[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S839-S855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


           NOMINATION OF JOHN ASHCROFT TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now go into executive session and proceed to the Ashcroft 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of John Ashcroft, 
of Missouri, to be Attorney General.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee 
yesterday evening favorably reported the nomination of Senator John 
Ashcroft to be the next Attorney General of the United States. I look 
forward to a fair debate of Senator Ashcroft's qualifications and am 
hopeful that we could move to a vote on his confirmation this week. It 
is important that we confirm Senator Ashcroft as soon as possible so 
that the President has his Cabinet in place and he can move ahead with 
the people's agenda.
  John Ashcroft is no stranger to most of us in this body. We have 
served with him during his 6 years of service as the Senator 
representing Missouri, some had worked with him when he was Governor 
and some others had worked with him when he was the Attorney General of 
Missouri.
  In the Senate, he served on the Judiciary Committee with distinction 
over the past four years--working closely with members on both sides of 
the aisle. As a member of the committee, he proved himself a leader in 
many areas, including the fight against drugs and violence, the 
assessment of the proper role of the Justice Department, and the 
protection of victims' rights.
  But, having heard the relentless drumbeat of accusation after 
accusation in recent weeks, I can fairly say, in my view, that there 
has been an unyielding effort to redefine this man of unlimited 
integrity. Some have termed the statements made by John Ashcroft, 
during the nearly four days of hearings in the committee, a 
``confirmation conversion''--``a metamorphosis.''
  On the contrary. The true metamorphosis of John Ashcroft is in the 
misleading picture painted of him by narrow left-wing interest groups. 
In fact, I welcomed them to the committee, and said: We haven't seen 
you for 8 years. I think there is a lot to be garnered out of that 
statement.
  As my colleagues are well aware, John Ashcroft has an impressive 30-
year record of loyal public service as a state attorney general, a two 
term Governor, and then--of course--as Senator, for the State of 
Missouri. I should also mention that as Missouri's attorney general, he 
was so well respected that he was elected by his peers across the 
nation to head the National Association of Attorneys General, and again 
as Governor, he was elected by this nation's governors to serve as the 
head of the National Governors' Association.
  That really defines John Ashcroft rather than some of the accusations 
that have been thrown against him in the Senate.
  I have said this before and I will say it again, of the sixty-seven 
Attorneys General we have had, only a handful even come close to having 
some of the qualifications that John Ashcroft brings in assuming the 
position of chief law enforcement officer of this great nation.
  The Department of Justice, of course, encompasses broad jurisdiction. 
It includes agencies ranging from the Drug Enforcement Administration, 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Marshal's Service, 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Attorneys, to 
the Bureau of Prisons. It includes, among other things, enforcement of 
the law in areas including antitrust, terrorism, fraud, money 
laundering, organized crime, drugs, and immigration. To effectively 
prevent and manage crises in these important areas, one thing is 
certain: we need, at the helm, a no-nonsense person with the background 
and experience of John Ashcroft.
  Those charged with enforcing the law of the nation must demonstrate 
both a proper understanding of that law and a determination to uphold 
its letter and spirit. This is the standard I have applied to nominees 
in the past, and this is the standard I am applying to John Ashcroft 
here today in my full-hearted support of his nomination to be the

[[Page S840]]

next Attorney General of the United States.
  During John Ashcroft's 30-year career in public service, he has 
worked to establish numerous things to keep Americans safe and free 
from criminal activities. For example, he has: (1) fought for tougher 
sentencing laws for serious crimes; (2) authored legislation to keep 
drugs out of the hands of children; (3) improved our nation's 
immigration laws; (4) protected citizens from fraud; (5) protected 
competition in business; (6) supported funding increases for law 
enforcement; (7) held the first hearings ever on racial profiling; (8) 
fought for victims' rights in the courts of law and otherwise; (9) 
helped to enact the violence against women bill; (10) supported 
provisions making violence at abortion clinics fines non-dischargeable 
in bankruptcy; (11) authored anti-stalking laws; (12) fought to allow 
women accused of homicide to have the privilege of presenting battered 
spouse syndrome evidence in the courts of law. On that point, I should 
add that as governor, he commuted the sentences of two women who did 
not have that privilege; (13) signed Missouri's hate crimes bill into 
law.
  I could go on and on. His record is distinguished.
  I am getting a little irritated that some even implied that he might 
be a racist, but all, including the judge for Ronnie White, said they 
do not believe he is a racist. In fact, he is not. His record proves he 
is not. I might add that his record proves that he is in the mainstream 
of our society.
  Senator Ashcroft appeared before the Judiciary Committee for two days 
and answered all questions completely, honestly and with the utmost 
humility. Over the inaugural weekend, he received over 400 questions. 
He completely answered these follow-up questions that the Senators both 
on and off the committee sent to him. He has testified and committed 
both orally and in writing that he will uphold the laws of the United 
States, regardless of his religious views on the policy which, within 
his constitutional duties as a Senator, he may have advocated changing. 
He understands his role as the chief law enforcement officer of this 
nation.
  Virtually every Senator on the committee and every Senator in this 
Senate has to admit he has the utmost integrity, honor, dignity, and 
decency. If that is true, why not give him the benefit of the doubt 
rather than the other way?
  We saw at the four days of hearings that even when he disagreed with 
the underlying policies, he has an undisputable record of enforcing the 
laws. This was the case with respect to abortion laws, gun laws, or 
laws relating to the separation of church and state.
  Mr. President, a great number of people have said to me that they are 
tired of living in fear. They want to go to sleep at night without 
worrying about the safety of their children or about becoming victims 
of crime themselves.
  As someone who both knows John Ashcroft as a person and who is 
familiar with his distinguished 30-year record of enforcing and 
upholding the law, I can tell you that I feel a great sense of comfort 
and a newfound security in the likely prospect of his confirmation to 
be our nation's chief law enforcement officer.
  Mr. President, as I told my committee colleagues last night, we have 
served with John Ashcroft, and we know that he is a man of integrity, 
committed to the rule of law and the Constitution. We know that he is a 
man of compassion, faith, and devotion to family. We know that he is a 
man of impeccable credentials and many accomplishments.
  Some have charged that we are asking that the Senate apply a 
different standard to John Ashcroft than other nominees because he was 
a member of this cherished body. Let me be clear. I am not asking nor 
advocating that a standard be applied to his nomination that is 
different than that which is applied to other nominees. I am simply 
saying that you have worked with him and know him to be a man of his 
word. He is not the man unfairly painted as an extremist by the left-
wing activists who have reportedly threatened Senators in their re-
election bids if they vote for his confirmation.
  They present a man that none of us really know. They have distorted 
his record and impugned his character and have exaggerated their case.
  I am saying that a nominee, especially one we all personally know to 
be a man of deep faith and integrity, deserves to be given the benefit 
of the doubt when he commits to us under oath that he will enforce and 
uphold the rule of law regardless of his personal or religious beliefs.
  Mr. President, that is the benefit we accorded General Reno, 
President Clinton's nominee 8 years ago. She was pro-abortion, she had 
said so. She was anti-death penalty, she had said so. On both of these 
issues, among others, she had a totally different ideological view than 
almost all of the Republican Senators serving at the time. But she 
committed to uphold the laws of the land, regardless of her personal 
views. and we accorded her the benefit of the doubt which I believe 
President Bush's nominee similarly deserves, especially since we all 
know him.
  I ask that we evaluate this man based on his record, his testimony, 
and based on your personal experiences with him. We know John Ashcroft 
is not an extremist. That is the image of him that has been painted 
through a vicious campaign by a well organized group of left-wing 
special interest activists.
  They have a right to be active. They have a right to complain. They 
have a right to find fault. They have a right to present their case. 
But they do not have a right to impugn a man's integrity, or distort 
his record, which I think they have done.
  Sometimes in life, though, the measure of a person is best seen in 
times of adversity. So it is with John Ashcroft who, after a difficult 
battle for something that meant a great deal to him--re-election to the 
Senate--resisted calls to challenge the outcome of that election. His 
own words during this difficult time say it best:

       Some things are more important than politics, and I believe 
     doing what's right is the most important thing we can do. I 
     think as public officials we have the opportunity to model 
     values for our culture--responsibility, dignity, decency, 
     integrity, and respect. And if we can only model those when 
     it's politically expedient to do so, we've never modeled the 
     values, we've only modeled political expediency.

  Contrary to what a few special interest groups with a narrow 
political agenda would have us believe, these are not the words of an 
extremist or a divisive ideologue. These are the words of a fine public 
servant who is a man of his word and of faith and who is willing to do 
the right thing, even when it means putting himself last.
  Mr. President, John Ashcroft, like many of us, is a man of strongly 
held views. I have every confidence, based on his distinguished record, 
that as Attorney General, he will vigorously work to enforce the law--
whether or not the law happens to be consistent with his personal 
views.
  Mr. President, As I asked my colleagues in the Judiciary Committee, I 
ask that in keeping with our promise to work in a bipartisan fashion, 
we reject the politics of division. If we want to encourage the most 
qualified citizens to serve in government, we must do everything we can 
to stop what has been termed the politics of personal destruction. This 
is not to say that we should put an end to an open and candid debate on 
policy issues. Quite the contrary: our system of government is designed 
to promote the expression of these differences and our Constitution 
protects that expression. But the fact is that all of us both Democrats 
and Republicans, know the difference between legitimate policy debate 
and unwarranted personal attacks promoted--and sometimes urged--by 
narrow interest groups.
  Mr. President, let me cite just one example of what I mean by the 
narrow interest group campaign of personal destruction. Many may have 
read, hopefully with disbelief and dismay, a New York Times report, the 
day following the release of the transcript of Senator Ashcroft's 
speech at the Bob Jones University, which read, ``the leader of a major 
liberal group opposing Mr. Ashcroft's nomination expressed 
disappointment that the comments were not much different from those 
many politicians offer in religious settings.'' The piece continued, 
quoting this ``leader'' as saying `` `[t]his, clearly, will not do it,' 
this person said of hopes that the speech might help defeat the 
nomination.''

[[Page S841]]

  Let me note that some opponents have charged that Senator Ashcroft's 
answers at the hearing and his written answers to the approximately 400 
questions sent to him by Judiciary Committee members were evasive. 
Wrong.
  I don't know of any case where we had that many questions of a 
Cabinet official. Usually it is an insignificant number.
  Throughout, Senator Ashcroft has consistently and persuasively 
responded that he will enforce the law irrespective of his personal 
views. His long and distinguished record in Missouri supports his 
commitment to follow and observe the rule of law. But that record is 
ignored by his critics.
  For some of those looking to oppose him, he simply cannot do anything 
right. When he answers questions in detail to attempt to explain his 
record, he's termed evasive because he should have simply answered 
``yes'' if he really meant it. When he answers a question with a simple 
and straightforward yes, he's accused of not confronting the issue 
completely.
  Let us be clear. John Ashcroft is strongly pro-life. He always has 
been as far as I know, and I expect he always will be. He is a deeply 
religious man--he always has been as far as I know, and I expect he 
always will be. He has strenuously committed to a policy of equal 
justice and opportunity for all--and has a long record which supports 
this commitment of these matters. But he opposed Mr. Hormel for an 
ambassadorship, as did a number of his colleagues; he opposed Bill Lann 
Lee, as did eight other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, 
including myself; and he opposed Justice Ronnie White. This is the 
record upon which many paint John Ashcroft as a right wing extremist. I 
disagree.
  Let me simply conclude by repeating the words of John Ashcroft which 
I cited earlier. ``Some things are more important than politics, and I 
believe doing what's right is the most important thing we can do.'' I 
only hope that my colleagues will heed these words as they consider 
their vote in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this 
nomination.
  By the way, I am urging my colleagues to do what we did for Attorney 
General Reno: Give John Ashcroft the benefit of the doubt instead of 
taking the exact opposite tack, of which I think I have seen enough 
evidence. When Attorney General Reno came up, there were 2 days of 
hearings. In fact, there was only 1 day for Attorney General Dick 
Thornburgh. There were only 2 days for Attorney General Bill Barr, only 
2 days for Janet Reno. In none of those cases did we allow right-wing 
groups to come in and attack the witness. We allowed them to submit 
statements, but we didn't go on and on trying to destroy the reputation 
of really good people. John Ashcroft is really good people. He is a 
decent, honorable, religious, thoughtful, kind man who has a reputation 
of being fair and honest. I personally resent those who try to say 
otherwise and try to impugn that reputation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont, Mr. 
Leahy.
  Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate the comments of my friends from Utah and the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He suggests a 
lot of questions were asked of Senator Ashcroft. I read today in the 
Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that has strongly backed Senator 
Ashcroft, they believe we didn't ask enough questions, especially 
concerning fundraising activities by Senator Ashcroft.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Wall Street Journal 
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when we talk about the time involved in a 
nomination such as this, I recall the last controversial nomination for 
Attorney General we had when the Republicans controlled the Senate. 
That was for Edwin Meese. It took considerably longer, with far more 
witnesses and questions than we are having in this debate. We sometimes 
forget the history of what goes on here.
  This is a case where the White House actually sent Senator Ashcroft's 
nomination to the Senate on Monday--Monday of this week, 2 days ago. We 
are having the debate on the floor today. Prior to the President's 
inauguration, the Democrats controlled the Senate. We moved forward 
even without the paperwork or anything else from the incoming 
transition team. We moved forward to speed up a hearing on Senator 
Ashcroft.
  Today we begin the debate on the floor, after the Judiciary Committee 
debated the nomination yesterday and voted yesterday evening. As I 
said, I convened 3 days of hearings on this nomination over a 4-day 
period from January 16 to January 19. That was prior to having received 
all the paperwork on Senator Ashcroft. We did that to help the new 
administration. The Republican leadership announced weeks ago that all 
50 Republican Senators would vote in favor of the nomination, 
irrespective of whatever came out of those hearings. I am glad that 
other Senators declined to prejudge the matter.
  Actually, the Committee on the Judiciary has done the best we could 
to handle this nomination fairly and fully. We have had hearings, I 
think, that make all members of the committee and the Senate proud. I 
have served in this body for 26 years. I believe very much in the 
committee system. I believe very much in having real hearings and then 
having a record available for Senators.
  In fact, we actually invited Senators who had served in the 106th 
Congress and were going to leave the committee, as well as some we 
anticipated would be coming in from both the Republican and Democratic 
side, to sit in on those hearings. I mention this because we did not 
actually set the membership of our committee until last Thursday, but 
we did this ahead of time.

  The committee heard from every single witness Senator Ashcroft or 
Senator Hatch wanted to call in his behalf. This is not a case where 
suddenly one side or the other was something loaded up. I think there 
were an equal number of witnesses on both sides. We completed the oral 
questioning of Senator Ashcroft in less than a day and a half. We 
limited each Member to two rounds of questions, for a total of only 20 
minutes. The nominee was not invited back by the Republicans following 
the testimony of the public witnesses. As a result, any unanswered 
questions had to be answered in writing.
  We then expedited the sending of written questions to the nominee. We 
sent the majority of written questions on Friday, January 19, the last 
day of the hearing, rather than waiting until the following Monday when 
they were due. Senator Hatch sent out the final batch of written 
questions on the Tuesday following the hearing.
  We received some of what were described as answers to some of the 
written followup questions sent to the nominee late last Thursday. It 
is clear from those answers that the nominee has chosen not to respond 
to our concerns or address many of our questions. In fact, the 
committee has had outstanding requests to the nominee to provide a copy 
of the entire videotape of the commencement proceedings in which he 
participated at Bob Jones University, as has been discussed here on the 
floor. We have had that request pending since early January. That 
videotape was provided, incidentally, to news outlets but not to the 
committee.
  I have also requested that the nominee provide a formal response to 
the allegations that while he was Governor of Missouri he asked about a 
job applicant's sexual preference in an interview, and we have not 
received any answer.
  There have been references on the floor already today as though there 
were some kind of left-wing conspiracy to defeat John Ashcroft. I am 
not aware of that. I have asked my questions as the Senator from 
Vermont, and I responded to the interests of my constituents, both for 
and against Senator Ashcroft, from Vermont.
  But if there is any question of whether there is influence of anybody 
on this nomination, I will refer to the New York Times of Sunday, 
January 7, and the Washington Post of Tuesday, January 2, in which they 
quote a number of people from the far right of the Republican Party who 
openly bragged about the fact that they told the new President he could 
not appoint Governor Racicot of Montana--whom he wanted to appoint--but 
that he must appoint John Ashcroft.

[[Page S842]]

  I mention that because, if anybody thinks this nomination has been 
influenced by liberal groups, the only ones who have actually 
determined this nomination and have openly gone to the press and 
bragged about influencing it are an element of the far right of the 
Republican Party. They have openly bragged about the fact that they 
told the incoming administration and President Bush that he could not 
have his first choice, the Governor of Montana--who is a conservative 
Republican and now the former Governor--but that he must appoint 
Senator Ashcroft. That remains a fact. That is why we are here.
  Notwithstanding all this, and notwithstanding the fact that the 
questions have not all been answered, the requested material has not 
all been sent, we Democrats granted consent to advance the markup date 
in order to proceed yesterday afternoon and last evening. As the 
distinguished chairman knows, normally we would have had our debate 
before the committee today. I said, following his request, that we 
would not object to moving it up 24 hours. I was told the Republicans 
have a meeting of their caucus scheduled for later this week and it 
would accommodate both the new administration and the Republicans in 
the Senate if we moved that up. I agreed to that. As I said, the Senate 
works better if Senators can work together. Accommodation, however, 
does not mean changing one's vote.

  We had a good debate in the committee. I think Republicans and 
Democrats would agree it was a good, solid debate. We reported the 
nomination to the Senate by a margin of 10-8, a narrow margin. 
Actually, in most of that debate we had between six and nine Democratic 
Members present. We usually had three to four Republican Members.
  I brought with me the hearing record. Here it is, right here. This is 
a good, solid record. It is part of the history of the Senate. I wish 
all Senators would review that record. Many have. Unfortunately, we are 
not going to have a committee report on this controversial nomination. 
I think we would have been helped by doing that. There was a time when 
we did seek to inform the Senate with committee reports on nominations, 
nominations such as that of Brad Reynolds or William Bennett and a 
number of important and controversial judicial nominations. We prepared 
such reports when Senator Thurmond required that as chairman.
  In lieu of a committee report, each Senator is left with the task of 
reviewing the record and searching his or her conscience and deciding 
how to vote.
  I did put into the Record a large and I hoped complete brief prepared 
by me and the lawyers on the Senate Judiciary staff--Bruce Cohen, Beryl 
Howell, Julie Katzman, Tim Lynch and others--which I think would be 
very helpful to the Senate.
  We may want to consider and contrast the behavior that has been 
engaged in on the other side. We have talked about the time this may 
have taken. We had the hearing, we expedited the debate, and we came to 
the floor. The consideration of the nomination of Attorney General 
Meese when the Republicans controlled the Senate--with a Republican 
Senate, one would assume that would move very quickly--that took 13, 
not days, not weeks: 13 months. And then we had several days of debate 
in a Republican-controlled Senate before final Senate action.
  There was reference to how we how we handled the nomination of 
Attorney General Reno. That was noncontroversial, and that still took a 
month from nomination to confirmation. She was not confirmed by the 
Senate until mid-March in the first year of President Clinton's term. 
Attorney General Meese was not confirmed by the Senate until late 
February in 1985, at the beginning of President Reagan's second term. 
Here we are in January. This nomination was sent to the Senate on 
Monday, 48 hours ago.
  I hope those who advise the President will point out to him these 
facts so he is not under the impression this nomination has been 
delayed from Senate consideration. The Democrats, when we controlled 
the Senate for a few weeks, expedited this. Republicans, when they 
controlled the Senate at the time of President Reagan, took 13 months 
to get his nomination of Edwin Meese through.
  I have reviewed the hearing record and the nominee's responses to the 
written followup questions from the Judiciary Committee. I did that 
before I announced I would oppose John Ashcroft to be Attorney General 
of the United States.
  I have talked to the Senate already about this, and to the committee, 
about my reasons for opposing the nomination. I expect we will go back 
to this during the debate.
  Let's not lose sight of the historical context in which we consider 
this nomination. This is an especially sensitive time in our Nation's 
history. Many seeds of disunity have been carried aloft by winds that 
come in gusts--especially, unfortunately, from the State of Florida. 
The Presidential election, the margin of victory, the way in which the 
vote counting was halted by five members of the U.S. Supreme Court--
these remain sources of public concern and even alienation. Deep 
divisions within our country have infected the body politic. We 
experienced the closest Presidential election in the last 130 years, 
probably the closest in our history. For the first time, a candidate 
who received more votes than were cast for the victor in the last three 
elections for President, who received half a million more votes than 
the person who eventually was inaugurated as President--received half a 
million more votes, I should say, than the man who became President--
saw the man who became President declared the victor of the 
Presidential election by one electoral vote.
  I do not question the fact that President Bush is legitimately our 
President. Of course, he is. I was at the inauguration. We all were. He 
was inaugurated. Yet, I would hope Senators will realize the concerns 
in this country: One person gets half a million more votes, the other 
person becomes President; the one who becomes President after a 
disputed count in one State becomes President by one electoral vote.
  He is President. He has all the powers, he has all the obligations, 
all the duties of the Presidency, and all the legitimacy of the 
Presidency. I have no question about that. But I think he has an 
obligation to try to unite the country, not to divide the country. In 
fact, 11 days ago, President Bush acknowledged the difficulties of 
these times and the special needs of a divided Nation. He said:

       While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the 
     promise, even the justice, of our own country.

  He pledged to ``work to build a single nation of justice and 
opportunity.''
  I was one of those who had lunch with the new President less than an 
hour after his inauguration. I spoke to him and told him how much his 
speech meant to me. I told him he will be the sixth President with whom 
I have served. I told him how impressed I was by his inaugural speech. 
I said he had a sense of history and a sense of country, and I 
applauded him for it. I do think the nomination of John Ashcroft to be 
Attorney General does not meet the standard that the President himself 
has set. For those who doubt the promise of American justice--and, 
unfortunately, there are many in this country who doubt it--this 
nomination does not inspire confidence in the U.S. Department of 
Justice.
  My Republican colleagues have urged us to rely on John Ashcroft's 
promise to enforce the law, as if that is the only requirement to be an 
Attorney General.
  If Senator Ashcroft would have come before the committee and said he 
would not enforce the law, we would not be debating this issue today. I 
cannot imagine any nominee--and I have sat in on hundreds of nomination 
hearings--would say they would not enforce the law. That is not the end 
of the story. The Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent is 
not limited to extracting a promise from a nominee that he will abide 
by his oath of office. Let me quote what my good friend, Senator Hatch, 
said on the floor on November 4, 1997, about the nomination of Bill 
Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights:

       His talents and good intentions have taken him far. But his 
     good intentions should not be sufficient to earn the consent 
     of this body. Those charged with enforcing the Nation's law 
     must demonstrate a proper understanding of that law, and a 
     determination to

[[Page S843]]

     uphold its letter and its spirit * * *. At his hearing before 
     the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lee suggested he would enforce 
     the law without regard to his personal opinions. But that 
     cannot be the end of our inquiry. The Senate's responsibility 
     is then to determine what the nominee's view of the law is.

  Like Senator Ashcroft, Bill Lann Lee promised to enforce the law as 
interpreted by the Supreme Court. He made the promise emphatically, he 
made it repeatedly, and he made it specifically with respect to certain 
Supreme Court decisions with which he may have personally disagreed. 
Despite all of Bill Lann Lee's assurances that he would enforce the 
law, the Republican-controlled Senate would not allow a vote up or down 
on the floor on his nomination.
  I believe John Ashcroft's assurances that he would enforce the law is 
not the end of our inquiry. Far more than the Assistant Attorney 
General for Civil Rights, a job to which Bill Lann Lee was nominated, 
the Attorney General has vast authority to interpret the law and to 
participate in the law's development.
  Unlike one of his assistants, he has to be held to a higher standard 
because he sets the policy. The assistant carries out the policy of the 
Attorney General. The Attorney General's job is not merely to decide 
whether common crimes, such as bank robbery, should be prosecuted. Of 
course, they should. Does anybody believe that whoever is Attorney 
General faced with something as horrendous as the Oklahoma City bombing 
is going to say, ``I am not going to prosecute''? Does anybody believe 
an Attorney General faced with a skyjacking or assassination is going 
to say, ``I am not going to prosecute''? Of course, they are going to 
prosecute.
  But there are many other less spectacular matters, matters that are 
not in the news every day, where the Attorney General has to decide how 
the law is to be enforced. The Attorney General has more discretion in 
this regard than anybody in Government.
  The Attorney General advises the President on judicial nominations. 
He decides what positions to take before the Supreme Court and lower 
Federal courts. He decides which of our thousands of statutes require 
defending or interpreting. He allocates enforcement resources. The 
Attorney General decides whom we are going to sue and, even more 
importantly, perhaps, decides which cases we are going to settle. He 
makes hiring and firing decisions. He sets a tone for the Nation's law 
enforcement officials.
  I think it is reasonable to go back and look at how John Ashcroft 
acted as attorney general before, and I go back to Missouri. Again, he 
was sworn to enforce the laws and all the laws. So how did he focus the 
resources of his office? This is how he did it.
  He focused the resources of his office on banning abortions and also 
on blocking nurses from dispensing birth control pills and IUDs. He 
sued political dissenters, and he fought voluntary desegregation. I am 
sure with murder cases or anything else such as that he would enforce 
the law, but it is how he chose to decide which of those discretionary 
areas to act in that troubles me.
  He has used language here describing the judiciary that is disturbing 
to many. He has shown what Senator Biden calls ``bad judgment'' in 
associating with Bob Jones University and Southern Partisan magazine, 
and he unfairly besmirched the reputations of Presidential nominees, 
including Judge Ronnie White and Ambassador James Hormel.
  I am particularly concerned that he has not fully accepted what he 
now calls the settled law regarding a woman's right to choose. His 
confirmation evolution seems implausible, given his support less than 3 
years ago for the Human Life Act, which he now admits is 
unconstitutional even though he supported it, and his denial of the 
``legitimacy'' of Roe and Casey in the 1997 ``Judicial Despotism'' 
speech, in which he called the Supreme Court ``ruffians in robes.''
  I have disagreed with the Supreme Court on some cases, but I have 
never called them that.
  His assurances are totally undercut by the recent remarks of 
President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Just 1 day after Senator 
Ashcroft assured the committee that Roe and Casey were settled law and 
that he would not seek an opportunity to overturn them, the President 
said he would not rule out having the Justice Department argue for that 
result. The Vice President similarly refused to commit himself on this 
issue over the weekend.
  A promise to enforce the law is only a minimum qualification for the 
job of Attorney General. It is not a sufficient one. It is simply not 
enough just to say you will enforce the law.

  Senator Ashcroft's record does matter in making a judgment about 
whether he is the right person for this job. Throughout the committee 
hearings, my Republican colleagues said we should give Senator Ashcroft 
credit for his public service. I agree with that, just as I give him 
strong credit and admire him for his devotion to his family and his 
religion.
  At the same time, my Republican friends insist that his record and 
the positions he has taken in public service do not matter because he 
will take now a different position as U.S. Attorney General.
  President Bush asked us to look into Senator Ashcroft's heart, but we 
are being urged not to look into his record. I do not doubt the 
goodness of his heart. I do doubt the consistency of his record.
  Some of my Republican colleagues went so far as to argue we should 
not hear from any witnesses other than the nominee, that we need not 
review all the nominee's required financial disclosures and his files 
and his speeches before passing on this nomination. That is not the way 
we go about our responsibility of advise and consent. Remember, the 
Constitution does say advise and consent, not advise and rubber stamp.
  That is why, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, during the weeks 
I held that post, I refused to railroad this nomination through. 
Instead, I had full, fair, informative hearings to review the nominee's 
record and positions.
  The American people are entitled to an Attorney General who is more 
than just an amiable friend to many of us here in the Senate and 
promises more than just a bare minimum that he will enforce the law. 
They are entitled to someone who will uphold the Constitution as 
interpreted by the Supreme Court, respect the courts, abide by 
decisions he disagrees with, and enforce the law for everybody 
regardless of politics. The way to determine that is to look at the 
nominee's record, not to engage in metaphysical speculation about his 
heart.
  John Ashcroft's stubborn insistence on re-litigating a voluntary 
desegregation decree consented to by all the other parties over and 
over again, at great expense to the State of Missouri and with 
sometimes damaging disruption to the education of Missouri's children, 
is relevant. It is relevant because someone who has used his power as a 
State Attorney General to delay and obstruct efforts to remedy past 
racial discrimination by the State, and who has then publicly 
excoriated the judges who ruled against him and made a major political 
issue of his disagreements with the courts, may use his greater power 
as the U.S. Attorney General for similarly divisive political purposes.
  His effort as a State Attorney General to suppress the political 
speech of a group with which he disagreed--the National Organization of 
Women--by means of an antitrust suit is relevant, because it reflects 
on how he might respond to political dissent as U.S. Attorney General.
  His actions as Governor of Missouri and as a U.S. Senator are also 
relevant. In those offices, he took the same oath of office to uphold 
the Constitution that he would take as U.S. Attorney General. Yet, in 
both of those offices, he sponsored legislation that was patently 
unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade: the 1991 anti-abortion bill in 
Missouri, and the 1998 ``Human Life Act'' in the Senate. It is highly 
relevant to ask why, if his oath of office did not constrain him from 
ignoring the Constitution in those public offices, we should expect it 
to constrain him as Attorney General. And it is also relevant to ask 
whether the same John Ashcroft who as a U.S. Senator went around making 
public speeches calling a majority of the current conservative Supreme 
Court ``five ruffians in robes'' has the temperament needed to be an 
effective advocate before that same Court as U.S. Attorney General.

[[Page S844]]

  I cannot judge John Ashcroft's heart. But we can all judge his 
record. Running through that record are troubling, recurrent themes: 
disrespect for Supreme Court precedent with which he disagrees; grossly 
intemperate criticism of judges with whom he disagrees; insensitivity 
and bad judgment on racial issues; and the use of distortions, secret 
holds and ambushes to destroy the public careers of those whom he 
opposes.
  I cannot give my consent to this nomination.
  Mr. President, I will say more, but I see several Senators from both 
sides of the aisle on the floor. I am going to withhold in just a 
moment. But just think for a moment, we are a nation of 280 million 
Americans. What a fantastic nation we are. We range across the 
political spectrum, across the economic spectrum, all races and 
religions.
  I think of, in my own case, my mother's family coming to this country 
not speaking a word of English. My grandfathers were stonecutters in 
Vermont. I look at the diversity of ethnic backgrounds in our family, 
my wife growing up speaking a language other than English. We have 
great diversity in this country and, over it all, everybody knowing, 
whether they are an immigrant stonecutter or whether they are a wealthy 
Member of the Senate, the laws will always treat them the same; 
everybody knowing, whether they are black or white, they can rely on 
the law to treat them the same.
  But on top of all that, the Attorney General of the United States 
represents all of us. The Attorney General is not the lawyer for the 
President; the President has a White House counsel. In fact, to show 
the separation, the White House counsel does not require Senate 
confirmation; he or she is appointed by the President, and that is the 
choice of the President alone. But the Attorney General requires 
confirmation because the Attorney General represents all of us.
  We hold this country together because we assume the law treats us all 
the same. When I look at the public opinion polls in this country and 
see a nation deeply divided over this choice for Attorney General, it 
shows me that American people do not have confidence in this 
nomination. I hope, if John Ashcroft is confirmed, he will take steps 
to heal those divisions, take steps to say he will be the Attorney 
General for everybody, not just for one group who told the President he 
had to appoint him. So in that regard, I hope all Senators will think 
about that.
  Mr. President, I will go back to this later on, but I see other 
Senators on the floor, so I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 31, 2001]

        Senate Panel Backs Ashcroft Despite Fund-Raising Issues

                (By Tom Hamburger and Rachel Zimmerman)

       Washington.--The Senate Judiciary Committee narrowly sent 
     John Ashcroft's nomination as attorney general to the Senate 
     floor, even as outside critics complained that his history of 
     aggressive fund raising raises questions about his ability to 
     enforce campaign-finance laws.
       The committee's 10-8 vote, with Democrat Russell Feingold 
     of Wisconsin joining the committee's nine Republicans, 
     signaled that Mr. Ashcroft is almost certain to win 
     confirmation from the full Senate later this week. But the 
     panel's sharp division and Senate Minority Leader Thomas 
     Daschle's announcement yesterday that he will vote against 
     his former colleague reflect the strong opposition among 
     Democratic constituencies to Mr. Ashcroft's staunchly 
     conservative record.
       Mr. Daschle accused the Missouri Republican of having 
     ``misled the Senate and deliberately distorted'' the record 
     of African-American judicial nominee Ronnie White, leading 
     the Senate to reject Mr. White's nomination to the federal 
     bench. Answering such attacks for the GOP, Judiciary 
     Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah complained that a 
     ``vicious'' campaign by liberal advocacy groups had left 
     Democratic senators giving Mr. Ashcroft ``not one positive 
     benefit of the doubt.''
       One of Mr. Ashcroft's most voluble opponents, Democratic 
     Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, indicated that he won't 
     attempt to block the nomination with a filibuster. President 
     Bush urged quick action by the Senate so that his 
     administration could proceed with the organization of the 
     Justice Department, where a number of top department 
     appointments have been held up pending action on Mr. 
     Ashcroft.
       ``I would just hope there are no further delays,'' Mr. Bush 
     said. ``There's been a lot of discussion, a lot of debate . . 
     . and it's now time for the vote, it seems like to me.''
       Actually, the former senator's history of campaign fund 
     raising hasn't been debated much within the Senate. Mr. 
     Feingold, who backed Mr. Ashcroft in yesterday's vote, is one 
     of the chamber's leading advocates of campaign reform. But 
     yesterday, he cited the ``substantial deference'' a president 
     deserves in nominations.
       Critics say Mr. Ashcroft has repeatedly pushed at the edges 
     of campaign-finance regulations by using taxpayer-financed 
     office staff to wage election campaigns, and by joining other 
     candidates in both parties in finding loopholes that have 
     allowed him to pursue larger donations than the $1,000-a-
     person contributions permitted to a candidate's campaign 
     committee.
       Those critics, from Democrats in Mr. Ashcroft's home state 
     to representatives of national organizations promoting 
     campaign-finance overhaul, say the lack of attention to the 
     issue reflects how deeply the Senate itself is steeped in the 
     techniques of fully exploiting the campaign-finance system. 
     But at a time when an overhaul bill may soon overcome 
     lingering resistance on Capitol Hill, they say Mr. Ashcroft's 
     record casts a cloud over his commitment to enforce 
     rigorously the laws regulating how political money is raised 
     and spent.
       ``The Senate has completely failed its obligation to pursue 
     this line of inquiry,'' complains John Bonifaz, executive 
     director of the National Voting Rights Institute, a Boston 
     nonprofit group that specializes in campaign finance and 
     civil-rights litigation.
       Mr. Ashcroft's backers on Capitol Hill and in the Bush 
     administration dismiss the complaints as ideologically 
     inspired sniping. Administration spokeswoman Mindy Tucker 
     says Mr. Ashcroft has ``always adhered to the law on 
     campaign-finance issues and his campaign-finance practices 
     have been above reproach.''
       Like other senators in both parties, Mr. Ashcroft formed a 
     joint committee with his national party's Senate campaign arm 
     to collect unregulated ``soft money.'' When he was exploring 
     a presidential bid, he went to Virginia, which has few 
     campaign-money limits, to establish a political action 
     committee that accepted a $400,000 donation. ``A blatant 
     evasion of laws that are designed to protect against the kind 
     of corruption the attorney general is charged with 
     upholding,'' complains Scott Harshbarger, Common Cause 
     president.
       In one case, Missouri Democrats allege, Mr. Ashcroft went 
     over the line of propriety. It dates to 1982, when Mr. 
     Ashcroft was Missouri attorney general and brought an action 
     against a local oil company for selling tainted gasoline. The 
     company, Inland Oil, countersued, charging that Mr. 
     Ashcroft's actions were motivated by his desire to win 
     election as governor. In a deposition. Mr. Ashcroft's 
     administrative assistant said be worked on Mr. Ashcroft's 
     election campaign while a state employee and contacted 
     potential campaign contributors from his government office.
       The lawsuit also noted that Mr. Ashcroft had solicited an 
     executive of Inland Oil for a donation to the state GOP in a 
     fund-raising appeal under the state attorney general's 
     letterhead, and that he personally sought a donation from a 
     barge-company owner who did business with Inland. Mr. 
     Ashcroft has said the mail solicitation was merely sent in 
     his name, and Ms. Tucker says he hadn't known of the barge 
     concern's connection to Inland when he sought a donation.
       The state later settled its complaint against Inland Oil, 
     which in turn dropped its counter suit. An opposing legal 
     counsel in that case, Alex Bartlett, says Mr. Ashcroft 
     ``caved'' on the case to avoid answering questions about his 
     fund-raising practices. Mr. Bartlett also says Mr. Ashcroft 
     later exacted retribution by effectively blocking the Clinton 
     administration from nominating him for a federal judgeship in 
     the mid-1990s. Former White House Counsel Abner Mikva says 
     then-Sen. Ashcroft told him in early 1995, ``I don't like'' 
     Mr. Bartlett.
       Ms. Tucker rejects that interpretation of events, saying 
     Mr. Ashcroft negotiated an appropriate settlement in the 
     Inland Oil matter. If he later expressed reservations about 
     Mr. Bartlett to Mr. Mikva, she adds, he didn't block him from 
     the bench since Mr. Bartlett was never formally nominated. 
     She also says Mr. Ashcroft never used public employees to 
     perform campaign work except in their off ours.


                         Fund-Raising Vehicles

       John Ashcroft has harvested donations, in recent years 
     using these political committees:
       Ashcroft 2000: Senate re-election committee raised $8.9 
     million in ``hard'' money subject to federal limits of $1,000 
     per individual donation, $5,000 per political action 
     committee.
       Ashcroft Victory Fund: Collected $3.8 million unregulated 
     ``soft'' money during 1999-2000, split evenly between 
     Ashcroft 2000 and National Republican Senatorial Committee.
       Spirit of America PAC: So-called leadership PAC collected 
     $3.6 million in hard money since 1997, largely to finance 
     Ashcroft's exploration of a presidential bid.
       American Values PAC: Virginia-based PAC raised $586,533 
     beginning in 1998, which financed TV ads in Iowa and New 
     Hampshire.

  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments that both Chairman 
Hatch and Senator Leahy have just made with respect to this nomination.

[[Page S845]]

  We began when I referred to Senator Leahy as Mr. Chairman, and now we 
are nearing the conclusion of this during the time that Senator Hatch 
will be referred to as Mr. Chairman. I agree, it is time to bring the 
confirmation proceedings for Senator Ashcroft to a close.
  I hope my colleagues will consider the long-range implications of 
their votes with respect to Senator Ashcroft. I have, I think, never 
regretted voting for a nominee for office, but I have regretted some of 
the votes I have cast against nominees. I hope my colleagues judge how 
their votes will be considered a year from now, 4 years from now, 
perhaps 20 years from now, in thinking about how they will cast their 
votes.
  Most of the points Senator Leahy made have been made before and have 
been fairly thoroughly rehashed during the committee process and in 
other forums. I would really like to only respond to three points 
Senator Leahy just made.
  First, he made this comment in the Judiciary Committee meeting 
yesterday, as well. Senator Leahy said it is not liberal or left-wing 
groups that have influenced this nomination but, rather, groups on the 
far right. And it is possible, of course, for anybody to brag about 
what they may or may not have done. President Bush is fully capable of 
deciding whom he is going to nominate for Attorney General. I was one 
of the people who recommended John Ashcroft to him. So I do not think 
we can ascribe John Ashcroft's nomination to the fact that some people 
who are very conservative brag about the fact that they stopped 
somebody else and recommended his nomination. He was recommended by 
other people as well, including myself.
  In any event, I think it is rather odd to suggest that liberal groups 
have not been actively involved in this debate. Immediately after it 
began, I received a copy of a special report from the People for the 
American Way--clearly a liberal, left leaning group--making the case 
against the confirmation of John Ashcroft as Attorney General. And page 
after page after page of it, in effect, is opposition research opposing 
the nomination.
  I also will note just one story from the Washington Times of January 
17 of this year. I will quote this at length because I think it makes 
the point rather clearly.

       Senate Democrats are under enormous pressure from liberal 
     interest groups to defeat Mr. Ashcroft, whom they accuse of 
     insensitivity to minorities and of harboring a stealth agenda 
     to undermine abortion rights.
       Yesterday, Kweisi Mfume, president of the National 
     Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said his 
     organization will ``fund major information campaigns for the 
     next 4 years'' in States whose senators vote in favor of Mr. 
     Ashcroft.

  This is continuing the quotation from Mr. Mfume:

       Senators who vote for Ashcroft will not be able to run away 
     from this and assume people will forget, said Mr. Mfume. For 
     Democratic senators, in particular, this vote comes as close 
     to a litmus test as one can get on the issue of civil rights 
     and equal justice under law from the party's most loyal 
     constituency.

  Mr. President, I do not think it really matters much. It is very 
clear that both liberal and conservative interest groups have weighed 
in on this nomination. It is totally appropriate for them to do so. 
Therefore, I am not quite clear why one would make the point that it is 
only conservative groups who have weighed in. Clearly, liberal groups 
have weighed in as well. That is their right.
  I, in fact, admire those Democratic Senators who will vote to confirm 
Senator Ashcroft because I appreciate the intense pressure they are 
under. We all have pressures, but it takes courage sometimes to go 
against what they may perceive as going against the grain in their own 
State.
  The second point made was that this was a divisive nominee. It is a 
little hard for me to understand how a nomination can be divisive until 
somebody objects. President Bush laid out his potential Cabinet, and 
immediately all attention focused on three of those nominees. They were 
said to be divisive. They were divisive because somebody objected to 
them.
  Third--and this relates to it--this business about enforcing the law 
has really put Senator Ashcroft in a difficult position. It is a catch-
22 for him; he cannot win, literally.
  If he says he will enforce the law, which, of course, every nominee 
has said, then he is subject to the criticism that this is a change, a 
new Ashcroft, and we can't believe that he will, in fact, enforce the 
law. What is he to do? He can't prove a negative. He can't prove he 
will not fail to enforce the law.
  We can look to his experience. We can look to his service in the 
Senate.
  One of our colleagues who will be voting on him made this statement. 
This is from West Virginia Democratic Senator Robert Byrd:

       I'm going to vote for him. He was a legislator. His 
     opinions at that time were the opinions of someone who writes 
     the laws. He is now going to be an officer who enforces the 
     laws. He will put his hand on the Bible. He will swear to 
     uphold the law, that he will enforce the law. He has said so, 
     and I take him at his word. I believe Ashcroft means what he 
     says.

  Of course, some have noted that John Ashcroft is a very religious 
man. Yet it seems paradoxical to me that after referring to his faith, 
they would somehow doubt that he would be firm in his commitment to 
uphold the laws. I agree with Senator Byrd. We can trust this man, that 
he will do what he says he will do.
  I will submit for the Record just one of the many examples that one 
can point to about the immediate past Attorney General not enforcing 
the law; in this case, a situation in which Attorney General Reno 
specifically refused to enforce the Controlled Substances Act when it 
dealt with the matter of assisted suicide. Yet I heard nobody who is a 
critic of John Ashcroft criticize Attorney General Reno for her refusal 
to enforce existing law.
  These are matters of judgment, and reasonable people will differ. 
That is why it is especially perplexing to me to note the vehemence 
with which some have expressed opposition to Senator Ashcroft on the 
grounds that they know he won't enforce the law. That is perplexing to 
me.
  A final point on this--it has been made over and over, but I think it 
bears a little bit of discussion right now--Bill Lann Lee was a nominee 
of Bill Clinton for a very important job in the Justice Department, 
head of the Civil Rights Division. There were many who opposed his 
nomination, including myself. Senator Leahy and others have been very 
critical of our opposition. In effect, they have said we should not 
have opposed him for that position. We applied too tough a standard; we 
should have believed him when he said he would enforce the law.
  Not getting into all of the reasons why we didn't think he would 
enforce the law and why, as it turns out, we were correct. Nonetheless, 
people such as Senator Leahy have been very critical of us for the 
stance we took. Yet they are now saying they are going to apply the 
same test they say we applied in the case of Bill Lann Lee. Either we 
were wrong in that case and that test should not be applied or we were 
right and it is a test that can be applied. And they then apply it and 
perhaps reach a different conclusion than we.
  We should discuss this honestly. I don't think you can say on the one 
hand that test was wrong for Republicans to apply in the case of Bill 
Lann Lee but it is right for Democrats to apply it in the case of John 
Ashcroft. Which is it? If it is wrong for us to say we just didn't 
believe that Bill Lann Lee could do what he said he would do, then the 
Democrats have a very tough argument to make that they should be able 
to say precisely that with respect to John Ashcroft.

  The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what John Ashcroft says to some 
Senators. They have reached a conclusion--I will suggest in good faith; 
I will never question the motives of my colleagues even if they 
vehemently disagree with me--that he is not suitable to be the Attorney 
General of the United States. That is their right.
  I don't think John Ashcroft can ever satisfy them. He can say: I 
promise you I will uphold the law, as he did over and over and over 
again in the hearing. We know he is a man of integrity and no one has 
questioned that. Yet they still apply this test which, in their minds, 
requires them to vote against his confirmation. So be it.
  We have to be honest about the application of these tests. If it is 
fair to do it in the case of John Ashcroft, then it

[[Page S846]]

was fair for Republicans to do it in the case of Bill Lann Lee. We 
simply reached different conclusions. If it was unfair in the case of 
Bill Lann Lee, then it certainly can be argued to be unfair in the case 
of John Ashcroft.
  People who argue about this ``rule of law'' point would be much more 
credible if over the course of the last 8 years they would have been 
more outspoken about the repeated problems of the immediate past 
administration with respect to the rule of law. They were defending 
their administration. They were defending their Attorney General and 
their President. They didn't speak out about these matters.
  The rule of law is really at the bottom the most important thing that 
those of us on the Judiciary Committee can focus on and that we do need 
to consider when the President has nominees pending on the floor. That 
is why I am happy to conclude these brief remarks with my view that 
there is no one whom I believe in more with respect to fulfilling the 
responsibility to support the rule of law than John Ashcroft, a man of 
great integrity, a man of unquestioned intelligence and experience--in 
fact, the most experienced nominee ever for the position of Attorney 
General--a man who repeatedly was elected by his constituents in 
Missouri, who had every opportunity to view him as an extremist, if 
that in fact had been the case, but it was not; and a man who served in 
this body for 6 years.
  During that time, he was a friend of virtually everybody in the body 
because they knew him, they liked him, they trusted him, and they 
worked with him. Therefore, it is perplexing and hurtful to me to hear 
some of the things that have been said about him in connection with his 
confirmation.
  Oppose him if you will; that is your right. Reasonable people can 
reach different conclusions about whether he should be confirmed. But 
we need to do it in a civil way so that there is not lasting harm done 
either to the confirmation process, to the legitimacy of the Senate's 
actions with respect to confirmation, or to the legitimacy of President 
Bush and his Department of Justice under the leadership of John 
Ashcroft.
  I urge my colleagues to consider whether in 4 or 5 or 6 years they 
will be happy with and glad to defend a negative vote on this 
confirmation. I urge them to consider that carefully.
  I am very proud to express my strong support for the nomination of 
John Ashcroft. He will, in the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, make a 
superb U.S. Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first, I express my appreciation to our 
chairman and the members of the Judiciary Committee for the way these 
hearings were held on Senator Ashcroft to be the Attorney General, at 
that time chaired by our long-time friend and colleague, Senator Leahy, 
and also, in terms of the markup, by Senator Hatch. Those who had the 
opportunity to watch the course of the hearings would understand the 
sense of fairness and fair play all of us who are members of the 
committee believe they conducted the hearings with. I am grateful to 
both of them.
  I hope at the start of this debate that we can put aside the cliches 
and the sanctimonious attitudes we sometimes hear on the floor of the 
Senate that those of us who have very serious and deeply felt concerns 
about this nominee somehow are responding to various constituency 
groups, or somehow these views are not deeply held or deeply valued. I 
have been around here long enough to know that in many situations, it 
is very easy for any of us to say those who agree with our position are 
great statesmen and women, and those who differ with us are just 
nothing but ordinary politicians who are not exercising their good 
judgment.
  Those are policies or at least slogans which are sometimes used here.
  This issue is too important not to have respect for those views that 
support the nominee as well, hopefully, as those that have serious 
reservations about it.
  Listening to my friend from Arizona talk about the difference between 
Bill Lann Lee and this nominee, the differences couldn't have been 
greater. Bill Lann Lee was committed to upholding the law and had a 
long-time commitment to upholding the law. His statements to the 
committee confirmed a commitment to uphold the law just like Dr. 
Satcher and Dr. Foster.
  Many of us have serious concerns about this nominee's commitment to 
the fundamental constitutional rights that involve millions of our 
fellow citizens in the areas of civil rights, women's rights, privacy, 
as well as the issues of the Second Amendment, and the treatment of 
nominees over a long period of time. I think the record will reflect 
that I find very, very powerful and convincing evidence that the 
nominee fails to give the assurance to the American people, should he 
gain the approval, that he will protect those particular rights and 
liberties of our citizens.
  I intend to outline my principal concerns in the time that I have 
this morning.
  Mr. President, two weeks ago the Judiciary Committee heard four days 
of testimony on Senator Ashcroft's nomination to serve as Attorney 
General of the United States. We heard Senator Ashcroft--as well as 
those who support and oppose his nomination--discuss his record.
  I found the testimony on civil rights, women's rights, gun control, 
and nominations very disturbing. As I said then, Americans must be 
confident that the Attorney General and the Justice Department will 
vigorously enforce our nation's most important laws and vigorously 
defend our citizens' most important rights. Neither Senator Ashcroft 
nor his supporters have been able to provide that assurance.
  Civil rights is the unfinished business of America, and the people of 
this country deserve an attorney general who is sensitive to the needs 
and rights of all Americans, regardless of color. It is not enough for 
Senator Ashcroft to say after the fact that he will always enforce the 
laws fairly. We must instead examine his record as Attorney General of 
Missouri and as Governor of Missouri and the impact he had on the civil 
rights of the citizens of Missouri. We must consider whether as 
Attorney General or Governor of Missouri, Senator Ashcroft tried to 
advance the cause of civil rights in his state or whether he tried to 
set up roadblocks. Based on the totality of his record, I must sadly 
conclude that he did the latter. I am particularly concerned about 
Senator Ashcroft's testimony on school desegregation in St. Louis. He 
asserted that the discrimination that segregated the schools of St. 
Louis was from the distant past and that the state had not actively 
discriminated since the decision by the United States Supreme Court 
Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. He made sweeping general 
statements about having always opposed segregation and supported 
integration. He made specific claims that he complied with all court 
orders, that the state was not a party to the lawsuits and that the 
state had never been found guilty of any wrongdoing.
  Those statements and claims are inconsistent with the facts and with 
his record as Attorney General and Governor of Missouri. I see no 
plausible conclusion other than that Senator Ashcroft misled the 
committee during his testimony.
  Senator Ashcroft's testimony that state sponsored segregation ended 
in the 1950s sheds light on his attitude about discrimination and his 
willingness to turn a blind eye to the disenfranchised. Responding to a 
list of the state actions that maintained segregated schools, Senator 
Ashcroft said:

       Virtually none of the offensive activities described in 
     what you charged happened in the state after Brown v. Board 
     of Education. As a matter of fact, most of them had been 
     eliminated far before Brown v. Board of Education.
       Secondly, in saying that the city maintained a segregated 
     school system into the '70s, is simply a way of saying that 
     after Brown v. Board of Education when citizens started to 
     flee the city and move to the county . . . the schools, as 
     people changed their location, began to be more intensely 
     segregated. That was after the rules of segregation had been 
     lifted, and it was not a consequence of any state activity.

  Senator Ashcroft's testimony, at best, ignored the undeniable facts 
about school segregation in St. Louis, ignored court rulings, and was 
very misleading. In fact, far from having eliminated the ``offensive 
activities'' Senator Ashcroft referred to ``far before Brown,'' 
Missouri was still passing

[[Page S847]]

new segregation laws in the decade before the Brown decision, going as 
far as amending its state constitution to require segregation.
  In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Senator Ashcroft 
denied that the city maintained a segregated school system into the 
1970s. He testified that the schools remained segregated only because 
whites fled the city. He emphasized that this segregation ``was not a 
consequence of any state activity.'' Again, this statement is seriously 
misleading in light of the facts and the court rulings.
  The record shows that the response by St. Louis to the Brown decision 
was what the school board called a ``neighborhood school plan.'' The 
plan was designed to maintain the pre-Brown state of segregation in the 
St. Louis schools, and that is exactly what it did.
  Reviewing the board's 1954-56 neighborhood school plan, the 8th 
circuit found:

       The boundary lines for the high schools, however, were 
     drawn so as to assign the students living in the 
     predominately black neighborhoods to the two pre-Brown black 
     high schools. Following implementation of the School Board 
     plan, both of these schools opened with 100 percent black 
     enrollments. the elementary school boundaries were also drawn 
     so that the school remained highly segregated.

  The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals went on to make clear that there was 
no justification, other than perpetuating segregation, for the 
boundaries chosen:

       The Board could have, without sacrificing the neighborhood 
     concept, drawn the boundaries so as to include significant 
     numbers of white students in the formerly all-black schools. 
     a reading of the record also makes clear, however, that 
     strong community opposition has prevented the Board from 
     integrating the white children of South St. Louis with the 
     black children of North St. Louis.

  The board's own documents show that maintaining the status quo of 
segregation was the intent of the plan, and that the new attendance 
zones were drawn to reassign the fewest number of students possible. 
Leaving no stone unturned, the board also made sure that the staffs of 
the schools remained segregated as well.
  The court went on to make clear findings of fact that contrary to 
Senator Ashcroft's testimony, the board's active segregation of the 
schools did not end in the 1950s. In fact, the board actively used a 
student transfer program, forced busing, school site selection and 
faculty assignments throughout the 1950s, 1970s and into the 1970s to 
maintain the segregated status quo. In 1962, all 28 of the pre-Brown 
black schools were all or virtually all black, and 26 still had 
faculties that were 100 percent black. At the same time, the pre-Brown 
white schools that had switched racial identities has switched their 
faculties from white to black also.
  Choosing sites for new schools could have helped, but instead was 
also used to make the segregation even worse. In 1964, ten new schools 
were opened and were placed so their ``neighborhoods'' would ensure 
segregated enrollment--all ten opened with between 98.5 percent and 100 
percent black students. From 1962 to 1975, there were 36 schools 
opened--35 were at least 93 percent segregated, only 1 was integrated.
  Forced busing was also designed to continue segregation. As late as 
1973, 3,700 students were being bused to schools outside their 
neighborhoods to reduce overcrowding. The vast majority of the black 
students were bused to other predominantly black schools, while 
virtually all of the white students were sent to other white schools. 
Only 27 white students were bused to black schools.
  The court of appeals summed up the continuing legacy of 
discrimination in 1980, in a case that Attorney General Ashcroft had 
litigated for the state:

       The dual school system in St. Louis, legally mandated 
     before 1954 and perpetuated by the Board of Education's 1954-
     1956 desegregation plan, has been maintained and strengthened 
     by the actions of the Board in the years since.

  All of these numbers and statements are facts according to the 
federal courts--from federal court cases that Attorney General Ashcroft 
litigated. Senator Ashcroft knew these facts. He knew them in the 1980s 
when he tried these cases. He knew them in 1984 when he ran for 
governor as the candidate who would fight the hardest against 
integration. And, most important, he knew them when he testified before 
the Committee.
  Senator Ashcroft also gave misleading testimony about his own actions 
in fighting school desegregation. He claims that he has always 
supported integration and supported desegregation. But his protracted 
and tenacious legal fight against desegregation, his failure to make a 
good faith effort to cooperate with court-ordered desegregation, and 
his frequent exploitation of racial tension over desegregation during 
his 1984 campaign for governor suggests otherwise.
  Over a four year span as Missouri's Attorney General, Senator 
Ashcroft fought the desegregation plan all the way to the Supreme Court 
three times--and lost his bid for review of the 8th Circuit Court of 
Appeals decisions each time. As attorney general, he lost definitively 
in the 8th Circuit in 1980, 1982, and 1984. In the 1984 case, it took 
the court 4 pages just to describe the myriad suits, motions, and 
appeals Ashcroft filed. And then he appealed that one, too. And during 
the time that he was filing repeated legal challenges to the 
desegregation plan, Attorney General Ashcroft proposed no desegregation 
plan of his own and strongly resisted a negotiated settlement for 
entirely voluntary school transfers that had been agreed to by the city 
of St. Louis and St. Louis County. These are not the actions of a man 
who supports integration and opposed segregation.
  In response to questioning by the Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Ashcroft made this specific claim:

       In all of the cases where the court made an order, I 
     followed the order, both as attorney general and as governor. 
     It was my judgment that when the law was settled and spoken 
     that the law should be obeyed.

  One of the simplest and least burdensome orders of the court flatly 
refutes Senator Ashcroft's claim. In May 1980, the federal district 
court ordered the state to prepare and submit a proposal within 60 days 
for desegregating the schools. In a telling example of his 
unwillingness to support any form of desegregation plan, Attorney 
General Ashcroft failed to comply with the order. In fact, it wasn't 
until December 1980 that the State responded at all--other than filing 
motions to block the order to submit a plan and appealing them all the 
way to the Supreme Court--and the court did not consider the responses 
to be a good-faith effort. In 1981, after several more orders and 
deadlines were missed he was finally threatened with contempt of court 
for his repeated delays.
  Attorney General Ashcroft was not threatened with contempt because he 
objected to the cost of a particular desegregation plan or because he 
was aggressively filing appeals. He was threatened with contempt for 
his failure to comply with the court's 1980 order to submit a plan for 
integrating the schools. He refused, in effect, to even participate in 
desegregation at all. Later, instead of being chastened by his brush 
with contempt for defying the court, he cited it as a badge of honor 
during his 1984 campaign for governor, as proof of his adamant 
opposition to desegregation. He publicly bragged that it showed ``he 
had done everything in [his] power legally'' to fight the desegregation 
plan.
  In fact, as the court had stated in its 1981 order:

       The foregoing public record reveals extraordinary 
     machinations by the State defendants in resisting Judge 
     Meredith's orders. In these circumstances, the court can draw 
     only one conclusion. The State has, as a matter of deliberate 
     policy, decided to defy the authority of the court.

  In yet in another attempt to claim that his opposition to the 
desegregation plan did not mean he was opposed to integration, Senator 
Ashcroft testified he opposed the plan because the State was not a 
party to the lawsuit and did not have a fair chance to defend itself. 
As he stated:

       Well, you know, if the State hadn't been made a party to 
     the litigation and the state is being asked to do things to 
     remedy the situation, I think it's important to ask the 
     opportunity for the State to have a kind of, due process and 
     the protection of the law that an individual would expect.

  This claim borders on the bizarre. The state became a party to the 
case in 1977, the very year that Senator Ashcroft took office as 
attorney general, and three years before the first 8th Circuit ruling. 
Throughout his entire eight year tenure, Attorney General Ashcroft 
litigated this case up and down the federal system on behalf of the 
State of Missouri. To claim that

[[Page S848]]

the State was not a party to the litigation is a disingenuous and 
transparent attempt to evade responsibility for his actions.
  In some of his court challenges, Attorney General Ashcroft did claim 
that the State was not a party to the settlement agreement and should 
not be required to implement it. The truth is that the other parties 
agreed and submitted a plan to the court. Attorney General Ashcroft had 
every opportunity to submit his own proposal in fact, he was ordered to 
do so but he refused. To then claim that he shouldn't have to follow 
the court ordered plan is tantamount to saying that a guilty party who 
doesn't want to be punished is somehow beyond the authority of the 
court. The defense was rightly rejected by the district court and the 
8th Circuit and the Supreme Court refused to hear it.
  In his testimony, Senator Ashcroft directly, clearly, and repeatedly 
said that he opposed State liability for desegregation because the 
State had never been found guilty of the segregation. In his response 
to questioning from Senator Leahy, he testified:

       I opposed a mandate by the Federal Government that the 
     State, which had done nothing wrong, found guilty of no 
     wrong, that they should be asked to pay this very substantial 
     sum of money over a long course of years. And that's what I 
     opposed.

  This was no slip of the tongue. He repeated the denial of 
responsibility moments later, saying:

       Here the court sought to make the State responsible and 
     liable for the payment of these very substantial sums of 
     money, and the State had not been found really guilty of 
     anything.

  These two statements, made under oath in testimony before the 
Committee, are flatly wrong and grossly misleading. The St. Louis cases 
were certainly long and convoluted, but one point is abundantly clear: 
the courts held that the State of Missouri was responsible for the 
discrimination. The 8th Circuit left no doubt about the State's guilt 
and liability for segregating the schools. As the court said in 1984:

       We, again noted that the State and City Board--already 
     judged violators of the Constitution--could be required to 
     fund measures designed to eradicate the remaining vestiges of 
     segregation in the city schools, including measures which 
     involved the voluntary participation of the suburban 
     schools.

  This statement by the court highlights a very important point. The 
court said ``We again noted that the State and City Board--already 
adjudged violators of the constitution''--were responsible for 
desegregating the schools. This 1984 decision came four years after the 
original 8th circuit decision held that the state was in fact 
responsible for the discrimination.
  Senator Ashcroft was attorney general of Missouri for all of those 
years and was campaigning for governor when the decision was issued. No 
one knew better than he that the state had been found guilty of 
discrimination, and had been found guilty repeatedly. Yet he was still 
denying responsibility before the court in 1984 and it is deeply 
troubling that he was denying it before this committee in 2001.
  I am also deeply troubled by Senator Ashcroft's exploitation of the 
racial tensions over desegregation to promote his campaign for governor 
in 1984. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported at the time that Senator 
Ashcroft and his Republican primary opponent were ``trying to outdo 
each other as the most outspoken enemy of school integration in St. 
Louis,'' and were ``exploiting and encouraging the worst racist 
sentiments that exist in the state.'' The Economist, a conservative 
magazine, reported that both candidates ran openly bigoted ads and that 
Ashcroft called his opponent a ``closet supporter of racial 
integration.'' Even the Daily Dunklin Democrat, a newspaper that 
supported Ashcroft's appeals of the desegregation orders, took him to 
task for exploiting race in his campaign, criticizing the 1984 primary 
campaign as ``reminiscent of an Alabama primary in the 1950s.''
  Ashcroft claimed in the Judiciary Committee that in opposing the 
desegregation plan he was merely opposing the cost of the desegregation 
that was being imposed on the state. But according to press reports of 
that campaign, Ashcroft repeatedly attacked the courts and the 
desegregation plan for reasons wholly unrelated to cost, even going as 
far as calling the desegregation plan an ``outrage against human 
decency'' and an ``outrage against the children of this state.'' I 
believe, instead, that it is the repeated, legally unsupportable, 
vigorous opposition to desegregation, that is an outrage against human 
decency and an outrage against the children of Missouri.
  For these reasons, I have great concern about Senator Ashcroft's 
testimony and his actions surrounding the entire issue of 
desegregation. His actions as Attorney General of Missouri leave no 
doubt that at every turn, he chose to wage a non-stop legal war against 
integration and desegregation, and that he used the full power of his 
office to do so.
  The question for Senator Ashcroft, and for senators on both sides of 
the aisle, is how can it mean anything for Senator Ashcroft to say that 
he will enforce the law against discrimination, when this record shows 
beyond any reasonable doubt that he will go to extraordinary lengths to 
deny the facts of discrimination?
  Senator Ashcroft's record and testimony on voter registration 
legislation are equally troubling. In response to a question about his 
decision as Governor of Missouri to veto two bills to increase voter 
registration in the city of St. Louis, which is heavily African 
American, Senator Ashcroft testified:

       I am concerned that all Americans have the opportunity to 
     vote. I am committed to the integrity of the ballot.  . . . I 
     vetoed a number of bills as governor, and frankly, I don't 
     say that I can remember all the details of all of them. 
     Accordingly, I reviewed my veto message and recalled that I 
     was urged to veto these bills by responsible local election 
     officials. I also appeared to anticipate the Supreme Court's 
     recent decision, as I expressed a concern that voting 
     procedures be unified statewide.

  A review of the facts surrounding Governor Ashcroft's decision to 
veto the voter registration bills raises serious questions about 
whether he truly is ``concerned that all Americans have the opportunity 
to vote.'' Even the equal protection principle recently stated by the 
U.S. Supreme Court in the Florida election case cannot be reconciled 
with Ashcroft's actions.
  As Governor of Missouri, Senator Ashcroft appointed the local 
election boards in both St. Louis County and St. Louis City. The 
county, which surrounds much of the city, is relatively affluent. It is 
84 percent white, and votes heavily Republican. The city itself is less 
affluent, 47 percent black, and votes heavily Democratic.
  Like other election boards across the State, the St. Louis County 
Election Board had a policy of training volunteers from nonpartisan 
groups--such as the League of Women Voters--to assist in voter 
registration. During Senator Ashcroft's service as Governor, the county 
trained as many as 1,500 such volunteers. But the number of trained 
volunteers in the city was zero--because the city election board 
appointed by Governor Ashcroft refused to follow the policy on 
volunteers used by his appointed board in the county and the rest of 
the State.
  Concerned about this obvious disparity, the State legislature passed 
bills in 1988 and 1989 to require the city election board to implement 
the same training policy for volunteers used by the county election 
board and the rest of the State. Despite broad support for these bills, 
on both occasions, Governor Ashcroft vetoed them, leaving in place a 
system that clearly made it more difficult for St. Louis City residents 
to register to vote.
  Among the justifications offered by Ashcroft for the vetoes was a 
concern for fraud, even though the Republican director of elections in 
St. Louis County was quoted in press reports as saying: ``It's worked 
well here . . . I don't know why it wouldn't also work well [in the 
City].''
  The issues of fraud and voter registration had also been addressed by 
the United States Senate several years earlier, which concluded that 
``fraud more often occurred by voting officials on election day, rather 
than in the registration process.''
  In fact, in Missouri in 1989--five months after Governor Ashcroft's 
second veto--a clerk on the city of St. Louis Election Board was 
indicted for voter fraud by Secretary of State Roy Blunt.
  Ultimately, the repeated refusal by the St. Louis City Election Board 
to train volunteer registrars had a serious

[[Page S849]]

negative impact on voter registration rates in the city. During Senator 
Ashcroft's eight years as Governor, the voter registration rate in St. 
Louis City fell from a high of nearly 75 percent to 59 percent--a rate 
lower than the national average, lower than the statewide average, and 
15 percent lower than St. Louis County rate.
  The types of barriers to voter registration approved by Governor 
Ashcroft and his appointed election board in the city were explicitly 
criticized in the early 1980s by both Democrats and Republicans in the 
United States Congress. In October 1984, the Subcommittee on Civil 
Rights and Constitutional Rights of the House Judiciary Committee 
issued a report with the following finding:

       There is no room in our free society for inconvenient and 
     artificial registration barriers designed to impede 
     participation in the electoral process. . . . [W]e do not 
     quarrel with increasing registration outreach and expanding 
     the system of deputization [i.e., training volunteers 
     registrars].
  So we had the two vetoes, one where we had a limited bill that was 
just targeted for the city of St. Louis where they were going to, in 
effect, have training registrars like they had in the county. Ashcroft 
vetoed that bill and said it was special legislation and, therefore, he 
couldn't agree to it because it was just special to a city in Missouri. 
So he vetoed it.
  A year later, the Missouri legislature passed an overall plan for the 
whole state that encouraged the appointment of training registrars, so 
it would have application to the city of St. Louis. And he vetoed that 
again. He vetoed it because he said it was too broad and unnecessary.
  So the result of both of his vetoes was this dramatic adverse impact 
on black voter participation in the city of St. Louis. At the same time 
that there were 1,500 voting registrars just outside of the core city, 
there were zero voting registrars in the city of St. Louis as a result 
of Senator Ashcroft's actions in the inner city. As a result, there was 
a significant expansion of voter registration in Republican areas, in 
the white community, and there was the beginning of the collapse of 
voter registration in the black communities. That is a direct result.
  I will, in just a few moments, show this on a chart which vividly 
reflects this in a compelling way.
  The core question at issue in the recent Florida election case was 
whether the different county-by-county standards in Florida for 
determining what constituted a valid vote were inconsistent with the 
equal protection clause. Seven members of the U.S. Supreme Court, 
relying upon existing precedent, concluded that the equal protection 
clause required the application of a uniform statewide standard for 
determining what was a valid vote.
  I think it should have been that way by common sense, but here we 
have the overwhelming statement of the law by the Supreme Court. It is 
something I think all Americans can understand, but it was not good 
enough for Senator Ashcroft. As a result of that failure, we saw a 
dramatic reduction in voter participation and registration in that 
community. At a time when the issues of the adequacy of the counting 
and the sacred right to vote are part of our whole national dialog and 
debate about how we are going to remedy the extraordinary injustices 
that occurred in the last election and in other elections as well, it 
would seem to me that all citizens want to have confidence in whomever 
is going to be Attorney General; that they are going to protect their 
right to vote.
  If you were one of those Americans who was disenfranchised in the 
last national election and knew this particular record of Mr. 
Ashcroft--would you be wondering whether you could ever get a fair 
deal?
  We ought to have an Attorney General in whom all Americans can have 
confidence that their votes will be counted and counted fairly.
  In 1988, when Governor Ashcroft vetoed the first voter registration 
bill, he cited two reasons. He said it was unfair to pass a law 
requiring the city of St. Louis--but no other jurisdiction--to train 
volunteers to help register voters. And he said he was urged to veto 
the bill by his appointed St. Louis Board of Elections. (Governor's 
Veto Message, June 6, 1988.) Yet every other jurisdiction in Missouri--
other than St. Louis City--actively trained outside volunteers.
  In 1989, the Missouri legislature, in an effort to respond to 
Governor Ashcroft's concerns about unfairness, passed a second bill. 
This time the legislature adopted a uniform registrar training 
requirement for election boards throughout the State of Missouri. But 
Governor Ashcroft vetoed the legislation again claiming that 
``[e]lection authorities are free to participate with private 
organizations now to conduct voter registration.''
  Democrats and Republicans alike in the legislature said if the 
Governor is going to veto it because it is targeted, we will pass one 
with general application. That is what they did, claiming that election 
authorities are free to participate with private organizations.
  As I mentioned, what is troubling is there was a second veto by then 
Governor Ashcroft. The veto effectively ensured that there would not be 
a ``unified statewide'' procedure--a result that directly conflicts 
with the equal protection principles announced in the Florida election 
case and cited by Senator Ashcroft in his testimony to our committee.
  The facts are clear. For 8 years as Governor, Senator Ashcroft had 
the opportunity to ensure that citizens of St. Louis city--nearly half 
of whom are African-American--were afforded the same opportunity to 
register to vote as citizens in the rest of Missouri. Instead of 
working to expand the right to vote, Governor Ashcroft and his 
appointed election board in the city of St. Louis chose to maintain 
inconvenient and artificial registration barriers that had the purpose 
and effect of depressing participation in the electoral process, 
particularly by African-Americans.
  Senator Ashcroft's record on desegregation and voter registration are 
relevant to his recent visit to Bob Jones University and his interview 
with Southern Partisan magazine. The policies of both Bob Jones 
University and Southern Partisan magazine represent intolerance, 
bigotry, and a willingness to twist facts to create a society in that 
image. And those are policies that all Americans should reject.
  Displaying an extraordinary lack of sensitivity, Senator Ashcroft 
claims that he went to Bob Jones University and was interviewed by 
Southern Partisan magazine without knowing the policies and beliefs of 
either. Even if those claims are true, Senator Ashcroft's comments 
during the hearing were--at best--disturbing. Senator Ashcroft 
condemned slavery and discrimination, but his response displayed a 
fundamental misunderstanding of how certain institutions in our society 
perpetuate discrimination.
  Senator Ashcroft was unwilling to say that he would not return to Bob 
Jones University. He believes his presence there may have the potential 
to unite Americans. But to millions of Americans, such a visit by 
Senator Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States would be a 
painful and divisive gesture.
  Similarly, on Southern Partisan magazine, Senator Ashcroft would only 
say that he would ``condemn those things which are condemnable.'' 
Surely the man who wants to sit at the head of the Department of 
Justice should say more and do more where bigotry is the issue. On the 
issue of women's rights, Senator Ashcroft's record is equally 
troubling. The Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade a quarter 
century ago held that women have a fundamental constitutional right to 
decide whether to have an abortion. The Court went on to say that 
States may regulate the abortion procedure after the first trimester of 
pregnancy in ways necessary to protect a women's health. After fetal 
viability, a State may prohibit abortions in cases where the procedure 
is not necessary to protect a woman's life or health.
  In the years since Roe v. Wade, opponents have relentlessly sought to 
overturn the decision and restrict a woman's constitutional right to 
choose. Senator Ashcroft has been one of the chief architects of that 
strategy. As attorney general of Missouri, he told the Senate Judiciary 
Committee in 1981:

       I have devoted considerable time and significant resources 
     to defending the right of the State to limit the dangerous 
     impacts of Roe, a case in which a handful of men on the 
     Supreme Court arbitrarily amended the Constitution and 
     overturned the laws of 50 states relating to abortions.

  Senator Ashcroft's position is clear. He believes that, except when 
medically necessary to save a woman's life,

[[Page S850]]

abortion should never be available, even in cases involving a victim of 
rape or incest. He has said, ``Throughout my life, my personal 
conviction and public record is that the unborn child has a fundamental 
individual right to life which cannot be infringed and should be 
protected fully by the 14th Amendment.'' While I respect Senator 
Ashcroft's personal convictions, they cannot and should not be used as 
an excuse to deprive women of their constitutional right to choose.
  Nevertheless, Senator Ashcroft has been unrelenting in his efforts to 
overturn Roe v. Wade. While serving as attorney general and as 
Governor, Senator Ashcroft constantly sought the passage of State 
antichoice legislation and was a principal architect of a continuing 
nationwide litigation strategy to persuade the Supreme Court to 
restrict or overturn Roe v. Wade. In 1991, as Governor, he even boasted 
that no State had more abortion-related cases that reached the Supreme 
Court.
  As attorney general, Senator Ashcroft was so intent on restricting a 
woman's right to choose that he personally argued Planned Parenthood of 
Western Missouri v. Ashcroft in the United States Supreme Court. In 
that case, decided in 1983, the Supreme Court specifically and clearly 
rejected, by a 6 to 3 margin, the attempt by the State of Missouri to 
require all second trimester abortions to be performed in a hospital. 
The Court did permit, however, three requirements--that a second 
physician be present during a post-viability abortion; that a minor 
obtain either parental consent or a judicial waiver to have an 
abortion; and that a pathology report be prepared for each abortion.
  In 1986, Governor Ashcroft signed into law a bill that attempted to 
overturn Roe v. Wade by declaring that life begins at conception. The 
bill also imposed numerous restrictions on a woman's constitutional 
right to choose. After signing the bill into law, Governor Ashcroft 
said, ``the bill makes an important statement of moral principle and 
provides a framework to deter abortion wherever possible.''
  In 1989, the bill was challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme 
Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. The State of Missouri 
not only asked the Supreme Court to uphold the statute, but it also 
specifically asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Court 
refused to overturn Roe. But by a vote of 5-4, the Court upheld some 
provisions of the statute, including the prohibitions on the use of 
public facilities or personnel to perform abortions.
  In addition to his attempts to restrict a woman's right to choose, 
Senator Ashcroft as attorney general also took direct and improper 
action that prevented poor women from obtaining gynecological and birth 
control services. As Attorney General, he issued an opinion stating 
that nurses in Missouri did ``not have the authority to engage in 
primary health care that includes diagnosis and treatment of human 
illness, injury or infirmity and administration of medications under 
general rather than direct physician guidance and supervision.'' 
Following this opinion, the Missouri State Board of Registration for 
the Healing Arts threatened the criminal prosecution of two nurses and 
five doctors employed by the East Missouri Action Agency who provided 
family planning services to low-income women.
  The nurses provided family planning, obstetrics and gynecology 
services to the public--including information on oral contraceptives, 
condoms and IUDs; initiatives on breast and pelvic examinations; and 
testing for sexually-transmitted diseases--through funding for programs 
directed to low-income populations. The nurses were licensed 
professionals under Missouri law, and the doctors issued standing 
orders for the nurses. All services performed by the nurses were 
carried out pursuant to those orders or well-established protocols for 
nurses and other paramedical personnel. The board, however, threatened 
to find the nurses guilty of the unauthorized practice of medicine, and 
to find the physicians guilty of aiding and abetting them.
  In 1983, more than 3 years after Attorney General Ashcroft issued his 
opinion, the Supreme Court of Missouri rejected the opinion, finding 
that nothing in the state statutes purported to limit or restrict the 
nurses' and doctors' practices, and that the nurses actions ``clearly'' 
fell within the legislative standard governing the practice of nursing. 
Although the decision ensured that nurses in Missouri could continue to 
provide family planning services, during the almost 3 years that the 
case was pending, Attorney General Ashcroft's legally untenable opinion 
placed nurses providing gynecological services, including family 
planning, in considerable legal peril.
  Senator Ashcroft's aggressive and vocal opposition to Roe v. Wade 
continued during his service as a Member of the Senate. He voted in 
favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and sponsored both a human life 
amendment to the Constitution and parallel legislation. The human life 
amendment would prohibit all abortions except that required to prevent 
the death of the mother--but only if every reasonable effort is made to 
preserve the life of the women and the fetus. The proposed 
constitutional amendment contains no exception for rape or incest, and 
no protections for a woman's health. Because the amendment and the 
proposed statute define life as beginning at fertilization, its 
language could also be used to ban any type of contraception which 
prevents a fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus, including 
birth control pills and IUDs.
  Two weeks ago, however, Senator Ashcroft appeared to experience a 
confirmation conversion. He asked us to disregard his past record and 
unyielding position against reproductive rights and accept his new 
position--he now views ``Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as 
the settled law of the land.'' He will not longer work to dismantle 
Roe, but to enforce it, he says.
  When asked about his efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, Senator 
Ashcroft told the Committee that he ``did things to define the law by 
virtue of lawsuits . . . did things to refine the law when I had an 
enactment role.'' But as an example of his view of ``defining'' and 
``refining'' the law, during his 1981 testimony before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee as attorney general of Missouri, Senator Ashcroft 
testified that the human life bill--which would prohibit all 
abortions--could be constitutional within the framework of Roe v. Wade. 
It is clear that as Attorney General of the United States, Senator 
Ashcroft could easily feel free to define and refine Roe v. Wade out of 
existence.
  Senator Ashcroft also wants the committee to believe that he won't 
ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The current Court has 
made it clear that it will not overturn Roe. In that sense, Roe is 
settled law. But once the current composition of the Court changes, 
however, President Bush and Senator Ashcroft will feel free to take 
steps to overturn Roe. In an interview on January 20, 2001, President 
Bush said;

       Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned by a 
     Constitutional amendment because there's not the votes in the 
     House or the Senator. I--secondly--I am going to put judges 
     on the Court who strictly interpret the Constitution, and 
     that will be the litmus test . . . I've always said that Roe 
     v. Wade was--was a judicial reach.

  If Senator Ashcroft becomes Attorney General, he will be well-
positioned to undermine and eliminate this most basic right of privacy 
for all American women. President Bush and Senator Ashcroft will select 
judges and justices who are prepared to turn back the clock to a time 
when women did not have the right to choose.
  We know Senator Ashcroft is willing to go to the courts time and time 
again to challenge settled law. State of Missouri v. The National 
Organization for Women is a case in point. In that case, the 
organization had called for a boycott of Missouri because of the 
failure by the State to ratify the equal rights amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution.
  Senator Ashcroft told the Judiciary Committee that the litigation 
brought in Missouri by his office against the National Organization for 
Women was well within the law. He said:

       We filed the lawsuit, to the best of my recollection, 
     because the boycott was hurting the people of Missouri, and 
     we believed it to be in violation of the antitrust laws. The 
     lawsuit had nothing to do with the ERA . . . or the political 
     differences that I might have had with NOW.

  He went on to say:

       Now, I litigated that matter thoroughly, and frankly, other 
     states attempted it . . . I

[[Page S851]]

     think the law is clear now and has been clear in the 
     aftermath of that decision.

  That testimony was grossly misleading. At the time he brought the NOW 
case, he law was already well-settled in direct opposition to Senator 
Ashcroft's position. In ruling against Attorney General Ashcroft, both 
the federal district court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 
relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Eastern Railroad Presidents 
Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.--a case decided 17 years before 
Senator Ashcroft brought suit against NOW. The Attorney General said in 
that case:

       [The Sherman Act] . . . is a code that condemns trade 
     restraints, not political activity, and, a publicity campaign 
     to influence governmental action falls clearly into the 
     category of political activity.

  Still, Attorney General Ashcroft was not deterred, even though the 
district court and the court of appeals had ruled against him, relying 
upon the clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Senator Ashcroft persisted 
and asked the Supreme Court to review the NOW case. The Court refused 
even to hear the case.
  It is deeply troubling that as attorney general, Senator Ashcroft 
used state resources to litigate a weak case that rested on an argument 
rejected by the Supreme Court years ago. But, as with the litigation 
surrounding the voluntary school desegregation plan, he preferred to 
fight on in appeal after appeal in a losing and illegitimate battle, 
rather than surrender to justice and protect the rights of women.
  Mr. President, just for the information of Members, I have probably 4 
or 5 more minutes. I know other wish to speak. Than I will put the rest 
of the statement in the Record.
  Mr. President, Senator Ashcroft's opposition to gun control, his 
interpretation of the second amendment, and his advocacy of extremist 
gun lobby proposals are also very disturbing. Over 30,000 Americans 
lose their lives to gun violence every year, including over 3,000 
children and teenagers. Our Nation's level of gun violence is 
unparalleled in the rest of the world. In response to the devastation 
caused by gun violence, the majority of Americans support stricter gun 
control laws and vigorous enforcement of the laws now on the books.
  Contrary to the majority of the American public, Senator Ashcroft 
vigorously opposes stricter gun control laws. He addressed this issue 
during the hearing, where he seemed to change his long held beliefs and 
emphasized his commitment to enforce the gun laws and defend their 
constitutionality. He testified that ``there are constitutional 
inhibitions on the rights of citizens to bear certain kinds of arms.'' 
Saying he supported some controls, Senator Ashcroft referred to his 
attempt to amend the juvenile justice bill to make semiautomatic 
assault weapons illegal for children. However, he neglected to mention 
that his proposed amendment was actually a weaker version of one 
proposed by Senator Feinstein.
  He sought to create a parental consent exception to Senator 
Feinstein's bill, which would have prevented juveniles from obtaining 
semiautomatic assault weapons. At the hearing, Senator Ashcroft also 
testified that the assault weapons ban, the Brady law, licensing and 
registration of guns, and mandatory child safety locks are all 
constitutional.
  Although Senator Ashcroft's testimony was intended to ease our 
concerns about his willingness to enforce gun control laws, it is 
difficult to reconcile what he said last week with his rhetoric and his 
record. Contrary to his testimony, Senator Ashcroft has previously 
stated that individuals have a virtually unconditional right to bear 
arms under the second amendment. In a 1998 hearing, he commented on 
court decisions, which noted that the second amendment does not 
guarantee individuals unrestricted rights to keep and bear arms. 
Senator Ashcroft expressed his disagreement with the view accepted by 
every federal appellate court and the Supreme Court, that the second 
amendment was intended to protect state-regulated militias, but does 
not entitle individuals to possess or use weapons connected with 
participation in private militias. He criticized these court decisions, 
stating, ``The argument makes no sense to me.'' At the 1998 hearing, 
Senator Ashcroft went on to say:

       Indeed, the second amendment--like the First--protects an 
     important individual liberty that in turn promoted good 
     government. A citizenry armed with the right to possess 
     firearms and to speak freely is less likely to fall victim to 
     a tyrannical central government than a citizenry that is 
     disarmed from criticizing government or defending themselves.

  Senator Ashcroft's extreme view of the second amendment parallels his 
rhetoric comparing today's elected officials with the despots of the 
18th century. The pro-gun Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and 
Bear Arms reported that Senator Ashcroft compared ``today's power 
brokers and policy wonks'' in the Federal Government to the ``European 
despots from whom our Founding Fathers fled.'' He has explained that 
individuals should be allowed to ``keep and bear arms'' because ``I am 
fearful of a government that doesn't trust the people who elected 
them.'' Are we talking about our system of government? Are we talking 
about that?
  Unfortunately, Senator Ashcroft's rhetoric and record lend undeserved 
credibility and legitimacy to the views espoused by anti-government 
militia groups in our Nation. Members of these groups believe the 
second amendment gives them the right to form private armies as a check 
against federal power. These militia groups point out that guns are not 
for hunting or even protecting against crime. Rather, they say, the 
second amendment was intended to safeguard liberty forever by ensuring 
that the American people should never be out-gunned by their own 
government. Ruby Ridge and Waco are two recent violent episodes in 
which groups holding these views came into armed conflict with federal 
law enforcement. The Department of Justice has the all-important 
responsibility to enforce the laws against such extremist groups. Yet 
Senator Ashcroft's past rhetoric has supported these extremist views 
and causes legitimate concern that his views are so outside the 
mainstream of American thought that as Attorney General he will be 
unable and unwilling to enforce the gun laws and pursue prosecutions 
against militia groups for violations of Federal laws.
  Although Senator Ashcroft testified that he believes in the 
constitutionality of the assault weapons ban, the Brady law, gun 
licensing and registration, and mandatory child safety locks on guns, 
he voted to oppose legislation in these areas. He voted against the ban 
on the importation of high ammunition magazines. He voted against 
closing the gun show loophole. He voted for a measure to impede 
implementation of the National Instant Check System. He voted twice to 
weaken existing law by removing the background check requirements on 
pawnshop redemptions and by allowing dealers to sell guns at gun shows 
in any state. He voted twice against bills to require child safety 
locks, and he voted against regulating firearms sales on the Internet.
  Senator Ashcroft testified that he supported funds for gun 
prosecution initiatives. However, he has voted to reduce funding in 
other areas vital to gun law enforcement. For example, he voted against 
funding to implement background checks under the Brady law, named after 
former Reagan Press Secretary James Brady. Indeed, Senator Ashcroft has 
referred to James Brady, a brave and patriotic American, as ``the 
leading enemy of responsible gun owners.'' When provided the 
opportunity to express regret for making such an unjustified statement, 
Senator Ashcroft declined.
  Senator Ashcroft is also closely tied to the gun lobby and he has 
often accepted contributions from these organizations and supported 
their agendas. During the hearing, he told us that keeping guns out of 
the hands of felons is a ``top priority'' of his. Yet, in 1998, this 
did not seem to be a top priority for him. He supported an NRA-
sponsored ballot initiative that would have allowed almost anyone to 
carry concealed guns in Missouri. The proposal was so filled with 
loopholes that it would have allowed convicted child molesters and 
stalkers to carry semi-automatic pistols into bars, sports stadiums, 
casinos, and day care centers. The proposal was opposed by numerous law 
enforcement groups and many in the business community. Proponents of

[[Page S852]]

the measure say Senator Ashcroft volunteered his help to support the 
referendum, even recording a radio ad endorsing the proposal. Senator 
Ashcroft stated in response to written questions that ``Although [he 
did] not recall the specific details, [his] recollection is that 
supporters of the referendum approached [him] and asked [him] to record 
the radio spot.'' The fact remains that Senator Ashcroft did support 
the referendum and did record the radio spot. Few can doubt that as a 
seasoned politician, Senator Ashcroft made himself fully aware of the 
contents of the referendum before lending his name to it. And if he did 
not, there is even greater reason to question his judgment and 
suitability for such a high and important position in our federal 
government.
  Senator Ashcroft championed the NRA's concealed weapon proposition in 
1998. But in 1992, while governor of Missouri, he had voiced his 
concerns about such a measure. As Governor, he stated he had ``grave 
concerns'' about concealed carry laws. He stated, ``Overall, I don't 
know that I would be one to want to promote a whole lot of people 
carrying concealed weapons in this society.'' He further stated, 
``Obviously, if it's something to authorize everyone to carry concealed 
weapons, I'd be concerned about it.'' When asked about his change of 
view in deciding to support the 1998 initiative, Senator Ashcroft said 
he changed his position because of ``Research plus real-world 
experiences.'' However, Senator Ashcroft's research was so flawed that 
he responded to written questions that ``[t]o the extent there were 
loopholes in Missouri law'' that would permit convicted child molesters 
and stalkers to carry concealed weapons, he was ``unaware of those 
provisions at the time.'' Later, it was reported that the gun lobby 
spent $400,000 in support of Senator Ashcroft's Senate reelection 
campaign. He became ``the unabashed celebrity spokesman . . . for the 
National Rifle Association's recent attempts to arm citizens with 
concealed weapons in Missouri,'' according to a column by Laura Scott 
in the Kansas City Star.
  The Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms gave 
Senator Ashcroft the ``Gun Rights Defender of the Month'' Award for 
leading the opposition to David Satcher's nomination to be Surgeon 
General. The group objected to Dr. Satcher because he advocated 
treating gun violence as a public health problem.
  Based on his close ties to the gun lobby and his strong support for 
their agenda, it is difficult to have confidence that Senator Ashcroft 
will fully and fairly enforce the nation's gun control laws and not 
seek to weaken them.
  Senator Ashcroft has shown time and time again that he supports the 
gun lobby and opposes needed gun safety measures. Given the important 
litigation in the federal courts, it is imperative to have an Attorney 
General who will strongly enforce current gun control laws such as the 
Brady Law, the assault weapons ban, and other statutes. It is also 
important to have an Attorney General with a responsible view of 
proposed legislation when the Department of Justice is asked to comment 
on it.
  Senator Ashcroft's handling of judicial and executive branch 
nominations also raises deep concerns. In four of the most divisive 
nomination battles in the Senate in the 6 years he served with us, 
Senator Ashcroft was consistently involved in harsh and vigorous 
opposition to the confirmation of distinguished and well-qualified 
African Americans, an Asian American and a gay American.
  When President Clinton nominated Judge Ronnie White of the Missouri 
Supreme Court to be a federal district court judge, Senator Ashcroft 
flagrantly distorted the record of the nominee and attacked him in the 
strongest terms. He accused Judge White of being ``an activist with a 
slant toward criminals.'' He accused him of being a judge with ``a 
serious bias against a willingness to impose the death penalty.'' He 
accused him of seeking ``at every turn'' to provide opportunities for 
the guilty to ``escape punishment.'' He accused him of voting ``to 
reverse the death sentence in more cases than any other [Missouri] 
Supreme Court judge.''
  When questioned about Judge White's nomination, Senator Ashcroft did 
not retreat from his characterization of Judge White's record, although 
a review clearly demonstrates that Senator Ashcroft's charges were 
baseless.
  Judge White is not an ardent opponent of the death penalty. He voted 
to uphold death penalty convictions in 41 cases, and voted to reverse 
them in only 17 cases. His votes in death penalty cases were not 
significantly different from the votes of the other members of the 
Missouri Supreme Court--judges whom Senator Ashcroft appointed when he 
was Governor. In more than half of the 17 cases in which Judge White 
voted to overturn a death sentence, he was voting with the majority--
with Ashcroft appointees. Seven of these cases were unanimous 
decisions. There were only three death penalty reversals in which Judge 
White was the only judge who voted to overturn the conviction. In fact, 
four of the justices whom Senator Ashcroft named to the court have 
voted to overturn more death penalty convictions than Judge White. That 
record is not the record of ``an activist with a slant toward 
criminals.''
  In fact, Judge White's record in death penalty cases shows him to be 
in the Missouri mainstream. Four of his colleagues who were appointed 
to the bench by Governor Ashcroft have voted to overturn between 22 
percent and 25 percent of the death penalty convictions they 
considered. Judge White voted to reverse the convictions in 29 percent 
of the death penalty cases he heard. By contrast, his predecessor Judge 
Thomas, also an Ashcroft appointee, voted to reverse 47 percent of the 
death sentences he reviewed. There is no significant difference between 
Judge White's record on the death penalty and the records of his 
colleagues on the court.
  Some law enforcement officials in Missouri did oppose the White 
nomination. But many Missouri police officials supported Judge White. 
He had the support of the State Fraternal Order of Police. The head of 
the FOP said, ``The record of Justice White is one of a jurist whose 
record on the death penalty has been far more supportive of the rights 
of victims than the rights of criminals.'' Judge White was also 
endorsed by the chief of police of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police 
Department. The president of the Missouri Police Chiefs Association 
described Judge White as ``an upright, fine individual.''
  In Senator Ashcroft's statements on the Senate floor on the 
nomination, he focused on a small number of Judge White's opinions. A 
review of Judge White's entire record suggests that those cases were 
taken very much out of context. In two of them, there were serious 
questions about the competency of the defendant's trial counsel. In the 
third, there was evidence of racial bias by the trial judge. Those 
cases were not disagreements about the death penalty. The issue was 
whether the defendant had received a fair trial. Judge White's dissent 
in one of those cases makes this point in the clearest terms:

       This is a very hard case. If Mr. Johnson was in control of 
     his faculties when he went on this murderous rampage, then he 
     assuredly deserves the death sentence he was given . . . I am 
     not convinced that the performance of his counsel did not rob 
     Mr. Johnson of any opportunity he might have had to convince 
     the jury that he was not responsible for his actions. This is 
     an excellent example of why hard cases make bad law. While I 
     share the majority's horror at this carnage, I cannot uphold 
     this as an acceptable standard of representation for a 
     defendant accused of capital murder.

  Senator Ashcroft's statements on the White nomination strongly 
suggest that Senator Ashcroft has a misguided view of the role of 
judges in our constitutional system. To label a judge ``pro-criminal'' 
based on isolated opinions over the course of an entire career is 
wrong. Judges are obliged to decide individual cases according to the 
requirements of law, including the Constitution. Judge White has 
frequently voted to affirm criminal convictions, including 41 capital 
cases. The fact that he reached a contrary position in a few cases 
should not disqualify him to be a federal judge.
  What is most noteworthy about Senator Ashcroft's attacks on Judge 
White is the extraordinary degree to which Senator Ashcroft distorted 
the record in order to portray Judge White's confirmation as a 
referendum on the death penalty. This is a judge who had voted

[[Page S853]]

to uphold more than 70 percent of the death penalty convictions he had 
reviewed. Yet Senator Ashcroft never questioned Judge White about these 
issues at the committee hearing on Judge White's nomination, and he 
never gave Judge White an opportunity to explain his reasons for 
dissenting in the three cases before unfairly attacking his record.
  It appears that Senator Ashcroft had decided to use the death penalty 
as an issue in his campaign for re-election to the Senate, and to make 
his point, he cruelly distorted the honorable record of a distinguished 
African American judge and denied him the position he deserved as a 
federal district court judge. As I said at the hearing, what Senator 
Ashcroft did to Judge White is the ugliest thing that has happened to a 
nominee in all my years in the Senate.
  Senator Ashcroft was also asked about the nominations of Bill Lann 
Lee to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Dr. David 
Satcher to serve as Surgeon General of the United States, and James 
Hormel to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg.
  Senator Ashcroft told the committee that he could not support Mr. Lee 
because he had ``serious concerns about his willingness to enforce the 
Adarand decision'' on affirmative action. In truth, however, Mr. Lee's 
position on affirmative action was well within the mainstream of the 
law, and he repeatedly told the committee that he would follow the 
Supreme Court's ruling in the Adarand case. As Senator Leahy said 
during the Ashcroft confirmation hearings.

       Mr. Lee testified on a number of occasions--in fact, 
     testified under oath, including, incidentally, directly in 
     answer to your questions, that he would enforce the law as 
     declared in Adarand. And he also said, in direct answer to 
     questions of this committee, he considered the Adarand 
     decision of the Supreme Court as the controlling legal 
     authority of the land, that he would seek to enforce it, he 
     would give it full effect . . .

  Similarly, Senator Ashcroft said he did not support Dr. Satcher to be 
Surgeon General because he:

       Supported a number of activities that I thought were 
     inconsistent with the ethical obligations of a medical doctor 
     and a physician, particularly the surgeon general . . . for 
     example he supported an AIDS study on pregnant women in 
     Africa where some patients were given placebos, even though a 
     treatment existed to limit transmission of AIDS from the 
     mother to the child . . . I, secondly, believed his 
     willingness to send AIDS-infected babies home with their 
     mothers without telling their mothers about the infection of 
     the children was another ethical problem that was very 
     serious.

  In fact, at the time of the debate on the Satcher nomination in 1997, 
approximately 1,000 babies were born with HIV every day. Most of the 
births were in developing countries, where the U.S.-accepted regimen of 
AZT treatment is not practical because of safety and cost concerns. In 
1994, the World Health Organization had called a meeting of 
international experts to review the use of AZT to prevent the spread of 
HIV in pregnancy. That meeting resulted in the recommendation that 
studies be conducted in developing countries to test the effectiveness 
and safety of short-term AZT therapy that could be used in developing 
countries and that those studies be placebo-controlled to ensure safety 
in areas with various immune challenges. Approval was obtained by 
ethics committees in this country and the host countries and by the 
UNAIDS program. The National Institutes of Health and the Centers for 
Disease Control agreed to support the studies in order to save lives in 
developing countries.
  Many leaders in the medical field supported the studies. Dr. Nancy 
Dickey, AMA president-elect at the time, said that the studies in 
Africa and Asia were ``scientifically well-founded'' and carried out 
with ``informed consent.'' Those who did not support the studies still 
supported Dr. Satcher's nomination. Dr. Sidney Wolfe, Director of 
Public Citizen's Health Research Group, said that while he had for many 
months expressed opposition to the AZT experiments, it represented an 
honest difference of opinion with Satcher. He said he fully supports 
the nomination. ``I think he'd make an excellent surgeon general,'' 
Wolfe said. ``I have known him and I admire him.''
  Senator Ashcroft also mis-characterized Dr. Satcher's role in the 
survey of HIV child-bearing women. In 1995, seven years after the 
survey began during the Reagan administration, Dr. Satcher, as acting 
CDC director, and Dr. Phil Lee, former Assistant Secretary for Health, 
halted the HIV survey. They did so because of a combination of better 
treatment options for children with HIV, the discovery of a therapeutic 
regimen to reduce mother-to-infant HIV transmission, and a greater 
ability to monitor HIV trends in women of childbearing age in other 
ways.
  The HIV tests had begun in 1988, five years before Dr. Satcher joined 
the CDC. The tests were supported by public health leaders at every 
level of government as a way to monitor the HIV/AIDS epidemic. These 
surveys were designed to provide information about the level of HIV in 
a given community without individual information. The Survey of Child-
Bearing Women was one of the HIV surveys conducted under the program. 
It was funded by the CDC and conducted by the states. Forty-five 
states, including Missouri while Senator Ashcroft was Governor, 
participated in the survey and requested and received federal funds 
from the CDC to conduct it. The survey was important to public health 
officials at the time, because it was the only unbiased way to provide 
a valid estimate of the number of women with HIV and their demographic 
distribution. Dr. Satcher's participation in the survey was justified, 
and it was not a valid reason for Senator Ashcroft to deny him 
confirmation as Surgeon General.
  The case of James Hormel is also especially troubling. When Mr. 
Hormel was nominated by President Clinton to serve as Ambassador to 
Luxembourg, Senator Ashcroft and Senator Helms were the only two 
members of the Foreign Relations Committee to oppose the nomination. 
Although Senator Ashcroft voted against Mr. Hormel, Senator Ashcroft 
did not attend the confirmation hearings, did not submit written 
questions, and refused Mr. Hormel's repeated requests to meet or speak 
by phone to discuss the nomination.
  In 1998, when asked about his opposition to Mr. Hormel's nomination, 
Senator Ashcroft stated that homosexuality is a sin and that a person's 
sexual conduct ``is within what could be considered and what is 
eligible for consideration.'' Senator Ashcroft also publicly stated in 
1988 that: ``[Mr. Hormel's] conduct and the way in which he would 
represent the United States is probably not up to the standard that I 
would expect.''
  Senator Leahy asked Senator Ashcroft at the Judiciary Committee 
hearings whether he opposed Hormel's nomination because of Hormel's 
sexual orientation. Senator Ashcroft responded ``I did not.'' Instead, 
Senator Ashcroft claimed that he had ``known Mr. Hormel for a long 
time''--Mr. Hormel had been a dean of students at the University of 
Chicago law school when Senator Ashcroft was a student there in the 
1960s. Senator Ashcroft repeatedly testified that he based his 
opposition to Mr. Hormel on the ``totality of the record.''
  Mr. Hormel was so troubled by Senator Ashcroft's testimony that he 
wrote to the committee and said the following:

       I want to state unequivocally and for the record that there 
     is no personal or professional relationship between me and 
     Mr. Ashcroft which could possibly support such a statement. 
     The letter continued, I have had no contact with him 
     [Ashcroft] of any type since I left my position as Dean of 
     Students . . . nearly thirty-four years ago, in 1967 . . . 
     For Mr. Ashcroft to state that he was able to assess my 
     qualifications . . . based upon his personal long-time 
     relationship with me is misleading, erroneous, and 
     disingenuous . . . I find it personally offensive that Mr. 
     Ashcroft, under oath and in response to your direct 
     questions, would choose to misstate the nature of our 
     relationship, insinuate objective grounds for voting against 
     me, and deny that his personal viewpoint about my sexual 
     orientation played any role in his actions.

  We should all be deeply concerned about Senator Ashcroft's 
willingness to mislead the Judiciary Committee about his reasons for 
opposing the Hormel nomination. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted on 
January 22, 2001. ``[T]he most disturbing part of Mr. Ashcroft's 
testimony was the way in which he misstated important parts of his 
record.''
  In conclusion, the Attorney General of the United States leads the 
85,000 men and women who enforce the nation's laws in every community 
in the

[[Page S854]]

country. The Attorney General is the nation's chief law enforcement 
officer and a symbol of the nation's commitment to justice. Americans 
from every walk of life deserve to have trust in him to be fair and 
just in his words and in his actions. He has vast powers to enforce the 
laws and set priorities for law enforcement in ways that are fair or 
unfair--just or unjust.
  When a President nominates a person to serve in his Cabinet, the 
presumption is rightly in favor of the nominee. But Senator Ashcroft 
has a long and detailed record of relentless opposition on fundamental 
issues of civil rights and other basic rights of vital importance to 
all the people of America, and the people of this country deserve 
better than that. Americans are entitled to an Attorney General who 
will vigorously fight to uphold the law and protect our constitutional 
rights. Based on a detailed review of his long record in public 
service, Senator Ashcroft is not that man. I urge the Senate to vote no 
on this nomination.
  Mr. President, since I see a number of my colleagues, I will take the 
opportunity, when there is a pause in the Senate, to complete my 
statement. At this time, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I consider it an honor and 
privilege to stand here today in support of the nomination of John 
Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States. Contrary to some 
of the rhetoric we have been hearing from the other side, everybody in 
this institution knows he is one of the finest people who ever served 
here. He is a man of great religious faith, a moral man. Yet as we 
listen to this debate, if it wasn't for the fact that it was so 
personally destructive and so vindictive, it would be humorous.
  We have a man who served 6 years in the Senate, served two terms as 
Governor, two terms as attorney general of the State of Missouri. Yet 
to hear the debate, he is anti-child, anti-woman, anti-black, anti-gay, 
anti-Catholic. What else can possibly be said?
  One thing we can certainly be assured of--the left knows how to play 
politics. They do it well, and I commend them for it. Unfortunately, 
though, sometimes in politics, one destroys unfairly the reputations of 
people who don't deserve it. That is what offends me the most. I will 
not use the term ``anger,'' but it does offend me that this kind of 
personal destruction has to be used.
  I recall the comments earlier in the debate today of Senator Leahy 
when he said there are 280 million Americans with divergent ethnic 
backgrounds and political views. Out of that 280 million Americans, 
according to the left, if there are any of those 280 million Americans 
who are conservative and happen to be pro-life or pro-gun, they can't 
be Attorney General. If they are pro-choice or if they are anti-gun, 
then they can be.
  I again remind my colleagues that the vote on Janet Reno was 98-0. 
Most of us on this side of the aisle would agree that her views and 
ours were quite different, but we supported her nomination because the 
President of the United States has a right to pick his or her Cabinet. 
That is a fact.
  I will respond directly to this anti-Catholic charge. It is so 
outrageous, I don't know how people can look in the mirror, to be 
candid about it, and do this kind of personal destruction.
  Let me read from a copy of a letter I just received from Senator 
Kennedy's own cardinal, Cardinal Law. I will read it into the Record:

       Dear Senator Ashcroft: Let me begin by expressing my deep 
     dismay at the unfounded and scurrilous charge that you could 
     possibly harbor anti-Catholic feelings. I was astounded to 
     hear that anyone was making such a ridiculous accusation.
       From any time as Bishop of Springfield/Cape Girardeau until 
     today, I have always found you to be a man of honor, 
     integrity and deep faith. I recall with great fondness the 
     many opportunities we had to work together on many issues 
     affecting the lives of the good people of the State of 
     Missouri. In a particular way, I recall how kind and 
     thoughtful you were to invite me to address The Governor's 
     Annual Prayer Breakfast on January 9, 1992 when you were 
     serving as the Governor of Missouri. On that same day you 
     also honored me with an invitation to address The Governor's 
     Leadership Forum on Faith and Values. College students, then 
     and now, are beneficiaries of your generous love and concern 
     for them and their futures. I do not recall that you made any 
     distinctions between black and white, Protestant, Catholic or 
     Jew in your desire to instill in them a love for their faith, 
     their families and one another as brothers and sisters in the 
     human family.
       Let me assure you, John, of my prayers.
       Asking God to bless you, Janet, the children and all whom 
     you hold dear and with warm personal regards. I am
           Sincerely yours in Christ,
                                                   Bernard F. Law,
                                             Archbishop of Boston.

  Mr. President, there are a long line of people on the basis of their 
position on life who couldn't be Attorney General. We could start with 
Jesus Christ himself. We could also add to that list the Pope, Mother 
Teresa, all the cardinals in the United States. We are going to have to 
eliminate a whole lot of people. It is so outrageous and, frankly, 
pathetic, it really exposes the left for what they are.
  It exposes the left for what they are.
  Let me read part of a comment made by Bill Bennett:

       What you are seeing is the true face of the Democratic 
     Party. What you are seeing is them saying to a man ``you are 
     perfectly decent, everything you have done is within the law, 
     you haven't harbored any illegal aliens, you have never left 
     the scene of a crime, you led an exemplary life, but we don't 
     approve of your views. You dare to say you are pro-life, you 
     dare to say you are opposed to reverse discrimination and for 
     that you will pay. For that we will make this experience 
     something you will never forget.'' I hope they do it. I hope 
     the American people watch it. If you want to see the haters, 
     you'll see them in these press conferences behind the attempt 
     to kill the Ashcroft nomination.

  You can't say it any better than that. People should be ashamed of 
themselves. Who did our side oppose on a Cabinet appointment in the 
Clinton administration? They all were approved by voice vote, with the 
exception of Janet Reno. That was 98-0.

       The activist Democrats shooting at John Ashcroft in his bid 
     to become America's next Attorney General have revealed the 
     ugliness about themselves, not the nominee.

  So said Betsy Hart of Scripps Howard. That is the truth. There is the 
ugliness. It is not John Ashcroft. John Ashcroft sat on that committee 
on a panel and took those questions and took that abuse. He was decent, 
respectful, honorable, gracious, and took it all.
  He is above them all. He showed it on national television. He is 
above them all. His critics couldn't tie his shoe laces or even shine 
his boots.
  Betsy Hart also said:

       Apparently these folks are so comfortable with using 
     cabinet offices to create law instead of to enforce existing 
     laws and so content to see judges write new law instead of 
     interpret existing law, they can't fathom a responsible 
     officeholder who will honor the rule of law.

  You cannot say it any better than that, if you are prepared for 10 
years. That sums it up in a nutshell. They are so used to using these 
positions to create law, they can't believe a person such as John 
Ashcroft, who will say to you: I worked as hard as I could as a Member 
of the Senate to create laws for what I believe in. So does everybody 
else on the left, and you have every right to do that. But there is a 
difference between that John Ashcroft and the John Ashcroft, however 
reluctant he may be, who will step up to the plate as the Attorney 
General of the United States and enforce the law--yes, even the laws he 
doesn't like. His record proves he did it over and over and over and 
over and over again. There is not one shred of evidence to indicate 
that he didn't do it.
  I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy in this place. Much was made 
about another issue; when you start getting into the racial charges, 
that hits right below the belt. I am going to answer it. It deserves to 
be answered. Is there anybody in here whose spouse taught for several 
years at a predominantly black school? Is that racist? In the news 
today is speculation that his No. 2 person may, in fact, be black. So 
what. The most qualified person should be who he picks. Then the issue 
of desegregation in the St. Louis matter before the Governor and the 
attorney general. During that suit, the job of the attorney general and 
the Governor was to support the State's position, to defend the State. 
It wasn't about segregation. It was about taxes. It was about busing. 
It was a very controversial issue. Those who opposed busing or imposing 
taxes by the courts on the citizens were not racists.

[[Page S855]]

  Anyone who implies that is flat out wrong. If John Ashcroft is guilty 
of segregation because he defended the State, then why is Jay Nixon, 
who is the attorney general, himself, not guilty of the same thing? Why 
is it that two prominent Members of this body--I will introduce this 
into the Record--Senator Kennedy and Senator Harkin--invite you to a 
breakfast ``to meet and support Missouri Senate candidate, Attorney 
General Jay Nixon, Tuesday, March 31, 1998, at The Monocle for a 
contribution of $5,000 or finish your max-out?'' He did the same thing 
as Ashcroft did. And it is hypocrisy to stand here and say this to 
destroy the reputation of one of the finest people who ever served 
here.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this announcement be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         SENATOR TED KENNEDY &

                           SENATOR TOM HARKIN

              Intite You for Breakfast To Meet and Support

                       MISSOURI SENATE CANDIDATE

                       ATTORNEY GENERAL JAY NIXON

                        TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1998

                              THE MONOCLE

                            8:30 AM-9:30 AM

                   RSVP to Jill Gimmel--202-546-9494

                      or Don Erback--202-546-9292