[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S677-S691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NOMINATION OF JOHN ASHCROFT

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in 14 years in the Senate, I have voted 
on 36 Cabinet nominations: 24 by Republican Presidents and 12 by a 
Democratic President. Of all of them, this one is by far the most 
difficult. I have struggled with this decision, as have most of us.
  I have spent many hours thinking about what I have heard and read. I 
have reviewed the words of our founders, and I have searched my memory 
and my conscience.
  In his inaugural address, President Bush pledged to ``work to build a 
single nation of justice and opportunity'' for all Americans. I think 
most Americans share that desire.
  That is why this vote is so important.
  John Ashcroft is a man of considerable accomplishment. He is a 
graduate of Yale and the University of Chicago Law School, a former 
State auditor, State attorney general, and a former Governor.
  Beyond that, he is a former Member of this Senate. Many of us have 
worked with him for a number of years.
  The question facing us, however, is not: Does John Ashcroft have an 
impressive resume? Clearly, he does.
  The question facing us is: Is John Ashcroft the right person to lead 
the United States Department of Justice?
  The Attorney General is more than ``the President's lawyer.'' He is 
the guardian of the constitutional rights of all Americans--the 
protector of our fundamental freedoms.
  The Attorney General of the United States has enormous power. He 
advises the President and every other Cabinet member--on whether their 
actions are

[[Page S687]]

constitutional. He has enormous authority to decide which laws are 
enforced, and to what extent.
  The Attorney General decides how--and whether--to intervene in court 
cases. He is responsible for screening and recommending nominees for 
the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court.
  Because of his enormous authority and discretion, the Attorney 
General--more than any other Cabinet member--has the power to protect, 
or erode, decades of progress in civil rights in America.
  I believe the President has the right to choose advisers with whom he 
is philosophically comfortable.
  That is why--out of 36 Cabinet nominations, I voted so far on 35, 
``yes.'' The only nominee I voted against was John Tower. I think we 
are all aware of the problems with that nomination.
  My respect for the President's right to choose his own Cabinet is 
also a good part of the reason I have voted to confirm every other 
nominee this President has sent us.
  At the same time, the Senate has a right--and a responsibility to 
evaluate the President's nominees; offer advice; and either grant--or 
withhold--its consent.
  How do we decide whether to confirm--or reject--a Cabinet nominee? 
Our Founders, unfortunately, gave us no constitutional guidelines. The 
``appointments clause'' of the Constitution says only that the Senate 
has the power of advice and consent. It does not specify how we should 
decide.
  During his 6 years in this body, Senator Ashcroft had his own 
standard. He made it clear he believes Presidential appointees can--and 
should--be rejected for ideological reasons. That is the standard he 
used in blocking Bill Lann Lee's nomination to head the Justice 
Department's Civil Rights Division.
  As Senator Ashcroft put it at the time: Mr. Lee ``obviously (has) a 
strong capacity to be an advocate. But his pursuit of objectives 
important to him limit his capacity to make a balanced judgment.''
  Some might say it is fair to hold Senator Ashcroft to that same 
standard. And they might be right. But I choose a different standard.
  In Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton said there must be ``special 
and strong reasons'' for Senators to reject a Presidential nominee.
  Rarely has that standard been met. Out of more than 900 Cabinet 
nominations that have reached this floor, the Senate has rejected only 
five.
  Only one nominee for Attorney General has ever been rejected on the 
Senate floor; and that was 76 years ago.
  Nearly 30 years ago, Archibald Cox was the special Watergate 
prosecutor--until President Nixon had him fired for doing his job too 
well. Before that, he was Solicitor General of the United States.
  He has said that the best way to judge what sort of Attorney General 
a person will make is not by listening to the nominee's promises about 
the future. It is by examining his past.
  In his words:

       Respect for the law--the fairness with which the law is 
     administered--is the foundation of a free society. The 
     individual who becomes Attorney General can do more by his 
     past record . . . than by his conduct in office . . . to 
     strengthen or erode confidence in the fairness, impartiality, 
     integrity and freedom-from-taint-of-personal-influence, in 
     the administration of law.

  Is John Ashcroft the right person to lead the Justice Department? Or 
are there ``special and strong'' reasons that make his appointment as 
Attorney General unwise? The answer is not in his heart. It is in his 
long public record.
  Senator Ashcroft has been a public official for nearly a quarter of a 
century.
  Throughout his career, he has been a fierce advocate for his beliefs. 
Those beliefs--on civil rights, on women's rights, workers' rights, 
separation of church and State, and many other issues--put him far to 
the right of most Americans.
  Senator Ashcroft and his supporters argue that his past activism does 
not matter. Legislators write laws, they say. Attorneys general simply 
enforce the laws that are on the books.
  It is an interesting distinction. But in 8 years as Missouri's 
attorney general, it is not a distinction John Ashcroft made.
  For 8 years as Missouri's attorney general and 8 years after that as 
Governor, John Ashcroft prevented efforts to end segregation of public 
schools in St. Louis and 23 surrounding communities.
  The Federal court system found the State responsible for the 
segregation, and ordered it to correct its sad history. John Ashcroft 
fought nearly every one of those orders. Three times in 4 years, he 
appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Each time, he lost.
  When St. Louis and the surrounding communities agreed on their own to 
a voluntary desegregation plan, Attorney General Ashcroft used the 
power of his office to block it. His obstruction provoked one judge in 
the case to threaten him with contempt. Today, he insists that his 
opposition was just a matter of guarding the public till.
  But in 1984, when he ran for Governor, John Ashcroft denounced the 
voluntary desegregation plan as ``an outrage against human decency.''
  According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, he and his opponent in the 
1984 Republican Gubernatorial primary competed ``to see who could 
denounce desegregation most harshly . . . exploiting and encouraging 
the worst racist sentiments that exist in the state.''
  His continued defiance as Governor caused another judge in the case--
a Republican appointed by President Reagan--to conclude that ``the 
State is ignoring the real objectives of this case--a better education 
for city students--to personally embark on a litigious pursuit of 
righteousness.''
  John Ashcroft's 16-year fight to prevent the voluntary desegregation 
cost Missouri taxpayers millions of dollars. Worse than that, it cost 
many children their right to a decent education.
  So much for the distinction between writing laws, and merely 
enforcing them.
  In addition, Attorney General Ashcroft vigorously opposed the Equal 
Rights Amendment.
  When the National Organization for Women urged a boycott of Missouri 
and other States for failing to ratify the ERA, Attorney General 
Ashcroft ignored settled legal precedent and stretched antitrust laws 
to sue the organization. He used taxpayer dollars to take the case all 
the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ruled that NOW members 
were simply exercising their fundamental, constitutional right to free 
speech.
  Governor Ashcroft also twice vetoed voting-rights bills that would 
have allowed trained volunteers to register voters in the city of St. 
Louis--just as they did in neighboring suburbs, where there were more 
white and Republican voters.
  Earlier this month, in his opening remarks before the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Ashcroft described himself as ``a man of common-
sense conservative beliefs.'' The truth is, there is nothing common 
about his conservatism.
  Here in this Senate, he demonstrated what the New York Times called 
``a radical propensity for offering constitutional amendments that 
would bring that document into alignment with his religious views.''
  In more than 200 years, our Constitution has been amended only 27 
times--including the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights. In his one 
term in this Senate, John Ashcroft introduced or cosponsored seven 
constitutional amendments. One of his amendments would have radically 
rewritten the rules to make it easier to amend the Constitution. 
Another would have made abortion a crime, even in cases of rape and 
incest, and even when continuing a pregnancy would result in serious 
and permanent injury to a woman. It also would have banned most common 
forms of birth control.
  By his own account, Senator Ashcroft was ``probably more critical 
than any other individual in the Senate'' of Federal judges. He has 
vilified judges with whom he disagrees as ``renegade judges, a robed 
and contemptuous elite.''
  He frequently opposed qualified Presidential nominees. He opposed 
both Dr. Henry Foster and Dr. David Satcher for Surgeon General because 
they supported President Clinton's position on a woman's right to 
choose. In Dr. Foster's case, he prevented the nomination from ever 
reaching the Senate floor.
  In 1998, when James Hormel was nominated to serve as U.S. Ambassador 
to Luxembourg, Senator Ashcroft said

[[Page S688]]

he opposed the nomination because Mr. Hormel ``has been a leader in 
promoting a lifestyle.''
  While Senator Ashcroft never met with Mr. Hormel to discuss his 
qualifications, he now asserts vaguely that it was the ``totality'' of 
Mr. Hormel's record that prompted his opposition.
  Then-Senator Al D'Amato--a member of Senator Ashcroft's own party--
saw a different reason.
  In a 1998 letter to Senator Lott, Senator D'Amato wrote: ``I fear Mr. 
Hormel's nomination is being held up for one reason and one reason 
only: the fact that he is gay.''
  Senator Ashcroft blocked Bill Lann Lee's nomination to head the 
Justice Department's Civil Rights Division because of Mr. Lee's views 
on affirmative action.
  Just as Senator Ashcroft assures us that he will enforce laws with 
which he disagrees, Mr. Lee assured members of the Judiciary Committee 
that he would enforce Supreme Court rulings restricting affirmative 
action.
  Senator Ashcroft refused to accept that assurance. Perhaps the most 
troubling for me personally is Senator Ashcroft's treatment of Judge 
Ronnie White, the first nominee to the Federal district court to be 
rejected on the Senate floor in 50 years.
  Judge White grew up in a poor family and worked his way through 
college and law school. He is a former prosecutor, State legislator, 
circuit judge, and member of the Missouri State appeals court. He is 
the first African American ever appointed to the Missouri Supreme 
Court. In 1997, he was nominated to be a U.S. district court judge. For 
2 years, Senator Ashcroft blocked Judge White's nomination from coming 
to the Senate floor. The wait lasted so long that the seat for which 
Judge White was nominated was officially declared a judicial emergency.
  When Judge White's nomination finally did come to the floor, Senator 
Ashcroft misled the Senate and deliberately distorted his record. For 
me, that day was one of the saddest in all of my years in the Senate.
  John Ashcroft smeared Judge White as ``pro-criminal and activist,'' a 
man with a ``tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' Nothing could 
be further from the truth.
  Stuart Taylor who writes for the conservative National Journal 
magazine writes that John Ashcroft's treatment of Judge White alone 
makes him ``unfit to be Attorney General.''
  ``The reason,'' Taylor writes, ``is (that) during an important debate 
on a sensitive matter, then-Senator Ashcroft abused the power of his 
office by descending to demagoguery, dishonesty and character 
assassination.''
  I do not believe John Ashcroft's treatment of Judge White was 
motivated by racism. I believe it was plain political opportunism. In 
the heat of a tough reelection battle, John Ashcroft was willing to try 
to distort the record and destroy the reputation of a good man. To this 
day, Senator Ashcroft continues to misrepresent Judge White's record 
and insist that he himself did nothing wrong.
  The job of Attorney General demands fairness, judgment, tolerance, 
and respect for opposing views. It demands commitment to equal rights 
for all Americans and a sensitivity to injustice. John Ashcroft has 
shown a pattern of insensitivity through his public career. Even now he 
refuses to disavow Southern Partisan Quarterly Review, a magazine that 
has defended slavery. He refuses to distance himself from Bob Jones 
University, a cauldron of intolerance that has described Mormons and 
Catholics as ``cults which call themselves Christian.''
  Senator Ashcroft has said there are only ``two things you find in the 
middle of the road: a moderate and a dead skunk.'' I think he is wrong. 
The other thing you find in the middle of the road is the vast majority 
of the American people.
  An article in the December 23 New York Times quoted an adviser to 
President Bush as saying:

       Attorney General was the one area where the right felt very 
     strongly, a la Ed Meese. This is a message appointment.

  The adviser described it as a signal to the conservatives that ``I 
hear your concerns.''
  What message does making John Ashcroft Attorney General send to the 
rest of America? What message does it send to women or to minorities? 
What message does it send to judges and others who may not see the 
world exactly as John Ashcroft sees it? What message does making John 
Ashcroft Attorney General send to Americans who fear their votes don't 
count and aren't counted?

  John Ashcroft has said:

       There are voices in the Republican Party today who preach 
     pragmatism, who champion conciliation, who counsel 
     compromise. I stand here today to reject those deceptions. If 
     ever there was a time to unfurl the banner of unabashed 
     conservatism, it is now.

  I say, if ever there was a time to unfurl the banner of conciliation, 
it is now. Senator Ashcroft is a man of intellect and passionate 
beliefs. I am sure there are many ways he can serve the causes in which 
he believes so fiercely, but I do not believe it is fair or reasonable 
for us to expect him to fully enforce laws he finds unwise, 
unconstitutional, and, in some cases, morally repugnant.
  How can John Ashcroft enforce laws he has spent his entire public 
career fighting? What would that say about him if he did?
  I have turned this over in my head a hundred times. Every time the 
answer is sadly the same: I do not believe John Ashcroft is the right 
person to lead the U.S. Department of Justice. For that reason, I will 
vote no on this nomination.
  In his inaugural address, President Bush spoke of the ``grand and 
enduring ideals'' that unite Americans across generations. ``The 
grandest of all these ideals,'' he said, ``is an unfolding American 
promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no 
insignificant person was ever born.''
  I applaud the President's words, but I cannot reconcile them with 
this nomination. John Ashcroft spent 6 years in the Senate mocking 
bipartisanship. To require that we confirm him now as proof of our 
bipartisanship and good faith is asking too much.
  I thank Senators Leahy and Hatch and members of the staff of the 
Judiciary Committee for conducting a full and fair hearing. I thank the 
many witnesses and people all across our Nation who made their voices 
heard on this critical nomination.
  In closing, regardless of what we decide, I hope we will all remember 
what this debate is about. It is not about partisan politics. It is not 
about whether we are willing to work with this President. It is about 
justice.
  Nearly a century ago, another Republican, President Theodore 
Roosevelt, heard rumors that the district attorneys and marshals in a 
particular State would be ordered to replace their deputies for 
political reasons. Immediately President Roosevelt sent a letter to his 
Attorney General, a man named William Moody, demanding that the plan be 
stopped. As he put it:

       Of all the officers of the Government, those of the 
     Department of Justice should be kept free from any suspicion 
     of improper action on partisan or factional grounds.

  He went on to say:

       I am particularly anxious that the federal courts . . . 
     should win regard and respect for the people by an exhibition 
     of scrupulous nonpartisanship, so that there shall be 
     gradually a growth--even though a slow growth--in the 
     knowledge that the Federal Court and the Federal Department 
     of Justice insist on meting out even-handed justice to all.

  That was in 1904.
  Over the course of the 20th century, we made great strides in 
assuring that America's courts and Justice Department are indeed 
committed to evenhanded justice for all. Now, as we begin the 21st 
century, is not the time to turn the clock back.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are in a time for morning business. In an 
effort to have Senators know what is next, I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Inhofe be recognized next for up to 15 minutes or whatever 
time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Maybe a little bit longer.
  Mr. REID. Senator Inhofe for 25 minutes. Following that, the Senator 
from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, be recognized for 15 minutes; following 
that, Senator Bunning be recognized for up to a half hour; following 
that, Senator Harkin

[[Page S689]]

be recognized; and following that, Senator Murray from Washington be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was just advised that I failed to mention 
Senator Jack Reed in the mix, and we want him to follow Senator Bunning 
in the same order, if there is a Republican who needs to speak in 
between Senator Reed and Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I was listening very carefully during the entire 
presentation of our very illustrious minority leader, immediate past 
majority leader. I had a hard time figuring out who he was talking 
about.
  I am 66 years old, and I have been involved in virtually every kind 
of political job. I have been involved for 30 years in the private 
sector. I don't believe I can stand here and think of one person I have 
ever met in my entire life who is a more honorable person, who is 
totally incapable of telling a lie, than John Ashcroft.
  I have watched him take courageous stands for things he believes in, 
yes, but he always tells it exactly the way he believes it. That is not 
the question here. We are talking about a law enforcement officer. We 
are talking about the chief, the guy at the top.
  When I have heard people say that he will not uphold the rule of law, 
I am reminiscent of the last 8 years, certainly Janet Reno and the 
Clinton administration. We have been waiting for her to uphold the law, 
to prosecute people, and not to let people off just because they may be 
friends of the administration.
  I have watched her refuse to go after campaign fundraising abuses, 
refuse to appoint an independent counsel where it is required by law, 
reject advice by Louis Freeh and Charles LaBella, refuse to prosecute 
Gore's White House phone calls, questionable plea bargains with John 
Huang, Charlie Trie. I have watched the theft of nuclear secrets, 
watched the botching of the investigation of Wen Ho Lee. I have watched 
this Attorney General refuse to vigorously enforce gun laws. Gun 
prosecutions went down under the Reno administration.
  We could think of a lot of examples. One that comes to mind, I happen 
to be in a Bible study with a man named Chuck Colson, who occasionally 
comes by. I got to know him quite well. I think most Americans know who 
Chuck Colson is. Chuck Colson violated the law back during the 
Watergate era. He disclosed confidential information and leaked it to 
the media. As a result of that, he was found guilty and he served time, 
was prosecuted and went to prison in a Federal penitentiary.
  Ken Bacon did exactly the same thing. I have stood on this floor on 
three different occasions and talked for about 40 minutes just on this 
particular case, that during the Linda Tripp case, Ken Bacon did in 
fact release confidential information to the media. And as a result of 
that, this person was taken out of consideration in terms of 
credibility.
  There is no reason in the world. The law hasn't changed. If anything, 
it is stronger than it was at that time. But there is no reason in the 
world that if Chuck Colson was prosecuted 25 years ago and spent time 
in the Federal penitentiary, Ken Bacon should not have been prosecuted 
and sent to the penitentiary exactly as Chuck Colson was.
  There is an accusation that John Ashcroft would not uphold the law. I 
am not saying he should be just a little bit better than our previous 
Attorney General, Janet Reno, has been. He has to be much, much better. 
But there is certainly no comparison.
  As far as Ronnie White is concerned, I think it is important that we 
not try to paint John Ashcroft as being any kind of racist. During the 
time he was in the positions that he held in the State of Missouri, he 
supported 26 of the 27 black judges. It is my understanding that he 
supported more black judges during his administration than anyone had 
before him.
  As far as Ronnie White is concerned, I listened to him testify before 
the committee, and I was wondering why certain things were not said 
that should have been said, because after going back and reading the 
case--I believe the name is James Johnson--where this individual had 
gone out and had violently murdered a sheriff, in the same night a 
deputy sheriff, in the same night another deputy sheriff, and then, if 
that weren't enough, went to a person's home where they were having a 
Christmas party and in the process of praying brutally murdering the 
wife of one of the sheriffs, White was the lone dissenter in the death 
penalty case involving that man who brutally murdered four people.
  On the same day that the nomination came to the floor, I heard this 
story. I voted against Ronnie White mostly because of that case.
  But I have to say this. I don't think many of us here who were not on 
the Judiciary Committee knew that Ronnie White was black. This is the 
thing that shocked everyone. One of the Senators said this: The first 
time I realized that he was black is when someone took the floor and 
said this was a result of racism. I know this isn't true.
  There is one thing I want to clarify. I think it is important during 
the next few hours that each one of these allegations be responded to 
because there is an assumption out there that is true. I am going to 
respond to one in kind of an unusual way about James Hormel.
  I almost 3 years ago on the floor of this Senate made a speech. It 
was on May 22, 1998. I heard some comments by one of my favorites in 
the Senate. I have to say this. When Patrick Moynihan was in the 
Senate, I always referred to him--he was my nextdoor neighbor--as my 
favorite liberal. Since he is gone, I think I will refer to Paul 
Wellstone as my favorite liberal. He and I have found that we don't 
agree on too many things, but he made some comments concerning my 
opposition to James Hormel.
  It has been stated several times on this Senate floor, and I think in 
the hearings also, that John Ashcroft was the one responsible for James 
Hormel not getting legitimately confirmed. I am here to say today that 
it was not John Ashcroft; it was I.
  I am going to read the Record where I thanked the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, for some comments he made, and I also said 
what we might do since we are both sharing time was that I would speak 
first and he could respond afterwards.
  Some statements were made on the floor yesterday concerning the hold 
I have on James Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxembourg. It is true I 
have a hold on James Hormel. This is I, myself, speaking almost 3 years 
ago. It was not John Ashcroft, it was I.
  There very well may be a vote on this individual, but I will oppose 
his nomination, and I want to stand and tell you why.
  Statements were made on the floor by the senior Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone. I will read excerpts from it.

       Now, one of my colleagues, and I think it is extremely 
     unfortunate, one of my colleagues has compared Mr. Hormel, a 
     highly qualified public servant and nominee, to Mr. David 
     Duke, who, among other credentials, is a former grand wizard 
     of the Ku Klux Klan.

  He goes on to say:

       I want to say to my colleagues, that given this kind of 
     statement made publicly by a United States Senator, this kind 
     of character assassination, it is more important now than 
     ever that this man, Mr. Hormel, be voted on.
       In defense, really, of the senior Senator from Minnesota, I 
     say that if I had said what he thought I said, he was 
     certainly entitled and justified to make the statements that 
     were made. But I think it is important to know that I did not 
     make those statements in the context that he believed I made 
     them.
       Let me, first of all, say that there probably are not two 
     Members of the U.S. Senate who are further apart 
     philosophically than the senior Senator from Minnesota and 
     myself, I would probably, in my own mind, believe him to be 
     an extreme left-wing radical liberal and he believes me to be 
     an extreme right-wing radical conservative. And I think maybe 
     we are both right.
       But one thing I respect about Senator Wellstone is he is 
     not a hypocrite. He is the same thing everywhere. He is the 
     same everywhere. He honestly believes that government 
     should have a more expanded role. He is a liberal. I am a 
     conservative.

  Having said that, let me go back and talk a little bit about what he 
had actually said. I made the statement when I was running for office--
and I have been consistent with that--that if I get to the Senate where 
I have the opportunity to participate in the confirmation process, I 
will work to keep the nominee from being confirmed if that

[[Page S690]]

individual has his own personal agenda and has made statements publicly 
to the effect that he believes strongly in his personal agenda and will 
use that office to advance the personal agenda more than he will the 
American agenda.
  In the case of James Hormel, a gay activist, he made statements in 
the past, which I will read in a moment, that have led me to believe 
that his personal agenda is above the agenda of the United States. As I 
said, the same thing would be true if it were David Duke. If he were up 
for nomination, I would oppose him because I believe he would have his 
agenda above the agenda of America. Maybe with Patricia Ireland it 
would be the same thing, Ralph Reed, who started the Christian 
Coalition. Maybe if he were up for nomination and he made the statement 
that he would use that nomination, whether it be ambassadorial or 
anything else, to advance his own agenda, I would oppose it. Yet I 
agree with his agenda.
  I would also like to quote someone who I think is familiar to all of 
us and whom we hold here in very high esteem, Faith Whittlesey, former 
U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland. She was talking about this trend of 
trying to put people with their own personal agendas in the various 
embassies. She said:

       Ambassadorial appointments should not be used for the 
     purposes of social engineering in the countries to which the 
     ambassadors are assigned.

  One of the many statements I have made previously about James Hormel 
that led me to the conclusion he wanted to use his position to advance 
the agenda was the following statement he made June 16, 1996. He said:

       I specifically asked to be Ambassador to Norway because, at 
     the time, they were about to pass legislation that would 
     acknowledge same-sex relationships, and they had indicated 
     their reception, their receptivity, to gay men and lesbians.

  I believe he was implying and there is no question in anyone's mind 
that he was saying he was going to use that job to advance his own 
agenda. I think it is important that we understand that.
  I would like to repeat what I just said. It was 3 years ago.
  As we listen to the confirmation hearings and hearing the speeches on 
the floor, whoever it was who said that John Ashcroft was the one who 
blocked and attempted to block the confirmation of James Hormel, they 
are wrong. I am the one. It was not he.
  I think there is a more serious thing here. I don't think it is the 
issue so much of James Hormel, or of abortion, or of discrimination. We 
are always shocked when we hear about repercussions in places such as 
Sudan and China. People are enslaved for their religious belief.
  I look at this and I think John Ashcroft is guilty of one thing. He 
is guilty of having an inseparable walk with the Lord. And he has said 
that several times.
  There is someone I dearly love by the name of Bill Bright who wrote 
the book ``Red Sky in the Morning.'' I think it should be required 
reading for all Americans. Let me read a couple of things from it.

       George Washington, ``Father of Our Country,'' 1st President 
     of the U.S.: ``Bless O Lord the whole race of mankind, and 
     let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy 
     Son, Jesus Christ.''
       ``It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God 
     and the Bible.''
       Patrick Henry, American Revolutionary Leader: ``It cannot 
     be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great 
     nation was founded, not be religionists, but by Christians; 
     not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.''
       Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States: 
     ``Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is 
     just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.''

  It goes on and on. You can read all of the founding fathers of this 
country.
  What would John Adams, who said we have no government armed with 
power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled mortality, 
and religion--what would they say if they knew right now that a man 
from Missouri, after very carefully listening to all the comments, all 
the charges have been made about John Ashcroft?
  I believe this is a case of religious persecution.
  I have to conclude by saying what I started out by saying; that is, 
of all the people I have known and worked with in my entire life, I 
know no one of greater character or more highly moral than John 
Ashcroft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Ms. Stabenow pertaining to the introduction of S. 215 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, before I am recognized under the time 
allotted under the previous order, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the previous order, Senator Allard be recognized for up 
to 15 minutes following the remarks of Senator Reed of Rhode Island and 
that Senator Thomas be recognized for up to 15 minutes following the 
remarks of Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
John Ashcroft to be our next U.S. Attorney General. For weeks now, the 
media, Members of this body, and the liberal left have conducted 
nothing more than a smear campaign against John Ashcroft.
  For the past 2 years in the 106th Congress, I served with John 
Ashcroft as a deputy whip, and I came to know him very well.
  He is one of the most intelligent, fair, and compassionate men I have 
ever known. He is thoughtful and full of integrity and humility. He is 
going to make a fine Attorney General.
  What is being done to John Ashcroft and his reputation is wrong and 
despicable. Today I want to help set things straight about John 
Ashcroft, and to separate the facts from the lies and distortions that 
are being carelessly tossed around about him and his record.
  First of all, John Ashcroft is one of the most qualified nominees 
ever to be named to be Attorney General. He was twice elected to be 
Missouri's attorney general. He was twice elected to be Missouri's 
Governor. And the people of Missouri elected him in 1994 to be one of 
their U.S. Senators.
  None of our previous Attorneys General has had such broad popular 
support from the people who knew them best.
  In each of these posts, John Ashcroft served with distinction, being 
honored by his peers with leadership positions.
  As Missouri's attorney general, John Ashcroft was elected president 
of the National Association of Attorneys General. In other words, the 
other 49 elected him to lead their group.
  As Missouri's Governor, he was elected chairman of the National 
Governors' Association. The same thing: 49 others elected him to lead 
the Governors' organization.
  Now many of the liberal special interests groups are trying to tar 
and feather him by attacking his long and distinguished record of 
public service.
  But facts are stubborn things, and the facts prove them wrong.
  The liberals claim that John's views are out of the mainstream. Some 
are even resorting to name-calling and calling him a racist and an 
extremist.
  It is hard to see how he could be such a demon and still be five 
times elected to statewide office.
  If John Ashcroft's execution of these earlier public trusts was as 
far ``out of the mainstream'' as his critics now claim, the people of 
Missouri would have ridden him out of town on a rail. His peers surely 
would not have honored him for his achievements.
  The fact of the matter is that John Ashcroft's views are in line with 
those of most Missourians and most Americans.
  If his ideas and beliefs are so far out of the mainstream, are John 
Ashcroft's critics really saying that the majority of citizens in 
Missouri who elected him to these posts are extremists? Are his critics 
ready to make this claim? I doubt it.
  The rhetoric we have heard from these critics serves nothing more 
than to fatten up the fundraising of the left and to scare people into 
voting for liberals by continuing to try and label conservatives as 
mean-spirited.

[[Page S691]]

  We saw it with Robert Bork. We saw it with Clarence Thomas. Now we 
are seeing it with John Ashcroft.
  It is just hot air, and I believe that the American people are going 
to reject these tactics and the politics of personal destruction.
  Another one of the lies that is being told about John Ashcroft is 
that he is a racist. His critics point to his opposition to Missouri 
Judge Ronnie White for a position as a Federal judge as proof.
  But, again, let's ignore the rhetoric and look at the facts. When he 
was Governor, John Ashcroft appointed the first black judge to one of 
Missouri's appellate courts. As a Senator, John Ashcroft voted to 
confirm 26 black judges out of 28 nominated to the Federal bench.
  He led the fight to save Lincoln University which was founded by 
black soldiers. His wife, Janet, even teaches as a law professor at 
Howard University, one of our leading historically black colleges.
  For his critics to now turn around and call John a racist is absurd 
and nothing more than dirty politics. When they're not calling John 
Ashcroft a racist, the liberals sneer that he can't be trusted to 
enforce the law. They don't have any real proof, just a lot of strong 
words. They say that John isn't fair-minded enough to enforce laws he 
might not agree with.
  But John did a fine job enforcing Missouri's laws when he was 
attorney general there. And I believe that after he lays his hand on 
the Bible and swears to uphold the Constitution as our 68th Attorney 
General that he will do a fine job for our Nation.
  Eight years ago when Janet Reno was nominated to be Attorney General, 
no one made the ridiculous charge that she wouldn't uphold laws she 
might not agree with.
  No one can or should make the same claim about John Ashcroft.
  John Ashcroft will enforce the law. He is a man of his word. He has 
an impeccable record of law enforcement. I know and I fully trust him 
to do the job which he will be sworn to do.
  Let's face it. The real problem the critics on the left have is John 
Ashcroft's stance on the issues and his conservative philosophy. But 
they know they can't use this as a real reason to defeat his 
nomination, so they resort to calling him names and throwing mud at 
him, hoping that some will stick. They drag out the process as long as 
possible and dig around in the dirt for any scraps they can find.
  They smear his good name. They make up bogus charges. They even sink 
as low as to question his religious beliefs. It is very sad, but it 
won't work.
  The job of Attorney General is not to advocate policy. It is to 
enforce our laws. The question we have to ask about John Ashcroft is, 
will he enforce those laws? His record says he will. He has repeatedly 
said he will. There is no evidence to say otherwise, just false charges 
and name-calling.
  John Ashcroft is going to be confirmed, and I believe his critics and 
the tactics they take will backfire.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for John Ashcroft. We 
could not ask for a more qualified and fair-minded person for the job. 
John will make us all very proud.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island came to the 
floor quickly. The Senator from Oklahoma has about a 4-minute statement 
he would like to make on Christine Todd Whitman. Would the Senator from 
Rhode Island allow him to proceed?
  Mr. REED. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

                          ____________________