[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 11 (Monday, January 29, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S616-S617]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NOMINATION OF JOHN ASHCROFT

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise briefly to discuss the nomination of 
another Cabinet official, the Attorney General, John Ashcroft. 
Hopefully, we will be able, on the Judiciary Committee, to have the 
vote on Attorney General designate Ashcroft tomorrow. We hope to have 
that meeting on Tuesday, at the very latest Wednesday. We are hoping to 
consider his nomination on the floor of the Senate and get that done by 
Thursday afternoon prior to the time that the Senate recesses for the 
week.
  It is important that this nomination be confirmed. There are a lot of 
things pending. The Attorney General is one of the officers of the 
Cabinet who is always on watch. There are all of the assistant 
attorneys general, U.S. attorneys around the country who are looking 
for guidance from Washington on a wide variety of matters. We have more 
terrorist issues that demand the attention of the Attorney General. My 
colleagues on both the Democratic and Republican side are interested in 
commencing the process of judicial nominations to fill so many 
vacancies that exist. All of these and many more issues require an 
Attorney General who is active and in place. The sooner we can get the 
President's nominee for Attorney General confirmed, the better for the 
Nation.
  I will comment briefly on some comments that have been made. One of 
my colleagues this morning spoke, as a matter of fact. The charges are 
pretty much the same. Let me summarize three or four things that have 
been said with regard to John Ashcroft and try to put them in proper 
context.
  One of my colleagues this morning commented on the floor that there 
is a new John Ashcroft. I would have thought that since they didn't 
particularly like the old John Ashcroft, this would be good news, but 
it turns out not to be. What they are basically saying is, they don't 
know which one to trust. You have the old John Ashcroft who, as a 
Member of the Senate, was pushing legislation to do this and 
legislation to do that. Now as Attorney General, he says he will abide 
by the law. Well, which is it? The fact is, John Ashcroft has served in 
different capacities in his life, and they are not always the same.

  As Members of the Senate, we put ideas forth. They are partisan 
ideas, they are philosophical ideas, and we debate them. In the 
crucible of this institution, those ideas are put to tests. They are 
molded, and they are amended. And consensus develops around solutions 
that we eventually will pass. None of us get our way on any of this 
legislation, but we all put it forth. We have our debates and then we 
move on.
  That is a very different position than the position of a judge or 
Attorney General. There you have to take the law as it is, and you have 
to apply it. You have to interpret it. You have to argue it to the 
court and so on. I, for the life me, cannot understand why some of my 
colleagues are not able to make this distinction. Perhaps they are able 
to and choose not to because it is an unfair criticism of John Ashcroft 
that he will not apply the law as he is required to do as Attorney 
General simply because, as a Member of the Senate, he argued for other 
positions.
  We can all walk and chew gum. We can all do different things at 
different times. There is nothing to suggest that John Ashcroft won't 
do exactly what he swears he will do when he puts his hand on the Bible 
and swears to uphold the Constitution and the laws. He did that as 
attorney general of the State of Missouri. One should not expect that 
it would change if he is Attorney General of the United States.
  Secondly, there is this question of whether he would enforce laws 
with which he disagrees. Two thoughts about that: First, everyone is 
assuming he disagrees with certain laws that he doesn't disagree with. 
The so-called FACE law, the freedom of access to clinics entrances law, 
he supports that law. He opposes abortion. Some of his opponents say if 
he opposes abortion, he therefore must oppose that law, and therefore 
he probably won't enforce it. Wrong on two counts. You can oppose 
abortion and still support the law, as I do, as Senator Ashcroft does, 
which says that people should not be harassed when they want to 
lawfully go into a place which is a lawful place of business. There is 
nothing inconsistent with opposing what goes on inside that office but 
upholding the law that says people have a right to enter. He has said 
he would do that. That is the second point.

[[Page S617]]

  I don't know why people don't believe that. There is nothing in his 
record to suggest he would not uphold that law. He supports the law. He 
says he will uphold it. I don't understand why people, therefore, in 
effect question his motivation or his commitment to abide by the oath 
he will take. That bothers me because it suggests they don't trust John 
Ashcroft. Yet there isn't a single Senator who has served with John 
Ashcroft who hasn't, when asked to remark upon this, confirmed that, 
no, they understand his integrity and it is not that they don't trust 
John Ashcroft. There is something else.
  I think it has to do with the fact that there are so many liberal 
special interest groups that have a reason to oppose John Ashcroft 
because his views are not the same as theirs that it is forcing our 
colleagues then to say things that are inappropriate. Because to 
suggest that John Ashcroft is not a man of integrity and that he won't 
keep his commitments is quite unfair to this fine and decent man.

  That finally brings me to the third point. My colleague, Senator 
Leahy, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on which I sit, made a 
very important point this morning with which I agree. He said the 
office of Attorney General is a little different than the other Cabinet 
positions in that there is a special kind of responsibility there. With 
most of the other Cabinet positions, there are policy issues and 
administration involved, but there is not the necessity of upholding 
the rule of law. In that, Senator Leahy was absolutely correct. One 
could argue that there are a couple other Cabinet positions that also 
have a unique responsibility.
  The Secretary of Defense, I am sure, would fall into that, protecting 
the American people, not just being interested in policy. But certainly 
he is right that the office of Attorney General is something special.
  We expect the Attorney General to care first and foremost about the 
rule of law and to represent all Americans as well as the President in 
upholding that rule of law. As a matter of fact, Senator Leahy said--
paraphrasing here--no position in the Cabinet is as important for 
evenhanded justice. I didn't do him justice in paraphrasing, but I 
agree with that sentiment.
  It seems to me that people who focus on that issue now with respect 
to John Ashcroft would have a lot more credibility in making their case 
against John Ashcroft if they had demonstrated an equal concern for the 
rule of law in a whole variety of issues that involved the Clinton 
administration for the last 8 years. On this, many of his opponents 
have been relatively silent. Every single one of the Democrats in this 
body voted against the punishment that the House of Representatives 
offered forth with respect to the impeachment of President Clinton. 
That was all about the rule of law. As it has transpired, the President 
has admitted to making knowingly false statements to officers of the 
court. This is not something which enhances the rule of law. Yet I 
heard all manner of excuses about the President's conduct at that time.
  Nor have we heard much about the rule of law as to the current 
Attorney General's refusal time after time after time to appoint 
special counsel or otherwise look into what were clear violations of 
the law and very questionable conduct with respect to campaign 
contributions, among other things. When her special counsel Charles 
LaBella recommended the appointment of a special prosecutor to look 
into this, when Louis Freeh, head of the FBI recommended the same, time 
after time Attorney General Reno said no.
  When we talk about politicizing the office of Attorney General, I 
think it is important for our Democratic friends to understand that 
Republicans have been concerned about the rule of law and the 
politicization of the Department of Justice for a long time. We are 
anxious for an Attorney General to go into that office and, frankly, 
clean it up so that there isn't the politics that has characterized it 
for the last 8 years.
  It is hard for me to give much credence to those on the outside who 
question whether John Ashcroft can do this and who question his 
commitment to the rule of law when, for 8 years, they have been silent 
about repeated matters involving very strong charges that the rule of 
law is violated by various people and an unwillingness on the part of 
the Attorney General to do very much, if anything, about it.
  Even the last act of President Clinton in pardoning a whole group of 
people has drawn very little criticism from our friends who are 
critical of John Ashcroft and are now very concerned about the rule of 
law. One of these was the pardoning of Marc Rich. A few of my 
Democratic Senate colleagues have been coached to come out with mild 
statements, or expressions of concern, about that pardon. I think that 
is appropriate. There ought to be expressions of concern about it.
  My point is that if we are going to talk about concern over the rule 
of law and how John Ashcroft as Attorney General will protect and 
preserve the rule of law in this country, then I think it behooves us 
to be consistent in our concern for the rule of law and apply it 
equally in the situation of the immediate past Attorney General.
  This is an example where I suspect many Americans look at this and 
say, well, I guess where you stand depends on where you sit. It is easy 
to criticize somebody on the other side. You don't want to criticize 
somebody on your own side. That is a natural characteristic of 
politics. But when we are talking about actually voting against John 
Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States, it seems to me 
that at last my colleagues who will have an opportunity to vote on 
that--and I now separate them from the special interest groups about 
which I have been speaking--need to look at this carefully, look at 
what they have said about the rule of law over the last 8 years, before 
they raise concerns about John Ashcroft and the rule of law.
  There has never been a more qualified nominee for Attorney General 
than John Ashcroft and I doubt many with greater integrity. I know many 
Attorneys General have served with great integrity. Neither his 
integrity nor qualifications has been questioned. All it boils down to 
is that some people object to his conservative ideology.
  The President of the United States is elected, and I believe he has 
an opportunity to serve the American people and ability to do so in 
following through on his campaign commitments, following through on his 
ideas of how we ought to proceed with public policymaking. The Attorney 
General will have something to say about that. But mostly, as Senator 
Leahy said today, the Attorney General's job is to administer the law. 
About that, there is no question where the President stands and where 
John Ashcroft stands.
  I urge my colleagues to think very carefully how a ``no'' vote on 
John Ashcroft would look perhaps 2 years from now, 5 years from now, 10 
years from now. Will it look like a good call or will it look petty? 
Will it look like an act of statesmanship or will it look like an act 
of partisanship? I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about 
this vote before they cast it.

                          ____________________