[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S855-S869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



              Contribution: $5,000 or Finish Your Max-Out

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Kay James said it about as well as you 
can say it. ``Religious profiling,'' that is what it is. You can't be a 
man of faith or a woman of faith. You can't be that. You can't have 
views that differ with the left. Otherwise, you can't serve. That is 
it.
  Bipartisanship? I will tell you how far it reaches when we agree with 
that. That is when we get bipartisanship. They never come over to agree 
with us. That is what this debate is about. It is about the 
continuation of the election. The election is over. Hello, the election 
is over, folks.
  The President of the United States should pick his Cabinet. That is 
the right thing to do, and every one of you knows it. To get into this 
character assassination of racism, anti-Catholic, antigay, anti-this, 
anti-that--there is not a shred of evidence about John Ashcroft that 
would indicate that, and you ought to examine your conscience before 
you vote.
  John Ashcroft is well qualified to be Attorney General, maybe one of 
the most qualified ever to even be put up for nomination.
  During the debate on Janet Reno, I recall her views against the death 
penalty. I happen to support the death penalty. I voted for Reno 
because Reno said she would enforce the law, and if the law of the land 
is the death penalty, she said she would enforce it. That is fine.
  Do I agree with everything Janet Reno did? No. Bill Clinton won the 
Presidency and had the right to pick his Attorney General. That is the 
situation right now. George Bush is the President, and he has the right 
to pick. If you think John Ashcroft is not going to enforce the law, 
then say so. If you think he is a racist, say so. But there is not one 
shred of evidence that indicates otherwise.
  This business about Ronnie White is so outrageous that it really just 
defies logic to talk about it.
  The National Sheriffs' Association wrote a letter, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               National Sheriffs' Association,

                                 Alexandria, VA, January 11, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the National Sheriffs' 
     Association (NSA), I am writing to offer our strong support 
     for the nomination of Attorney General Designate John 
     Ashcroft. As the voice of elected law enforcement, we are 
     proud to lend our support to his nomination and look forward 
     to his confirmation by the Senate.
       As you know, NSA is a non-profit professional association 
     located in Alexandria, Virginia. NSA represents nearly 3,100 
     elected sheriffs across the Nation and has more than 20,000 
     members including deputy sheriffs, other law enforcement 
     professionals, students and others.
       NSA has been a long time supporter of John Ashcroft and in 
     1996, he received our prestigious President's Award. After 
     reviewing Senator Ashcroft's record of service, as it relates 
     to law enforcement, we have determined that he will make an 
     outstanding Attorney General and he is eminently qualified to 
     lead the Department of Justice. NSA feels that Senator 
     Ashcroft will be an outstanding Attorney General for law 
     enforcement and the U.S. Senate should confirm him.
       I look forward to working with you to ensure that the U.S. 
     Senate confirms Attorney General Designate Ashcroft.
           Sincrely,
                                          Jerry ``Peanuts'' Gains,
                                                        President.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The National Sheriffs' Association wrote 
a letter on behalf of John Ashcroft for Attorney General.
  On this business about Ronnie White, the truth of the matter is the 
individual accused of that crime, Mr. Johnson, went on a 24-hour crime 
spree, killed three sheriffs, killing the wife of another one at a 
party during the Christmas holidays, and he was given all kinds of 
legal defenses. Ronnie White argued that Johnson's defense team, a 
group of three private attorneys with extensive trial experience, had 
provided ineffective assistance. Fine; he has a right to do that. 
Ronnie White was a judge. He had a right to say this guy deserves some 
more help. But he also has to expect that if you make those kinds of 
decisions, somebody may hold that against you when you go up for 
another judgeship somewhere.
  That is all it was. That is what that was about. It wasn't about 
racism; it was about a judge who some of us thought--55 of us, as a 
matter of fact--thought shouldn't be on the court because of his views 
on crime.
  I urge my colleagues to rethink their positions and understand it is 
important that we understand that a President should pick his nominee 
and that this nominee is a fine man--one of the finest who ever served 
here. He should be confirmed, and I hope he will be confirmed, as the 
next Attorney General.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, as we consider the nomination of John Ashcroft for 
Attorney General, I would like to compliment the Judiciary Committee on 
their process and deliberation in bringing this nomination to the 
floor.
  On my side of the aisle, I would like to be particularly 
complimentary of the leadership provided by Senator Patrick Leahy and, 
of course, the work done by Senator Orrin Hatch. I believe the 
deliberations were fair, rigorous, thorough, and conducted in a tone 
that was really becoming of the U.S. Senate. I would like to 
congratulate my colleagues on that.
  As I consider the nomination of all the Cabinet members, particularly 
this one, I want to speak first about the statement that said a 
President is entitled to his nominees. The nominations to head up the 
executive branch are not entitlement programs. There is nothing 
entitlement about it. In fact, we were given a constitutional mandate 
to examine each and every nominee and to give our advice and consent to 
the President of the United States. The founding fathers were very 
clear that the Senate should not be a rubber stamp in terms of a 
Presidential set of nominees. The President is entitled to fair 
consideration of those nominees, but not for us to be a rubber stamp.
  On each and every one of those nominees, I have given my independent 
judgment and have voted for most of President Bush's nominations 
because I think they meet three tests: Competency, integrity, and a 
commitment to the mission of the agency.
  President Bush in his inaugural address pledged to ``work to build a 
single nation of justice and opportunity.'' Yet one of his first acts 
was to choose John Ashcroft to lead the Department of Justice, someone 
who has had an extreme ideological agenda on civil rights, on a woman's 
right to choose, on gun control, his positions are far outside the 
mainstream. Often, his rhetoric has been harsh and wounding. As 
attorney general and Governor of Missouri; he pushed systematically and 
regularly for the disempowerment of people of color and the 
disempowerment of women to have access to health services related to 
their own reproduction.

  Can anyone be surprised that this nomination is divisive? This is not 
a time in our history for further division.

[[Page S856]]

  My wonderful colleague from New Hampshire left the floor. I want to 
say something. I don't have a litmus test on nominations. I don't have 
a single issue by which I judge any and of all the nominees. He raised 
the issue, and appropriately, that if you are not pro-choice, can you 
be confirmed in the Senate, or can you get Democratic votes? The answer 
is yes, and right here.
  I will give you an example. Governor Thompson has now been appointed 
our Secretary of HHS. I am pro-choice. Governor Thompson is not. I did 
not hesitate to vote for Governor Thompson because I looked at the 
pattern of the way he governed. He is a champion of welfare rights and 
truly a compassionate conservative--one of the first to have a State 
version of a woman's health agenda, a real commitment to dealing with 
the tragedy of long-term care and extra support to care givers. This is 
a Cabinet member I want to work with in constructive dialog.
  I had no litmus test. I don't believe my colleagues do. I believe 
among our own side of the aisle there are people about which it is not 
whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, it is, are you committed to 
some of the central values of our society?
  Do you believe America is a mosaic, that all people come with 
different heritages and different beliefs and have a right to equal 
opportunity and justice under the law? Do you believe the social glue 
is access to courts that you believe are fundamentally fair. Do you 
believe that an Attorney General's Office at the State or Federal level 
will embrace the fundamental principles of our U.S. Government? That is 
our criteria.
  When I looked at the nomination of John Ashcroft, I had to say, Is he 
competent? Yes. You can't dispute that. His whole education and 
record--yes, he is competent. On integrity? Until the confirmation 
hearing, I believed him to be a man of great integrity. I had no doubt. 
But all of a sudden, there were two John Ashcrofts. The prehearing John 
Ashcroft who was Attorney General, as Governor of Missouri, here on the 
Senate floor had one set of beliefs. I respect those beliefs. People 
are entitled to their beliefs. But all of a sudden in the confirmation 
hearing, his beliefs no longer mattered to him. If you fundamentally 
opposed, as he did, issues of civil rights, the access of women to have 
reproductive services, how is it you could have such passionate beliefs 
one day and then say they didn't matter, you would put them on the 
shelf?
  I respect the passion Senator Ashcroft has of his beliefs. Though he 
is entitled to his beliefs, I don't believe his beliefs entitle him to 
be Attorney General of the United States. I don't know how you can 
believe something so passionately one day and then say you will put 
them on the shelf. Beliefs are not something like the surplus that you 
can put in a lockbox. Beliefs cannot be put in a lockbox.
  When I looked at John Ashcroft and his record as attorney general and 
as Governor, I was deeply troubled. What I was troubled about was how 
he enforced issues, his record on civil rights, on a woman's right to 
choose, on enforcing the laws.
  On civil rights, the Attorney General of the United States decides 
how vigorously we enforce existing civil rights laws. The Civil Rights 
Division monitors and ensures that school districts comply with 
desegregation. Yet as attorney general, John Ashcroft strenuously 
opposed a voluntary court-ordered desegregation plan agreed to by all 
parties. He even tried to block this after a Federal court found that 
the State was acting unconstitutionally and then went on to vilify the 
court for their position.
  One of the fundamental civil rights is the right to vote. Didn't we 
just go through that in the most closely contested election? Every vote 
does count, and everybody who can should be registered. Yet as 
Governor, he vetoed the Voter Registration Reform Act which would have 
significantly increased minority voter registration and was endorsed by 
such groups as the League of Women Voters. I believe there has been a 
persistent pattern of opposing opportunity in the areas of civil 
rights.
  On the protection of rights of individuals, the right to choose, the 
Attorney General has great power to undermine existing laws and the 
constitutional protection of a woman's right to choose. As attorney 
general, John Ashcroft used his office to limit women's access to 
health care, particularly reproductive health care, filing an amicus 
brief in a case that sought to prevent nurses from providing routine 
GYN services and also giving out on a voluntary basis usual and 
customary methods of contraceptives, saying they were practicing 
medicine. What they were doing was practicing public health.
  Based on his record and other statements, I can only conclude that 
John Ashcroft would use his position to undermine existing laws, 
including the constitutional protection of a woman's right to choose 
and access to reproductive health services, after these services have 
already been affirmed by law and the Supreme Court.

  Sexual orientation. The Attorney General is charged with enforcing 
antidiscrimination laws, which include protections for homosexuals. Yet 
John Ashcroft opposed the nomination of James Hormel to be Ambassador 
to Luxemburg simply because he is gay. Now, hello, what does that mean 
would happen in his own department? Will this be an issue with his own 
hiring at the Department of Justice?
  The Justice Department advises the President on proposed legislation; 
for example, hate crimes prevention, another part of the social glue of 
America. John Ashcroft voted against this legislation. How does he feel 
about hate crimes now? Will he enforce existing hate crime laws? Will 
he recommend that the President expand them?
  The Justice Department is called upon to enforce other laws. One of 
the big flashing yellow lights is racial profiling. By the way, the 
former Governor of New Jersey was called into question about the way 
she enforced racial profiling, but I voted for her to be EPA 
Administrator because that is not the issue in being an EPA 
Administrator. Again, no litmus test and no listening to the so-called 
left-wing groups they talk about. Please let's end this demeaning of 
groups.
  The NAACP, People for the American Way, the ACLU, these are part of 
America. Senator Ashcroft could have acted in racial profiling, but he 
held it up in committee. He was quite passive. Is he going to be 
passive when it comes to this as Attorney General? I wonder.
  Then we have activism. Bill Lann Lee was nominated for the Assistant 
Secretary for Civil Rights--a compelling story, a man of great talent, 
a man who worked his way up, not unlike some of the nominees given to 
us by President Bush, such as Mr. Martinez, Ms. Chao, whose stories are 
compelling. Bill Lann Lee had a compelling story, but he also had one 
other thing on his resume. He happened to have been a civil rights 
lawyer for the NAACP. This made him, in the Ashcroft analysis, a 
radical activist. What is wrong with being a lawyer for the NAACP? I 
thought Thurgood Marshall once had that job--not a bad place to earn 
your spurs. But, oh, no.
  So what is it that John Ashcroft is going to look for in his 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights? Passivity? Let's get somebody 
passive? I don't think so, because it really goes against what we 
require in that job, because in that job you have to be proactive.
  I don't believe John Ashcroft is a racist. I also don't believe he is 
anti-Catholic. I believe those rhetorical charges were not only 
exaggerated but I truly believe they are unfounded. At the same time, 
he does have a record of insensitivity. I look at that pattern where he 
routinely blocked the nomination of women and minorities; he opposed 12 
judicial nominees, 8 of whom were women and minorities.
  Others have spoken about his position on gun control. As a fervent 
opponent of even the most basic gun control measures, how can we expect 
him to vigorously enforce the gun safety laws that are already on the 
books?
  Let me conclude. The President does have the right to name his 
Cabinet, but the Senate has the constitutional requirement to give 
advice and consent on these nominations. My advice to President Bush 
is: I am sorry you gave us such a divisive nominee. Other nominees are 
excellent. Others I will look forward to working with, and to starting 
a constructive dialog with. I am so sorry this happened. I am sorry it 
happened to John Ashcroft. If John Ashcroft had been nominated for 
Secretary of Agriculture, I would have

[[Page S857]]

probably voted for him. But I cannot vote for him to be Attorney 
General because I do believe that beliefs matter and the beliefs that 
you show over a record of a lifetime show the true way you will conduct 
your office. Beliefs are not in a lockbox.
  I cannot consent to the nomination of John Ashcroft. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing this nomination. I also urge my 
colleagues, let us not have demeaning rhetoric on the floor or try to 
demonize either a group or a nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am prepared to speak at this moment. If 
there is a Republican Senator on the floor, I will be happy to yield 
time so we take turns.
  Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will wait, I understand Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison is coming over. Here she is now. I appreciate that courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee for having this nomination go forward and for 
giving us the opportunity to talk. I think the debate is very 
important. I think it is important that we talk about the John Ashcroft 
we know because when I hear some of the other people talking about John 
Ashcroft, it is not the same person with whom I served for 6 years. I 
would like to set the record straight on a couple of points.
  I have known John and Janet Ashcroft since long before they came to 
the Senate because he was a leader for his State and our country for 
many years before he represented his State in the Senate. He has been a 
Governor. He has been elected chairman of the National Governors' 
Association. He has been the attorney general for the State of 
Missouri. And he served as chairman of the Attorneys General 
Association of the United States. So he has been in a position of 
leadership for our country many times.
  I think he is the most qualified person to have been nominated for 
Attorney General in many years. He has served in the capacity of 
attorney general as well as Governor and in the U.S. Senate.
  The people of America saw the true heart of John Ashcroft when his 
opponent, Mel Carnahan, died near the end of their race for the Senate. 
I was there for John Ashcroft after that tragic accident. I think John 
Ashcroft did not know what to do, just like everyone else. He had no 
intention of campaigning against a man who had just died, a man who had 
also served the State of Missouri so well. He had no intention of 
campaigning against his widow when she made the decision that she would 
take the appointment of the Governor if Mr. Carnahan won the election.
  John Ashcroft kept his word. He kept his word and has never uttered a 
word about Mrs. Carnahan. So I think when he was ultimately defeated, 
his magnanimity in defeat also showed that he is a person of character 
first--character above public servant, character above partisan, 
character above everything else. He showed it at a time when he had 
nothing to gain, when he thought he probably would not be in public 
office again. But he did what was right from his heart. That is why I 
am supporting him for Attorney General of the United States.
  He also brings an impressive academic background to this office. He 
is a graduate of the University of Chicago School of Law. He attended 
Yale University.
  I also want to mention, because I think she is very much a part of 
this team, his wife Janet and their joint commitment to education in 
our country. When she moved up here with Senator Ashcroft, she decided 
she wanted to teach. She chose to teach at Howard University, one of 
our Nation's historically black colleges. Howard University is where 
she has taught for 5 years. I think she has shown her commitment to 
education by going the extra mile to share her experiences and her 
knowledge with the students at Howard University. Janet, by the way, is 
also a lawyer.
  I am very proud to support both Janet and John Ashcroft.
  We have heard a lot of John Ashcroft's record, things which he said 
which have also been refuted. In my experience with John Ashcroft, he 
was the cosponsor of my legislation to eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty, which has the effect of taxing so many couples just because 
they get married--not because they make higher salaries individually 
but because they get married--and throwing them into a higher bracket. 
John did not just cosponsor the bill and walk away; he fought with me 
on the floor, day after day, week after week. We passed marriage 
penalty relief. It was because John Ashcroft worked as hard as I did to 
make that happen. It was vetoed by the President. But eventually we are 
going to pass marriage penalty relief in this country, and the 
President is going to sign it, and people will not have to pay the 
average $1,400 a year just because of their married status.
  John did this because he believes in family values and he believes 
marriage is one of the ways people can live a good life. Statistics 
show that married people are the least likely to be on welfare or to 
get into any kind of criminal trouble. I think we should be encouraging 
marriage, not discouraging it. John Ashcroft agrees with that.
  He worked with me on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. We 
introduced legislation to amend current stalking laws to make it a 
crime to stalk someone across State lines. Also, cyberstalking has 
become a more common crime in recent years, as the use of the Internet 
has increased. Young people are lured into a situation in which 
criminal conduct becomes part of an association. That happens when you 
have Internet chatrooms. Internet chatrooms often cause people to start 
thinking they want to meet, and that has facilitated criminal acts when 
it has not been monitored correctly. So to try to discourage it, we 
made that against the law.
  John also played a role in allowing hourly wage workers, particularly 
working mothers, to have flextime in the workplace so they could take 
off at 3 o'clock on Friday afternoon and make up for it on Monday by 
working 2 extra hours so they could see their child's football game or 
soccer game.
  These are things that are very important in John's background.
  He also voted to prohibit anyone convicted of domestic violence from 
owning a firearm. This is very important to try to curb domestic 
violence in our country.
  I think we need to bring John's full record to the forefront in order 
to make the decision on whether he would be fit to serve as Attorney 
General.
  Almost everyone in this body supported every Clinton appointee to the 
Cabinet. That has been the tradition in the Senate. Very few times do 
we deny the right of the President to have his own Cabinet and the 
people he trusts and wants to work with around him. I think it would be 
a major step in the wrong direction to not affirm the appointment of 
John Ashcroft. I also think it will be a major setback if John Ashcroft 
is the victim of scurrilous statements that will keep him from having 
the ability to do his job and the mantle to do his job.
  So I hope my colleagues will show discretion. I hope they will 
understand that John Ashcroft is likely to be confirmed. So if they 
have something to say against him, it is their absolute right to do it, 
but I hope they stick to the facts and give their views in a way that 
will not hurt John Ashcroft's ability to do the important job of 
enforcing the laws of this country.
  When John Ashcroft becomes Attorney General, he will no longer be an 
advocate for laws; he will be the enforcer of laws. He has said on many 
occasions that he will enforce those laws to the letter because he sees 
that as his job.
  Furthermore, he has shown by his record as attorney general of 
Missouri that he will do that. He deserves not only our support now but 
also our support after he gets the job to make sure the laws of our 
country are fairly and reasonably enforced and targeted to people who 
break those laws.
  The rhetoric, if it gets too hot, is going to auger against his 
ability to do the job that all of us need for him to do and want him to 
do.
  I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Durbin. I yield 
the floor.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator 
from

[[Page S858]]

Texas for her kind words. I will be happy to yield to the chairman of 
the committee, Senator Hatch, so we can continue this dialog about this 
important nomination.
  While in my office, I listened to one of my colleagues on the 
Republican side earlier in the debate raise the question whether the 
opposition to John Ashcroft was really based on his religious belief. I 
think that is an extraordinarily serious charge to make.
  I am a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Together with my 
staff, we have worked for the last several weeks analyzing the public 
record and public career of John Ashcroft. I am aware of his religious 
affiliation because he made a point of stating with pride his religious 
affiliation during the course of the hearing. I can tell you quite 
candidly that I do not know a single precept or tenet of his religious 
faith, nor did I take the time to ask. That is totally irrelevant. In 
fact, if someone tried to raise that during the course of this debate, 
I would be the first to defend John Ashcroft's right to practice the 
religion of his conscience.
  I do not know anything about his religion, nor have I based any of my 
decisions on his nomination on that fact. As I said during the course 
of the hearing, he has said--and it has been a matter of some 
amusement--that he does not drink or dance. But I will tell you I do 
not know whether Janet Reno drinks or dances, nor do I think it is 
important to the job of Attorney General.
  During the course of the hearings, the Republicans brought forward a 
lady by the name of Kay Coles James who works for the Heritage 
Foundation. After her testimony, I had a conversation with her on two 
different occasions. At the end of the second conversation, she said: 
You and I agree on a lot more than we disagree when it comes to 
religion in public life. I liked her.
  She said something in her testimony on this same issue that caused me 
great concern. At one point she said John Ashcroft was a victim of 
``religious profiling.'' That was her term. It is not in her written 
statement, but it is what she said before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.
  In her written statement and repeated at the hearing, she said:

       Unfortunately that faith Senator Ashcroft's faith--has been 
     dragged into the public debate and has been used to call into 
     question his fitness for public service. Senator Ashcroft's 
     opponents have veered perilously close to implying that a 
     person of strong religious beliefs cannot be trusted with 
     this office.

  As a result of that statement in the hearing, I called Ms. James over 
afterwards and said: I am going to ask you very specifically tomorrow 
to name the Senators who have crossed this line and raised questions 
about John Ashcroft's religious belief. I did not have time the second 
day when the panel returned. I sent a letter to her in writing.
  On January 23, Ms. James replied to my letter. This is basically what 
she said:

       On Thursday, I testified that ``several members of the 
     Senate have questioned whether or not a man of strong 
     personal faith and conviction can set aside his personal 
     beliefs and serve as the Attorney General for all citizens.'' 
     You ask me to identify these several senators. As I told you 
     after the hearing, this summary came directly from Senator 
     Ashcroft's testimony on January 16th.

  And then she relates the transcript of the session which reads as 
follows:
  Senator Leahy asked of Senator Ashcroft:

       Have you heard any senator, Republican or Democrat, suggest 
     that there should be a religious test on your confirmation?

  John Ashcroft:

       No Senator has said ``I will test you.'' But a number of 
     senators have said, ``Will your religion keep you from being 
     able to perform your duties in office?''

  Senator Leahy went on to say:

       All right, well, I'm amazed at that.
       And that was the end of the transcript.
       Ms. James goes on to say:

       As we further discussed, I think when you put it into the 
     context of substituting another qualifier for ``religion'' 
     that the offensiveness of such thinking is apparent. I find 
     this as troubling as asking whether being a ``woman'' or 
     being an ``African-American'' would prevent someone from 
     doing a job.

  I believe that is a fair characterization of her reply. We still do 
not know the name of any Senator who raised either personally or 
privately to Senator Ashcroft or certainly publicly any question about 
his fitness for office based on his religious belief. I do not know the 
religions of any of the nominees to President Bush's Cabinet, nor do I 
think it is an important question.
  What we have focused on during the course of this investigation of 
John Ashcroft is his public career, his public record. There have been 
those who always want to say: What about his private life? His private 
life should be private. It is his life and his family's life. I have 
resisted any efforts by critics of John Ashcroft to even follow that 
line of questioning. It is irrelevant, unimportant.
  What is important is what he has stood for publicly, what it tells us 
about his view of politics and policy and the kind of job he would do 
if he is confirmed as Attorney General.
  I considered John Ashcroft and his public record and my dealings with 
him as a fellow Senator over 4 years, and I came to the conclusion that 
I cannot support his nomination as Attorney General.
  I listened to his testimony before the committee, and I heard him say 
so frequently that public positions on issues which he had held for his 
adult life would, frankly, not encumber him as Attorney General. I 
cannot really base my vote on John Ashcroft on what he has claimed he 
will do in the future when his public record is so clear and in many 
ways so inconsistent with what he said to the committee.
  I say to those who raise the question about whether the Judiciary 
Committee or any committee is being fair to President Bush by having a 
thorough investigation of John Ashcroft or any other nominee, I think 
the agenda for considering these nominees is not the creation of any 
Senator, nor certainly of the Democratic side in the Senate. It is the 
creation of the Founding Fathers in article II, section 2, of the 
Constitution where they gave to the Senate the power to advise and 
consent to the President's nominees.
  The critics of this process ignore our sworn responsibility to defend 
the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist Paper No. 
76 on ``The Appointing Power of the Executive'' wrote this of the 
advice and consent provision which brings us to the floor today:

       It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than 
     this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the 
     offices of the Union. . . .

  Please forgive Alexander Hamilton for just referring to men, but that 
was the style of the day. I would certainly expand on Alexander 
Hamilton's sentiment to include women, but otherwise I agree 
wholeheartedly. There was and is enormous wisdom in the constitutional 
provision to provide to the legislative branch, in this case the 
Senate, the ability to exercise oversight of the nominations made by 
the President.
  The Founding Fathers believed, and I think they were right, that the 
power to appoint people to high office in the United States should not 
be vested in the hands of a single individual.
  The President deserves clear and broad latitude in making the 
appointments of his choice, but just as clearly, the Senate has a 
responsibility to ensure that these appointments will serve expertly, 
broadly, and fairly in a manner that will benefit all Americans, and 
the Senate has the power to, if necessary, reject the nomination.
  My colleague, Senator Feingold, in his statement yesterday before the 
committee, noted that this is a rare situation when the Senate rejects 
a nomination, but I will tell you, during the course of our Nation's 
history, there have been literally hundreds of names withdrawn when it 
was clear they would not pass with approval before the Senate.
  Alexander Hamilton thought such rejections would occur rarely and 
only when there were ``special and strong reasons for the refusal.'' I 
believe we have before us one of those rare instances that Hamilton 
foresaw. There exists today just such ``special and strong reasons'' to 
reject the nomination of John Ashcroft to the position of Attorney 
General. I would like to outline my reasons that necessitated my vote 
against his nomination.
  During his testimony, Senator Ashcroft did a masterful job of 
painting a portrait of his vision of the job of Attorney General. He 
described himself as a man who would evenhandedly enforce and defend 
the laws of the land no

[[Page S859]]

matter how strong his personal disagreement with those laws, but his 
public career paints a much different picture.
  When I look at the public record of John Ashcroft and compare it, 
point by point, with his testimony, I find I am looking at two 
completely different portrayals, two completely different people. 
During the hearings, Senator Ashcroft promised fairness in setting the 
agenda for the Department of Justice and vowed to protect vulnerable 
people whose causes he has seldom, if ever, championed in his public 
life.
  Which picture tells the story? If John Ashcroft were to become 
Attorney General, would it be John Ashcroft, the defender of a woman's 
constitutional right to choose, or John Ashcroft, passionate opponent 
of Roe v. Wade? John Ashcroft, the defender of sensible gun safety 
laws, or John Ashcroft, who opposed every significant gun safety 
measure that came before the Senate during his tenure? John Ashcroft, 
as defender of civil rights, or John Ashcroft, who, as Governor of 
Missouri, opposed a voluntary--I repeat, voluntary--school 
desegregation plan and efforts to register minorities to vote.
  We all heard Senator Ashcroft's testimony, but his public record 
speaks with clarity and consistency.
  Let us consider the question of discrimination against a person 
because of their sexual orientation. Consider whether those with a 
different sexual orientation who were victims of a hate crime could 
expect the protection of John Ashcroft's Department of Justice.
  I cannot speak for all of America--maybe only a small part of it--but 
I think, regardless of your view towards sexual orientation, the vast 
majority of Americans oppose discrimination against anyone because of 
their sexual orientation. The vast majority of Americans think it is 
fundamentally unfair to be intolerant of people with a different sexual 
persuasion.
  Recently at Georgetown University, Professor Paul Offner stated that 
in a 1985 job interview, then-Governor Ashcroft asked him pointblank 
about his sexual orientation. Mr. Offner related that the Governor 
asked him: ``Do you have the same sexual preference as most men?'' 
Senator Ashcroft, through his spokespeople, has denied this. In fact, 
they brought witnesses to say that it did not happen.
  Perhaps the story would be nothing more than the typical Washington 
version of ``yes, you did; and, no, I didn't,'' were it not for the 
matter of Senator Ashcroft's troubling record on the issue of tolerance 
for people of different sexual orientations.
  Senator Ashcroft opposed the nomination of James Hormel as Ambassador 
to Luxembourg because Mr. Hormel, in Senator Ashcroft's words, ``. . . 
has been a leader in promoting a lifestyle . . . . And the kind of 
leadership he's exhibited there is likely to be offensive to . . . 
individuals in the setting to which he will be assigned.''
  For the record, Mr. Hormel's lifestyle is that he is an openly gay 
man.
  I know the appointment of any Ambassador is important. Certainly, the 
appointment to a nation such as Luxembourg, which has been a friend of 
the United States for a long time, is important. But to single out 
James Hormel because he is an openly gay man, and to oppose his 
nomination because of that, I think, is not fair.
  Senator Ashcroft said he opposed Mr. Hormel's nomination based on the 
``totality of the record.'' When he was asked by Senator Leahy if he 
opposed Mr. Hormel because he was gay, Senator Ashcroft denied that. He 
said: ``I did not.''
  Senator Ashcroft had very little contact with Mr. Hormel before his 
nomination. He refused to meet with Mr. Hormel after he was nominated 
despite Mr. Hormel's request.
  At a recent press conference, Mr. Hormel had this to say. I will 
quote him:

       I can only conclude that Mr. Ashcroft chose to vote against 
     me solely because I am a gay man.

  He had concluded that his sexual orientation was the cause of Senator 
Ashcroft's opposition ``not only from his refusal to raise any specific 
objection to my nomination, but also from Mr. Ashcroft's public 
comments at the time of my nomination and his own long record of 
resistance to acknowledging the rights of all citizens, regardless of 
their sexual orientation.''
  I have before me a letter dated December 3, 1997, from James Hormel, 
of San Francisco, CA, to Senator Ashcroft at the Hart Senate Office 
Building. He wrote:

       I am aware that you voted against my nomination, when it 
     was considered by the Foreign Relations Committee, and 
     understand that you may have concerns about my 
     qualifications. I want you to know that I am available to 
     meet with you at your convenience in either Washington or 
     Missouri, to address and--I trust--allay your concerns.

  Senator Ashcroft never agreed to such a meeting.
  Could we expect Attorney General Ashcroft to defend tomorrow's 
Matthew Shepard if he can't show tolerance for today's James Hormel?
  The second issue that is of importance to me relates to an 
outstanding individual who came before the Senate Judiciary Committee 
when I served on that committee 2 years ago. His name was Bill Lann 
Lee. He was being considered as an Assistant Attorney General for Civil 
Rights. Senator Ashcroft joined in an effort to block his nomination.
  I remember this because I remember what Bill Lann Lee told about his 
life's story. Maybe I am particularly vulnerable when I hear these 
stories, but they mean so much to me, when a person such as Bill Lann 
Lee comes and tells us about the fact that his mother and father were 
immigrants from China to the United States. They came to New York City 
and started a small laundry, and raised several children, including 
Bill Lann Lee.
  His mother is with him. His father passed away. He said his mother 
used to sit in the window of the laundry every day at her sewing 
machine. His father was busy in the back ironing and preparing the 
laundry. Bill Lann Lee said that they worked every day--hard-working 
people--raising a family. When World War II broke out, Bill Lann Lee's 
father was old enough to escape or avoid the draft, but he volunteered 
because he was proud of this country and he was willing to serve.
  Bill Lann Lee also told us that his father refused to ever teach him 
how to run the laundry. He told him, from the beginning: This is not 
your life. You will have a different life. We will work hard here. You 
are going to do something different. And, boy, was he right, because 
Bill Lann Lee applied for a scholarship to one of the Ivy League 
schools. He received a scholarship and went on and graduated from law 
school.

  He then went to work for the NAACP. He really dedicated his 
professional life not to making money as a lawyer but to fighting for 
tolerance against discrimination.
  He was a quiet man, a humble man; but when it came to the cause of 
civil rights, he clearly believed in it. For that reason, he faced 
withering criticism from the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, 
Senator Ashcroft openly opposed his nomination.
  When Bill Lann Lee was asked about a specific Supreme Court case, and 
whether he would enforce it, Bill Lann Lee, under oath, said: Yes, I 
will enforce it. Senator Ashcroft rejected that sworn statement. He 
said, in opposing Bill Lann Lee, that Bill Lann Lee was an ``advocate'' 
and was ``willing to pursue an objective . . . with the kind of 
intensity that belongs to advocacy, but not with the kind of balance 
that belongs to administration.''
  Obviously, Senator Ashcroft felt that advocacy and effective 
administration do not mix. ``He has obviously incredibly strong 
capacities to be an advocate,'' Ashcroft said of Bill Lann Lee. ``But I 
think his pursuit of specific objectives that are important to him 
limit his capacity to have a balanced view of making judgments that 
will be necessary for the person who runs that division.''
  I was saddened by the treatment of Bill Lann Lee by the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and Senator Ashcroft. This good man--this great 
American story--was subjected to what I considered an unfair standard 
by the man who now wants to be our Attorney General, who now wants to 
be entrusted with enforcement of civil rights laws.
  But this was not the only nominee that Senator Ashcroft zeroed in on; 
another was Judge Margaret Morrow of California. He joined in blocking 
her nomination for a lengthy period of time with a little Senate device 
known as a ``secret hold,'' where you hold up a

[[Page S860]]

nominee and you never disclose that you are the person holding it. 
Eventually, he admitted he was the person holding Margaret Morrow back 
from her appointment to the Federal bench.
  Was Margaret Morrow qualified to be a Federal district court judge? 
Witness after witness said she was. They all said she had extraordinary 
qualifications. She was the first woman to be president of the 
California State Bar Association. But she didn't meet Mr. Ashcroft's 
test. Because of that, she waited years before this Senate before she 
had a chance to serve in the State of California.
  The reason why Senator Ashcroft opposed her? She was an advocate in 
his mind. Should I accept that John Ashcroft, himself, an impassioned 
advocate for his entire political life, will surrender his advocacy in 
the role of Attorney General? He certainly didn't accept those 
arguments from Bill Lann Lee and Margaret Murrow when they raised their 
hand to give the same oath he did.
  If we apply the Ashcroft standard to his own nomination, would he 
have a chance of being confirmed in the Senate? Fairness requires more 
than a simple test as to whether a nominee has advocated views with 
which we disagree. Fairness requires that we judge on balance whether 
that nominee can credibly set aside those views and be evenhanded.
  At this moment in our Nation's history, our need for that type of 
leadership is compelling. We are a politically divided Nation with one 
of the closest elections in modern memory. Landmark civil rights and 
human rights laws hang in the balance. We need an Attorney General who 
will be fair and impartial in administering justice.
  No issue in the United States is more divisive than civil rights or 
more in need of enlightened leadership. Yet throughout his career, 
Senator Ashcroft repeatedly turned down opportunities to reach out 
across the racial divide. There was, of course, a lot of attention 
given to the fact that Senator Ashcroft appeared at Bob Jones 
University, received an honorary degree, and delivered the commencement 
address. It did deserve attention. It became an issue in the last 
Presidential campaign.
  After President Bush appeared there during the course of his 
campaign, he was so troubled by the public reaction to his appearance 
at Bob Jones University that he sent a letter to the late Cardinal 
O'Connor in New York assuring the cardinal that he did not agree with 
the prejudicial statements of Mr. Jones and regretted that he did not 
distance himself from them.
  Let me quote a few words from George Bush's letter to Cardinal 
O'Connor in reflecting on his appearance before Bob Jones University, a 
letter of February 25, 2000:

       Some have taken--and mistaken--this visit as a sign that I 
     approve of the anti-Catholic and racially divisive views 
     associated with that school. As you know from a long 
     friendship with my family--and our own meeting last year--
     this criticism is unfair and unfounded. Such opinions are 
     personally offensive to me and I want to erase any doubts 
     about my views and values.
       On reflection, I should have been more clear in 
     disassociating myself from anti-Catholic sentiments and 
     racial prejudice. It was a missed opportunity causing 
     needless offense, which I deeply regret.

  I accept President Bush at his word. I believe he was embarrassed 
when he reflected on some of the statements that have been made at Bob 
Jones University: Their ban on interracial dating among students; some 
of the cruel statements made about people of the Catholic and Mormon 
religions; of course, their decision, when a gay alumnus said he was 
going to revisit his campus at Bob Jones University, and they 
stated publicly if he came on campus, they would have him arrested for 
trespassing. I can understand the embarrassment of people as they 
reflect on those sorts of statements. But I cannot understand, after 
President Bush has made this acknowledgment, that when John Ashcroft 
had the same opportunity before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he 
didn't take that opportunity. He offered no apologies for his 
appearance at Bob Jones University.

  I said: If you become Attorney General, would you return to Bob Jones 
University? He wouldn't rule that out.
  He said: If I go back, I might talk to them about some of the things 
they have said and what they stand for.
  I am sorry. I view that particular episode as troubling. It has 
little to do, if anything to do, with religion and more to do with 
tolerance. If elected officials don't take care as to where they speak 
and what they say, what comfort and encouragement they give to others, 
then I think we are derelict in our public responsibilities.
  I think President Bush learned an important lesson. It is hard to 
imagine that his choice for Attorney General of the United States 
couldn't learn the same lesson from him, couldn't say before this 
committee exactly what President Bush said to the late Cardinal 
O'Connor, but he did not.
  On the issue of school desegregation, my colleague, Senator Kennedy, 
laid out the issue quite clearly before the Senate within the last hour 
or two in the course of the debate. I grew up in East St. Louis, IL, 
across the river from St. Louis. I associated myself more with St. 
Louis than most other cities as a child. I know, having grown up in 
that area on both sides of the river, that there have always been 
racial problems, sometimes bitter and violent, and sad situations 
arising because of it.
  When there was an effort made in Missouri to deal with segregated 
schools, there was a voluntary desegregation plan that was agreed to by 
the students and their parents, by the administrators and the teachers, 
people living in the community, of how they would voluntarily 
desegregate schools and give children an opportunity for a good 
education. We have heard during the course of the committee hearing, we 
heard again on the floor of the Senate, John Ashcroft used every tool 
in his tool box to try to stop this voluntary desegregation plan. 
Frankly, that is a poor reflection on what John Ashcroft would do as 
Attorney General.
  He labeled the efforts of the Federal courts to desegregate 
Missouri's schools as a ``testament to tyranny.'' Again, Governor 
Ashcroft missed an important opportunity to bridge the racial divide.
  Then he had two bipartisan bills presented to him as Governor to 
expand voting rights in the city of St. Louis, which is predominantly 
African American. He vetoed the first saying: It doesn't help St. 
Louis. It should be a broader based and statewide bill.
  The next year, the General Assembly of Missouri sent him the broader 
based statewide bill. He vetoed that as well, saying: This is too broad 
based and too general.
  I think it is pretty clear that he was intent on not expanding an 
opportunity for voter registration and efforts for people to involve 
themselves in the voting process. What possible assurance could we have 
from his record that Attorney General John Ashcroft would dedicate 
himself to eliminating racial prejudice in America?
  The next issue which I take with John Ashcroft is one which was 
probably the most important to me. On the day that President Bush 
nominated John Ashcroft, the leading radio station in St. Louis, KMOX, 
called me and asked for a comment. I told them that before I could vote 
for John Ashcroft, I had to have answers to several questions. First 
and foremost was the treatment of Judge Ronnie White. Of course, that 
is something I will speak to and an issue that came up time and again 
during the course of the hearings.

  Within an hour or two, John Ashcroft called me after I made this 
radio statement and said: I want to talk to you. I need your vote.
  I said: Senator, I will be happy to meet with you any time and 
discuss this, but let me make it clear, the first question I will have 
to you is about what happened to Judge Ronnie White, when he had an 
opportunity to become a Federal district court judge and you blocked 
that opportunity.
  He said: That is fine. We will have to get together.
  I said: My door is open.
  John Ashcroft never called for such a meeting. I asked several 
questions of Senator Ashcroft at the hearing about the White 
nomination. I listened carefully to the testimony of Judge White 
himself. I understand why Senator Ashcroft did not ask for a meeting.
  The story of Judge Ronnie White is one that bears repeating. This is 
not just another nominee for Federal

[[Page S861]]

court. There are some fine men and women who have been nominated and 
confirmed. Let me tell you a little bit about Judge Ronnie White.
  He was the first African American city counselor in the city of St. 
Louis. That, in and of itself, does not sound very impressive, but when 
Judge White explained his childhood growing up in one of the poorest 
sections of St. Louis, in one of the poorest homes and struggling 
throughout his life to earn an education and to go to law school--he 
was bused as a young student to one of these newly integrated schools. 
He recalled other children throwing food and milk at him and the other 
African American students coming off the bus. Life was not easy. He 
wasn't looking for sympathy. He was looking for a chance, and he got 
the chance. He went to law school, became the first African American 
city counselor in St. Louis. He became the first African American in 
Missouri history to be appointed to the appellate court of the State, 
and he became the first African American in the history of the State to 
serve on the Missouri Supreme Court.
  If you visit St. Louis, you can't miss the arch. That is really the 
thing you think of right away. But within the shadow of the arch is a 
building which is historically so important to that city, State, and to 
our Nation. It is the St. Louis courthouse. It is a white, stone 
building, very close to the Mississippi River. The reason why this 
building is so historically significant is that it was in this 
courthouse that the Dred Scott case was argued and tried twice. It was 
on the steps of this courthouse before the Civil War that African 
Americans were sold as slaves.
  When Ronnie White was appointed to the Missouri Supreme Court, he 
chose that old courthouse in St. Louis to take his oath of office. The 
St. Louis Post Dispatch, in commenting on that setting and his 
selection as the first African American to the Missouri Supreme Court, 
said:

       It is one of those moments when justice has come to pass.

  It certainly was. And as you listen to Judge White's testimony, you 
understand that this wasn't a matter of pride for his family in being 
nominated to the Federal district court. It wasn't just a matter of 
pride for his colleagues on the Missouri Supreme Court. It had to be a 
source of great pride for thousands of African Americans to see this 
man overcome such great odds to finally get a chance to serve on the 
Federal district court.
  He never had that chance. The reason he didn't have that chance was 
that after 2 years of having his nomination pending before this Senate, 
after being approved twice by the Senate Judiciary Committee, after 
finally finding his name on the calendar of the Senate to be voted on 
to become a Federal district court judge, John Ashcroft decided to kill 
his nomination.
  And he did it. He did it. He came to the floor, after speaking to his 
colleagues on the Republican side, and said that Judge Ronnie White was 
pro-criminal. He cited several decisions made by the judge and said 
that they were ample evidence that this man did not have appropriate 
sensitivity to become a Federal judge with a lifetime appointment when 
it came to enforcing our laws. Judge Ronnie White's name was then 
called for a vote.
  It was defeated on a partisan vote. Every Republican voted against 
it. This is rare in the history of the Senate. It doesn't happen very 
often. Our review said it hadn't happened for 40 years, that a nominee 
was brought to the floor, subjected to that kind of public criticism, 
and defeated.
  Frankly, it wasn't necessary. If John Ashcroft had decided that he 
wanted to stop Ronnie White, there were a variety of ways for him to do 
it, quietly and bloodlessly. But he didn't choose those options. He 
chose instead to attack this man and to attack him on the floor of the 
Senate.
  When we were interrogating John Ashcroft about his criticisms, he 
said, the law enforcement groups are the ones who really told me that 
Ronnie White was not a good choice.
  It is true that there was a local sheriff, whose family had been 
involved in a murder in a case where Judge Ronnie White had handed down 
a dissenting opinion, who sent a letter to John Ashcroft saying they 
objected to him. That is true. But it is also true that the largest law 
enforcement community in the State of Missouri, the Fraternal Order of 
Police, endorsed Ronnie White, and that the vast majority of law 
enforcement officials in that State endorsed Ronnie White for this 
Federal district courtship.
  Sadly, he was defeated and, in the process, I am afraid, faced the 
kind of humiliation which no one should ever have to face--certainly 
not on the floor of the Senate.
  I am troubled by John Ashcroft's willingness to distort a good 
judge's record beyond all recognition, to attack his character and 
integrity and to deliver this unjust condemnation on the floor of the 
Senate without ever giving Judge White an opportunity to respond and 
defend his name.
  When Judge White appeared before the Judiciary Committee, it was 
clear to many of us that he deserved an apology for what had happened 
to him.
  Why is this important in choosing a man to be Attorney General of the 
United States? When given the power as a Senator, I don't believe that 
John Ashcroft used it appropriately. The victim was a very good man.
  There have been a lot of questions asked about the issue of 
reproductive rights of women and what the new Attorney General, John 
Ashcroft, would do with that authority. I know John Ashcroft's 
position. I respect him for the intensity of his belief in opposing Roe 
v. Wade for his entire public career. There are people in my State of 
Illinois and his State of Missouri who feel just as passionately on one 
side or the other side of the issue. It worries some that he would be 
entrusted with the authority and responsibility to protect a woman's 
right to choose and what he would do with it. He tried to set the issue 
aside in his opening statement by saying he accepts Roe v. Wade and 
Casey v. Planned Parenthood, two Supreme Court cases, in Ashcroft's 
words, as the ``settled law of the land.'' That, of course, raises 
questions. If it is the settled law of the land, what will he do in 
enforcing it?
  One of the things that troubles me--and Senator Mikulski of Maryland 
raised this earlier--was the decision John Ashcroft made as attorney 
general of Missouri when there was an effort to have nurses provide 
women's health services in one of the poorest medically underserved 
sections of Missouri.
  John Ashcroft attempted to block the nurses. He joined in filing a 
lawsuit against the nurses at their women's health clinic. These nurses 
were providing gynecological services, including oral contraceptives, 
condoms, and IUDs, Pap smears, and testing for venereal disease. He 
joined in suing these nurses to stop them from providing vital 
reproductive health services to low-income women in his home State.
  As Governor in 1986, Senator Ashcroft signed a bill that defined life 
as beginning at fertilization, providing a legal basis to ban some of 
the most common and effective methods of contraception. In 1998 and 
1999, Senator Ashcroft wrote letters to Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell 
opposing a Senate amendment to require the FEHBP, the federal health 
insurance plan, to cover the cost of FDA-approved contraceptives, 
citing concerns that funding certain contraceptives was equivalent to 
funding abortifacients.
  Nearly forty million women in America use some form of contraception. 
Would Attorney General John Ashcroft work to protect their right of 
privacy and their right to choose the medical services best for them 
and their families?
  On the question of the ``settled law of the land''--Roe and Casey--we 
have had this contentious debate on the floor of the Senate for years 
about a partial-birth abortion ban. Many of us have said we can agree 
to a ban so long as it not only protects the life of the mother but 
women who face grave health risks. Those who introduced the amendment--
Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania and others--have refused to include 
that second phrase ``health risk'' as part of the bill. Recently, in a 
Supreme Court case, they considered a Nebraska partial-birth abortion 
ban, and the Supreme Court concluded that unless you protect the health 
of the mother, protecting the mother's life is not enough on a partial-
birth abortion ban. They cited as the reason for it the same Casey 
decision which Senator Ashcroft described as the ``settled law of the 
land'' to make certain that it was clear.

[[Page S862]]

  Senator Schumer of New York and I asked Senator Ashcroft as Attorney 
General, if the Santorum partial-birth abortion ban comes to him by 
either the President asking whether he should veto it or Senator 
Ashcroft as Attorney General trying to decide whether to defend it, and 
it does not include the protection of a woman's health, what will he 
do. The answer to me seems fairly obvious. If the Casey decision is the 
settled law of the land, he would have to say the Santorum bill we 
considered before the Senate is unconstitutional, inappropriate, and 
inconsistent with Supreme Court decisions. That seems obvious to me.
  Senator Ashcroft would not answer the question.
  The clarity of his statement, his opening statement, disappeared. His 
answers were tentative and, unfortunately, very unsettling. The 
Attorney General must diligently protect women's rights in America--
rights repeatedly confirmed in the Supreme Court. Senator Ashcroft's 
public record and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee leave 
that in doubt.
  Senator Ashcroft has made troubling, at times shocking statements 
regarding the lynchpin of our American system of justice, the judicial 
branch of government. He is fond of the phrase ``judicial despotism'' 
and even used this as the title of a speech he gave before the Heritage 
Foundation. In it he vows to ``fight the judicial despotism that stands 
like a behemoth . . .'' over our great land. He tells us that 
``people's lives and fortunes'' have been ``relinquished to renegade 
judges,'' judges the labels ``a robed, contemptuous intellectual 
elite.'' He speaks of America's courts as ``out of control'' and the 
``home to a `let-them-eat-cake elite' who hold the people in the 
deepest disdain.''
  Senator Ashcroft went on to say: ``Five ruffians in robes'' on the 
Supreme Court ``stole the right of self-determination from the people'' 
and have even directly ``challenged God. . . .'' So grievous are the 
actions of the Federal Judiciary, according to Senator Ashcroft, ``the 
precious jewel of liberty has been lost.''

  These statements come from a speech Senator Ashcroft gave on judicial 
despotism. I suggest to my colleagues who have not read it that they 
do. Is this a person with such a deep mistrust of the character of 
justice in our great land that we should entrust him with the office of 
Attorney General?
  Many years ago, during the Roosevelt administration, Supreme Court 
Justice Frank Murphy served as Attorney General and created the Civil 
Liberties Union to prosecute local officials who abused and even 
murdered blacks and union organizers. He summed up his constitutional 
philosophy in one sentence: ``Only by zealously guarding the rights of 
the most humble, the most unorthodox and the most despised among us, 
can freedom flourish and endure in our land.'' Could Senator Ashcroft 
rise to this awesome and often unpopular standard as our Attorney 
General?
  We recently celebrated again the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr. It was a huge gathering in the city of Chicago. Mayor Daley has an 
annual breakfast. I attended another breakfast sponsored by Rev. Jesse 
Jackson. Literally thousands of people came out to pay tribute to Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr. I am old enough to remember when Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr., was alive, and I can recall in the midsixties that 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s visit to the city of Chicago was not 
welcome. He announced he was coming to Chicago to march in the streets 
of Cicero and other neighborhoods to protest racial segregation. Many 
people--Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike--were saying: 
Why is he doing this? Why is he stirring things up?
  It is easy today to forget how unpopular Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 
was with the majority of Americans during his life. It was only after 
his assassination and our reflection on the contribution he made to 
America that the vast majority of Americans now understand that 
although he was unpopular, he was right. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 
life, fighting for civil rights, tells an important story. When you are 
fighting for the rights of those discriminated against because of 
sexual orientation, when you are fighting for the rights of women, poor 
women in particular, when you are fighting for the rights of African 
Americans and Hispanics, it is often unpopular. But it is the right 
thing to do.
  The Attorney General, more than any other Cabinet officer, is 
entrusted with protecting the civil rights of Americans. We know from 
our history, defending those rights can be controversial. I find no 
evidence in the public career of the voting record of Ashcroft that he 
has ever risked any political capital to defend the rights of those who 
suffer in our society from prejudice and discrimination.
  As I said in the committee yesterday, it is a difficult duty to sit 
in judgment of a former colleague, but our Nation and our Constitution 
ask no less of each Member of the Senate. That is why I will vote no on 
the nomination of John Ashcroft to serve as Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Michigan will yield, I think we were 
going to go back and forth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
Senator from Alabama has concluded, I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  Mr. SESSIONS. I was looking for Senator Warner. In the absence of 
Senator Warner, I will mention a couple of things.
  How long will the Senator from Michigan speak?
  Mr. LEVIN. Perhaps 15 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. If I might, the agreement the distinguished Senator from 
Utah and I had--obviously an informal agreement--was that following the 
normal procedure in such a debate, we would be going from side to side. 
The distinguished Senator from Illinois has just spoken; the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama was going to speak. The normal 
rotation would go back to this side, and it would be the distinguished 
senior Senator from Michigan. That is without time agreements for any 
Senator.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator from Alabama will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. As I said this morning, we want to try to wrap up this 
debate in the near future. I know how fervently the Senator from 
Alabama feels about this issue, but I do say every time someone says 
something, we are not going to finish this debate. The Senator from 
Alabama has already spoken very eloquently--which was referred to this 
morning by Senator Nickles, about what a great statement he made, and I 
heard part of his statement, and it was extremely good.
  My point is, if the people on the other side of the aisle want us to 
finish this debate sometime tomorrow, we are going to have to be cut a 
little bit of slack and be able to proceed with our statements. 
Otherwise, we are going to go over until next week.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I understand that is the position of the other side, 
that they would like this side to hush and have their full say all day.
  I see the Senator from Virginia is here. I yield to the Senator from 
Virginia such time as he desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. If I could enter into a unanimous consent request 
sequencing the next two Senators: The Senator from Virginia be 
recognized, and after the Senator from Virginia has finished, then I be 
recognized, which is a modification of a previous unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am happy to accommodate the leadership 
and the floor managers. Would the Senator care to modify it now and 
take that time?
  Mr. LEVIN. We were alternating.
  Mr. WARNER. Does the Senator want to modify a unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. LEVIN. We just did.
  Could the Senator from Virginia give us a time indication.
  Mr. WARNER. I will take not more than 10 minutes if that is agreeable 
to my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join the many Members today to support

[[Page S863]]

the nomination of our former colleague--our friend, indeed--John 
Ashcroft, to serve as the Attorney General of the United States.
  Article II, section 2, of the Constitution provides that the 
President shall name and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court and all other officers of the 
United States.
  Thus, the Constitution provides a role for both the President and the 
Senate in this process. The President has the power to nominate; the 
Senate has the power to render advice and consent on the nomination.
  In fulfilling the constitutional role of the Senate, throughout my 
career--some 23 years I have been privileged to represent the 
Commonwealth of Virginia--I have always tried to give fair and 
objective consideration to both Republican and Democratic Presidential 
Cabinet-level appointees; as a matter of fact, all appointees.
  Traditionally, a President, especially after taking office following 
a national election, should be entitled to select individuals who he 
believes can best serve this Nation and his goals as President. It has 
always been my policy to review Cabinet nominees to ensure that the 
nominee has the basic qualifications and the basic experience to ensure 
that nominee can perform the job to which he has been nominated, to 
ensure that the nominee also will enforce the laws of the land that are 
key--and that is instrumental--in the consideration now being given to 
this important post of the Attorney General of the United States, and 
to ensure that the nominee possesses a level of integrity and character 
that the American people deserve and expect from public officeholder.
  Therein, perhaps, rests the widest margin of discretion that should 
be exercised by the Senate. All 100 members have brought to bear in 
this Chamber, and in other areas in which we daily work to serve the 
Senate, experience that has enabled us to win the public office as 
Senator. That experience has fine-honed every Member of this Chamber in 
one way or another, such that he or she can judge facts, nominees, and 
the entirety of the situation to determine, does that individual have 
the integrity or do they not have that integrity?
  That is a very important function we perform.
  I say to my colleagues, and to my constituents, and to those who are 
interested in my views, that John Ashcroft has the qualifications and 
the experience and the integrity to undertake this important office.
  Former Senator John Ashcroft from Missouri recently lost his election 
bid to the Senate under most unusual circumstances, not unlike the 
circumstances that faced my State at one time, when we lost one of our 
most valued public servants, a public servant who was contending for 
the office of the U.S. Senate, who had beaten me fairly and squarely in 
basically a convention or modified primary type situation. I was in 
strong support of that individual. Then his light plane one night 
crashed.

  I have had that experience. I shared it with my friend, John 
Ashcroft, because he was so deeply shaken by this tragedy. There is not 
a one of us who couldn't say, ``Well, it could have been me,'' the way 
we have to travel across our States, across our land, in these small 
planes and many other modes of conveyance at all hours of the day and 
night.
  John Ashcroft approached that tragic situation in a very balanced and 
fair manner. To some extent, he counseled with several of us. But it 
was a very difficult decision as to how he should conduct himself for 
the balance of that campaign. I think he did it admirably. He did it 
with great courage and respect for the tragedy that had befallen his 
State.
  If I ever had any doubts about John Ashcroft, the manner in which he 
handled that tragic situation will forever place in my mind that this 
man has the integrity, not only to be Attorney General but to take on 
any public office of this land.
  Our colleague served in the Senate from 1994 to 2000, serving as a 
leader in the passage of welfare reform legislation and fighting for 
lower taxes, strong national defense, greater local control of 
education, and enhanced law enforcement.
  Prior to his service in the Senate, John Ashcroft served as Governor 
of Missouri from 1985 to 1993 and attorney general of Missouri from 
1976 to 1985. He dedicated over 28 years of his life to public 
service--over a quarter of a century. If he had flaws in his integrity, 
they would have been carefully documented, I am sure, in that period of 
time.
  I would like to add this, again based on having the privilege of 
serving in this Chamber many years and having gone through many 
hearings for Cabinet nominees and other nominees, this was a very 
thorough hearing. Legitimate questions can be asked as to how fair it 
might have been in some instances, but it was unquestionably thorough. 
It was prolonged--there is a question of the necessity of the length of 
it--but anyway, it was thorough.
  In my opinion--and I say this with the deepest respect to the members 
of the committee and most especially to this nominee, John Ashcroft, 
and I say to my good friend, the ranking member, whom I have admired 
these many years in the Senate--John Ashcroft emerges as a better, a 
stronger, a more deeply committed man as a consequence of this process. 
I feel that ever so strongly. Each of us who has gone through these 
stressful situations that we confront from time to time in our public 
office--those of us who go through those situations--and withstand the 
rigors of such an examination, in all likelihood emerge a stronger 
person.
  I see my friend standing. Does he wish to comment?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I could, and I do not wish to interfere 
in any way in the Senator's time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think this is an important point, 
certainly to this Senator. I value the views of my friend.
  Mr. LEAHY. I respect the views of the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, who has been my friend from day 1 in this place. I knew him 
before in his other capacities, such as Secretary of the Navy. I have 
cherished, at home, a souvenir from the bicentennial year which I 
received from him. He has been a man to whom I have gone for counsel on 
a number of issues. I refer to him as my Senator away from home because 
I spend the week in Virginia when we are in session.
  He and I, of course, disagree on this nomination. I understand he 
stated his strong views on it. I have stated mine. I promised two 
things to both the then President-elect and Senator Ashcroft. I 
promised them two things when they called me to tell me they were going 
to nominate him: No. 1, that there would be questions, tough questions, 
but I would conduct a fair hearing. I believe I did. The nomination 
actually came to the Senate Monday of this week, the official papers. 
We are moving to go forward with this. Everybody in the Senate knows 
approximately how the vote will come out.
  I tell the Senator from Virginia of a conversation I had. As he can 
imagine, prior to my announcing my opposition to Senator Ashcroft, I 
called Senator Ashcroft to tell him what I was going to say and 
notified the White House what I was going to say. But I suggested one 
thing. I don't think I divulge any confidence with Senator Ashcroft who 
spoke about what he has gone through. It might have been the same thing 
the Senator from Virginia said. I suggested what he do after he is 
sworn in is that he meet quietly and privately with a number of 
Senators and House Members of both parties--those who have an interest 
in law enforcement issues, interests that affect the Justice 
Department--meet on a private, off-the-record basis, hear their 
suggestions or their criticisms, and vice versa. He assured me that he 
would.
  He asked me also if I would be willing to help bring Members who had 
voted against him or spoken against him to those meetings. I assured 
him I would do that, too. The Senator from Virginia makes a good point.
  I think the debate is good. I hope Senators on both sides of the 
aisle will listen to the debate.
  Again, I use this opportunity to mention one more time how much I 
have enjoyed the friendship and the wise counsel of my friend from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. If I 
may say with deep respect to him as a friend first, and as a Senator 
second, I

[[Page S864]]

think he agrees with my basic proposition that he emerges from this 
process a stronger and a more deeply committed public servant.
  Mr. LEAHY. I do, yes.
  Mr. WARNER. Certainly from that standpoint, that alone would give 
everyone a basis on which to cast a vote in favor of this nomination.
  For those who are concerned about Senator Ashcroft's nomination, it 
is important to remember that once John Ashcroft is confirmed as our 
next Attorney General, he will serve at the pleasure of the President.
  This time honored phrase, ``At the pleasure of the President,'' has 
been used by Presidents throughout American history to show the 
American people that the President is the final arbiter of 
accountability for his Cabinet members.
  And, also, I'd like to remind my colleagues in the Senate, and more 
broadly the American people, of the promises John Ashcroft has made and 
the oath that he will take. John Ashcroft has promised to every 
American that he will uphold the law of the land whether he disagrees 
with such a law or not. Once confirmed as Attorney General, John 
Ashcroft will raise his right hand and swear to uphold the law of the 
land.
  When John Ashcroft makes a promise that he will uphold the law of the 
land, and when he takes that oath of office to uphold the law of the 
land, I take him at his word.
  (The remarks of Mr. Warner pertaining to the introduction of S. 225 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on whether or not 
one of our former colleagues and friend, Senator John Ashcroft, should 
be confirmed to the position of Attorney General of the United States. 
In the vast majority of Cabinet nominations, the decision is an obvious 
one. Most of a President's nominees to his Cabinet receive 
overwhelming, if not unanimous, support by the Senate, and that is as 
it should be. When it comes to Cabinet appointees, we as a Senate are 
willing to give the President wide berth in his choice, knowing that, 
unlike the lifetime appointment of Federal judges, the President must 
be able to choose appointees who can carry out his program during his 
term, people who share his values, his vision and his ideals. But the 
Constitution also requires us to exercise our judgment. The deference 
owed the President is due deference, not unlimited deference.
  In his inaugural address to the Nation, President Bush laid out the 
vision and ideals he will seek to carry out, visions and ideals which I 
believe most of us share. He said:

       The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American 
     promise that everyone deserves a chance, that no 
     insignificant person was ever born.

  And he called on Americans ``to enact this promise in our lives and 
our laws.'' He then made this pledge: ``I will work to build a single 
nation of justice . . .'' The Department of Justice is the place above 
all where the chance to further the vision of ``a single nation of 
justice'' resides.
  Like the rest of my colleagues, I know Senator Ashcroft in his role 
as Senator from, and as advocate for, the State of Missouri. I consider 
him a friend. But today we are not called upon to judge Senator 
Ashcroft as a friend or colleague, as a Senator representing his home 
State, or as a nominee for any other post but Attorney General of the 
United States--at this time in our history and keeping in mind the goal 
of building a ``single nation of justice.''
  The Attorney General does not mechanically enforce the law. His job 
is not a matter of simply applying a specified law to a specified set 
of facts. Great discretion resides with the Attorney General and the 
proper functioning of the Department of Justice requires that the 
public--all the public--feels that discretion will be exercised with 
balanced and deliberative judgment.
  There are many times when a prosecutor has within his grasp the power 
to prosecute or take a pass, and in that decision lies the lives of the 
people involved and their families. A commitment to enforce the law of 
the land is the beginning point, not the ending point. The discretion 
exercised by the Attorney General is not critical in the easy or 
obvious matters that do not require the Attorney General's most 
considered judgment, but in the complex and unclear ones where a 
commitment simply to enforce the law does not resolve the complexities, 
and where balanced deliberation is essential.
  If America is to build a ``single nation of justice,'' the Department 
of Justice should have as its head someone whose record demonstrates 
evenhandedness and whose rhetoric seeks to assure the American people 
of fair and balanced consideration, rather than division and distrust. 
More than 25 years ago, at his swearing-in ceremony, Edward Levi, 
Attorney General under President Ford, reflected this sentiment by 
stating if we are going to achieve ``our common goals: among them 
domestic tranquility, the blessings of liberty and the establishment of 
justice'' through the enforcement and administration of law, then it 
takes ``dedicated men and women to accomplish this through their zeal 
and determination, and also their concern for fairness and 
impartiality.''

  While Senator Ashcroft's rhetoric over the years reveals his zeal and 
determination, it has not reflected the same concern for impartiality 
and fairness. I have concluded that his record and his rhetoric are so 
divisive and polarizing that his nomination will not provide the 
necessary confidence all Americans are entitled to have in the fairness 
and impartiality required of the Department of Justice. Here are four 
examples:
  First is his position and his effort with respect to the nomination 
of Judge Ronnie White as a Federal District Judge for the Eastern 
District of Missouri. It was unfair and inappropriate to maintain Judge 
White, a distinguished jurist on the Missouri Supreme Court, had ``a 
slant toward criminals'' and was ``against . . . the culture in terms 
of maintaining order,'' as Senator Ashcroft did in his speech to the 
Senate on October 4, 1999. It was unjust to say Judge White practices 
``procriminal jurisprudence'' and will use his ``lifetime appointment 
to push law in a procriminal direction.'' It was an unfounded and 
unfair characterization of Judge White to assert that Judge White ``has 
been very willing to say: We should seek, at every turn, in some of 
these cases to provide an additional opportunity for an individual to 
escape punishment.'' It was a significant distortion of Judge White's 
record for Senator Ashcroft to say in the same speech to the Senate 
that Judge White's ``opinions, and particularly his dissents, reflect a 
serious bias against a willingness to impose the death penalty,'' given 
the fact that Judge White voted with then-Governor Ashcroft's 
appointees in death penalty cases 95 percent of the time.
  Moreover, it was unfair that Senator Ashcroft did not raise any 
reference to the death penalty or any of his concerns about Judge 
White's record before or at Judge White's confirmation hearing. Judge 
White was not given the chance to respond to these allegations during 
the consideration of his nomination. Rather, these personal attacks 
came well after Judge White had appeared before the Judiciary 
Committee. When asked at his own confirmation hearing whether he 
treated Judge White fairly, Senator Ashcroft said:

       I believe that I acted properly in carrying out my duties 
     as a member of the committee and as a member of the Senate in 
     relation to Judge White.

  In responding in that fashion, he neither defended his 
characterizations, qualified them or withdrew them. Senator Ashcroft's 
response therefore left standing as his current view his claims and 
statements with respect to Judge White.
  Second is Senator Ashcroft's interview with Southern Partisan 
magazine, a publication which has been described as a ``neo-
confederate.'' Senator Ashcroft not only granted an interview to 
Southern Partisan magazine, he commended the magazine for helping to 
``set the record straight.'' He said:

       We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or 
     else we'll be taught that these people were giving their 
     lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to 
     some perverted agenda.


[[Page S865]]


  While in that interview Senator Ashcroft expressed support for 
Southern Partisan's message, he later said that he did not know much 
about Southern Partisan and did not know what it promoted. Fair enough.
  But since his interview with Southern Partisan, much has been said 
about the magazine in the media and at Senator Ashcroft's own 
confirmation hearing. Southern Partisan was described as a 
``publication that defends slavery, white separatism, apartheid and 
David Duke'' by a media watch group.
  In 1995, Southern Partisan offered its subscribers T-shirts 
celebrating the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. In the same year, an 
author of an article in that publication alleged ``there is no 
indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics.'' In 1990, 
another article praised former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke as 
``a Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal.''
  In 1996, an article in the magazine alleged ``slave owners . . . did 
not have a practice of breaking up slave families. If anything, they 
encouraged strong slave families to further the slaves' peace and 
happiness.'' In 1991, another writer printed in the publication wrote, 
``Newly arrived in New York City, I puzzled, `Where are the Americans?' 
for I met only Italians, Jews, and Puerto Ricans.''
  I take Senator Ashcroft at his word that he did not know much about 
Southern Partisan magazine when he praised them for helping to ``set 
the record straight,'' in his words. I take him at his word. But where 
was the immediate disgust and repudiation when he learned what he had 
inadvertently praised? And, after the inquiries of others, why not make 
a prompt inquiry to satisfy himself that he had not inadvertently 
advanced the purpose of a racist publication? Even in his written 
responses to the Judiciary Committee, he said he only rejects the 
publication ``if the allegations about [the] magazine are true.''
  More than 2 years after the original interview he gave to that 
magazine, it appears he never took it upon himself to inquire about the 
magazine's purpose, to see for himself if the allegations were true, 
and, if so, to correct the record.
  A person being considered for the office of Attorney General--the 
single most important person charged with enforcing our Nation's civil 
rights laws in a fair and just manner--should accept the obligation to 
make that inquiry if the American people are to have faith that their 
Attorney General will ``build a single nation of justice.''
  As a third example, I am troubled by Senator Ashcroft's previous 
speeches on drug treatment. In 1997, Senator Ashcroft told the 
Claremont Institute:

       A government which takes the resources that we should 
     devote toward the interdiction of drugs and converts them to 
     treatment resources . . . is a government that accommodates 
     us at our lowest and least instead of calls us to our highest 
     and best.

  During the same year, he addressed the Christian Coalition Road to 
Victory and said:

       Instead of stopping drugs at the border, we're investing in 
     drug treatment centers. Instead of calling America to her 
     highest and best by saying ``no'' to drugs, we're 
     accommodating drug users with treatment. . . .

  Again, it is not just Senator Ashcroft's views on drug treatment that 
are troublesome--although they are--it is his choice of words, his 
rhetoric, that is so divisive and so polarizing. To suggest, as Senator 
Ashcroft does, that those who are crippled by addiction to drugs and 
who seek treatment are somehow the ``lowest and least'' violates 
President Bush's own inaugural promise that ``no insignificant person 
was ever born" and that we will ``build a single nation of justice.''
  When I asked Senator Ashcroft in a written question what he meant by 
``lowest and least,'' to give him an opportunity to comment or to 
explain or to confirm the clear impression that those words create, his 
response was a nonresponse.
  A fourth example is Senator Ashcroft's opposition to James Hormel's 
nomination for Ambassador to Luxembourg. Senator Ashcroft stated in 
press accounts that he opposed Mr. Hormel's nomination because Mr. 
Hormel ``actively supported the gay lifestyle.'' Senator Ashcroft also 
said a person's sexual orientation ``is within what could be considered 
and what is eligible for consideration'' with respect to the 
qualifications to serve as an Ambassador.
  To suggest that a person could not represent America's interests or 
should be judged professionally because of sexual orientation is 
inappropriate and divisive.
  When pressed on this issue by the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Ashcroft further responded in writing:

       I did not believe [Hormel] would effectively represent the 
     United States in Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic country 
     in all of Europe.

  To suggest that Luxembourg would not welcome Mr. Hormel's nomination 
is not true. Luxembourg has outlawed discrimination based on sexual 
orientation, and its Government specifically said they would welcome 
James Hormel as Ambassador. And, most importantly, to fail to retract 
such contentious statements about a person because of his sexual 
orientation adds further doubt that all our people will have confidence 
that this nominee will strive to build that single nation of justice 
for which the President has called.
  In summary, I am deeply troubled by Senator Ashcroft's record of 
repeatedly divisive rhetoric and sometimes simply unfair personal 
attacks, such as what he has said and done about Judge White, his 
passive acceptance of the message of Southern Partisan, his statements 
about drug treatment as accommodating the ``lowest and least,'' and his 
statements about Mr. Hormel's qualifications to serve his country 
because of his sexual orientation.
  Senator Ashcroft has frequently engaged in ``us versus them" 
rhetoric. He frequently rejects moderation and has even criticized some 
members of his own party for engaging in what he characterized as 
``deceptions'' when they ``preach pragmatism, champion conciliation 
[and] counsel compromise.''
  Senator Ashcroft, in his confirmation hearings, in his written 
answers to questions posed by a number of Senators, including myself, 
either reaffirmed some of his divisive statements or simply did not 
explain the extreme language. His refusal to comment on some of the 
most troubling past statements leaves them standing as his current 
views.
  His language and his approach to issues in terms of ``us versus 
them'' would not prevent me from voting for his confirmation for most 
positions in the Cabinet. But more than any other Cabinet member, the 
Attorney General, as the chief law enforcement officer of the United 
States, is charged with the responsibility of assuring that the 
Department of Justice's goal is equal justice under the law for all 
Americans. And although I consider John Ashcroft a friend, I will vote 
no on the nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General of the 
United States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
John Ashcroft. I have had the opportunity, for the last several weeks, 
as a member of the Judiciary Committee, to listen to the testimony and 
to listen to what has turned out to be fairly extensive hearings.
  The John Ashcroft I have known for 6 years, and whom most of us have 
known for 6 years--some have known a lot longer--does not really bear 
much resemblance to the individual who has been described by those who 
have attacked him during this process. I must say, he does not bear 
much resemblance to the individual whom some of my colleagues have 
pictured, both in debate on the Senate floor and in the Judiciary 
Committee.
  The truth is that the John Ashcroft on whom we are going to vote, 
whose nomination we are taking up, whose nomination we will vote on 
tomorrow, is the same John Ashcroft we have known for 6 years.
  He is a man of integrity, a man of honesty, and a man of courage. He 
is also a man who has taken controversial positions, a man who has cast 
in his lifetime thousands of votes. I don't think it should come as a 
shock to us that someone who has been in public office for a quarter of 
a century would have taken controversial positions. We would worry if 
he had not.
  This is a man who served as assistant attorney general of the State 
of Missouri, who served for 8 years as their

[[Page S866]]

elected attorney general, who served for 8 years as Missouri's elected 
Governor and then, for 6 years, as Missouri's elected U.S. Senator. He 
is a man who served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  It should come as no surprise that he has taken positions on many 
issues. It should come as no surprise that he has cast thousands of 
votes. And, yes, he clearly does have a long track record.
  It should not come as a surprise that a record of a quarter of a 
century would generate criticism, or that it would generate a lot of 
criticism.
  I said, when the Judiciary Committee hearing started, I sometimes get 
the feeling that the longer someone is in office, the more positions 
they have taken and, frankly, the better qualified they are, the more 
controversial their nomination probably is. And if you wanted someone 
with no controversy, the President would find someone to nominate who 
had virtually no track record to shoot at.
  The fact is, this Attorney General nominee, this individual, John 
Ashcroft, after he is confirmed, will ultimately be judged as Attorney 
General not by any one particular position he will take or any one 
particular decision he will make.
  If you look back over the last half a century, look at the Attorneys 
General and look at how history judges them. It is not the day-to-day 
decisions. It is probably a handful of big decisions to which we look. 
But even more important than that is probably the perception that we 
have about what type of person the Attorney General was: How did they 
conduct their office? What kind of respect did they have? Did they 
bring honesty and integrity and courage to that job?
  The job of Attorney General is different. It is different in many 
respects than any other Cabinet position. It is different because this 
individual has to be adviser to the President, has to be able to give 
the President confidential, good advice. But he or she is more than 
that. He or she is the person who stands for law enforcement and, in a 
sense, is the chief law enforcement officer of this country.
  The Attorney General has to be someone who can tell the President yes 
when the President needs to be told yes, but also, much more 
importantly, can look the President in the eye and tell the President 
no when the President has to be told no.
  The Attorney General is ultimately someone who on certain occasions 
will disagree with the President. How that person conducts the office 
under those circumstances may define that person's tenure as Attorney 
General and how history judges that individual. It ultimately comes 
down to is the person a person of integrity, someone of honesty, 
someone of courage, someone who brings honor to the office, someone who 
cares passionately about justice.
  My experience with John Ashcroft over the last 6 years is that 
clearly he is such an individual. I have not always agreed with John. 
John and I have voted differently on certain issues--some high profile; 
some not so high profile. I don't think that is relevant.
  What is relevant is, does this President have the right to have his 
nominee--I think he does--and is this a nominee who will conduct the 
office with integrity and with honesty. I have no doubt that history 
will judge John Ashcroft in a favorable light. As they look back on his 
tenure as Attorney General of the United States, people will say: I may 
have agreed with him; I may have disagreed with him on different 
issues. He may not always have been right, but I think he was a man of 
honesty, a man of goodwill, and he brought honor to the office.
  I conclude by urging my colleagues to vote for John Ashcroft, a man 
who I believe will be a very excellent Attorney General at a time in 
our country's history when we need someone who will carry out the 
duties of that job with all the problems that we face as a country, all 
the challenges that we have, and who will, in fact, bring the expertise 
that that particular job needs.
  I believe John Ashcroft has the experience, has the background, and 
has the integrity to be a very excellent Attorney General.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle for their statements. This is what the Senate is 
supposed to do on very important issues of the day--deliberate as 
carefully as possible. We are doing that, and we are doing that very 
carefully in the Senate.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of John 
Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States. I do this with no 
glee or exultation. I do this without any feeling of joy. In fact, I 
believe this is a sad day in so many ways. In a certain sense, it is a 
sad day for John Ashcroft and his family. They have been through a lot 
in these past weeks. It is sad because while so many of us have 
disagreed with John Ashcroft's views and at times we thought his 
methods were untoward, he has devoted himself to public service, which 
I believe is a noble calling. In the heat of battle, it is not easy for 
those who speak against him and, certainly for Senator Ashcroft and his 
family, to hear people speaking against him.
  It is a sad day for me because it is never easy opposing a nominee 
and a former colleague. I believe that one gives the President the 
benefit of the doubt in terms of appointments. It is the President's 
Cabinet. He won the election. Yes, it was close. But I said then and 
believe every bit as much today that the closeness of the election 
should do nothing to undermine the legitimacy of the Presidency. I 
explained that I wanted to give the President his choice. And to have 
to oppose somebody, no less a colleague, is not easy and requires some 
thought and fortitude. So it is a sad day for me as a Senator. It is a 
sad day for the Senate because we are so divided on this nomination.
  One of the things I have greatly appreciated since moving from the 
other body is the comity that still reigns here to a significantly 
greater extent than it does in the House and perhaps than it does in 
the body politic. We still are friends across the aisle. We fight hard. 
But when we can agree, we are much happier than when we disagree. That 
is the whole tone of the body. The Senator from West Virginia, more 
than probably any other person here, has made it clear to all of us 
that is what we aspire to be.
  It is a sad day when the Senate is so staunchly and strongly divided 
when we would all, I think, prefer to be united. I don't believe 
division is coming from this side of the aisle. If we were truly 
bipartisan, we all would have supported Senator Ashcroft. No. I believe 
that when the President nominated Senator Ashcroft, he was well aware 
that someone of Senator Ashcroft's hard-right views would stir 
opposition, or should stir opposition. I don't accept in any way what 
some have said--that if this body were truly bipartisan, Senator 
Ashcroft would be confirmed 100-0.
  You could argue that if the President were truly bipartisan, he might 
not have nominated Senator Ashcroft. For that reason, I think it is a 
sad day for the President. He has, in my judgment, had a good beginning 
to his term. He is reaching out. The message he sent during the 
campaign that he wished to work with people from both sides of the 
aisle in large part has been met, at least in these very early days of 
his administration.
  One of my roommates was George Miller, one of the stronger Democrats 
in the House. And he spent some time with the President and is utterly 
amazed and pleased with the President's attitude.
  But this is particularly a sad day for the Presidency because this is 
the one place, more than any other, in the early morning of his 
administration where he has sent a nomination that is not, in my 
judgment, one that reaches out to the middle of the country, one that 
says I do want to be bipartisan.
  At his inauguration the President said, ``While many of our citizens 
prosper, others doubt the promise, even the justice, of our own 
country.'' Unfortunately, this choice for Attorney General has given 
many in our country even more reason to doubt this promise of justice.
  Finally, it is a sad day for our country. The elections we went 
through created a lot of pain for a lot of people. There is a good 
portion of America that feels disenchanted and even

[[Page S867]]

disenfranchised. This nomination, in my judgment, is the one position 
in the Cabinet where unity and ability to reach out to every part of 
the American people is called for and, more than any other, this 
nomination, sadly, threw salt on the wounds of those who felt 
disenfranchised.
  It is a sad day--a sad day for Senator Ashcroft, a sad day for those 
of us who feel an honor-bound duty to oppose him. It is a sad day for 
the Senate. It is a sad day for the new President. It is a sad day for 
America.
  With that said, it is important that we all recognize what the 
opposition to this nomination is not based on. It is not based on 
Senator Ashcroft's religion. It makes no difference whether he be 
Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, or Zoroastrian. His faith is a gift. As a 
person of faith myself, and a different faith than his, but deep and 
abiding faith, I respect his faith. I think it is a wonderful faith.
  I think all things being equal, I would like to see a nominee for any 
high position in this land hold such a position of faith. But his 
faith, while it is a wonderful thing, and wonderful for many, respect 
for his faith does not mean one simply supports him. I wouldn't do that 
for anybody because of their own personal belief. I think it is unfair 
for some to say that because of one's faith, one should adopt an issue.
  As many of my colleagues have said, this is a significant and 
important nomination. I think I should give my view of this. It is time 
to set the record straight that those of us who are taking issue with 
Senator Ashcroft's years of activist opposition to causes and ideals in 
which we believe so deeply, are basing that on his record as Governor, 
as State attorney general, and as Senator, and, emphatically, not on 
his religious faith.
  About a month ago, when the process of this nomination first got 
underway, there was a lot of anger and even fury in our country. It 
didn't come from the leaders of a few groups; it came from citizens of 
different walks of life, of different races, of different genders, and 
of different sexual orientation, who, once they became familiar with 
Senator Ashcroft's record, said, How is this man going to be as 
Attorney General?
  Given the view I stated earlier, I like to give the President the 
benefit of the doubt and am willing to support Cabinet members with 
whom I disagree ideologically if nominated by the President.
  I decided to jot down on a piece of paper what I thought the hearings 
and ultimately the vote on the Ashcroft nomination should really be 
about. Frankly, I was concerned that with the torrent of opposition 
charges, countercharges, and a whirlwind of politics, the real issues 
on which we should focus would be obscured or consumed by other forces. 
I sat down at my kitchen table in Brooklyn on a Saturday morning and 
tried to formulate what this nomination debate should boil down to, at 
least in the opinion of one Senator. This is what I wrote:

       We should carefully analyze the functions of the Attorney 
     General and then closely scrutinize Senator Ashcroft's record 
     to determine whether he can fully, impartially, and 
     adequately perform all of those functions. But merely asking 
     if he can do the job is unhelpful. The hearings must probe 
     into the nominee's positions on each of the many different 
     areas of law that the Attorney General must enforce. These 
     range from antitrust and environmental laws to drug and gun 
     laws to hate crimes, voting rights, and clinic protection 
     laws.

  After 3 weeks of statements, questions, answers, hearings, and now 
votes, I still think this statement cuts to the heart of the matter and 
has guided me ever since this process began.
  What are the functions of the Attorney General? And what is the 
Ashcroft record? These are the two essential questions.
  The duties of the Attorney General primarily involve: (1) enforcement 
of all Federal laws, both civil and criminal; (2) litigating the 
constitutionality of all Federal laws and regulations, including before 
the Supreme Court; (3) advising the President, the agencies, and even 
Congress on the constitutionality of laws and various federal actions; 
(4) judicial vetting and selection; (5) representing all of the federal 
agencies in litigation; and (6) supervising the U.S. attorneys.
  This job is the most sensitive and one of the most powerful positions 
in the Cabinet.
  Importantly, all of these complicated duties require the Attorney 
General to exercise enormous judgment and enormous discretion. Much of 
the power of the Attorney General adheres in this discretion, which is 
not constrained by law. Following law, to me at least, isn't enough--
although it is an important threshold question.
  I think it is fair and reasonable to examine Senator Ashcroft's 
public positions over the years, as well as how he has exercised the 
judgment and discretion and power vested in him. When we look at that 
record--and we did very closely in the hearings--we see a very stark 
picture of a man on a mission, a man who with passion and with zeal 
sought to advocate and enact the agenda of the far right wing of the 
Republican Party.
  On civil rights, as Governor he fought voluntary desegregation--that 
is, voluntary desegregation--and vetoed bills designed to boost voter 
registration in the inner city of St. Louis. More recently, as Senator, 
he opposed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which would have 
strengthened the Federal response to hate crimes motivated by race, 
color, region, or national origin, and would have extended the law to 
cover crimes targeting gender, sexual orientation, and disability.
  We all know about the Bob Jones speech and the Southern Partisan 
Review and the Ronnie White debacle. I do not believe John Ashcroft is 
a racist. I don't just say that. He has appointed people of color to 
judicial and executive positions. His wife teaches at Howard 
University. But I think when you put all these pieces together, what 
you see is a pattern of insensitivity to the long and tortured history 
our country has had with race.
  When several of my colleagues on the committee asked him for some 
feeling of remorse, given this record, we didn't see any. There wasn't 
any new sensitivity that showed itself.
  The Attorney General of our country should not be insensitive. He 
should be just the opposite. The Attorney General, more than any other 
Cabinet minister, should be acutely aware and sensitive on the issue of 
race, which de Tocqueville, over 150 years ago, said would be the one 
thing that would stop America from greatness.
  I do not believe this nomination for Attorney General meets that 
criteria.
  On choice, Senator Ashcroft has been at the helm for decades leading 
the drive to overturn Roe v. Wade and eviscerate a woman's right to 
choose. His beliefs are heartfelt; they are sincere. However, in my 
judgment, they are wrong. He has led the charge to enact new abortion 
hurdles and restrictions. I am not saying that Senator Ashcroft should 
be rejected for being pro-life. I was happy to vote for Tommy Thompson 
to be the Secretary of HHS despite the fact that I disagree with his 
views on choice. And I believe that a pro-life position is not at all a 
disqualification for Attorney General, as much as I would prefer to see 
someone pro-choice.
  Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if 
someone was nominated for Attorney General who was vehemently pro-
choice, who simply did not just espouse a pro-choice position, but in 
his or her career spent decades trying to find ways of expanding the 
law so that, say, abortion on demand, for 9 months, would be perfectly 
legal, wouldn't Members be more upset and raise a louder voice than 
against a nominee who was simply pro-choice? Of course. Thus we who 
believe in the pro-choice side say it is not because Senator Ashcroft 
is pro-life that we oppose him but because of the vehemence and extreme 
position of his views. He hasn't been just anti-choice. He has been one 
of the most outspoken anti-choice crusaders in the country. It is not 
his belief that abortion is murder that makes me oppose him. It is his 
past willingness to bend and torture the law to serve his desire to 
eliminate, totally eliminate, even in rape and incest, a woman's right 
to choose that makes me oppose him.

  This is not simply what he said but what he did when he had executive 
power, when he became the attorney general of Missouri. He didn't 
relinquish his role of a passionate advocate against choice, as he says 
he will now do. He joined in a suit against nurses who dispensed 
contraceptives. He sued

[[Page S868]]

the National Organization of Women under the antitrust laws to muzzle 
their attempt to pass the ERA. He tried to pass statutes that end 
abortion. He tried to pass constitutional amendments to do the same.
  For John Ashcroft, at least when he was Senator, ending abortion by 
any means necessary was the end all and be all of his political career.
  There was some discussion in the hearings that some of the groups 
opposing this nomination were doing it to raise money and raise their 
profiles. I resent that. Let me say when you sit down with people in 
these groups and look them in the eye, what you see is fear, fear that 
we will start moving back to the days before Roe v. Wade, fear that 
back-alley abortions will again be the norm, fear that equal rights for 
women will become a figment of the past. Some may feel these fears are 
unfounded, but the motivation is not mercenary or crass, it is as deep 
and as heartfelt as the speeches I have heard from some of my 
colleagues supporting Senator Ashcroft.
  Senator Ashcroft also, Mr. President, has been a leader in the charge 
against gun control. He has fought to kill legislation that would have 
made it easier to catch illegal gunrunners dealing with the issue of 
enforcement. He has vociferously opposed even the child safety locks 
and the assault weapons ban. These were some of the main issues with 
John Ashcroft's record that were examined at the Judiciary Committee 
hearings. To be fair, Senator Ashcroft took us on. He directly 
confronted many of those issues and unequivocally asserted that as 
Attorney General, he would uphold and enforce and defend all the laws 
of the land whether he agreed with them or not.
  At the start of the hearings, I asked Senator Ashcroft the following 
question: When you have been such a zealot and impassioned advocate for 
so long, how can you just turn it off?
  His answer was: I'll be driving a different car. There's nothing to 
turn off.
  And our hearings in the committee revolved around this question: 
Given his past, what kind of future as Attorney General would he have? 
As I said at the committee vote yesterday, after all these hearings, 
all the witnesses, all the studying of the record, and Senator 
Ashcroft's testimony, the conclusion for me is clear. I do not believe 
that Attorney General Ashcroft can stop being Senator Ashcroft. I am 
not convinced that he can now step outside the ideological fray he has 
been knee-deep in, set his advocacy to one side and become the balanced 
decisionmaker with an unclouded vision of the law that this country 
deserves as its Attorney General.
  Ironically, I don't think Senator Ashcroft disagrees we need a 
balanced Attorney General. That is why he went to great lengths during 
the hearing to portray himself as now being different than the Senator 
Ashcroft we all knew. He was not saying that someone of such vehement 
and strong opposition, he was not saying that somebody so far to the 
right should be Attorney General, but he was saying he was a different 
person or would be a different person as Attorney General than he was 
as Senator. Every Senator will have to judge for himself or herself 
whether he can do that, even if he should want to. I do not think he 
can. In my opinion, John Ashcroft's unique past will indelibly mark his 
future, making his nomination a source of anger and fear to so many in 
the country.

  I have one other point in this area. John Ashcroft, at least to so 
many in this country, has had the appearance of not being concerned 
about these issues, even if you do not agree with the reality. Many 
would dispute that. They would say the reality is there, too. I would 
myself. John Ashcroft has the appearance of not being concerned about 
issues of deep concern to these groups: to African Americans, to 
Latinos, to women, to gay and lesbian people. Just the appearance of 
such unfairness would make it much harder for him to be Attorney 
General. That ``appearance'' argument to me is not dispositive, but it 
weighs into the mix.
  Let's assume for a minute, let's just accept on its face the argument 
that Senator Ashcroft can devote himself solely to the administration 
of existing law. Let's assume he will not challenge Roe--which he did 
say at the hearing. He said he would not roll back civil rights 
enforcement; he would not do away with the assault weapons ban. This is 
an appealing way to look at the nomination. Our better angels want to 
believe this will be the future of the Justice Department.
  But in reality when you really explore it and don't avoid it, this is 
a naive perspective on the powers of the Attorney General. Just saying 
that Senator Ashcroft will enforce and respect existing law ignores the 
reality that the Attorney General has vast power and discretion to 
shape legal policy in the Federal judiciary, unhindered by any devotion 
to existing law.
  My good friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, has argued that 
simply enforcement of the law is enough, and he will give Senator 
Ashcroft the benefit of the doubt that he will enforce the law.
  I would argue, no, that while you certainly give the President the 
benefit of the doubt in terms of an appointment, ideology has to enter 
into it because the Attorney General does so many things that are not 
simply enforcing the law but are rendering opinions in choosing judges, 
areas of discretion. I do not think even if one ascribed to Senator 
Feingold's argument--and I say it with due respect; he is a man of deep 
principle and I respect his decision. He argued eloquently in committee 
yesterday, and I know he thought long and hard about it. But even if 
you assume someone would enforce the law fully, you could never rule 
out ideological disposition. If Bull Connor had been nominated for 
Attorney General, my guess is we would all say, even if we were certain 
he would enforce existing law, we would be certain he should not be 
Attorney General, based on his past, based on his ideology.
  Senator Ashcroft is not Bull Connor; he was a bigot. Senator Ashcroft 
is not. But we all have to draw the line at some point. And we all do.
  It is easy to say ideology will never enter into our decision, voting 
for a nomination. In reality, that principle is virtually impossible to 
maintain when given nominees of ideologies to the far side, one way or 
the other--far left or far right. It is logical because the job of 
Attorney General is not just enforcing the law, as important as that 
is. As I mentioned before, it contains vast discretion. For example, 
the Attorney General will decide what cases will or will not be pursued 
in the Supreme Court. That is not just following the law.

  He will help draft new legislation and give influential commentary on 
proposals circulating in Congress. That is not just enforcing existing 
law.
  He will, perhaps, be the most significant voice in the country when 
it comes to filling vacancies, particularly on our court of appeals.
  Regarding the Supreme Court, most of us believe the President, with 
advice from the Attorney General, will make each decision. But at least 
if the past is prologue, for court of appeal judges, in the vetting 
process, the bringing of them forward, the Attorney General has 
enormous say and weight.
  It is an enormous power. Every one of these is an enormous power. And 
none of them will be hindered at all by Senator Ashcroft's newfound 
devotion to existing law.
  The argument that concerns me the most is the selection of Federal 
judges, or the one of these arguments, because these Federal judges 
will serve for decades. They often have the last word on some of the 
most significant issues our society faces. It is safe to expect that 
the principles that have guided Senator Ashcroft's views on judicial 
nominations in the Senate will be the exact same principles that will 
guide him as Attorney General. This is not ``following the law.''
  Assuming, arguendo, that we believe Senator Ashcroft will follow 
existing law in his law enforcement capacity, there is no reason to 
believe in this capacity what he did in the Senate will be any 
different than what he does as Attorney General. And, as Attorney 
General, of course, he will have significantly more power and the same 
largely unbounded discretion in influencing who becomes a Federal 
judge--much more than he did as a Senator. As a Senator, he was willing 
to fully flex his ideological muscle and use power over nominations in 
a disturbing and divisive way.

[[Page S869]]

  In my 2 years in the Senate, the Ronnie White vote, led by Senator 
Ashcroft's decision to use the Republican caucus to kill the 
nomination, was the bleakest, most divisive and destructive moment I 
have experienced in my short stay in the Senate. It was a moment 
utterly lacking in--to use our President's words in his inaugural--
civility, courage, compassion, and character.
  But the Ronnie White nomination was just the most visible attempt by 
Senator Ashcroft to kill a nomination. The list goes on and on: 
Fletcher, Satcher, Lann Lee, Morrow, Sotomayor, Paez, Dyk, Lynch, 
Hormel--and there are others.
  In just one term in the Senate, Senator Ashcroft devoted himself to 
opposing--and when possible scuttling and derailing--any nominee, no 
matter how well qualified and respected, who was in some way 
objectionable to his world view. It is virtually an inescapable 
conclusion that with the new power he would have over the selection of 
judges, Senator Ashcroft would seek out those who agree with his 
passionate views on choice and civil rights, on a separation of church 
and state, and gun control, among other issues, when he reviews judges.
  I urge my colleagues to read the short article called ``Judicial 
Despotism'' that Senator Ashcroft wrote a few short years ago. This was 
not something written 25 years ago when he was a young man forming his 
views. In ``Judicial Despotism,'' he vows to stop any judicial nominee 
who would uphold Roe v. Wade. Nothing could be more results oriented. 
In the hearings, Senator Ashcroft said he would be law oriented, not 
results oriented, but this is as results oriented as it gets.

  If he is confirmed, I pray that more moderate souls prevail in the 
selection of judges. But as it now stands, this nomination poses an 
enormous threat to the future of the Federal judiciary, and I would 
oppose the nomination for that reason alone.
  As I said when I started, this is a sad day--not a day for 
exultation, for happiness, for parades. It is sad when the Nation is 
divided. It is sad when a man who has served so long is the focal point 
of such intense opposition. It is sad when those of us who want to 
support a new President cannot. It is sad when, as a nation, a nation 
trying to bind itself together, we find salt thrown in those wounds.
  I just hope, and I believe, that we will have better days to look 
forward to.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________