disposal that will help us exercise 
our constitutional duty to advise and consent.
  Many Senators were concerned about Mr. Olson's highly partisan 
writings about the previous Administration, and particularly about the 
Department of Justice under the previous Attorney General. They were 
concerned about Mr. Olson's association with an organized and well-
funded attempt to dig up dirt on the President of the United States. 
They asked questions to find out what Mr. Olson did, and what he knew. 
It was not just a question of whether Mr. Olson did something illegal 
or improper. Each Senator was and is entitled to make his or her own 
judgment about whether Mr. Olson's involvement with the Arkansas 
Project, whatever it was, is relevant to his fitness to serve as 
Solicitor General. We were entitled to complete and forthcoming answers 
to the questions that were asked. We did not get them.
  Mr. Olson's failure to be forthcoming in his testimony has led me to 
have concern about his ability to serve as Solicitor General, 
especially given the special duties of that office. I would not vote 
against him simply because of his conservative views and record. I am 
concerned about his fitness to be Solicitor General.
  Mr. Olson testified that the Solicitor General owes the Supreme Court 
``absolute candor and fair dealing.'' I think

[[Page 9420]]

that nominees owe Senate committees that same duty when they testify at 
nominations hearings. I do not think that Mr. Olson met that standard 
and I don't think the process surrounding this nomination has allowed 
Senators adequately to consider this important exercise of their duty 
to advise and consent. I therefore, with regret, must oppose his 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Theodore Bevry Olson, of the District of 
Columbia, to be Solicitor General of the United States? On this 
question the yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 167 Ex.]

                                YEAS--51

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Jeffords
     Rockefeller
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the next 
votes begin, which will be momentarily, they be 10-minute rollcalls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as I stated at the beginning of this 
debate, of course I respect the will of the Senate and the vote of 
every Senator.
  I hope now that Mr. Olson has been confirmed as Solicitor General, he 
will listen very carefully to the debate and handle that position with 
the nonpartisanship and candor the office requires. I congratulate him 
on his confirmation and wish him and his family well.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________