Contact: Ari Geller
202 244-8657

     Mr. Chairman, as you know, 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 are due great deference by the Senate. I am very reluctant to vote against a qualified nominee for an executive branch position. And I have taken a lot of heat for a some of my votes on this President’s nominations.

     Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that we should vote on the nomination of Ted Olson today. Because if we do, I must vote "No."

     Last week, you held over this nomination, recognizing that legitimate questions had been raised in press reports about Mr. Olson’s involvement with the so-called Arkansas Project. Those reports raised questions about the truthfulness of Mr. Olson’s testimony before this committee and his responses to written questions from its members. Since that time, the Committee has not undertaken a further inquiry or taken any official steps to resolve the factual allegations that have been made. Instead, based on conclusory letters and written statements, not under oath, of a number of Mr. Olson’s supporters, you have unilaterally decided that no further inquiry is needed and no further delay in a vote is warranted.

     Mr. Chairman, let me state this clearly. I am concerned that Mr. Olson was not forthcoming in his testimony before this committee. Notice that I use the word "forthcoming." I am not alleging that Mr. Olson was untruthful. But on what we know so far, it seems 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 this dispute has 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 Sen. Leahy did not ask if he was involved in the origin or management of the Arkansas Project. He asked: "Were you involved in so-called Arkansas Project at any time." Mr. Olson was not 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 not just be 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 – answering only the question asked and revealing the least information possible – but as a trusted colleague would – trying to give as much relevant information as possible in response not only the question as framed, but to the question that the Justice might have in his or her mind, but hasn’t completely articulated.

     And frankly, that is how I want nominees before this Committee to answer questions as well. I would like to think that our questions at nominations hearing are not a game of "gotcha." We aren’t trying to trap nominees. We are attempting to elicit information that is relevant to our decision of 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 as precisely as possible. 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 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. It was only this lack of candor that has led us to the point of questioning whether he was truthful in his testimony, and the need to determine all the facts in a bipartisan inquiry.

     A number of things would help us understand Mr. Olson’s involvement in the Arkansas Project now that the question has been raised to this level – Gibson Dunn & Crutcher’s billing records, the American Spectator audit report, the Shaheen report, the American Spectator Board minutes. But this Committee hasn’t asked for those documents. Nor has the Committee interviewed the limited number of witnesses that would allow us to reach our own conclusions on the facts.

     Mr. Chairman, Mr. Olson has offered to speak with me directly about these matters. And I appreciate that. But it is not enough. If we are able to conduct a bipartisan inquiry before a floor vote, I might very well want to meet with him and I might very well decide to vote for him if these concerns and other concerns about his background are addressed and resolved. But at this time, I must oppose his nomination because I do not believe that this Committee’s review of it has been complete or adequate. I truly regret that your decision to hold a vote today has forced me to make this decision.

     Thank you.

####